An Inquiry: Are the Wicked Immortal? (1847)

Download: PDF — An Inquiry: Are the Wicked Immortal? (1847)

BT 930

.S8

Copy 1

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.

Chap. Copyright

shelf

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Recel at Leight . Stale , April 13. 1899 .

AN INQUIRY:

ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL?

IN

SIX SERMONS.

ALSO,

HAVE THE DEAD KNOWLEDGE?

BY

GEORGE STORRS.

PHILADELPHIA:

PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR.

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON

Sep: Oct. 14 1849

George Storms.

List vol. 189

No 323. August

Dec. pp. 168.

Drapes

No. 666. Kennis

THE LIBRARY

OF CONGRESS

WASHINGTON

AN INQUIRY:

ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL?

IN

SIX SERMONS.

ALSO,

HAVE THE DEAD KNOWLEDGE?

BY

GEORGE STORRS.

HISTORY

PHILADELPHIA:

PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR.

BIBLE EXAMINER.

AN INQUIRY : ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL?

By George Storrs.

FIRST DISCOURSE.

'May we know what this new doctrine whereof thou speakest is? For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know, therefore, what these things mean." Acts xvii. 19, 20.

PAUL, in preaching the gospel, came to Athens; he there beheld an altar inscribed "TO THE UNKNOWN GOD." At the idolatry he saw, his spirit was stirred within him; hence he disputed daily with them that met him. He encountered certain philosophers—wise men, no doubt,—at least in their own estimation—and some of them said: What will this babbler say? Others said, he seemeth to be a setter forth of strange Gods. No doubt they thought he was a "heretic" of the blackest stamp; yet they seemed disposed to hear him, before they passed final sentence upon him. In this respect they certainly manifested a better disposition than many of the present day, who are so wise in their own estimation, that no one can advance a thought to which they will listen, unless it has first passed through the head of some doctor of divinity. Not so with the men of Athens; "strange" as the things were that the Apostle taught, they were desirous to know what the new doctrine was.

Various errors exist among men in regard to revealed truth. These errors go to show how imperfect we are in knowledge—the mistakes committed in our education—the reluctance of the mind to investigate—and a want of moral courage to step aside from the track marked out by learned men, as they are thought to be, but who, most likely, have conducted their own investigations under the influence of the fear of being denounced as heretics, if they should be led to results unlike to those who are reputed for wisdom.

But "if any man will be wise, let him become a fool that he may be wise," is the language of inspiration itself.

We honour God only so far as we have right conceptions of his character, government and purposes, and act in accordance with them. If we believe God will reward, or punish men contrary to his own word, we dishonour him, however much sincerity we may possess. Truth and the honour of God are inseparable: and we cannot glorify our Heavenly Father by erroneous opinions. Yet, most professed christians, if pressed on the subject, can give little better reason for what they believe, on many points, than that their teachers told them so.

It is a solemn duty to study our Bibles, and form our opinions of what they teach for ourselves, as we must answer for ourselves. But in this study the adoption of correct principles of interpretation is of the first importance. Without this, our appeal to the word of God may only serve to confirm us in error.

The plainest truths of the Bible have been wrapped in darkness by pretending that the language of the Scriptures has a mystical or secret meaning that does not appear in he words employed. Such a principle of interpretation is a libel on the Bible. That book professes to be a revelation; and so plain, too, that the wayfaring man can understand it; and the Saviour says, "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine." The language of the Bible, then, should be explained as the language of any other book, i.e. according to its plain and obvious meaning: unless there is a clear necessity for departing from it. With these remarks I proceed to

THE QUESTION AT ISSUE, OR POINT IN DEBATE.

The question is not, whether the soul can be immortal, nor whether the souls of the righteous will be immortal; but—Will the wicked who live and die in their sins, continue eternally, or without end, in a state of conscious being?

Or, once more—Is the punishment God has threatened to sinners an eternal state of conscious being in misery? This involves the question of the immortality of the soul. For if all men can be proved to be immortal, I conceive it clearly follows from the Bible, that the finally impenitent will be punished with eternal conscious being in misery.

THE ARGUMENTS IN PROOF OF MAN'S IMMORTALITY.

These are mainly three, viz. : First—The desire all men feel for it. Second—That the soul is spiritual, hence destructible, and therefore immortal. Third—That God wills it to be immortal.

To these, perhaps, another should be added, viz.: "All nations and people have believed the soul immortal." To this last argument, I answer—There is no evidence that all nations and people have believed it. There is evidence to the contrary. In the "Dialogue on the immortality of the soul"—found in "Plato's Dialogues"—Socrates, having spoken of the nature of the soul, says—"Shall a soul of this nature, and created with all these advantages, be dissipated and annihilated as soon as it parts from the body, as most men believe?" Here the fact is brought out, that so far from its being a general belief that the soul is immortal, the exact reverse was true in Socrates' day.

So far from all nations and people believing the soul immortal, there were a large class among the Jews who did not believe it, viz.: the Sadducees, who said, "There is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit."—Hence, there is no truth in the argument, that all nations and people have believed in the immortality of the soul.

I proceed now to take up the three main arguments in support of the immortality of the soul.

The desire all men feel for it. This argument can avail nothing, unless it can be proved, that what men desire they will possess. But men desire many things, they never do and never can obtain. All men desire happiness; but does it, therefore, follow, that all men will be happy! Certainly not. So, neither does it follow, because all men desire immortality, that therefore, they are immortal: that desire is, without doubt, a strong principle implanted in us by the author of our being, to excite us to a course of living that shall secure that invaluable blessing, which he designed to bestow upon man, if he would walk in obedience to the law of his God.

Hence, the dread of the loss of it was to influence men in enduring whatever of trial might be their lot, during their sojourn in this state of probation; and, properly considered, will be a mighty stimulus to enable us to suffer even unto death, if need be, that we may save our lives unto ETERNAL LIFE.

