|
|
These remarks have chiefly been made to meet an objection that man is composed of three parts - body, soul and spirit; and that, though his body and soul might perish, his spirit could not. I have used the term soul throughout my discourses in its broadest sense as including the essence of what constitutes a man; and I am satisfied that is the general sense in which the Scriptures use it, though in some texts it is used in a more restricted sense.
It is a matter of indifference how it is applied in my text; for the expressions are such as to include the whole man, and to show that every man on whom the wrath of God abideth will perish - utterly perish - body, "soul and spirit." I shall now proceed to notice one of the evils of the opposite theory; or the maintaining that such expressions as die –death - destroy - destroyed - destruction - burned up - perish, &c., are not to be understood literally, i.e. according to their obvious meaning, when spoken of the final destiny of wicked men.
It is a matter of indifference how it is applied in my text; for the expressions are such as to include the whole man, and to show that every man on whom the wrath of God abideth will perish - utterly perish - body, "soul and spirit." I shall now proceed to notice one of the evils of the opposite theory; or the maintaining that such expressions as die –death - destroy - destroyed - destruction - burned up - perish, &c., are not to be understood literally, i.e. according to their obvious meaning, when spoken of the final destiny of wicked men.
ONE EVIL OF THE COMMON THEORY OF ENDLESS BEING IN SIN AND SUFFERING, IS,
It sustains the mischievous practice of mystifying, or making the Scriptures to have a secret or hidden meaning, in the plainest texts.
This mischievous practice was brought into the church, almost as soon as the Apostles had left the world. The converts from heathenism seemed intent on uniting heathen philosophy with christianity. Hence they must find an abundance of mysteries in the Scriptures: and the practice of allegorizing, i.e. making the language to contain something that does not appear in the words, commenced and generally prevailed, before the third century. This was done, doubtless, with a view to lead heathen philosophers to embrace christianity, as affording them a fruitful field for their researches. But it led the church astray into the wild fields of conjecture; and every lively imagination could find hidden wonders in the Bible; while the plain literal meaning of the text was disregarded. That fatal practice increased from age to age, till the simplicity of the gospel was totally eclipsed, and the obscuration has not wholly disappeared to this day.
This practice has given occasion to honest people, as well as to infidels, to say, "You can make any thing out of the Bible," or "play any tune upon it." And this is true, if men are to be allowed to take texts which have a plain, obvious, and literal signification, and call them mystical or figurative, when there is not a clear necessity for doing so. The Scriptures themselves often notify us when the language is to be understood figuratively; and frequently those figures are explained, and the literal interpretation given.
The common method of making the terms life and death mystical, or figurative, i.e. to mean something more, and far different from what appears in the literal and obvious signification of the words, I conceive is unwarranted by the Scriptures, and tends only to throw confusion upon the plainest subjects of the Bible, and also to take away the force and beauty of very many otherwise clear and intelligible portions of God's word.
Let me now call your attention to texts, the beauty and force of which are greatly weakened and obscured by such a course.
Deut.30:15, "I have set life and death before you, therefore choose Life, that both thou and thy seed may live." Again, Ps.16:11, "Thou wilt show me the path of life; in thy presence is fullness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures forever more."
Now let us contemplate some portions of the New Testament, in view of the theory I oppose, and the one I advocate, and see on which they have most force and the clearest meaning. Look at the young man who came to our Saviour with an important inquiry, Matt.19:16 - What does he say? Is it his inquiry, "What shall I do to escape endless misery or suffering?" No: but, "What shall I do that I may have eternal life?" How plain the question, on the theory I advocate, and how appropriate the answer, "If thou wilt enter into life," &c. Not, - if thou wilt escape endless life in torments, -not, if thou wilt have a "happy eternal life," but simply, - If thou wilt enter into life. What simplicity, beauty, and force! all is natural, and easy to be understood.
Again, John 3:15,16, "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life." All here, again, is natural, easy, and forcible, on the theory that the wicked are actually to die or perish if found rejecting Christ, who only has eternal life to give. But on the theory I oppose, we must have a whole sermon to explain the meaning of the term perish, and make it appear that it does not mean "extinction of being," but eternal life in sin and misery! I once heard a Doctor of Divinity in New York city preach a whole sermon on that one point; and that, too, after he had admitted that the primary meaning of the term is "extinction of being." It seems to me it is taking quite too much pains to make obscure the meaning of a word, that of itself is easy to be understood.
In the same chapter, at the 36th verse, it is said: "He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." He is already condemned to death, and is dying; eternal life is offered in the Son of God, he that will not accept it, through him, shall not possess life, but the wrath of God shall abide on him to the full execution of the penalty, which is "death, the wages of sin." Again, John 5:28,29, - "The hour is coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth: they that have done good to the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil to the resurrection of damnation," or condemnation: but to what? not to eternal life in sin and misery, but to death - for that is the wages sin has earned. Here the language is natural and forcible, on the view I advocate, and the contrast of life and death is perfect; but I ask any candid man if it is so on the view I oppose?
