■ >' *J 3£- IT t £ ■J**" im, / PRINCETON, N. J. Collection of Puritan Literatu re. Division Section Number /£^. fov- ou f? v i l '// ' l ' 1 c •» ■< 7-2T' /S3f Universal Salvation Indefensible upon Mr. Balfour's Ground. TO «AN INQUIRY INTO THE SCRIPTURAL IMPORT OF THE WORDS SHEOL, HADES, TARTARUS, AND GEHENNA.* ALL TRANSLATED HELL, IN THE COMMON ENGLISH VERSION. BT WALTER BALFOUR." IX A SERIES OF LECTURES DELIVERED IN THE UNIVERSALIST CHURCH, CHARLESTOWN. BY JAMES SJLBIJVE, Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in the City of Boston. BOSTON : PRINTED BY EZRA LINCOLN. 1825. DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO WIT : District Clerk's Office. BE IT REMEMBERED, thtt on the fifih day of February, A. D. 1325. in the forty ninth year of the Independence of the United States of America James Sabine, of the said district hat deposited in this office the title of a book, the right whereof he claims as proprietor, in the words following, to wit : ** Univej-sal SalraMon Indefensible upon Mr. Bal'our's Groun.l A Reply to ''An Inquiry into the Scriptural impor' of the Words Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna: al uanslated Hell, in the com- mon English Version. By Walter Balfour." In a Series of Lee u res delivered in the Uni\ersalist Church, Charlestown. By James Sabine. Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in the City of Boston." In conformity 10 the act of the Congress of the United Sta'es. inti ltd. "An Act for the Encourage* of Learning, by securing the Copies of Maps, Charts and Books, to the Authors and Proprietors of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned ;*' and also to an act intiiled, " An Act supplementary to an Act, intitled. An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by seeming: the Copies of Maps Charts and Hooks, to the Authors and Proprietors of such Copies during the timet therein mentioned: and ex- tending the Benefit* thereof to the Arts of Designing, Engraving and Etching Historical, and other Prints." JOHN W, DAVIS, Clerk of the District of MassachusetU. :K&E:FAG2 The question has been often agitated, whether Theological Con- troversy has tended in any good measure to promote the knowledge of Divine Truth. This question, however, in an abstract form, is not easily answered : much depends on circumstances, and it has al- ways been so ; judgment ought to be exercised in the case, so as to determine on what controversies may be agitated, and when they may be entered on with the best prospect of success. The judgment exer- cised by mere partisaus and sectaries is to be little respected in this case, with them the prosperity of their denomination is every thing, and though religion may be at a low ebb, if things are smooth and quiet in their section all is well. If the benefit of a particular party is to be promoted by controversy, then, the controversy must be enter- ed on and pursued with zeal. But if several parties be equally in- terested in opposing some declared errors, and it cannot be agreed upon which is to share most largely in the victory, all will agree to be si- lent, and let the error run on, leaving it, they say, to God, nothing good can be hoped for in such a controversy. Thus it has been for some time past in this region of the church, to which the attention of the Reader must be directed. The growth and speed of Universalism is the more particular subject. It appears from the Register of 1817, that there were in this State nine Universalist Societies. — From ilie same Register in 1825, it appears that there are twenty eight of that denomination. A very considerable proportion of this increase of Universalism is of the Non-retribution class. This is the ground as- sumed by Mr. Balfour, and his book is written to give efficacy, and currency to a system which delivers all men from all moral obliga- tion, and introduces the vilest of the human race, their hands defiled with blood, to the bosom of heaven's bliss, and to the embrace of a holy God. What has been written and published on this theory heretofore, for ihe most part, has been very far from reputable either to authorship or morality. But Mr. B — stands forward as a man of letters, from his youth he has classed with the more serious, evan- gelical, and God-fearing pari of the religious community : lie has for years been endeavouring to establish a society of Christians upon principles more pure and simple, than what has yet appeared in Chris- tendom ; these circumstances give character and interest to his change of theological system, aud his book, from the very nature of the case, must gain attention, and his system admirers. There is another thing, Mr. B — 's departure from orthodox ground has been declared to have been occasioned, or assisted, by the doctrinal defections so manifest in our orthodox churches. Upon his first step towards Uni- versalism he asked and repeatedly sought better instruction and ad- vice of theologians in high repute in our schools, but these, instead of helping his return, drove him farther astray, and abandoned him to the iv PREFACE. devourer. With such impressions upon his mind, as these circumstan- ces must necessarily produce, Mr. B — sat down to write his book, and justified him, as he thought, in treating the whole orthodox body as fallen and vanquished, as a body unable to say a word in vindication of the doctrines they had been propagating for centuries — doctrines believed by many, but that could be proved by none. With these things before the public, and the u Inquiry" circulating wider and wider, a challeuge appears in one of the most respectable journals in our city, calling upon the ministers of religion to show cause, why they have for so many years taken wages for preaching the doctrine of re- tribution, or to give op their claim to talent and honesty. To this pub- lic, and 1 must say candid challenge there appeared a xevyuncandid re- ply, a reply that did little credit to the man who wrote it, and less to the party who dictated it. But it was evident that orthodoxy would not appear in the gap, and with this impression upon the public mind, the M Inquiry" was put upon the author of the following discourses, which are offered as a reply. And here it must be understood that these Lectures were not obtruded upon the public ear, a reply was demand- ed, and many a serious Christian asked ' Will no one meet this un- circumcised Philistine who hath defied the armies of the living God.' Under these circumstances the service in the following pages was of- fered, provided a pulpit were furnished in some suitable place. This offer brought to light the enemies of free inquiry of every party. The Universalist Magazine dealt in a style little short of scurrility — the Telegragh joined Usue with the Magazine, and passed sentence upon the projected plan of debate — the IVatchman, for want of a better ex- ample, copied the Telegraphic sentence, and thus all parties showed their disapprobation of free inquiry. Notwithstanding all this the Methodists showed their independence, and voted, in two separate meetings of their Board, their pulpit, and the time was announced for the commencement of the Lecture. But alas ! some time serving spirit was suffered to steal into their cabinet, and so these good people were compelled after all their voting, to revoke their own doings and withdraw their desk from the controversy. At this crisis the Uni- versalist Society in Charlestown offered their place, and stood to their engagement, and here the Lectures were finally delivered to a crowded and attentive audience, with what effect remains yet to appear. Mr. B — 's book in point of literature is considered as a respecta- ble performance. The following discourses are not intended by their author to dispute this : the same body of learning is not needed in the reply, neither does the author offer himself as a rival on this ground, his attainments in this particular, especially, are small and limited ; but he hopes that they will be found sufficient to meet the " Inquiry" on those subjects treated therein ; his great object has been, as much as possible, to release the subject from these perplexities, instead of farther involving it in labyrinths, not easily explored by common rea- ders. Boston, February, 1S25. Examination and trial of the ground taken in the Inquiry. BELOVED, BELIETE NOT EVERY SPIRIT, BUT TRY THE SPIRITS WHETHER THEY BE OF GoD. 