It is said—The soul is spiritual, hence indestructible, and therefore immortal. One single consideration is sufficient to overthrow this argument, and show that it has no force. He who created can destroy. Our Saviour saith, "Fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

But the objector says, "Nothing can be destroyed—not even a grain of sand." If all the objector means is, man cannot destroy any thing, I admit it; but if he means to prove any thing by this objection, he intends to be understood as saying, God cannot destroy any thing. Such an argument might pass in the mouth of a professed atheist; but for a professed believer in the being and power of Jehovah to use it, is shocking; unless he can prove that God has said, that nothing He has created shall be destroyed.

Because man cannot destroy "a grain of sand," does it therefore follow that God cannot do it, if He will? If it is true, that because man cannot destroy a grain of sand, God cannot do it — it is equally true that, because man cannot create a grain of sand, God cannot do it; and thus we should be driven into the theory, that all things which we consider created, are, in fact, eternal, and never had a beginning. If the objector is not willing to take this position, let him admit that God can, if he will, destroy, or cause to cease to have existence "the souls" He has "made."

Having examined the first two arguments in favour of the immortality of the souls of all men, and shown, as I think, that they have no foundation in truth, the ground of the argument is narrowed to this one point, viz. :—

Is it the will of God that wicked men shall be immortal?

In determining this question, I shall call no man master or father that now lives or ever did live. It will weigh not a straw in my mind, what any of the (so called) "fathers," have said or written; but what saith the testimony of God? "To the law and to the testimony; if any man speak not according to these, it is because there is no light in him."

To commence, I call attention to what man lost by the fall. In order to understand this, let us look at man prior to the fall. He was a probationer. For what? Not for happiness—for he had that in possession. Not for life, merely, as he was in the enjoyment of that also. I conclude it was for eternal life—figured and set forth before his eyes by the "tree of life"—as death, the opposite, was set forth by the "tree of knowledge of good and evil." Each of those trees, I conclude, were signs; the one of Life, the other of Death—not of man's body merely, but of the whole man; or, in other words, "Life and Death" were "set before" him. Eternal life must depend upon the absence of evil; if evil is introduced, death must follow. Man had before him a standing call and warning—a call to obedience and Life; a warning against disobedience, or sin and Death. He disregarded the warning, and slighted the call—he sinned. Now, "The Lord said, lest he (man) put forth his hand, and take of the tree of life, and eat, and LIVE FOR EVER, he (God) drave out the man, and he placed a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." That is, as clear as language can express it, the Lord God determined, or willed, that man should not be immortal in his sin; or, in other words, in the day man sinned he lost all title to immortality, and was cut off from the "tree of life;" or, the sign God had given of eternal life, was "hid from" his "eyes."

That this loss relates to the whole man, and not to the body merely, as some suppose, I prove from the fact, that if it related to the body only, there is not a particle of evidence in the transaction, of pronouncing sentence upon man, by his Maker, that any penalty was threatened to the soul, or inflicted upon it. There is surely none in the context; and it appears to me, that if the exclusion from the tree of life, lest man should eat and live for ever, does not relate to the whole man, there is no evidence there that the denunciation of God against man affected anything but man's body.

God could have constituted man immortal in his sin and misery; but it appears it was his pleasure that he should not be; and this will of God is expressed in the text under consideration.

Again—That this loss related to the whole man, I prove from the fact, that our Saviour, in his address to one of the seven churches of Asia, says, "To him that overcometh, will I give to eat of the tree of life which is in the midst of the paradise of God." How clear the reference, and how obvious, that it is the whole man that is spoken of; and that none are to have access to that tree, or have immortality, but such as overcome!

But I wish to call attention further to the tree of life, to show that it related to something more than the body. Revelation, 22d chapter and 2d verse, we read thus;—“In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life,” &c.; and at the 14th verse—“Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” The reference here is too clear to be misunderstood; no one will pretend that this relates to the body merely. By what authority, then, do they assume it, in regard to the “tree of life” in Paradise?

Allow me here to introduce an extract or two from Richard Watson. His "Institutes" are well known among many in this country, as well as in Europe. In his sermon on "Paradise shut and re-opened," he has this remark—"The tree of life was a kind of sacrament. As the promise of immortality was given to Adam, every time he ate of this tree by God's appointment, he expressed his faith in God's promise; and God, as often as he ate of it, sealed the promise of immortality to man. In this view, sin excluded man from the tree of life, as he lost his title to immortality." Again, Mr. Watson says, in his sermon on "The tree of life,"—"It has been suggested that it was the natural means appointed to counteract disease by medical virtue; and thus to prevent bodily decay and death.

This," he says, "is not an improbable hypothesis; but we have no authority for it; and if we had, our inquiries would not be at an end. For this hypothesis relates only to the body; whereas we find the tree of life spoken of in connexion with the life of the soul—not only with immortality on earth, but with immortality in heaven."

"It is not, therefore, without reason," he continues, "that many eminent divines have considered this tree as a constant pledge to Adam of a higher life; and since there was a covenant of works, the tenor of which was, 'this do, and thou shalt live,'—and as we know God has ever connected signs, seals, and sacraments with his covenants—analogy may lead us to conclude that this tree was the matter of sacrament—the eating of it a religious act; and that it was called 'the tree of life,' because it was not only a means of sustaining the immortality of the body, but the pledge of spiritual life here, and of a higher and more glorious life in a future state, to which man might pass, not, indeed, by death, but by translation."

"This will explain," continues Mr. Watson, "the reason why the fruit of that tree was prohibited after man had sinned. He had broken the covenant, and had no right now to eat of the sign, the sacrament, the pledge of immortality. 'Lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live for ever: therefore, the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden. God resumed his promises, withdrew the sign of them, and now refused any token or assurance of his favour."

Mr. Watson adds, "The Judge passes sentence, but the Judge also gives a promise; and man is bidden to hope in another object, 'the seed of the woman.' That seed was henceforth to be his tree of life."