Again, at the 39th and 40th verses: "Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they that testify of me; and ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."
They were looking not for eternal happiness merely, or an escape from eternal torments, but for eternal life. Yet when the only physician who could give that priceless blessing calls them to come to him for it, they would not come; and, as a matter of course, they are not saved "from death." Look at the following texts, in the 6th chapter of John: "Labor for the meat that endureth unto everlasting life. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life, unto the world. I am the bread of life. And this is the will of Him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life. I am that bread of life. This is that bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever. The words I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life."
That simple life and death are put in opposition, or clearly implied in these texts, is too plain not to be seen by any person of common attention. "Not die - eternal life." Now, a man shall "not die," if the theory I oppose is true, whether he come to Christ or not; and it would have been just as easy to have expressed the doctrine of eternal being in sin and suffering by unequivocal language, as in that, the literal interpretation of which must necessarily lead astray, if that doctrine be true.
Again, John 8:12, "He that followeth me shall have the light of life." And at the 51st verse, "If a man keep my sayings he shall never see death." Again, in 10th chapter, "I am come that they might have life. My sheep hear my voice and they follow me; and I give unto them eternal life, - and they shall never perish," &c. Does not this language clearly imply, that those who do not follow Christ will perish? Yes, says the objector, their happiness will perish! But I ask, if such an interpretation is not forced and unnatural? Our Saviour says no such thing. Perish is put in opposition to life. By the simple and natural meaning of the terms, there is great beauty and force in the language. Besides, to admit of a departure from the literal meaning of the term perish, throws us into the regions of uncertainty; and if one man may say it means his happiness shall perish, another may say it means his sins shall perish, and so on. But if it signifies simply what the word imports - a destruction of being - then his happiness and his sins perish with him, as a matter of course, and there is no obscurity about it.
Again, John 11:25,26, "I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live; and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." How forcible and full of power are these words, literally understood! But say, to die, means loss of happiness, though the person still lives, and you at once strip the expression of our Lord of the energy which it possesses in its plain and obvious meaning.
Again, John 14:6, - "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me."
Also, Rom.5:17 - "If by one man's offence, death reigned by one, much more they which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ; therefore, as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation, [i.e. unto death;] even so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men, [i.e. in its offer,] unto justification of life. That as sin hath reigned unto death, [i.e. unto condemnation to death,] even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord."
That the death spoken of, here, is a literal death the context clearly shows; it was that death that came into the world by one man's sin (verse 12,) and which "reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression:" (verse 14.) If then the death is literal so is the life offered, and promised; and that life is only to be obtained "through righteousness," or becoming righteous, and "by Jesus Christ."
Now look at such expressions as the following: "The crown of life, - The word of life, - The grace of life. He that hath the Son hath life, - he that hath not the Son of God hath not life, - The water of life, - Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life, - This do and thou shalt live, - Because I live ye shall live also, - We shall also live with him, - Be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live, - God sent his Son, that we might live through him, - If one died for all, then were all dead," i.e., dying, doomed to die; as the body is dead, because of sin, i.e., doomed to die, though not yet actually dead. "Who died for us, that we should live together with him." These, and a multitude of other texts of Scripture, all speak in plain and unequivocal language, if the view I take of the final destiny of the wicked is correct; otherwise, and if figurative, the imagination must be employed to explain them; and then we find ourselves let loose in the wild fields of fancy; and who shall decide where we shall stop?
In these sermons I have endeavored to show that man by sin lost all title to immortality; and had it not been for the "seed of the woman" the race would have utterly perished, or ceased to be, and would have been as though they never had been. There is not a particle of evidence that the original threatening embraced a state of eternal sin and suffering, that idea has puzzled our greatest and most learned divines, to tell how an atonement could be made adequate to redeem men from such a punishment. To meet the case, they have gone to the idea that God, himself, suffered to make the necessary atonement; and then they have started back from that position, as being impossible that the Godhead could actually suffer, and so have substituted the "human body and soul" of Jesus Christ, as united with the Godhead, and the human nature of Christ only suffering. This has led others to deny an atonement altogether, as they have contended that the man Christ Jesus, while the Godhead did not suffer, could not, by any sufferings he might endure, give an equivalent for endless torments in the fire of hell. Pressed with this difficulty, the advocates of the endless sin and suffering theory have been led to say, it was not necessary to an atonement that the sufferer should endure the very same punishment that the guilty were liable to, but only such as should show that God would not let sin go unpunished. Others have taken advantage of this admission to deny the necessity of an atonement at all, and hence have opposed the idea of one. This has resulted in a still further departure from truth, and they have taken the position, that if man suffers for his sins, himself, that is all sufficient; and that his sufferings are bounded by this life, or at most, to a very limited period in a future state, after which he will have an eternity of happiness.
Now all this confusion and conjecture, for I can give it no higher name, I conceive, arises from not clearly
understanding what man lost by the fall, for himself and posterity. In order to understand this subject I shall conclude these discourses, with general remarks on Adam's state, trial and failure.
