David Thom – Three Questions Proposed and Answered, 3rd Ed. (1849, orig. 1828)

David Thom – Three Questions Proposed and Answered, 3rd Ed. (1849, orig. 1828)

UNIVERSALISTS’ LIBRARY

VOL. II.

THREE QUESTIONS

PROPOSED AND ANSWERED,

BY

DAVID THOM, D.D., Ph.D.

THREE QUESTIONS

PROPOSED AND ANSWERED,

CONCERNING

THE LIFE FORFEITED BY ADAM,

THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD,

AND

ETERNAL PUNISHMENT.

BY

DAVID THOM,

D.D., JENA, PH.D., HEIDELBERG;

MINISTER, FORMERLY OF THE SCOTCH CHURCH, RODNEY STREET, NOW

OF BOLD STREET CHAPEL, LIVERPOOL.

THIRD EDITION.

ΈΓΩ είμί ή άνάστασις καί ή ζωή.

ΙΗΣΟΥΣ.

LONDON:

H. K. LEWIS, 15, GOWER STREET, NORTH.

UNITED STATES, BOSTON: A. C. TOMKINS.

MDCCCXLIX.

LONDON:

PRINTED BY HARRISON AND SON,

ST. MARTIN’S LANE.

TO

SAMUEL M’CULLOCH, ESQ.,

ANDREW WATSON, ESQ.,

PETER MACINTYRE, ESQ., M.D.,

AND

THOSE OTHER PERSONS FRIENDLY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF

HOLY SCRIPTURE BEING THE ONLY SOURCE OF

DIVINE KNOWLEDGE,

AND THE ONLY BASIS OF

SAFE AND SOUND RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION,

BY WHOM HE WAS SUPPORTED

IN HIS

LATE ARDUOUS STRUGGLE

WITH

THE PRESBYTERY OF GLASGOW,

THESE PAGES ARE RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED

BY

THE AUTHOR.

[iv] I cannot allow this work to go forth to the public, without acknowledging the obligations under which I lie, for valuable hints as to the subject matter of which it treats, to certain highly respected and much endeared members of my congregation. For the remark concerning the agency of the Devil in giving rise to the ordinary doctrine of the immortality of the soul at page 67, for part of the note at page 67, and for the note at page 138, I am indebted to the suggestions of my friend, Mr. W. J. Reade.

[v] ADVERTISEMENT.

TO THE READER.

I NOW, for the third time, send forth to the world this little book. May that God in whose name, and to promote whose glory, it was originally composed and published, and who has already seen meet in many instances signally to bless its perusal, condescend to render it, in its present form, still further subservient to the drawing of men’s attention to what He Himself, in the scriptures of truth, hath caused to be made known and put upon record.

Such persons as happen to possess either or both of the former editions of this work, will perceive, that a few alterations and additions have been made. None of these, however, affect in any way my main statements and arguments. Fourteen years have brought along with them some enlargement of divine knowledge, and have enabled me in what follows to detect many imperfections. Without changing the structure, or interfering materially with the course of reasoning adopted — which, I confess, I felt backward in doing — it was at first my wish that readers of the present [vi] edition should derive some advantage from my progress under divine teaching. Upon this desire, various circumstances have imposed restraint. Among others, in order to do full justice to my present views, I found that it would be necessary for me to re-write considerable portions of the work. This task, I have literally shrunk back from. Let the “Three Questions,” then, be regarded as a purely elementary treatise. To my “Dialogues,” “Divine Inversion,” and “Three Grand Exhibitions,” let the enquiring, and those who may not find entire satisfaction in the following pages, be referred for further information as to my sentiments. A hint, now and then, in the way of explanation, is all that I have felt myself at liberty to drop.

The principal truths for which, during a period varying from twenty to twenty-five years, I have been honoured to contend, are here presented unchanged. The forfeiture of the paradisiacal state of Adam leading, not to its restoration through Christ, but to the introduction and establishment of a state of things infinitely superior — the immortality of man, not as a being descended from Adam, but as one with him who is the Lord from heaven — and everlasting punishment as consisting, not in the everlasting perpetuation of sin or death, according to the respective theories of everlasting torments or annihilation, but in the complete and everlasting supersession of sinful and dying human nature, through the death and resurrection of Christ, by the righteous and ever-living nature of God, are the [vii] grand, all-important, self-consistent, and scripturally-revealed doctrines which constitute the staple of this work; and are, from the beginning to the end of it, with such ability as God hath seen meet to bestow, strenuously and uncompromisingly insisted on and maintained.

None who peruse with care and any measure of understanding, my “Additional and Explanatory Remarks,” will confound my sentiments with those of either American Universalists of the Hosea Ballou School, or the Salemites of Devonshire. Jerusalem’s destruction, I concede to both these parties, was connected with a decidedly altered state of the divine administration. But it was not such as to preclude ulterior developments. At the utmost, the event alluded to was the precursor, as well as earnest of still greater changes afterwards to take place — changes which are themselves the subject-matter of prophecy. Could I have prevailed on myself to recompose this portion of my book, some slight alterations, with a view to obviate mistakes, would have been introduced. But as on the whole its language is scriptural and correct, that indolence which I find stealing over me with advancing years, restrains me from hazarding verbal improvements, which by the majority of readers would be overlooked, — which might be made at the expense of some of that juvenile ardour for which even the maturer sentiments of age cannot always compensate, — and which, by leading to apparent discrepancies, might [viii] afford to some a handle for cavil. For the requisite modifications and enlargements, let my other and subsequent productions be consulted.

Earnestly do I wish that a new and cheap edition of Riccaltoun’s works, frequently referred to throughout these pages, could be brought out. If sometimes prolix and tedious as to manner, they more than make up for this by the richness of their matter. Not always scripturally correct, I allow. Sometimes provokingly coming short of truth, at the very moment when the author seems almost to have reached it. And now and then disfigured by crotchets emanating from his own brain. But, with all these defects, exhibiting continually what may be fairly denominated a spiritual instinct, and not seldom suggestive of vastly more truth than they actually express. When I consider how much Pirie, Eagleton, and others, have profited by Riccaltoun’s writings, (I had almost said pilfered from them, for the source of some of their most valuable thoughts is not always acknowledged,) I could wish that the scripture-loving, but priest-ridden portion of my countrymen, had but an opportunity of being introduced to a more intimate acquaintance with them. The exchange of profundity for superficiality, of the gold of divine truth for human trash, might do them good; and, even if a perusal of the works failed to recommend Riccaltoun himself to their notice, it might answer the still higher purpose of exciting a deeper interest in and creating a warmer attachment to those divine records, [ix] to which he was indebted for his best and most spiritual ideas. Should theological productions, more calculated than any others which I know of, to direct the mind to the Holy Scriptures, be neglected or consigned to oblivion? Surely the members of the Church of God will sooner or later see to this.

As the doctrine of Universal Salvation — a doctrine offensive to many who partially know the truth, and hitherto, except in rare instances, most unscripturally supported, — constitutes one of the principal topics treated of in the following work, it seems due to myself to state, that not only have the scriptures, and the works of those who have advocated the theory, been largely consulted by me within the last few years, with a view to obtain additional information in its favour, but that I have courted every species of opposition that can be made to it, and have studied every work of merit, to which I could get access, in which efforts have been made to expose and overturn it. The three last of these which have come under my notice, I may mention. They are, Dr. Hamilton’s, (of Leeds,) “Revealed Doctrine of Rewards and Punishments;” “Everlasting Fire, no Fancy,” by Rev. John Brandon; and “The Salvation of all men strictly examined,” in answer to Chauncy, by Jonathan Edwards, D.D., son, I believe, of the illustrious President of Princeton College, New Jersey. As to the first-named work, — most carefully and even anxiously perused, from the great flourish of trumpets with which its appearance was [x] preceded and announced, — much as I desire to think and speak favourably of the production of an amiable, excellent, and learned as well as able man, now deceased, a regard to truth compels me to say, that assuming many most unscriptural and some questionable positions, and building up his system with many most unscriptural arguments — exhibiting, especially, an almost total ignorance of the nature and consequences of divine law as chiefly prohibitory, and confounding reward with gift — instead of demolishing Universalism, he has only succeeded in demolishing himself. Brandon’s book is sneering and scholastic, although occasionally very clever: it is learned, and makes many happy hits at the Socinians; but advances not a single step towards the establishment, on a scriptural foundation, of his own theory. The “Salvation of all men strictly examined,” is, as might have been expected from the son of the author of the “Essay on the Freedom of the Human Will,” acute, logical, argumentative, ingenious and discriminating. Chauncy, with his semi-Pelagian and vague notions, is no match for his Calvinistic antagonist. This work of Edwards’s appears to me to be incomparably the ablest that has ever yet been produced, — the ablest that perhaps ever will be produced, — against the doctrine of the unboundedness of God’s love to the human family. It takes from all deniers of the efficacy of Christ’s atoning sacrifice, the possibility of maintaining Universalism on even the semblance of a scriptural footing. It shews, [xi] with irresistible force of argument, that penal sufferings, as undergone by a creature, have of themselves no tendency whatever towards their own exhaustion and destruction. But having said this, I have said all. The vigorous logic of this work constitutes its chief merit. It betrays ignorance of, or at all events inability to grapple with, the profounder principles of God’s Word. Accordingly, a somewhat enlarged acquaintance with Scripture, and with the bearing of the truths which it reveals on this particular subject, lays bare the baselessness of Edwards’s system. Possessed of a knowledge of the complete purgatorial efficacy, not of men’s sufferings, but of the sacrifice of Christ Jesus (John 1:29; Heb. 9:26; 1 John 1:7,9, 2:2) — of God being in every case just, even when he is the justifier of the ungodly (Rom. 3:26, 4:5) — of faith, which is the only channel through which an interest in the mediatorial Kingdom is conferred, being exclusively God’s gift (Heb. 11:1,6; Eph. 2:8) — of the unregenerate never entering into the mediatorial Kingdom, and yet being ultimately saved as its subjects (John 3:3-5; Luke 14:14; Acts 24:15; 1 Cor. 15:22-28; Rev. 21:5) — of Jesus being spiritual Adam, as well as spiritual Abraham (Luke 3:38; 1 Cor. 15:21,22,45,47; Gal. 4:4; Rom. 2:28,29; Phil. 3:3; 1 Pet. 1:23; James 1:18; Rev. 14:4) — of the works of the Devil, sin and death, being destroyed, not confirmed by the death and resurrection of our blessed Lord (1 John 3:8; Heb. 2:14) — of human nature being in no case per-[xii]petuated, but in all cases superseded by the divine nature (1 Cor. 15:47-49; Phil. 3:21; Rom. 6:8-11, 8:2-23; Gal. 5:17-24; 2 Cor. 5:4,17; Rev. 21:5) — and above all, of the scripture doctrine of “Divine Inversion,” (Matt. 20:16, 22:41-46; Rom. 9:12; Rev. 22:13,16), one is enabled, with but slender efforts, to tear to pieces this writer’s best constructed objections, and fling to the winds his apparently conclusive and convincing syllogisms.

Readers may be referred to my correspondence with Mr. Sankey, printed at the close of the second edition of the “Dialogues,” for a full explanation of all the circumstances connected with my discovery of the scriptural distinction between soul and spirit.

Am I here out of place in recommending to attention, the admirable little tract of my dear friend, Mr. David Waldie, entitled, “The Ultimate Manifestation of God to the World?” A perusal of its simple, beautifully-written, and unpretending pages will be useful, as well as acceptable to him, who may feel interested in the leading views contended for in this work.

ST. MARY’S PLACE, EDGE-HILL, LIVERPOOL,

May, 8, 1849.

[xiii] PREFACE.

[TO THE SECOND EDITION.]

WHEN I published the former edition of this work in the Spring of 1828, the subjects of which it treats had not particularly occupied my mind for more than two years. Other topics of equal, one of them certainly of paramount, importance had, during the period of my presiding over the Rodney Street Congregation, engaged my attention. Besides, after my expulsion from my former charge, shunned by those commonly denominated the serious, and opposed on principle to men of latitudinarian sentiments, I had none to confer with, none to consult, in the progress of my enquiries, and the formation of a scriptural creed. It is surprising if, under such circumstances, I should, in the original composition of the present work, have committed some mistakes?

My first information respecting the principal truths brought out and illustrated in the following pages, was derived from the word of God itself. The fifteenth chapter of the former of Paul’s two epistles to the Corinthians, or rather that portion of it which lies between the forty-second and fiftieth verses, was the means of originally suggesting those views, and causing me to engage in that train of investigation, which have resulted in the theory now propounded. At first, it was but a rough sketch. By degrees, the outline was filled up. The former edition of this work first brought [xiv] it before the public; and, afterwards, combining in my mind with the all-important scriptural and experimental doctrine of the assurance of faith, the system appeared in a still more mature shape in the two octavo volumes which I published in 1833.

In struggling with the difficulties of my subject, for difficulties it had, there were two leading topics which for many years occasioned me uneasiness. These were, the exact amount of Adam’s original forfeiture, and the nature of eternal punishment. On both subjects, strange to tell! I saw through the popular fallacies, long before I was enabled to grasp the simple truth. Eight years since, it was made clear to my mind, from the scriptures themselves, that Adam could not have forfeited spiritual and eternal life, and that there could be no eternal punishment of the nature of never ending-torments. The grounds of these conclusions will be found amply stated in the subsequent treatise. But seeing no intermediate scheme at that time, between the forfeiture of spiritual and eternal life on the one hand, and the forfeiture of the life of the body merely on the other, the absurdity of the former alternative forced me on adopting and asserting the latter. And, as I was acquainted then with no other eternal punishment than eternal punishment by means of torments, the evidently unscriptural nature of such an idea constituted my reason for throwing the doctrine overboard altogether. More enlarged divine teaching has brought to light views of which, at the period of the original publication of this essay I was ignorant. I have in the interim discovered the death of pure soul or natural mind, and have been satisfied that of this the death of natural body is merely the consequence; and I have also discovered, that the [xv] family of man, as possessed of Adam’s nature, or as the wicked, undergo eternal punishment. In the corrected edition of my Three Questions now published, the Christian world has the benefit of these discoveries.

The conduct of critics, in regard to the former edition of this treatise, was what might have been anticipated. It was too contemptible a production to attract the notice of the larger reviews. The Churchmen looked at it, and, either from despising its author, or from inability to grapple with its statements, passed it over in silence. The liberal periodicals were pleased to speak of it in a friendly tone. Some of the Evangelical dissenting journals conceived that it afforded them a capital opportunity for having a fling at the author and his sentiments. In proof of this, witness the brief and contemptuous notices by the Imperial Magazine for April, and the Congregational Magazine for July, 1828. The Christian Herald, for April, 1828, was flippant, dogmatical, and condescendingly compassionate — the Edinburgh Theological Magazine, for June and July of the same year, after giving its readers to understand that it despised the author, was pleased to devote two long, and rather well-written, but so far as theology is concerned, exceedingly superficial articles to the consideration of his sentiments — and the Gospel Magazine, for June of the same year, in by far the most honest and intentionally candid of all the reviews which my work drew forth, after exhibiting feelings the most friendly towards me, condemned my statements in toto as a mass of “futile reasoning and vain babbling,” and expressed a decided preference to those views in which the good folks calling themselves Christians have for so long a time seen meet to acquiesce. Such was the [xvi] reception which the former edition of this Essay met with at the hands of those Dii majores gentium, the reviewers. It would not have been amiss if certain Editors of periodicals, who were pleased to accept of copies of a more expensive work, had honoured it with a little of that contempt with which its precursor was so copiously besprinkled.

One important consequence followed from the publication of the former edition of this Essay, and of the criticisms to which it gave birth — it rendered the necessity for the appearance and inculcation of the doctrines which I advocate strikingly manifest. Although aware that I was treating of topics of stirring interest, and that in what I was propounding I stood opposed to the sentiments of the great majority of religionists, I had actually no conception, until some time after my work was in the hands of the public, of the deep-rooted and powerful hold which the errors and delusions combated by me had taken of the minds of professing Christians. Previous to publishing, I had to a certain degree flattered myself, that all that was requisite to enable the Church to throw aside her trammels, and advance in the path of scriptural discovery, was simply to place the truth before her. Alas! I had not calculated sufficiently on that innate ignorance of divine things which is characteristic of the human mind, or on those disingenuous habits which long perseverance in deceit necessarily terminates in creating. My dream of clearer views of divine truth being welcomed with avidity by the professed followers of the Lamb, was but of short duration. The experience of a few months sufficed to dispel it. The anathemas of ecclesiastics, mingling their deep-toned thunders with the carpings [xvii] of critics, told me in language which it was impossible to misunderstand, that from bodies of the religious as at present constituted I had nothing but opposition to look for. It is for this reason, that, although now convinced more than ever of the necessity for its appearance, and therefore impelled by a sense of duty, I again obtrude this work in an improved form upon public notice, I confess that I do so with no very sanguine hopes of success. The few whom my dear Lord hath enlightened will read it with candour, and compare its statements and reasonings with those of scripture; the rest — will take their own course.

Am I wrong, in conceiving it to be necessary to urge my leading views on the notice of the Christian world, or in cherishing feelings of despondency as to the result, when I find the accredited organs of some of the largest bodies of evangelical professors re-iterating, in unmeasured and intentionally offensive terms, the most obnoxious of the errors which I have been labouring to expose and subvert? Thus speaks the Editor of one of these periodicals, in the name of the English Independents: — “We, however, have adopted a more romantic system of divinity, and are content to rank among that class of men dignified with the title of theologians, who have fancied, and written treatises to prove that, besides the loss of natural life, Adam was threatened with, and actually incurred, SPIRITUAL AND ETERNAL DEATH.” Congregational Magazine, for July 1828, page 379. — The mouth-piece of a still larger body of dissenters, the Scotch Seceders, I find thus deliberately chaunting, at greater length, but in a similar strain: — “Man was originally formed a rational and accountable being, and was endued with a SPIRITUAL and IMMORTAL [xviii] part, which is designated his SOUL.” “If Adam had not eaten of the forbidden fruit, he would not have died; and, therefore, must have lived, — lived in the contemplation of the divine character, in the admiration of the divine works, IN CONFORMITY TO THE DIVINE LAW, IN PRINCIPLE AND PRACTICE;¹ and, consequently, in the enjoyment of the divine favour, which is life to the rational creature, in the highest sense of the expression; and THIS IS WHAT IS MEANT BY SPIRITUAL LIFE.” — “If Adam had continued in innocence, he must have continued in the enjoyment of the divine favour; in other words, he must have lived for ever; and THIS IS WHAT IS MEANT BY ETERNAL LIFE.” — “Man was originally made capable of enjoying happiness, by having given him AN IMMORTAL SOUL created after the image of God. While we contend for the original IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, — it is to the scriptures alone that we are indebted for the certainty of this doctrine. — If man had not eaten of the forbidden fruit, he would not have died, that is, would have existed ETERNALLY in the possession of that rational, SPIRITUAL and IMMORTAL happiness, which is PROPERLY THE LIFE OF MAN. THIS most assuredly is THE IMMORTALITY OF A CREATURE.” — “If God, for wise and holy purposes, permitted sin to enter and to operate in this world, that all might be overruled for the manifestation of His glory, where is the inconsistency of its EXISTING THROUGHOUT ETERNITY, and of its BEING PUNISHED FOR EVER, in the persons of those who HAVE DIED IN THE LOVE AND PRACTICE OF INIQUITY?” Edinburgh Theological Magazine, for June and July 1828. Pp. [xix] 329, 331, 406, 408. It appears, then, according to both these large bodies of professing Christians, the English Independents and the Scotch Seceders, that Adam originally possessed spiritual and eternal life, which he forfeited by transgression: and, according to the latter of them, that he was naturally and originally Immortal! — forfeited this immortality by transgression!! — and yet, nevertheless, contrives to impart this FORFEITED immortality to his descendants, as the basis and principle of THE GREAT MAJORITY OF THEM BEING TORMENTED FOR EVER!!! When persons, pretending to be rational beings, nay, glorying in their rationality, can thus, not merely confound the soulical nature of Adam the creature, with the spiritual nature of Jesus the Creator, and swallow the absurdities of creature immortality! immortality coming to an end!! and immortality although forfeited nevertheless existing!!! — but also deliberately persevere in maintaining these dogmas, after their falsehood, inconsistency, and unscriptural character have been exposed, their case may be fairly given up as hopeless. Surely, however, an attempt may with propriety be made, to put the younger and more candid on their guard against such delusions.

¹ In direct and palpable contradiction to Romans 8:3, which asserts, that this conformity was competent only to God manifest in flesh.

To those who, after honouring my Essay with their perusal, may deem it worthy of public animadversion, if such there shall be, I would respectfully suggest, that its main statements and arguments are not to be demolished by mere skirmishing and by-attacks. The proving of some minor observations to be incorrect, whatever credit it may reflect on the ingenuity of the assailant, will not in the slightest degree damage or endanger my citadel. Nay, such a mode of attack, as being a practical confession of weakness on the part of [xx] antagonists, I shall consider myself entitled to regard as the highest possible compliment which can be paid to my work. Let all those, who after perusing the following pages feel inclined to be pugnacious, and who yet can discover no way of reaching me except by means of a side-wind, allow themselves, before commencing hostilities and exposing themselves to the risque of being ranked among petty cavillers, to “read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest,” the following admirable and appropriate observations of that acute and ingenious writer, Andrew Baxter of Aberdeen, with which I conclude: —

“We may observe in general, that there are few truths, except those seen intuitively, against which objections founded on seeming probability and old prejudices, may not be raised; if we suffer the reasons to slip out of our mind from which they were concluded, and retain in view only our former way of thinking about them. It is an easy, but a fallacious method, to run away with a flux of words: we may draw up such a specious shew of probabilities, supported by prejudices, as shall make a dreadful appearance taken all together; and yet turn to nothing at last when examined and sifted separately. — If we can find no fault in the reasons which establish the conclusions on the contrary side, we should suspect our own objections. Those are the most promising objections that attack directly the reasons on which the thing is founded; but if they leave these standing, and turn to by-considerations, much is not to be expected from them.” — Enquiry into the Nature of the Human Soul. Vol. 2d pp. 115, 116. 3d. Edition.

LIVERPOOL, 27 June, 1835.

[1] THREE QUESTIONS

PROPOSED AND ANSWERED.

THERE are three questions, growing out of the information with which we are furnished by the scriptures, that have often struck me as demanding more than ordinary attention. These are: —

I. What was the death threatened to and incurred by Adam, as the consequence and punishment of his first transgression?

II. What is the cause of the resurrection of the dead?

III. Is there any authority in scripture, or in reasonings legitimately derived from scripture, for the ordinary doctrine of the eternal punishment, in the sense of eternal torments, of the wicked in a state of existence succeeding the present?

It is impossible for any sober-minded and reflecting individual to deny, that these are questions of the last importance. They do not, like those barren and unprofitable speculations which in every age have engaged the attention and constituted the studies of theologians by profession, turn upon trifling cob-web distinctions, make a cold appeal to the understanding, or afford an opportunity for learned leisure to while away the tedium of a vacant hour; but lead at once and inevitably to valuable because practical results. If, in the prosecution of my inquiries, I shall be able to demonstrate, that sentiments with which in infancy our minds are imbued, and which advancing years generally tend but to deepen and strengthen, are in reality the offspring of ignorance and superstition, fostered and matured by tyranny and self-interest, or both; and that such sentiments, instead of illustrating and commending, are at variance with the character of the God of Revelation, representing Him as a gloomy despot, whom the scriptures declare to be LOVE itself; I shall, in that case, enjoy the [2] enviable distinction of having been instrumental in relieving such as may be convinced by my arguments from a state of the most painful and degrading thraldom; and the unspeakable happiness of seeing the hideous fabric which, for eighteen centuries at least, men have been employed in raising and consolidating, ready to crumble into atoms at the touch of divine truth. — To accomplish these most desirable objects, it is not to carnal reasonings that I shall have recourse. To the lively oracles, and to them alone, shall my appeal be made. In what respects religion, God only is competent to decide; and as I disclaim the aids of mere human authority on my own part, so do I reject, and treat with disdain, every attempt to confute me, and overturn my statements, by a reference to the opinions of fallible man on the part of others. I stand at God’s, not man’s, judgment seat; and by the divine law and testimony, therefore, must the matters in controversy between my opponents and myself be determined. — Let it not be supposed by the reader, taking a superficial glance at the subject, that any part of the following argument could have been spared. A candid and enlightened attention to what I have written will, I trust, suffice to shew, that all the enquiries, and statements, and reasonings, which precede, are indispensably requisite to bring out in its full lustre the conclusion that follows. So close, I should rather say inseparable, is the connection subsisting among all the questions proposed for examination, that, without understanding the grounds and principles of the answers which I return to the first and second of them, it is impossible to perceive and appreciate the full force of the solution given to the last. — In order to prevent disappointment, however, be it observed, that, in what follows, it is very far from being the author’s intention to present his readers with a thoroughly digested and systematic treatise: all that they have a right to expect from him being a few scriptural statements and reasonings, which will, he hopes, serve as hints, and form a basis, for ulterior investigations of their own.

[3] FIRST QUESTION.

What was the death threatened to and incurred by Adam, as the consequence and punishment of his first transgression?

As the fall of man is a fact for the knowledge of which we are indebted to the sacred writings, so for the nature of it, the circumstances connected with it, and the consequences involved in it, we must consult the same infallible guide. What then saith the scripture in reference to this subject?

Were it not that the minds of men are pre-occupied from the very cradle with nursery tales concerning the fall,² and that the impressions made by these are afterwards strengthened by systems of divinity almost as decidedly romantic, this is a question which might be easily answered. The narrative contained in the three first chapters of Genesis, although brief, is so explicit, — and the arguments and conclusions of the Apostle Paul, in the fifth and sixth chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, and the fifteenth chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, are so obviously founded on, and so strikingly illustrate, that narrative, — that nothing but the most perverse ingenuity, rather, let me say, nothing but the natural inability of the human mind by dint of its [4] own boasted faculties to comprehend and relish divine truth, could ever have involved the subject in darkness and perplexity.

² May not many individuals, in this country, trace their views of the fall to the impressions made upon their minds, at an early period of life, by Milton’s Paradise Lost? Even the shrewd and sagacious Sandeman, unable to get rid of his nursery and educational prejudices on the subject, has contented himself with serving up to his readers, in the form of plain prose, the same ideas concerning Satan and the fall of man, which the Prince of modern Epic Poets had already presented and invested with all the charms of his glowing imagination. — See Sandeman’s observations on Spirit, in the 4th of his letters on Hervey’s Dialogues.

When we enquire, what are the declarations of the book of Genesis concerning the creation and fall of man? a few simple and intelligible facts, such as the following, present themselves to our notice: — That God formed and organized the body of the first man of the dust of the ground, or of materials common to it with the earth upon which it was to tread; Gen. 2:7; that the body so formed was animated by Him with a principle of life; ibid.; that this life was not absolutely but conditionally bestowed; Ib. 16,17; that the condition of its tenure was violated; 3:6; and that thus the forfeiture threatened, namely, the loss of the life originally bestowed and the returning of the body to its primitive elements, was incurred, Ib. 19. Thus far all is plain sailing. But here, of course, it will occur to the reflecting mind to ask, do the circumstances just enumerated exhaust all that the scriptures make us acquainted with respecting man’s original state, and the loss which by transgression he incurred?

No, undoubtedly; for there is one important additional circumstance, recorded by the pen of inspiration likewise, which arrests attention, and demands a very particular explanation. Adam did not die in the day that he transgressed. On the contrary, he lived several hundred years after the fall. Therefore, either God’s threatening was falsified by the result; or we must admit, that life and death in the sacred volume have, occasionally at least, some farther meaning, than merely the possession of the vital principle and the forfeiture of it.

At this point it is proper to mention, that theologians, in regard to the discrepancy between the menace to Adam and the fulfilment of it, are divided into two great classes. One of these maintains, that the difference in question is merely apparent; that natural death is all that by the threat was intended; and that any difficulty arising from [5] the fact of the execution of the sentence having been delayed is removed by understanding, that the moment Adam transgressed he became mortal or obnoxious to the stroke of death. In opposition to this the other class maintains, that as death, not liability to death, in the day of transgression, was the language of the menace, it can be reconciled with fact only on the supposition of Adam, in addition to his animal existence, having possessed naturally spiritual and eternal life; and having forfeited this in the very act and at the very instant of transgression.

Did no middle path between these two extremes suggest itself to the mind, the idea of being able to effect a thorough and satisfactory reconciliation of scripture with itself, in regard to this matter, would require to be abandoned. By adopting the former hypothesis, we must, in violation of all the proprieties of language, understand mortality to be synonymous with death! By adopting the latter, we merely avoid one species of solecism to run ourselves upon another: for as, upon this supposition, spiritual life is both the life of Adam and the life of Christ, it is a life both capable, and, strange contradiction, incapable of being lost! and, although eternal, it is nevertheless capable of coming to an end!

With what ease are we enabled to steer clear of all these errors and absurdities when we allow ourselves, with meekness and docility, to be guided by the teaching of the Holy Ghost. In addition to the animal existence which he had in common with the brutes, Adam it is evident possessed a something which rendered him their superior. This higher and additional advantage was connected with his mind. But as he was at the best merely a creature, of the earth, earthy, — and as such distinguished from Him whose image he was, even Jesus the Creator, the Lord from Heaven, — we must beware of falling into the error of the popular theologians, who, in the language which they have held respecting Adam as he existed in his paradisiacal state, have evidently confounded his mind with the mind of Christ. While in the mind of Adam we seek for that which really constituted his superiority over the brutes, let us remember, that his was a [6] privilege which was liable to be forfeited, and that as such it must stand essentially contrasted with the unforfeitable nature and dignity of the Son of God. Wherein, then, are we to seek for the superiority which Adam originally possessed; and the life which, in the very moment of transgression, he forfeited? To this I answer without hesitation: his essential superiority consisted, in the capacity which he had of receiving a divine prohibition; and his life, in the non-violation of that prohibition. The knowledge of the former, I derive from the narrative concerning the difference between God’s procedure towards him and the inferior animals; the knowledge of the latter, from the divine threatening combined with the divine veracity. Continued abstinence from disobedience to God, then, constituted the life — disobedience to God, the death — of the pure intelligent creature. In one word, sin, as it was the loss, so may it also fitly be denominated the death of Adam’s original state. This death, or forfeiture of creature purity of mind and creature righteousness, was incurred in the very moment³ of transgression; and the diseases and death of the body [7] which followed were, properly speaking, merely the outward marks and indications of the still more important death which had already taken place within.

³ At one time, I was inclined to think, and have so expressed myself in the first edition of this work, that the language of Gen. 2:17, was intended to intimate, not the exact time of the execution of the threatening, but the certainty of death being deserved, and liability to it being incurred, the moment that transgression should take place. In this view, I happened to coincide with a considerable number of expositors. Readers conversant with Le Clerc’s “Commentary and Paraphrase,” L. Howel’s “Complete History of the Bible,” Stackhouse’s “History of the Bible,” Bishop Patrick’s “Commentary on the Historical Books of the Old Testament,” quotations in Poole’s “Synopsis Criticorum,” in. loc., &c. &c., must have noticed, that high human authorities might be adduced in its favour. Some of them, in illustration and confirmation of their view, instance the case of Shimei, 1 Kings 2, who did not suffer death in the very day on which his transgression was committed, although Solomon’s menace, literally interpreted, imported as much, verse 37. S. Castellio and Dr. Geddes, judging by their respective translations, seem also to have regarded the threatening, Gen. 2:17, as uttered without reference to the time of its actual execution. And in a “Dissertation” by my learned neighbour, the Rev. George Holden, M.A., “On the Fall of Man,” in a note at page 20, I find him thus expressing himself: — “The declaration, ‘In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,’ Gen. 2:17, does not mean that death should be inflicted the self-same day in which the offence was committed, but that men should then become subject to death, whatever is meant by death — that the sentence of death should be executed at the time appointed by the Creator. It is not said ה‎‎‎הז‎‎‎‎ ביוס‎, or ה‎‎‎הז ‎‎‎‎ההוא, in that day, in that same day, but simply ה‎‎‎הז, in the day, and the word “day” is sometimes used in scripture generally, for an indefinite time, as may be seen in the Lexicons. Some give it the sense of si, if; i.e. for if thou eatest thereof; others, of statim, mox. Noldius’ Concord; Particul. Heb.; in voc., and the note of Tympius, Poli Synops. in Gen. 2:17.”

More than twenty years’ reflection on the subject have satisfied me, that, while unquestionably the certainty of the execution of the divine menace is one element involved in the language of the passage in question, the immediate infliction of the sentence, in the event of transgression taking place, is another and a still more important one. This, of course, could have reference only to the mind; for upon it alone was death immediately inflicted. To the view thus given, following out a hint contained in Mr. Holden’s note, I may add, that Adam and day, have a more enlarged, as well as a more restricted sense. Interpreted according to the former, Adam means the whole human family as one with him; and day signifies time, which is the period to which man’s existence upon earth is limited. When this is understood, then as all human beings, and as human nature itself come to an end in time, or in the day in which the transgression was committed, the sentence is seen to be literally executed. In the day in which the fruit was partaken of they die; and with respect to delay, let it be remembered, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

The view of matters which is given in the New Testament Scriptures strikingly accords with what I have just stated. Our blessed Lord, in the fifth chapter of John’s gospel, verse 24th, represents believers as having already passed from death into life. This, of course, it is impossible to understand of any change which has taken place in the structure and composition of their bodies. These, after the belief of the truth, remain exactly what they were before. The body is still dead because of Sin.⁴ To the mind, and to [8] the mind alone, therefore, must we look, as the seat both of the previous death and of the subsequent life. — Again, the Apostle Paul, in the spirit, and employing almost the very words of his divine Master, addresses the Ephesian believers, as persons who had been previously dead in Sins, but were now quickened or made alive together with Christ. Eph. 2:5. How apparent, that, by this great champion of the cross, death and life are treated of, in the passage now before us, as exercising their respective sovereignties over the mind: indeed, so managing the subject, as if the sway of both over the body were a matter of very secondary and subordinate consideration. — Need I multiply examples to prove, that the whole of the New Testament writings speak in the most exact accordancy with the two passages which I have quoted?

⁴ Rom. 8:10.

Warranted by the declarations and reasonings of scripture, therefore — for I acknowledge no other or higher authority — I thus answer the first question proposed: — The death with which Adam was menaced in case of disobedience, and which he actually incurred, was death in the ordinary acceptation of the term, that is, the termination of the animal existence which God at his creation had conferred on him; Gen. 3:19; and this in consequence of death in a higher sense, that is, the forfeiture of creature righteousness or death of the mind, having been in the very moment of transgression already and necessarily incurred. Ib. 6.⁵

⁵ For further particulars respecting the original state of Adam, the nature of the temptation to which he was exposed, and the death which he incurred, see the first part of my “Three Grand Exhibitions.”

While the difference between my views and those entertained by the Socinians, respecting the subject-matter treated of in the foregoing paragraphs, will be apparent at a glance, I am not quite so sure that I shall be understood by the great majority of my readers as holding sentiments on this point essentially different from those of the Calvinists. To guard against the possibility of mistake, let me, after setting down a few of the positions regarding [9] man’s supposed original purity and excellence, and the forfeiture which he incurred by transgression, which will be found in that popular and Calvinistic work Boston’s Fourfold State, proceed to contrast them with the views which the force of scripture evidence has constrained me to adopt.

I am satisfied, and consequently agree with the popular divines in believing, that Adam was possessed of a life of the mind, over and above the vital principle which he had in common with the brutes; and that it was this life of the mind, or principle of superiority over the rest of the animal tribes, which he forfeited in the very instant of transgression. But I do not believe, with Boston and those who entertain similar sentiments,

1. That “Adam naturally was subject to the whole law, which God afterwards formally promulgated from Mount Sinai.” On the contrary, I believe that Adam was subjected, and that not until after his creation, to one law or prohibition merely; and this, a law or prohibition so very easy as scarcely to have imposed upon him any effort of abstinence at all.⁶ The more trifling the original prohibition is seen to be, the more strongly, indeed, does it make for my argument. — In this, Adam stands contrasted with the Lord Jesus, who was subjected to the law as requiring the most intense, constant, and universal love to God and man; or, to the law of God in its highest sense and its fullest extent of requirement.⁷

2. I do not believe that Adam was subjected to the single law or prohibition just alluded to, “with a view to shew how good he was, — how great was the excellence of his natural capacities and dispositions, — and how capable he [10] was of rendering obedience to divine law.” On the contrary, I perceive that he was subjected to a single law, and that too a law of the most trifling kind, for the express purpose of shewing the utter impossibility of human nature, even in its best estate, yielding obedience to divine law; or, of shewing, that the mind of the flesh,⁸ even in its best estate, is enmity against God; that it is neither subject to God’s law, nor capable of becoming so. Rom. 8:7. As contrasted with this, I perceive that the mind of Christ was subjected to divine law in its highest extent of requirement, in order to shew, that divine mind, and it alone, is capable of complying with divine law. Rom. 8:3,4. See also 7:12.

⁸ το φρονημα της σαρκος.

3. I do not believe that Adam’s mind naturally was holy, heavenly, and generous; or, in Boston’s language, that “by the set he got in his creation, it directly pointed towards God as his chief end.” On the contrary, Adam’s mind, like his body, was naturally of the earth, earthy, — subject to the influence of his bodily frame and external circumstances — and essentially selfish. Instead of pointing towards God as his chief end, his chief end naturally was to retain the situation of external and creature comfort in which he had been placed: indeed, instead of God having had any generous principles to appeal to in man naturally, He could only operate on him through the medium of addressing his selfishness; as is proved by the fact of His having issued to him, not a promise, but a threatening. Gen. 2:17. — As contrasted with all this, the prospect held out to the Lord Jesus from his very birth was the necessity of his parting with his pure earthly life, in order to his thereby rendering service to the guilty children of men; or, the very purpose for which Jesus came into the world was, that, by his sufferings, death, and resurrection from the dead, he might benefit others. Isaiah 3:12; Matt. 20:28. The mind of the Lord Jesus was thus essentially generous; Acts 20:35; and as such was addressed and dealt with by his heavenly Father.

[11] 4. I do not believe that Adam was possessed of any “spiritual” principle whatever, as he came from God’s hands. I am satisfied, because I find it expressly declared, that he had originally a pure soul or pure creature mind, Gen. 2:7, Eccles. 7:29, 1 Cor. 15:45; but Spirit, or spiritual principle, being the mind, not of Adam the type and creature, but of Jesus the Antitype and Creator, John 4:24, (see Greek), 1 Corinth. 15:45-49, it was impossible that the former in his original state, could possess it.⁹

[12] 5. So far from believing, that the original purity and uprightness of Adam’s creature mind consisted in an ability on his part to do what is good, I am satisfied, that it consisted merely in the facts of his not having been created a transgressor, Eccles. 7:29, and his having actually abstained for a time from the commission of the only crime which God had prohibited. Gen. 2:16,17, with 3:6. In other words, his creature righteousness did not consist positively, in his doing, or having been able to do, good; but negatively, in his abstaining from one sin. — As contrasted with this, the purity and uprightness of the mind of Jesus the Creator consisted, in its ability to do what is good, and inability to do any thing else; or, in other words, in its very nature having been to perform whatever is well pleasing in the sight of his Heavenly Father. Psalm 40:8, with John 4:34. Adam’s original righteousness was negative, consisting merely in a temporary abstinence from transgression; Christ’s essential righteousness was positive, consisting in a disposition and ability to execute every command which he had received from above. To take another mode of illustrating the difference: Adam had a mind naturally capable of being overcome by evil; Gen. 3:6; whereas the mind of Jesus naturally and necessarily overcame evil of every description and degree. Matt. 4:1-11; John 14:30; 19:30; 1 Corinth. 15:25-28; 1 John 3:8.