Thus much for Mr. Watson. He did not hold the doctrine for which I contend, in regard to the final destiny of the wicked; still, there are passages in his works which look strongly that way.

I conceive that Adam's posterity in his loins when he sinned, would never have come into conscious being, had it not been for the promised "seed of the woman." Man, after his apostacy, was without hope ; and being in despair, his situation must have been such as to cut off all pleasure or enjoyment, and so render him as incapable of propagating his species as the devils, till such time as his Maker gave him the cheering hope of a deliverer.

Adam himself came short of immortality, and would, ultimately, have utterly perished, or ceased to be, had it not been for the "seed of the woman." This truth, then, comes full into view, that there is no immortality in sin. Or, in other words, God has willed that the wicked shall not have immortality. Adam being cut off from immortality could not possibly communicate it to his posterity: this invaluable blessing therefore was ever after to be had "only" in Christ; for God has given unto us ETERNAL LIFE, and this life is in his Son; so that "He that hath the Son, hath life," whilst "he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."

FACTS FROM GOD'S WORD FOR CONSIDERATION.

Before I proceed further, I wish to call attention to a few facts from the Scriptures of divine truth.

The word "Eternal" occurs but twice in the Old Testament. Once in Deut. 33:27, and is applied to God— "The eternal God is thy refuge,"—and once in Isa. 60:15, and is spoken of the people of God—"I will make thee an eternal excellency."

The phrase "Eternity" occurs but once in the Bible, viz., Isa. 57:15, and is applied to God—"Thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity."

How common to hear men talk about eternity—and to hear ministers tell their hearers they are going into eternity and urge that consideration upon them, to call up attention. "Prepare for eternity," say they. To my mind, it is evident, that consideration is not made use of, in the Scriptures, to lead men to God. Jesus Christ, nor his apostles ever used it. They preached that men were perishing dying—exposed to death—in danger of losing everlasting life—travelling in the way that leadeth to destruction, &c.: exhorted them to repent—believe—to lead a new life to save themselves from this untoward generation—to lay hold on eternal life, &c.but never told their hearers "You are hastening to eternity;" for, I repeat it, that is not true, in fact.

When men die, they go into the invisible state, and are reserved until the judgment.

The phrase "eternal life," occurs no where in the Bible, except in the New Testament, and is always spoken of the righteous; it never has connected with it any qualifying terms, such as "happy," "blessed," or "miserable," &c., but simply denotes life in opposition to the death of the wicked. See Romans 6:21-23. "What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. But now being made free from sin, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life; for the wages of sin is death: but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Here life and death are put in opposition, and no intimation is given that the death of the wicked is eternal conscious being in torments.

It is very common to hear people talk about a happy eternal life—a blessed eternal life—a glorious eternal life; as though the language of the Bible were not explicit enough. Such additions to the word of God, give evidence, if we had no other, that there is something defective in their theory. Such additions ought always to be looked upon with suspicion; and, if received at all, be received with great caution.

In interpreting the Scriptures, if we would be saved from the wild fields of conjecture, and save ourselves from an entire dependence upon others for the knowledge of what the Bible teaches, we must have some settled principles of interpretation. The following I consider the most important; first—That words are to have their primary, and obvious meaning, unless there is a clear necessity of departing from it. By their primary and obvious meaning, I mean, the plain, and direct sense of the words, such as they may be supposed to have in the mouths of the speakers, who used them according to the language of that time and country in which they lived, without any of those learned, artificial, and forced senses, which are put on them by those who claim the right to be the "authorized expounders of the Bible."

Such forced sense is, usually, nothing more than the peculiar notions that they have been bred up in, and may have no better foundation than the superstition of some good old ancestor.

The next principle of interpretation I would lay down is, That it is a truth, from which we are not to depart without the clearest evidence, that words are never used to mean more than their primary signification; though they may be, and often are, used to signify something less. Not to adhere to this principle is to make revelation no revelation. Those who abandon this principle may as well admit, at once, that the common people ought not to have the Bible, for it will only lead them astray.

The primary meaning of the term death is, "the extinction of life." To say, then, that when God threatens men with death, he does not mean they shall die, but be kept alive in eternal torments, it seems to me is not warranted by any ordinary use of language.

What should we think of a law that says, "For murder thou shalt die," if we were told the meaning is not, that the transgressor shall actually die, but be kept alive in undescribable torments, protracted to the greatest possible extent? Would any man think he was fairly dealt with by such an administration? And would he not have just cause of complaint at the want of definiteness in the terms used to denote the punishment threatened!

The term Immortal" occurs but once in the Bible, viz.: 1 Timothy 1:17; and is applied to God. "The king eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God."

If we were to judge by the frequency that we hear the phrase "immortal soul," we should suppose it was the most common expression in the Scriptures. You will hardly hear a sermon without the preacher often telling, with great emphasis, about "the immortal soul," as though he thought that qualifying term was all important to impress his hearers with a sense of the soul's value: not content, with the Saviour, to ask—"What is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" No, that would be quite too weak, in his estimation, and he must strengthen it by adding, "immortal." To show the absurdity of such a course, I have only to say—That which is immortal, cannot be lost.

Hence, the persons who use this qualifying term, have to add another, and say—lose all "happiness." Now, the loss of the soul, and the loss of happiness, are two very different things, and each capable of being expressed in appropriate language. To say, then, that when our Saviour said, a man may "lose his own soul," he did not mean that he will come short of immortality, perish, or cease all sense and life, but only that he shall lose the happiness of his soul, is, in my mind, making sad havoc of the word of God.

As in sermons, so it is in prayers. Men seem to think prayers have but little power, unless they spice them often with, "immortal soul:" and they would probably stare at you, as though they thought you an infidel, if you were to tell them that the Bible no where calls the soul immortal.