The extravagant manner in which Adam's knowledge and holiness has been insisted on by nearly all theologians, I am disposed to think, is not sustained by either the works or words of God. Adam has been represented as the very perfection of knowledge and holiness at his creation. The facts stated in regard to his creation are so few, that from those alone we might be left in doubt as to Adam's perfection as an intelligent and moral being; yet we shall find by observing God's order in his works in connection with revelation the real state of Adam at creation.
This mischievous practice was brought into the church, almost as soon as the Apostles had left the world. The converts from heathenism seemed intent on uniting heathen philosophy with christianity. Hence they must find an abundance of mysteries in the Scriptures: and the practice of allegorizing, i.e. making the language to contain something that does not appear in the words, commenced and generally prevailed, before the third century. This was done, doubtless, with a view to lead heathen philosophers to embrace christianity, as affording them a fruitful field for their researches. But it led the church astray into the wild fields of conjecture; and every lively imagination could find hidden wonders in the Bible; while the plain literal meaning of the text was disregarded. That fatal practice increased from age to age, till the simplicity of the gospel was totally eclipsed, and the obscuration has not wholly disappeared to this day.
This practice has given occasion to honest people, as well as to infidels, to say, "You can make any thing out of the Bible," or "play any tune upon it." And this is true, if men are to be allowed to take texts which have a plain, obvious, and literal signification, and call them mystical or figurative, when there is not a clear necessity for doing so. The Scriptures themselves often notify us when the language is to be understood figuratively; and frequently those figures are explained, and the literal interpretation given.
The common method of making the terms life and death mystical, or figurative, i.e. to mean something more, and far different from what appears in the literal and obvious signification of the words, I conceive is unwarranted by the Scriptures, and tends only to throw confusion upon the plainest subjects of the Bible, and also to take away the force and beauty of very many otherwise clear and intelligible portions of God's word.
Let me now call your attention to texts, the beauty and force of which are greatly weakened and obscured by such a course.
Deut.30:15, "I have set life and death before you, therefore choose Life, that both thou and thy seed may live." Again, Ps.16:11, "Thou wilt show me the path of life; in thy presence is fullness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures forever more."
Now let us contemplate some portions of the New Testament, in view of the theory I oppose, and the one I advocate, and see on which they have most force and the clearest meaning. Look at the young man who came to our Saviour with an important inquiry, Matt.19:16 - What does he say? Is it his inquiry, "What shall I do to escape endless misery or suffering?" No: but, "What shall I do that I may have eternal life?" How plain the question, on the theory I advocate, and how appropriate the answer, "If thou wilt enter into life," &c. Not, - if thou wilt escape endless life in torments, -not, if thou wilt have a "happy eternal life," but simply, - If thou wilt enter into life. What simplicity, beauty, and force! all is natural, and easy to be understood.
Again, John 3:15,16, "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life." All here, again, is natural, easy, and forcible, on the theory that the wicked are actually to die or perish if found rejecting Christ, who only has eternal life to give. But on the theory I oppose, we must have a whole sermon to explain the meaning of the term perish, and make it appear that it does not mean "extinction of being," but eternal life in sin and misery! I once heard a Doctor of Divinity in New York city preach a whole sermon on that one point; and that, too, after he had admitted that the primary meaning of the term is "extinction of being." It seems to me it is taking quite too much pains to make obscure the meaning of a word, that of itself is easy to be understood.
In the same chapter, at the 36th verse, it is said: "He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." He is already condemned to death, and is dying; eternal life is offered in the Son of God, he that will not accept it, through him, shall not possess life, but the wrath of God shall abide on him to the full execution of the penalty, which is "death, the wages of sin." Again, John 5:28,29, - "The hour is coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth: they that have done good to the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil to the resurrection of damnation," or condemnation: but to what? not to eternal life in sin and misery, but to death - for that is the wages sin has earned. Here the language is natural and forcible, on the view I advocate, and the contrast of life and death is perfect; but I ask any candid man if it is so on the view I oppose?
Again, at the 39th and 40th verses: "Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they that testify of me; and ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."
They were looking not for eternal happiness merely, or an escape from eternal torments, but for eternal life. Yet when the only physician who could give that priceless blessing calls them to come to him for it, they would not come; and, as a matter of course, they are not saved "from death." Look at the following texts, in the 6th chapter of John: "Labor for the meat that endureth unto everlasting life. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life, unto the world. I am the bread of life. And this is the will of Him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life. I am that bread of life. This is that bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever. The words I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life."
That simple life and death are put in opposition, or clearly implied in these texts, is too plain not to be seen by any person of common attention. "Not die - eternal life." Now, a man shall "not die," if the theory I oppose is true, whether he come to Christ or not; and it would have been just as easy to have expressed the doctrine of eternal being in sin and suffering by unequivocal language, as in that, the literal interpretation of which must necessarily lead astray, if that doctrine be true.