6. Instead of believing that God made any positive promise to Adam, after his creation and his having been placed in the Garden of Eden, I perceive clearly, that the only recorded divine communication previous to the fall respecting Adam’s future prospects is of the nature of a threat. To explain myself: I do not believe in the popular dogma, of “Adam [13] having received from God a promise of eternal life to be enjoyed by him in a higher state, in the event of his having continued obedient during what has been denominated his term of probation.”¹⁰ My reason for rejecting it is, that according to Genesis 2:16,17, viewed in connection with 1 Timothy 1:9-11, and the nature of law in general, the continuance of Adam’s creature life upon earth, and not the acquisition of a higher life above, was the only reward which was to have followed on, nay, the only reward which could have been connected with his abstinence from violating the prohibition. The language of the inspired record, our only guide in matters of this kind, is not, “in the event of continuing obedient thou shalt inherit eternal life,” which certainly would have been a promise, and would have justified the popular theory; but, “in the event of being disobedient thou shalt die,” which, being obviously a threat cannot by any possibility be reconciled with popular sentiments. Or, if objectors disposed to quibble will contend that every threat is an implied promise, at all events they must admit, that the promise to Adam was not positive, but negative: its import having been merely, “that if he did not violate the prohibition, he should not incur the execution of the threatening; that if he continued to abstain from eating of the forbidden fruit he should be permitted to continue in his pristine state of purity and happiness.” How clearly thus does it appear, that the original law given by God to Adam, like all other prohibitory laws, proceeded on the principle of holding out to our great progenitor no other reward of his continued abstinence from transgression, [14] than this merely, that, so conducting himself, he should be let alone: thus fitly connecting the mere negative virtue of abstinence from evil, with the mere negative reward of exemption from punishment. — To the Lord Jesus, however, there was a positive promise given by his Heavenly Father: not of continued life upon earth, the utmost import of the promise made to Adam in the event of his having continued obedient — for, although Christ’s earthly life was not to be forfeited by any personal transgression, it nevertheless was a life which, in the prosecution and fulfilment of his mediatorial undertaking, he behoved to part with¹¹ — but of everlasting, that is, divine life, to be enjoyed by him in Heaven in connection with his divine obedience.¹² The reason of this obviously was, that positive righteousness, such as is the righteousness of the Creator, alone could deserve a positive reward, such as is eternal life or the life of the Creator. The man, then, who supposes, that God gave a positive promise of everlasting life to Adam, besides ascribing to a prohibitory law a sanction inconsistent with its nature,¹³ and, what is still more, inconsistent with fact,¹⁴ commits the additional mistake of supposing a promise to have been made to the creature, which was made,¹⁵ and which could only with propriety have been made,¹⁶ to the Creator.

7. I do not believe, that Adam naturally was possessed of immortality: on the contrary, the term which is applicable to the life with which he was originally endowed is indefinite existence. Having had a conditional limit assigned to it from the very first, namely, eventual transgression, it was thereby taken out of the category of infinite or immortal existence. Immortality, being life which cannot come to an end, is capable of being predicated only of the essential life of the Son of God. 1 Timothy 6:16, with Rom. 6:9, and Rev. 1:18.¹⁷

¹⁷ “No creature can have inherent immortality. 1 Tim. 6:16.” — Mulock’s Two Letters, &c, p. 6.

[15] To sum up in one sentence all the contrasts just stated: so far from regarding Adam as having been subjected to a number of divine laws — as having been able to obey these — as having been endowed naturally with a principle of generosity — as having been spiritual — as having been able to do good — as having had a positive promise of eternal life made to him — and as having been naturally immortal; — my decided conviction is, that only one law of the nature of a prohibition was imposed on him — that the purpose of this was to make manifest his utter inability to comply with divine law— that his nature was essentially selfish — that he was destitute of spirituality — that his only virtue consisted in abstinence from transgression — that the only reward conditionally promised to him was exemption from punishment — and that naturally he was not, nor as a mere creature could have been, immortal.

These contrasted statements being pondered on and understood, it will be apparent, that my sentiments, in regard to the life forfeited by Adam, differ toto coelo from those of the popular divines. They, overlooking the fact, that Adam even at the best was merely a creature¹⁸ and a type,¹⁹ by means of the qualities which while in his primitive state they ascribe to him, raise him to a level with, and clothe him with the attributes of, Jesus the Creator and Antitype.²⁰ According to them, Adam naturally was a pure, holy, and heavenly-minded being — capable of enjoying spiritual communion with God — filled with the most intense love to the laws of his Maker, and able to keep them — and possessed of a happiness which is to us absolutely inconceivable. According to the writer of these pages, founding his views not on ideal human systems but on the infallible word of God, Adam was an intelligent being endowed with a selfish earthly mind — was capable of evil, but for a while [16] abstained from the commission of it — had in him naturally no principle upon which the Creator could operate, except that of fear — was placed at his creation in circumstances of great external comfort, but was totally destitute of the capacity of enjoying spiritual communion with God²¹ — and depended for the continuance of his original state, on his abstinence from the violation of a single trifling divine prohibition. — According to the popular divines, Adam naturally was possessed of the most astonishing knowledge of God’s character and laws; and naturally had no tendency whatever to the commission of evil. Boston’s language is: “that Adam had a perfect knowledge of God’s law, and of his duty accordingly;” — “that he had naturally an exquisite knowledge of the works of God — and of their natures;” — “that he was made right (according to the nature of God, whose work is perfect,) without any imperfection, corruption, or principle of corruption, in his body or soul; — and [17] that he had no corruption in his will, no bent or inclination to evil.” According to the views of the writer of these pages, on the contrary, Adam was, at his creation, merely a grown infant, — destitute of all knowledge, because destitute of all experience, — and dependent on immediate divine inspiration for every kind of instruction, as well as for the entire guidance of his conduct. Besides, in his very nature, as earthly, fleshly, and selfish, he carried about with him from his origin a principle of corruption and evil, latent for a time, but ready to manifest itself on the first suitable occasion; and, so far from loving God and being able and disposed to keep His law, he loved himself supremely by the very constitution of his nature, and was ready to break the only law given him by the Creator, whenever the observation of it appeared likely to interfere with the dictates of self love. Undoubtedly, at his creation, he had been pronounced to be very good, and was in a certain sense perfect: but language like this, when applied to Adam’s original estate, is, from the result, clearly seen to have imported no more, than that, like every thing else, he was perfectly adapted to the purpose for which he had been summoned into existence. — In a word, according to the popular divines, Adam’s original state of righteousness, was something marvelously great and inconceivable! According to the writer of these pages, his original state of righteousness was merely his not having immediately committed transgression — was his mere temporary abstinence from evil; and his righteousness, as the righteousness of a mere creature, was intended as a foil to stand contrasted with, and to be one means of instructing us in the value of the truly great, divine, and inconceivable righteousness of Jesus the Creator.

Will the reader have the goodness to excuse me, for the length of detail into which I have gone in reference to the topic just treated of? I assure him that I am not exaggerating their importance when I say, that correct views of the difference between Adam and Christ, and of the typical relationship in which the former stands to the latter, are essential, not merely in the present controversy, but to the [18] understanding of every doctrine contained in the word of God.

Clear, however, as it appears to me, and must do to all who are content to take a plain scriptural and impartial view of the matter, that Adam, as having been only a creature, could by means of transgression forfeit no more than creature righteousness and creature life, — yet, strange to tell! there have not been awanting men dignified with the title of theologians who have fancied, and have even written treatises to prove, that, besides the loss of natural life both internal and external, Adam was threatened with and actually incurred spiritual and eternal death! This being the case, I have resolved to enter still more minutely into the present subject; in order that, not merely in the way of direct statement, but also by contrast with the reasonings of antagonists, the simplicity, correctness, and accordance with the inspired volume, of the sentiments respecting the life forfeited by Adam for which I am contending, may, to the entire satisfaction of my readers, be made to appear.

Without at present enquiring, what is the precise meaning attached to the phraseology spiritual and eternal death by those who employ it, suffice it to observe, that, as the arguments by which the doctrine of this death having been incurred by Adam is commonly supported, are of a negative rather than a positive kind, they may with propriety be stated in the form of so many objections to the view which I have shown to be suggested by the inspired narrative itself.

In the first place, it may be objected, that “the literal translation of Gen. 2:17, in the day that thou eatest thereof DYING THOU SHALT DIE,²² has an emphasis which is far from being exhausted, on the supposition of the forfeiture of what was natural having been its only import.” In answer to this cavil, for it is nothing more, it might be sufficient for me to observe, that, according to the best [19] Hebrew interpreters and philologists as well as our own translators,²³ the certainty of the event is all that is intimated by the repetition of the word מוח‎;²⁴ just as our blessed Lord, with a view to impress on our minds the conviction that he himself is the Truth, and consequently the certainty of his words being accomplished, frequently uses the phraseάμην, άμην, which we translate, verily, verily. But I prefer calling the attention of my readers to the fact, that the objection proceeds on the erroneous principle of setting up human reasonings, in opposition to the interpretation which God himself hath given to His own language. “There is greater emphasis in the threat of eternal torments, than in the simple menace of conditionally forfeiting what was naturally possessed: ergo, the former, not the latter, is the meaning of Gen. 2:16,17.” Now, when God himself, in passing sentence upon Adam, has expressly interpreted the threat to signify sufferings connected with, leading to, and terminating in, death, Gen. 3:17-19, is it not “rather too bad” for men, professing a more than ordinary respect for divine authority, to venture to give God the lie by asserting, and this, too, merely on the ground of reasonings of their own, that the threat imported death connected with, leading to, and terminating in, eternal torments?“²⁵

In the second place it may be objected, “that Adam’s original possession of a soul, Genesis 2:7, implies his having been endowed, at his creation, with something superior to mere natural and destructible principles.” In answer to this, and without stopping to enquire into the meaning of the English word soul, I observe, — what indeed must be obvious to every reflecting person, — that the life, or whatever it was that Adam originally possessed, is to be determined, not by turning over the musty pages, or [20] annoying ourselves with the vague and discordant theories of divines, but by a reference to the signification of the Hebrew word נפש here translated soul, as well as to that of the corresponding Greek word ψυχη, by which it is rendered in the Septuagint Version and the New Testament. This signification may be ascertained in two different ways: —1. By observing that ה‎י‎ה‎ נפש in Hebrew, and ψυχη ζωσα in Greek, which is the phrase translated living soul in Genesis 2:7, when applied to man, is the same phrase in the original which, when applied to the inferior animals, is rendered by the English words living creature, in Genesis 1:21 and 24; and 2:19.²⁶ Whence this marked difference in translating the same words? is of course the first question that will occur to the mind of the unlettered reader; and sorry am I to say, that it cannot be answered, without reflecting severely upon the partiality and want of candour evinced in this, as well as in several other instances, by the translators of the Authorized Version. Correct, and even slavishly literal, as they are, where no party purpose is to be served, and no favourite theory is to be supported, — the moment some popular dogma crosses their path, or the voice of royal authority is interposed, truth and fidelity are without hesitation sacrificed at their shrine. But for some bias of this kind, what could have induced men, whose claims to sense and learning it is impossible to dispute, to abandon the phrase living creature, — which, besides being a literal translation of the Hebrew words, had answered their purpose and expressed their meaning admirably, when speaking of the inferior animals, — and to substitute in its place, when applied to man, living soul, a term ambiguous by its very nature, and calculated to suggest a difference where no difference exists? If, in doing so, they were influenced by the consideration, “that as man is possessed of a nature or life superior to that of the other animals, therefore the term [21] expressive of life, when applied to him, ought to be translated differently from what it is when applied to them,” they were assuming the very thing to be proved; and, instead of confining themselves to a fair, and faithful, and simple exhibition of what the inspired writers have said, (which is the sole business of the translator,) leaving it to others to explain difficulties, and reconcile apparent incongruities, they were guilty of usurping the office of the commentator and the controversialist, and of betraying the confidence reposed in them, by making their translation a vehicle for the advancement of their own private views and prejudices.²⁷ And yet, never was a departure from those maxims which should invariably regulate the conduct of translators, more ill-judged and uncalled for than this. If it be admitted, as it must be, that the same words are employed in the original Hebrew to denote the life of the inferior animals, which are employed to denote the life of man; and if it be admitted also, as it must be if our opponents deal candidly, that there is nothing on the face of the texts themselves to justify a diversity of translation; then, it clearly follows, that if in Genesis 2:7. the phrase ה‎י‎ה‎ נפש is correctly rendered living soul, it is capable of being rendered in the same way in verse 19th of the same chapter, and in the 20th, 21st, 24th, and 30th verses of the preceding one;²⁸ and, that if it denotes a spiritual, indestructible, and immortal principle in the one case, it must denote the same in the other case also. There is no way in which those who have been accustomed to defend the propriety of the reading in the Authorized Version can extricate themselves from the difficulty, except by candidly ad-[22]mitting, that the possession of a principle of life common to man with the inferior animals, is all that is meant by the phrase translated living soul, in Genesis 2:7.²⁹ — 2. The signification of the Hebrew word נפש, and the corresponding Greek word ψυχη, may be ascertained by consulting some of the most approved Lexicons. To save time, as well as to avoid a needless parade of learning, let me just refer to two works of this description, which, with all their defects, are of standard merit; and which, I have reason to think, are in the hands of every Biblical scholar: I mean, Parkhurst’s Hebrew and Greek Lexicons. From an examination of these we learn, that the grand primary meaning of both words is breath; and, that their chief secondary and derived meanings are, a breathing frame, or the body that by breathing is sustained in life; a living creature, or a creature that lives by breathing; life considered as connected with breathing; and personality considered as connected with life. What deserves to be remarked is, that, by the confession of Parkhurst himself, — who seems to have been anything but favourable to the views which I entertain respecting man’s natural destitution of spiritual principle, (as may be seen by consulting his Greek Lexicon at ψυχη, No. 6, and πνευμα, [23] No. 2,) — he had been unable to meet with a single passage in the Old Testament scriptures, in which he could unhesitatingly say, thatנפש has the sense which we commonly attach to the English word soul. I have given his own words in a note.³⁰ It is of no avail to object, that ψυχη, in classical writings, means frequently the mind, or thinking principle in man; because, as Dr. Campbell has shewn with invincible power of argument, it is not by classical, but by Hellenistical usage, or by the way in which Greek words are employed in the Septuagint and New Testament, that their scriptural signification, in doubtful cases, is to be ascertained. But if it still be insisted on, that classical [24] authority in a matter of this kind is entitled to some deference, let me observe, that, in the classics themselves, ψυχηis perhaps as often used in the sense of life, or animal life, as in any other; and that, even though I admit the fact of its also in the same writings occasionally signifying the mind, or thinking principle, or intellectual part of man, this is merely like its sense of personality, a secondary meaning derived from the former, and one which, from the disputes relative to the subject existing among the different sects of philosophers, it is clear did not necessarily imply immateriality or immortality. Fortified by the authorities which I have produced, and by others which with a view to further demands I keep in reserve, I have no hesitation in maintaining, that when, in Genesis 2:7, and the corresponding passage, 1 Corinthians 15:45, Adam is declared according to our translation to have become a living soul, nothing more is meant thereby than that, God having breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, he became a living creature, or a creature that lives by breathing. Observe, I am not denying, that from other parts of the inspired narrative we may discover, as we actually do discover, Adam to have possessed, even naturally, capacities, faculties, and principles, superior to those of his fellow living creatures: all that I now assert, because I conceive myself to have proved it, is, that this discovery cannot be made from the bare fact of his being denominated, in common with them, a living creature or living soul. — Perhaps what I have been stating in answer to the present objection, will be better understood by the unlearned reader, if the verse itself, Gen. 2:7, be analysed, and the several steps of the process there enumerated be pointed out: — 1. God formed the body of Adam. The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground. 2. God conferred life on this previously organized but inanimate mass by enabling it to breathe. And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. 3. In consequence of this, that which had formerly been an inanimate lump or mass, became a creature endowed with a [25] principle of life, evinced by and connected with breathing. And man became a living soul, or a living breathing creature. — In the whole process, I can discover, in so far as the text itself is concerned, nothing more than this.³¹

In the third and last place, it may be objected, “that, as Adam is declared in Genesis 1:26,27, to have been created in the image and after the likeness of God, it is impossible to understand these phrases in any other sense than as intimating, that he was originally possessed of a spiritual and immortal principle.” But even this objection, with whatever triumph it may be urged, and with whatever force it may have struck some minds, is answered and set aside with the utmost ease. Nay, wherever it is broached or entertained, the most deplorable ignorance of scripture, and inability to reason correctly are evinced: for the language upon which it is founded actually points to a conclusion the very reverse of that to establish which it is employed. To make myself understood, be it observed, that, in the passages quoted, Adam is not declared to have been the image of God; but to have been made in, after, or, (as the Septuagint version reads, κατα) according to the image or likeness of God. This necessarily suggests to the reflecting [26] and scripturally enlightened mind, that Adam was the figure or representative of some other individual, to whom the phrase image of God is capable of being applied: it being absurd to suppose, that he who is made according or like to another, can be that other himself. — But there is no occasion for any inference in the matter. What I have just suggested as a necessary conclusion from the words of the Old Testament, is actually the express declaration of the New. Jesus, not Adam, is asserted to be the image of the invisible God, Coloss. 1:15; and it was Jesus, not Adam, who could say with truth, he that hath seen me, hath seen the Father. John 14:9. Adam, then, not having been God’s image, but merely made like to Him who is God’s image; or, to use the language of the Apostle Paul, having been merely the figure of him that was to come, Rom. 5:14, how obviously and irresistibly does it follow, that as a mere type, figure, or representative of another, Adam could not by any possibility have possessed the same attributes with Him, whose type, figure, or representative, he was. He might have possessed, and he actually did possess, qualities analogous to and figurative of those which distinguished the Son of God; but qualities the same with those of the Son of God it is impossible to ascribe to him, without contradicting scripture, as well as becoming chargeable with the most consummate blasphemy. That there is an exact correspondency between what is possessed by the antitype, and what was shadowed forth in the type, a very little reading and reflection may satisfy us. For instance: Jesus is exalted Head over all; He is united to the Church, His daughter and spouse, in the bonds of an everlasting marriage covenant; He is the ancestor of a spiritual posterity; His righteousness is spiritual and divine; and His existence, instead of being subject to death, is that by which death is swallowed up and destroyed. So, in exact agreement with all this but still as a mere shadowy representation of it, Adam naturally had dominion over the inferior animals; was married to Eve, at once his daughter and wife; was [27] constituted the ancestor of the human race; was originally possessed of a soulical or creature righteousness; and had an existence over which, except through the medium of transgression, death could have had no power. In being made in or according to the image of God, it is thus obvious, that Adam neither was, nor could have been, that very image. Am I wrong, then, when I assert, that the present objection is suicidal, or that it actually recoils on and refutes itself? It admits, that Adam was made merely in the image of one necessarily possessing spiritual and eternal life. But if so, then the natural life of Adam, as at best merely the type, or figure, or image of Christ’s life, is necessarily degraded to a rank inferior to it: that is, as at best only the type of the life of the Son of God, in whatever respects it may have resembled that life, it never by any possibility could have been the same with it; which, if spiritual and eternal, it nevertheless would have been.³²

³² Without pledging myself to support the unscriptural theories and vagaries which Osiander and others may have entertained, I have no hesitation in saying, that the celebrated Calvin, in his Institutes, Book I. chapter 15, section 3; and Book II. chapter 12, section 6, et sequen; has completely failed in his attempts to overthrow the position, “that Adam was created after or according to the image of God, because he was created like to the future Messiah, who is God’s only authorized imaged,” which he ascribes to them. That Osiander, and those who coincided with him in opinion, held sentiments at variance with this plain and scriptural view of matters, which afforded their redoubtable antagonist a handle against them, upon the supposition of their language being fairly quoted, I allow: but when Calvin is stripped of the advantage which he derives from their concessions, and when his own concessions are taken into account, the arguments by which he attempts to confute their doctrine, relative to the point in question, will be found to be extremely futile.

In these objections, to which I have given their full weight and importance, lies the strength of the ordinary hypothesis, that the death which Adam incurred, in consequence of his first transgression, was not merely the loss of natural principles, but was also spiritual and eternal. If, as arguments, they shall appear to any of my readers to be [28] excessively weak, I cannot help it. They are the best which the cause of my opponents hitherto has been able to produce.

At this point I might stop, satisfied that, by overturning every objection which can be brought against it, I have virtually established my own position. But that nothing may be omitted which is calculated to throw light on this all-important subject, and by way of turning the tables on my opponents, I now proceed to shew, that the idea of Adam’s having incurred by the fall spiritual and eternal death, is liable to objections which are absolutely insurmountable, on the supposition of scripture being true and consistent with itself. These objections, for the sake of brevity, I reduce to three; one or two of which it is my intention to dwell on and illustrate at some length.

First. If Adam died spiritually and eternally, he must have incurred the loss of spiritual and eternal life.

Secondly. If he died spiritually and eternally, he must have incurred a severer punishment than that with which he had been threatened.

Thirdly. If the threatening to him and all his posterity was spiritual and eternal death, then, neither he nor they can attain spiritual and eternal life without exposing the Supreme Being to a charge of having threatened what He does not execute.

First. If Adam died spiritually and eternally, he must have incurred the loss of spiritual and eternal life.

Death, in common parlance as well as according to scriptural usage, signifies, not the want or destitution of life, but the loss of it: in other words, it always implies, that life had been previously possessed. That it does so in common parlance, without recurring to the sovereign authority of Dr. Johnson, I at once assume. That this is its meaning in scripture, whether employed literally or metaphorically, may be sufficiently established by referring to an instance [29] or two. When in Rom. 6:2, and 7:4, believers are spoken of as being dead to sin and dead to the law, their having been previously alive to sin and alive to the law is clearly implied in the phrases themselves, independently even of this being the very language used by the Apostle, as well as the manifest scope of his reasoning. Life and death, it thus appears, are relative terms, not in the sense of the one being simply the negation of the other, but in the sense of the one implying the deprivation or loss of the other. If, then, it be assumed, that Adam when he transgressed incurred spiritual and eternal death, is it not obvious that as natural death implies the loss of natural life, so must spiritual and eternal death imply the loss of spiritual and eternal life? But the assumption of spiritual and eternal life having been lost is inadmissible, because: —

1. What is spiritual or eternal cannot be lost or forfeited. Spiritual and eternal are terms evidently of the same import, and consequently convertible, with the term divine. As God is defined by the Lord Jesus, in John 4:24, to be a spirit, or rather spirit itself,³³ it follows, that spiritual, or the word when used in its adjective form, signifies that which belongs to or can be predicated of the divine nature; and as to eternal, eternity is too obviously a divine attribute to admit of any dispute with regard to the Being to whom it is solely and properly applicable. Spiritual and eternal life, then, is the life of God, or the divine nature; and as, wherever spiritual and eternal life is enjoyed by any creature, it must be in consequence of the divine nature having been communicated to that creature,³⁴ to maintain that such a life may terminate or be forfeited, would be to maintain, that the divine nature may come to an end — a proposition too extravagantly absurd to be for a single moment listened to.

[30] This indefeasibility of spiritual and eternal life may be shewn likewise in another way. — Spiritual life is that which proceeds from the Spirit of God, or that which the Spirit of God communicates. John 3:6, and 6:63. But as this — which is also the spirit of Jesus, John 15:26, and Gal. 4:6 — was unquestionably neither revealed nor bestowed till after the fall, therefore, nothing proceeding from or connected with the spirit, whether life or knowledge, could have been forfeited by the fall. Besides, if Adam originally possessed the spirit, it must have abode with him for ever, according to John 14:16; and must have produced in him love to God and confidence in Him, its necessary fruits, according to Gal. 5:22, and 1 John 4:8-10,18,19: whereas, whatever was the nature of the pure principles originally possessed by Adam, the result proves that he could lose them; Gen. 3:6; and even while he continued upright it was not his love, but his fears, which God addressed and operated on. Gen. 2:16,17. — Eternal life stands exactly in the same predicament. There is no mention made of it in scripture, except in connection with a state of things which succeeded the fall; Gen. 3:15; nay, further, a state of things which was not introduced and fully manifested till the coming of the Messiah, 2 Tim. 1:10. But, independently of all this, the very phrase eternal life signifies life which cannot terminate; and, therefore, it neither was, nor could have been, the life which Adam originally possessed, and which by his transgression he forfeited. It will not detract from the force of this remark to allege, that at first Adam had eternal life conditionally bestowed on him: for, although so long as transgression had not been committed by him his life might fitly be styled indefinite, yet a conditional eternity, like a conditional infinity of any other kind, is so gross a solecism in terms, that no person who allows himself time to think would choose to be guilty of employing it.

Let it be supposed, however, for the sake of argument, that Adam did forfeit spiritual and eternal life; what [31] then? Why, that the security of the people of God, for the continued possession of the same glorious privilege, is at once and completely sapped and overthrown. For, as is not pretended by any one that believers at the present day possess more than spiritual and eternal life, they merely possess that which, according to the supposition in question has been once already forfeited; and which, for aught they know or can strive to the contrary, may in their case be forfeited again. Lives there a Christian so destitute of the reasoning faculty, as to hesitate for a single moment about what should be done with a hypothesis involving in it consequences so revolting as these?

Thus, let the subject be viewed in whatever light we will, it appears clear, that spiritual and eternal life if once possessed cannot be forfeited; and that therefore, the notion of spiritual and eternal death having been incurred by Adam, is incredible, because absurd.

2. The hypothesis of Adam’s having incurred by the fall spiritual and eternal death, implying his previous possession of spiritual and eternal life, cannot be maintained, except at the expense of confounding the nature and character of Adam, with the nature and character of the Lord Jesus. Although, in the preceding part of the treatise, that confusion of the natures of the earthly and the heavenly Heads, which necessarily follows from adopting the popular system, has been adverted to and exposed; yet the importance of the argument is such as to justify me in again urging it on the special attention of my readers. It is, as I have already shewn, the express declaration of holy writ, that Adam was the figure of Him that was to come. Rom. 5:14. The meaning of this phraseology is explained by the Apostle at considerable length, both in the context of the passage just quoted, and throughout the fifteenth chapter of first Corinthians. From these two passages taken in connexion with each other, and illustrated by the whole analogy of scripture, it appears, that Adam, as the lord of the old or natural creation, Gen. 1:28, was the type of Jesus, as the Lord of [32] the new or spiritual creation: compare Psalm 8 with Matt. 27:18; 1 Corinth. 15:27; Coloss. 1:15-17; and Hebrews 2:8: that Adam, as the head or ancestor of a natural posterity, was the type of Jesus, as the head or ancestor of a spiritual posterity: 1 Corinth. 11:3, with 15:21,22,48,49, and Rom. 5:15: — that Adam, as the source of natural life was the type of Jesus as the source of spiritual and eternal life: 1 Corinth. 15:22, with John 10:10: — and that Adam, as having by his one transgression introduced death, was the type of Jesus, as having by His one righteousness become the author of the resurrection of the dead to life everlasting. Romans 5:12, downwards, with 1 Corinthians 15 throughout. Those who are desirous of tracing the analogy farther, will find abundant matter for the gratification of their laudable curiosity, not merely in the passages directly referred to, but in many others which lie scattered over the pages of inspiration. Adam is thus uniformly represented as no more than Christ’s type, figure, image, or shadow; it never having once entered into the minds of the apostles, or of the other sacred writers, to confound the type with the antitype. Am I wrong, however, in charging many of those who profess to respect the authority of the apostles with this very practice? What is the necessary consequence of representing Adam to have possessed spiritual and eternal life previous to his first transgression? Why, certainly, that, as the Lord Jesus possessed no more than spiritual and eternal life, instead of Adam being merely the type or figure of Jesus, the distinction between the type and the antitype is thereby completely done away with; and the figure, and the thing figured or denoted thereby, instead of being preserved distinct, are confounded with one another! Not so spoke and reasoned the apostle, when in 1 Corinth. 15:46, he declared: howbeit that was not first which is spiritual,³⁵ but that which is natural, animal, [33] or soulical; and afterwards that which is spiritual: and not so speaks and reasons any man, who is capable of comprehending the difference between shadow and substance — figure and reality — type and antitype. Every such person will at once scout the idea of Adam, at his creation, having possessed spiritual and eternal life; knowing that, unless the life which he possessed had been merely natural and creaturely, it could not have been the type or figure of, but, strange as the expression may appear, must have been the same with another and a more glorious life afterwards and otherwise to be bestowed!

³⁵ No doubt σωμα is here understood; but this in no respect whatever affects my argument, which is merely, that the natural or soulical preceded the spiritual, and is not to be confounded with it.

3. If Adam originally possessed spiritual and eternal life, which if the death incurred by him was spiritual and eternal he must have done, — and if he lost this life by the fall, — then is the salvation of the gospel represented as a mere remedial and restorative scheme. It is impossible, by any process of reasoning that I am acquainted with, to gainsay this: for if, as is uniformly allowed, Jesus bestows spiritual and eternal life upon his people; and if Adam enjoyed this life in his state of innocence before the fall; then Jesus merely restores what Adam lost. Nay, without having recourse to inference at all, proof positive that this view of the matter is that which is commonly taken by divines, may be easily obtained from their ordinary and current phraseology. The restoration of our primitive dignity and integrity by Jesus, — our recovery by Jesus, — our regaining through Jesus the divine image lost by Adam, and many other expressions of similar import, abound in the pages of Calvin; and continually arrest our notice in the works of others who have distinguished themselves in the walks of theological literature.³⁶ Little, alas! have such persons been aware of the gross manner in which they [34] were misrepresenting, nay, even libelling the divine character. To speak of God as restoring any thing, is at once to impeach his wisdom. The necessity of reverting to original plans, or beginning anew any particular course of procedure, can only be accounted for and justified among mankind, on the ground of the limited nature of their faculties, and their constant liability to be thwarted in their best concerted schemes by unexpected and insurmountable obstacles. Nothing, however, could save the reputation of that man for wisdom, whatever might be thought of his ingenuity, who, without any pressing cause, and merely to shew the dexterity with which he could restore matters to their original footing, should involve himself and others in temporary difficulties and embarrassments. And yet, this is the very part which those who maintain that Adam lost spiritual and eternal life, and that it is recovered and restored by Jesus, represent God as acting; and the very character which, in the ignorance of their minds, they endeavour to fasten upon him. They exhibit the Creator, either as foiled and disappointed in his expectations from Adam, thereby paying a miserable compliment to His foreknowledge, and reducing him to a level with His creatures; or, as having so arranged and over-ruled His scheme of providence and grace, that — after the lapse of many thousand years, the appearance upon the stage of patriarchs, and prophets, and judges, and kings, and apostles, and martyrs, and confessors, and even of His own Son, and the occurrence of events the most extraordinary — the magnificent drama ends exactly where it began — Jesus merely restoring matters to the same condition in which they were when Adam was created! Can this be true? Is God, with reverence be it spoken, to be represented as acting the part of a bungling artificer, who first mars his work, and then mends it; or of a foolish eccentric tradesman, who destroys his whole stock of goods, merely to have the pleasure of replacing it with a stock in all respects similar? Is there not a something, in every well-regulated and reflecting [35] mind, which revolts with abhorrence from such an idea?³⁷

But the most surprising part of the matter is, that there is nothing on the face of the inspired records themselves to warrant a view of the Supreme Being so false, calumnious, and blasphemous. In the scriptures, instead of going back and commencing His work anew as is commonly supposed, God appears advancing from one step, and one manifestation of his character, to another — always and uninterruptedly going forward in his glorious career, and subordinating every event that happens to the attainment of some ulterior object. Instead of permitting what is spiritual and eternal to be lost, that He may afterwards recover it, He employs the forfeiture of what is natural, earthly, and inferior, as the means of conferring what is spiritual, heavenly, and superior. He brings the natural creation state of Adam to an end, not that He may restore it or any thing like it, but that, by its termination, He may open up a way for the advancement of his people to a state which is spiritual and eternal.

The fact is, then, that the loss of what is spiritual is not followed by its recovery, as the popular divines imagine; but the loss of what is natural is the cause, by affording the opportunity, of bestowing what is spiritual. Agreeably to this view of matters, says the Apostle, sin hath reigned unto DEATH, that grace might reign through righteousness unto ETERNAL LIFE by Jesus Christ our Lord:³⁸ in other words, sin, which is a departure from creature righteousness, hath not issued in death, that an opportunity might be afforded for displaying what the same creature righteousness [36] is able to effect under more favourable circumstances; but the loss of creature righteousness hath issued in the loss of creature life, that an opportunity might be acquired for conferring the life of the Creator, through its only proper medium, the righteousness of the Creator. Is this restoration?³⁹

I am well aware that, on some occasions, those who hold the restoration scheme, affect to speak of the state to which through Jesus believers are exalted, as more glorious than that which Adam forfeited: but as this is merely one of the proofs, as well as consequences, of the inconsistency and self-contradictoriness of their system, they must pardon me if I demur to allowing them the benefit of the concession, until that part of their theory which is inconsistent with it shall have been abandoned. If they continue to maintain “that Adam lost spiritual and eternal life, and that through Jesus spiritual and eternal life is again bestowed,” as by so doing they continue to hold the restoration scheme, their concession amounts to nothing: on the other hand, if they perceive and hold in reality, that the life which Jesus bestows is infinitely more valuable than that which Adam lost, (as taught by common sense, on the assumption of Adam having been a creature, and Jesus, the Creator, they can scarcely fail to perceive), then, to apply the term restoration, or any similar one, to the bestowing of a new and different life, is a gross and palpable absurdity. As soon might the man who, having borrowed from his neighbour a farthing, gives him instead of it a thousand pounds, be said to restore the thousand pounds to that neighbour. If, then, my [37] opponents would be understood to coincide in opinion with me, they must cease to be at variance with themselves.

Let me observe further, that it is not without reason that I wage interminable war with the restoration scheme, or with that system of religion which represents Christ as restoring what Adam lost; for to it clearly falls to be traced, the widely-spread and unscriptural doctrine of a spiritual amendment and improvement being undergone by human nature in consequence of the belief of the gospel: a doctrine which even the consciences of those who hold it, if not blinded by pride and self-conceit, might tell them to be false; as well as one which exposes religion, and its profession, to the merited ridicule and suspicion of shrewd discerning worldly men. — Human nature, as all who know the truth are well aware, neither undergoes, nor is capable of undergoing, any change; — having come under the curse in Adam, it continues under the curse in all his posterity, and this in the believer no less than in the unbeliever.⁴⁰ The knowledge of God’s character, or the first fruits of the divine nature, entering into the conscience of the child of God, so far from being in him a principle by which human nature is amended or improved, which it would be if Adam’s pure nature were thereby in any measure restored, on the contrary is in him that by which the tendencies of human nature are opposed, crucified, and superseded.⁴¹

The only way in which even an attempt can be made to overturn the force and validity of the present argument is by alleging, that although death does ordinarily and scripturally signify the loss of life, yet eternal death does not imply the loss of eternal life, but eternal punishment. “Adam,” it may be said, “when he incurred eternal death, did not forfeit eternal life, but became obnoxious to eternal torments.” In adverting to this cavil, for in reality it is no [38] more, I shall be obliged to anticipate some of the statements and reasonings to be brought forward and insisted on afterwards: but as it is continually in the mouths of those who advocate the unscriptural system which I am opposing, and as it appears to be regarded by them as one of the strongholds of their cause, it becomes necessary for me even in the present stage of matters to dispose of it. I observe, then, that the man who holds the doctrine of eternal or everlasting death, and maintains that there is implied in the phrase everlasting torments, or the everlasting loss of God’s favour and endurance of His displeasure in a state of existence succeeding the present, brings himself under certain obligations, and must satisfactorily answer certain queries: — 1. He must prove that the phrase eternal or everlasting death occurs in scripture.⁴² 2. Supposing it to be found, he must prove, by the same infallible autho-[39]rity, that eternal death is declared to be synonymous with eternal torments. 3. As, upon the hypothesis in question, persons who are to be everlastingly punished in a future state must be everlastingly alive to undergo that punishment, how is it that they can be said to be everlastingly dead and everlastingly alive at one and the same time? and what authority is there in scripture for such a monstrous supposition? 4. Where is eternal life spoken of in the sacred writings, except in connection with, and as implying, eternal happiness? 5. If, with a view to extricate himself from the dilemma, he shall be pleased to allege, that everlasting existence and everlasting life are two distinct things, he is respectfully asked, what foundation there is in scripture, common sense, or the ordinary use of language, for such a distinction? 6. If, constrained by the irresistible force of truth, he shall admit, that life and existence, as applied to intelligent beings, are synonymous terms, he is asked, how it is that, if God bestowed eternal life at first upon Adam, our progenitor could lose it? — or, if he did not lose it, the popular theorist is requested to state what it is that we are indebted for to the Lord Jesus; for, according to this latter alternative, we derive eternal life from Adam, not from Jesus.— 7. If eternal death, that is eternal torments, was the punishment incurred by Adam and his natural posterity, it is asked, upon what principle, consistently with the veracity of the Supreme Being, Adam and his posterity can escape that punishment? — As soon as the obligation to answer the foregoing queries shall have been satisfactorily discharged, then, but not till then, will I admit, that the objection to my statement of death always in scripture signifying the loss of life, derived by my opponents from the alleged fact of eternal death signifying eternal torments, does not deserve the appellation of a cavil. Since I am treating of this subject, I would just remark farther by the way, that the phrase spiritual death stands in the same predicament with eternal death; having no existence, that I have yet been able to discover, except [40] in the writings and reasonings of divines. But of this hereafter.

⁴² The celebrated critic and commentator, Dr. MacKnight, after having, in his notes on Rom. 6:23, decided with no small degree of the fortiter in modo at least, “that the death which is the wages of sin must be eternal,” is compelled to make the following rather curious admission: “It is observable, that, although in scripture the expression eternal life is often to be met with, we no where find eternal joined with death.” Why, truly, it would be wonderful if we did. Were such an expression, or even such an idea, to be found in the writings of the inspired penmen, it would be better to avowed infidels than a score of their ordinary arguments; for (I speak reverently) it would convict the Holy Spirit of having uttered arrant nonsense. Eternal life, as every person whose mind has not been vitiated and sophisticated by School Divinity knows, is life that cannot end or cannot be lost; and, therefore, as eternal death, if it has any meaning at all, must signify the loss of eternal life, it is, like every other real contradiction, impossible to be met with in the inspired writings. Curiously enough, in his comment on the same verse, the learned Doctor, without any authority, as appears by his own admission, says, “For the wages which sin gives to its slaves is eternal death.” — I thought the Doctor’s commentary on Rom. 5:21, would at least have been consistent with this; but, on turning to it, I discovered to my great surprise the following paraphrase: “that as sin, both original and actual, hath tyrannised over mankind by introducing and continuing death in the world, with its train of sorrows and miseries,” &c.

Secondly. I object to the popular divines, that if Adam, as is alleged by them, died spiritually and eternally, he must have incurred a severer punishment than that with which he had been threatened.

The vis consequentiæ of this objection may be brought out in the following way. The death which Adam by transgression actually incurred, must have been exactly commensurate or of the same extent with the death previously threatened. It is impossible for any person to dispute this plain and self-evident proposition, without being prepared at the same time to maintain that tyrannical dogma and monstrous anomaly in criminal procedure, that a judge, bound to decide according to law, is nevertheless warranted in inflicting a punishment different from and severer than that which the laws have previously sanctioned and denounced. Besides, were it admitted, that the punishment inflicted on Adam was greater than that with which he had been menaced, how dreadful the stain brought upon the veracity of God. If, then, spiritual and eternal death was the result of Adam’s disobedience, it was so because spiritual and eternal death had been the import of the menace or threatening previously held out to him. That threat, however, cannot have implied so much, for the following reasons: —

1. No such meaning appears on the face of the record itself. I must here enter my solemn and decided protest against all mere human assumptions in this matter. The notion of spiritual and eternal death having been the amount of God’s threatening to Adam, if not proved, either from the Mosaic narrative itself, or from some other source of equal and infallible authority, falls at once to the ground. I have already shewn, from an examination of the meaning of Genesis 2:7, that the life conferred on Adam, as he came from the hands of God, was life connected with breath-[41]ing, or an animal life such as we still possess; along with which, as is obvious from the language of the 16th and 17th verses of the same chapter, he possessed a life of the mind, consisting in creature righteousness or abstinence from transgression. Thus situated, with death, or the loss of life, he was eventually or conditionally threatened. But as there is no kind of life, besides his animal existence, 7th verse, — and his creature rectitude of character, 16th and I7th verses, — spoken of in the inspired narrative, I am obliged to conclude, that the death threatened was merely the loss of this animal and creaturely-righteous life: and this conclusion I must adhere to, until it shall be made out to my entire satisfaction, either, on the one hand, that a creature may lose more than it has; or, on the other, that we are entitled to charge the Supreme Being with deceit — a charge to which God unquestionably lies open, in the event of His having, as the popular divines assert, employed terms which denote one thing, while in reality, He was intending another. Both these suppositions being inadmissible, I cannot help understanding the terms life and death, in Genesis 2:7,17, in their plain, obvious, and scriptural signification and relation to each other: the former, life, as denoting the pure, animal, and creaturely-righteous existence which Adam originally possessed; and the latter, death, the loss or forfeiture of it.