How often, too, do we hear the phrase "deathless spirit," in direct contradiction of the testimony of God, which expressly declares, "the soul that sinneth, IT SHALL DIE."

A hymn, often sung, begins as follows :—

"A charge to keep I have,

A God to glorify,

A never dying soul to save

And fit it for the sky."

The same hymn ends thus :—

Help me to watch and pray.

And on thyself rely,

Assured if I my trust betray,

I shall forever die."

How a never dying soul can forever die, it will take at least a poet to tell; or a very learned divine. Common people are not skilled in such palpable contradictions.

The term "immortality," occurs only five times in the Bible, and is never spoken of the wicked; but is brought to view as something to be sought after, and to be found alone in Christ. "To them who by patient continuance in well doing, seek for honour, glory, immortality,—eternal life," Rom. 2:7. Why, I pray, are men to seek for it, if it is the inheritance of all? It is easy to say, as some do, that it is a "blessed" immortality we are to seek for: but that is an "adding" to God's word, as I think, that is unwarranted by any other portion of that blessed volume.

"Mortality" occurs but once in the Bible; 2 Cor. 5:4; and is an earnest desire of the righteous to have it "swallowed up of life." Paul, in Rom. 8:10, says, "If Christ be in you, the body is dead" (i.e. mortal, doomed to die,) "because of sin; but the spirit is life" (why? because the souls of men are immortal? No; but) "because of righteousness;" clearly implying that it is the righteousness, or having Christ in them, that makes their spirits immortal. This is further evident from the next verse, where he assures them that their "mortal bodies" should be quickened," i.e. be made immortal by the spirit of him who raised up Jesus from the dead.

That the meaning of the term "quickened," in this text, is to be made immortal, will appear, if we consider, that if it signifies no more than the raising of the body from the dead, this will be done whether "the spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in" them or not; for "there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and of the unjust." The difference is, the righteous rise to immortality, as Paul saith in 1 Cor. 15th chapter: but the wicked rise to be judged and condemned to the second death. And as by the first death they cease to be on earth; so by the second death they cease to be in the Universe of God; or are "destroyed forever."

Man is said to be "corruptible," in opposition to the "incorruptible God." See Rom. 1:23. Again; "They that sow to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption," not immortality. See Gal. 6:8. The wicked shall "utterly perish in their own corruption." 2 Peter 2:12.

REMARKS.

If the view I take of this subject be correct, then many portions of Scripture, which have been obscure on the common theory, become clear, beautiful, and full of meaning and force. If men are really dying, according to the strict and literal meaning of that term, soul as well as body, or the whole man, then the language in which they are addressed is strictly calculated to awaken attention, and move their hearts.

For example: "In him was life; and the life was the light of men." Again: Men are represented as sitting "in darkness, and in the shadow of death;" i.e. death is so near them that his dark shadow is over them; but Christ is "the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world;" thus showing them how to escape death. Again: "The bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world—I am the bread of life. This is the bread that cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof and NOT DIE."

How natural and forcible these and similar texts are, on the supposition that man is actually dying. It takes not a scholar, or doctor of divinity, to see how appropriate the remedy to the disease. Men by sin have been cut off from the tree of life—they were starving, dying. Christ comes: the bread of life—the feast is spread;—hungry, dying souls are invited, without money and without price. Come, eat and LIVE. If you stay away, you DIE. O, come to Christ and live—yea, live for ever, and not die. Amen.

SECOND DISCOURSE.

"Ye shall not surely die." Gen. iii, 4.

Our Saviour saith—"the devil is a liar and the father of it." He commenced his attack on our race by telling our first parents they should "not surely die," if they did disobey God. He was too successful in that game to have forgotten the lucky card; he has played it round, in some form, on men, ever since he first swept Paradise with it. He told Eve, in her innocency, while holy, and in love with her Maker, that the God of love could not give place to such feelings as to cut them off from life if they did do what he had forbidden. He was successful, and he has never forgotten his success. True, he has turned his card since, but it is the same card still. It has still inscribed on it—"Ye shall not SURELY DIE." Now he makes use of it, as I think, to insinuate that God does not love or pity man, seeing he has determined that man shall not DIE, but be kept alive in eternal consciousness, in undescribable torments, for his sins.

As the doctrine, "Ye shall not surely die," had its origin with the old serpent, I cannot divest myself of the conviction that the notion that wicked men will be kept eternally alive in torments, and never die, had its origin from the same source, as it appears to be a perfect fac-simile; and that it was invented to inspire hard thoughts of God, and keep men from turning to Him by repentance and faith, or confidence, and acknowledging their sins against the God of love. And I solemnly believe, this doctrine has kept more souls away from God, and driven them to the disbelief of all future punishment, or into infidelity, than any other doctrine that was ever promulgated. I am solemnly convinced that it has done more to destroy souls than all other errors put together.

Multitudes, without any proper reflection upon the claims of God's law, have rejected all future punishment, because of the nature of that which the "orthodox," as they are called, say is to be inflicted; whilst others have lived and died in real infidelity, or what has been called so, because they could not believe that a Being whose word declares that he "is love," could inflict such punishment on even the worst and most bitter of his enemies.

I shall attempt to show you that the death which is the wages of sin is not immortality in misery, but an actual extermination of being. I say, then, in opposition to the old serpent, if men do not come to Christ, that they may have life, they SHALL surely die—past hope, past recovery.

Let me here briefly call attention to the question at issue. It is not whether men can be immortal, nor whether the righteous will be immortal, but will the conscious being of the wicked be eternal? or is the punishment of the wicked interminable being in misery? or destruction of being?

I use the term immortal, in these discourses, in its commonly received meaning; i.e. according to Grimshaw, "exempt from death;" and according to Walker, "never to die—never ending, perpetual."

In my first discourse, I had brought the subject down to the inquiry,

WHAT ARE THE TERMS EMPLOYED TO DENOTE THE PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED.