Again, John 8:12, "He that followeth me shall have the light of life." And at the 51st verse, "If a man keep my sayings he shall never see death." Again, in 10th chapter, "I am come that they might have life. My sheep hear my voice and they follow me; and I give unto them eternal life, - and they shall never perish," &c. Does not this language clearly imply, that those who do not follow Christ will perish? Yes, says the objector, their happiness will perish! But I ask, if such an interpretation is not forced and unnatural? Our Saviour says no such thing. Perish is put in opposition to life. By the simple and natural meaning of the terms, there is great beauty and force in the language. Besides, to admit of a departure from the literal meaning of the term perish, throws us into the regions of uncertainty; and if one man may say it means his happiness shall perish, another may say it means his sins shall perish, and so on. But if it signifies simply what the word imports - a destruction of being - then his happiness and his sins perish with him, as a matter of course, and there is no obscurity about it.
Again, John 11:25,26, "I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live; and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." How forcible and full of power are these words, literally understood! But say, to die, means loss of happiness, though the person still lives, and you at once strip the expression of our Lord of the energy which it possesses in its plain and obvious meaning.
Again, John 14:6, - "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me."
Also, Rom.5:17 - "If by one man's offence, death reigned by one, much more they which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ; therefore, as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation, [i.e. unto death;] even so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men, [i.e. in its offer,] unto justification of life. That as sin hath reigned unto death, [i.e. unto condemnation to death,] even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord."
That the death spoken of, here, is a literal death the context clearly shows; it was that death that came into the world by one man's sin (verse 12,) and which "reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression:" (verse 14.) If then the death is literal so is the life offered, and promised; and that life is only to be obtained "through righteousness," or becoming righteous, and "by Jesus Christ."
Now look at such expressions as the following: "The crown of life, - The word of life, - The grace of life. He that hath the Son hath life, - he that hath not the Son of God hath not life, - The water of life, - Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life, - This do and thou shalt live, - Because I live ye shall live also, - We shall also live with him, - Be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live, - God sent his Son, that we might live through him, - If one died for all, then were all dead," i.e., dying, doomed to die; as the body is dead, because of sin, i.e., doomed to die, though not yet actually dead. "Who died for us, that we should live together with him." These, and a multitude of other texts of Scripture, all speak in plain and unequivocal language, if the view I take of the final destiny of the wicked is correct; otherwise, and if figurative, the imagination must be employed to explain them; and then we find ourselves let loose in the wild fields of fancy; and who shall decide where we shall stop?
In these sermons I have endeavored to show that man by sin lost all title to immortality; and had it not been for the "seed of the woman" the race would have utterly perished, or ceased to be, and would have been as though they never had been. There is not a particle of evidence that the original threatening embraced a state of eternal sin and suffering, that idea has puzzled our greatest and most learned divines, to tell how an atonement could be made adequate to redeem men from such a punishment. To meet the case, they have gone to the idea that God, himself, suffered to make the necessary atonement; and then they have started back from that position, as being impossible that the Godhead could actually suffer, and so have substituted the "human body and soul" of Jesus Christ, as united with the Godhead, and the human nature of Christ only suffering. This has led others to deny an atonement altogether, as they have contended that the man Christ Jesus, while the Godhead did not suffer, could not, by any sufferings he might endure, give an equivalent for endless torments in the fire of hell. Pressed with this difficulty, the advocates of the endless sin and suffering theory have been led to say, it was not necessary to an atonement that the sufferer should endure the very same punishment that the guilty were liable to, but only such as should show that God would not let sin go unpunished. Others have taken advantage of this admission to deny the necessity of an atonement at all, and hence have opposed the idea of one. This has resulted in a still further departure from truth, and they have taken the position, that if man suffers for his sins, himself, that is all sufficient; and that his sufferings are bounded by this life, or at most, to a very limited period in a future state, after which he will have an eternity of happiness.
Now all this confusion and conjecture, for I can give it no higher name, I conceive, arises from not clearly
understanding what man lost by the fall, for himself and posterity. In order to understand this subject I shall conclude these discourses, with general remarks on Adam's state, trial and failure.
The extravagant manner in which Adam's knowledge and holiness has been insisted on by nearly all theologians, I am disposed to think, is not sustained by either the works or words of God. Adam has been represented as the very perfection of knowledge and holiness at his creation. The facts stated in regard to his creation are so few, that from those alone we might be left in doubt as to Adam's perfection as an intelligent and moral being; yet we shall find by observing God's order in his works in connection with revelation the real state of Adam at creation.
GOD'S WORKS HAVE
ALWAYS BEEN PROGRESSIVE
ALWAYS BEEN PROGRESSIVE
Or, as Tertullian says - "In the Creator's universe all things occur in the order of gradual development, each in its proper place." That is - Whatever God has accomplished, so far as known to us, has ever been by a gradual development and a steady accumulation from a lesser to a greater. The work of creation was not accomplished in a day; but, from the first movement of "the Spirit of God upon the face of the deep," each succeeding day gave birth to some new development in the process of formation; every day increasing perfection; though every part of the work was perfect in its kind for the designed object or use. I stop not here to inquire whether the materials of which the earth was formed had been in a process of accumulation for untold ages prior to the Spirit moving upon the mass to bring order and arrangement out of that which was "without form and void," it might have been so without at all affecting the accuracy of the Mosaic account of creation - but the fact that the actual production of the "heavens and the earth" was by a gradual process is undeniable.