2. The threat in Gen. 2:17, cannot have implied spiritual and eternal death, because Adam, in his creation state, was incapable of understanding it in that sense. The force of my present argument lies in this, that it is inconsistent with every idea of justice to regard those who are unable to apprehend the import of the sanctions by which abstinence from crime is enforced, as amenable to punishment for their misdeeds. No man, and no legislature, in the exercise of a sound and discreet authority, ever attempted to inflict punishment upon individuals who were necessarily ignorant of the demerit of their conduct. From this plain and incontrovertible fact I am clearly entitled to argue, that unless [42] Adam, in his creation state, was capable of comprehending what was meant by spiritual and eternal death, it is impossible, without violating all our notions of justice and casting a most injurious reflection upon the Supreme Being, to suppose spiritual and eternal death to have been the import of the threat in Gen. 2:17. Here let me put it to any man of common sense and common honesty, who believes in the truth of scripture, if with the utmost stretch and licence of imagination, he can suppose, that Adam previous to the fall was able to apprehend, in any measure or degree, the meaning of terms so complex, sophistical, and metaphysical, as spiritual and eternal death? If any shall be foolhardy enough, in the face of this appeal to their understandings and consciences, to answer in the affirmative, grounding their answer, perhaps, on that alleged intimate spiritual communion with God which they are pleased gratuitously to ascribe to Adam in his state of innocence, I then enquire, how they contrive to reconcile this notion of theirs with the Mosaic narrative, and the analogy of scripture? When I turn to Gen. 3:1-7, and compare that passage with 2:16,17, I find that, — instead of Adam having had any knowledge of evil, and of good as contrasted with evil, previous to the fall, — all his acquaintance with both the one and the other was derived from the fall itself. But as, upon the principles and by the shewing of the popular divines, an acquaintance with the nature, magnitude, and demerit of evil is requisite to the understanding of spiritual and eternal death, — and as, by the scriptural facts of the case, it is evident that Adam in his state of innocence could not have possessed any such knowledge, — how was it possible for God, consistently with justice, to threaten Adam with spiritual and eternal death? — a punishment of the nature of which, and consequently of the fact of which having been threatened, it was out of his power to have had naturally the remotest apprehension. The argument for Adam’s having naturally possessed the knowledge in question, founded on the alleged fact of his having enjoyed while in a state of [43] innocence spiritual communion with God, is, as has been already hinted, utterly untenable. In Adam’s original paradisiacal state, he enjoyed unquestionably all that natural, earthly, and soulical intercourse with his Creator, which it was competent for an intelligent being like man while he had not yet sinned to do: but to suppose on his part naturally any heavenly, divine, and spiritual communion with God, is at once to fly off into the regions of romance; ascribing to Adam the type and creature, a privilege which from the New Testament Scriptures we discover to belong to the Lord Jesus, Adam’s antitype and Creator, and which only through the Son of God is communicated in different degrees to his believing people. Compare 2 Corinth. 13:14, and 1 John 1:3. — As it thus appears that Adam, in his creation state, was necessarily both ignorant of evil, and incapable of acquiring any spiritual views concerning its nature and consequences, how clearly does it follow, that to a being so situated it was impossible for divine wisdom and justice to address a threat of spiritual and eternal death; and, consequently, that spiritual and eternal death was not the punishment which Adam by his transgression incurred.

Thirdly. I object to the popular theory, that if Adam and all his posterity by the fall incurred spiritual and eternal death, then, neither he nor any of them can possess spiritual and eternal life, without exposing the Supreme Being to a charge of having falsified His threatening.

This my last objection to the notion of spiritual and eternal death having been the amount of the punishment with which Adam was menaced, and which he incurred, is exactly the converse of the preceding one; and, it appears to me, requires only to be stated, in order to carry home conviction to every candid, considerate, and unprejudiced mind. If spiritual and eternal death was threatened to Adam, and was incurred by him for himself and his posterity, then either spiritual and eternal death is executed [44] upon them, or the Supreme Being stands convicted of falsehood. Now spiritual and eternal death, according to those who have espoused the popular dogma, signifies eternal exclusion from God’s presence, and the eternal endurance of His displeasure in a future state of existence. But how, in the event of the whole human race having rendered themselves obnoxious to this dreadful doom, can the execution of it — and executed it must be if God be true — be reconciled with the fact of any of them enjoying happiness hereafter? I should like to know on what principles, and in what way, the supporters of the hypothesis which I am now engaged in confuting, will be able to extricate themselves from the dilemma in which this question involves them.⁴³

⁴³ Sorry am I to find the able and learned Dr. Joseph Huntington, of Connecticut, in his posthumous work, entitled “Calvinism Improved; or the Gospel illustrated as a system of real grace, issuing in the salvation of all men,” advocating the doctrine of human beings having been threatened with, and having justly incurred eternal misery, from the endurance of which, nevertheless, they are rescued by the atonement of Christ. Like the dead fly in the apothecary’s ointment, this false assumption tends to spoil an otherwise most profound, and in many respects original and scripturally-written book.

It will not serve their purpose to have recourse to the doctrine of the atonement, and to say, that God has received from the Lord Jesus an equivalent for the everlasting misery of the righteous: because this explanation, besides leaving God under the charge of not executing what he has threatened, leaves also unexplained and unaccounted for, the fact of natural death being still inflicted. When it is alleged, that the punishment due to the transgressions of God’s people has been completely laid upon and undergone by their exalted Head, a plain and unlettered but sensible man will be apt to propose the pinching and puzzling query, Why then are they, in common with the rest of the human race, still exposed to the stroke of death? “You acknowledge,” he may add, “that natural or temporal death is at [45] least a part of the punishment deserved by sin; for your language is, that Adam, by the fall, incurred death temporal, spiritual, and eternal: why, then, does that or any part of the punishment remain, when, according to your own statement, sin has been atoned for; or, in other words, the full punishment due to it has been undergone?” Were it to be alleged, in order to parry this home thrust, “that the temporal death of believers is no longer a punishment, but is by the death of Jesus converted into a blessing,” those who should attempt this evasion would at once involve themselves in the following difficulties: 1. Self-contradiction; for, by their own admission, temporal death is at least a part of the punishment incurred by Adam. 2. In what is called a petitio principii, or in English a begging of the question; for, when they say, that temporal death is no longer a curse or punishment but a blessing, they are guilty of assuming the very thing to be proved. 3. In contradiction of scripture; for, it declares broadly and explicitly, that death is at once the boundary of sin’s reign, and sin’s wages. Rom. 5:21, and 6:23. ⁴⁴ Do our antagonists still refuse to surrender? — in that case, close at their heels, let us track them to their last lurking place, and observe the shifts to which they have recourse to keep us a little longer at bay. “Jesus,” they may say, “has made atonement for the spiritual and eternal part of the punishment due to sin, but the temporal part of it still remains to be endured.” This distinction I flatly deny; and demand to have pointed out to me the scriptural authority upon which it rests. Will our opponents venture to say, that a single passage can be produced from the sacred writings in which it is laid down? or do they expect us to receive it out of deference to their own lordly and magisterial assertions? Nay, laying scripture out of the question altogether, and viewing the matter in the light of plain common sense, what can be [46] thought of a hypothesis which pretends so nicely to mete out and adjust the deserts of sin, as to assign such of them as are spiritual and eternal to God’s Son and such of them as are temporal to his people? Does not the metaphysical subtlety, or rather the arrant nonsense, to which the advocates of the popular system thus find themselves obliged to have recourse, throw an air of suspicion over the whole in the eyes even of the most careless and superficial?

⁴⁴ Vide also, Rom. 8:10. The body is dead because of sin; i.e. the body of the believer is still under the curse, and has death inflicted on it as that curse.

To the objection now urged against the ordinary doctrine of Adam and his posterity having incurred spiritual and eternal, as well as natural death by the fall, — the force of which objection every candid mind must admit, — the view which I take, and which I have endeavoured by so many strong and substantial arguments to support, is in no respect whatever obnoxious. The sum of my present reasonings is that whatever God threatens, He executes. When He menaced Adam with death, He menaced him with that which, in case of transgression, He intended to carry into full and irremediable effect. Is not this clearly established by the result? The prohibition has been violated; — the loss of creature righteousness, and of this present life, has thereby been incurred; — and the loss has been, and will to the end of time continue to be, sustained by every individual of Adam’s posterity. The threat denounced is thus literally and completely executed. But if spiritual and eternal death had been the amount of the threatening, how could it have been executed consistently with the future happiness of any of the human race? Which of these two systems, then, deserves the preference: that which represents God as threatening what He does not actually execute; or that which shews His veracity to be as untainted in the execution of His threatenings, as it is in the fulfilment of His promises?⁴⁵

[47] Such, then, briefly, but I hope intelligibly and conclusively stated, are my leading objections to the ordinary doctrine, “that Adam by the fall incurred spiritual and eternal, as well as natural, death.” These are, — 1. Spiritual and eternal death, as implying the loss of spiritual and eternal life, involves in its very nature an impossibility: — 2. God can inflict no greater punishment than what he has previously threatened; and having threatened the loss of Adam’s pure creature state and earthly existence merely, therefore the loss of these was all that Adam by transgression incurred: — and, 3, as what God threatens, He behoves to execute, the infliction of what is commonly denominated spiritual and eternal death would have rendered the salvation of man utterly impossible. — Perhaps, the conclusion resulting from the whole of these arguments may be thus expressed: — As Adam, in the event of transgression, was [48] menaced with the complete and everlasting forfeiture of all that he naturally possessed, it was impossible for him naturally to have possessed spiritual and eternal life, seeing that, had this been included among the number of his natural advantages, it must have been forfeited by him on his own behalf, and on behalf of his posterity, completely and for ever.

My answer to the first question proposed, namely, that natural death, meaning thereby the loss of the life of the natural mind as well as that of the natural body, was the amount, and the whole amount, of the forfeiture or punishment incurred by Adam in consequence of his original transgression, so far from being invalidated, stands thus confirmed and established, by a consideration and examination of all the reasonings that can be adduced, as well in opposition to it, as in opposition to the theory commonly maintained. But, as there [49] still remain one or two ways in which my antagonists may attempt to turn aside the force of the remarks already made, it will be proper to bestow a little passing attention upon these before proceeding to the second question.

1. It may be alleged, “that although Adam, according to the hypothesis in question, was possessed of spiritual and eternal life previous to the fall, the words spiritual and eternal, when applied to him, are used in a sense different from that in which they are so when applied to the Lord Jesus.” In what different sense, pray? As signifying that which, throughout the whole of these reasonings I have expressed by the term natural? If this were admitted, who does not perceive, that it would be on the part of my opponents a virtual, and yet entire abandonment of their cause? That it would be equivalent to an admission of the correctness of my statements with regard to the life which Adam originally possessed and by transgression forfeited, as well as of the blundering and absurd character of the ordinary system? — But, perhaps, it is not the intention of those who are supposed to make the above concession, to admit the accuracy of my statements. In what sense, then, I again ask, do they allow a difference between the terms spiritual and eternal as applied to Adam, and the same terms as applied to Jesus? Will they venture to assert, that there is a nature intermediate between the creaturely nature of the former, and the divine nature of the latter? If so, in what part of scripture is it revealed? If not, in what other sense can they hold the difference in question, except in that which the Apostle Paul states it, 1 Corinth. 15:45-49, viz, the difference between what is natural or animal, and what is spiritual? — the very difference for which I have all along been contending. — Let me for the sake of argument allow my opponents the benefit of meaning by spiritual and eternal life, as enjoyed by Adam previous to the fall, no more than I myself mean by the employment of a different and a more correct phraseology: even then I must protest, in a most decided manner, against the idea [50] of scripture lending the slightest sanction or countenance to so dreadful a perversion and mis-application of terms, as that of which they are guilty. So far, indeed, is it from doing so, that in all those parts of the sacred writings where Adam and Jesus are treated of and contrasted, the utmost care is taken to distinguish between the former as a creature, and the latter as the Creator; between the former as the source of what is natural, and the latter alone as the source of all that is spiritual and eternal. There is no such thing in the Bible, as the application of the phrases spiritual and eternal to the life which Adam possessed previous to the fall. — Let it be understood, then, that if my opponents feel any inclination to abandon their unscriptural notions concerning the life forfeited by Adam, in order to take off from their concession the aspect of duplicity, and render it of any value, they must likewise consent to abandon the ambiguous, unscriptural, and inappropriate language, by which they have been accustomed hitherto to express these notions.

2. I may be asked, “Is it not positively declared in scripture, that men as they come into the world are dead in trespasses and sins: Ephesians 2:1; and does not this, upon your own principle of death implying the loss of life, signify that they are spiritually dead?” Without enquiring into or discussing the exact meaning and merits of the passage quoted, and assuming it, as my antagonists imagine, to be applicable to the natural state of the whole Gentile world, I observe that, upon the system which I advocate, any apparent difficulty that may be involved in it, is with the utmost ease disposed of. It must be abundantly clear, even to the most superficial thinker, that a man may be destitute or in want of that to which he is not dead, or which he has not lost. I am destitute of kingly power and of the rank of nobility in Great Britain; but I am certainly not dead either to the one or to the other, because I have lost neither. Let the foregoing plain remark and illustration be applied to the case and circumstances of mankind [51] naturally. As death uniformly signifies loss, I can perceive that the whole human race are dead to the creature purity and other advantages which their first progenitor enjoyed while in the Garden of Eden; for, these they lost in him: but dead to spiritual and eternal life they cannot be; for, as it has been I trust satisfactorily proved that Adam did not originally possess it, so neither could he lose it. It is not denied that, as Adam’s descendants, mankind are naturally destitute of spiritual and eternal life, as Adam himself was previous to the fall; and that they must continue destitute of it until, or unless, God in the course of his adorable providence shall be pleased to bestow it upon them: but who sees not, after the explanation just given, that to be destitute of spiritual and eternal life is a very different thing from being dead to it? — This, then, is the plain state of the case, as we gather it from the inspired records themselves: that we come into the world dead to Adam’s original creature purity, and destitute of any higher principle. Of course, on the supposition of the passage in Ephesians being applicable to the natural state and circumstances of the Gentile world, or of mankind in general, it cannot signify that they are spiritually dead, but that they have lost certain natural privileges and advantages which were once possessed.⁴⁶

⁴⁶ As my argument is sufficiently strong without it, I have here abstained from insisting on the fact that spiritual death, like eternal death and death to God, is a mode of speech never to be met with in the sacred writings.

I thus sum up the preceding statements and reasonings: —

Answer to the First Question.

The death which was threatened to Adam, and which was incurred by him in consequence of transgression, was the immediate loss of creature righteousness or life of the natural [52] mind; and immediate liability to the loss of the life of the natural body, followed in process of time by the actual loss of that life.

Chief Reason of the Answer.

As death signifies the loss of life previously possessed; and as Adam, previous to the fall, had no life, except life of the body, connected with and dependent on the continuance of life of the soul, or natural mind; it was impossible for death, in his case, to denote more than forfeiture of the purity of the natural mind, followed by the dissolution of the body.

Inference from the Answer.

Spiritual and eternal life, when bestowed by the Lord Jesus Christ, is not a restoration, or anything like a restoration, of Adam’s natural creature purity of mind and conditional deathlessness of body; but, as an existence which is supernatural and divine, is essentially different from, and infinitely superior to that which Adam, in his state of creature purity and innocence, ever possessed, or ever could have possessed.

[53] SECOND QUESTION.

What is the cause of the resurrection of the dead?

Let it be remarked, that the resurrection of the dead is assumed by me as a fact which cannot be controverted by those who give credit to the testimony of scripture. If any person choose to call it in question, of course he has no more ado with my arguments than he has with the inspired writings themselves.

It is proper also to remark, that, throughout the present enquiry, I do not forget, that the grand originating cause of the resurrection of the dead, as well as of every other phenomenon natural and spiritual, is the will of the Supreme Being. The matter now to be investigated, however, is, what is the proximate or instrumental cause of this resurrection? or, in perhaps plainer language, what is the medium or channel through which God accomplishes His purpose, that the dead shall rise again? True it is, God raises the dead: but how?

This enquiry resolves itself into two parts. First. Do the dead rise again in virtue of a connection with Adam or with the Lord Jesus? Secondly. If in virtue of a connection with the latter, in what particular way is this glorious consummation accomplished?

First. In answer to the former of these questions, I deny, in the most marked and positive terms, that the resurrection of the dead is the result of, or in any respect whatever to be ascribed to the connection subsisting between mankind and the first Adam. This denial it is not difficult to substantiate by a great variety of arguments. Let the following suffice.

[54] 1. Adam, both in the Old and New Testaments, is uniformly represented and spoken of as the author and source of death. This is the leading feature or circumstance by which he is distinguished from the Lord Jesus, and one which the inspired writers, in a variety of ways, insist upon and illustrate. On the other hand, there is not a single sentence or passage in the sacred records in which the resurrection of the dead, either in one point of view or another, is directly or indirectly ascribed to Adam. Indeed, what ground would there have been for instituting a contrast between Adam and Jesus, as is done by the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, and his first Epistle to the Corinthians, if the former, by being the author of the resurrection, had been the author of life as well as of death? This whole matter is so obvious, that I should consider myself guilty, not only of abusing the time and patience of my readers, but of insulting their understandings, were I to insist upon it farther. Those who are desirous to see the argument exhibited in its full force, should consult Rom. 5:12, to the end; and 1 Corinth. 15, throughout.

2. As it is to eternal life or immortality that, by the admission of all, the dead are raised, if eternal life or immortality be the divine nature, it will obviously follow, that Adam cannot be the source, origin, or author of the resurrection of the dead, without being also the source, origin, or author, of the divine nature. That eternal life is the life of God, or the divine nature, will only be disputed by him who has never reflected on the meaning of the terms; or who is capable of comprehending a distinction between eternal existence and eternal life, which I confess I am not. That immortality is the life of God, or the divine nature, and, consequently, of synonymous import with eternal life, is equally obvious; besides being the express declaration of scripture, 1 Timothy 6:16: where, speaking of God, the inspired writer lays it down as an incontrovertible position, that He only hath immortality. To possess eternal life or immortality is, then, to possess the divine nature; and when [55] God bestows eternal life or immortality upon any creature, it is clear that He bestows upon that creature His own existence, or makes it one with Himself. If Adam, then, by being the author of the resurrection, transmits to his posterity eternal life or immortality, as he thus transmits to them the divine nature, the following consequences ensue: — 1st. He thus appears in a totally different character from that in which scripture exhibits him, namely, as the source or author of human nature only. 2ndly. The whole mediatorial undertaking of the Lord Jesus is superseded and rendered nugatory, and he is represented as having come into the world on a bootless errand: for, if Adam bestow divine as well as human nature, what is left for the Lord Jesus to bestow? 3rdly. As Adam was but a creature, and as eternal life is the life of the Creator, if Adam be the source of eternal life or immortality, we have a creature transmitting to his posterity what is uncreated and divine! — But enough. Such monstrous consequences cannot be admitted; and Adam, therefore, cannot be the author or source of the resurrection.

3. If the resurrection of the dead take place in virtue of any connection subsisting between mankind and Adam, the declarations of the Lord Jesus concerning himself are expressly contradicted. This is so clear and obvious, that my only difficulty, amidst the rich abundance of proofs and illustrations which present themselves to my notice, is to make a selection of a few. — Jesus declares himself to be the author and source of eternal life in these memorable words: My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me, and I give unto them eternal life. John 10:27,28. Also, in his intercessory prayer: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. John 17:2. See also the following passages: John 3:15; 4:14; 5:26,39; 6, throughout; particularly verses, 27, 35, 40, 47, 48, 50, 51, 53-58, 68; 10:10; 14:19. — Jesus declares himself to be the author of the resurrection likewise, in language which cannot be misinterpreted or misunderstood. I am the resurrection and the life. John 11:[56]25,26. See also John 5:25-29; 6:39,40,44,54. — If the resurrection of the dead, or the possession of immortality by the human race, sprang from their connection with Adam, would it not demonstrate the whole of these statements and declarations to be false and delusive?

Thus, then, do I prove my first position, that the dead rise again, not in virtue of any connection subsisting between the human race and Adam, but solely in virtue of a connection with the Lord Jesus, by a direct appeal to scripture itself, without having recourse to conclusions already established when discussing the first question proposed. I was certainly and fairly entitled, by all the rules of dialectics, to have availed myself of these conclusions, as the basis and principles of ulterior reasonings: but, in declining the use of them hitherto, it has been my object to shew, that I am completely independent of them. Let me now, however, assume it as demonstrated — which, I am satisfied, it has been — that the life originally conferred on Adam, as the head of his natural posterity was a creature life only; and then, I ask, how it was possible that he who himself had but a creature existence here, could be the author or source of the resurrection of the dead to an uncreated and immortal existence hereafter? Can any being confer upon another more than he himself possesses? Can any creature communicate by generation to its posterity a nature different from and superior to its own? — Nay, let me take up my antagonists even upon their own principles. “Adam,” according to them, “although originally possessed of spiritual and eternal life, nevertheless forfeited it by his own transgression.” Suppose that, for the sake of argument, I accede to all this: what, then, follows? Why, that Adam, after losing spiritual and eternal life, had not spiritual and eternal life to bestow. His children having been begotten posterior to the fall, that is, after the forfeiture of what he originally possessed, could not derive from their parent that of which, by their own shewing, he was already utterly despoiled. If he ceased to be spiritually and eternally alive himself, he [57] could not impart spiritual and eternal life to others. How is it possible for this argument to be legitimately got over, or even controverted? — Thus, then, stands the matter. Adam must be supposed to have been immortal himself, or possessed of the divine nature, 1 Timothy 6:16, even posterior to the fall, — at the expense of all the self-contradictions and absurdities in which the supporters of such a hypothesis would lend themselves, — before he can be supposed to be the source of immortality to his descendants. But, as it has been proved, that the life which Adam even in his state of innocence possessed was but the life of a creature, or a life connected with breathing; — and, as it is admitted by our opponents, that the spiritual and eternal life, which they are so fond of ascribing to him while he continued obedient, had been forfeited by him before any of his posterity were begotten; — does it not obviously and incontrovertibly follow, that Adam might be to his posterity the source of a life similar to that which he himself possessed, and also the occasion of that life being forfeited; but that the source of immortality or of the resurrection of the dead to eternal life,it was absolutely impossible he could be? In proof of the scriptural accuracy of both my premises and my conclusion, I vouch 1 Corinth. 15:48, compared with verses 21st and 22nd of the same chapter, and Romans 5:12.

Perhaps, in the opinion of some, particularly of that numerous class of thinkers, who, content with viewing the surface of things, never trouble themselves about consequences, I have laboured the preceding point too much; and have indulged in a useless display of argumentation: since, for their parts, they can see no difficulty or impropriety in admitting the plain fact, which I appear to be so anxious in contending for and maintaining. “Christ, and not Adam, we cheerfully concede to you, is the author of the resurrection of the dead.” Such persons I cannot prevail upon myself to take advantage of; and would, therefore, seriously and candidly request them to suspend their concession, until [58] they shall have maturely weighed and deliberated on the lengths to which it will inevitably conduct them. Have they reflected, that if my premises be correct and well founded — and correct they must be, if scripture be true — they give a death-blow to the ordinary, fashionable, and long-established doctrine of the immortality of the soul? Christ, not Adam, we have seen, and our adversaries are disposed to admit, is the cause of the resurrection of the dead; or of the possession and enjoyment of immortality by the children of men. I am come, says the Redeemer, that they might have life, and that they might have it MORE ABUNDANTLY. John 10:10. See also 17:2. But if Christ be thus the sole and recognised fountain of immortality, what becomes of every attempt, on the part of puny man, to represent Adam as having had naturally immortal principle, — as having retained it in spite of the fall, — and as transmitting it to his natural posterity? By what possibility can two propositions so self-contradictory as, that Jesus is the source of immortality, and that Adam is the source of immortality, stand together? If it be said, that we derive immortal principle from Adam, is it not virtually denied thereby, that we derive it from Christ? If from Christ, how can we be indebted for it to Adam? — This reasoning being clear and conclusive, it is probable that some of those who previously were disposed to acquiesce in the former part of my statements, now find themselves taken by surprise, and are startled at the obvious consequences to which these statements lead. Let such persons put to themselves the following plain and simple question: Can I derive immortality, or immortal existence from Jesus; and can I, at the same time and consistently with this fact, be regarding the present existence or soul which I derive from Adam, and which comes to an end, as being immortal? — and then let them try in what way, except by rejecting the current doctrine of immortality or an immortal soul being derived from Adam, and by ascribing the enjoyment of the privilege of immortality solely and exclusively to their con-[59]nection with the Messiah, they can extricate themselves from the dilemma, and speak consistently with their own admitted principles.⁴⁷

⁴⁷ In connection with the subject of creature mortality, and as illustrative of the necessity of immortal principle being communicated through a higher channel than that of Adam, the following passage of Ecclesiastes may be read with much advantage by the favourers of the popular system: I said in my heart concerning the state of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men, befalleth beasts, even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath, so that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place, all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Ecclesiastes 3:18-20.

I have no wish to push matters to unpleasant lengths, or unnecessarily to wound the feelings of others, but if any one of those superficial thinkers to whom I am now addressing myself, shall attempt to take shelter from the conclusion upon which I am forcing him by supposing, that immortality may be derived both from Adam and from Jesus, I must take the liberty of acquainting him, that this hypothesis is agreeable neither to scripture nor to common sense; and, that it leaves the subject, which it professes to clear up, involved in tenfold perplexity. The inspired records never speak of Adam, except as the source of natural life; nor of Jesus, except as the source of spiritual and eternal life: and, indeed, were not this the case, what ground or reason would there be for contrasting the one with the other? Except as respectively the authors of mortal and immortal principle, why are they spoken of and reasoned about by the apostle, in Romans 5th and 1 Corinthians 15th? Let those, then, who would hurry thoughtlessly to a conclusion, pause and weigh well the arguments which I have adduced, before they either accuse me of a waste and superfluity of reasoning, or declare themselves converts to my positions. They are welcome to find out flaws in the foregoing statements if they can; but they must not be permitted, after declaring themselves upon [60] mature deliberation satisfied with these, to reject the consequences to which they necessarily and inevitably lead.

Secondly. It being thus established, that the dead rise again, not in virtue of any natural principle of immortality possessed by them, but in virtue of a connection with the Lord Jesus, I now proceed to the other branch of the present enquiry, namely, that which relates to the particular way or manner in which the resurrection of the dead is accomplished. Under this head, I observe, that the resurrection of the dead stands inseparably connected with the resurrection of the Lord Jesus; or, that the resurrection of the Lord Jesus is the proximate cause of the resurrection of the dead. This may be proved, 1, negatively; 2, positively and affirmatively.

1. Negatively. If the resurrection of the Lord Jesus be not the cause of the resurrection of the dead, then is the former event one of, comparatively speaking, subordinate importance.

One of the ordinary notions entertained with regard to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus is, that it furnishes us with the strongest evidence of the truth of his divine mission, and of his title to the character of the Messiah. Far be it from me to call in question the accuracy of this view, when I find the Saviour himself and his apostles frequently referring to his resurrection, for the express purpose of establishing it. Matthew 12:38-40; Luke 24:25-27; 44-47; Acts 2:31-36; Rom. 1:4. Ancient prophecy had foretold, in language which for a time indeed remained obscure and unintelligible, 1 Peter 1:10-12, John 20:9, but which to us, instructed by the event and by the Apostolic comments, shines forth in full meridian effulgence, that the soul of the Messiah should not be left in hades, neither should his flesh see corruption. Psalm 16:10; and on the fulfilment of this and similar predictions rested, as one of the main pillars and proofs of his divine mission and character. I also admit, that by the resurrection of the Lord Jesus was demonstrated the truth [61] of his own declaration, that he had power to lay down his life, and to take it up again; and of such facts as, that the Father was well pleased with him for his righteousness’ sake; and, that he had been ordained Judge of the quick and the dead. This, however, is to represent the resurrection of the Lord Jesus as being merely of the nature of proofs or evidence of claims formerly advanced: and, yet, will any reflecting person, acquainted with and believing in the truth of scripture history, venture to affirm that it implies and imports no more?

It is commonly alleged also, that the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, besides establishing the truth of his divine mission, is the grand pledge or proof of the resurrection of the dead. With this statement, so far as it goes, I readily concur: but it is incumbent on me to enquire, in what sense the phraseology pledge or proof is employed, that I may guard against being imposed on by mere words. Do those who make use of it intend to be understood as meaning, that there is such a necessary and inseparable connection between the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and the resurrection of the dead, that the one event could not take place without drawing along with it, and being productive of, the other? If such be their meaning, I rejoice to say, that there is no difference, or at least no essential difference between us. I have long been a decided convert to the truth of the theory of that amiable man, as well as elegant, enlightened, and acute metaphysician, Dr. Brown, of Edinburgh, that the invariable and inseparable connection of antecedence and sequence, is the only notion which, by means of our human faculties, we have, or can have, concerning the relation of cause and effect:⁴⁸ — and, therefore, to suppose that the resurrection of the Lord Jesus is necessarily and inseparably [62] connected with, and followed by, the resurrection of the dead, is, in the only sense of the word for which I deem it worth while contending, to suppose the one event to be the cause of the other. If, however, when the resurrection of the Lord Jesus is spoken of as a pledge or proof of the resurrection of the dead, it is not the intention of those who employ this language, to allow such a necessary and inseparable connection between the two events, as that just alluded to — and that it is not their intention to do so I entertain strong suspicions — then, they either consider the resurrection of the dead as being produced by and ascribable to some other cause, or their words are destitute of meaning altogether — are a mere vox et præterea nihil. Thus, then, is the matter fairly brought to an issue. Either the resurrection of the Lord Jesus is the cause of the resurrection of the dead, or the resurrection of the dead falls to be ascribed to some other cause. Let the latter alternative be adopted, and it immediately follows, that the resurrection of the Lord Jesus occupies no higher a place in the estimation of those who do so, than that of a unit among the thousand and one proofs by which the resurrection of the dead is established. Is this, I ask, to assign to the resurrection of Jesus its due weight and importance? Is it enough, that a fact the most interesting and glorious recorded in the annals of the world, should take its place merely among a number of proofs and evidences! — while no intrinsic value or efficacy, and no real, necessary, and inseparable connection with the [63] event of which it is coldly allowed to be a proof, are ascribed to it? Why, if merely one of the proofs of the resurrection of the dead, then, instead of entering as a necessary ingredient into the divine arrangements, and constituting an essential part of the divine procedure, is it not represented as bearing so very loose a relation to that event, that it might have been dispensed with altogether, and have had its place supplied by some other evidence of equal force and validity? So clearly thus does it appear, that there is no medium between regarding the resurrection of Jesus as the cause of the resurrection of the dead, and consigning the former event to comparative insignificance. But it is not difficult to discover the reason, why such persons would prefer representing the former event as the proof or evidence, rather than the cause of the latter, when we reflect, that if the resurrection of the dead be occasioned by Christ’s resurrection, it draws along with it, at once and inevitably, the mortifying consequence of Adam not being the source or cause of immortality .

2. Proceed we now to prove positively, or by a reference to scripture testimonies to that effect, that the resurrection of the Lord Jesus is the cause of the resurrection of the dead.

1st. Were it not that, after what has been said under a preceding head, it would savour too much of repetition, I might here quote largely from the language of the Lord Jesus himself, as recorded by the Evangelists. Avoiding, however, passages already insisted on, and contenting myself here with a general reference to them, out of many others in which the subject is touched upon and intimated, I select John 12:24. Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. I instance, also, John 14:2-4. In my Father’s house are many mansions, &c.; which should be compared with the scope of the whole chapter in which the words occur, and particularly with verse 19th, because I live, ye shall live also. One circumstance cannot fail to strike the [64] mind of an attentive reader of the Gospels, and that is, that the Lord Jesus during his personal ministry speaks more frequently, and with more distinctness, of the resurrection of the dead being derived from himself in general, than of its being derived from his own resurrection in particular. This is easily accounted for. By turning to John 20:9, we discover, that the resurrection of Jesus himself was not understood by his disciples, notwithstanding all the hints of it which he had given them, until after that event had taken place. From this it obviously results, that, except in an obscure and indirect way, it was impossible for the Lord Jesus, during his personal ministry, to allude to any connection subsisting between the resurrection of the dead, and an event of which his disciples understood nothing.

2ndly. When, from the Evangelists, we proceed to the Acts of the Apostles, we find, that as soon as the Lord Jesus had ascended up on high, and had by the outpouring of his Spirit given his disciples to understand the import and significancy of his resurrection, they began to speak out, boldly and distinctly connecting that event with the resurrection of the dead. What was it that stirred up the resentment of the Jewish Rulers against the Apostles? Acts 4:2. It was not, surely, their preaching the resurrection of the dead; for, however much their doing so might provoke the Sadducees, the doctrine of the resurrection was held as firmly, and maintained as strenuously, by the Pharisees, as by the Apostles themselves: but it was, that the latter preached it through Jesus; that is, as appears from the context, ascribed it, as well as all the miracles which they performed, to the power of his resurrection. — What was it that induced Paul, in the presence of the Jewish High Priest and Council, Acts 23:6, to declare, that he was a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee, and that, of the hope and resurrection of the dead he was called in question; and afterwards, before Felix, Acts 24:14,15, to reiterate a similar declaration? Why, evidently to suggest to the minds of his Judges, that the true ground of his difference with the Jews respected not [65] the resurrection of the dead, but the cause of that event; and to shew them, that by denying the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, they subverted the foundation of the very doctrine which they professed to hold. — In one word, it is only by understanding the fact, that the Apostles preached the resurrection of the Lord Jesus as the cause of the resurrection of the dead, as well as of all the miracles which they wrought in his name, that we can understand such passages as, Acts 4:33, with great power gave the Apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus; or see what peculiar emphasis and importance attach to that event.

3rdly. If any doubt remain with regard to this subject, it will be effectually and completely removed by a reference to the Epistles. From a variety of proofs I select the following. In Romans 8:11, the argument of the Apostle connects together inseparably Christ’s resurrection, and the resurrection of the dead. If the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead, dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead, shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. The exertion of divine power in the one case, being thus represented as a medium or channel through which it is necessarily exerted in the other, what language almost could express more strongly the fact, that the one event is the cause, — the instrumental cause, if the term be preferred, — but still the cause of the other. But the matter is set at rest by a perusal of 1 Corinthians 15, from the 12th verse to the 33rd. In this remarkable passage the Apostle shews, by a train of reasoning which it is impossible to misapprehend, and which as inspired it is impossible to controvert, that the resurrection of the Lord Jesus is necessarily and inseparably connected with, and followed by, the resurrection of the dead — the only sense in which, as I have already stated, I think it worth while to contend for the one event being the cause of the other. To the passage itself, which is rather too long for insertion here, I refer the enquiring reader. He will there find the Apostle, first, proving negatively, that to say the [66] dead do not rise, is virtually a denial of the Lord Jesus himself having risen; and, then maintaining positively, that the Lord Jesus having actually risen, has thereby become the first fruits of them that slept. In the prosecution of this latter part of his argument, the inspired writer observes: since by man, (Adam,) came, (or was,) death, by man, (Jesus,) came also, (or was also,) the resurrection of the dead. For, as in Adam all die, even so IN CHRIST SHALL ALL BE MADE ALIVE. Can such language — can such reasonings — be perverted or misunderstood? If it be not their scope to shew, that Christ, not Adam, is the source, author, or cause of the resurrection, and this, through the medium of his own resurrection, I know not what object the inspired Apostle could have had in view, by the employment of the phraseology quoted.

Thus have I, it is hoped, proved satisfactorily to every person actuated solely and simply by a regard to the testimony of the Most High, that the dead rise again, not in virtue of any connection which they have with the first Adam, but of that which they have with the second; and, that the resurrection of the Lord Jesus is the cause⁴⁹ of the resurrection of the dead. Indeed, wherein lies, or in what way is exhibited, that power which the Apostle ascribes to the resurrection of Jesus, Philip. 3:10, if not in an effect so glorious and transforming? I am not ignorant, as has been already noticed, that to establish the resurrection of the Lord Jesus as the cause of the resurrection of the dead, is to aim a fatal blow at the ordinary doctrine of the immortality of the soul; or, of our being immortal as descendants of Adam. But why stumble at this, if it has been evinced by a train of legitimate and conclusive argumentation, that natural or creature immortality has no foundation in scripture, beside implying a gross contradiction in terms? Has it never struck the supporters of the ordinary doctrine, that, although its claims to antiquity cannot be disputed, [67] the authority upon which it rests is somewhat questionable — the prospect of creature immortality being the very argument by the insinuation of which the Devil seduced Eve from her allegiance? Thou shalt not surely die, said the old serpent to the mother of mankind; and to his suggestion she lent a willing ear. Ye shalt not surely die, whispers the foul fiend to Eve’s descendants; and from them obtains the same easy credence. The immortality promised to the one, differs in some respects, it is true, from the immortality promised to the other: but as they are both immortality inherent in the creature, and thus both opposed to scripture, by this kindred feature they betray their common origin, and fall to be traced to the same authentic source.

⁴⁹ i.e. proximate or instrumental cause.

Are my antagonists, nothing daunted, and confident in their own prowess, still disposed to break a lance with me, in behalf of their favourite theory? Well, then, as preliminary to ulterior hostilities — for, until they shall have removed this barrier out of the way, I must decline advancing farther into the field of controversy — in maintaining, that the human soul is immortal,⁵⁰ or that a naturally immortal principle is transmitted to mankind by their descent from Adam, I charge popular religionists with necessarily maintaining thereby the following, among other positions: —

⁵⁰ Which, when analysed and stripped of verbiage, is just in other words to say, that human nature or human life is immortal. This, certainly, is not the dictate of experience; nor is it warranted by the language used by the Judge of the whole earth, when pronouncing sentence upon Adam: In sorrow shalt thou eat of it, all the days of THY LIFE. Can words intimate more plainly than these do, that, if Adam were to live in another state of existence, the future life so to be enjoyed by him was not his, it not being the same with that which he then possessed? Can words intimate more plainly than these do, that immortality or eternal life, is not, in any respect whatever, connected with or derived from him? What I mean will, perhaps, be better understood, if I throw my statement into the following form: eternal life, or the life enjoyed hereafter, is not a continuation of Adam’s life, but a life essentially different.

[68] 1. That we rise from the dead, and possess immortality, independently of the Lord Jesus, or of any power or virtue derived from him. The reason of this is, that if we are immortal already by our very nature and constitution, as ordinary religionists assert, we cannot be indebted to Christ for immortality. But how is such an idea reconcilable with our Lord’s numerous and explicit declarations, that he is the resurrection and the life? that by him the dead are raised? and so on.

2. Those who hold the popular sentiment necessarily also maintain, that we derive the divine nature from Adam. This consequence is seen necessarily to follow, the moment it is perceived, that immortality or eternal life is the life of God. For, if immortality be the divine nature, — and who that credits the scriptures will deny that it is so? 1 Tim. 6:16, — is it possible to maintain that Adam was, and notwithstanding the fall continued to be immortal as to any part of his being, without at the same time maintaining that, as to that part of his being, he was from his very origin a partaker of the divine nature? And yet, is it consistent either with scripture or with common sense to suppose, that the life of the Creator could be derived from a creature? — I do not attempt to disguise or deny, that some little progress would be made towards subverting my conclusions, if it could be proved, that eternal existence and eternal life were two distinct things: — that it is eternal existence which Adam originally possessed, and which his descendants derive from him; and that, on the contrary, it is eternal life which is communicated by the Lord Jesus. But who, without any countenance and support from scripture, and at the risque of all the absurdities in which it would infallibly land him, will venture now-a-days publicly to maintain this theoretical distinction? — Let it not be supposed, that the argument for the immortality of the soul which I have thus suggested to my opponents, is the offspring and coinage of my own imagination. I have heard it adduced, and strenuously insisted on by persons [69] otherwise extremely sensible; nay, sooth to say, I remember having actually seen it in print: a fact which shews, to what a pitiably hopeless state that man must ever be reduced who, like the fabled giants of antiquity, attempts by dint of mere human reasonings to overwhelm and bear down the declarations of the Almighty.