Are they such as can, by any fair construction of language, be made to mean that the wicked have eternal conscious being in misery? Let us keep in mind, that words are not to be so explained as to mean more than their primary signification, without an obvious necessity; though they may, and often do, signify less.

Previous to the examination of those terms which relate to the punishment of wicked men, I would say, they are not punished till after the judgment of the great day; but are reserved to that day to be punished. Thus "God spared not the angels that sinned, but delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment." And "the Lord knoweth how to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished." 2 Peter 2:4-9. And again, Job 21:30. "The wicked is reserved unto the day of destruction." And Nahum 1:2. "The Lord reserveth wrath for his enemies." Jude 6. "He hath reserved unto the judgment of the great day."

The terms employed are—Perish—Utterly perish—Utterly consumed with terrors—Destroy—Destroyed—Destroyed for ever—Destruction—To be burned—Burned UP with unquenchable fire—Burn them up, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch—Perdition—Die—Death—Second death, &c.

Let us now begin with the first of these terms, viz. :— "Perish." Grimshaw, in his Etymology, says it signifies, to cease to have existence—to die—to decay."

Which of these definitions is suited to convey the idea of eternal conscious being? Can that which is never to cease, be said to be decaying? Can that which has interminable life be said "to die?" Can that which is always to continue in being, be said "to cease to have existence?" I need not pursue that inquiry; it is a "self-evident truth," that however the term perish may be used, in an accommodated sense, to signify something less than an actual ceasing to be, it is even then borrowed from its primary signification, and must be restored to it when there is not a known necessity for departing from it.

In the case under consideration, there can be no such necessity, unless it can first be proved that the wicked are immortal.

Paul, in 1 Cor. 15 : 18, says—"Then," (if Christ be not raised,) "they also that are fallen asleep in Christ are perished." What! in eternal conscious being in hell torments! The supposition is so absurd that my opponents admit that the term perish here means "to cease to be." By what twist of language can they ever make it mean anything else, when spoken of the final state of the lost? Though the term is often used to denote something less than an actual ceasing to be, it does not therefore follow that it is used to mean something far greater and more horrible. To apply this term to an eternal state of conscious being in misery, is to force a sense upon it which is not warranted by God's word.

Let us keep constantly in mind that the whole family of man, by birth, have no access to the tree of life, consequently were perishing, were dead to immortality. Now look at the following texts :

"God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life." Here everlasting life is the opposite of perishing. I pray, is everlasting being in misery the opposite of everlasting life! The wicked, upon that view, have as really everlasting life as the righteous, though under different circumstances.

"For we," saith an apostle, "are unto God a sweet savor of Christ in them that are saved, and in them that perish. To the one we are the savor of death unto death, and to the other of life unto life."

Here perishing and life are put in opposition, and the term perish is explained by the apostle himself, to mean death, and not life in misery.

I need not quote all the passages where this term is employed to express the final doom of the wicked, in which it is evident we are to receive it in its primary meaning, and no other. Before I leave this term, however, I must call your attention to one fact, and that is—in the Acts of the Apostles, the very place where we should expect to find, if anywhere in the Bible, the doctrine of eternal conscious being in torments, because the apostles were addressing sinners, there is not a particle of evidence to support the common theory.

On the contrary, the views I maintain are most clearly set forth by Paul, in the 13th chapter, in a discourse to the "blaspheming" Jews, telling them that they judged themselves "unworthy of everlasting life," and adding—"Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish." What an excellent occasion had the apostle to have aroused the Jews by the common theory, had he believed it!

Look at that chapter, and you will see, if there ever was a time in which the apostle was called to deal plainly, it was then. I ask if any preacher of our days, who believes in the immortality of the wicked, in preaching to such hardened sinners as the apostle addressed, contents himself with such language as the apostle here used? No. They first describe the misery of the sinner in hell, and then, with the strongest figures they can produce, go on to give an idea of its duration, which, after all, they cannot find language to describe. The apostle did no such thing. There is not a particle of evidence of it in all his preaching and writings.

"DIE" and "DEATH."

These terms primarily signify, "To perish—to come to nothing—the extinction of life." Hence, when these terms are applied to the soul, in regard to the final result of a course of sin, we ought to have good evidence that they are not to be understood in their primary meaning, before we depart from that interpretation; especially, before we fix upon them a sense so contrary to their proper signification as that of endless life, or being in torments.

The apostle, in Rom. 1 : 32, speaking of certain wicked characters, says—"Who, knowing the judgment of God, that they that commit such things are worthy of death," &c. In the 2d chapter, 5th verse and onwards, he speaks "of the righteous judgment of God," when "wrath" will be visited on the wicked; and the death spoken of is expressly called "perish"-ing, as the result of the "indignation and wrath" with which the wicked will be visited "in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ."

Death, then, as the apostle explains it, when applied to the punishment of the wicked at the judgment, is to "perish."

"The soul that sinneth it shall die," refers to its final doom. This will appear if we consider, men will die, i.e. leave this world, or state of being, whether they sin or not. Nor can it refer to a violent leaving this world, as some suppose; for all sinners do not die a violent death. I conclude, then, that it relates to the soul's final doom.

"As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn ye, turn ye, for why will ye die?" evidently looks to the same result, the final destiny of the wicked. Life and death are put in opposition: not life and conscious being in misery, but simple life and death, without any qualifying terms to lead any one to suspect that they are to be understood any other way than in their most obvious meaning; and I cannot but think, if you were to put the Bible into the hands of a person who had never heard a word of explanation, he would so understand it.

Lest I should, in the present discourse, take up too much time in the examination of these terms, I will pass over the remainder of them till another time.

Having, as I think, established the point that the wicked are not immortal, I might leave it to the believer in the opposite theory to prove his position from the Bible, and pursue the subject no further. I shall not, however, shrink from meeting the supposed objections to my view.