The revelation that God has seen fit to make to men has always been gradual and progressive: all was not revealed at once; and what has been communicated, as prophecy, has had a gradual and progressive development and accomplishment. Take Abraham as an example. First, he is called to "get out of" his "own country" - then he is shown "a land" that is promised him - a son of promise is presented to his mind, Isaac - he learns his seed is to be in bondage 400 years - after that to be brought into the land of Canaan - that from him was to proceed a seed in whom "all the families of the earth were to be blessed" - that his posterity should be as the stars of heaven for multitude, &c. All these things in their accomplishment were gradual and progressive, occupying many centuries, and are to have still further developments before the greatest perfection is attained contemplated in these providential works of God.
What is true in the case just contemplated, is true in the general course of God's dealings with men. The Fetus does not come to maturity to be ushered into the world in a day; and when the child is born how slow the process by which even its physical nature arrives at maturity; equally gradual and progressive is the development of its mind and mental energy. Improvements in the arts and sciences, on which side soever we look, and in all departments, are gradual. Many of those improvements are the work of ages; others are brought forward more rapidly. A single thought at first set the train in motion that has resulted in mighty developments, which have astonished, delighted, or benefited mankind. It were easy to trace out a multitude of particulars, but to the reflecting mind this is unnecessary - it will readily call them up.
The revelation that God has seen fit to make to men has always been gradual and progressive: all was not revealed at once; and what has been communicated, as prophecy, has had a gradual and progressive development and accomplishment. Take Abraham as an example. First, he is called to "get out of" his "own country" - then he is shown "a land" that is promised him - a son of promise is presented to his mind, Isaac - he learns his seed is to be in bondage 400 years - after that to be brought into the land of Canaan - that from him was to proceed a seed in whom "all the families of the earth were to be blessed" - that his posterity should be as the stars of heaven for multitude, &c. All these things in their accomplishment were gradual and progressive, occupying many centuries, and are to have still further developments before the greatest perfection is attained contemplated in these providential works of God.
What is true in the case just contemplated, is true in the general course of God's dealings with men. The Fetus does not come to maturity to be ushered into the world in a day; and when the child is born how slow the process by which even its physical nature arrives at maturity; equally gradual and progressive is the development of its mind and mental energy. Improvements in the arts and sciences, on which side soever we look, and in all departments, are gradual. Many of those improvements are the work of ages; others are brought forward more rapidly. A single thought at first set the train in motion that has resulted in mighty developments, which have astonished, delighted, or benefited mankind. It were easy to trace out a multitude of particulars, but to the reflecting mind this is unnecessary - it will readily call them up.
THE CREATION OF MAN
Where is the evidence that God acted contrary to what is, evidently, His established order in the Creation and Development of Man? In other words - Where is the evidence that Adam was, at the first period of his existence, such an intellectual and moral giant as the current theology makes him? I am persuaded there is more fancy and assumption than proof of any such giant-like knowledge and holiness as has been attributed to him. It appears to me these assumptions have grown out of that misanthropic spirit which takes delight in maligning Adam's posterity under the pretence of honoring God, and has been the prolific parent of hatred to our fellow men, instead of that love which God requires; and its tendency is to produce despair in the minds of men of ever attaining to that knowledge and holiness which God requires.
ADAM'S INTELLECTUAL NATURE
I see no reason for departing from the analogy of God's works on this point. His intellect was gradually developed, most likely, like any child's. The animal, or physical, first appears - then, gradually maturing, the intellect commences its development, with one idea or thought at a time. Up to the time Adam took the forbidden fruit he is, evidently, very imperfect in the development of intellect. But says one, "he must have been very wise and knowing, for he gave names to all the cattle, &c." What if he did - does that prove him a giant in knowledge? I know it is said, he gave them names descriptive of their natures, but I know, also, that such a position is a mere assumption without proof. Who can tell now what name Adam gave to one of the "living creatures?" And if they could, how can it be proved that that name is any more descriptive of its nature than any other? Parents now delight to try the intellect of their little children; and it not unfrequently happens that these children give some very odd names to some things, and their parents delighted with this effort to use intellect often adopt the name the child has given to an object; and for a time will use the odd name with much pleasure, because it proves to them an opening mind, and this gives them joy. This circumstance of Adam's giving names to beasts, &c., is but a sorry proof of his being such an anomaly in knowledge as our modern theology represents him to have been.