Before dismissing this question and proceeding to the next, I am bound to recollect, that I have to do with the dull and the malicious, as well as with the quicksighted and the candid; and that unless some farther pains be taken by me to illustrate my meaning respecting the non-immortality of the soul, I shall most assuredly be misunderstood and misrepresented. Let me, then, in illustration of what goes before, call the attention of my readers to the following remarks: —

1. I hold the non-immortality of the soul, just in the very same sense in which I hold the non-immortality of the body. Our present natural bodies as such are not immortal: for, flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. 1 Corinth. 15:50. But these present natural bodies of ours are capable of becoming immortal by being rendered spiritual, or by being changed into the likeness of the glorious body of the Son of God. He that raised up Christ from the dead, shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you. Rom. 8:11. — Just so with regard to soul. Scripture lays down a distinction — but little, alas! observed — between soul as the life and mind of the first Adam, and Spirit as the life and mind of the second. The first man Adam was made a LIVING SOUL; the last Adam was made a QUICKENING SPIRIT. 1 Corinth. 15:45. Soul, it thus appears, is natural, — Spirit, is supernatural life and mind. Now soul, as mere natural mind, is of itself no more immortal than is mere natural body. Death is a quality which, through the medium of sin, equally attaches to both. But as natural body is capable of being rendered immortal by being changed into spiritual body; Rom. 8:11; Philip. 3:21; so is soul, or natural mind, capable of becoming im-[70]mortal by being changed into spirit, or supernatural mind. John 3:36; 5:24; 11:26; 17:3; 2 Corinth. 5:1-8. In other words, we are immortal in no respect whatever, neither as to our minds nor as to our bodies, by bearing the image of the earthy; but we are immortal, both as to mind and body, by bearing the image of the heavenly. Soul in itself and as such is not immortal, because it is mere natural, fleshly, and destructible mind; but soul is capable of becoming immortal, by being changed into spirit, or supernatural mind. If we would speak correctly or scripturally, then, we must say, it is spirit, not soul which is immortal.⁵¹

⁵¹ That is, in other words, immortality is through the second, not through the first Adam.

2. One obvious and necessary result from the preceding statement is, that a fate awaits those who are merely possessed of body and soul or natural mind, different from that which awaits those who, in addition to body and soul, are also possessed of the first fruits of spirit or supernatural mind. See 1 Thessal. 5:23. Scripture divides the whole human family into two distinct classes: first, those who do not believe the truth; secondly, those who do. The former are characterised by it as merely sensual or soulical, that is, they have merely natural minds; Jude 19; the latter, and the latter only, possess the spirit. Rom. 8:23; indeed, throughout. Concerning the former, as persons who have merely body and soul, or principles wounded by the old serpent, the language of John 3:14-16 shews us, by a most obvious implication, that they perish. That is, death is to them the loss of all that they possess. On the contrary, respecting those who believe, it is expressly declared in the same place, and in numerous corresponding passages, that they do not perish, but have everlasting life. In addition to John 3:14-16, see 5:24, and 11:25,26. In other words, those who believe the divine testimony respecting Christ Jesus, by possessing the first fruits of Spirit, have in them a principle over which death has no power: and, therefore, though they die like others as to their bodies and souls, or, [71] in so far as they are partakers of the Adamic principles and nature, yet, as possessing also the first fruits of Spirit, they possess the first fruits of immortality; and, consequently, have in them a principle which, instead of being overcome by death, is actually that which overcomes death. Rom. 8:37-39; 1 Corinth. 15:54; 2 Corinth. 5:4,5. Whosoever liveth and believeth in me, said the faithful and true witness, SHALL NEVER DIE. John 11:26, To day shalt thou, said the same high authority to the dying thief, to-day shalt thou, as a believer in me, and as consequently even upon earth a partaker of the first fruits of immortality, be WITH ME in Paradise. Luke 23:43. — The unbelieving, then, as merely soulical, when they die, perish, and have no farther existence till the second resurrection. They live not again until the thousand years are finished. Revel. 20:5. Believers, on the contrary, as in part spiritual, are also so far immortal: they never die; they are risen with Christ, and have thus experienced the power of his resurrection as to their minds, even while they are upon earth; Ephesians 1:17-20; 2:1,5,6; Coloss. 3:1-4; and, therefore, death, although sleep or suspension of their existence as to their bodies, neither does, nor can, in the slightest degree, interfere with the continued existence of their spiritualised minds. Absent from the body, they are present with the Lord. 2 Corinth. 5:8. Were this not the case, — could they die as to their spirits or spiritually enlightened minds — how could that principle of faith, by their possession of which they are distinguished from an ungodly world, deserve to be called everlasting or never-ending life?

Having been thus explicit, I hope there is no risque of any well-informed person confounding my sentiments respecting the subject-matter in question, with those entertained by the learned and celebrated Law, Bishop of Carlisle. With that eminent individual I perfectly agree, in regarding the resurrection of the Son of God as the only cause of the resurrection of human beings; and, consequently, in dis-[72]claiming with him, as absurd and romantic no less than unscriptural, the ordinary notion of natural and creature immortality. This, however, is very nearly the utmost length to which I can go in the way of agreement with his theory. I have now perused twice, with the greatest care, his treatises, On the nature and end of death under the Christian Covenant; and Concerning the use of the words soul or spirit in Holy Scripture; and the state of the dead there described: with The postscript.⁵² From the perusal of them, the second time, I rose with the full conviction, that all the learning and laborious industry of their author had not been able to prevent his falling into mistakes of the grossest kind. Having had no clear and scriptural apprehensions of the divine nature and character of the Messiah, he has confounded Soul with Spirit, or the nature of Adam with the nature of Christ; has shewn himself ignorant of the fact, that, even upon earth the power of Christ’s resurrection is put forth in the new creation of the minds of his people; has overlooked the distinction between believers and unbelievers in their disembodied state, by representing what is the fate of an unbelieving world after death, as being also participated in by the members of the family of God; and, what to a real disciple of Jesus is most striking of all, has, in glaring inconsistency with some of his own statements, exhorted those whom he calls Christians so to act as to ensure to themselves a happy immortality!⁵³ Still, however, with all their blunders, Law’s treatises are valuable. They lay down and establish one most important scriptural position at least. [73] Besides, they tend to illustrate, both what the natural mind can, and what it cannot do. Negatively, it can often detect and expose errors; positively, to know the truth always surpasses its power. 1 Cor. 2:14. How astonishingly, thus, is the distinction between Soul and Spirit in no small degree evinced by the fact, that Law, as possessed merely of soul or inferior principle, was, notwithstanding all his learning, application, and acquaintance with the letter of scripture, totally unable to apprehend that, to the understanding of which the possession of spirit or superior principle is ever and necessarily required.⁵⁴ See Hebrews 4:12.

There is one individual, but little esteemed in the religious world, between whose sentiments as they are brought out in his writings, and those to which I have been led by the scriptures of truth, I have within these few years remarked a very striking coincidence. I mean, the Rev. Robert Riccaltoun, who was minister of the parish of Hobkirk in Roxburghshire, during a considerable portion of the early and middle parts of last century: a man better known in consequence of his having been one of the first who counselled and befriended Thomson the poet, than from any [74] interest which his own works have excited in the public mind. Riccaltoun as a writer, however, was no ordinary person. His natural turn of mind was original and ingenious to a most surprising degree. In touching on scriptural topics, he displays a sagacity almost intuitive. Finely rounded periods — pathetic declamation — and the other agrémens of composition, appear to have had no charms for him. At all events, he never has recourse to them. Indeed, if there be any one thing more than another to be complained of in his mode of writing, it is his excessive tediousness and prolixity. But, under this somewhat rough exterior, a diamond lies concealed. I know not where more valuable and instructive compositions of mere human origin, on the subject of religion, are to be found, than in his Christian Life, and his Notes and Observations on the Epistle to the Galatians, which occupy a portion of the second, and the whole of the third volumes of his works. I do not except even Luther’s Treatise on the Epistle just mentioned, notwithstanding its confessedly great and peculiar merits. — Of Riccaltoun’s leading sentiments a tolerably distinct idea may be obtained, by a careful perusal of that portion of his second volume which lies between the 52nd and the 87th pages. All who know the truth will be delighted with the pains which he takes, to distinguish between the paradisiacal state of Adam, and the infinitely superior state to which believers are raised through Christ Jesus; and with the strong, valid, and satisfactory, reasons which he assigns, for the original state of Adam, having preceded, and for its having been brought to an end in subserviency to the introduction of that of Christ. In perfect consistency with his other sentiments, to the resurrection of the Son of God alone he traces up the possession of immortality on the part of his people. Of the distinction between Soul and Spirit he appears to have had occasional glimpses. Still, he is in many respects erroneous, and in some positively self-contradictory. The man who would consult his writings with advantage, must possess previously a considerable measure [75] of acquaintance with the letter and meaning of scripture: but, to one thus prepared for their perusal, the volumes of Riccaltoun will be absolutely invaluable.

Answer to the Second Question.

The cause of the resurrection of human beings is, not any natural immortality of which they are possessed, but the resurrection of the Lord Jesus from the dead.

Chief Reason of the Answer.

Seeing that creatures as such can only possess creature or finite⁵⁵ principles, it is impossible that immortality, which is infinite existence, and therefore properly speaking an attribute of the Creator, can be possessed by them, except in consequence of the divine, that is, the infinite nature having been communicated to them, through a medium suitable to its conveyance.

⁵⁵ Including indefinite.

Inference from the Answer.

Human beings thus possessing the principle of immortality here and hereafter only in consequence of Christ’s nature having been imparted to them, it is obvious, that their possession and enjoyment of immortality can extend no farther than to the degree in which they are possessed of the nature of Christ.

[76] THIRD QUESTION.

Is there any authority in scripture, or in reasonings legitimately deduced from scripture, for the ordinary doctrine that the wicked shall be eternally punished in a future state of existence?

Were it not that I am determined to sift this subject to the very bottom, and to afford antagonists the most complete opportunity of detecting flaws and fallacies in my reasonings if they can, I might here bring the discussion to a very brief and speedy conclusion. No man who has given the requisite attention to the preceding part of the work, and has observed the line of argumentation which I have pursued, can remain long at a loss to perceive the inferences which fall to be deduced. I have proved, in the first place, that Adam, when he sinned, lost only creature righteousness and creature life; and, in the second place, that the resurrection of the dead to a divine and immortal existence hereafter, is solely in virtue of their connection with the Lord Jesus. Now, what are the plain and obvious conclusions resulting from these premises? Why, 1st, that there is no life hereafter to man, except through Jesus. John 11:25,26. 1 Corinth. 15:21,22. 2ndly, that as Adam transmits only a life similar to his own to his posterity here, so Jesus transmits only a life similar to his own to his posterity hereafter; 1 Corinth. 15:48; that is, in other words, the only life possessed and enjoyed hereafter, is a life similar to that of Jesus, or spiritual and eternal life. Ibid. 49. 3rdly, that as the life of Adam, or human nature, begins and terminates with this present world; and as there is no life hereafter, but the life of Jesus, or the divine nature; [77] there can, therefore, be no punishment, in the ordinary sense of the term, hereafter, except on the absurd and revolting hypothesis of the divine nature being the subject of punishment! — a hypothesis which, of course, refutes itself. Thus, then, does it appear to be impossible to admit the accuracy of the preceding statements and reasonings, and at the same time to reject the conclusion to which they inevitably lead: namely, that the doctrine of eternal punishment, of the nature of torments, being inflicted in a future state, is a mere figment of the human mind, having its origin in early prejudices, or in mistaken views of the meaning of scripture.

But briefly and conclusively as the matter might be settled by a simple reference to preceding statements and reasonings, I am far from intending, in this abrupt although strictly logical way, to supersede farther discussion. On the contrary, I shall endeavour, by a series of additional views and arguments, to afford additional conviction to the mind, staggered in some measure perhaps by the novelty of the subject, and the importance of the conclusions to which it leads. Besides, I shall thereby pave the way for those ulterior developments of the divine purposes towards the family of man, to which it is my intention in due time to direct the thoughts of my readers.

In the prosecution of my object, I shall, first of all, consider and refute two of the principal arguments by which the ordinary doctrine of eternal punishment hereafter is supported. These are,

First. The infinite nature of evil.

Secondly. The necessity of eternal punishment, in the popular sense of the term, to the administration of the moral government of God; or, the necessity of preventing, among superior intelligences, the commission of crime, by the salutary dread which the everlasting torments of the wicked are calculated to inspire.

[78] First. The infinite nature of evil.

Here I at once join issue with the advocates and supporters of the ordinary system, by denying, in the most pointed terms, that sin or evil is infinite; and demand, that the matter may be remitted to trial. — The arguments for sin being infinite are: —

1. That it is committed against an infinite Being. But this argument, however much vaunted, is in reality a mere sophism; falls to be ranked under the head of those absurdities which have been so happily ridiculed by Johnson, in the well-known line,

“Who drives fat oxen, must himself be fat;” —

and is calculated to impose only on such as do not reflect, or are not capable of reflecting. It is liable to the following objections, which I conceive to be completely fatal to it. 1st. If sin be infinite, it is possessed of a divine attribute, or of the divine nature — infinity being an attribute of God; that is, in other words, sin, according to this scheme, is one with God. 2ndly. Sin, which is merely the act of a creature,⁵⁶ being infinite — and yet, it never having been pretended that creatures themselves are so — we have, according to this rational, luminous, and self-consistent system, the acts of creatures invested with an attribute which does not belong to those by whom the acts are committed. 3rdly. If sin be infinite, it cannot, in any case, or by any possibility, come to an end, or be removed: the very circumstance of its termination or removal declaring it, in the teeth of the supposition, to be finite. 4thly. If sin be infinite, it cannot have had a beginning. But has this ever been alleged? — How, I ask, are these four objections to be got over?

⁵⁶ Or, a quality of creature action.

2. That it required an infinite atonement. This argument likewise, as applied to its present purpose, is a mere sophism: for, although I grant, taught by the word of God, that not by human nature merely, but by the divine person [79] united to human nature, sin has been taken away;⁵⁷ and, although it evidently follows from this fact, that by the Infinite Being alone sin could have been atoned for; yet both the fact, and the conclusion resulting from it, instead of establishing, tend to subvert the very position in support of which they are commonly adduced. This will appear, if we consider, 1st, that the atonement or reconciliation has been effected, not by any change in the divine nature, but by the sacrifice of the human nature of our blessed Lord. It is true, that by God manifest in flesh alone could pure human nature have been exhibited; and it is also true, that God manifest in flesh alone was competent and entitled to bring such a pure human nature to an end: or, to express myself briefly, it is true, that by the infinite Being alone manifest in flesh could the atonement have been made. But it is not true, that the infinite nature of the Messiah was sacrificed, or in any way whatever changed or affected, in the accomplishment of this glorious work. It was by the sacrifice of his human or finite and indefinite nature that sin was taken away.⁵⁸ But if so, how can sin be infinite? That which a finite and indefinite nature sacrificed can bring to an end, it is surely absurd in the highest degree to speak of as being itself infinite! But, 2dly, if it be maintained, that an infinite atonement has removed evil, which by its own nature is infinite also, are we not treated with the curious idea of one infinite bringing another infinite to an end? What by the terms of the supposition is essentially boundless, is nevertheless, by the terms of the same supposition, capable of having bounds set to it by something else which is essentially boundless! Who shall prohibit our calling this the very climax of absurdity? — Let any plain, unlettered man, endowed with common sense, ask himself calmly and deliberately, what is implied in the word infinite? Is it not absolute boundlessness of every description? — a conditional or limited infinity, like a conditional or limited eternity, being a perfect solecism in [80] terms. What then, is proved by the circumstance of sin, which theologians are pleased to style infinite, having been, by their own admission, removed or brought to an end by the atoning sacrifice of the Son of God, — except the absurdity and impropriety of the epithet which they have seen meet to apply to it, and the fact of its being in reality finite or bounded?⁵⁹ On a point so obvious as this, it is needless for me to insist farther.

Secondly. Another grand argument in support of the ordinary doctrine of everlasting punishment hereafter, is a supposed necessity for its infliction, in order to the right administration of the moral government of God; or, a supposed necessity for preventing, among pure intelligent beings, the repetition of man’s offence, by the salutary dread which the everlasting torments to which he is subjected are calculated to inspire.

“God finds it necessary to punish the wicked with everlasting torments hereafter, for the purpose of restraining other intelligent beings from transgression.” This argument which has obtained the sanction of some of the greatest names in the department of theology, is at first sight exceedingly plausible: but, when examined into, it will be found to evince the most intense, I had almost said incurable ignorance of the character of God, and the nature and operation of divine truth. Let the following remarks, in confirmation of this charge, be attended to:

1. Although the nature of man is fitly characterised in scripture as enmity against God, Rom. 8:7, yet the nature of God is nowhere in the sacred volume represented as enmity against man.⁶⁰ So far, indeed, from God’s being a [81] wrathful and malignant Being, cherishing vindictive feelings towards any of his creatures, His nature is actually expressed in one emphatic word, LOVE. This we learn solely and exclusively from the lively oracles, in which he has condescended to reveal and make known his character. God is Love; and in this was manifested the Love of God towards us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. 1 John 4:8,9.

⁶⁰ The argument of the Apostle, Romans 5:6-8, is founded on the principle, that the nature of God is exactly the opposite of, and is thereby evinced to be infinitely superior to the nature of man.

2. The immediate and necessary effect of understanding the divine character, is the banishment of fear from the conscience: — There is no fear in love, (in other words, love implies confidence), but perfect love casteth out fear; because fear hath torment: he that feareth is not made perfect in love. 1 John 4:18. Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Rom. 5:1. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace. Galat. 5:22. Indeed, we might fearlessly appeal to common sense, as to the impossibility of love subsisting in union with dread, or even suspicion of the object professed to be loved. — Another necessary effect of the divine character being understood, is the destruction of creature enmity, or the formation of the divine nature, in the mind of him by whom that character is understood. We have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God, and God in him. 1 John 4:16. We love him, because he first loved us. Ibid. 19. In one word, to understand the divine character, is to be possessed of the divine nature.

3. This understanding of the divine character, or possession of the divine nature, is the source of all the genuine and acceptable practice of believers. If ye love me, keep my commandments. John 14:15. For the love of Christ constraineth us — that they which live, should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. 2 Corinth. 5:14,15. It is also the grand principle to which, by the instrumentality of the apostles, God addresses His exhortations. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. 1 John 4:11. I beseech you, therefore, [82] brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice. Rom. 12:1.

If these remarks be duly attended to, and deliberately weighed, they will be found to involve principles which overthrow completely the argument for eternal torments, derived from their expediency as a means of restraining pure intelligent beings from transgression: for,

1. It is impossible for God to manifest Himself, or make Himself known, in any except His true character. Hardy, indeed, must that man be who will venture to contradict this. If therefore, God shall condescend to reveal Himself, in another state of existence, to any class or order of beings besides glorified Saints, it must be as what He really is, that is, as LOVE.

2. The understanding of God’s character as Love, must uniformly be attended with the effect of inspiring confidence in the being who understands it. Love, upon scriptural principles, must cast out fear, if fear in the breast of a sinless being could be supposed ever to have had a residence: but, as this is of course out of the question, it must beget, and continue to inspire love or confidence in such a being, as its necessary and inevitable result.

3. All this, it must be obvious, is perfectly inconsistent with the notion of the fear of eternal torments constituting any part of the motive to obedience, in the case of pure intelligent beings acquainted with the divine character. For, if God could employ the principle of terror as a means of keeping such beings in a state of dependence on Him, and compliance with His will, it must be, either in consequence of his own character when apprehended inspiring sentiments of alarm, or of His availing Himself of opposite and contradictory methods of arriving at the same result. But neither of these suppositions is admissible: for, on the one hand, God’s character when understood is so completely at variance with fear, or even suspicion, in the minds of those who understand it, that it begets unqualified and unlimited confidence; and, on the other hand, God cannot contradict Himself, by revealing Himself to be, what he is not, [83] an object of terror or alarm.⁶¹ — Besides, by the very terms of the hypothesis which I am combating, “the beings to whom God reveals Himself as an object of terror are pure or sinless;” and how He should be an object of terror to such is more than I can conceive. If, therefore, God be an object of terror to any intelligent beings, either here or hereafter, it is not in consequence of His character having been revealed to them, but the reverse; — it is not because they know Him, but because they know Him not.

⁶¹ That is, to beings who are spiritually pure and holy. To creatures who are possessed of an unrighteous nature, like that of man, — supposing such to exist — a manifestation of himself on the part of God as an object of terror might unquestionably be made. But such a manifestation of God would be, first, as in the case of man himself, not according to God’s own nature, which is love, but according to that of the creature, as a being opposed to him; and, secondly, it would not be an ultimate manifestation of God, (if manifestation it may be called,) but merely subservient, as in the case of man, to an ultimate, that is, a true manifestation. While beings are under law, they may be threatened. But beings who are not under law, have nothing to do either with threatenings or with promises. Under such circumstances, for them to fear is an impossibility. They are influenced by love; and love, when perfect, is a principle of unqualified confidence. Law, as prohibitory and imperative, has been issued to man; and it might be so again to beings situated and constituted like man. Law, however, with its threatenings and promises, is totally unknown to angels, and to other beings possessed of the divine nature. Love is their sole principle of action. — This is the explanation of Rom. 6.

The amount of the preceding argument is this: — that to suppose God to reveal Himself to pure intelligent beings, as inflicting everlasting torments upon wicked men, with a view to deter the former from transgression, is to suppose Him to reveal Himself to them in a character different from, and contradictory to that in which He has revealed Himself to His people in His word; and is likewise to suppose Him to aim at ensuring the obedience of such intelligent beings, in a way exactly the reverse of that in which He draws out and ensures the obedience of His people. As, then, it is not by exciting the fear of eternal wrath, but by inspiring love or confidence, and thereby destroying the possibility of such fear [84] having a place in their bosoms, that God, according to His own declarations, ensures the obedience of beings naturally sinful who have become acquainted with His character; the idea of His revealing Himself to pure intelligent beings, as the eternal tormentor of the wicked in a future state of existence, for the purpose of inspiring them with dread and thereby restraining them from transgression, is seen to be utterly untenable, because decidedly unscriptural.

It will be observed that I employ these remarks, only to shew the folly of supposing eternal punishment, in the ordinary sense of the term, necessary to keep pure intelligent beings, or intelligent beings who have never sinned, and are acquainted with the divine character, in a state of dependence upon God, and obedience to Him: and I thus limit their application, for the plain and substantial reason, that impure and wicked beings, or beings who have already transgressed irremediably, if such there be, are beyond the reach and influence of example, and of course out of the question. It was ignorance of the divine character which led to the transgression of such irremediably wicked beings; for, knowledge of the divine character is, as we have already seen, the divine nature, which cannot transgress: and, therefore, it could not be by the eternal torments of themselves and others, — a state of things which would still leave them ignorant of the divine character; but by the manifestation of the divine character to them, — a blessing with which, by the terms of the supposition, they are not to be favoured, that their tendency to farther transgression could be counteracted and overcome.

It is in vain to think of overturning these reasonings by alleging, “that if God be revealed in scripture as love, He is also revealed as a threatener or object of terror.” So far from this allegation being correct, wherever God utters threatenings, we have him not revealing, but veiling and concealing his character; or, to express myself rather more correctly, God’s threatenings do not constitute a revelation of his character, but are preliminary and subservient to such a [85] revelation. God did not reveal His character to Adam when he prohibited him from eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; but he laid thereby the foundation of that revelation of Himself with which our progenitor was subsequently favoured. Genesis 3:15. God did not reveal his character to the Jews by the threatenings which He denounced from Mount Sinai; but he paved the way thereby for that manifestation of Himself, which was partially and obscurely made otherwise during the subsistence of the Mosaic dispensation, and which afterwards shone forth in all its lustre in the person and work of His own Son. — Here, however, let me take up those who recourse to this mode of contradicting me, upon their own principles. Is it their opinion, that God may reveal Himself as a threatener or object of terror, for the purpose of ensuring obedience? What proof, I ask, do they afford of this? If the sacred writings be appealed to — and no inferior testimony can be admitted in a case like this — how happens it, that the hypothesis in question is not only destitute of scriptural authority, but completely at variance with it? It is a fact capable of being easily verified, that God’s recorded threatenings, instead of having been followed by obedience, have been uniformly disobeyed; — that, instead of having ensured submission, they appear upon the face of the scriptures only in connexion with the violations of them. Witness, the cases of Adam and the Jews already referred to. How is this fact, I again enquire, to be reconciled with the theory in question? On what scriptural principles or authority can God be said to threaten in order to ensure obedience, when all such threatenings as are contained in scripture appear to have been disobeyed? From the circumstance of the two first covenants entered into by God with the human race having been violated, notwithstanding the tremendous threatenings and sanctions with which they were accompanied, I find myself obliged to draw a conclusion directly in the teeth of the above hypothesis: namely, that it was God’s purpose, by means of [86] the violation of His prohibitions, and the disregard of His threatenings, on the part of those to whom they were addressed, in the first place, to demonstrate the impossibility of threats ever ensuring obedience to divine law; Rom. 8:3,7; and, in the second place, to introduce a principle which, without the aid of threats altogether, nay in opposition to them, should by its very nature effect that which threats had invariably failed in accomplishing. Rom. 6, throughout. 2 Cor. 5:14,15. The language of the 8th chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews from the 6th to the 12th verses, to which I would now refer, shews that the Apostle viewed the matter in the same light that I do. According to him, it was not by issuing prohibitions sanctioned by threatenings, but by the implantation of a new principle, that God was to ensure the attachment and obedience of His people in New Testament times.⁶² — If any opponents remain unconvinced by these statements, I must still farther enquire, what is the class or order of pure intelligent beings to whom, in their opinion, the menace of punishment, in the ordinary sense of the term, may be addressed? Is it those who are in a probationary, or to those who are in a fixed and permanent state? — If to those who are in a probationary state,⁶³ as scripture alone can authorise such a supposition, we must have recourse to scripture for information relative to beings who may be so placed, and the nature of the threatenings which may be addressed to them. Adam and the nation of Israel furnish us with the two most important scriptural instances of intelligent beings placed in probationary states. But in neither of these instances was everlasting punishment in a future state of ex-[87]istence threatened: for, in the case of Adam, when the divine record is examined, we do not find that the everlasting punishment of others in a future life, whether everlasting or limited, was proposed to him as a motive to deter him from disobedience; nor, indeed, from his ignorance of good and evil would he have been capable of comprehending such a threat; — and, in the case of the Jews, independently of the fact that they were not pure beings, it has been proved by Bishop Warburton with irresisitible force of reasoning in his Divine Legation of Moses, that punishment to be inflicted in another life was not among the number of the sanctions addressed to them. If, then, we suppose, (without any authority from scripture, be it observed), that God may address threatenings to other pure intelligent beings besides men in a probationary state; and if scripture is to furnish us with specimens, both of such beings themselves, and of the threats addressed to them; it clearly follows, that the everlasting punishment of wicked men can constitute no part of these threats. — On the other hand, let the supposition be, that the pure intelligent beings, to whom the everlasting punishment of wicked men is proposed as a motive to deter from transgression, are in a fixed and permanent state, and is it not apparent to the least reflecting mind, that we are at once involved in gross self-contradiction. If their state be fixed, why propose to them that which must imply, either a state of probation, or be perfectly nugatory? — Thus, then, by sifting the matter to the bottom, do we discover: 1st, that when God threatens, He is not revealing, but preparing to reveal his character. 2ndly. That the object and purpose of divine threatenings is, not to ensure obedience, but by means of their violation to bring out and develop something ulterior.⁶⁴ And, 3rdly, that the threat of everlasting punishment hereafter can be addressed to no class of supposed intelligent beings: not to those who are in a probationary state, for we have no example of it, and such a threat could not be understood by [88] them; not to those who are confirmed in happiness as glorified saints are, for threatenings suit only a preliminary and probationary dispensation, and are inconsistent with permanent and unchangeable felicity. Thus does an examination of the supposed objection, tend to confirm the preceding reasonings.

Having thus shewn, that the principal arguments on which the ordinary doctrine of eternal punishment hereafter rests, the Jachin and Boaz of the system, are worthless and inconclusive, instead of acting any longer on the defensive, I would now assume an offensive position, and ply my antagonists with a few plain objections which are fatal to their cause. If it be maintained, that the wicked undergo eternal punishment in the ordinary sense of the term in a future state of existence, it must also be maintained, first, that the wicked possess eternal life; and, secondly, that sin is eternal.

First. If the wicked are punished eternally in a future state of existence, they are necessarily possessed of eternal life.

I presume, that to every man who is capable of reflecting and endowed with ordinary candour, the bare statement of this proposition must evince its truth — must satisfy him of the conclusion to which it leads — and must supersede the necessity of illustration altogether. But as the dull and the prejudiced constitute always a large proportion of the human race, with a view to assist the apprehensions of such I observe, that as, by the very terms of the doctrine which I impugn, punishment of the nature of torment is to be inflicted eternally upon certain individuals, it plainly and undeniably follows, that such individuals must eternally exist, or be eternally alive, to undergo this punishment. In other words, those who are eternally tormented, must at the same time be possessing eternal life. But such a notion is inadmissible for the following reasons: — 1. Eternal life is declared by the Lord Jesus himself, in passages innumerable, [89] to be the peculiar privilege or blessing which he bestows upon His own people; whereas, according to the doctrine in question, eternal life must be maintained, without any authority from scripture, to be likewise the privilege of wicked beings as such.⁶⁵ 2. Eternal life is the life of God — eternity being, as we have already seen, one of the divine attributes; and, therefore, to possess eternal life, is to possess the divine nature or to be one with God. But is it intended by the advocates of the system of eternal punishment hereafter, to predicate concerning the wicked as such, that they possess the life of God or the divine nature? 3. If the wicked as such, by possessing eternal life hereafter, have the divine nature as well as the people of God, what reason can be assigned by our opponents why God should feel complacency in His own nature as possessed by the one, and regard and treat as the object of His marked and everlasting abhorrence the same nature as possessed by the other?

⁶⁵ Eternal, aeonian, or age-lasting life, in the sense of life enjoyed with Christ Jesus, during the mediatorial age, and in the mediatorial kingdom, the unregenerate neither possess, nor can possess. John 3:3-5. Their life, such as it is, is enjoyed ultimately, through the medium of the previous possession of eternal or aeonian life, by the members of the heavenly Church; and comes to them, through the supersession of Christ’s reign as mediator, by his higher reign as God all and in all, — through the supersession of eternal or aeonian life, by life of an infinitely higher and more glorious description. 1 Cor. 15:23-28. In other words, life comes to the unregenerate, through the extension to all, ultimately, of the principle of new-creation, which is originally confined to believers. Compare 2 Cor. 5:17, with Rev. 21:3-5. Thus speaking, however, we are looking to divine results as it were upwards, from the platform of time and human nature. Persons desirous to see a profounder, because contrasted and absolute view of the subject, in which we look downwards, as it were, from the platform of eternity and the divine nature, may, if they please, consult the “Summary” in my “Three Grand Exhibitions of man’s enmity to God.” — As I shall probably not be understood by a majority of those who peruse this note, it may be proper to state my meaning to be, that unless the earnest of eternal or aeonian life be possessed here, the fulness of it cannot be enjoyed hereafter. He only that believeth HATH aeonian life. John 3:36. — 5:24.

[90] But this is not all: for, not merely is there a manifest inconsistency between the ordinary theory of eternal punishment hereafter, and the declarations of scripture with respect to eternal life, but the theory on this very point is at variance with itself. It is plain, that persons who are eternally punished must be eternally alive to undergo the punishment; but, according to the advocates of the system assailed, they are eternally dead!!! How are these notoriously conflicting statements reconcilable? — Besides, it has been already shewn, that as death implies the loss of life, so must eternal death imply the loss of eternal life! — a consequence which, although legitimately deduced from its premises, lands my opponents in the grossest self-contradiction.

The only way in which, as I have more than once hinted, an attempt can be made to turn the edge of this objection and get rid of it, is by denying, that eternal life is necessarily a blessing; or, rather, by devising an imaginary distinction between eternal existence and eternal life. Those who have recourse to this ingenious⁶⁶ way of parrying an acknowledged difficulty, are pleased to bestow on eternal existence, by a strange perversion of terms, the appellation of eternal death! — making eternal life, on the other hand, to consist in the eternal enjoyment of the divine approbation and favour. But, in the name of wonder, what reason do our antagonists produce for all this, except their own bare and dogmatical assertion? What foundation is there for the distinction in scripture? or, who authorised them to invent meaning for words, unknown, nay in diametrical opposition, to that common usage which is the only genuine norma loquendi? Where is eternal death spoken of in the word of God? Where is it declared to be synonymous with eternal existence? Where is eternal existence distinguished from eternal life? — I allow that our opponents, in the bitterness and desperation of their minds, have invented a distinction which, although not worth a rush, may enable them to throw dust in the eyes of the unthinking multi-[91]tude, and thus secure them from the disgrace of a total defeat. But do they expect us to be imposed on by so common and shallow a stratagem? Do they really imagine that, out of compassion, and at the expense of truth and our own consciences, we will concede to them even the possibility of their distinction being well-founded? Tyros, indeed, in such matters must they be, if they can cherish for a single moment expectations so ridiculous. — But, softly: they have at last procured something, in the shape of scriptural argument, for the views which they hold. “In His, that is, God’s favour is life, according to David, Psalm 30:5; from which proposition,” say they, “it clearly follows, that there may be existence which is not worthy of the name of life: the Psalmist expressly restricting the term life to signify the favour of God.” Now, can they possibly expect an answer to such arrant trifling? Will they, with any pretensions to an acquaintance with the original Hebrew, venture to deny, that the words ו‎ברצונ‎ ‎חייס might as well have been translated, in His favour is existence, as in His favour is life?⁶⁷ And if so, what becomes of their argument? — But, laying the original Hebrew out of the question altogether, and supposing argumenti causâ that a distinction is implied in the words quoted, what is there to warrant the idea of its being such a distinction as the one contended for? Is it not obvious that, in the event of any distinction or contrast being intended, it must, if agreeable to the analogy of scripture, be between this present life or existence, as forfeited to divine justice; and eternal life or existence, as properly, and in the highest sense of the term, an expression of the divine favour; — a distinction which is at once tangible and intelligible: and not, as is ridiculously supposed, between eternal existence and eternal life hereafter?

It is possible, however, that some advocate of the popular system, more candid and somewhat better informed with [92] regard to this point than his brethren generally are, may admit, that the attempted distinction between existence and life is a mere chimera, and that eternal existence, or eternal life, is unquestionably a divine attribute; and yet may contend, “that the possession of the divine nature in one respect, by no means necessarily implies the possession of it in others.” Without attempting any lengthened exposure of the utter groundlessness of such a hypothesis, or noticing all the inconsistencies and contradictions to which it leads, it is enough to observe, that the moment a being who is possessed of eternal life or the divine nature is supposed to undergo eternal torments hereafter, that moment is it supposed, both that the divine perfections are capable of being separated, and that the divine nature may be subjected to the most signal mark of the divine displeasure! Can these things be?

Secondly, If the wicked are punished eternally in a future state, then is sin eternal.

This consequence follows as necessarily as the preceding one. On the ordinary hypothesis of eternal punishment hereafter, the persons undergoing that punishment are either righteous or wicked. Righteous they cannot be; since to suppose God to continue punishing persons who either are righteous, or who become so under the influence of the discipline to which they are subjected, is an idea so horrible, — so repugnant to justice, — and so completely at variance with the divine character revealed in the scriptures, as to be quite inadmissible. It remains, therefore, that those who are eternally punished hereafter are wicked or sinners, and continue to be so. But, if they are eternally sinners, then sin clearly is eternal; or, should the phrase be better liked, then sin is perpetuated to eternity! This, however, cannot be, for reasons of the most substantial kind.

1. If we assume that sin is eternal, we invest it with a divine attribute. It is evident, that the circumstance of having neither beginning of days nor end of life, is an attribute of the supreme Being; and it is likewise evident, that [93] as such it cannot be ascribed to sin. — If other reasons be required, they are at hand: — 1st. Can we suppose that to be eternal or possessed of a divine attribute, which is in opposition to the divine nature? 2ndly. No creature as such is or can be eternal; and can we suppose then the act of a creature, which sin is, to be invested with a quality which does not belong to the creature itself? 3rdly. Can we forget that, if sin be eternal, it is impossible for it to be expiated or removed?

I am not fond of raising the cry of heresy, or of fastening consequences on an antagonist which he himself would disavow, but it is right for the supporters of the ordinary system to be made aware, that the doctrine of eternal torments, which involves in it the eternity and infinity of sin, leads directly to Manicheism. The heresy of Manes, like that of the ancient magi, is said to have consisted in the supposition of two co-eternal principles of good and evil; or, of the existence of a good Deity and an evil One, who everlastingly cherish hostile feelings, and display these in overt acts, towards each other; but neither of whom is able to effect the destruction of the other. To this heresy, the doctrine of everlasting punishment hereafter bears a close affinity: coinciding with it in the grand and leading circumstance of investing sin with divine attributes, and representing it consequently as the rival of Jehovah! Will it be contradicted, that infinity and eternity are attributes of the Supreme Being? — Besides, when it is declared, that “sin unless atoned for must exist everlastingly,” have these who use this language reflected, that necessary existence is predicable only of God himself? — Such, without any exaggeration, is the awkward predicament in which every advocate for everlasting punishment hereafter places himself: he makes sin infinite and eternal, and clothes it with necessary existence, thereby raising it to an equality with God! What did Manes ever say worse than this?

Here, however, I almost fancy my antagonists triumphantly exclaiming: — “your argument, if it proves anything, proves too much. The proper inference from the [94] fact of sin being infinite and eternal, upon your own principles, is not that sin is God’s rival, but that it is God himself. And yet, if this be admitted, what becomes of the eternal life of the people of God? For, if sin cannot be invested with eternity without confounding it with God, no more can any being be possessed of eternal life without confounding it with God.” This objection, though somewhat ingenious and plausible, is at bottom a mere cavil. I am willing to allow that, if sin be infinite and eternal, the proper conclusion is, that it is one with God, or is confounded with Him — a fact, by the way, which wonderfully confirms the preceding reasoning: but I deny the inference which my antagonists would draw from this. When I maintain, that believers are one with God, I have the authority of scripture for thus expressing myself;⁶⁸ and when I shew, that this astonishing and incomprehensible union results from their being partakers of the divine nature,⁶⁹ any understanding, however feeble and unpractised, may perceive the force, necessity, and validity, of my conclusion. On the other hand, that sin cannot be one with God, I have these plain and incontrovertible proofs, that it is nowhere in the sacred writings declared to be so; and that it neither is, nor ever was pretended to be possessed of the divine nature, but is diametrically opposed to it. — Here I might stop, resting the weight of my answer to the above cavil on the fact, that believers are declared in scripture to be one with God; whereas no such declaration is made concerning sin. But I proceed further, and observe, that, although a person may be one with God without being confounded with Him, the case is widely different in regard to a mere quality or attribute, such as sin on all hands is acknowledged to be. God’s attributes, it is well known, are God himself; and therefore, if sin — however monstrous the idea — were one of these attributes, it must be confounded with God, or be God himself. — Thus, then, is my argument strengthened rather than weakened by the present objection: for, my opponents, by [95] making sin which is a mere quality or attribute infinite and eternal, necessarily confound it with God Himself — if they object to allowing to be God’s rival; whereas, in representing believers to be one with God, as being partakers of the divine nature, I do no more than scripture itself, and the circumstances of the case, warrant me in doing.⁷⁰

2. If sin be eternal, then, instead of being one of the means by which God displays His perfections, it actually becomes the end, scope, and ultimate design of the divine procedure.

The ordinary doctrine of eternal punishment is founded on a gross mistake with regard to the nature of sin, and the purpose of its introduction into the world. By representing sin as eternal, it ascribes to it a quality, and invests it with an attribute, which can only belong to the end, object, or final cause, or to one of the ends, objects, or final causes, which God aims at accomplishing by all His providential and gracious dispensations. But that sin cannot be the end, object, or final cause of the divine procedure, or any part of that end, is plain for the following reasons: —

1st. God, as a pure and holy being, can propose to Himself no end or object, except what is good and worthy of Himself. But if this be true — and who shall be found daring enough to gainsay it? — then, to give a permanent and everlasting existence to evil, or to that which is the opposite of goodness, cannot constitute any part of the end, object, or ultimate design of the divine procedure.