OBJECTIONS EXAMINED.

The objections do not arise from any positive proof ir the Bible that the wicked are immortal, but from circum stantial evidence, drawn from expressions used in reference to the punishment of the impenitent. The first objection I shall notice is founded on the case of the "rich man," who died and lifted up his eyes in hell, being in torments, &c.

By facts as well as parables the Bible communicates instruction. In order to a right understanding of the speaker or writer, we should first inquire what was the object in view, or the instruction intended to be imparted. This we can only learn from the text, context, or comparing it with other portions of revelation.

There appear to have been several points intended to be impressed upon the people, by our Saviour, in the text now under consideration; and the instruction is the same whether it be considered a parable or history of facts. We will try to bring out some of the principal points that appear in this text—and

It seems designed to show the folly and danger of trusting in riches. The changeableness of the affairs of this life had been shown in the first part of this chapter; they had also been cautioned to make a right use of the things of this world, and told that they could "not serve God and mammon." The Pharisees. who were covetous, derided him, i.e., laughed at him, mocked him, and turned what he said to ridicule. Our Saviour, after rebuking them, enforces what he had said, by introducing two persons, viz: a Rich man and a Poor man. Look at them—

The Rich man was what most men would call a genteel liver; living in good style, a prosperous and happy man. But, mark.—He dies—the next he finds of himself, he is in "torments."—His riches, splendor, sumptuous fare, and rich dresses have all, all fled. Who does not see in his case the danger of riches and the folly of trusting in them. But the picture is made more striking by introducing

The Poor man.—He had no home—no food—doubtless poorly clothed, covered with "sores;" instead of many physicians he had "dogs" for his medical aid. But, he dies. The next he finds of himself he is unspeakably "comforted;" his "evil things" have passed away for ever. Who does not see, in a clear light, the dangerous tendency of worldly possessions? Few persons can have them without indulging in an extravagance in dress, equipage, and food, which is ruinous to their souls; or, which is equally fatal, making their happiness to consist in contemplating the largeness of their earthly treasures.

I consider this to be the main point designed to be illustrated—the folly and danger of seeking our good in this life. There are other points, viz :

To expose the deception common among the Jews, that they should be saved because they were the children of " Abraham."

That this life is the only time to secure salvation and the certainty of perishing without hope, if this period is neglected.

The sufficiency of the means now employed to turn men to God—and hence, the folly of supposing that some other means would be more effectual. They would not be "persuaded though one rose from the dead."

But does this prove what is to be the punishment unto which the "rich man" is reserved? Certainly not. What that will be we are taught elsewhere in the Bible. This case, then, makes nothing against the theory I advocate.

I will next examine the language of our Lord, "Their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." It is said this proves the soul immortal. I remark—

First. Whatever this punishment is, it is put in opposition to "life." "If thy hand" or "foot offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter halt" or "maimed into life, than having two hands" or "feet," &c., "where the worm," &c. Who does not see that here is the opposite of life, and therefore is death, or utter extinction of being without possibility of escape? In a parallel passage, our Saviour saith, "If thy right eye" or "hand offend thee, cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." Here the "worm that dieth not, and the fire" that "is not quenched," we see, is another form of expression for perishing.

Again, I remark, this expression of our Lord is a quotation from Isaiah 66 : 24, and is applied to the "carcasses" of "men," which I presume my opponents will not pretend were immortal. But if the language in one place proves immortality, why not in the other? Then we shall have immortal carcasses as well as immortal souls.

Once more, I observe. If the fire were quenched, they would not be utterly consumed, but something would remain—there would not be an entire destruction.

It is manifest to every mind, if a fire is quenched or put out, the work of utter destruction is arrested, and something is left of the object upon which the fire kindled. The same may be said, if the worm die the carcase will not be consumed; but as the fire is not to be quenched, nor the worm die, therefore, they shall be utterly consumed, perish, cease to be found in the universe of God. The objector says, the idea of an unquenchable fire is, that it is never to go out. To show the fallacy of this, I will suppose my house is on fire. When my neighbours arrive to my help, I say, effort is useless—the fire is unquenchable. Pray, what do I mean? That the fire will burn eternally? Any schoolboy knows I mean simply the house will be totally consumed. "Yes," says the objector, "that is true when the expression is applied to that which is consumable, but this is not the case with the soul." To this, I reply, That is the very point to be proved—that the soul is not consumable or destructible. The objector says it is not, and I affirm that it is.

If it is still maintained that "unquenchable fire" means "never to go out," I refer those persons to an examination of a few passages of God's word on that question. 2 Chron. 34:25, "Because they have forsaken me, and burned incense unto other Gods, therefore my wrath shall be poured out upon this place, and shall not be quenched." Isa. 34:9,10, "And the land of Idumea shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day: the smoke thereof shall go up for ever." Jeremiah 7:20, "Behold, mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man, and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground, and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched." Also, Jer. 17:27, "Then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the places of Jerusalem, and shall not be quenched." Once more. See Ezekiel 20:47, 48, "Say to the forests of the South, Hear the word of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord God, Behold I will kindle a fire in thee, and it shall devour every green tree in thee, and every dry tree; the flaming flame shall not be quenched; and all flesh shall see that I, the Lord, have kindled it; it SHALL NOT BE QUENCHED."

Now, I wish to know if any man in his senses will pretend that all these fires that shall not be quenched are "never to go out," in the strict sense of the term eternal? Does not any one see that so long as the things upon which the fire kindles are not proved to be immortal, the most extreme sense that can be fixed upon is, that there will be a total and irrecoverable destruction of them?

The objector's next resort is to our Lord's description of the final judgment. "And these shall go away into everlasting (eternal) punishment." Of course, says the objector, they must eternally be, to have the punishment eternal.