1 John iv. 1. Christianity, with all its peculiarities, with all its high and divine authorities, makes no demand upon man, but what may be denominated a reasonable service. Jehovah is the self existent fountain of intelligence : from this source proceeds, and from this source is enriched the whole moral creation of God : by whatever name these beings are to be known — whether thrones, dominions, principalities or powers — whether angel or man, they are to be known as reasonable and intelligent beings. In whatever state these intelligences dwell, under whatever form they may appear, with whatever bodies they may come — whether in vehicle of flesh or of spirit ; no yoke of bondage must be imposed on the mind ; whatever is mental must be as free in its moral agency, as is the mind of Deity. Thus constituted, the human mind cannot be acted upon physically or me- chanically, whatever is presented as truth, must come with reasonable evidence ; no mere authority can enforce the thing ; if it be wanting in evidence, the mere employment of power to enforce it, rather tends to awaken suspicion, and lessen its credit. Hence a miracle, real or pretended, wrought in confirmation of what is either palpably false, or wanting in credit, so far from giving it the aspect of truth, gives it the colour of a lie. Had the mind of man never been depraved and polluted by sin, there had never been the need of miracle ; and just as the mind is enabled to di- vest itself of all sinful impurity, and to exercise its own in- telligence, it is capable of comprehending and acknowledg- 2 6 LECTURE I. ing the truth, without the intervention of a supernatural agency. Much as we are disposed to admit the idea of human de- pravity, we are, nevertheless, careful not to abandon our minds to every wind of doctrine. Whatever may be the plea of old and sage antiquity — whatever the assumptions of learning, the impositions of deep research, or the boastings of heavenly communications, we withhold our assent and consent, till reasonable evidence be brought down to our humblest comprehension. Upon this principle the mind and will of God are made known to men : and the Deitv is careful that the human mind should be exposed to no im- position, or being exposed, should be upon the alert to de- tect and apprehend every imposture. Hence God warned the Israelites against the approaches of deception in signs and wonders and dreams, testifying to what neither they nor their fathers knew, that is, of which they had no evi- dence ; and commanded them to hold fast, and to continue only in that of which they had the most positive demonstra- tion. Such too is the doctrine inculcated in both books of the law, the old covenant, and the new. This is the evi- dence our Divine Saviour produces, and to which he ap- peals : ' If I do not the works of my Father believe me not :' — € If any man will do his will he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself,' or, whether I am an impostor. Such also is the criterion to which the ministry of the apostles is brought. * The Jews require a sign and the Greeks seek after wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified — Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.' Upon this same principle goes the advice given by John, the Beloved Disciple, the Evangelist and the Divine ' Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God — Because many false teachers are gone out into the world.' Men and brethren, this is the principle upon which we are assembled this evening. Reve- LECTUUZ I. T lation is our accredited standard, and to this alone shall we appeal in the exercise of our reason and judgment. In this appeal we shall endeavour to divest ourselves of all party prejudice ; to us it is to be a matter of small account what is orthodox, or what is heresy, the question with us is, on* lv, WHAT IS TRUE ? It will now be our business to take a distinct view of die ground for which we are to contend ; it will be highly proper that we ascertain, with exact precision, the ground assumed by our author in his " Inquiry." In order to make our way to this plain and clear, it will be necessary to mark the ground usually taken by Universalists in general ; this will be important as it will enable us to see whether Mr. Balfour's ground is the same as that already occupied by Universalists, or whether his is new and untried. The ground usually and hitherto taken by Universalists admits of three views. 1. The immediate salvation of all. 2. The annihilation of the wicked after a limited punish- ment, though this class are Destructionists rather than Uni- versalists : and 3. The final restoration of all who shall be disciplined by the punishment divine goodness shall inflict. Our author shall state his own ground for himself; his words are, " The simple object in this inquiry, is, to ex- " amine the foundation on which the doctrine of endless 41 misery is built." Our author proceeds to explain, ** This " doctrine rests on the fact or the falsehood that a place " called Hell, in a future state, is prepared for the punishment " of the wicked." From the statement of the question thus far, it would seem that our author was going only to show that there is no place of "endless misery" for he says that " this Inquiry is, to examine the foundation on which the " doctrine of endless misery is built." But upon pursu- ing his ground a little farther, it is evident, he intends not simply to oppose the doctrine of endless misery, but the doctrine of future punishment altogether, whatever may be the degree or duration of that misery or punishment : for 8 LBGTURB 1. xhe says that "in speaking, and preaching, and writing on " the subject, this," namely, future punishment, " is always " presumed as true. It is taken for granted as indisputable. " Most Universalists have conceded this to their opponents," that there is a place of future punishment, u and have con- " tended not against the existence of such a place of misery, 41 but against the endless duration of its punishment. All " the principal writers on both sides of the question proceed " on this ground, that there is a place of future punishment, " and that the name of it is Hell. Winchester, Murray, c< Chauncey, Huntington and others, all admit that Hell is a " place of future punishment. Edwards, Strong, and others " who opposed them, had no occasion to prove this but on- " ly to show that it was to be endless in its duration." We now see, very distinctly, that our author's object is to con- tend against future punishment in every view of it ; this con- clusion is demonstrated by what is added : " This Inquiry " is principally for the purpose of investigating, if what has " been taken for granted by the one party, and conceded by " the other is a doctrine taught in scripture." That is, that the doctrine of future punishment is not taught in scrip- ture. We now perceive that there is some little inaccuracy in Mr. B — 's outset ; he says in the very first sentence that the simple object of his Inquiry is to be on the doctrine of endless misery : but we see now that that is not his simple object, for his Inquiry is " principally" to investigate the doctrine of future misery, without any special regard to its limitation or duration. He is as much opposed to Win- chester, Murray, Chauncey and Huntington, advocates for a limited future punishment, as to Edwards and Strong, ad- vocates for eternal punishment. I hope that I have not mistaken Mr. B — 's question, I have looked at it on all sides, and under every form of ex- pression, and I have appealed to his readers too, and the impression he has made on every mind, I have consulted, is in accordance with that made on my own, namely, that LECTURE I. 9 Mr. B — 's scheme denies the doctrine of any future pun- ishment. However, there is one more view to be taken of the stated question, which perhaps will afford a still more distinct justification of our conclusion. Towards the end of our author's work, he introduces an objection to his system, made by some one who would substitute a state of punishment for a place of punishment. To this change of idea Mr. B — seems to have considerable objection, but yet, admitting the new term, he gives us to understand that his theory of No future punishment is not touched thereby, leaving us to conclude that his theory admits of no future state, condition or place of misery as existing in all God's universe. Our