ADAM'S IGNORANCE
On the other hand his ignorance is notorious. He was too ignorant to know he was "naked;" for he was naked and was "not ashamed." Why was he not ashamed? You may say, "because he was innocent;" but, that was not all - he did not know he was naked; see Gen.3:7; he was ignorant, like children, who, to some years, have no more shame than Adam had, and for a similar reason - they have never been taught it; and their intellects are not enough developed to discover it. Further, Adam was so ignorant that he did not know the difference between good and evil. It is useless to say, he could not have known this without he had sinned; for God knew that difference, as is evident from his language, Gen.3:22, "the man has become AS one of US to know good and evil." This language is further proof that Adam had been too ignorant to discern between them, previously. But God had that knowledge without having sinned; and, at a proper time, doubtless, would have communicated it to man, had he been obedient and waited the gradual and progressive order established by his Creator; and thus would have attained that knowledge without the evil that attended his neglect to heed his Maker's instruction. Again - "Adam was a figure," or type, "of him that was to come;" see Rom.5:14, and compare with 1Corth.15:45. The Second Adam was the anti-type. Did the type come into the world with more knowledge than the anti-type? Jesus was a child - for a time helpless - without knowledge; for "the child Jesus grew - and increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man:" Luke 2:40,52. Shall we admit these things of Adam the second and deny them of Adam the first?
ADAM'S HOLINESS
As on Adam's knowledge the most extravagant notions have been assumed, so in regard to his holiness the most unbounded descriptions have been given of its extent, and how it pervaded his entire being, regulating all his faculties, members, and senses; so that he has been made to appear as the sum of all perfection, and a perfect giant in moral life and power. All this has been done, doubtless, thinking to honor God, and the better to show off what monsters in depravity Adam's posterity are. Such persons never seem to have once thought in what a ridiculous light their view places the Creator of Adam; and how perfectly irreconcilable such theory is with the easy victory temptation had over him. Did his Creator make him a giant in holiness, and then suppose there would be any temptation, in the midst of unbounded enjoyment, by simply directing him not to eat of a solitary tree? The idea is supremely absurd – thousands of his posterity have withstood and overcome temptations far greater than that by which Adam fell. Adam at creation had no moral character - he was neither holy nor unholy. There is not one word said of Adam's being holy at his creation. The same is said of him that is said of all the other works of God - he was "very good" - the same is said of "every thing God had made;" see Gen.1:31: but not one word is said of the holiness of any of them. Holiness is a relative quality, and presupposes action towards some other being, preceded by knowledge and understanding, based on choice. Without this there cannot be either holiness or unholiness in any created thing. I conceive that all the talk about Adam's holiness is "mere patch work" - designed to patch up the work of God, but has only shown the pride of men's hearts in desiring to "be as God." Adam was a "very good" animal, of the highest order - designed to be king, or to have dominion, over all the others; and possessed with those more perfect faculties which made him capable of developing a moral nature, or of manifesting moral actions, by certain appliances called a command, law, or prohibition. Without such command, law, or prohibition, there could have been no development of moral nature, or character; and an would have only remained the highest of animals, and like them remained very good, but without the character of holiness or unholiness, for the very sufficient reason, there was nothing to develop such a relative quality.
That Adam was a mere animal, at creation, is further evident from the account of creation; Gen.2:7 - "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground," &c.; and verse 19, "Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air," &c. These last the Lord caused to pass before Adam, to see what he would call them, at the time when he proposed to make Adam "a help meet," or a companion suitable for him: among none of them was such a help meet to be found. Adam was superior to them all, and designed to be their lord; Gen.1:26; yet, he had the same origin, i.e. from the dust of the ground, with such an organization as gave him faculties for higher developments, and capable of moral manifestations; or, capable of attaining unto holiness. "The first Adam was made a living soul;" 1Corth.15:45; not "an immortal soul" - that error lies at the root of all other corruptions of the Scriptures and the truth of God. The honor of making man an immortal being was reserved for the second Adam - he it is that is "made a quickening spirit," or through and by whom any man can attain to immortality; 1Corth.15:45-49.
Adam then was first developed, if I may use that phrase, an animal, with an aptitude to attain knowledge superior to any other animal; and herein was to consist the "image of God" in which he was created; as appears from Col.3:10 -" Renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:" not, renewed in knowledge after the image of Adam; but, after the image of Adam's Creator. Adam, himself, after being formed of the dust of the ground, needed and was designed to have this renewal [this renovo - to make new] in knowledge after the image of his Maker.
Adam therefore did not "lose the image of God," as the current theology teaches; and for which teaching there is not one word of authority from Genesis to Revelation; nor did he lose holiness, for he had none to lose prior to his trial; till then a moral character was not developed - till then he was very good, in common with the animals and other works of God, but was no more holy than the beasts of the field were holy: he could not therefore actually lose what he did not really possess. He did possess a capacity for holiness; that capacity he did not lose by his disobedience; but, it developed itself in a wrong direction - it now for the first time, became manifest that he possessed such a power - he now, for the first time, came to know the difference between good and evil - he knew not the one from the other previously; but now, said God, "the man is become as one of us to know good and evil" - has attained to a knowledge that exhibits the image of God: he has indeed attained to it by an improper course; but still he has attained it. But, says one, "Adam lost knowledge." So speaks the current theology; but, it is to give God the lie, and charge the God of truth with uttering a falsehood.