2ndly. The idea of God making the eternity of evil or sin the object, or any part of the object of His procedure towards the human race, stands in opposition to the whole tenor and analogy of scripture, which speaks of Him as having but one end or object in view in all that He does, [96] namely, His own glory; or in perhaps plainer and more intelligible language, the display of His own character and perfections. See, in proof of this, the language of Psalm 19:1; Luke 2:14; John 8:50; Rom. 11:36; 16:27; 1 Corinth. 10:31; 2 Corinth. 3:18; 4:6; Galat. 1:5; Ephes. 1:6; 3:21; 2 Timothy 4:18; Hebrews 13:21; 1 Peter 5:11; Rev. 4:11; and 5:12,13. In connection with this subject it deserves to be remarked, that the enjoyment of eternal life by the people of God, though inseparable from the divine object or purpose, is not directly and properly speaking that object or purpose itself; but results from the fact, that as the divine character is to be eternally manifested, there must be persons to whom the manifestation is made: the intended manifestation thus creating the necessity for the persons, and not the persons creating the necessity for the manifestation.

Seeing, then, that sin is not the end, object, or final cause which God proposes to Himself in His procedure towards the human race, nor any part of it; and seeing, farther, that the only end which He aims at is His own glory or the eternal manifestation of himself; it follows, that sin, like all creatures and all the acts of creatures, is merely one of the means or instruments by which He accomplishes this end. That is, in fewer and simpler words, sin is not an end, but is one of the means employed for the attainment of an end. The correctness of this statement, and its inconsistency with the idea of sin being eternal, will be rendered obvious by a consideration of the few following particulars:

1st. It being abundantly manifest, that sin is not an end or ultimate object of the Supreme Being, but one of the means or instruments which He employs for the accomplishment of an end, it must, like other means, cease or terminate, when the end for which it is employed shall have been accomplished.

This is so obvious that, like other truisms, it almost sets illustration at defiance. What architect, after having completed a sumptuous and splendid edifice, would refuse to remove the scaffolding, by the assistance it had been erected, [97] but which, while standing, concealed its beauties from the public gaze? What artist would insist that, along with his workmanship, there should always be presented and exhibited the tools with which that workmanship had been executed? — To generalize the principle involved in these illustrations: — if it is confessedly the part of wisdom to accomplish the best ends by the most suitable and best adapted means, it is confessedly its part also to remove and have done with the means when the ends are accomplished. That sin is the most suitable means of accomplishing God’s purposes in regard to the human race follows, without needing to have recourse to any other method of proof, from the mere fact of His having employed it. But, shall a charge of deficiency in wisdom be brought or insinuated against Him by supposing, that He will continue sin in existence a single moment after all His purposes in the employment of it shall have been answered?

2ndly. If the ends, objects, or purposes for which sin is employed by the Supreme Being, are answered, attained to, and accomplished in this present world or system of things, sin must cease or come to an end with it.

This follows so obviously from what precedes, and appears so distinctly from the bare statement of the proposition itself, that I should regard myself as insulting the understandings of my readers, were I to attempt any illustration or proof of it.

3rdly. The ends or purposes for which sin enters into the plan of the Divine government, are accomplished in this present world; and, therefore, it neither has nor can have any existence beyond.

Were the question put to me, what is the end or purpose that God aims at by the introduction of sin? — taught by the scriptures, I could have no hesitation in answering, the introduction of something better. This, indeed, is strictly according to analogy. The world we now inhabit is, we are informed, in due time and after having served its pur-[98]poses, to be superseded by one higher and better; and it is, therefore, what might a priori have been expected, that if sin entered, it should, after serving its purposes, be superseded and annihilated likewise. Plain it must be to the heaven-instructed mind, that sin is merely one of the agents, by which God brings out, displays, and develops the glories of His character; — a part of the scaffolding, by means of which He is erecting that wondrous edifice of love, which He himself is to inhabit throughout eternity. Sin, being thus of the nature of a means or instrument, could only have been employed in connection with a system of things, which was itself instrumental, subordinate, and introductory, to another. For, could we suppose the reverse, and assign to sin a place in a system that was permanent and eternal, this would be to impart permanency and eternity to sin itself; and, besides the other monstrous consequences which would follow, would be to exclude it from the class of means altogether. Hence, from its very nature, sin must stand connected with a transient and subordinate system, such as the present world is; and the removal or destruction of the one, must draw along with it the removal or destruction of the other. — Perhaps a more popular, as well as a more intelligible, mode of stating the argument, will be to observe, that the introduction of sin appears clearly to be subservient to two leading purposes on the part of the Supreme Being. In the first place, to afford an opportunity for the conquest of it. It is by sin entering and abounding, that Grace is enabled much more to abound.⁷¹ — In the second place, to be the means of death, by which God breaks off the connection of His people with this present world, and brings them to that more enlarged manifestation and fuller enjoyment of Himself, which has been their destined inheritance from everlasting. Sin reigning unto death, is the means of Grace reigning through righteous-[99]ness unto eternal life.⁷² — The purposes of God in regard to sin are thus fully accomplished, in its being triumphed over and trampled under foot by His own Son; and in death, which is its necessary and inseparable attendant, being swallowed up in victory or eternal life. But does not all this convincingly prove, that sin must be limited in its existence and operations to this present world, or present system of things? Could we suppose the reverse — could we suppose, that this present world was not the only arena on which the petty, transient, and gloriously over-ruled triumphs of sin were to be displayed, and that it was to endure and exist in another and eternal state of being — then, instead of sin, according to the divine declaration reigning UNTO DEATH, and expiring in the very act of executing the divine sentence upon transgression,⁷³ it would reign TO ETERNITY; and would thus be invested with a jurisdiction and sway, co-ordinate and co-extensive with that of Grace itself. Nay, were sin thus to extend its existence and reign to eternity, then, instead of having been triumphed over and rendered subservient to his purposes by the Lord Jesus, it would for ever remain a monument of the inefficacy and incompleteness of his undertaking; — and, instead of death as the last enemy being destroyed, it would, as the necessary consequence and inseparable attendant of sin,⁷⁴ — however strange the idea may appear, — be possessed of everlasting existence, and invested with everlasting authority, likewise! Such monstrous consequences cannot, of course, for a single moment be admitted: and hence it follows, that sin having entered into the world for certain specific purposes, such as, to afford the Supreme Being an [100] opportunity of manifesting and developing His perfections in the conquest of it, and to break off the connection of His people with this present world, must, when it has served these purposes, come to an end with the world itself, which is the theatre of its operations.⁷⁵

But I have not yet exhausted my stock of proofs that sin can have no existence hereafter, derived from the fact of its being merely one of the means or instruments by which God accomplishes His purposes. I have just shewn positively, that the purposes for which it entered are fulfilled during the subsistence of this present world: and now, with a view to complete the present argument and silence the voice of cavilling for ever, I proceed to shew negatively, that no end or purpose, or at least none worthy of God, could be served by its continuance in a future and eternal state of being.

In the first place, the eternity or eternal existence of sin hereafter could not be intended to answer any purpose worthy of God, in the case of the wicked, or those who were already undergoing eternal torment. It could not be intended to make manifest to them the divine character; for that character, being LOVE, is manifested, not as eternally [101] tormenting, but as freely pardoning. 1 John 4:8-10. It could not be intended to produce in their minds acquiescence in the justice and propriety of the divine procedure towards them; for this, it is acknowledged on all hands, eternal punishment hereafter is neither intended nor calculated to produce: besides, if such an acquiescence could be produced, the punishment, consistently with justice, could no longer be continued; for, it would then have answered its purposes. It could not be intended to prepare the sufferers for the remission of their punishment; for, according to the terms of the hypothesis, that punishment is eternal. It appears, then, that if sin were eternal, the knowledge of this fact could answer no purpose, in the case of the damned, except that of exasperating their minds and aggravating their torments; and God must be supposed to punish, either for this purpose, or merely for punishing’ sake. But is either of these suppositions worthy of the Supreme Being? Can God reveal Himself in the character of an everlasting tormentor? or as gratifying splenetic and revengeful feelings?

In the second place, God could have no end at all to answer by the eternity of sin hereafter, in the case of pure intelligent beings. He could not intend, by making known to them the everlasting torments of the wicked, to produce terror in their minds; or, to excite in them suspicions relative to the certainty, permanency, and stability of their own happiness: for, by doing so, He would, as we have already seen, counteract His own purposes — which are, by the manifestation of His character, entirely to banish fear from the conscience, with every approximation to it or possibility of it; and, to engender love, confidence, and obedience. Nay, without needing to have recourse to previous reasonings at all, are not pure beings, whether angels or men, in a future state of existence, conceived, even by the supporters of the adverse theory, to be everlastingly confirmed and established in their respective situations and privileges? [102] — and if so, where is the necessity — where is the possibility — of any thing in the shape of exhortations or warnings being addressed to them? — But, still farther; God could not intend, by the eternity of evil or punishment hereafter, to produce in the minds of pure intelligent beings admiration of His justice; for, this is effected, not by visiting the acts of creatures, which are of course finite like themselves, with infinite punishment, but by meting out to sin its exact reward or wages, which is death. He could not intend, by the eternity of evil, to shew forth the praises of His wisdom; for, this is accomplished, not by bestowing permanency, eternal existence, or the divine nature, upon evil, but by making its entrance and temporary reign subservient to its own destruction, and the everlasting life of His people. He could not intend, by the eternity of evil, to manifest His power; for, can it be made a question, whether this attribute is more glorified by sin being independent of God? — which, if possessed of necessary and eternal existence, it must be⁷⁶— or, by its being subject to His control during the whole period of its existence, and destroyed as soon as the purposes for which it was introduced into the world are accomplished? — In short, there is not one of the divine attributes which, instead of being magnified and illustrated, would not be sullied, obscured, and even annihilated by the eternity of evil; and there is not one end worthy of God, either revealed or conceivable, which would be answered by it.

⁷⁶ If sin be eternal, it is either one with God, or the rival of God. The former of course, it is not; the above reasoning shews, that it cannot be the latter.

Such, then, is the strong and conclusive evidence which we afford, that, as sin is not an end, but merely one of the means by which God accomplishes His ends or purposes, it cannot be eternal. We have shewn, first, that every means must cease or terminate, when the purposes for which it is employed are accomplished. — Secondly, that, if the pur-[103]poses for which sin is employed are accomplished in this present world or present system of things, the one must come to an end with the other. — And, lastly, that, as the purposes for which sin is employed are confined to this present world, the existence and reign of sin are confined to this present world likewise. Upon this last head we have enlarged; pointing out, 1st, positively, what the purposes are which sin answers in this present world, and how it answers them; and, 2ndly, negatively, that sin neither has, nor can have, any end or purpose whatever to answer hereafter. From the fact, that sin is not eternal, the plain and inevitable conclusion follows, that there can be no eternal punishment of sin — taking the phrase eternal punishment in the sense of eternal torments.⁷⁷

⁷⁷ What was written between twenty-one and twenty-two years ago, I permit to stand. The reasonings as stated are I perceive substantially, because scripturally correct. Had I composed this part of my work recently, I might have somewhat modified its phraseology. For instance — instead of speaking of sin and its consequences as being merely finite, I might have represented them as also indefinite, (see my Fourth Dialogue,) and might have so expressed myself as to shew, that the effects of sin, viewed as indefinite, are not limited by time, but, as connected with the exclusion of the unregenerate from the eternal, or aeonian kingdom of Jesus Christ, reach to the very end of that age, or state of things, by which time is succeeded and superseded. Matt. 12:32. Still, although in that case a little more verbal accuracy might have been ensured, I should after all have been merely representing, as I have done in the text, the existence and operations of sin as limited or bounded. Even if there be death of soul revealed, as well as death of body, Matt. 10:28; Luke 12:4,5; Psalm 16:9,10; Acts 2:27-31; 1 Cor. 15:55; Rev. 1:18; and if the former belong to the indefinite, as the latter does to the finite, it is enough that neither is infinite. The argument in the text, therefore, is substantially correct. Both the finite and the indefinite are subservient to the infinite; indefinite is the highest predicate, consistently with scripture, that can be applied to sin; and in the death of Christ’s body, the finite, and in the death of his soul, the indefinite nature of sin having terminated, in his resurrection and ascension, with the divine or infinite nature, sin in its existence and consequences is of necessity swallowed up and superseded. Socinians, as denying Christ’s Deity, may, if they please, be left to contend for sin, in consequence of its having once entered, existing throughout eternity. Ill, however, does it become those, who, professing to believe that he who is over all, God blessed for ever, became flesh, profess to believe also that he put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, to be found asserting, that in spite of his infinite person and nature, evinced in his resurrection and ascension, a mere indefinite principle, so far from being destroyed by his sacrifice, is even thereby enabled to assume an infinite nature, to share his triumphs, to set his power at defiance, and to lord it over the larger portion of the human race for evermore.

But something yet remains to be done, in order to give the coup de grace to the popular theory. Hitherto I have contented myself with refuting the objections of its adherents, and shewing that it is itself liable to objections which are absolutely insurmountable. I now proceed to shew, that [104] the word of God positively and formally denies it; and consequently, to warn its supporters that, in the event of their being determined to persevere, they fight with the fearful odds of having God himself for their antagonist.

One explicit declaration of the Most High being as good as a thousand, out of many passages of scripture, which are inconsistent with the popular system, I select the following:

1 John 3:8.

For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he MIGHT DESTROY the works of the Devil.

It will at once be conceded to me, by every one professing regard to the language of God’s word, that whatever the Messiah undertook to accomplish, he actually does accomplish. The reason is, that there is no opposing force sufficiently strong to frustrate any of his undertakings. If, then, he was manifested for the purpose of destroying the Devil’s works, he actually does destroy them.

It is also too plain to be disputed, that the phraseology of this passage is general and unlimited. It is not said that Jesus will destroy the Devil’s works in certain cases, and leave them undestroyed in others. No; so far from this, a complete conquest over them, issuing in their entire and [105] everlasting destruction, is here predicated of him. He destroys THE WORKS of the Devil.⁷⁸

⁷⁸ Έφανερωθη — ινα λυση ΤΑ ΈΡΓΑ.

Now, how is it possible to reconcile this with the popular theory? — Sin, sufferings, and death, it is obvious from other passages of scripture, constitute the Devil’s works. Sin, sufferings, and death, therefore, the Son of God destroys. But sin, sufferings, and death, the Son of God, according to our popular religionists, in the great majority of cases confirms! This becomes clear, when we consider, that to him is ascribed, by the common consent of all parties, the resurrection of the dead. The wicked, no less than the righteous, shall hear his voice, and shall by it be brought forth from their graves. John 5:29. And how does he raise them? Does he raise a single person with a sinful nature hereafter? Does he raise a single person to suffer hereafter? Does he raise a single person subject to the power of everlasting death hereafter? Much more, does he raise many persons so circumstanced? — Let there be no shirking of these questions. Bring the matter home to your consciences, and speak out fairly. — To assist you in your answer, I will put the whole in the form of one question: — Does the Son of God, as the author of the resurrection, raise any intelligent beings to sin, suffer, and die, everlastingly? If you say yes; then, mark the consequence. The text in question, according to your reading of it, should have run thus: For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that in a few cases HE MIGHT DESTROY, but that in the great majority of cases HE MIGHT CONFIRM the works of the Devil! That is, you represent the Son of God as acting in a future state, the very part which scripture represents the Devil as acting in this present world! Nay, what is far worse, and indeed the very height of blasphemy, you represent the Lord Jesus, by the alleged fact of his raising intelligent beings from their graves with wicked natures, as giving everlasting existence hereafter to those very evils, upon which the Devil had [106] been able previously to confer only a temporary existence here! Jesus, thus, according to you, does the Devil’s work; ay, and does it with infinitely more success than the Devil himself had been able to attain to!! Oh, monstrous idea! Jesus condescending to take his cue from his arch-enemy; and to render his undertaking subservient to the everlasting confirmation of that enemy’s dominion over intelligent creatures!!!⁷⁹ — When, when will those, who would fain pass for the wise and the enlightened of this world, learn to express themselves in a way consistent even with their own professed sentiments?

⁷⁹ In other words,. Jesus made the minister or servant of sin, notwithstanding the abhorrence with which the Apostle scouts such an idea. Galatians 2:17.

It is in vain to allege, in opposition to these home-thrusts, such declarations of scripture as, where the tree falleth, there shall it be. Ecclesias. 11:3. True there it shall be; ay, and as the text is commonly quoted, there too it shall lie for ever. But it is no where said, as it falleth, so shall it be raised again; and until this can be established on divine authority, every allegation that it shall be so, proceeding merely from man, is absolutely worthless. God no doubt intended, that human nature should, from its origin to its termination, continue ever the same. As it came from the dust, so it was His purpose that to the dust it should in due time return. As it fell, so it was to be or lie for ever. It was to be destroyed, and under the power of destruction it was for ever to continue. — But, was it not to be raised again? Yes: not, however, as human nature. As human nature, it had seen both its beginning and its end in this present state of existence.⁸⁰ In the future world, a new creation, or new state of things is to exist and be developed, from which the things of the old creation, whether human nature, or its effects, sin, sufferings, and death, are to be entirely and for ever excluded.⁸¹ Thus, then, the passage so often quoted, and so much [107] insisted on as decisive of the truth of the popular theory, actually makes against the purpose for which it is adduced. Proving, that as human nature falls, so it is for ever to be, it of course proves, that human nature being destroyed by death, is to continue destroyed by it for ever.

The only way in which even a plausible attempt can be made to get rid of my present argument, is by boldly denying that sin, sufferings, and death are the works of the Devil, to which allusion is made in the passage quoted. Passing by those proofs of the correctness of my application of the words which might be gathered from the context, I hereby declare myself perfectly willing to dispense with the assistance to be derived from the present text altogether; it being in my power to shew, by express declarations of scripture to that effect, that Jesus is the destroyer of sin, sufferings, and death. Doing so, what more can my adversaries require? And doing so, what becomes of the ordinary doctrine of everlasting sin, everlasting sufferings, and everlasting death?

Well, then:—

1. Sin is destroyed by the Son of God.

Once in the end of the world hath he appeared to PUT AWAY SIN by the sacrifice of himself. Heb. 9:26.

Observe, it is not one, or a few, or even many sins, which Jesus appeared to put away.⁸² It is sin itself. — Unquestionably the text intimates, that he put away, set aside, or brought to an end sin-offerings; and this, by having been himself the anti-type of all such sin-offerings. But this is very far from being its exclusive signification; for, he was the anti-type of sin-offerings by the very fact, that such was the value of his sacrifice, that it swallowed up, destroyed, and obliterated sin itself for ever. And manifest it must be, farther, that he who died personally to put away sin, can never raise from the dead, to live for ever, intelligent beings [108] clothed with sinful natures; or give everlasting existence to that hated principle which he died to destroy.⁸³

2. Sufferings are by the Son of God destroyed.

And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, NEITHER SORROW, NOR CRYING, NEITHER SHALL THERE BE ANY MORE PAIN; for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne (Jesus) said, Behold, I make all things new. Rev. 21:4,5.

All things shall be made new, says the infallible record; and, in connection with this new state of things, there shall be no sufferings endured. “True,” say antagonists, “in a future state all things shall be made new; but, nevertheless, in that future state sufferings of the intensest kind shall exist for ever.” Now, whether is the word of God, or the word of men, in regard to this matter, to be believed? — Besides, are not sufferings a part of the old things, as being connected with this present state of existence? And if so, how can they exist in a state in which all things are to be made new?

3. Death is by the Son of God destroyed.

Our Saviour Jesus Christ — hath ABOLISHED⁸⁴ death. 2 Timothy 1:10.

⁸⁴ Καταργησαντος — the word which is translated destroyed in 1 Corinth. 15:26, the next text quoted.

The last enemy that shall be DESTROYED is death.⁸⁵ 1 Corinth. 15:26.

⁸⁵ The last enemy, death, shall be destroyed. — MacKnight’s translation.

The last enemy who will be done away, is death. — Archbishop Newcome’s version.

The last enemy shall be destroyed, even death. — The improved version, 1808.

[109] Death is SWALLOWED UP in victory. 1 Corinth. 15:54.

If death itself be destroyed, by being swallowed up in the divine life of him who is the victorious one, what possibility is there of its existing everlastingly? Were death everlasting, it would be infinite as to its duration; and, if thus infinite, how could it be brought to an end or destroyed? — Besides, where does the phrase everlasting death occur in scripture? — It is in vain to allege, in justification of the use of the language, that the word of God makes mention of the second death. I grant that it does: but, as it appears from Rev. 20:14, that the second death means the death or destruction of death itself, that is, the fulfilment of the sentence denounced against the serpent in Genesis 3:15, what reason now can be urged in behalf of the proposition, that death, in the case of certain intelligent beings, is rendered everlasting? If Jesus the Prince of life have overcome death, by dying the just for the unjust, and by rising again from the dead to the power of an endless life, is it very complimentary to him, or consistent with the truth of those oracles which declare him to have been thus the destroyer of death, to represent him as on the contrary conferring on death everlasting existence?

Have I not now established my position?

If sin be destroyed, how can a sinful nature be everlasting? If sufferings be destroyed, how can intelligent beings be subjected to everlasting torments? If death be destroyed, how can there be such a thing as everlasting death? If all the Devil’s works be destroyed, how can any of these works eternally exist? Nay, if the Devil himself, with death his last work, be destroyed, — to accomplish which was, as we are informed in Heb. 2:14, one of the grand objects of the manifestation of the Son of God, — by whom is the Devil’s place to be supplied, and are the hypothetical eternal torments to be inflicted?

In a word, it is plain, and must by every candid mind be admitted, that whatever the phrase everlasting punish-[110]ment may imply, it cannot mean the endurance of everlasting torments by beings possessed of an everlastingly sinful nature.

By this time, I suspect, the great bulk of my readers have set me down as hostile to the doctrine of eternal punishment, and are convinced that my object in this work is to undermine and subvert it. If such be their opinion, they are egregiously mistaken.

There does not, perhaps, exist a more strenuous supporter of the doctrine of eternal punishment, than the writer of these pages. And this simply because it is denounced as the portion of the wicked, in terms the most express, in the word of God. To the declarations of the Most High, whatever they may be, my conscience is accustomed to yield a ready and implicit submission.

But I do not say that, in matters of religion, I am disposed to yield an equally ready and implicit credence to the declarations of men. On the contrary, in so far as regards these, I find my mind becoming every day more and more sceptical. — Liable to err as all men are, and erring as I find myself in many respects to have done, I am now in the habit of sifting, examining, and testing, by God’s word, every statement of a religious kind which I meet with in human compositions, or hear drop from the lips of a fellow-mortal. The benefits to be derived from pursuing a line of conduct like this, are becoming to my mind more and more apparent. And in no respect more so, than in regard to the quœstio vexata of eternal punishment. — The word of God declares, that Jesus destroys the Devil’s works. This satisfies me of the impossibility of eternal torments. — But the same word declares, that the wicked shall go away into everlasting punishment. This equally satisfies me, that there are never-ending consequences connected with the existence and practice of wickedness. And now comes the pinching question: — “Denying as you do eternal torments, and yet maintaining as you do the necessity of eternal punishment, [111] how can you render the one proposition consistent with the other? If there be no eternal torments, how can there be eternal punishment? And if there be eternal punishment, how can it be inflicted except through the medium of eternal torments?” — This I admit to be a fair statement of the difficulty. Hic labor, hoc opus est.

From this difficulty I do not propose to escape, by having recourse to any thing which may be legitimately construed into a quirk or a quibble. I have no occasion for instance to contend, that eternal punishment means limited punishment. On the contrary, I am perfectly willing to assume, that the word eternal, when applied to the punishment of the wicked, signifies that which is boundless in point of duration. Nay, it is abundantly plain to me, and I have no hesitation in avowing the principle, that if there be any punishment at all of the nature of suffering inflicted in a future state of existence, the infliction of this punishment must continue for ever. For, it having been already shewn, that it is not by sufferings inflicted, but by the revelation of the divine character as Love, that the views and dispositions of intelligent creatures are changed — and that from being natural they become spiritual and divine — it evidently follows, that if the wicked be punished by means of sufferings inflicted hereafter, and if no other agent besides such sufferings be employed to effect a change, no change can by any possibility take place. Continued and increasing punishment, instead of tending to a change for the better, must under such circumstances be attended with continued and increasing desperation and sin.⁸⁶ Now, it is not contended by the consistent advocates for limited punishment by means of sufferings hereafter, and for the efficacy of such punishment in altering the views, that any other means besides such sufferings are resorted to, in order to bring transgressors to a sense of duty, and introduce them into the fold of God. [112] To these limited sufferings they profess to look, as the sole and efficient instrument of the ultimate conversion of the wicked. That is, they profess to expect from suffering, what scripture shews us can only be expected from the manifestation of God as Love. This it is that, in a way of which the advocates for limited punishment hereafter do not appear to me to have been aware, stamps inconsistency and ignorance of the nature and end of punishment upon their system; and, in so far as regards this present subject, imparts to that of their ordinary antagonists, however inconsistent with itself in other respects, more of the appearance of truth.

⁸⁶ This, indeed, is the popular theory; and, admitting their postulate that “suffering may exist hereafter,” the conclusion necessarily follows.

Besides — and why, merely because we may happen to hurt the minds of injudicious friends, should we disguise the truth? — the doctrine of the existence and efficacy of limited punishment hereafter, seems to me to be neither more nor less than the revival, in another shape, of the exploded dogma of purgatory. It is true, that by Universalists it is not made use of as an instrument for promoting the reign of priest-craft, as it is by the crafty and interested supporters of the Romish hierarchy. But this does not militate against the fact, that the doctrine itself is baseless because unscriptural. — Let me correct myself, however. The doctrine of purgation by fire has a scriptural foundation; but not in either the Popish or Universalist sense of the terms. Although God purges by fire, or by the introduction of his own nature, which is fitly compared to fire, into the conscience; 1 Corinth. 3:12-15; and although the grand effect of fire is, to consume or destroy; Heb. 12:29; yet the fire in question is not productive of torment, but the reverse. Rom. 12:20,21. Upon earth, the moment that the divine nature enters into the conscience, while it proves itself to be fire by destroying the principle of evil, it does so, not by tormenting, but by swallowing up that principle, along with its necessary accompaniment, a sense of guilt, in the enjoyment of certain and permanent peace; Jerem. 23:29, and Malachi 3:2, with Rom. 5:1: and so also, upon earth, the torments of the unbelieving or wicked are the result, not of [113] the divine nature as fire having entered with divine efficacy into their consciences, but of the operation in them of the principles of human nature. If, then, God is hereafter to act on the minds of intelligent beings who continue wicked here by means of his own nature which is fire, reasoning from analogy, His doing so cannot have the effect of tormenting them, as is commonly but erroneously supposed, but must have the effect of destroying or swallowing up their nature in His. See 1 Corinth. 3:12,15.

I thus, in the most decided manner possible, concede to my opponents, that if sufferings exist at all hereafter, they are everlasting sufferings.

In what way, then, are the wicked eternally punished?

In answer to this question, I observe:

1. The wicked are the whole of Adam’s posterity as such. There is none righteous, no not one. Rom. 3:10. — There is none that doeth good, no not one. Ibid. 12. — The principle of wickedness, and the principle of human nature, are thus obviously shewn to be one and the same.

2. The wicked, or human beings as such are, we discern from the scriptures, capable of being punished only in two ways: 1st. By their forfeiting natural advantages which they originally possessed, and becoming exposed to calamities from which they were originally exempt. This happened to Adam in consequence of his own transgression; and the punishment is shared with him by all his posterity, as being naturally one with him or partakers of his nature. He, and they in him, forfeited creature righteousness; were banished from the garden of Eden; were rendered liable to every species of suffering; and became obnoxious to the stroke of death. 2ndly. Human beings are capable of being punished, by having supernatural benefits withheld from them. This does not happen to any of them, in consequence, properly speaking, of the original transgression committed by Adam, but in consequence of the want of the principle of faith, or the divine nature, on the part of the individual. It is a punishment, not of loss like that sustained by Adam [114] when he fell, but of want: — he who is destitute of faith or the divine nature, not merely being involved like other men in all the natural consequences of Adam’s transgression; but coming short likewise of that enjoyment of the Kingdom of Christ and of God, which is the special portion of those who are elected from among men.

3, The punishment of the wicked, or of human beings as wicked, is in both the aforesaid respects eternal. 1st. Adam and his natural posterity were deprived of the creature advantages which he enjoyed in Eden, not for a time, but for ever. And this is not the fate of a few human beings, but of all; nay, as having been one of Adam’s descendants, it is the fate of the Lord Jesus Christ himself. It never was God’s intention, after the earthly paradise and human nature as it existed pure in that paradise had been forfeited, to restore them to Adam or to any of his posterity;⁸⁷ and hence, the punishment implied in the forfeiture of these earthly blessings was to him and them eternal. 2ndly. What I have just adverted to, although truly eternal punishment, is not the eternal punishment chiefly intended in scripture. That is, eternal exclusion from the Kingdom of Christ and of God. This punishment is inflicted, not on the account of Adam’s transgression, — for the effect of that crime is merely the forfeiture of natural advantages, — but on account of unbelief, or the non-reception by the individual himself of the testi-[115]mony of God concerning His Son. Thus, instead of resulting, like suffering and death, from the act of another, it is personal, or connected with the state and consequent conduct of the individual. The eternal punishment of which I am now speaking, is undergone by every one who continues throughout life possessed of no higher principles than those of mere human nature. And it consists in the want or destitution of supernatural advantages hereafter: for, to no one considered merely as a human being, is admission into Christ’s kingdom hereafter conceded. It is the declaration — the oft-repeated declaration — of holy writ, that those only who while on earth are born again, and thereby become partakers as to their minds of the first fruits of the divine nature, have the inconceivably great and glorious privilege of reigning with Christ hereafter conferred upon them. Behold, says the Apostle John, speaking in his own name, and in that of all who are similarly circumstanced with himself, behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon US, that WE should be called the sons of God. 1 John 3:1. — And yet, even such highly favoured ones do not enter into the glory of their Lord as human beings. The law is express, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God: from the operation of it, no descendant of Adam is exempted; nay, it is so rigidly enforced, that even the Lord Jesus Christ himself required to sacrifice, put off, and part with the pure human nature or flesh and blood with which he appeared upon earth, before he could enter personally into the heavenly glory. The body of believers is still dead, because of sin: that is, although by the entrance of Christ’s righteousness they are as to their minds possessed of spiritual principle, and are thus necessarily and for ever relieved from the possibility of condemnation; they are nevertheless as to their human nature still under the curse, and are destined to have that curse executed upon them, in so far as they are partakers of that nature, no less than upon the unbelieving portion of mankind, to the very uttermost. Rom 8:10.

⁸⁷ The correctness of the remark, as applied to the Lord Jesus, is visible in this, that Adam’s primitive purity was that of a mere creature, whereas the purity of the Lord Jesus was that of the Creator manifest in flesh. There was, therefore, in the case of Jesus, no restoration of mere creature purity, no more than there was in his case any restoration to the earthly paradise. By assuming our nature, he was involved in our forfeiture of natural blessings. — Jesus, no doubt, in exhibiting the perfect righteousness of man in himself, Rom. 8:3, restored that which he took not away. Psalm 69:4. See also Psalm 26:6. But his restoration of it was through his last and crowning act of obedience, the sacrifice of himself; Rom. 10:4; John 10:18; and, therefore, in restoring man’s righteousness, he ended man’s life, and thus laid the foundation for rising himself, and raising man in him, to the enjoyment of the life of God. Phil. 2:8,9.

Such and so worthless, then, is mere human nature; and [116] thus is it everlastingly punished. — It could not, even as it came from God’s hands, avoid violating the most trifling of all conceivable prohibitions: thereby shewing itself to be, even in its original state, altogether vanity, nay, lighter than vanity. For this, it is eternally punished, by having been made to forfeit for ever, that is without any possibility of restoration or recovery, all the natural advantages which it had. — But when, notwithstanding the everlasting forfeiture of natural advantages by mankind, supernatural advantages are proposed to them, on condition of their believing in the willingness and intention of God to bestow these; — nay, when they are positively urged and commanded to believe in all this; — so far from mere human nature having yet been able to comply with the command — although not as in the case of Adam of the nature of a threatening, but actually holding out blessings — human beings, when left to themselves and to the operation of mere earthly principles, have always and uniformly and necessarily disobeyed it. There is not upon record, there cannot be found at the present day, an instance of a man believing God’s testimony, as such, under the influence of mere human principles. This it is, and not the original transgression of Adam or any similar evils, which establishes the deep rooted and thorough enmity of the carnal mind, or mere human nature, to God; this it is which shews, that as it is not subject to God’s law, SO NEITHER INDEED CAN IT BE SO. Rom. 8:7. That essential opposition of human nature to God which is manifested by its necessary rejection of His testimony concerning His Son, and not the opposition to Him which Adam displayed in Paradise, is the sin, evil, or criminality, which is deservedly punished with irremediable and everlasting exclusion from all the benefits and privileges of Christ’s heavenly kingdom. This is what I conceive the Holy Ghost principally to intend by everlasting punishment.

Am I now understood?

If not, let me in a single sentence sum up the whole of the preceding statements.

The eternal punishment of the wicked, or of human [117] beings as the wicked, does not consist in their being eternally tormented, for that would imply the confirmation by Christ of the works of the Devil; but in their being eternally excluded from Christ’s heavenly kingdom.

It is in vain to object to the system now proposed,

First, “that little infants cannot believe, and that, therefore, my view pronounces upon all of them a sweeping sentence of exclusion from heavenly blessings.” I confess that, in regard to the topic of infant salvation, I was for a long time exceedingly puzzled. Faith, I clearly saw, was competent only to adults; and if, therefore, the divine nature could exist upon earth only in connexion with the actual exercise of faith, no infant, it was obvious to me, could be saved. But after much mature deliberation, and, blessed be God’s name, after much teaching from His own word, even this difficult subject was opened up to me. Faith, I had long observed, was represented as working by love; but love, or the divine nature, it was not till recently given me to observe distinctly, is itself the root of faith. Love believeth all things. 1 Corinth. 13:7. 1 John 4:19. What, then, it struck me, is essential to the possession of an interest in Christ’s kingdom hereafter, on the part of any human being while here, is not, properly speaking, faith which is merely an effect, but love or the divine nature which of every grace is the cause.⁸⁸ Of the former, the infant is certainly incapable; but not of the latter. Supposing, then, God to have a purpose of special mercy and love towards any little infant, what is to prevent Him from introducing His own nature into its conscience, and thereby fitting it for admission into His kingdom? He gave the nature which it has as Adam’s descendant; and, as He is Himself the possessor and source of the divine nature, what is to prevent Him, in His own time and way, from imparting it likewise? No doubt, [118] in adults the divine nature will indicate its existence by faith; that is, by their bringing forth an effect corresponding to the principle of which they are possessed: but faith, as an effect, is merely an accident;⁸⁹ — it is love which, as the cause, is the essence; — and if love be conferred, is not the divine nature, and thereby the capacity for admission into Christ’s kingdom, conferred likewise? — Observe, I assert not the admission of every infant into Christ’s kingdom; but only of those whom he may be pleased to beget again, in the exercise of his infinite sovereignty, by the communication to them of his nature. And I connect not this new birth with the sprinkling of water, or with any other external and superstitious practice; but solely with the divine purpose, and with the putting forth of that purpose in act by the implantation of the principle of love or the divine nature. — As to the text commonly quoted in proof of infant salvation, viz. suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven,⁹⁰ it is not worth a rush as evidence of the doctrine: for, our blessed Lord in this passage does not state, that His kingdom consists of little children, but of such;⁹¹ that is, of persons who having been born again, are in a spiritual point of view what little children are in a natural point of view.⁹²

Secondly, it is in vain to object to the system just propounded, “that the exclusion of any infants from the kingdom of heaven is inconsistent with justice, seeing that it is impossible for any of them to be guilty of the sin of unbelief.” The man who starts this objection generally contradicts other admitted principles of his own, and always errs, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God. He who admits that, in the consequences of Adam’s crime, even infants although personally guiltless of it are involved — and [119] yet objects to my theory, that infants, as not being personally guilty of unbelief, cannot be excluded from Christ’s kingdom — evidently contradicts himself. — But passing by the argumentum ad hominem to which, in reference to this point, our soi-disant orthodox clearly lie open, it is of more importance for me to observe, that every person who proposes the objection in question mistakes the ground of the natural condemnation of all Adam’s posterity, as well as the ground upon which any of the human race are excluded from supernatural blessings. He mistakes the former: for, it is not on account of my having personally committed, or my being supposed to have personally committed, Adam’s transgression, that I am from the very period of my conception in the womb obnoxious to Adam’s punishment; but my liability to death, from my very origin, is on account of my having the same nature as that which in Adam led to and was productive of his first transgression. I am liable to be punished in consequence of my having in me the cause of evil, not on account of that cause having in my case been actually productive of a certain effect. The punishment, then, attaches to Adam’s nature wherever that nature is found, whether in infants or adults: the first transgression of Adam having been by divine appointment, properly speaking, merely the first indication of a nature which is fleshly and earthly; and which as such, and as proved to be such, by the inability of its first possessor even in a state of innocence to abstain from transgression, is fitted only to return to the dust from which it was originally taken. — And, if one transgression of our common parent was a sufficient indication of the perfect inability of mere human nature to comply with divine prohibitions, and consequently of its unworthiness to retain natural blessings; — surely the reiterated proofs afforded by the Jewish nation of their inability under the most favourable circumstances, when left to themselves, to believe in the declarations of God concerning benefits freely bestowed on them, must be allowed to be likewise a [120] sufficient indication of the total indisposition and inability of mere human nature to credit divine testimony, and, consequently, of the total unworthiness of those who are possessed merely of human nature to inherit supernatural blessings. Now, this is the very predicament in which every human being, whether infant or adult, stands. His nature as the same with that of Adam, it has been proved over and over again, has no capacity whatever to believe divine testimony, 1 Corinth. 2:14. Belief of that testimony, it has by repeated experiments been satisfactorily shewn — it is by the conduct of the Jewish nation shewn at the present day — can only spring from love, or the divine nature: a principle which, as Adam’s descendants, human beings when they come into the world certainly have not. The ground of the exclusion of the majority of infants and others from Christ’s kingdom is not, therefore, properly speaking, the fact of their being naturally destitute of faith, but the fact of their being naturally destitute of the principle from which alone faith can proceed. The majority of infants are not excluded because personally they have rejected the divine testimony, or because personally they are supposed to have rejected it; but because they possess no more than a nature which, in every case in which an opportunity is afforded for displaying what it is, necessarily and inevitably rejects that testimony; thereby incontrovertibly proving, that it is fitted only for existence in this present world. — Thus, then, is the ground of the exclusion of all infants from the natural advantages of the earthly paradise, and of the majority of them from the supernatural advantages of Christ’s kingdom, exactly the same. Of the former they are deprived, because they have a nature which is the same with that which in Adam led to his first transgression; from the latter they are excluded, because they have merely a nature the same with that which in the Jews as a nation shewed itself unable to produce faith, or any other divine fruit and effect. Deprivation of the one, and exclusion from the other, thus attach, not to [121] offences actually committed by the infant but to the nature which it has — a nature from which, whenever the suitable opportunity is afforded, these offences naturally proceed.

One explanation more, and my system, in so far at least as regards the present subject, is complete.

“What,” it may be asked, “is to become hereafter of the great majority of the human race, who, according to your sentiments, are eternally punished, by being eternally excluded from Christ’s kingdom?“

The question is a fair one, and shall receive a fair, distinct, and scriptural answer.

The wicked or unbelieving portion of mankind, it is plain, cannot be annihilated. With the annihilation of any of the human race, however plausible and satisfactory to some the notion may have appeared, it is impossible to render the word of God consistent. Death is one of the works of the Devil; and, therefore, if a single human being were to be left for ever under the power of death — which if annihilated he would be — in his case one of the works of the Devil, instead of being destroyed, would be confirmed. Thus, the same text which overturns the doctrine of eternal torments, overturns likewise that of annihilation. But, to disprove the latter doctrine, it is unnecessary to have recourse to inferences, however correctly these may be drawn. Christ has expressly declared, that all that are in the graves shall hear his voice; John 5:28: and, as believers in his testimony, we require nothing farther to satisfy us of the fact.⁹³

⁹³ See also 1 Corinth. 15:22, a text which nothing but the most barefaced impudence and sophistry can attempt to explain away.

Every human being, then, shall hereafter at one period or another live again: and live again for ever.

“But how is this consistent with their everlasting exclusion from Christ’s kingdom?”

To this I answer:

1. The kingdom of Christ, or the kingdom of God as [122] Christ or reigning mediator, is not destined to last for ever. It is set up for a specific purpose; and when that purpose shall have been accomplished, it will come to an end. Then cometh the end, when he (Christ) shall have delivered up the kingdom to God even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. For HE MUST REIGN TILL he hath put all enemies under his feet. — And WHEN all things shall be subdued unto him, THEN shall the Son also himself be subject unto Him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. — 1 Corinth. 15:24,25-28.