conclusion may now be summed up. Mr. B-%- pro- poses to prove that Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna, all translated Hell in our common Bible, do not represent to us any place, state or condition of future misery or punish- ment. This is the first member of the conclusion ; the se- cond is, that as Hell is no place or state of misery, the scrip- tures nowhere teach that there is any state or place of pun- ishment in the world to come. Assuming then this posi- tion to be Mr. B — 's ground, we perceive that his system differs widely from those we have been usually called to contemplate. His system differs from that which includes the immediate salvation of all. Mr. B— says nothing about salvation or future happiness ; if he contends for sal- vation it is negative salvation, in not being punished ; but as to what is generally understood by aalvation, he says nothing direct about it. His system differs from the second view of Universalism, which supposes the annihilation of the wicked after a season of punishment. Mr. B — says nothing of annihilation or of punishment. His system dif- fers from the third view, namely, restoration after discipli- nary and salutary punishment. Mr. B — knows nothing of punishment in any degree or for any period whatever. Thus 10 LECTURE I. have we arrived on the ground marked out by our author himself — The principle is this, that, Punishment in a future state is not taught in the holy scriptures. This is the ground we are to trace in this dis- course, and it will be our duty to do it with all candor and faithfulness, as it becomes the cause we profess to serve. It will not be our province, at this time, to dispute the ground with Mr. B — but to grant much of that for which he contends. It shall be admitted that Sheol in the Old Testament has no reference to a place or state of misery ; and that Hades, Tartarus and Gehenna in the New, are equally inapplicable to a future state of misery. This we grant now, to stay the argument for the present, while we view this taken ground, not to prevent our disputing, at least for some portion of it, hereafter. I shall now proceed to produce some passages from the " Inquiry," in which Mr. B — asserts that the scriptures do not teach the doc- trine of future punishment. At the head of the second section, Chap. ii. we have it thus : (116) " A number of facts stated, showing that Ge- 11 henna was not used by the New Testament writers to " express a place of endless misery." This position is strengthened thus. " Then, let it be kept in remembrance, *' that neither Gehenna, nor any other word, is used in the " Old Testament to express a place of endless misery for the " wicked — (120) No person in the New Testament, our " Lord excepted, ever threatened man with the punishment 11 of Gehenna, cr^Hell, he is the only person who ever spoke " about such a punishment.— (121) Another fact is that all '* that is said about Gehenna in the way of threatening, or M in any other shape was spoken to the Jews. Jews, and M they only were the persons addressed when speaking of M Gehenna. It is not once named to the Gentiles in all the 41 New Testament, nor are any of them ever threatened with M such a punishment." The nature and character of that punishment threatened to the Jews, our author clearly* LECTURE I 11 points out, at least his own views of it. The punishment our Lord threatened was the damnation of hell, interpreted by the Inquirer to mean the sufferings coming upon the re- bellious and ungodly Jews in the destruction of their city, as foretold by Jeremiah under the symbol of a burning To- phet in the valley of Hinnom, and as actually fulfilled in their history recorded by Josephus. Mr. B — 's words are, (140) " It is evident that a punishment under the emblem of " Gehenna, was threatened the Jews by their own prophets, "and this punishment was of a temporal nature. No pun- " ishment of a different kind was threatened them Our * Lord by these words (the damnation of hell) only remind- " ed the Jews of a particular prediction of one of their own "prophets — (139) Jeremiah and our Lord evidently spoke u to the same people, the Jews, both speak of a punishment, " and a very dreadful punishment, to this people — Both are " speaking of a temporal punishment, and not of eternal, to " this people." Thus far our author on the punishment threatened the Jews ; we shall now proceed to notice Mr. B — 's view of punishment to which the Gentiles are ob- noxious. (221) M The history of the acts of the apostles, contains 11 an account of their preaching for thirty years, but not " once is the subject of Hell or Gehenna torments, men- " tioncd by them. They were commanded to preach the " Gospel to every creature, and they did so, but to no crea- ture under heaven did they ever preach this doctrine. " No living being did they ever threaten with such a pun- " ishment. — (225) Another fact is, that the salvation re- " vealed by the Gospel is never spoken of as a salvation " from Hell or endless misery. No such salvation was ever " promised or predicted in the Old Testament, and no such "salvation was ever pieached by Christ, or his apostles. " Our Lord received the name Jesus, because he should save " his people from their sins. But I do not find that he re- " ceived this name or anv other because he should save M LECTURE I. u them from Hell. Our Lord and his apostles in their 44 preaching, proposed by it to turn men from darkness to u light; from the power of Satan unto God ; from idols to 44 serve the living God ; from the course of this world ; and " from all sin to holiness ; but where do we ever read of 44 their proposing to save them from Hell ? No such salva- " tion was preached by our Lord. In all (those) texts 11 where he speaks of Hell, he was not preaching the Gos- 11 pel, but addressing the Jews about the temporal calamitk 44 coming on them as a people. In no instance did he ever " exhort men to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, be- " cause they were exposed to Hell torments in a future 44 state — (230) The apostles say not a word about Hell to 41 any man." Thus have we before us in Mr. B — 's own words his view of the doctrine of future punishment as it applies to all mankind, to every man under heaven. Let us now as lo- gically as we can examine and compare these sentiments. 1st. I must institute an inquiry upon the terms he uses in this statement, for instance "endless misery" — 44 eter- nal punishment ." Endless and eternal are terms, as here used by Mr. B — to which I object ; the introduction and application of them is contrary to covenant. Mr. B — 's Inquiry is not on Lie subject of endless or eternal misery but on future misery. His system is opposed to that of Chauncey, Huntington, &c. as much as it is to that of Ed- wards, that is, opposed to a limited punishment in futurity, as much as to an eternal punishment in futurity ; he should therefore always say, tem/wra/ punishment, when he means those calamities which come on men in this present life, and future punishment, when he means the miseries of a fu- ture life. This distinction is not a quibble, it is a logical and important one, because it divides the parties in this dis- cussion into two, which otherwise would be three : it makes temporal punishment one party, md future limited with fu- ture eternal^ the other. Future is a common term equally LECTURE I. 13 applicable to those who hold a limited, as to those who hold an eternal punishment. And these terms, also, must be settled and have a distinct voice, or we shall never come to any safe conclusion. Mr. B — it is true has not in his dis- cussion preserved this distinctness of expression, but that is his fault, he ought to have been thus distinct, for, he cove- nants with us, when he takes his ground, to consider future not eternal punishment as the subject of opposition ; and also that by proving Gehenna punishment to be only tem- poral, he means to prove that there is no future punishment. For if Mr. B — is allowed to select these terms, each of them, as may best suit the occasion of his argument, I throw up the contest, having no hold upon him. If I resist him upon future limited punishment, he will flee to future eternal, and so vice versa. I am not now charging Mr. B — with a design to be unfair, I believe it to be otherwise. My persuasion is, that he intends by his assumptions to oppose future punishment in both