God declared he had gained knowledge. Who is this that blasphemeth his Maker by affirming the contrary? But, continues the objector. "It is evident that Adam lost knowledge, for he attempted to hide himself among the trees of the garden, which he would not have done if he had not lost the knowledge of God's omnipresence." This is another pure assumption. Where is the evidence that Adam ever had the knowledge of God's omnipresence? Or, that any such knowledge had ever been communicated to him? There is none - he seems to have regarded God as any child regards his father; and when he is conscious he has been doing wrong he is afraid to see his father, and strives to hide himself; just so Adam acted, and for the same reason - i.e. "shame."
That Adam was a mere animal, at creation, is further evident from the account of creation; Gen.2:7 - "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground," &c.; and verse 19, "Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air," &c. These last the Lord caused to pass before Adam, to see what he would call them, at the time when he proposed to make Adam "a help meet," or a companion suitable for him: among none of them was such a help meet to be found. Adam was superior to them all, and designed to be their lord; Gen.1:26; yet, he had the same origin, i.e. from the dust of the ground, with such an organization as gave him faculties for higher developments, and capable of moral manifestations; or, capable of attaining unto holiness. "The first Adam was made a living soul;" 1Corth.15:45; not "an immortal soul" - that error lies at the root of all other corruptions of the Scriptures and the truth of God. The honor of making man an immortal being was reserved for the second Adam - he it is that is "made a quickening spirit," or through and by whom any man can attain to immortality; 1Corth.15:45-49.
Adam then was first developed, if I may use that phrase, an animal, with an aptitude to attain knowledge superior to any other animal; and herein was to consist the "image of God" in which he was created; as appears from Col.3:10 -" Renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:" not, renewed in knowledge after the image of Adam; but, after the image of Adam's Creator. Adam, himself, after being formed of the dust of the ground, needed and was designed to have this renewal [this renovo - to make new] in knowledge after the image of his Maker.
Adam therefore did not "lose the image of God," as the current theology teaches; and for which teaching there is not one word of authority from Genesis to Revelation; nor did he lose holiness, for he had none to lose prior to his trial; till then a moral character was not developed - till then he was very good, in common with the animals and other works of God, but was no more holy than the beasts of the field were holy: he could not therefore actually lose what he did not really possess. He did possess a capacity for holiness; that capacity he did not lose by his disobedience; but, it developed itself in a wrong direction - it now for the first time, became manifest that he possessed such a power - he now, for the first time, came to know the difference between good and evil - he knew not the one from the other previously; but now, said God, "the man is become as one of us to know good and evil" - has attained to a knowledge that exhibits the image of God: he has indeed attained to it by an improper course; but still he has attained it. But, says one, "Adam lost knowledge." So speaks the current theology; but, it is to give God the lie, and charge the God of truth with uttering a falsehood.
God declared he had gained knowledge. Who is this that blasphemeth his Maker by affirming the contrary? But, continues the objector. "It is evident that Adam lost knowledge, for he attempted to hide himself among the trees of the garden, which he would not have done if he had not lost the knowledge of God's omnipresence." This is another pure assumption. Where is the evidence that Adam ever had the knowledge of God's omnipresence? Or, that any such knowledge had ever been communicated to him? There is none - he seems to have regarded God as any child regards his father; and when he is conscious he has been doing wrong he is afraid to see his father, and strives to hide himself; just so Adam acted, and for the same reason - i.e. "shame."
ADAM'S TEMPTATION
Many people murmur and complain about Adam's Temptation; they seem at a loss to know which to blame most, Adam or his Maker. They might as well complain that we had not all been left to grovel in the region of the animal appetites, with no capacity for higher and God-like attainments. I have already shown that to develop moral qualities, or to bring out holiness - which is but another word for self-government - there must be trial of some sort. God adapted the trial to Adam's weakness and IGNORANCE - He gave him the least possible trial that could have been used to develop a moral character at all, or to test man as to his capacity of self-government. If he could not govern himself, he could not govern the creation at the head of which his Maker designed to place him, in dominion. I say, the prohibition out of which the trial was to grow, and which proved the occasion of his temptation, was the very least it could be. Look at it - Man's intellectual nature was not yet developed. His Maker therefore adapted his enjoyments to his present capacity – or animal nature - by causing "every tree to grow out of the ground that is pleasant to the sight and good for food," &c. In the delightful garden in Eden he placed man, with full and unrestrained liberty to regale and enjoy himself to the utmost extent of his present capacity, with but one solitary restriction. How very trifling this. There was no want of means for enjoyment. The restriction was designed for his advantage, by leading him to develop and form a moral character, and learn self-government, which would open up a new, more noble, and God-like source of happiness and enjoyment. In this view the restriction was one of love and good will. If man's capacity for a moral nature could be developed, and a character of holiness established by this easy test or trial, God determined it should be; but if that failed to bring out a holy moral character He determined to place the race under a course of discipline more severe, i.e., one of labor in sorrow, and death: and at the same time, to the favor already bestowed upon man, to add a "much more abundant" supply of aid to attain unto holiness, through the blessings to be bestowed in another dispensation, to be immediately opened for Adam's posterity if man failed in the present trial. "Oh, the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God," and also of his goodness and love to man!