2. From the kingdom of Christ, or the possession of reigning power with Christ, all, except the elect, are completely and for ever excluded. See 1 Corinth. 6:9,10. They who upon earth possess the first fruits of the divine nature, and they only, enjoy the privilege of being Kings and Priests unto God and⁹⁴ the Lamb.⁹⁵ As kings, they reign even here over sin, and self, and the world: for this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 1 John 5:4. As kings, they reign over death itself: for nothing can separate them, not even death, from the love of God which is in Christ; Rom. 8:38,39; and, they are absent from the body, to be present with the Lord. 2 Corinth. 5:8. As kings, and consequently having overcome with Christ, Rom. 8:37, they sit down with him in his throne hereafter. Rev. 3:21; with 2 Timothy 2:12. And as kings, they have the honour of engaging with him in the ultimate subjugation of all things unto himself. 1 Corinth. 6:3; Rev. 2:26; with Psalm 149:5-9.

3. The wicked, or unbelieving, or merely natural portion of the family of man, never enter into the kingdom of Christ. They are unable to do so, for several reasons; such as: 1st. They have not from everlasting been chosen to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth. 2 Thessal. 2:13. 2ndly. They have in them, while on earth, nothing superior to the ordinary principles of human [123] nature; and nothing, consequently, by which the tendencies of human nature can be reigned over or overcome.⁹⁶ 3rdly. They have no interest in the first resurrection, or resurrection of the just. Luke 14:14; 1 Corinth. 15:23; Hebrews 9:28; 12:22,23; Rev. 20:4-6. Indeed, it is expressly declared, that they do not live again, until the thousand years, or period of Christ’s reign, is finished. Rev. 10:5.⁹⁷ 4thly. The raising of the wicked or merely natural portion of mankind, is the last act of God as Christ; that is, the last act of his kingly power as Mediator: 1 Corinth. 15:24: and as, in the very act of raising them, his kingdom as Mediator expires, of course into that kingdom they cannot, they never enter. Ibid. 28. — 5thly. To be kings, implies the having subjects to reign over. This, it is clear, Christ and his people have: for, he and they reign over the world; and they have the unspeakable honour of being engaged with him in the ultimate subjugation of all things unto himself. But as, when the wicked and ungodly dead are raised, there are none remaining to be reigned over, it is too evident to need being dwelt on, that to the possession of kingly power, or to admission into Christ’s kingdom, such wicked persons can never by any possibility attain.

In a word, into the kingdom of Christ, or the possession of kingly power with Christ, the unbelieving portion of mankind never enter: because, his kingdom expires in the very act of their resurrection; and because, instead of being privileged to reign as believers are, it is their fate, on the contrary, to be reigned over. They are not kings but subjects.

And now occurs the last questions: — “How, in the event of the wicked, or the unbelieving portion of the human [124] family, being ultimately raised to the possession of everlasting life through Christ, can they be said to be eternally punished?”

There is no difficulty whatever in answering this, if we bear in mind the scriptural discoveries which have been already made. From Christ’s kingdom, we have seen, that the wicked, or unbelieving, or merely natural portion of the human family, are, not for any limited period, but for ever excluded. I now advance a step farther, and observe, that from life and happiness hereafter, whether in the kingdom of Christ or as subjects of that kingdom, the wicked are, in reality, entirely and everlastingly excluded. — Who are the wicked? The whole family of man as such, or all who are partakers of Adam’s nature as such. Rom. 3:9-19. — Now, does any one as wicked, or as a partaker of Adam’s nature, attain to the possession of life and happiness hereafter? Certainly not. No one — no, not even the Lord Jesus Christ and his people — enters into glory with flesh and blood, or human nature. John 3:3,5. 1 Corinth. 15:50. Jesus ascended to his throne with a spiritual and heavenly body: and his people enter into his kingdom hereafter, not with flesh and blood bodies, or bearing the image of the earthy; but with bodies fashioned like to his glorious body, or bearing the image of the heavenly. Rom. 8:11; 1 Corinth. 15:49; Philip. 3:21; 1 John 3:2. But if such be the case with regard even to Christ and his people — if even believers, the members of the peculiar family of God, cannot enjoy future happiness as human beings — how plain, that as human beings or wicked, no others can enjoy everlasting life. If the first fruits of the divine nature possessed by believers, cannot preserve their human nature from destruction, how absurd to suppose that those who have not the divine nature in them, should have even the shadow of a right to look for such an exemption. — As human beings or wicked, then, the existence of the unbelieving must both begin and terminate with this present life. When those who now live and die wicked, or possessed merely of Adam’s nature, are raised again at the [125] second resurrection — and raised again they must be, that death in their case may be destroyed — they are not raised in the wicked nature which while upon earth they had; — for if so, God would do in regard to them, what he cannot do even in regard to His people; and sin and sufferings, two of the works of the devil, would in their case receive everlasting confirmation; — but by being the subjects of the omnific word, Behold! I make all things new, the wicked nature which they had upon earth is by their resurrection, swallowed up in another nature suitable to their now altered state and circumstances. — Thus, then, although it is true, that it is the persons who were wicked, or had only Adam’s nature upon earth, who, at the consummation of all things or second resurrection, are raised up again; yet it is not true, that such persons are raised up again as wicked, or as partakers of Adam’s nature. On the contrary, their Adamic nature is destroyed; or they as Adam’s descendants are everlastingly punished: and yet, as having had flesh, which was the same with the flesh of the Son of God, — and as having been thus inseparably united, if not to his mind as believers are, at all events to his body, — while their old nature is swallowed up in this death, it is, that it may be ultimately exchanged for, and converted into that new nature which, through his life, and through the life of his chosen ones, he is pleased to vouchsafe to them.

Thus do I present an additional view of everlasting punishment, and everlasting punishment of the wicked too. — Two intelligent beings are in scripture set before us, Adam and Christ. Each of these has a nature essentially distinguished from that of the other; and in the nature of each of them immense numbers participate. The nature of the former is creaturely and wicked; the nature of the latter is divine and righteous. The nature of the former, as essentially and necessarily wicked, is everlastingly punished, by being everlastingly destroyed; the nature of the latter, as essentially and necessarily righteous, is necessarily connected with everlasting existence. — But those who partake of the nature of [126] the former are, in one way or another, and at one period or another, destined also to partake of the nature of the latter. — Hence it happens, that every intelligent being, and the whole body of intelligent beings, are presented to us in the sacred writings under a twofold aspect. As Adam’s descendants, they are originally wicked, and as such are subjected to everlasting punishment; but as Christ’s descendants, they are made partakers of the divine nature, and as such live for ever. And the connection between Adam’s nature and Christ’s nature, through which this wonderful transformation is effected, takes place, in consequence of God himself having assumed and been made manifest in flesh; and in consequence of His communicating to the minds of a certain number of the human race, even while in flesh, the first fruits of the divine nature.

Everlasting punishment, then, is not only everlasting exclusion from Christ’s kingdom, but it is also the complete destruction of the nature which deserves thus to be excluded. The wicked, or those who live and die possessed merely of Adam’s nature, are punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.⁹⁸

⁹⁸ For a farther explanation of my sentiments respecting the manner in which the everlasting punishment of the wicked, is rendered compatible with the ultimate bestowment on them of everlasting life, I must refer the reader to the seventh chapter of my work, entitled, The Assurances of Faith, or Calvinism identified with Universalism. In one or two respects, my views may have undergone some modification since I composed that treatise; but the alterations are immaterial. — I beg also to refer to my Fourth Dialogue.

I thus sum up: —

Answer to the Third Question.

There is no authority either in scripture, or in reasonings legitimately derived from scripture, for the ordinary doctrine of eternal punishment hereafter.

[127] Chief Reason of the Answer.

The Son of God came into the world to destroy the Devil’s works; and, therefore, he cannot, by perpetuating sin and sufferings for ever, confirm any of the works of his grand enemy. Jesus is the Devil’s conqueror and destroyer, not the Devil’s ally.

Grand Inference from the Answer.

The existence of Adam’s nature, and consequently of sin, suffering, and death, here, is merely subservient to the bringing out, manifestation, and conferring of Christ’s nature, and consequently of righteousness, happiness, and everlasting life, hereafter. 1 Corinth. 15:54-58. Sin reigns unto death, that Grace may reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom. 5:21.

[128] ADDITIONAL AND EXPLANATORY REMARKS.

STRONG, and clearly insurmountable by any fair process of reasoning, as are the arguments which have been adduced and insisted on, in opposition to the ordinary doctrine of eternal punishment hereafter, I am far from supposing that the conflict is at an end; for, I have nothing to expect from the advocates of that popular and profitable system, but the most virulent and uncompromising hostility. I shall be told, perhaps, that, “whatever shew of reasoning or conclusiveness the preceding statements may possess, it is altogether delusive;” and that “an appeal to a few plain and easily-understood passages of scripture is sufficient to dispel the mist, and to remove the speciousness, with which, for a while, I may have contrived to bewilder the senses of my readers.” — To make farther appeals to scripture, I neither have, nor reasonably can have any objection. I am ready to grapple with my antagonists on this field at any time: but I must be permitted to premise, in the first place, that I am very far from pretending to understand every part of the sacred writings, or to be able to remove all their difficulties. Indeed, the utmost length to which in many cases I can go, is, to perceive what a text does not signify, without being able to see clearly and positively what its signification really is. — In the second place, I observe, that the circumstance of a passage of scripture appearing to be plain and intelligible, does not always and necessarily imply that it is so. The Jews of our Lord’s time considered it to be very clear, that the numerous prophesies which represented the future Messiah as a conquerer and a king, were inconsistent with his occupying a mean and lowly station in [129] this present world. Plain and intelligible, however, as the matter was to them, we know that this view of theirs led them into a most grievous practical mistake; and that, in adopting it, as well as in their treatment of our Lord and his apostles, they were unconsciously exemplifying the truth of one of Isaiah’s prophecies, which had foretold, that they should not see with their eyes, nor hear with their ears, nor understand with their hearts, nor be converted and healed.⁹⁹ — I must remark further, that, as in a work of this kind brevity is indispensable, it is my design, instead of launching forth into the wide ocean of scripture, and considering every petty cavil and objection drawn from that sacred source, to confine my own attention, and that of my readers, to the examination of one or two, in which the gist of the controversy seems to lie. Those who would wish to see the whole phalanx of objections to the theory propounded by me in this treatise, met and confuted, must be referred to the latter part of the seventh chapter of my work on The Assurance of Faith.

⁹⁹ Isaiah 6:10.

In what follows, then, I advert, first, to those scriptures which speak of an approaching day of judgment; and, secondly, to those which have been supposed in express terms to assert the doctrine of never-ending torments in a future state of existence.

First. As to the day of judgment.

That our Lord and his apostles, in many parts of the New Testament, speak of a future day of judgment, with an evident reference to many passages contained in the Old Testament, is not denied, but is on the contrary expressly maintained. The only question is, concerning the meaning of such language.

What it does not signify, is to every believer of the truth perfectly obvious.

It cannot mean, as it is but too commonly understood to do, “a period still future, when the state and prospects of [130] believers for eternity, now to themselves more or less uncertain, shall be finally and for ever determined.”¹⁰⁰ And this, because, instead of requiring to wait till a future state of existence, before ascertaining whether they shall be acquitted or condemned, it is the privilege of all the people of God to be acquitted, and if come to years of maturity to know that they are acquitted, already. Being justified by faith, they have peace with God by the Lord Jesus Christ. Rom. 5:1. And this acquittal or justification of theirs is certain to their minds, in consequence of God’s giving them to see, that it is not by works of righteousness which they have done, or are required to do, but according to His mercy that they are saved. Titus 3:5. Under these circumstances, how absurd the supposition that believers, while upon earth, are more or less uncertain respecting their everlasting destiny! and that, instead of being acquitted in their consciences even here, they must be content to wait for their acquittal, — if, indeed, they shall be acquitted after all, — in a future state! — They are, it is true, and while upon earth must continue to be, uncertain respecting the extent and magnitude of the blessedness to which hereafter they are to be raised: for, it doth not yet appear what they shall be.¹⁰¹ But as to the fact of their sins having been forgiven [131] them for Christ’s name’s sake, and of their having a certain and indefeasible interest in the divine love, of this they neither have, nor can have any doubt whatever: this we know, that when Christ shall appear, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.¹⁰² 1 John 3:2. — In so far as respects their own consciences, then, the day of judgment has, as to believers, already taken place.¹⁰³ If the state of uncertainty, in which the minds of unbelievers necessarily are with regard to their everlasting destiny, be of itself sufficient to prove that judgment to them is still future; how obvious on the other hand that men, the natural enmity of whose hearts to God has been slain by the manifestation to them of His character as Love, — from whose consciences all sense of guilt has been obliterated by the sprinkling on them of the blood of the atonement, — and to whom God himself has condescended to speak peace, — instead of requiring to wait for their trial and judgment hereafter, have had judgment or sentence of acquittal pronounced upon them already!¹⁰⁴

¹⁰⁰ As a specimen of that uncertainty respecting their future state, in which, in common with Pagans and other infidels, ordinary professors of religion love to indulge, turn to that precious morçeau of Addison, beginning,

When rising from the bed of death,

O’erwhelmed with guilt and fear,

I see my Maker face to face,

O! how shall I appear: —

The truth is, that all the statements concerning a future judgment contained in the New Testament Scriptures, had reference primarily to the approaching fate and impending destruction of the Jewish people, and to the consequences of that event. How much, alas! is lost to ordinary readers of [132] the Sacred Writings, by their not reflecting, that the personal mission of our Lord and the greater part of his apostles was to the lost sheep of the House of Israel; Matt. 10:5,6; Rom. 15:8; and by their not understanding or overlooking the fact of the exalted rank, and distinguished privileges, which belonged to the Jews previous to the advent of the Messiah. Psalm 147:19,20. John 4:22. As the necessary result of this, the close of the former dispensation, and the exclusion of the Jewish people from the divine favour — which are, in reality, some of the most important temporal events to which the Christian dispensation has given birth — are unheeded, or passed over by them, as mere common every-day occurrences. Matt. 8:11,12. Such, however, was not the view taken of these events, or the interest felt in them, by the Saviour himself and his immediate followers. The approaching fate of Abraham’s descendants appears, from almost every page of the New Testament, to have been one of the chief topics of their concern. Knowing the rank which the Jews as a nation occupied¹⁰⁵ — ardently desirous that they should retain it, and continue to be objects of the divine favour¹⁰⁶ — and yet satisfied, that their privileges would be forfeited, and the threatened vengeance executed upon them, unless they hearkened to that prophet who was Moses’ superior and Lord¹⁰⁷ — they plied them with every argument, and urged them by every motive which might, by any possibility, have averted from them a catastrophe so awful. Hence the intimations, that their sufferings should be less tolerable than those of Sodom and Gomorrah; — that their worm should not die, and their fire should not be quenched; — and innumerable other predictions of a similar kind; — all intended and calculated to forewarn them of that fate which, notwithstanding the anticipations of their own vain minds, and the delusive hopes cherished and fostered by their rulers, a perseverance in [133] opposition to Jesus as the Messiah would inevitably bring down upon them. But all was in vain. Israel, in spite of the prophetic denunciations contained in Deuteronomy, and other parts of those writings which were every Sabbath day read in his synagogues — which denunciations were frequently and fearfully explained as applicable to the Jews’ treatment of himself by the Lord of glory — rushed on blindfold in his infatuated career, filling up the measure of his iniquities, until, in due time, his destiny was accomplished. Then, in a most obvious and undeniable sense, was there to him the day of judgment.

Let it not be alleged, that the language of the New Testament concerning a future judgment is of too strong and unqualified a nature to admit of being applied, even in a primary sense, to any event, or series of events, which could happen in this present world. To argue thus is clearly to beg the question. It does not imply a calm and dispassionate examination of the passages of the New Testament, where the disputed phrases are to be found; nor a comparison of them with those Old Testament prophecies, from which they have been taken; but the mere influence of vulgar prejudices and prepossessions. Let the 66th chapter of Isaiah, where the expressions concerning the undying worm and the unquenchable fire first occur, be candidly examined, and the calling of the Gentiles, and the rejection of the Jews, will be discovered to be the topics of which it treats primarily throughout. To the incredulous, the close of the 10th chapter of the epistle to the Romans is proposed, as affording a solution of all the difficulties in the 66th, as well as in the preceding chapter of Isaiah. Should any inquire, in what respects was the judgment executed upon the Jewish nation more awful and intolerable, than that which Sodom and Gomorrah and the other cities of the plain underwent? — the answer is obvious: — not merely were the external sufferings of the former distinguished by peculiar intensity at the period of Jerusalem’s destruction, but their punishment has been, in some respects, of a kind [134] quite unparalleled: they have forfeited privileges such as no other nation ever possessed; Psalm 147:20; and, instead of being destroyed or blended with the inhabitants of surrounding countries as has uniformly happened in similar cases, they have, by special divine interposition, been preserved a distinct and separate people; and shall continue to be so, that their punishment may be, and may be shewn to be coeval with time itself. Great as were the advantages which Sodom and Gomorrah, Tyre and Sidon enjoyed, while in the height of their opulence and splendour, these advantages were merely of a secular kind: but it was from religious and spiritual privileges, so important as to occasion the Saviour to say concerning them that they exalted their possessors to heaven, that the Jews were thrust out. Besides, Sodom and Gomorrah, Tyre and Sidon, although for the time signal examples of the vengeance of the Almighty, sustained the whole weight of that vengeance at once; — the divine wrath in regard to them was speedily exhausted: — but the Jewish nation, while time rolls on, shall be kept in existence as monuments of the divine displeasure — shall continue to be an astonishment, and a proverb, and a bye-word among all nations, whither the Lord shall lead them. Say you, that punishment, so signal and so tremendous as this, is unworthy of being denounced in the energetic expressions of the Old Testament prophets and our blessed Lord? Blind, indeed, must that man be, who, in the vengeance inflicted on the Jewish nation, cannot discern the primary sense of their accomplishment.

Still, perhaps, objectors remain unsatisfied. “As the apostle Paul,” say they, “in more than one passage of his writings speaks of our all appearing, or standing, at the judgment-seat of Christ, how is such language to be reconciled with your theory that, in their primary sense, the judgment and punishment mentioned in the New Testament scriptures are confined to this present life?” Nothing can be easier. If the 45th chapter of Isaiah, from the 22nd verse to the end, (which clearly appears, by consulting [135] Rom. 14:10-12, and Philip. 2:9-11, to be the passage of the Old Testament from which the expression in question is derived,) be examined and carefully considered, it will be perceived, that the prophet is speaking primarily, not of what is to happen in a state of existence succeeding the present, but of what was to occur in a then future dispensation; that is, in New Testament times, and under the reign of the Messiah. I thus most cheerfully admit, that the words of Isaiah are expressive of futurity: but I deny, — and I defy any man, from what appears on the face of the record itself, to disprove my denial, — that the futurity, of which they primarily speak, lies beyond the boundaries of this present life. — The view which I have given of this Old Testament passage completely accords with the apostolic application of it. In the first place, although Paul, in the 14th chapter of the Romans, and the 5th chapter of 2nd Corinthians, speaks of standing at Christ’s judgment-seat as an event which was then future, he does not, in either of the passages referred to, employ a single expression from which it is necessarily to be inferred, that the only tribunal or judgment-seat to which it alludes, is one which is to be set up when this present world shall have come to an end. In the second place, he does not say, as careless and superficial readers and even grave divines have supposed, that the whole human race are to stand at Christ’s judgment-seat; but that we, or all we, that is, in the primary sense of the terms, all of us Jews and Gentile proselytes — for it is to such only he is writing, and of such only he is speaking — shall do so. In the third place, the nature and scope of the contexts in Romans, 2nd Corinthians, and Philippians, lead us at once to the sense in which the apostle quotes and applies the words of the prophet. During the subsistence of the former dispensation or economy, Moses was the sole legislator of the Church; or, in other words, during the whole of that period he occupied the judgment-seat, Matt. 23:2, and to his laws and authority the whole Israel of God was subject [136] and amenable. The dignity thus conferred on him he was to retain, until his dispensation, which by visible and immediate divine interposition had been established, should by the same divine interposition be overturned. This latter event, however, at the time when the apostle wrote, had not taken place; — it was then future; — and as a large proportion of the Christian communities, then in existence, were the descendants of Abraham according to the flesh, their outward subjection to the Mosaic Law, from which they did not find themselves yet delivered, interfered in a great measure with their freedom as New Testament believers; Acts 15, throughout; 21:20-26; — prevented the full enjoyment of those privileges which were destined for them in common with the other members of Christ’s mystical body; Hebrews, throughout; — and caused them to groan, from the burthensome and oppressive nature of the yoke which, for a time, it behoved them to bear. Matt. 11:28-30; Acts 15:10; Rom. 7:24. To the period of their emancipation from this state of thraldom, the apostle frequently encourages Jewish believers to look forward. They were then subject externally to the authority of Moses; but that authority was drawing near to its termination, and they were soon to become exclusively the subjects of the Messiah. Jerusalem and the Jewish nation, they are often reminded, were fast filling up the measure of their iniquities; 1 Thessal. 2:14-16; — the Mosaic dispensation, which was the boast and the idol of that stubborn and rebellious people, was soon to pass away for ever; — Jesus was speedily to summon them to his throne or judgment-seat;¹⁰⁸ — and, after having pronounced the doom of his enemies, was thenceforward, independently of the Mosaic institutions altogether, to exercise by means of his law of love unrivalled and uncontrolled authority in his church. Whenever that event occurred, he was to be acknowledged by his church sole and exclusive Lord, ruler or governor, to the glory of God the [167] Father.¹⁰⁹ The result of this altered state of things was to be, that Jewish believers who, up to that time, had rendered to Jesus a partial and divided homage, — being externally bound by the Mosaic law, although internally free from its condemning power,¹¹⁰ — were thenceforward, in common with their Gentile fellow believers, to yield no obedience except to the laws and ordinances of the Lord Jesus their spiritual head. They were thenceforward, with the rest of the church, to stand at Christ’s judgment-seat, that is to say, to be amenable to his jurisdiction only. — Can any one now be at a loss to know what is meant by Christ’s judgment-seat; or plead ignorance as to the time when, in the primary sense of the terms, the members of the New Testament church were constrained to take their stand at it?¹¹¹

That I may ensure my being understood, let me here indulge in a little repetition. Christ’s judgment-seat signifies primarily, the authority with which, as the Lawgiver of the New Testament church, he is invested, and which he exercises over its members: as well as points to the right which he had, as the greater than Moses, to bring the former dispensation to an end; — to visit the Jewish nation with the punishments threatened in ancient prophecy; — and to continue inflicting upon them the visible tokens of the divine displeasure.¹¹² This judgment-seat or authority, in so far as the Jews as a nation were concerned, was visibly set up at the time when Jerusalem was destroyed; and it shall last throughout every age of the church; the period of its duration being the period of the duration of the New Testament church itself. In one word, the judgment-seat of Christ, in the primary sense of the terms, is not, as theolo-[138]gians have dreamed, a tribunal to be erected in a future state of existence, and standing contrasted with earthly tribunals or governments; but is one already erected, and standing contrasted with the judgment-seat of Moses: and the New Testament Israel, or body of New Testament believers, stand at Jesus’ judgment-seat, or are amenable to his jurisdiction now, as the members of the Old Testament Israel stood at Moses’ judgment-seat, or were amenable to his jurisdiction formerly. The view just hinted, and not fanciful and unwarranted notions concerning the state of believers hereafter, gives the primary sense of most of those passages in the Book of Revelation which treat of a judgment, and a day or time of judgment. But upon this last subject I cannot now permit myself to enter.¹¹³

From the care and earnestness with which I have argued, that the future judgment spoken of by Christ and his apostles must have had a primary reference to the then future but speedily approaching fate of the Jewish nation, it may be imagined by some that it is my intention to limit the sense of such phraseology to that event. This would be a mistake. What I have hitherto been treating of is merely the primary, or if you will, the figurative signification of a future judgment. Through the medium of rewards conferred on the believing, and punishments inflicted on the unbelieving portion of the Jews under the New Testament dispensation, our Heavenly Father points obviously to the judgments of the future state. — What are these? And how are they to be pronounced?

In answer to the former of these questions, I observe, the judgments in question are the reversing of human judgments respecting Christ and his people on the one hand, and worldly men and their practices on the other. By the men [139] of this world, judging according to the only principles of which such persons can be possessed, the Lord of glory was first despised, then hated, condemned, and crucified. He came unto his own, but his own received him not.¹¹⁴ A similar fate springing from a similar misapprehension of their character and principles, has in every age awaited his followers. The world which knew not the Head, has evinced a corresponding ignorance respecting the members; 1 John 3:1; and, when not restrained in the course of God’s good providence, has carried its opposition to them to the most outrageous lengths. Christ and his people thus have been, are, and ever will be the object of the world’s condemnation. And the same world which has uniformly condemned them, has, acting upon the same principles and under the influence of the same spirit, just as uniformly applauded the maxims and conduct of prudent and successfal worldly men. The world has not merely hated Christ and his followers, but has loved its own. John 15:18,19. — Now the judgment of a future state is, not God’s satisfying Christ and his people that while upon earth they were right in opposing the spirit and practices of the world — for that they were satisfied of even during their militant state, Heb. 11, throughout; 12:1,2— but it is God’s openly declaring to all, on the one hand, that in the line of conduct pursued by them they were right, and on the other hand, that the world in condemning them was wrong. It is God’s openly advancing to the honours and glory of the heavenly state those whom the world despised and persecuted; and His openly declaring, on the contrary, that the things which are highly esteemed among men are an abomination in His sight. Luke 16:15. Thus, then, the future judgment is merely God’s making manifest openly and to all, what, even while they were upon earth, had already been made manifest to the hearts and consciences of His own people.

¹¹⁴ John 1:11.

And now for the answer to the other question, viz., in what way is this future judgment pronounced? It is by [140] the respective fates of the believing and the unbelieving. It is by the one being raised to life, and the other to shame and everlasting contempt. — Believers are privileged to partake of a first resurrection, both as to their minds, and as to their bodies. By the resurrection of their minds, they enter into the possession of the first fruits of Christ’s kingdom upon earth; by the resurrection of their bodies, they enter into the full enjoyment of His kingdom hereafter. The resurrection of the one is necessarily connected with that of the other, Rom. 8:10,11; and when both have taken place, the judgment pronounced by God in favour of His people is complete. Ibid. 17. — Just so, on the other hand, is judgment pronounced upon an unbelieving world. The worthlessness of their highest intellectual attainments, and the vileness of their most specious moral qualities, are evinced by the fact, that, as mere human beings, they continue under condemnation, and never see life. The wrath of God abideth on them. John 3:36. And so hereafter. These unbelieving ones are raised ultimately, through the medium of the previous resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth and his followers; John 3:14-17; 1 Corinth. 15:20-23; that is, through the previous resurrection of a class of persons whom, while upon earth, they despised; and towards whom, except in so far as they were restrained, they displayed every species of enmity and dislike. While the human nature of these unbelieving ones is destroyed, and they themselves, as having no other nature upon earth, are excluded from the kingdom of Christ; and while, in this way, sentence of condemnation is pronounced upon them; they are raised ultimately, through the previous possession of the divine nature by a few despised fellow human beings. The unbelieving are thus not only indebted to, but are ultimately obliged to feel and acknowledge that they are indebted to the present existence and operation of that very principle of faith, which, while in their earthly state, they hated, and which they endeavoured by every possible means to crush. In this consists, at one and the same time, the triumph of [141] the righteous, and the condemnation of the wicked. As raised to reign, judgment of approbation is pronounced on the former; as raised by being reigned over, judgment of condemnation is pronounced on the latter. And the judgment is satisfactory to both.¹¹⁵ To the righteous, by being confirmatory to them of views entertained by them even during their earthly career; to those who here are wicked, by being to them the communication of views of the divine character, of which, while upon earth, they were totally ignorant. These latter persons then justify the righteous, and condemn themselves. Thus is Jesus glorified in or through His saints, and admired in or through all them that believe, 2 Thessal. 1:10: not by his saints alone ultimately understanding and glorifying his character, which would render the passage absolute nonsense; but by his saints and believing people becoming the medium, through which he is finally glorified in the sight of all, and finally admired by all.¹¹⁶

Secondly. There may be objected to me those passages of scripture, which are supposed to represent eternal punishment as synonymous with eternal torments.

The principle upon which difficulties arising from these and similar passages are solved, has been so fully stated already in my answer to the preceding objection, that it is unnecessary for me to run any risque of wearing out the patience of my readers, by dwelling upon it at great length under this head. Everlasting punishment, although in its highest sense denoting the infliction of sufferings and death upon human beings as long as human nature is found to exist, — the everlasting exclusion of human beings as such from the kingdom of Christ and of God, — and the complete [142] ultimate destruction of human nature itself, — is nevertheless applicable in an inferior sense to the fate of the Jews as a nation; and to the fate of those believers who, during the reign of the Messiah, are found in any respect whatever subjecting themselves to the authority of Moses, instead of yielding obedience to their spiritual Head Christ Jesus. To render this intelligible, I observe,

1. That the phrases eternal and everlasting, wherever they are employed, are relative terms, having a reference to some test or standard of existence; and that their signification will vary according to the test or standard which may be assumed. If the duration of this present world or present system of things be assumed as the standard, everlasting in that case will signify, as long as this world lasts or endures. In this sense, the hills are spoken of as everlasting. Gen 49:26.— If the period during which the dispensation of Moses or that of Jesus shall last or continue be assumed as the standard, then everlasting will signify, as long as either of these dispensations lasts or continues. In this sense, the land of Canaan was to be given to the descendants of Abraham according to the flesh for an everlasting possession; that is to say, they were to possess it as long as the temporary covenant made at Mount Sinai was to last, or as long as they were obedient. Gen. 17:8. In this sense, likewise, I understand the term everlasting to be applicable to the punishment of the Jews. It is to last or endure as long as the Jews shall last or subsist as a distinct nation; and as long as they shall persevere in their opposition to the claims of Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. As long as there are Jews, that is, descendants of Abraham banded together to oppose the Lord and his Christ, so long shall their punishment last; or, in this sense, it shall be everlasting. — I would just add, that if the existence of God himself be assumed as the standard of everlasting duration, then, and only then, everlasting will imply absolute eternity or everlastingness of existence absolutely considered — if, for the sake of perspicuity, I may be allowed to coin such modes of expression.

[143] In attaching these various senses to the word everlasting, I am completely borne out, both by the nature of the case, and by the meaning of the original word commonly employed in the sacred writings to denote it. By the nature of the case — for, as it is plain, that the limitation of our faculties prevents our forming any idea of absolute duration, except through the medium of what is relative, it becomes next to certain, that all the language which we apply to eternity, must have been language originally and properly applied to time. By the meaning of the original word — for αιωνιος is derived from αιων, which commonly signifies age, æra, or dispensation; and is compounded, according to grammarians, of αιει ων or ον, or that which always lasts: being a word which, in its primary sense and ordinary classical usage, is applied to what may be measured by time, and, only at the utmost in a secondary sense, to what we commonly mean by eternity. But enough of this.

That my meaning may if possible be still better understood, let me observe farther, that the everlasting punishment threatened in scripture, in so far as it respects the Jews, must be strictly of a national kind; and since no nation, as such, has any existence beyond this present world, no more can national punishment extend beyond it. On the other hand, it is also plain, that national existence may be commensurate with the duration of this present world, and that, therefore, national punishment may be commensurate with it likewise. As the genuine conclusion deducible from these premises, so long as the Jews shall exist as a body or in a national capacity, even though their separate existence should be protracted to the end of time, so long shall they continue exposed to the visible tokens of the divine displeasure. His blood be on us and on our children, said their ancestors, when clamorously demanding the life of the Messiah; and the awful imprecation has been, and in every age will be, fulfilled. This, in so far as respects the Jews as a nation, is everlasting punishment.

[144] The view just presented is, I am well aware, at variance with the notions entertained by many leading religious characters at the present day. According to them, we may anticipate the speedy arrival of a period, when the Jews shall again be assembled in a national capacity in the land of Palestine, and be distinguished by many marks of the divine favour, as a preparatory step to their believing in Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. That such an expectation is without any foundation in scripture, as well as unwarranted by any appearances which have hitherto been observed, I have no hesitation in maintaining. The Supreme Being hath pronounced upon the rebellious and stiff-necked descendants of Abraham, by the mouths of ancient prophets and His own Son, a sentence of righteous and everlasting exclusion from His love; and who will venture to say that this, or any other sentence of His, can be revoked? God forbid, that I should oppose, or attempt to depreciate, the exertions so strenuously put forth by many at the present day, with a view to induce the Jewish nation to peruse the New Testament scriptures. So far from doing so, the persons engaged in this undertaking have my best wishes, and most fervent prayers, for their success; and many Jews, profited by their pious labours and enlightened through their instrumentality, will, I sincerely hope, be added to the Church of the living God. But I do oppose with all my might the idea, that the Jews as a body, or in a national capacity, while they continue the avowed enemies of the Messiah, shall be, in any respect whatever, the objects of the divine approbation; and also the idea, that the signal vengeance denounced against them, throughout the Old Testament scriptures and by the Lord Jesus himself, shall ever be mitigated or repealed. I cannot help observing in the fact of their preservation hitherto, notwithstanding all the efforts made by princes and sovereign states to crush, destroy, and extirpate them, not a preparation or introduction to any change in their sentiments respecting Jesus while they continue Jews, but a part fulfilment of those pro-[145]phecies, with regard to their obstinacy and punishment, which shall go on fulfilling in every succeeding age. Besides, what evidence are those societies, which profess to have for their object the conversion of the Jews, able to produce, of extensive and permanent benefits resulting from their exertions? Has any long and well-authenticated list of converts ever been published? Nay, what impression have their efforts been able to make on the great bulk of the Jewish nation, except that of increasing their blasphemous and outrageous opposition to the claims of Jesus of Nazareth? Such, the supporters of these societies may depend upon it, will, while they proceed on their present principles, always be the result; for, the idea of extinguishing or even modifying Judaism, while the professors of it continue a distinct nation, and thereby testify their approbation of the deed of their forefathers, is neither more nor less than the idea that God’s purposes and threatenings may be frustrated. That, when the fulness of the Gentiles shall be brought in, all Israel shall be saved,¹¹⁷ is clear: but is there a man, whose mental vision is not obscured by prejudice, who does not perceive, that the fulness of believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, is itself the fulness of the Israel of God? Rom. 2:28,29; Gal. 3:29.¹¹⁸

¹¹⁷ Romans 11:25,26, quoted from Isaiah 11:11-16, 45:17, and 59:20.

¹¹⁸ Some valuable remarks on the words eternal and everlasting, conveyed in a clear and popular form, will be found in Elhanan Winchester s Dialogues on Universal Restoration. Let it always be remembered by the reader, that I am far, very far indeed, from advocating as a whole the system of religion laid down and developed in the work referred to.

2. The phrase eternal punishment will become still more intelligible, if we consider two passages of the New Testament which are commonly quoted and insisted on by the supporters of the ordinary doctrine: these are, the latter part of Matthew 25th, and of Luke 16th. Both of these, when examined, will be found to give no countenance to the idea of punishment by means of torments in a state of existence succeeding the present; but, in their primary and [146] literal sense, to refer to events then speedily approaching, the close of the Mosaic dispensation, and the ruin and desolation which were impending over the Jewish people.

No man who peruses carefully the 24th chapter of Matthew, and connects with it the latter part of the 23rd, can fail to perceive, that the destruction of Jerusalem, and particular directions to the disciples relative to the line of conduct which they should pursue when that event took place, constitute primarily the subject-matter of which the Lord Jesus is treating. It is equally obvious, that the language of our Saviour, from the beginning of the 24th chapter to the end of the 25th, is set down and intended to be understood as one continued discourse. Should any person, then, venture to assert, that the end of the Mosaic dispensation, and the end of this present world or visible system of things, are separately and successively treated of, the former in the 24th, and the latter in the 25th chapter of Matthew, it will be incumbent on him to point out where the one topic ends and the other begins; and, likewise, to satisfy us of the grounds or principles on which he contends for the distinction. This, I am well aware, any one who risks the attempt will find to be extremely puzzling, and to involve him in difficulties absolutely insurmountable. On the contrary, a very slight degree of attention will suffice to discover that phraseology which, in the 24th chapter, is without doubt applied primarily to the destruction of Jerusalem, is introduced, repeated, and enlarged upon, in all the parables contained in the 25th. Could this be, unless the subjects spoken of in these two chapters were, in their primary acceptation, one and the same? — To be a little more particular: the coming of the Bridegroom, — the return of the Lord to reckon with his servants, — and the sitting down of the Son of man on the throne of his Glory, — all evidently refer to one and the same period; and unless that period synchronize, or be the same with the one when the occurrences spoken of in the 29th, 30th, and 31st verses of the 24th chapter were to take place, I cannot see what connexion [147] the parables in the 25th chapter have with the contents of the preceding one; or in what respect they contribute towards the illustration of our Lord’s statements and warnings. But the 29th, 30th, and 31st verses of the 24th chapter must have referred primarily to the destruction of Jerusalem, and to the events which were to stand connected with it; because otherwise our Lord would return no answer to the query proposed to him by his disciples, as to the time when the temple should be overthrown, and the end of the then existing age, æra, or dispensation, should take place:¹¹⁹ and if so, then the 24th chapter, and all the parables contained in the 25th, must have had a primary reference to the same events. — The truth is, that the parable in question, Matt. 25:31-46, admits of an application to events then about to occur, which is very obvious and scriptural. The Son of man coming in his Glory, and sitting upon the throne of his Glory, alludes to Jesus appearing in that full development of his character, and of the righteousness of his claims as the Messiah, which should take place when Jerusalem was destroyed and vengeance executed upon the Jewish nation. He should be attended by his Holy Angels: that is, by the prophets who were his angels, or messengers to announce his coming, under the Law; Heb. 1:1, to the end; and by the apostles who were his angels, or messengers to proclaim that he had come, under the gospel. Psalm 89:15, with Matthew 24:31. They, or these angels, should share with him in his glory; Matthew 17:1-9; 19:28; 1 Tim. 5:21: that is, the truth of all their declarations concerning him should then be made fully manifest. Rev. 19:10; every stigma, which, during their lifetime, had attached to their characters on account of their adhesion to his cause, being then fully removed. Psalm 37:6; Rom. 8:17. All nations shall be gathered before him: that is, his authority was not, like that of Moses, to be confined to the inhabitants of any particular country or district, but was to extend to men of every kindred, and [148] tongue, and people, and nation. Psalm 2:8. Still, however, Christ’s kingdom upon earth extending only to those to whom the divine character had, under one form or another, been manifested; this kingdom being the open superseding of Moses’ authority by that of the Messiah; the only persons who, in the literal sense of the parable, were to be convened at Christ’s judgment-seat, were to be Jews as members of the Old Testament dispensation, and believers in himself as members of the New. Here, therefore, are the only classes on whom, when his kingdom was visibly set up on earth at the period of Jerusalem’s destruction, he is represented as pronouncing sentence. Compare verse 44th with 1 Corinthians 12:3. — The principle of Christ’s judgment or decision is then brought into view, in verses 35th, 36th, 40th, 42nd, 43rd, and 45th, of the chapter in Matthew now under consideration. He should pronounce judgment according to the law of Moses; Deut. 6:4,5, with Matt. 22:36-40; and yet, in so doing, he should pronounce judgment as Moses’ superior, — as the sole fulfiller of Moses’ law, — and as he who, having thereby made it his own law, in a sense in which it had never been the law of Moses himself, had superseded Moses’ authority for ever. Deut. 18:15-18; Rom. 10:4, and 13:8-10; John 13:34, and 15:12; and 1 John 2:7,8. This law of love which Moses himself had given forth, but which by mere external sanctions he had never been able to enforce, is the law which through faith is established and enforced by Christ and his apostles. Rom. 8:3,4. The Jews, as having rejected him and persecuted his disciples, and as having thereby violated a law which had been promulgated to them, and to which they acknowledged themselves to be subject, — compare Deut. 6:5, with Luke 10:27, and both, with Deut. 18:15-18, — were, as a nation, to be everlastingly excluded from his kingdom or the enjoyment of New Testament privileges, and to be rendered obnoxious to sufferings of the most intense kind. On the contrary, such persons as believed in him, whether Jews or Gentiles, and [149] evinced their faith by their love to himself and his followers, were to inherit the kingdom which had been prepared for the members of the New Testament church before the foundation of the world; and were to enjoy its privileges, not temporarily, as the Jews had enjoyed theirs, but everlastingly — there being no period, during the subsistence of this present world, at which the New Testament dispensation is to come to an end. It is to last as long as Sun and Moon endure. Psalm 72. — In one word, in the literal and primary signification of this parable, eternal life denotes the privileges enjoyed upon earth by the members of the New Testament Israel, during the subsistence of that everlasting dispensation or economy, by which the dispensation of Moses has been superseded; and everlasting punishment, taken in the same sense, denotes that everlasting exclusion from these privileges, and that everlasting endurance of the divine displeasure, which, while it subsists as a separate nation, must ever be the fate of the Old Testament Israel. The former, or eternal life, is enjoyed in connexion with, and evinced through the medium of love to Christ and his people, on the part of believing Jews and Gentiles; the latter, or eternal punishment, is undergone by the unbelieving descendants of Israel according to the flesh, as the righteous retribution of the persecutions undergone by Christ and his disciples at their hands. 1 Thessal. 2:14-16. — Such, understood in its primary sense, is the plain, obvious, and consistent meaning of that much abused passage of scripture, Matthew 25:31-46.