degrees ; if he had not, he, with his accredited candor and honesty, would have told us so. If he had intended to admit, that there is a state of punishment or misery independent of what has been ascrib- ed to Sheol, Hades and Gehenna, he most assuredly would have told us so ; but of this he has said never a word ; and having agreed at the outset to consider, in his " Inquiry, " the subject of misery or punishment in the present state, in opposition to suffering in the future state, we shall hold to the engagement ; and therefore whenever Mr. B — uses the term eternal or endless in this argument, he means simply tuture. A second remark must be on the ideas which mav be likely to be conveyed by the seemingly indefinite use of Hell as a term expressing the idea of punishment or misery. " Let it be kept in remembrance" (says Mr. B — as before cited) M that neither Gehenna, nor any other word is used in " the Old Testament, to express'' the idea of future misery. Here his meaning is plain, so far as it relates to the Jews, 14 LECTURE I. there is nothing addressed to them, he says, expressive of fu- ture punishment. We inquire next whether the same sen- timent is not conveyed to the Gentiles, b} the non use of Gehenna or Hell, that is by saying nothing about Hell to the Gentiles, as the apostles never said any thing of He 11 to them : for Gehenna was not known to them as a place of misery, or as an emblem of misery : whence I suppose Mr. B — intends that we should conclude that nothing was said to the world about any future state of misery. If this is not Mr. B — 's sentiment, or if he did not intend that we should come to this conclusion, he ought to have told us, that though the apostles did not threaten Gentiles with the punishment of Hell or Gehenna, yet they told them that punishment was prepared for all the wicked : but he does not say, nor inti- mate this ; nay, so far from it, he represents the apostles as teaching the Gentiles the whole Gospel, without saying a word to any creature under heaven on the subject of a future punishment. " No living being (says Mr. B — ) did they ever threaten with such a punishment." The Mediation of Christ too, he tells us, was not designed as a remedy in this case. u No such salvation was ever preached by Christ or his apostles." We have now, as we think, taken a comprehensive and a fair view of the ground assumed by Mr. Balfour in his In- quiry. We have endeavoured to distinguish be 1 ween the mere casualties of phraseology, and the visible drift of his argument. Those expressions which are to us inaccurate and irrelevant we have pointed out, and others we conceive more in point have been accepted and applied to the adn it- ted question. And there is no other conclusion to whieh we can come, and we think, in the exercise of the candor of which we are capable, that there is no other conclusion intended for us by our author himself but this, namely, That the scriptures neither assert, nor teach, nor admit the doctrine of future punishment. It will be our next business to inquire what this position LECTURE I. 13 includes, and what consequences are necessarily and in- evitably involved- And here I am aware of clanger ; it is no uncommon thing in dispute, for the arguist to draw con- clusions and consequences which the opposite party will deny. I should Be sorry, in this case, to fill into such a snare, for, we are not contending for triumph but for truth. I must therefore request my hearers to weigh well those reasonings I shall offer upon the conclusions drawn, and if they arc found to be just, no bare denial, on the part of Mr. 2 ahull be admitted as counter evidence : let him, if lie can, disprove or invalidate this reasoning by superior argu- mentation, but a mere denial of the consequence will be re- jected. 1. The first consequence inevitably involved in this po- sition is this : That if there be no future punishment for the wicked, then, in the constitution of the divine govern- ment, there is no future retribution. That we may be as clear as possible, observe : The scriptures alone give a just view of the divine character and government ; on this sub- ject we are all agreed. — Mr. B — says these scriptures no- where teach or admit the doctrine of future punishment; then in the divine constitution there is no future retribution. On the subject of retribution simply there can be no dispute. We all admit that a just and righteous government is and must be administered in the exercise of retributive justice. Rewards and punishments are the necessary consequences — yes, rewards and punishments, the one cannot be without the other ; in the nature of things it must be so. I need not spend a moment to prove, that there is a reward for the righteous : and it is equally unnecessary to prove that the reward of the righteous is to be in a future state. Reward, in the constitution of the divine government, follows right- eousness, and it is a reward meet for righteousness, a bless- ed future reward. And we read in the scriptures of * the reward of unrighteousness ;' ' W oe unto the wicked, for the reward of his hands shall be given him.' The reward of 16 LECTURE 1. the wicked is * indignation and wrath upon every soul of man that doeth evil.' This reward of punishment must be future for the same reason as the reward of the righteous is future : they are both individually moral agents, and must be dealt with in strict justice equally in a moral way — the reward of punishment must follow sooner or later the work of wickedness, as the reward of happiness follows the work of righteousness. Now this system of moral retributive justice Mr. B — 's scheme prostrates in the dust : in the constitution of government as exhibited by him, there is no retribution. He says the scriptures nowhere teach it — it was never declared by prophet or apostle by God or Christ to any creature under heaven. It may be objected here, that the wicked are saved from deserved punishment by the me- diation of Christ. I answer, Mr. B — says nothing about such salvation from any future calamity ; indeed he says " no such salvation was ever preached." According to our author's system, there is in the scheme of divine govern- ment no retribution — no rewards nor punishments in a fu- ture state. 2. If the scriptures do not assert the doctrine of future punishment in regard to the wicked, then the scriptures do not teach or assert any divine law. — Law, supposes a law- giver, and a lawgiver must be the agent of authority. — The law is the rule of right and wrong ; without law there could be neither right nor wrong. A legislator when he issues his laws, promises rewards to the obedient, and threatens punishments to the disobedient : to talk of law without these sanctions is all idle babbling : this system of sanction Mr. B — 's scheme does not include, and therefore in his scheme of government there is no law. God may be re- presented in the scriptures as teaching man a variety of maxims, and offering him what may appear to be good and suitable advice ; but he lays down no law unless he promises and threatens ; lawgivers, all that we have been acquainted with, do this ; Mr. B — says God has not done so to any LECTURE I. 17 soul under heaven. If Mr. B — 's system admits of any moral government, which I am constrained to say I cannot see, it must be a government confined wholly to this present visible state, for all the government his system reveals ends at death ; all is dissolved and broken up with the breaking up of this material system. But what sort of a government is this ? it has no moral character in its constitution : and then his theory flies in the very face of scripture — * It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judg- ment.' But what judgment can there be after death, if all moral government ceases at death ? 3. If the scriptures do not assert a future retribution in regard to the wicked, then the scriptures do not assert the character of divine justice. There is nothing in Mr. B — 's scheme for justice to do. In the constitution of the uni- verse, there is no state, place or condition in which men can be punished : as to justice, judging and awarding men ac- cording to their works, it is a mere fable ; for their not be- ing so rewarded is by an absolute necessity ; their punish- ment is morally impossible, and justice has nothing to do with it. It applies equally to the happiness of the righteous, if any such thing as future happiness can be made out in Mr. B — 's " Inquiry," for their happiness is the effect of necessity, not the award of justice. All moral agency on the part of both God and man is totally destroyed. There is therefore no such thing as divine justice. 