This is probably the strongest argument in favour of the supposed immortality of the wicked. Let us then inquire in what sense the term eternal is here to be understood? The same term is applied to the judgment itself in Heb. vi. 2, "Eternal judgment." Does this mean that the judgment will be eternally going on and never completed? or does it mean the final judgment? the judgment from which there is no appeal? and the results of which will be eternal? So I conceive "eternal punishment" signifies the final punishment—a punishment from which there is no appeal from which there is no recovery—and the results of which are eternal.

Here I am asked, "May not eternal life, upon the same principle, be called eternal because the results of it are eternal?" I answer, it could not be called eternal life if it is ever to be succeeded by death. Therefore it would be a palpable contradiction to say the results of a thing are eternal which never had an existence. I admit that the results of eternal life are eternal; for the very idea of life is consciousness, and stands opposed to cessation of being. If the text under consideration had simply said of the righteous, These shall enter into everlasting rewards, I grant it might possibly bear the construction my opponent thinks deducible from my principles of interpretation, unless some other portion of the Bible clearly showed that the righteous are to be immortal; but that they are immortal is clearly and positively affirmed in the Scriptures.

Now let us inquire what is that punishment which is eternal? The apostle tells us in the first chapter of 2d Thess., "Who shall be punished with an everlasting destruction FROM THE PRESENCE OF THE LORD," &c. Too filthy to be in the sight of a holy God, as they eternally must be if immortal, he destroys them out of his presence, purifies his universe from the filth of sin and sinners, thus fully accomplishing the work for which Christ was "manifested."

Some tell us that "destruction from the presence of the Lord," &c. means only that the wicked will be put away from the place where God's favourable presence is enjoyed, and the glorious manifestations of his power are seen. In reply, I would say, if that is the meaning of the text, can the objector show that the punishment of the wicked will be any thing more after the judgment, or different from what it was before in regard to the soul. He will not pretend that men who die in their sins are in the favourable presence of God before the judgment, and I have already shown that they are reserved unto the judgment to be punished; it is then that they are to have "everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord," &c. I leave the candid to judge whether my opponent's construction or mine is the most natural.

It is said that "The terms employed to denote the bliss of the righteous and the misery of the wicked are the same." I suppose what the objector means is, that the qualifying terms, or the terms which denote the durability of the one are used also in reference to the other; for certainly he cannot mean that "life" and "death" are the same terms.

I admit the qualifying terms are the same. But what has the objector gained? Does he not see that our Lord has introduced a contrast? "The righteous into life eternal," the wicked "into eternal punishment." I ask if eternal life in misery is the opposite of eternal life simply? To make the contrast perfect, on the theory I oppose, it should read, or by fair inference bear this construction—These shall go away into an eternal life of punishment, but the righteous into an eternal life of happiness. Instead of this, the punishment is a simple contrast with life, and the fair inference is, that it is death, without a possibility of recovery.

That, I say, is the fair inference, unless you can prove their souls are immortal.

But again—

To this objection, I reply, the same terms are employed to denote the durability of God, and some portions of this earth. "Everlasting God"—"Everlasting mountains." What would be thought of me if I should undertake to prove from this that the world will never have an end? The texts quoted prove that the mountains are as eternal as God himself, just as much as the expressions denoting the durability of the bliss of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked prove that the conscious being of the latter is parallel with that of the former.

What is the scripture argument that the mountains will not endure as long as God endures? The Bible declares expressly that God is the "King eternal, immortal" and it as expressly declares, that "The earth shall be melted, and the works that are therein shall be burned up;" so that the everlasting mountains will be destroyed, while the everlasting God still endures without end.

Now what is the Scripture argument that the righteous and the wicked are not equally immortal? The Bible expressly declares that the righteous "put on immortality"—that they have "eternal life," and it as expressly declares that the wicked Christ will "burn up;" yea, that the Lord of Hosts "shall burn them up," so that they shall be left "neither root nor branch"—that they shall die—be destroyed forever—perish—utterly perish, &c.

If I wanted to make infidels, I would still maintain that the wicked will have an eternal conscious being, in the face of God's express declarations, like those above. When a "Thus saith the Lord" can be produced, that as expressly asserts the immortality of the wicked, as the language above does their extermination, then I may review the whole affair; but that cannot be done, in my judgment.

Another text, on which much reliance is placed, to support the common theory, is Jude 7th. "Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, in like manner giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Let us compare Scripture with Scripture. Peter, in his second epistle, gives us an account of this same matter.—He says, "If God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell—to be reserved unto the judgment; and spared not the old world, but saved Noah—a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the ungodly; and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them with an overthrow, making them an example to those who after should LIVE ungodly," &c.

Thus Peter throws light on Jude. Both together show most clearly what displeasure God has manifested against sinners in the invisible world, and in this. It is concerning what has been done in this world, we are here told, that God has made an example to those who should after live ungodly.

These judgments inflicted on the old world, Sodom and Gomorrah, are a standing, and perpetual, or "eternal" admonition, warning, or "example" to all men to the end of the world, that live ungodly; but it proves nothing as to what will constitute that punishment unto which they are expressly said, in this very connection, "to be reserved," and which is to be inflicted at the day of judgment; which day is to be a day of "perdition of ungodly men." And as perdition signifies destruction, the natural inference is, that the wicked will be utterly destroyed with an "everlasting destruction."

CONCLUDING REMARKS.

In my own mind the conclusion is irresistible, that the final doom of all the impenitent and unbelieving, is that they shall "utterly perish"—that they shall be "destroyed forever"—that their "end" is to be "burned up, root and branch," with "fire unquenchable"—that they shall be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, which is the second death — that they shall not have everlasting life, or being, but be "punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord"—that the universe of God will be purified not only from sin, but sinners—that "the works of the devil" will be destroyed, exterminated; but "blessed and holy is he who hath part in the first resurrection; on such the second death hath no power."

Then there will be a "new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth have passed away." "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 have passed away."