¹¹⁹ Matthew 24:1-3.

The story of the rich man and Lazarus, in the 16th chapter of Luke, is in the same predicament with the passage in Matthew, which we have just been considering, and falls to be explained on the same principles. Strange to tell, the greater part of those who have referred to, quoted, and commented on Luke 16:19-31, have overlooked the connexion of this passage with what precedes and follows, and have failed to perceive that as a parable it cannot be literally interpreted. Our Lord was addressing the Jews, and [150] warning them of the awful events which were speedily approaching; but he did so in parabolical or figurative language, for a reason assigned by himself, Matt. 13:13-15. The parable here employed is that of two men, one of whom is rich, and is the representative of the Jewish nation, abounding in religious and civil privileges during the subsistence of the Mosaic economy; Rom. 3:1,2; 9:4,5; the other of whom is poor, and is the representative of the Gentiles, who, during the existence of that economy, were entirely destitute of religious privileges directly, and who only indirectly and occasionally, by means of intercourse with the Jews scattered among them, picked up views of the character of the living and true God, in like manner as the dogs pick up crumbs falling from a rich man’s table. Mark 7:27,28. — In process of time both these men die, or their respective states come to an end: the rich man is buried, or the Mosaic dispensation is finally and completely overturned; while the poor man is carried by angels into Abraham’s bosom, or Gentiles, by faith in the declarations of the prophets and apostles as Jesus’ angels or messengers, become Abraham’s Spiritual seed, and partakers of the blessings promised to him. Rom. 2:28,29; 4:11-17; Gal. 3:29. The rich man, however, in his new state is in torments; or the Jews still adhering to the law of Moses and their ancient worship and institutions, are subjected to awful and painful marks of the divine vengeance: not the least aggravation of which is, their perceiving the Gentiles in Abraham’s bosom; or observing the religious privileges into the possession of which the Gentiles have, as partakers of Abraham’s faith, been introduced. Gal. 3:9, compared with Acts 2:2,3; 13:6-11,50; 14:2,19; 15:1; 16:3; 17:5; &c. — The Jews solicit from Abraham, to whom they plead a natural relationship, a very little water to cool the tip of their tongues; that is, some mitigation of their torments: but this he declares to be impossible. Abraham now knows them not. Nay, he informs them, that there is now an impassable gulph interposed between [151] him and them; by which he gives them to understand, that, whereas under the former dispensation it was impossible for any man to be an object of the divine approbation who was not a Jew or a proselyte to Judaism, the tables were now so completely turned, that it was impossible for any man who continued a Jew, and rejected Jesus as the Messiah, at the same time to enjoy the slightest token of the divine favour. The parable closes by hinting, in a very broad and intelligible manner, that the great bulk of the Jewish nation, who had failed to discover from the writings of Moses and the prophets that Jesus was the Messiah during his personal ministry, would remain unconvinced even by the fact of his resurrection from the dead. — What, to the attentive and spiritually-instructed reader, can be plainer than all this? In what part of the parable, interpreted according to the genuine principles of metaphorical language, and viewed in connexion with the context, is there discoverable the slightest foundation for the ordinary doctrine of eternal punishment by means of torments in a future state of existence? — Those who are desirous to prosecute their researches into this subject farther, may peruse with profit the 44th Psalm; which, besides exposing the notions usually entertained respecting creature immortality, points to the fate of the Mosaic dispensation and its pertinacious supporters.

[152] CONCLUSION.

HAVING thus completed what was originally intended, I might now bring the essay to a close, did not two or three points, intimately connected with the subject of which I have been treating, seem to demand a little passing notice.

It may be alleged, that “the scope and tendency of the preceding statements and reasonings is to do away with the existence of evil spirits altogether; and, indeed, with all such beings as are commonly denominated Angels.” To this I reply, that, in nothing advanced or insisted on by me, has it been my intention to say a single word which could be so construed as to imply a limitation of the divine power and sovereignty. I firmly believe, taught by the scriptures themselves, that God may, whenever, and in whatever way he pleases, create any intelligent being or order of intelligent beings, whether good or evil, and employ them in the execution of His purposes, whatever these may be. The man who, after perusing the foregoing work, has not perceived my belief in the doctrine of the existence of angels there expressed, as well as numerous hints of what I conceive these superior intelligences to be, has, I am sorry to say, read it to very little purpose.¹²⁰ At the same time, I certainly deny, and that without the slightest vestige of doubt or hesitation, that it is possible for God to invest a wicked being as such, or the acts of a wicked being, with his own essential attributes and perfections: such as infinity, eternity, omniscience, [153] omnipotence, and omnipresence: and this simply, because His so doing would be inconsistent with His revealed character.¹²¹

It may be alleged farther, that, “according to the views advanced and insisted on throughout the preceding part of the essay, the future life is not properly speaking a resurrection, but a new creation.” This, so far from constituting a valid objection to my theory, is, in reality, one of its strongest recommendations. For the future state of existence is represented in scripture as both. To illustrate what I mean, be it observed, that the existence of intelligent beings hereafter may be viewed under two distinct aspects: first, as the resumption of their bodies by those who had previously laid them down; secondly, as the possession of the divine nature by that which had previously been possessed of human nature only. Viewed in the former light, those who enjoy eternal life have risen again; viewed in the latter, they have been created anew. The bodies with which they live hereafter, being bodies in which they had lived while here, they are said to have risen again ; but the bodies with which they live hereafter having undergone a complete transformation, and being thereby possessed of qualities essentially different from those which distinguish them here, they are also said to have been created anew. Thus a system which represents intelligent beings as rising again, by means of being created anew, possesses the advan-[154]tage of coinciding both with scripture and fact. — That the explanation just given is no fetch or quirk of my own, had recourse to merely for the purpose of getting rid of a difficulty, is obvious from this, that scripture, speaking of the minds of believers, represents them sometimes as risen with Christ, sometimes as created anew in him; and, speaking of their bodies, represents them, sometimes as rising again, and sometimes as being quickened, fashioned, or created anew. — Besides, there is a very curious scriptural fact, connected with the present subject, which I cannot help adverting to. It is this: that a resurrection is much more frequently predicated concerning believers than unbelievers. In the fifteenth chapter of 1st Corinthians, from verse 35th to the end, and in the 4th chapter of 1st Thessalonians, from verse 13th to the end, the inspired writer treats of the resurrection of believers only, whom he divides into two classes: those who die previous to a certain event, and those who are preserved alive until it take place. Now, how is this exclusiveness to be accounted for? Why, upon principles the most obvious. Believers here have the first fruits of the same divine nature which they are to enjoy thoroughly hereafter; whereas unbelievers have upon earth nothing but human nature. This being the case, a moment’s consideration shews us that, although there is a sense in which both rise again, and in which both are created anew, yet a resurrection is more properly the fate of him who lives hereafter with a nature possessed by him partially even here; and new creation is more fitly applied to him who becomes possessed of properties and qualities hereafter totally different from those which he possessed while upon earth.

It might be deemed an unwarrantable piece of neglect on my part, were I not to take some notice, in connexion with the subject of which I have been treating, of the doctrine of the second coming of the Lord Jesus. The period when this event typically happened has been but rarely understood. Notwithstanding our Lord’s oft-repeated warning, Behold I come quickly, and his numerous exhortations to his followers, [155] to be prepared for his approach, they did not watch: the Son of man came as a thief in the night, and his coming was not perceived. The professed disciples of Jesus, ignorant of these important facts, that the end of the world signifies, taken literally, the end of the Mosaic economy; Hebrews 9:26; and that Christ’s design was, at his literal second coming, to set aside that economy visibly and entirely, and thereby to take to himself his great power and reign; have feigned to themselves the notion, that “the second coming of Jesus for the purpose of reigning upon earth has not yet happened; and consequently, that his earthly reign is to take place at some period still future, previous to the termination of this present visible system of things.” To support them in their delusions, and give to these a plausible sort of colouring, the Book of Revelation has been pressed into the service; and a work which, taken in its literal sense, more clearly than almost any other part of scripture points to the destruction of Jerusalem, there denominated Babylon, and the full introduction of New Testament privileges, beautifully described in the 21st and 22nd chapters, — prophecies which, literally understood, long since received their accomplishment, — has had senses the most chimerical, incongruous, and unwarranted, assigned to it by Mede and a host of subsequent commentators; and is supposed to be yet, as respects its literal sense, in a great measure unfulfilled. Alas! little are such persons aware that, were their theories correct, scripture would be untrue. Our blessed Lord has declared, Matthew 5:17,18, that he came not to destroy the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfil; and that till Heaven and Earth (figurative language for the Old Testament economy) passed, one jot, or one tittle, should in nowise pass from the law, till all was fulfilled. But the law having passed away, heaven and earth, or the Mosaic economy, has of course passed away or come to an end likewise; and as it thus appears that the law and the prophets, by which expression we are to understand all that is contained in the Old Testament scriptures, received a literal fulfilment when Jesus executed the divine [156] vengeance upon the Jewish nation,— brought to a close the Mosaic dispensation, — and set up, although not in its full lustre and glory, his long promised and long expected kingdom, — how can the accomplishment of those scriptures, which respected the typical second coming of Christ and the setting up of his kingdom upon earth, remain to be looked for? The law has passed away: it must, then, in so far as respects the setting up of Christ’s kingdom upon earth, be fulfilled. — It is true, that, in common with all my fellow believers, I am looking for the anti-typical or real second coming of the Lord Jesus, when he shall appear in the clouds of Heaven — when he shall take to himself his great power — and when, in a higher state of existence than the present, he shall reign before his ancients gloriously: but this implies, that I am not looking for the type of that second coming; nor for that setting up of the reign of the Messiah upon earth, by which it was to be accompanied — both of these events having long since taken place. Let it not be said, that the fact of the Book of Revelation speaking of the second coming of Christ as future derogates from the force of my remarks: for, whatever may be advanced to the contrary from the dreaming and inconsistent works of the Fathers, it can easily be proved, and that from the very terms in which they are couched, that all the Books of the New Testament, without a single exception, were written previous to the destruction of Jerusalem. But on this subject I cannot enlarge. Sat verbum sapienti.

In conclusion — after the ample, and I hope satisfactory, manner in which the topics proposed for consideration have been discussed, little or nothing remains to be added. I have shewn that, as, on the one hand, it was impossible for Adam to forfeit more than he possessed, so, on the other, the forfeiture incurred by him extended to all that he possessed. I have shewn, that this forfeiture of his was no unforeseen or accidental matter; but was introductory to, and the means of developing the ulterior designs of the Supreme Being; or, in other words, that the forfeiture of [157] this present life by Adam, opened up the way for God’s bestowing immortality and eternal life through Jesus; and that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, was both the pledge and the medium of this blessing being bestowed. I have also shewn, on the one hand, that the ordinary doctrine of the everlasting punishment of unbelieving and wicked men in a future state of existence, is a mere chimera or fiction of the human mind; deriving its origin from mistaken views of scripture, and from ignorance of the nature and consequences of sin: and yet, on the other hand, that the wicked, or Adam’s posterity as such, are everlastingly punished, by their being everlastingly excluded from Christ’s kingdom, and by the complete and everlasting destruction of all that, as Adam’s descendants, they possess. To sum up the whole in a few sentences: — my design in this essay has been, by combating and refuting a few closely connected errors, to shew that, although God applies, and consistently with his revealed character can apply no remedy to the original transgression of man; nay, allows it to take full effect in the destruction of human nature; — He nevertheless renders that transgression, and its results, the means of accomplishing His purposes, in the development of His character and the communication of His nature. There is no restoration or recovery of what Adam forfeited, announced in scripture; for what he forfeited, he forfeited for ever: but the substance of the divine declaration is, that through Christ Jesus, as the second man, the Lord from Heaven, all things are made new. This is the record, not that God gives back to us pure natural or Adamic life, but that God hath given to us, originally possessed of natural life, eternal life; and that THIS life is, not in or through Adam, but in or through his Son.¹²² In the course of the preceding remarks I have shewn particularly, that sin, being merely one of the means, agents, or instruments which God employs for effectuating His purposes, necessarily comes to an end, or is annihilated, along with [158] this present world, as soon as these purposes have been accomplished. How much more pleasing and glorious, as well as scriptural, is this view of things, than that which represents sin as having an eternal and necessary existence; and which thus, besides denying the efficacy of the atonement, represents that which God hates, as being either one with Him, or His everlasting rival!

¹²² 1 John 5:11. See also 1 Peter 1:23.

May the great Head of the Church, in whose name, and for the advancement of whose glory, this work was undertaken, condescend to make it the vehicle of exciting in some, attention to His own most blessed word; and, not of rendering them sceptical in regard to revealed truth, but of emancipating them from anti-christian and anti-scriptural errors and prejudices, by which even the followers of Jesus, either from neglect or an undue deference to the opinions of others, have for a long course of ages been enslaved!

[159] APPENDIX.

A.

HAVING been tried twice on charges of heresy, namely, in 1825 and 1828, it may perhaps be interesting to the readers of this work to see the sentences which were pronounced on both occasions: these, therefore, I subjoin. In the former case, a commission of the Presbytery of Glasgow sat in Liverpool, for three weeks, taking evidence, which was afterwards published, and will be found at full length in a work by Mr. John Gillies brought out in 1825. The “James Marshall,” who subscribes as Moderator, was then Minister of the Outer High Church of Glasgow; but having himself since that time abandoned the communion of the Church of Scotland, he has, like the author of these pages, incurred her ban, and been declared to be “no longer one of her ministers or preachers.” In the latter case, the author, having been first summoned by the Presbytery of Glasgow to appear at her bar, and confess his having written and published the first edition of this work, and having declined to do so, for reasons stated in a pamphlet which was published at the time, and had a considerable circulation, was then, secondly, required by the Presbytery to make his appearance before the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. As he had respectfully intimated in his letter to the Presbytery of Glasgow his withdrawal from all connexion with the Scotch Established Church, he of course took no notice of the Presbytery’s reference. The second sentence was, therefore, pronounced in absence. ” John Lee,” who subscribes it, is the present able and learned Principal of the University of Edinburgh. To what precedes, it may be added, that, in both cases, on doctrinal grounds alone was the author assailed; and that, as, in the former case, his status as a minister and preacher of the Scotch Establishment, was not meddled with at all; so, in the latter, he was not formally deposed from the office of the ministry, but only subjected to suspension, sine die, from the [160] exercise of its functions, in connexion with that body. Under the same sentence, and for the same reason, namely, of alleged contumacy, every Free-Kirk Minister labours.

I. “Glasgow, 22nd September, 1825.

”The Presbytery having deliberated on the case of the Rev. David Thom at great length, and given their opinion thereon, Find, with the deepest concern, that Mr. Thom has, during his ministry at Liverpool, in his discourses from the pulpit, asserted, maintained, and inculcated, several gross errors, which strike at the vitals of Religion, are contrary to, and inconsistent with, the Word of God, the Confession of Faith, and Catechism of this National Church,¹²³ as said errors are set forth in the Petition of John M’Culloch and others, and referred by parties to the decision of this Presbytery. That the Petitioners have proved each article of charge in their petition; and that Mr. Thom has failed in his exculpation: wherefore the Presbytery, after full and mature consideration of this very important reference, did, and hereby do, find and declare, that Mr. Thom has contravened his solemn engagements as a licensed Probationer, and ordained Minister of the Church of Scotland, failed to perform his part of the stipulations in the Bond to him by the Trustees of the Scotch, or St. Andrew’s Church, Rodney Street, Liverpool, of date 18th April 1823, on the faith of which he was ordained by this Presbytery to be their minister, and forfeited the provisions and stipulations made by said Bond in his favour. The Presbytery therefore did, and hereby do, declare the said Mr. David Thom to be deprived of the ministry of said Church from this date. —

“JAMES MARSHALL, Moderator.”

From this sentence two clergymen dissented.

¹²³ Amusingly enough, raised to a footing of equality with the Word of God! It is Wolsey’s Ego et Rex meus. — Strange infatuation of the human mind!

II. “At Edinburgh, Monday, June 2nd, 1828. Sess. ult.

“Report of the Committee of the General Assembly on the case of Mr. David Thom, with a reference from the Presbytery of Glasgow on the subject, called for, given in, and read by Dr. Brunton the convener, as follows: ‘The Committee beg leave to [161] report, that having considered the papers connected with this reference, and having heard the Presbytery of Glasgow in explanation of it, they unanimously and most respectfully recommend, that the finding of the General Assembly should be of the following tenor: that the Presbytery of Glasgow having felt it their duty to enquire of Mr. David Thom, (who had received from them licence as a Probationer, and ordination as a Minister of this Church), whether he were the author of a pamphlet bearing the name on the title page, and containing opinions inconsistent with the standards of this Church;¹²⁴ and the said Mr. David Thom having, in his official answer, addressed to their Moderator, declared, that he “accounts the government of this Church to be unscriptural,” and that he “objects to all and every species of Church Government (as it is called),” and concludes by stating in express terms: “you will of course understand, that the import of this letter is to intimate to you, that my connection with you as a body is henceforth at an end;” and having made no compearance before this Assembly, although the intention of the Presbytery to make this reference was duly intimated to him; the General Assembly find and declare, that the said Mr. David Thom is no longer to be considered as a Minister or Licentiate of this Church, and that he is incapable of receiving or accepting a presentation or call to any Parish or Chapel of Ease in this Church, without the special allowance of some future General Assembly; and the Assembly prohibit all Ministers of this Church from employing him to preach or perform any ministerial offices for them, or from being so employed by him, unless some future Assembly shall see cause to take off this prohibition.’ The General Assembly approved of the Report of the Committee in all respects, and found and decerned accordingly.”

“Extracted by

“JOHN LEE, Cl. Eccl. Scot.”

¹²⁴ A curious admission; not inconsistent with the Word of God.

[162] B.

Extract from Waldie’s “Ultimate Manifestation of God to the World.“

“Let us consider then how believers are saved. God fulfils all his promises and all his threats; believers therefore undergo bodily death as having sinned in Adam; they undergo the condemnation of their own consciences as having sinned against their dictates; they are the subjects of self-condemnation in a peculiar manner, because they alone have a view of the extent and strictness of the requirements of the divine law, in knowing that they are such as none but God manifest in flesh could fulfil; and they alone see the hatefulness of sin in God’s sight, in being aware of its inevitable consequence, destruction from the presence of the Lord, exhibited in the death of the seed of the woman, who though pure himself, became a curse for them, bearing their sins in his own body on the cross. But buried with him in this baptism, they have risen with him through the faith of the operation of God (Col. 2:12); saved from law, being no longer under its power but under grace; saved from sin, being now clothed with Christ’s righteousness; saved from death, being heirs of eternal life. Rejoicing in their privileges they are kings and priests to him, reigning with him in his kingdom, having even now the earnest of the enjoyment of that bliss, to the full reality of which they are looking forward; at the time when sown in corruption they shall be raised in incorruption, when this mortal shall have put on immortality, and when death shall be swallowed up in victory. For as children of the first man, of the earth, earthy, they descend to the dust whence he was taken; as like him made living souls, like him they die: so as children of the second man, the Lord from heaven, the lifegiving spirit, they rise from the dead, bearing his heavenly image, spiritual, incorruptible, and immortal. (1 Cor. 15:42-58.)

[163] “We thus see believers represented as dying in Adam and living in Christ; saved not by being relieved from, or prevented from undergoing the punishment due to them as children of Adam, which were impossible as it would make God false to his word; but saved by being created anew, Sons of Jesus the spiritual Abraham, and thereby heirs of God, (Gal. 4:6,7,) begotten through his resurrection to an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away. Their salvation consists, not in their nature being rescued from its doom, but by its being superseded by a higher nature, even the divine and immortal nature of their spiritual Father. And in this we have a view of the atonement different from that usually entertained: Jesus did not die instead of his people, in the sense of being a substitute for them, he died for them and with them. They, guilty, had lost their lives, — he, guiltless, laid down his life. By his fulfilment of God’s law he satisfied the utmost demands of his justice; by his obedience unto death he gained the reward of that obedience: he laid down his life that he might take it again, and thus triumphed over death, rising from the dead, and being exalted to God’s right hand, there to live for evermore. By this his resurrection, he has abolished death, and brought life and immortality to life, (2 Tim. 1:10,) in the glad tidings that thereby he had become the first fruits of them that slept: for that as by man (Adam) came death, by man (Jesus) came also the resurrection of the dead. (I Cor. 15:20,21.) There is an inseparable connexion between the two; for if Christ rose not, they who are fallen asleep in him are perished (vrs. 12 to 22). His own testimony is, I am the resurrection and the life. (John 11:25.)

“The people of God are made partakers of eternal life, neither by their own sufferings and death, considered either as educational or purgatorial, nor by those of their Redeemer, considered either as exemplary or substitutionary, correcting the corruption of their nature, and restoring them to their original purity, or elevating them to any improvement of it. Sufferings and death were inflicted as punishment, — to destroy what was evil: in man this is the effect, and in the man Christ Jesus that effect is the same: human nature in him though pure and holy in itself, yet [164] as bearing the iniquities of others, and therefore under the curse, was by sufferings and death brought to an end: the sentence which had gone forth against it was inflicted to the uttermost, and justice was satisfied. Jesus thus showed that human nature, even in him, pure and spotless, had no inherent immortality; but He could not be holden of death: He possessed immortality in himself, — the Son of God rose from the dead, triumphing over Hades, swallowing up death in victory. Believers, as children of Adam, in him and with him sin and die; as children of the Lord Christ, in him and with him they are righteous and live: he has died with them, and his death of itself only confirms their doom; but his purpose in thus bringing their Adamic nature to an end in himself, was to bestow upon them his own divine and immortal nature; and this he does in earnest even now, by giving them to know that they are partakers of eternal life as his gift. God is love, and in this was manifested the love of God to them, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world that they might live through him. (1 John 4:8,9.) Hence believers have the same assurance of their own salvation as they have of the being and attributes of God; for they know the one, only through that testimony that tells them of the other. They can say in the words of the Apostle John, — we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. (1 John 5:20.)

“The nature which unregenerate man possesses is essentially a conditional and temporary one: man’s happiness in this world depends on the condition of his not violating the dictates of his own conscience or sense of duty, nay the continuance of his existence at first depended on his not violating a single condition; that was violated, and the life, fitted only for indefinite existence, had limits fixed to it; it was to expire in the day or period in which its continuance was forfeited. But the divine nature given to the elect is an unconditional and eternal one; it is God’s gift absolutely and without any condition; it therefore cannot be lost, and cannot end; it is subject to no sense of duty but is influenced only by love. The believer loves God, because God [165] first loved him, not that God may love him; he knows that to him God is love, not will or may be, on certain conditions. There is no fear in love; perfect love casteth out fear; the love of Christ constraineth him. While on earth and possessed of the earthly nature, he remains subject to law and consequently commits sin. But when acting under the influence of faith, he cannot sin, (1 John 3:9,) because he is subject to no law; he loves his brother as he loves God, because God hath first loved him; he forgives others, because God hath forgiven him. He is now one of that Israel with whom God has made a new covenant, who all know him from the least even unto the greatest. (Heb. 8:8-13.)¹²⁵

¹²⁵ “Do any, notwithstanding what has been said, complain of vagueness of meaning or unintelligibility, respecting the two natures connected with one and the same individual? Let them consider whether there is any greater difficulty in understanding, that as they now do inherit a sinful, mortal nature from Adam, they shall afterwards inherit a righteous, immortal nature from Christ; whether God may not with as much justice and sovereignty new create them in Christ, with bodies incorruptible, the image of him, the heavenly man, as he has of old created them in Adam, with corruptible bodies, the image of him, the earthly man; whether the one is more mysterious than the other, and whether both are not equally matters of revealed fact; whether there is any greater vagueness in saying, that as their present bodies are necessarily connected with a natural mind or soul, influenced by a sense of duty, and restrained by the fear of what God may be to them in future, so their future bodies shall be as necessarily connected with a heavenly mind or spirit, actuated only by the constraining principle of love, the result of that confidence imparted to them by the knowledge of what he is to them, their ever-present Father, dwelling with them and beholding them with perfect complacency, as the offspring of his own well-beloved Son; and whether there is any greater difficulty in believing, that as individuality is not destroyed by an entire change of body, neither will it be by an entire change of mind.”

“These points have been insisted on, because it is necessary that it should be understood, not only that believers are certainly saved, but how that salvation is effected, in order to prepare the way for the scriptural evidence, that all shall be saved. Those for whom these remarks are peculiarly intended, are aware of the fact that believers are saved, that assuredly they themselves are saved; but they have a very imperfect and obscure know-[166]ledge of the way in which that salvation is effected, and until this obscurity is removed they cannot go out to the full extent to which their own admitted principles would carry them: their view of God’s love is correct so far as it goes, but it is imperfect; and unless they see how the gift of his love is bestowed upon themselves, they are not in a position to see how it can be bestowed upon all.” — Pp. 26-30.

C.

The reader of the preceding work may be anxious to know the opinions of critics respecting the first edition. With a view to the gratification of this feeling, the following selections have been made.

I. From the Gospel Magazine.

“The conception of the above work before us, denotes a mind of no ordinary capacity, and evinces that the writer is anxious to render his powers and attainments useful and beneficial to mankind. — These are reasons which should powerfully sway the breast of a reader to exercise the utmost candour, and even lenity, in forming his judgment. And, if the rigid dictates of that duty which we owe the public, compel us to pronounce a sentence unfavourable, we would not depreciate from the integrity of the writer, in supposing that his motives were not sincere.” — June, 1828.

II. From the Monthly Repository and Review.

Another pamphlet was reviewed along with the Three Questions. After having remarked concerning both: “we have here an example from both the Established Churches of this island, of the tendency of educated and active minds to throw off the trammels of established authority, and to search for truth fearlessly and in the use of the proper means. We are happy that in both these pamphlets the appeal is made to scripture rather than to any articles, professedly drawn up from them by mere [167] human authority. What, after diligent and faithful investigation, may be esteemed to be the truth inculcated by the sacred writers? That is the Question.” I say, after these remarks on the two pamphlets in common, and a very interesting criticism on the former of them, the writer thus speaks of the first edition of the preceding work: —

“The second of these pamphlets is the production of a young, but vigorous mind, not long since bound in Calvinistic thraldom, but now exercising its private judgment in the interpretation of the sacred volume, with much ingenuity, and with some success. The Three Questions involve a large portion of curious and important enquiry, which we doubt not will lead many of the readers of this treatise to cultivate the habit of personal investigation. Our limits will not at present allow of a detailed account of our author’s speculations. We were struck with the considerable resemblances between some of his interpretations, and those of the late Mr. Cappe, the more remarkable since the writer has been trained in a very different school. The writer is minister of a Scotch Church at Liverpool, and was lately obliged to undergo a sort of persecution, at the instance of a synod of his church, for alleged heterodoxy.” — June, 1828.

III. From the Christian Pioneer.

“This pamphlet is the production of an original and thinking mind. It evinces an ardent desire for the knowledge of Christian truth. It shews an individual, regardless of the systems of man’s devising, pursuing his enquiries with an eye steadfastly fixed on the acquisition of scriptural information, and desirous of deriving the doctrines of faith from the pure and sacred fountain of the Bible. Mr. Thom is a native of Glasgow. Educated in the belief of the Assembly’s catechism, and being from his youth of exemplary character, he was early destined to the Church of Scotland. Of that Church, he was a regularly ordained minister. Some years since, he settled with the Scots Church in Liverpool, as successor, we believe, to the Rev. Dr. Barr, now of Port-Glasgow, an individual who, during Mr. Harris’ residence in Liverpool, distinguished himself by publishing a pamphlet in vindication of the existence and agency of the Devil. [168] Contentions having arisen between Mr. Thom and the proprietors of the church, a considerable number of the congregation left with him, and built a very handsome chapel in Rodney Street. Here, after a short time, Mr. Thom was charged with holding tenets deemed to be inimical to the doctrines of the Confession of Faith. For this supposed heresy, which seemed to us to consist partly of truth, and partly to be Calvinism in most rank luxuriance — Calvinism carried out to its legitimate consequences — Mr. Thom was cited before the Presbytery of Glasgow. Long and various were the discussions which ensued, on the supposed perversions of the creed of his forefathers. A verdict of guilty was however pronounced, and Mr. Thom was deposed from his situation. Still numbers of his people adhered to him, and worship was conducted in the Music Hall, Bold Street. Once set free from the trammels of the Established Church, the scales of prejudice appear to have gradually fallen from the mental vision of this excellent individual. His present pamphlet is dedicated to several persons by name, and to ‘the other friends of free discussion in matters of religion,’ by whom he was supported in his late arduous struggle with the Presbytery of Glasgow.” —

— “For the arguments which he adduces in support of his views, we must refer our readers to the pamphlet. We think it will amply repay the perusal. That all at once the mind which has been bound up in error and unused to intellectual freedom, should arrive at uniformly consistent ideas, is not to be expected. We unfeignedly rejoice that so much light has beamed on this gifted individual, as is manifested in these pages. We earnestly pray, that he may be blessed with more and more. We hail him as a coadjutor in the holy work of Christian Reformation. Differ we may on minor topics, but shall, we hope, agree to differ. On the essential doctrine of the unbounded benevolence of the Almighty, we are united, and that is the sentiment before which all others vanish into comparative insignificancy.” — April, 1828.

It is due to Dr. Thom to correct a trifling mistake, committed unintentionally by the author of the foregoing very friendly critique. Dr. T. was not elected Dr. Barr’s successor. Although [169] a candidate for Oldham Street Kirk after Dr. B.’s departure, and supported by about five-sixths of the congregation, — as appears by a strong memorial in his behalf addressed to the thirteen proprietors in whom the right of voting was vested, — a bare majority of the body alluded to saw meet to elect another candidate, thereby of course disregarding the wishes of the people.¹²⁶ It was the provocation given to the majority of the Oldham Street congregation by this act of the proprietors, and not any personal dispute between the proprietors and himself, that occasioned his being called to preside over a new congregation, and the building of Rodney Street Kirk. It may be observed, further, that in Dr. Thom’s prosecution for heresy, before the Presbytery of Glasgow, in 1825, he was assailed by men, who, if they had judged calmly and impartially, would have charged on their own dulness of spiritual understanding, and not on the unhappy victim of their caprice, the fact of his merely continuing to preach doctrines, which from the very first he had avowed.¹²⁷

IV. From the Christian Reflector.

“Our readers, on referring to the Christian Reflector, vol. 1, p. 101 of the new series, will find that Mr. Thom was condemned by some learned, not to say liberal, members of the Presbytery of Glasgow, for honestly advocating the real doctrines of the Kirk of Scotland; and which Mr. Thom at that time believed to be doctrines of Christianity. Since that, it is evident from the publication before us, these doctrines have appeared to him very differently; and following the convictions of his own mind, and the farther light he has obtained from the perusal of the Scriptures, he has abandoned that system which he before defended. We congratulate Mr. T. on his escape from the regions of horror and death, through which is distilled a poison far more baneful than that said to proceed from the Upas Tree of Java. We regard the situation of every one as happy, who rejects the pestilential doctrines of a system, which represents God without mercy, and leaves man without hope. Twice happy is he who escapes with [170] the preservation of his mental powers, and is saved from the dreary abode prepared for the most afflictive state to which human beings can be reduced. —

“We have made the above extracts to the extent of the room we can afford. We had intended to add some remarks on the contents, but they must be deferred till our next. In the meantime, we strongly recommend the careful perusal of this pamphlet to our readers. Whether the orthodox phalanx in Liverpool will have the courage to attack Mr. T. is yet to be seen; we fear they will not.” — April, 1828.

In addition to these, such as please may consult reviews of the “Three Questions,” which appeared in the “Imperial Magazine,” and “Christian Herald,” for April; the “Edinburgh Theological Magazine,” for June and July, and the “Congregational Magazine,” for July, 1828.

[171] WORKS, BY THE AUTHOR.

1. — REMARKS, by the Rev. DAVID THOM, Minister of the Scotch Church, Rodney-street, Liverpool, on a Series of Charges recently preferred against him, before the Reverend the Presbytery of Glasgow, by certain individuals connected with the management of the said Church. With a copious Appendix. — 1825. 1s. 6d.

2. — MEMORIAL submitted by the Rev. DAVID THOM to the Presbytery of Glasgow, regarding the Theological Points of his case. Second edition. — 1825. 8d.

3. — A LETTER to the Rev. RICHARD T. P. POPE, adverting to some important mistakes committed by him in his recent controversy with the Rev. THOMAS MAGUIRE. By OBSERVER. — 1827. 1s. 6d. (Out of Print.)

4. — THREE QUESTIONS PROPOSED AND ANSWERED, concerning the Life forfeited by Adam, the Resurrection of the Dead, and Eternal Punishment. — 1828. 2s. 6d. — The same Work, second edition, altered, enlarged, and improved. (Both out of Print.)

5. — RECENT CORRESPONDENCE between the Presbytery of Glasgow and the Rev. DAVID THOM, occasioned by a second interference on their part with him. — 1828. 8d. (Out of Print.)

6. — THE MIRACLES OF THE IRVING SCHOOL shewn to be unworthy of serious examination. — 1832. 1s.

7. — THE ASSURANCE OF FAITH, or CALVINISM identified with UNIVERSALISM. — 1833. 2 vols. 8vo. 21s. (Out of Print.)

8. — WHY IS POPERY PROGRESSING? — 1835. 1s. 6d. (Out of Print.)

9. — DIALOGUES on Universal Salvation, and topics connected therewith. 1838. 5s. (Out of Print.) — The same Work, second edition, with additions. 3s. 6d. 1847.

10. — DIVINE INVERSION, or a View of the Character of God as in all respects opposed to the Character of Man. — 1842. 10s. (But a few copies remain.)

11. — THREE GRAND EXHIBITIONS OF MAN’S ENMITY TO GOD.— 1845. 8vo. 16s.

12. — THE NUMBER AND NAMES OF THE APOCALYPTIC BEASTS, with an explanation and application. In two parts. Part I., The Number and Names. — 1848. 12s.

Such of the preceding works as are not out of print, may be had of H. K. Lewis, 15, Gower Street, North, London.

[172] EDITED BY THE AUTHOR.

WITHOUT FAITH WITHOUT GOD; or an APPEAL to GOD concerning his OWN EXISTENCE, &c. By the late JOHN BARCLAY, A.M., Pastor of the Berean Assembly, Edinburgh. With a Preface by the Rev. DAVID THOM, Minister of Bold-street Chapel, Liverpool. — 1836. 2s. 6d.

WORKS PUBLISHED by the AUTHOR’S BROTHER, now deceased

ROBERT THOM, Esq., Her Britannic Majesty’s Consul at Ningpo, China, Corresponding Member of the Royal Asiatic Society, London, Foreign Honorary Member of the Archæological Institute, &c. &c.

1. — WANG KEAOU LWAN PIH NEEN CHANG HAN, or the Lasting Resentment of Miss Keaou Lwan Wang. A Chinese Tale, founded on fact. Canton, 1839. 4s. See Athenæum, August 1, 1840; and Chambers Edinburgh Journal, March 20, 1847.

2. — ÆSOP’S FABLES, written in Chinese by the learned MUN MOOY SEEN-SANG, and compiled in their present form (with a free and a literal translation) by his pupil SLOTH. Macāo, 1840. 20s. — Most favourably reported on to the Asiatic Society of Paris, by M. Bazin, ainé, Professor of Modern Chinese in the College de France. The report is inserted in No. 6 of the Journal Asiatique de Paris, for 1843.

3. — A VOCABULARY OF THE CHINESE LANGUAGE. Hong Kong, 1843. 15s. — A very high eulogium on this work, from the pen of M. Stanislas Julien, Member of the Institute, and Professor of Ancient Chinese at Paris, appeared in the Journal des Debats, of the 24th June, 1844. See “Foreign Quarterly Review,” October 1844, p. 260.

4. — THE CHINESE SPEAKER, or extracts from works written in the Mandarin Language, as spoken at Peking. Compiled for the use of Students. Part I. At the Presbyterian Mission Press, Ningpo. 1846. 15s. — Spoken highly of in “Allen’s Indian Mail,” October 5, 1847, in “Hogg’s Weekly Instructor,” for November, 1847, “M’Phail’s Ecclesiastical Magazine,” January, 1848, “The Journal Asiatique de Paris,” by Professor Bazin, &c. &c.

Sold by Alexander Black, Foreign Bookseller, 8, Wellington Street North, Strand, London. — May be had also from Mr. Lewis.

[1] NEW WORKS AND NEW EDITIONS

PUBLISHED BY

H. K. LEWIS,

15, GOWER STREET NORTH, LONDON.

MAY BE HAD OF ALL BOOKSELLERS.

BY THE REV. DAVID THOM, D.D., Ph.D.

1. — THE NUMBER AND NAMES OF THE APOCALYPTIC BEASTS, with an explanation and application. In two parts. Part I., The Number and Names. 8vo., cloth, 12s.

OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.

“The Theological works of Dr. Thom are amongst the most remarkable of the day. Dr. Thom is what is called, for want of a more distinctive appellation, a Universalist; but we rather think that he himself avoids the assumption of any particular denomination. His views are certainly of a most comprehensive, and humanly speaking, sublime character; and more strictly evangelical, according to the true interpretation of that word, than those, probably, of any other living divine. The subject of the present volume has occupied the attention of very many pious and learned men, from the close of the Apostolic days to the present time; and many and conflicting have been the solutions of those strange and mysterious enigmas emblemed in the ‘Beasts of the Apocalypse.’ The following explanation of this mystery is given by Dr. Thom. The first Beast signifies the ‘Human Mind,’ and the second, ‘Fleshly Churches.’ The former part of the volume is occupied with an elaborate and highly interesting account of all the professed commentators and elucidators of the mysterious passage in question, from the days of Irenæus downwards. As a theological work, it is, without doubt, the most interesting ever compiled; the arrangements adopted are at once methodical and reasonable, the style perspicuous and attractive, the criticism candid, the argumentation luminous, and the sentiments of the author, wherever introduced, firmly and freely delivered.” — Nottingham Mercury, Aug. 18, 1848.

(By one of the first literary men of the day.)

“The first part of this splendid and long looked for work has just made its appearance. Truly, Dr. Thom is in every way a marvellous man The number and names of the ‘Apocalyptic Beasts,’ may be viewed as a [2] walk by Dr. Thom, in an entirely new direction. — In his former works, however, one hiatus remained to be filled up; one thing more to be accomplished. He had not, hitherto, in the conventional technicality of the term, exhibited himself directly as the scholar. This, however, in his present work, he has now most effectually done. Dr. Thom as the scholar as well as the theologian, as the man of learning, and of acute research, as well as the man of religious attainment, here most triumphantly steps forth. This work is a most elaborate and masterly treatise upon the 13th Chapter of the Revelation — a chapter which, to every theologian who has written upon it, has become an absolute enigma, which has proved a complete stumbling-block to the enquiries of each biblical critic, and has baffled the exegesis of the most learned in sacred things. The first chapter of Dr. Thom’s first book explains the meaning of the scripture language, ‘Let him count the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man.’ The opinions of Grotius, Newman, Potter, Fenardentius, Bossuet, and Bishop Walmsley, are here given in succession, along with Dr. Thom’s own view. In chapter second a difference of reading is adduced, together with valuable collections of the sense of Griesbach, Wetstein, and Mill, and the support in favour of a particular reading of Professor Moses Stuart, of the American University of Andover, together with a most ingenious solution by Professor Benary, of Berlin. The two readings of the Beast’s number brought forward by Dr. Thom are, first, 616, and then the received reading, 666. In favour of 666 being the genuine reading, Dr. Thom brings forward the high testimony of Irenæus and a host of others. In the second book, Dr. Thom enters upon the names of the two Apocalyptic Beasts, giving the different solutions, upon this point, under four heads. — We have given the reader a very imperfect idea of Dr. Thom’s latest work. To appreciate it adequately, he must read it for himself. We can assure him, that it will well repay his very best attention. The study, the research, the labour that has evidently been bestowed upon it is really wonderful. In the composition of it, Dr. Thom has evidently spared himself no pains. His present book, we should say, must be the production of years of the closest application, and the most severe reading: for on no other supposition can we account for the wonderful information of the work. It is, in fact, a perfect encyclopædia of almost all the views and opinions that have ever been put forth upon the subject; and in the collection of every scholar it must, and we are sure will, become a standard theological work.” — Liverpool Chronicle, Aug. 26, 1848.