4. If the scriptures do not assert the doctrine of future retribution then they cannot reveal to man any way of sal- vation. Upon Mr. B — 's system man is not exposed to the divine displeasure, his punishment in a future state is im- possible, what then can Christ do for him ? By the consti- tution of nature he is in a state of safety, not at all exposed to misery, there is no Gospel, therefore, that can apply to his case. As to man's exposedness to misery in the present state, it is admitted the Gospel does nothing for him ; the Jews suffered and perished in Gehenna, and all the Gentiles 15 LECTURE I. endured the common lot of mortals, without any relief from the Gospel ; and when they died all suffering ceased from ne- cessity, the Gospel still doing nothing for them : what way of salvation then can the scriptures reveal ? Indeed salvation is altogether a figment, an idle invention, as irrelevant to man's case as are any of the fictions of the Hindoo mythol- ogy, or the extravagant romances of the Mahomedan impos- ture. No, my hearers— Mr. B — can never say, by the same organs of speech, that the scriptures deny the doctrine of a future retribution, and yet that they assert the doctrine of human salvation by the mediation of Jesus Christ. 5. That volume of scriptures which does not admit a fu- ture retribution, does not reveal or assert a future state. Upon Mr. B — 's system it is very doubtful whether man has an immortal soul ; but if he declare he has, there is no state provided for it in any world besides this. Hades, Tartarus or Gehenna receives all that we know of man, and only what is mortal. Mr. B — does not preserve the im- mortal man, nor convey him to any immortal state of exist- ence : Hades receives all, and Hades hides all, and Hades destroys all, for aught Mr. B — tells us. Sheol or Hades receives the body, not the soul, but this is no place of misery or punishment. Gehenna is a place of punishment or mise- ry, but only for the body, and that only temporal, in this present world : what of any thing future or immortal have we here ? But this is all we have upon Mr B — 's scheme. Hence all is reduced to a mere system of materiality. Hades receives and consumes all that is material, Gehenna furnish- es all the punishment of which man is capable, and this is in a material not a spiritual state, and for Jews only ; neither is man capable of suffering in a spiritual state ; in the con- stitution of the universe there is no spiritual state of retri- bution.— This is the inevitable consequence of Mr. B — 's system, there is no avoiding it upon his mode of reasoning. Indeed he has taken no small pains to prove that the soul, the immortal part, can have no share in the sufferings his LECTURE I. lji system involves, and still farther to render soul suffering impossible he criticises the immortal soul away and substi- tutes for it animal spirit. Now all this, and much more, goes to show that Mr. B — 's system is material in opposi- tion to spiritual — a mere exhibition of the gross and perish- ing part of God's universe, while that which is moral, im- mortal, and eternal is carefully concealed. The just and righteous retributions of eternity are denied, and so a veil is drawn over the awful realities of a future state. 6. The next consequence is that there is no divine reve- lation. It is true Mr. B — is constantly appealing to the scriptures as a divine revelation, and refuses to appeal to any other testimony ; but still the system he professes to gather from revelation is subversive of that revelation itself: he evidently makes every thing, of importance to him, in proving a negative ; that is, the scriptures are made to con- tradict what they do assert, by what they do not assert. For instance, the scriptures assert man's moral accountability ; but the scriptures do not assert that the account is to be rendered in the grave, therefore the scriptures do assert that man is not morally accountable, nor obnoxious to punish- ment. Again : the scriptures assert that sinners shall be lia- ble to punishment, soul and body, in Gehenna : but the scriptures do not say that Gehenna is the place of endless misery for all nations ; therefore the scriptures do declare that Gehenna is not a place of punishment for sinners. You see Mr. B — 's refuge is in negatives. The scriptures do not reveal a future retribution, neither prophet nor apos- tle, no writer, Old Testament or New, ever did assert that there was a future retribution or a place of future punish- ment, neither is any creature under heaven threatened with any. No salvation from future punishment was ever preach- ed by Christ or his apostles. Christ was not revealed as a Saviour from any future punishment or misery. Now I ask, what the scriptures do reveal ? for upon Mr. B— 's principle they reveal nothing but negatives. They assert . 20 LECTURE I. that in the constitution of the universe there is no retribu- tion. — They assert that there is no law upon which a retri- bution can be founded. — Thev assert that there can be no retributive justice. — They assert that there is no salvation from retribution, because there is no retribution — Thev as- sert that there is no future state, or they reveal no future state of retribution. — What next ! Why, they reveal no- thing, or they assert that to know nothing on the future des- tinies of men is to know all God intended us to know. But then this cannot be called revelation ; for a divine revelation must impart a knowledge of divine things, to which knowl- edge nature cannot attain without such revelation ; but all that Mr. B — 's revelation teaches us, is a mere ignorance, an ignorance possessed and enjoyed by all the barbarous and uncivilized of man, in all dark ages and places from the foundation of the world to the present day. 7. The final consequence is, that Mr. B — ? s theory leaves us without any God ; at least his theory reveals none. — No divine, moral, superintending spiritual agency by which a universe of intelligences is created and controlled. But this consequence is too awful for discussion, and the language which must necessarily be employed, did we pursue the reasoning, would be such as the friends of our author would pronounce severe and intemperate. I therefore conclude by giving it as my opinion, that Mr. B — had no idea of the consequences involved in his adventurous theory. We have been in the habit of considering him in the light of a learn- ed, liberal, pious and honest man ; and we wish to insinuate nothing to prejudice this good opinion. The subject too we are called to investigate is a theological question — a the- ological speculation some would call it, and therefore ought to admit of the most free discussion. But still it is, as Mr. B — himself acknowledges, a subject " solemn and import- ant," a subject not to be treated lightly, a subject not to be abandoned to the fancy and the passions, but to be handled with great seriousness and reverence, which I hope we shall LECTURE I. 21 l)j enabled to do, and so far as we have gone, I trust it will be found, that we have been serious and candid. This first discourse has been to ascertain, with precision, the exact ground taken by our author ; we have, after care- ful examination, found that he sets up his theory upon a per- suasion, that the scriptures admit of no retribution in a future state. This ground we have examined in all its length and breadth, and we have found that it necessarily involves con- 7 J sequences the most awful and perplexing, consequences, such as reduce God's whole universe of nature to a system of materialism, a system of physical machinery, a universe of body without soul, a mass of matter without intelligence, a world without a God. Thus, instructed by our text, we have tried the spirit of our author's book, and we think have found it to be not of God. But we have yet to examine its parts, and its methods of argument, its citations and interpretations of scripture, its answers to objections and its solemn calls to free inquiry. Our immediate object after this discourse will be to set up and establish, in opposition to Mr. B — this position, namely, That in the constitution of the divine government there is a future righteous retribution. ? Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to the Gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret since the world began ; but now is made manifest, and by the scrip- tures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith, to God only wise be glory, through Jesus Christ, for* ever, Amen.' JUBGWUtl S3L Divine Government constituted upon the principle of Future Retribution. IN THE DAY THAT THOU EATEST THEREOF, THOU SHALT SURELY die. — Genesis ii. 17. Divine government and human accountability are, in our view, inseparable. The character of God displays the highest moral attributes of which we can conceive : the highest attributes displayed in the human character are also moral attributes — they are of the same nature as those in the Divine Being ; man received these from his Creator in the day in which he was created ; ' God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.' But man is a crea- ture, his being is derived, his constitution is according to that rule prescribed by his Sovereign Creator ; he must therefore be subordinate, it cannot be otherwise. The prin- ciple upon which God constitutes our world involves his own sovereignty, and our accountability. No sooner is man complete in his character before God, than God proceeds to reveal to him his Law. ' The Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden, to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou may est freely eat ; but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely dieS Here is the institution of government among men ; and it is a moral government, instituted upon the principle of retri- bution. This is the principle Mr. Balfour's theory goes to demolish. He says, and in the strongest terms too, that there is no state of punishment in the future world — that the doctrine was never asserted nor taught by any of the sacred LECTURE H. as writers — neither was the salvation of Jesus any salvation from future punishment — Ins theory goes so far as to de- clare, that in the constitution of the universe, there is no fu- ture retribution for the wicked. He admits, that wicked men are obnoxious to divine displeasure, because of their provoking iniquities— he represents particularly the Jews as punished exceedingly for the ir sins, but all the punishment he allows, is confined to this present visible state. Here, however, Mr. B — admits of retribution, though his whole theory goes to destroy it. If he admit of any punishment as due to sin, he admits of sin as a moral evil, and so he ad- mits of a law, of government executive, of retributive jus- tice, * for, sin is the transgression of the law, and by the law is the knowledge of sin.' The question we have now to settle is, whether the retributions of justice are temporal or eternal, or rather, whether retributive justice be wholly ex- ercised in this state, or extended to a future state. One thing is very clear from the words of holy writ placed at the head of this discourse, that, in the administration of the divine law there is a retribution, and this retribution too is exhib- ited under a threatening aspect, c In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.' Let us now consider the terms here expressed, and first, they are terms of threatening. Death is threatened, and this is the only expressed term of the retribution. The promise of a happy reward to obedience, is rather implied than ex- pressed ; * Of every tree of the garden thou may est freely eat,' and whatever other capacity man might have had for enjoyment of good, would doubtless have been indulged : but most visibly before 7 us there is nothing but threatening. Mr. B— in several places, decries all obedience under a sense of penalty ; he seems to contend for that disinterested benevolence, which has distinguished the divinity of the new school : but the Allwise Creator, who knows what is best adapted to man in every state, yes, better than either of us can know, has first fenced man's virtue round with law and 91 LECTURE II. terrors. To say (what is very likely to be said) that this method did not succeed, is a shifting of the question, but not a true argument : for the disobedience of our first mother did not occur, till she was gained over by a contra- diction of the lawgiver, • Ye shall not surely die.' This surely was a belief in the Universal doctrine in the gross form, and her persuasion of the threatening being untrue, produced this act of disobedience ; that it was an act of dis- obedience she did know, but the hope of impunity prompt- ed the crime ; while she believed in the threatening she maintained her virtue. And this experiment is the grand trial of the age, ' Ye shall not surely die.' And here it is in place to remark that Universalists of the class of Winches- ter, Murrav, &:c. stand on the ground for which I am con- tending, namely, a threatened punishment for disobedience, a motive for virtue. And I am truly happy to see so many of that class stand forward to vindicate, and espouse those that vindicate the doctrine of a future retribution : and I am equally sorry to see so many of the reputed orthodox so willing to let this very important truth fall into disrepute, without, on their parts, a suitable effort to maintain it, as once delivered to the saints. But to pursue the point. The penalty threatened is death; and here the question is supposed to pinch — What is the nature of that penalty, here threatened under the form of death ? What is death ? This difficulty, if it be one, is to be met two ways, and both in agreement. Retribution is the subject — rewards and pun- ishments. — Reward is one side of the case and punish- ment is the other. What would Adam's reward have been, think ye, had he maintained his obedience through his pro- bation ? would it have been a temporal one, a reward con- fined to this visible and natural state of things, or a reward stretching out into the regions of an eternal scene ? Surely I need not press this inquiry, it must be admitted, and our opponent will not refuse his assent, that an eternal spiritual blessedness would have been his reward, for this reward LECTURE If. 25 Mr. B — grants to every ungodly rebel at his death, and surely he will not deny a heaven of spiritual happiness to such as finish tjieir course in righteousness. But then, the inevitable consequence from such premises — man's punishment, if he transgress, must be spiritual and future, a punishment adapted to his moral character in a future state. The pun- ishment must from necessity be in a future state, a punish- ment adapted to his moral, rather than to his natural condi- tion. Suppose God had cut off Adam, body and soul, im- mediately upon the transgression, his extinction would have been no proper retribution — retribution places a moral agent in circumstances suitable to his moral character, but ex- tinction destroys man's moral capacity for a just retribution, and also arrests the process of justice by which that retribu- tion is awarded. Or suppose that Adam had died a natural death on the day of transgression, and his body had been given to the dust, and his immortal soul translated to the abodes of perfect bliss, then there would have been no just retribution ; his sufferings would have been in that part of his character in which there was no capacity for receiving a just retribution, and that part of his character to which the punishment was due, and which part only was capable of receiving it, escapes with impunity. We must then look for a just retribution in some other way. And now to lay aside all supposition, let us look at the fact as it stands before us. The threatening is death, and Adam exposes himself to the penalty by transgression ; but natural death is not inflicted ; he lives 930 years, and be- comes the father of many generations, from whence we con- clude that natural death, the mere extinction of animal life, was not the penalty threatened : we have already seen, in argument, that natural death could have been no just retri- bution, and now we see that that was not inflicted, and there- fore we must look for the fulfilment of the threatening un- der other circumstances. But we must assume a position here, namely, that this threatening was executed, or at least itf LECTURE II. was in the way of legal process, so that Adam was the sub- ject of death in the clay of his transgression. In order to set this position in a clear point of light, we must establish an appeal to the scriptures : for one scripture interprets an- other, and without the New Testament, especially, it would be difficult, not to say impossible, to understand a great part of the Old. Now what do the Holy Scriptures say on the question of human transgression ? How do they describe the condition of the transgressor ? we shall begin with a view of that very sin now before us — Rom. v. 12. 