The day when these tremendous scenes will transpire, I conceive, "is'nigh, even at the doors." Yes, the time is at hand, when the wrath of God will be revealed from Heaven—a day, described by the apostle, of "indignation and wrath; tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doth evil." Then they that have "sinned without law shall also perish without law;" and a not less fearful doom awaits those that have sinned in the light of the law and gospel both.

That awful day will soon overtake us; and who may abide the day of his coming? Behold, that day "shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, and all that do wickedly will be stubble;" as incapable of resisting that wrath, that shall come upon them, as stubble is to resist the devouring flame.

Let us be wise now, therefore, and prepare to meet God. "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way when his wrath is kindled but a little." "But blessed are all they that put their trust in him."

THIRD DISCOURSE.

"Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they that testify of me; and ye will not come unto me that ye might have life." John v. 39, 40.

Some translate this text, "Ye do search the Scriptures," &c. It makes very little difference which way it is understood, whether as a command of what should be done, or as a declaration of what was done. Either way, it shows the immense value of the Scriptures, because they reveal eternal life; and it shows, too, that the object they had in searching, was to learn about eternal life—not a happy eternal life—a blissful eternal life—but eternal life, simply.

And further, it shows that the Scriptures are the proper place to search for that inestimable blessing. Every man is bound to do this for himself, and not trust to his teachers alone, as I fear too many do.

Teachers may be good men—honest men; they may intend to lead the people into truth, and preserve them from error; yet they are but men—fallible men, and may "err not knowing the Scriptures;" and besides, it is possible they may be bad men, who may have some other object in view than to "save souls from death;" but if this is not the case, and they are sincere, still it must be recollected, we have all received our education, from the first dawnings of intellect, under an influence that has necessarily given our minds a bias to a particular theory, or mode of interpreting the Scriptures; that mode may be right, or it may be wrong; be it which it may, our teachers themselves have most likely had their opinions formed by it, and will teach it; but they cannot give an account for us to God; every man must give an account of himself.

It will avail us nothing, at the judgment, to plead that our teachers taught us so,—or, that ecclesiastical bodies decreed or established such a belief, or articles of faith. It will roll back in thunder tones in our ears—"Every one must give an account of himself to God." "You had the Scriptures, and the injunction to search them—and if you have erred to the ruin of your soul through false teaching, you have done it with the words of eternal life in your hands; but which you have trusted others to interpret for you, instead of giving that application of your own minds to the subject which it was your duty to do, instead of being absorbed by the things of time."

Would not such words be dreadful words in our ears at the great judgment day? Should we not then fully realize the truth of that Scripture which saith, "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man?"

Teachers may be helps to understand the Scriptures, but 3* should never be trusted as infallible guides; nor should they ever be allowed to decide authoritatively for us, what the true meaning of God's word is.

Any such attempt on the part of teachers, is a manifest usurpation of the prerogative of Jehovah, and should always be resisted. Let teachers in religion keep to their appropriate work; which is not to be "lords over God's heritage," but to be "helpers," and "ensamples to the flock." They are not to decide who are heretics and who are orthodox, but to show men their sins—their perishing, dying condition, and point them to Christ, the great Physician, that they may "have life."

The expression of our Lord—"Ye will not come unto me that you might have life," shows that men are exposed to death. The only question, with us, in these discourses, is, to deside what that death is:—whether it is eternal life in misery, or destruction of being. My position is, that it is the latter; and I have endeavoured to establish that point from the Scriptures. How far I have been successful in my attempt, others will judge for themselves. No man can believe without evidence. Some, it is true, will not believe whatever the evidence might be, unless they could find the thing proposed for belief was likely to be popular. But no one need calculate on popularity who sets himself to follow truth wherever it may lead him. Our Lord himself "was despised and rejected of men."

In my last discourse, I had brought down my examination of objections nearly to the close of the Bible. What remains for me to do, is, in the first place, to finish that examination; then, I shall take up objections from other sources; after which, I shall sustain my position by a mass of Scripture testimony not yet introduced but in part.

EXAMINATION OF SCRIPTURE OBJECTIONS CONTINUED.

The next objection I shall notice, grows out of Rev. 14: 9 to 11. This text has, I believe, almost universally been applied to the final punishment of the wicked. If it did so apply, it would prove nothing more than that the wrath poured upon them, is awful. and, that from its effects there is to be no recovery. But to prove the immortality of the soul from this text, two things must be established, viz.

That this is spoken of the punishment of the wicked in a future state; and if so, that the phrase "for ever and ever," is to be understood in its primary sense.

My own opinion is, that it relates to judgments inflicted in this world on Babylon. An angel had just cried, "Babylon is fallen," &c.; then follows the description referred to. But some say, Babylon means the whole wicked power; and the destruction of all the wicked, in a future state, is brought to view. If so, then the presumption is greatly increased that the wicked are not immortal, from the fact that the Revelator says, in the 18th chapter, "She [Babylon] shall be utterly burnt with fire; and with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all."

God says in Isa. 34:10, of the land of Idumea, that it "shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up forever." Surely, no one will pretend that this language proves, that the land of Idumea is immortal. But it does, just as truly as the text in Rev. proves the wicked are immortal; and if that is admitted, then we may have not only immortal souls, and immortal carcasses, but immortal land! But if this expression does not prove the land of Idumea immortal, so neither can it prove wicked men are immortal,—that must be proved from some other source; if that can be done, and the text is established to be speaking of the punishment of the wicked in a future state, then I admit that the language employed necessarily implies the perpetuity, or eternity, of conscious being in torments: but till those points are proved, I must still maintain that the wicked have no immortality. Though I might rest the argument here, and leave my opponent to the burden imposed upon him, I shall, nevertheless, now attempt to show that Rev. 14:9 to 11, has its fulfilment on earth, and therefore is not spoken of the punishment of the wicked in a future state. Let us put down the text.

…