(By an able Clergyman of the Church of England )

“The discussion of theological tenets, important as we deem it, in its own place, was not the purpose for which the Non-Conformist was instituted; nor may we step out of our charmed circle, at the call of any spirit albeit possessed of talents and goodness equal to those of the author of this volume. Whilst, therefore, we leave to other organs the task of controverting or approving the views here expressed, we may fairly notice a work of extraordinary research, and comprehensive learning. Whatever be the principles adopted in the solution of the Apocalypse, the names and number of the beast or beasts must be admitted to constitute a cardinal point in its interpretation. The author looks upon the books as having been written antecedent to the destruction of Jerusalem; as the summary of all the preceding writings of inspiration; and as ‘the opening up of the mind and kingdom of the glorified Jesus, in contrast with the views of [3] earthly men, and with the natural constitution of earthly kingdoms.’ In a very clear and logical method, he then advances through many gradations to his interpretation. He describes, with equal clearness and learning, the various conjectures hazarded upon this intricate subject in different ages, classing them under four heads. There is scarcely an opinion on the subject — certainly, none of note, which is not fairly stated and fully analyzed. We will not be tempted into the theological arena: but whether the interpretation be true or not, we unfeignedly believe the practical doctrine — that fleshly churches are the monsters which ravage the Christian community, present the great obstacle to the kingdom of Christ, and are foredoomed to be destroyed. But the merits of this work do not rest upon the author’s peculiar views. It is a perfect encyclopædia of opinions upon its subject; and the student of prophesy ought to know, that in no book, so far as we know, will he meet with such accurate and varied information. Regarded alone as a synopsis criticorum it is invaluable.” — The Non-Conformist, August 30, 1848.

(By a well-known and eminent literary character.)

“‘Long looked for has come at last.’ We have been, for about a year, waiting for Mr. Thom’s book on the Beast, which has now reached us. It is certainly a singular production — very learned, very ingenious, although not, perhaps, likely to be so popular as it deserves. The Public, the great Brute, cares little for any beasts, except the fire-horses which propel the railway-carriages. Mr. Thom’s book is to consist of two parts, of which the first is now before us. It contains a list of all, or almost all, the explanations given of this grand prophetical puzzle. Some of them he confutes at length; others he allows to confute themselves, by simply stating them: a process, in many cases, abundantly easy and satisfactory. Till we read Mr. Thom’s book we were not aware that so much ludicrous nonsense had been written on this subject, and that so many imbeciles had investigated the ‘Name.’ Here we see them in deep file, ranged round the central and unmitigated blackness of the text — motes of darkness swimming round a dark sun. ‘Here is wisdom,’ is the motto of the difficulty — ‘Here is folly,’ might be inscribed over many of the solutions. What Mr. Thom’s explanation is we do not mention. We are thankful to him, however, for this work, on many accounts. First, he has written on it a most readable, clever, and erudite book. Generous, in a high measure, and yet, with a quiet edifying vein of sarcasm breaking out every now and then, as another and another stupid commentator passes over the stage. Secondly, he has, Samson-like, slain heaps upon heaps of critics of portentous jawbone, whose teaching had long passed for a voice from the ephod and the teraphim. Thirdly, he has, we think, indicated, at the least, the whereabouts of the real solution, in indicating that it expresses an apostasy far more broad and vital than even that of the Roman Catholic Church; and, fourthly, he has exhibited powers, resources, and activities of mind, which make us regret the selection he has made of the field for their exercise and display. David Thom is no common man, and the neglect he has met with has disgraced the public, and not him. He has, with prodigious ingenuity, constructed, and with prodigious vigour defended, a system of his own; and there it is, good or bad, true or false, a unique product or portent of our time. We do not hold it, — but no less a mind than that of Festus does; and this alone should save it from rash or ignorant contempt. We are ready to proclaim Mr. Thom a very clever, and a very honest [4] man, and to recommend this book on the Beast to all who are interested in prophetic study, and in the development of that scripture truth which may be fitly compared to a ‘fire unfolding itself.'” — McPhail’s Ecclesiastical Journal, September, 1848.

(By one of the most celebrated literary men of the day.)

“It is not for us to say how much we know, or what subjects we might venture to discuss without making our ignorance palpable; but we shall scarcely be accused of mock modesty if we declare, that we dare not venture upon depths which Dr. Thom has sounded, till all their passages are as familiar to him as the profundities of the ocean to the skilful mariner; while to us, though we find ourselves wafted pleasantly forward under his pilotage, they would, were we to trust ourself alone, prove ‘the deep where all our thoughts are drowned.’ Ne sutor ultra crepidam. Then why undertake to notice the book at all? Simply because, having perused it, having been pleased with it, having come to the conclusion that it is at once curious and instructive, as it is brilliant and suggestive, that it will prove a source of deep and pleasurable thought, even to those who may not altogether agree with every idea which it develops. We are desirous, though we cannot examine it in a wise and learned spirit, to do the little that is in us to bring it under the attention of all serious-minded readers. We can do little more than this. The subject is sufficiently indicated in the title-page; and when we remind the reader of Rev. 13:18, he will see that the researches, views, explanations, and reasonings brought forward in the solution of an enigma mysteriously linked with the Christian faith, must be pregnant with matter, and abundantly curious and interesting. Dr. Thom does not disappoint whatever expectations may be raised by the promise of his title page; in proof of which, many passages might be quoted, serving at once to show the sincerity of the author, and to stimulate the curiosity of the reader.” — Liverpool Albion, October 23, 1848.

“This is a very curious, and in many respects, a singular work, indicating great industry in research on the part of the author. — By far the greater part of the present volume is occupied by statements of the various interpretations that have been given, by writers almost numberless, to the passage in question. Dr. Thom gives fully, and we think in general exactly, the principle of interpretation, and on this point communicates some useful information. The actual interpretations, the Doctor arranges in four classes. As to the ‘Application and Explanation,’ it is only said, ‘In this thirteenth chapter of the Apocalypse, we have set before us the two grand principles of human nature which have a relevence to religion, the Sadducean and the Pharisaical: the former, asserting the supremacy of the human mind; and the latter, substituting the external, the ceremonial, and the shadowy, for the internal, the heartfelt, and the true!’ It would be unfair to comment on what is left unexplained and unapplied: we content ourselves, therefore, with this brief description of the volume. Only, we may be allowed to add, that in whatever way Dr. Thom applies his solution, and entering into no discussion as to its correctness, one thing, at all events, is certain, that we have here what may be explained and applied so as to exhibit the two grand sources of opposition to the saving truth of God our Saviour: self-confident wisdom developing itself in the various forms of infidelity; and self-trusting righteousness, giving rise to [5] the almost endless forms of Pharisaism.” — Wesleyan-Methodist Magazine, Nov., 1848.

(A handsome additional reference to the volume occurs, W. M. M. Feb., 1849, p. 198.)

“Huge, next, as an elephant, ponderous and unwieldy, comes David Thom’s long-expected ‘Name and Number of the Beast.’ We fear the public will call this a display of wasted talent and learning. It has enough of both for six bishops. Hatchet in hand, he walks down the forest of former explications, hewing and sparing not, till he and what seem the true explanations are left standing in the midst alone. We admire and love David Thom, and wait anxiously for his second volume on the subject, which, we trust, will set this portentous puzzle for ever at rest. No theologian of such ability has ever been so neglected and decried. His friends, however, are staunch and true, and he has not a few even among those who, like ourselves, decidedly differ from him in opinion.” — George Gilfillan’s ‘Bundle of Books,‘ Tait’s Magazine, Nov., 1848.

“The work before us professes to give a satisfactory solution of one of the most interesting symbols of the Apocalypse. Independently of dedication and preface, it extends to 398 pages. The book is interesting, because it forms a repository in which the reader will find all the solutions of the Apocalyptic mystery of χξς, and these not badly arranged. It deserves the perusal of inquirers on this ground. We can venture to recommend it to our clerical readers.” — Scottish Guardian, Glasgow, 17 November, 1848.

“When I wrote the former” (letter), “I was not aware of the existence of a work written by Dr. Thom, of Liverpool, entitled ‘The Number and Names of the Apocalyptic Beasts,’ containing all the solutions of the mystery, from the days ot Irenæus downwards. In this curious and ingenious work, the Author gives two new solutions of his own, which are both remarkable and ingenious, and which deserve to be noticed on account of their bearing on the general question of the mark of the beast. His first solution is discovered in the Greek word for the mind. This is the god that is now worshipped: a god whom we know not; a new god that has come newly up, whom our fathers feared not . The whole world is gone a-wondering after this beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? Mind is worshipped in great men now-a-days, because, as the Neophytes term it, they are ‘revelations of God in the flesh.’ But let these mind-worshippers know, that the carnal mind is enmity against God. His second solution is found in the Greek words which signify Carnal Churches: a phrase which applies to Rome, to all State Churches, and to all Dissenting Churches where the carnally-intellective principle is predominant. It has been objected to this mode of interpretation, that it is indefinite; and that among the immense variety of names which may be found in the Greek tongue, which will make up the number of the beast, unquestionably some will yield good meanings as well as bad; and that, therefore, no certain conclusions can be drawn from their interpretation. To this we reply, that, in the first place, we should like to see the discovery of names which make up the number of the beast, and possess a truly good and scriptural meaning; and, secondly, we assert, that if such should be discovered, they will be found to be ‘names of blasphemy’ assumed by the Church of Rome, or other apostate Churches, as pre-[6]dicted in the Book of Revelation. The man who can shut his eyes to the plain indications of the Church of Rome in the Apocalyptic enigma of the number of the beast, and of their applicability to the giant strides which the great apostasy is making in our own country at the present moment, must be far gone in the strong delusion which leads to belief in the lie.”— Letter of Professor Wallace, in the Patriot, Nov. 30, 1848.

“Such works on the Apocalypse have something remarkable in them, and the one now presented to the public by Dr. Thom is no exception. It contains much that is interesting, and much that will, no doubt, admit of a profitable application. The strong confidence which the esteemed writer expresses in the correctness of his solution, and his large expectations of good to result from it, may, perhaps, be deemed rather excessive. But to possess such faith and hope, appears to be a privilege belonging to most interpreters of prophecy; and their claims may be allowed to pass without censure, when unaccompanied by pride and uncharitableness. Dr. Thom has introduced his interpretation by an account of the many conjectures of previous writers, respecting the evangelical number, six hundred, sixty and six. His own is, we believe, quite novel: and it is certainly very ingenious . It will probably be popular, being better than most of the hundred different interpretations of the same order, which have been invented, not discovered, from Latin, Greek, and Hebrew letters. They are mere arithmetical puzzles, having no connection with the Christian wisdom which the symbol requires for its interpretation, no consistency with associated statements and representations, no accordance with the style of scripture-prophecy, no conduciveness to religious improvement. In these respects the author’s solution possesses an advantage over them.” — Biblical Review, January, 1849.

“We dare pronounce no opinion on the merits of this new and handsomely printed work of Dr. Thom. The application of the Apocalyptic beasts is a subject we have never attempted to solve; and we candidly confess will be about the last, in the vast region of theology, that we shall approach. For Dr. Thom, as a man of learning and an enthusiastic student of theology, we entertain great respect. This feeling induces us to allude to his work, and to state that he believes he has discovered a clear interpretation of the mystical beasts spoken of in Revelation. Dr. Thom promises us a future volume, in which he will comment on, expound, and justify the discovery he has now submitted to the world.” — Christian Reformer, January, 1849.

“To such as are curious to see all the hypotheses, calculations, and queries, that have ever been published by the wise, the foolish, and the monomaniac, concerning the beasts mentioned in Revelation 13th, we recommend this book of Dr. Thom’s. It is by far the fullest collection of the kind we have seen or heard of, and probably surpasses in this respect every other work that has appeared in any language. To prepare it, he must have gone over a wide extent of reading in English and Latin literature on the Book of Revelation; and he has succeeded, as nearly, we think, as any one will ever succeed, to exhaust all past and future speculation concerning the number and name of the beasts. It is remarkable with what patience he has not only explored the field, but also unfolded and examined the innumerable solutions that ingenuity [7] or stupidity have proposed. The perfect candour of the critic, and his generous desire to do every inventor full justice, and to set his conjecture in a favourable light, are no less admirable. He seems to have a respectful sympathy for all thinkers he meets with, whether they be dull, fantastic, or rational; they still are men, who mean well, and as such, he honours them with a hearty regard, which we wish that we ourselves could always feel. At times, however, his own humour is excited by the utter whimsicality of the examples he has gathered. This, Part I., is occupied chiefly with the hypotheses of others, and with the author’s critiques upon them, We think it cannot fail to do an important service; it will cure rational men of the folly of inventing special solutions of the number and name of the Apocalyptic beasts. For, such a mass of absurdities, we suppose, was never before brought together. And though the most of them, when taken singly, are laughable enough, yet when they are all set in one vast constellation of oddities, each casting its ludicrous light on the others, in ever-multiplying reflections, even gravity itself has to yield. We have seen a single face which was a temptation to one’s risibility; but think of a dense congregation of such faces! It is true, that Dr. Thom has closed the list with a new solution of his own; but of this we forbear to express an opinion, since its demonstration is reserved for the second part, which he proposes to publish in another volume, should leisure and means be afforded. Meanwhile, we thank him for the rich collection which he has now presented us.” — American Universalist Quarterly Review, January, 1849.

(By one of the most eminent Biblical scholars in the United States.)

“Whoever wishes to know all that has ever been said, or can be said, on this mysterious subject, ought to read this volume of the Rev. Dr. Thom. His learning and research have brought into a focus the result of all human speculation on prophecy; and if the work fail to convince, it will for ever stand a monument of his erudition, piety, and zeal. The subject of which the volume treats excludes its consideration from our pages, beyond a passing notice.” — Liverpool Journal, 13th January, 1849.

“Only a small portion of the handsome volume before us is occupied with the immediate discovery of the author; and this itself is reserved for the end. He does not assume to supply a complete arrangement of the order or explanation of the matter of the Book of Revelation. To this, he confesses himself incompetent. Nevertheless, he considers it to be in itself very applicable and intelligible; and that its apparent darkness arises in fact only ‘from excess of light’ — that it is really ‘the focus or condensation of all preceding scripture,’ (p. 41,) and the grand source of its interpretation. He considers the book to be authentic and genuine: the decision of the Council of Laodicea, by common consent, being sufficient, with him, to restore all ‘its claims to be enrolled among the productions of prophets and apostles.’ Dr. Thom believes it to comprehend in its application a whole series of events past and to come, extending over the space intervening between the Resurrection of Christ, and his Second Coming; and that its date is before A.D. 69 or 70. A man of Dr. Thom’s courageous independence, who dared a remarkable secession from the Church of Scotland many years ago, and dares now to stand alone, a man among Churches and sects, ought to give his free mind a little more scope for the investigation of certain questions; ques-[8]tions which are engaging the attention of the greatest religious thinkers of Europe, and must be settled before the slightest result of value can be shewn to attach to a literal textual interpretation. However, we are of the ‘unregenerate,’ and do not claim even to be ‘moderately enlightened by the mind of God.’ According to Dr. Thom, the names of the beasts must give the number 666; and this number denoted by letters, must give in letters the beasts’ names. Up to page 391, Dr. Thom examines the chief solutions which have been offered from early ages to the present time. They are all wrong. His process is a kind of reductio ad absurdum. The name is not Ούλπίος, &c. The true solution is finally in pp. 392, et seq. It is impossible to convey an idea of the logical form in which Dr. Thom pursues the various explanations to their destruction. We have always known Dr. Thom to be a clever, a conscientious, and a kind-hearted man; a man of ability, education, information, and learning. Of these qualities, in the work before us, we have abundant specimens; however deeply we may regret what appears to us to be their misapplication.” — Prospective Review, February, 1849.

“Dr. Thom’s is a very learned book, and we recommend it, with Mr. Rabett’s, wide as they are apart, to the student of Revelation. If he cannot always agree with either, he will find something profitable in both.” — Church and State Gazette, February 23rd, 1849.

“Our mistake arose chiefly from our inability to review Dr. Thom’s work in detail. The solutions advocated by the Doctor are Ή ΦΡΗΝ and ΈΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΙ ΣΑΡΚΙΚΑΙ. We take this opportunity of again recommending Dr. Thom’s volume to the theological student.” — Sanu; Periodical, March 9.

“The subject of this book is, we deem, necessarily involved in considerable obscurity; a fact unmistakably evidenced by the multitude of interpretations that have been put forth in all ages, as to the beasts’ real number and names. And it is — remembering the difficulties encircling the due evolvement of these mysteries, and the host of solutions previously offered — solutions so vague, so extravagant, and at times, so blasphemous, — that we are mainly inclined to congratulate Dr. Thom, as well upon the learning and research he has so successfully advanced in the elucidation and disentanglement of these dark perplexities, as upon the moderation and plausibility of his highly ingenious, skilfully-argued, and well-sustained solutions; so diametrically and honourably distinguished from those wild, incoherent, and mostly random guesses, to which we have above alluded. It would be somewhat beyond our Magazine’s design, and the ordinary character of its contents, to enter into any lengthened discussion upon, or detail of the Doctor’s arguments, by which he enforces the reasonableness and accuracy of the conclusions at which he has arrived. Suffice it that, after a series of the most learned disquisitions; a rigid, yet impartial, investigation into the writings of his predecessors upon the subject; and a heedful, reverential examination of the Holy Scriptures, Dr. Thom here furnishes us with certainly most feasible, and of course, what he himself deems the correct solutions to those mysterious verses, the 1st and 11th of the 13th chapter of Revelations. So erudite and interesting a volume as the present, undoubtedly merits a far more lengthened notice than the slight and meagre one, to which we are unfortunately compelled [9] just now, to confine ourselves. We would warmly, however, urge our readers attentively to examine the book itself — a book, the contents of which redound highly to the credit of the Biblical research, ingenuity, and assiduity of their learned author.” Magazine of Science, April, 1849.

Besides the notices from which the preceding extracts have been taken, reviews of the work occur in Kitto’s “Quarterly Journal,” for October, 1849, and in the “Christian Examiner,” the great organ of the Unitarian body in America.

2. — DIVINE INVERSION, OR A VIEW OF THE CHARACTER OF GOD AS IN ALL RESPECTS OPPOSED TO THE CHARACTER OF MAN. 8vo., cloth, 10s.

“Truly there is much that is acceptable in this volume, as setting forth the dignity and power of Jehovah, in opposition to the weakness and frailty of man. Mr. Thom opens his subject, and by a series of Scriptural authorities, in a simple yet forcible manner, establishes his proposed position. Here we travel side by side with him, and through several sections of his work see little, if any, cause to differ.” — Gospel Magazine, April, 1843.

“Mr. Thom’s is a mind qualified by nature for the pursuit of reality and truth. He is a man endowed with no common quantity of natural acuteness. Before taking leave of our Author, let us thank him for two things; first, for his clear, distinct, and forcible proof that the doctrine of eternal punishment is in irreconcilable opposition to God’s goodness; and, secondly, for a word of searching advice to ourselves. This relates to the defective popularity of Socinians — in which there is a hint which deserves to be deeply pondered by those whom it concerns.” — Christian Teacher (now Prospective Review), April, 1843.

“The Author of this work has discovered a new and fundamental, or at least, ‘a supremely important’ principle, which he has named as above; and to the history of its gradual discovery and the elucidation of its nature and bearings, an ingenious volume is entirely devoted.” — Tait’s Magazine, August, 1843.

“This is a remarkable work, by a man of no ordinary character. He is settled as pastor of an independent congregation in Liverpool, and is widely known by his published writings, us well as respected for his learning, ability, and piety.” — “The scope of the work before us is indicated by its title; but some of the sentiments which it aims to establish may not be so.” — After an analysis of the work, and statement of some of the leading points of the system, the critic observes: — “Mr. Thom regards the expulsion of man from Eden as an act of Divine benevolence, dictated by a knowledge that he might put forth his hand, and eat of the tree of life, and become immortal in a state of sin; whereas his own highest good required that he should perish, and thence be raised, through divine grace, to a state of holiness and unending bliss.” — New York Weekly Tribune, April 8, 1843.

[10] 3. — THREE GRAND EXHIBITIONS OF MAN’S ENMITY TO GOD. 8vo., cloth, 16s.

“The literary merits of this work are of the highest order; the Author writes with a thorough conviction of the truth and of the importance of his principles; and never attempts to support them by logical sophisms. If he has provoked controversy, he shows that he is not afraid to meet it; for he states his propositions with a strength and clearness which leave no room for misrepresentation or evasion.” — Athenæum, March 14, 1846.

“Starting with the necessary, inherent, constitutional, and ineradicable enmity of human nature to God, he ends with ‘the termination of man’s enmity,’ and the everlasting enjoyment of Salvation by all mankind.” — “One word, in conclusion, respecting the style and composition of this work. The separate sentences are remarkably clear and lucid. The Author is a perfect master of perspicuity. — We should be refusing to gratify our own feelings if we abstained from saying that we believe the Author to be a man of unimpeachable integrity, of universal kindness of heart, of a pure life, of a keen and vigorous intellect of the logical order, and of a noble and unworldly devotion to the cause of Truth. He has given proof that he is one of the few whose honesty and simplicity are too strong to yield either to the tyranny or to the cajolery of Churches.” — Prospective Review, February, 1846. (14 pp.)

“In days like these, of everywhere triumphant mediocrity, it is unspeakably gratifying to meet with a production stamped with the undeniable impress of a really vigorous and original intellect. Whilst we cannot of course profess to agree with Mr. Thom in all his conclusions, we can never refrain from admiring the ability with which he states his premises. Indeed, it is frequently more easy to disagree with than to overturn his arguments; and as regards many of his points, so far are we from wishing to overturn them, that we rather hail them with the most cordial expression of approbation, and profess ourselves equally delighted and edified by the consideration of them. We consider Mr. Thom fairly entitled to the credit of having, with a masterly hand, withdrawn much of the veil that rested on many scriptural difficulties of paramount import, and to have exposed fallacies, and held up to the light anomalies and misconstructions of Scripture, which have maintained their ground for ages, as doctrinal truths of the first import in the minds of the many.” — British Churchman, April, 1846. (3 pp.)

“This is a book which can neither be understood nor appreciated without close and attentive reading, accompanied by uninterrupted meditation. The Author’s object is ‘to shew that man’s enmity to God is the platform on which is displayed God’s love to man;’ and this object is pursued with a closeness of reasoning, and a depth of argument, which, if they fail to convert such as may entertain opinions at variance with the author’s views on the subject, they must at least convince his opponents of his sincerity; for none but an author whose soul is engaged in the work could write with such an earnestness of purpose as we find displayed in Mr. Thom’s excellent volume.” After a statement of the Author’s leading [11] object, and a brief analysis of the volume, the reviewer closes by saying, “These several divisions of the subject are fully and ably brought out, the result being a work of unusual excellence, abounding in striking and original views on a subject of universal importance.” — Westminster Review, June, 1846. (Pp. 540, 541.)

“The doctrine of this book is, that there have been three successive developments of the love of God to man, each fuller than the preceding — viz., in Paradise, under the law, and since the advent of Christ; that against this increasing manifestation of the love of God to man, there has been an increasing manifestation of the enmity of man to God; and that this present and last development of human enmity is to be followed by the victory of the divine love, the enmity of the creature being, finally and for ever, swallowed up in the love of the Creator. Evil is thus developed to the full, that good may ultimately be universal. But we must be allowed to say, that we cannot forbear to regard all theories in religion with suspicion, which are set forth as containing new views of the entire plan of the Almighty, worked out by the solitary thought of some separate mind. We expect no such results to be of sudden appearance, or to proceed from so narrow and humble a source. Time and multitude must be as parents to such theories if they are ever to be demonstrated as the truth. Novelty and ingenuity combined, have great fascination for some minds, especially when they seem to supply a scheme whereby to enter into the secrets of the Infinite, and to ‘justify the ways of God to man.’ But for ourselves, we never look with so much misgiving on the new and the ingenious as when they come to us in company of this sort. No one can read the book which Mr. Thom has published, without great respect for the manifest sincerity, and the grave religious feeling, of the writer. But his plan is too symmetrical, compact, and perfect, and in too great a degree a personal discovery, to be wholly trustworthy. Divine truth is no doubt harmonious and perfect; but we are not more sure that the relations of truth must be of that nature, than that it is not given to mortals to trace out these relations, and to comprehend the whole, in the manner attempted by Mr. Thom. The argument, in our judgment, belongs to the department of philosophic-theological romance, embracing much truth, clustered upon a thread-work which is by no means sound.” — British Quarterly Review, May, 1846.

“An expert theologian alone could successfully attempt to analyse this treatise. Not that the general purport of the treatise is difficult to be understood.” — Tait’s Magazine, April, 1846.

[12] THE UNIVERSALISTS’ LIBRARY,

EDITED BY

THE REV. DAVID THOM, D.D., Ph.D.

VOL. I.— DIALOGUES ON UNIVERSAL SALVATION, AND TOPICS CONNECTED THEREWITH. Second Edition. By Dr. Thom. Foolscap 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d. Subjects of the Dialogues: — 1. Election, and the Means of Grace. 2. Jesus the Son of Adam, as well as the Son of Abraham. 3. The Two Laws. 4. Eternal Punishment, not Eternal Torments. 5. The Second Death.

OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.

“We have had occasion, in times past, to bear testimony to the learning and talents of Mr. Thom; a mind well stored and cultivated, and with a philanthropy unbounded for the human species. As in former works, so in this, he expresses his opinion that Christ’s kingdom shall terminate in the ultimate subjugation or salvation of the unregenerate. He further asserts, that Christ will raise the whole human race, at one period or another, either at the first, or at the second resurrection, either in time, or when time shall be no more, to be happy for ever. From these opinions of his we of course dissent.” — Gospel Magazine, December, 1838, pp. 568-572.

The Rev. T. J. Sawyer, then of New York, now President of Clinton Institute, also notices this edition of the Dialogues, in a long and elaborate review (29 pages,) of Dr. Thom’s then published works, which appears in the “Expositor and Universalist Review,” (American,) for May, 1840.

SAME WORK. Second Edition. Foolscap 8vo., 3s. 6d., considerably enlarged.

“The work itself is in every respect a most extraordinary production, and David Thom, its Author, is in every respect one of the most extraordinary men of the present age. There are, most assuredly, principles advanced in them which no Heaven-taught child of God can or will deny; and in David Thom’s deductions from these principles he exhibits alike the original thinker, the profound Biblical scholar, and the expert and skilful logician.” — Liverpool Chronicle, May 1, 1847.

“Mr. Thom is well known in the theological world as a fearless and highly original thinker, and we hesitate not to say, that whether right or wrong in his peculiar tenets, still, as a man of deep research, metaphysical acumen, and splendid genius, our town may well be proud of him. The present dialogues abundantly attest Mr. Thom’s reputation. That [13] the dialogues are fairly conducted, there is not the shadow of a doubt. In treating of themes such as Mr. Thom treats of, the positive meaning of many men would be quite opaque; our author makes his perfectly transparent, and this is the highest compliment we can pay him.” — Liverpool Albion, May 3rd, 1847.

“A remarkable theological book, full of intense thought, subtlety, and learning; and in which the extremest Calvinism is found expounded and enforced, in conjunction with the doctrine of Universalism. Not the least attractive feature of it is, the preliminary tribute to the memory of the author’s brother, Mr. Robert Thom, British Consul at Ningpo, a man of uncommon merit, for whom, if he had been spared, a distinguished career was in store. — Manchester Examiner, May 22d, 1847.

“The peculiar characteristics of this work are profound thought, simple truth, and universal charity. — We earnestly commend the perusal of the volume above named; inasmuch as, if addicted to the use of reason and demonstration, readers will find in its pages a splendid and elaborate chain-work of the same, seldom if ever excelled; or, if preferring to rest upon strict scriptural affirmation, and the consequences legitimately deducible therefrom, a grand, simple, and harmonious system, resting solely on enlightened reason and divine doctrine.” — Nottingham Mercury, June 25th, 1847.

“Mr. Thom is highly esteemed, wherever known, as eminent in learning and piety; yet he occupies a singular position as a theologian, blending in his belief such extremes of orthodoxy and liberal opinions, that we hardly know any class of Christians in this country, (America) who agree with him in sentiment. He is a believer in the proper and underived divinity of the Saviour, vicarious atonement, election, and eternal rewards and penalties, though he rejects the idea that any will be eternally miserable, and maintains the ultimate salvation of all to happiness and bliss. Those who wish to see how propositions, thus apparently contradictory, are reconciled, and who would become acquainted with the system of the author, we earnestly recommend to consult the work.” — New York Weekly Tribune, August 21, 1847.

“This is a second edition of a very ingenious work, which first appeared in 1838. We have already, in our notices of the author’s ‘Divine Inversion,’ and ‘Three Grand Exhibitions of Man’s Enmity to God,’ indicated the peculiarities of his theology, and the distinguishing character of his intellect. By preserving inviolate the goodness of God, he makes Calvinism conduct him to Universalism, by the destruction in every descendant of Adam of human nature, ‘swallowed up in the divine and generous nature of the Son of God.’ Neither with his first principles, nor with his method of reasoning from words to things, have we any affinity, but the Calvinism of eternal torments he has met upon its own ground, and beaten to the dust. John Foster rejected the horrid doctrine on the ground of its absolute irreconcileableness with Christian sentiment, without attempting to explain all the scriptural expressions concerned in the controversy; our author is more bold and thorough, and conducts his argument by the letter of scripture.” — Prospective Review, August, 1847.

“Whatever may be thought of his,” the author’s “peculiar opinions, [14] there can be no question whatever of the sincerity of his convictions, or of the vigour and activity of his mental powers.” — McPhail’s Ecclesiastical Magazine, January, 1848.

See also “Literary Gazette;” “English Review,” June, 1847, pp. 447-450; “Family Herald,” July 17, 1847, Answer to Truth Seeker, p. 169; “Nonconformist,” September 1, 1847, &c. &c.

VOL. II.— THREE QUESTIONS PROPOSED AND ANSWERED, CONCERNING THE LIFE FORFEITED BY ADAM, THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD, AND ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. By Dr. Thom. Third Edition. Foolscap 8vo., cloth, 2s. 6d.

⁂ Extracts from reviews of the previous editions of this work occur on pages 166-170.

VOL. III.— THE RESTORATION OF ALL THINGS. By Jeremiah White, Chaplain to Oliver Cromwell, with Introduction by Dr. Thom. Preparing.

⁂ The Volumes of the Universalist Library may be had separately.

WITHOUT FAITH WITHOUT GOD; or an appeal to God concerning his own Existence; being an Essay proving from the Scripture that the Knowledge of God comes not by Nature, Innate Ideas, Intuition, Reason, &c., but only by Revelation. By JOHN BARCLAY, A.M. Edited by the Rev. DAVID THOM. 12mo., cloth, 2s. 6d.

THE ULTIMATE MANIFESTATION of GOD to the WORLD. Addressed to Believers of the Gospel. By DAVID WALDIE. Fcap. 8vo. 1s.

“A brief, but comprehensive little treatise, and an able and useful manual of universalist doctrine.” — Nottingham Mercury, July 23, 1847.

“We were scarcely prepared, within so small a compass, and from the pen of a layman, to meet with so much knowledge of the letter of scripture, such powers of biblical criticism, such vigorous logic, and such ability in the way of condensation, as these pages display.

“There is much beauty of style in this work; and, throughout, we have been delighted with its perspicuity. Its author is evidently a clearheaded, acute, and well read man. — Mr. Waldie writes always like an honest, straightforward, and independently-minded man. He shirks no difficulties. He never has recourse to quirks and subterfuges. He evidently believes what he says. His work is an admirable compendium [15] of that particular view of the doctrine of Universal Salvation, which he has espoused, and for which he contends. It is not the system of the Chevalier Ramsay, or Petit-Pierre, or Relly, or Murray, or Elhanan Winchester, or Dr. Huntington, or Bishop Newton, or Douglas, or Hosea Ballou. To us it is new.” — Liverpool Chronicle, April 7, 1849.

THE SOJOURN OF A SCEPTIC IN THE LAND OF DARKNESS AND UNCERTAINTY. By the REV. PETER HATELY WADDELL. 12mo., cloth. 4s. 6d.

“‘The Sojourn’ is a work of unquestionable ability, — we should scarcely err if we said, of decided genius.” — McPhail’s Ecclesiastical Journal.

“For our part we deem it honour enough for any man to be second to Bunyan; and so far from disliking the ‘Sceptic,’ because it reminds us of the ‘Pilgrim,’ we only relish it the more.” — Banner of Truth.

“Want of space prevents our making extracts from this remarkable and most interesting work. Notwithstanding, we feel ourselves justified, after a careful and cautious perusal of its contents, in assuring our readers that it is a production of true and rare genius. Admirably has the author hit the phraseology required. There is no servile imitation of his prototype; and yet the quaintness and simplicity of the style, (which is always correct, and often elegant,) is not a whit behind that of the great master of religious romance. — Liverpool Chronicle, February 10, 1849.

AN ESSAY ON THE IDEALISM OF CHRISTIANITY, in contradistinction to that of MODERN PHILOSOPHY. By the REV. PETER HATELY WADDELL. Preparing.

THE LIFE OF THE REV. JOHN MURRAY, late Minister of the Reconciliation, and Senior Pastor of the Universalists congregated in Boston. Written by Himself. To which is added a Brief Continuation to the close of his Life. Seventh American Edition. 12mo., cloth 4s.

“One of the most interesting pieces of autobiography which I have ever read. In it there is given an account of the rise and progress of Universalism in the United States.” — See Dr. Thom’s Dialogues on Universal Salvation, p. 188.

A DISCUSSION OF THE CONJOINT QUESTION, Is the Doctrine of Endless Punishment Taught in the Bible? or does the Bible teach the final Holiness and happiness of all Mankind? In a series of Letters between EZRA STYLES ELY, D.D., Pastor of the Third Presby-[16]terian Church, Philadelphia, and ABEL C. THOMAS, Pastor of the First Universalist Church, Philadelphia. 16mo., cloth 4s.

Upwards of 70,000 copies of this work have been sold in the United States.

AN EXPOSITION AND DEFENCE OF UNIVERSALISM, in a series of Sermons. By the REV. J. D. WILLIAMSON. Fifth Edition. 16mo., cloth. 4s.

THE PREACHER; a Collection of Sermons, from various Authors, Doctrinal and Practical. 16mo., cloth. 4s.

ENDLESS PUNISHMENT; its Origin and Grounds examined with other Discourses. By the REV. T. J. SAWYER, of New York. 16mo., cloth. 4s.

THE BOOK OF PROMISES; or the Universalist’s Daily Companion: being a Collection of Scripture Promises, arranged under their proper heads. By S. B. EMMONS. 32mo. cloth. 2s.

THE SELECT THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY: comprising the works of the most eminent Universalist writers. Complete in 9 Nos. Royal 8vo., sewed. 12s. 6d.

SCRIPTURE REVELATIONS: by the Author of “Christianity, or the Catholic Faith Demonstrated.” 8vo., cloth. 16s.

A FEW BRIEF COMMENTS on a nameless tract, entitled “Brief Scriptural Evidence of the Doctrine of Eternal Punishment, for plain people, with answers to some objections, by J. N. D.” By PHILOMATH. Price 6d.

A LETTER, addressed to “J. N. D.”, respecting his tract on “Eternal Punishment.” By JOHN FAWCETT. 12mo., sewed. 6d.

THOUGHTS ON THE POPULAR OPINIONS OF ETERNAL PUNISHMENT BEING SYNONYMOUS WITH ETERNAL TORMENT. By THOMAS CONOLLY COWAN, A.M. l2mo. ls.

THE HOPE OF ETERNAL LIFE IN JESUS CHRIST. 1s. 4d.

[17] CHRISTIANITY, or the Catholic Faith demonstrated and made plain to the Understanding both of the Learned and the Unlearned. In Letters addressed to the Rev. P. Hall, M.A.. and inscribed to the Right Rev. the Bishop of Exeter. 12mo., cloth. 6s. 6d.

A MAP of the PURPOSE and DURATION of the REIGN of CHRIST; with Explanatory Notes: to which are added a Few Thoughts upon the Contrast between the First and Second Adam. 12mo., sewed. 6d.

AN ADDRESS TO SIR CULLING EARDLEY SMITH, Bart., as Chairman of the Evangelical Alliance, and to the Members constituting that body, relative to the Seventh and Ninth Articles of the Doctrinal Basis. By J. OAKESHOTT. 3d.

A SECOND REPLY to an Inquirer, on the Doctrine of the Restitution of all Things. By JOHN OAKESHOTT. 9d.

A BEREAN’S STRICTURES on a Manuscript entitled The Punishment of the Wicked Everlastingly. By J. OAKESHOTT. 4d.

DIALOGUES (for the Prayerful Consideration of the Church of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,) between a Calvinist, Arminian, and Berean. Royal 8vo., sewed. 1s.

A LETTER in Reply to some Remarks on Soul, Spirit, and Mind; Hades and Gehenna, &c. By ABIEZER, 6d.

A LETTER in Defence of the whole Counsel of God, against some Objections by a Baptist Minister, By ABIEZER. 3d.

BABYLON ANATHEMA MARANATHA. By Abiezer. 2d.

OATHS — Unchristian, Immoral, and Impolitic: a plea for relieving conscientious objectors from compulsory oaths. 2d.

“This small tract presents to the public a plea for relieving conscientious objectors from compulsory oaths, such as are not only permitted and indeed sanctioned by society, but are imperatively required in legal proceedings. It is a pains-taking argument in favour of their abolition, and it is founded principally on the religious (Christian) view of the subject. All who desire to settle their minds on the question, on the principles of the [18] New Testament, need only to obtain this tract to enable them to have at their fingers’ ends all the texts and reasonings on which Christian objections to oaths are founded and defended.” — Liverpool Mercury, May 15, 1849.

THE MILLENNIUM. By WILLIAM SEABROOK, Bethesda, Plymouth. Sixth Edition. 6d.

THE ANATHEMA EXAMINED, or the Question not to be Evaded — Why ought any Man to love the Lord Jesus Christ, or, if not, to be Anathema? By WILLIAM SEABROOK. 2d.

LETTERS FROM BEREA, between Christians who differ on a Controversial Subject. By PAROIKOS. 2d.

The above contains a Correspondence between the Secretary of the Evangelical Alliance and a Universalist.

OBSERVATIONS upon a Letter respecting the Purpose of God towards Man. By PAROIKOS. 2d.

A TRACT for Tract Distributors, entitled “For the Finder.” 6d. per dozen.

MARANATHA. By JANE USHER HOBBS, Waterford. 2s. 6d.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR,

TRACTS FOR THE CHURCH. No. I. The origin, use, and remedy of Evil, scripturally considered. No. II. The great problem. What is Truth? — No. III. The True Gospel of the Grace of God, shewing the nature, extent, and application of the value of Atonement. 1d. each.

By Mrs. SHERWOOD, Author of “Henry Milner,” “The Monk of Cimies,” &c.,

THE FAIRY KNOLL. 18mo., bd. 2s. 6d.

“A book that might be advantageously put into the hands of the young, and as conveying many useful and pithy moral reflections in a graceful, lively, and unobtrusive manner, there are few which we have seen that we can more cordially recommend than this interesting and elegant little narrative. The work itself is remarkable for being both serious and cheerful — sprightly indeed, and has so far an additional claim upon the choice of those who desire to make an agreeable present, an opportunity of conveying at the same time some useful and probably permanent moral lesson. The characters introduced are life-like and natural, both in their sayings and doings; the incidents well-imagined; and the reflections introduced original and just. The work is beautifully printed and elegantly embellished.” — Nottingham Mercury.

END.