18. ' By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin ; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned — By the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condem- nation.' Or by one offence retribution was awarded to con- demnation. Here death is the condemnation awarded for sin, and it is evidently a spiritual death, a loss of divine fa- vour, for this condemnation to death is here contrasted with that life to which man is restored by the salvation of Christ. * For the wages of sin is death ; but the gift of God is eter- nal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.' Surely no one will attempt to prove that by death, is here meant an ex- tinction of animal life. But farther. John viii. 24. Jesus said unto the Jews, l If ye believe not that I am he ye shall die in your sins.' Does not every one see that this is to die in a state of unpardoned guilt, and remain exposed to the retribution of condemnation ? Again, 1 John iii. 14. 1 We know that we have passed from death unto life.' Can this mean any thing but passing from a state of condemna- tion to a state of divine favour ? Certainly they had not pass- ed from a state in which they were liable to natural death, for, they all died, but the death from which they had passed was the death of guilt; they had been 'dead in trespasses and sins,' but through faith in Christ, they had attained to eternal life. Again, what Jesus said to the Jews, John v. 24. ■ Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting LECTURE If. life, and shall not come into condemnation ; but is passed from death unto life.' John in his first epistle says, l There is a sin unto death — and there is a sin not unto death.' We know there is no sin but what is connected with natural death, and therefore, that sin which is unto death, must ex- pose to some thing be) ond the death of the body. Pas- sages might be multiplied to confirm and illustrate this point, but it would be only taking up your time to little purpose ; the thing can be but provtd ; and if any thing can be prov- ed, we think it has been proved, that the death threatened to Adam was a spiritual death — condemnation to the retri- bution of future punishment. Sin, as sin, is uniformly re- presented in scripture, as exposing the sinner to a future, spiritual state of retribution. Particular sins, sins commit- ted under peculiar circumstances, national sins and sins of social or political bodies, are often represented as chastised and punished in this present state by physical instrumentali- ty : but sin, in its more general character, as moral evil, as disobedience, charged and found upon man, is liable to pun- ishment in a future spiritual state. It is a fearful thing, for the sinner, to fall into the hands of the living God. To sum up the arguments upon this threatened punish- ment, it appears first, That the punishment threatened, was hot the extinction of animal life merely, for in the day of transgression Adam did not thus suffer. The conclusion then is, that death, and death on the day of transgres- sion, must have been inflicted in some other way, for the word of the Lord must endure, his word cannot fail. It ap- pears in the second place, That a variety of scriptures assert the death threatened to have been inflicted immediately on the act of disobedience ; that our first parent died legally and morally, * dead in trespasses and in sin,' under the curse of a broken law, in the arrest of justice, and liable to God's displeasure in the world to come. If this be not the view, given in holy writ, of this case of transgression and pen- alty inflicted, then I am at a loss what sense to put upon 38 LECTURE II. language ; and, moreover, how to account for Adam's viola- tion of the divine law under such a penalty, and he to live another day, is still more difficult. EI ere then is the institution of a moral government — the first act of which, is declared to be upon the principle of retributive justice. With this principle thus established we are prepared to meet Mr. Balfour's theory in denial of the doctrine. Let us look at what he asserts, and at what he in- sinuates on this article. His words are these : (428) fc> The doctrine of eternal misery supposes that God 11 threatened Adam, that in the day he ate of the forbidden 11 fruit he should die, and that death threatened is said to be " death temporal, spiritual and eternal. This eternal death 41 is said to be endless misery in Hell. Hell torments, then, 44 was (were) threatened before sin existed, or before the 44 promise of a Saviour was given. But is this a correct " understanding of the death threatened Adam ? The false- " hood of it is evident from one fact, that Adam, Noah, Abra- 44 ham, and all the Old Testament believers did not so un- derstand it. If they had, would they not have taught it to "mankind? But do we find them referring to Adam's sin "as involving himself or his posterity in endless misery in 14 Hell? Or do we find such a doctrine taught by any Old 44 Testament writer? Let all the threatenings of God in the 41 Old Testament be examined, and we shall find them in 44 unison with the first threatening to Adam. God threat - 44 ened to destroy the world by a flood ; Sodom and the 44 cities of the plain by fire ; but is a hint dropped that the 44 wicked in such cases were at death to be eternally miser- 44 able." (30) " The whole race of mankind is swept from the 14 earth by a flood, Noah and his family excepted ; but, 44 does this good man deplore, in any shape, that so many 44 precious souls went to Hell ? God also destroyed the ci- 44 ties of the plain : Abraham intercedes that they might be 44 spared, but uses no argument with God, that the people 41 must go to Hell to suffer eternal misery. Now suffer me LECTURE II. 59 f< to ask, if Abraham believed this doctrine, is it possible " he should have failed to urge it as an argument, that all 41 these wicked persons must go to Hell, if God destroyed " them." Thus far Mr. B — Let us see to what all this amounts. And 1st. I am sorry to be under the necessity of calling upon Mr. B — to correct his own statement and phraseology. He speaks again and again of " the doctrine of endless misery— eternal punishment — everlasting" and so on. He should have said in these passages, future misery — -future punish- ment, and so in all others, when he is arguing on the point in question, and to this we shall hold him, because he lays the whole ground of his " Inquiry" upon the doctrine of fu- ture punishment, not eternal punishment : we shall there- fore now and always substitute future, for eternal. It is however much to be regretted that Mr. B — should write so loosely, and so frequently aside the acknowledged point of dispute. This matter being set right, goes to weaken Mr. B — 's argument upon Adam's threatening. Vv e do not contend that God did threaten Adam with " endless misery in Hell :*' what we contend for is, that God threat- ened Adam with death as the just retribution of disobedi- ence ; this punishment we have seen, and all must see, was not inflicted by the extinction of his natural life on the day of transgression, for he lived hundreds of vears after this act of disobedience : this punishment of death therefore was not a present so much as a future punishment, it was not in his natural death, so much as in his spiritual death. He ar- gues farther, that " Hell torments" were not threatened to Adam, because, " Adam, Noah, Abraham and all the Old Testament believers did not so understand it," and we do not contend that they did. But Mr. B — strengthens his argument by telling us what was the nature of Adam's pun- ishment, and how he suffered. For us this is a happy cir- cumstance, as it will bring the point at issue to a speedy conclusion ; at least, it will do so if we can admit the rea- 5 jo LECTURE II. son of our author's argument. Let us see : He speaks iia this same paragraph of the sufferings of the Sodomites, and of " all the threateniugs of God in the Old Testament;** He speaks too, in another place, as we have quoted, where he is pursuing the same reasoning, of the destruction of man- kind by the flood : all which cases of threatening, he says, are " in unison with the first threatening to Adam.'' I sup- pose Mr. B — means by this unison of cases, that Adam's threatened punishment was the same as that threatened to Sodom and to the antediluvians, or that the visible tokens of divine displeasure in each were the same. Now how can these threatening^ be in unison ? God threatened the old world with death by a flood of waters, and the Sodomites by a flood of fire, and the \ all died a natural deaih as God threat- ened. God threatened Adam with death on the diy of his transgression ; he transgressed, but did not on that day die a natural death : these threatenings are therefore not in uni- son, they are not similar but very different, in one case it is natural present death — in the other it is spiritual and future death. Here is a discordancy in our Inquirer's ar- gument, that I cannot reconcile — it must be left to him. 2. There is also, to me, somewhat of an unbecoming bold- ness in his assertions, that the doctrine of a future retribu- bution was never declared to any of the patriarchs, neither was it ever understood or believed by them, nor did they ever act in regard to it ! With this bold challenge before us I ask — For what were the sacrifices offered "? in these was there no recognition of retribution ? no sense or conscious- ness of offence ? What are we to understand of Noah's doc- trine as a preacher of righteousness? in preaching righteous- ness could he avoid the doctrine of retributive justice *? Is it not said that by righteousness he condemned the world, and became heir of the retribution by heaven's favour be stowed ? Now how is ail this to be reconciled with Mr B — 's asser- tion that the patriarchs knew nothing of retributive justice ? Surely Mr. B— does not mean to prove that the patriarchs LECTURE II. *i knew nothing of retributive justice, because they were not threatened with " Hell torments, " or because Sheoldoes not mean a place of misery. U Mr. B — can see his way clear along this course it is more than I can — to me it pre- sents nothing but perplexity and discordancy. But farther, Mr. B — tells us, that Noah with all his preaching never declared the doctrine of retribution to any man, that he never lamented the lost condition of those who were drowned in the flood. In our turn, we ask, how Mr. B — arrives at this knowledge ? How does he know that Noah did not preach retribution ? or lament the condition of his overwhelmed cotemporaries ? Is any thing said by Moses in his story of Noah and the deluge, of what Noah did, or did not say, or how he did feel, or did not feel? I believe all is a blank in the Mosaic history, not one word of Noah's preaching or meditation on the subject, but our au- thor knows he did not preach retribution. St. Peter says, that Noah w r as a preacher of righteousness, but Mr. B — knows that Noah never preached or threatened retribution. Peter says again, that after the * long suffering of God' and the righteous preaching of Noah, God ' brought in the flood upon the world of the ungodly' — and so in regard to Sodom and Gomorrah, 4 condemned them with an overthrow, mak- ing them an ensample unto those that after should live un- godly,' and yet Mr. B — is pretty certain that there was no retribution in this threatening and punishment, no liability to future displeasure. To keep more particularly to Noah's mission — Noah was a preacher of righteousness, but Mr. B — knows that Noah did not believe in a future retribution, and therefore that he did not preach it. But does not every one see that our friend Balfour is only proving negatives, and the whole of his theory so far stands upon negatives and upon nothing else. We have seen in the Mosaic history that no- thing is said upon what Noah did preach to the antediluvi- ans, not a word positively of any thing he said or taught. He said nothing about a future state of happiness, nothing 32 LECTURE IX. about the state and residence of the blessed God, of course, not a word about any state of future existence either in heaven above or in the abyss beneath. Upon our Inquirer's mode of reasoning, we may conclude that Noah knew nothing of any future state of blessedness, or of the spiritual existence of the blessed God : indeed, we might conclude that there is no state of future blessedness, for such an interesting par- ticular, Noah, so authorised as he was, would not have fail- ed to preach, had there been such a state of blessedness ; but as he says nothing about it, we conclude at once that there was no such thing. This is the way in which unbe- lievers reason against a future state ; the reserve, on the part of the Old Testament revelation on a future immortality is urged by them as proof that the Old Testament saints knew nothing about a future state. But as Noah was a preacher of righteousness, he did preach and assert something posi- tively, and that positive something must have been right- eousness, which I apprehend was in declaring a perfect rule, according to Divine authority. Upon Mr. B — 's system, this rule, or righteousness, must have been to declare to the sinners of the old world that in the constitution of the uni- verse there was no retributive justice— no punishment for sinners — so far from any such thing, that all the whole world, excepting himself and family, were about to be taken from scenes of imperfection and inconvenience and sin, to abodes of perfect blessedness and glory. This, Lot too, upon the same principle, would preach to the Sodomites, — But, brethren, can your minds be brought over to such a convic- tion ? or can Mr. B — evade the conclusion we have drawn ? I must say, however, that I have no idea that Mr. B — will admit these conclusions. I believe he has a purer mind, and a better heart, and that he is not aware of the scope his theorising takes, nor of the liberty, men of corrupt minds will indulge in as they theorise with him. There is another thing of which our author seems not to be aware. Adam's sin consisted in one simple act of diso- LECTURE II. 33 bedience, it was a sin purely against God, it was the only sin he could commit, there was but one command, and this command was a prohibition : * Of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it.' To have observed this prohibition would have consummated the virtue of his character, and have secured his happiness. The threatened punishment therefore was in unison with such a crime : but the sins of the antediluvians and of Sodom were by no means in unison with Adam's sin, neither could their pun- ishment be in unison. Indeed Mr. B — only asserts that these threatenings or punishments were in unison ; he does not attempt to show in what way they agreed, or how they were similar and in unison: if he could have shown how these threatenings resembled one another, doubtless he would ; but he has left us quite in the dark on the subject, with his bare assertion. Neither does Mr. B — make any distinction between the sin of an individual, and the sin of a people, a nation, a body politic. Punishment may be inflicted on an individual for his sins in a future state — on a people or a na- tion it cannot be so inflicted ; the punishment must be in- flicted while their national character exists ; in a future state nations or bodies politic cannot be the subjects of retribu- tion. But of this we shall speak more distinctly hereafter. It now remains that we review the course we have taken in this lecture, and in the controversy so far as we have pro- ceeded. And 1st. It appears that we have not mistaken the ground of the " Inquiry. " For, I repeat what I have said before, that I should be exceedingly sorry to misapprehend Mr. B — in any part of his treatise, but more especially in the root of the question : and more especially still, I should be averse to the assumption of any consequences and con- clusions he would deny. But yet I am to judge of Mr. B — 's theory by what he has actually written, not by what he may have yet to offer, either in explanation of what he has said, or in addition thereto. The ground taken by our au- thor is this, namely, That there is no punishment for the *i LECTURE II* wicked in a future state. Our distinction too it seems h