Here I stop to ask - How is it possible that character can be known or developed without trial in some form? For example - How can it be known that a man is a temperance man, and able to govern himself in reference to inebriating drink, if he has never had a trial? To try him, would you put that drink under bars and bolts that it was impossible for him to break? If such a course could be called a trial, you might try him fifty years, and both he and yourself would be just as ignorant at the end of that period as at its commencement as to his capacity for self-government; and he, on that point, would not be a particle more holy than the first day of that period. To bring out and fix a moral character, in that respect, he must have access to the liquor; but you, as a benevolent man, if he was ignorant of the fact, would warn him that if he did indulge his taste to any extent, intoxication and shame would follow. Thus situated, denying himself, or practising self-government, would be a virtue, and he would, by every victory over the temptation, have a new consciousness that he was capable of governing himself, and a renewed evidence of the exalted character of manhood, and thus be led to a higher and more holy estimate of the excellency and glory of that Being who had created him with such powers, or capacities. If in the supposed case the person should fail of self-government, and partake the inebriating liquor, the intoxication and consequent shame that follows his failure are a mercy; because calculated to arouse him to an effort to gain a temperance character, the importance of which he may now see more than before.
Apply this illustration to the case of Adam. A moral character, holiness, or self-government could not have existed, in fact, without trial; and that would have been no trial which had placed it out of his power to act wrong. The least trial that could be employed was first used, with the information beforehand that if that failed to produce a holy moral character, man would be subjected to a much more severe trial, i.e., "dying to die" - implying sorrow, suffering, and labor, to wind up in "DEATH."
Here I stop to ask - How is it possible that character can be known or developed without trial in some form? For example - How can it be known that a man is a temperance man, and able to govern himself in reference to inebriating drink, if he has never had a trial? To try him, would you put that drink under bars and bolts that it was impossible for him to break? If such a course could be called a trial, you might try him fifty years, and both he and yourself would be just as ignorant at the end of that period as at its commencement as to his capacity for self-government; and he, on that point, would not be a particle more holy than the first day of that period. To bring out and fix a moral character, in that respect, he must have access to the liquor; but you, as a benevolent man, if he was ignorant of the fact, would warn him that if he did indulge his taste to any extent, intoxication and shame would follow. Thus situated, denying himself, or practising self-government, would be a virtue, and he would, by every victory over the temptation, have a new consciousness that he was capable of governing himself, and a renewed evidence of the exalted character of manhood, and thus be led to a higher and more holy estimate of the excellency and glory of that Being who had created him with such powers, or capacities. If in the supposed case the person should fail of self-government, and partake the inebriating liquor, the intoxication and consequent shame that follows his failure are a mercy; because calculated to arouse him to an effort to gain a temperance character, the importance of which he may now see more than before.
Apply this illustration to the case of Adam. A moral character, holiness, or self-government could not have existed, in fact, without trial; and that would have been no trial which had placed it out of his power to act wrong. The least trial that could be employed was first used, with the information beforehand that if that failed to produce a holy moral character, man would be subjected to a much more severe trial, i.e., "dying to die" - implying sorrow, suffering, and labor, to wind up in "DEATH."
ADAM'S FAILURE
Adam failed to bring out a holy character in his trial. That is no proof of any defect in his constitution, or creation; or of any moral depravity previous to that time; nor did that "ruin" his posterity, as the self-styled orthodoxy affirms; nor, bring "the wrath of God" upon them. True, they were "subjected to vanity, [or, suffering and death,] not willingly, but by reason [or, in the wisdom] of him who hath subjected the same in hope," and in promise of deliverance from that death by a second Adam, the seed of the woman. All the acts of God towards Adam, after his sin, manifest mercy, not wrath. He told them, indeed, that they must now be subjected to sorrow, labor and death; but at the same time spoke to them words of encouragement and hope for their seed, or posterity. He also provided for their clothing, and guarded them against inflicting upon themselves the curse of immortality in sin, by removing them away from the tree of life; which, instead of being a curse, was a blessing; that they might not by any possible means inflict upon themselves an immortality in sin and suffering. Thus the notion that Adam died a moral death is proved to be a mere outburst of a distempered imagination: he never had moral life before he sinned: he had only animal life: the death to which he was subjected was only animal. God in wisdom, and for man's good, put the race under a severer discipline, as parents often do their children, and that in love and the most tender pity and good will. How is God - the God of love – often dishonored by the representations of his dealings with our first parents and their posterity because of their failure. No wonder men are made infidels by such blasphemous insinuations - no wonder men bewilder themselves, and are lost in the fancies which grow out of their absurd and contradictory theories.
The most blasphemous part of all is, that the God of Truth and Love is represented as causing Adam's posterity to inherit a morally depraved nature, "whereby they are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and that continually:" - Assembly's Catechism. When will such reproach of God our Maker have an end? "Oh, let the wickedness of the wicked come to an end;" - Psalmist. What has the doctrine of man's natural immortality done? Blasphemed God - both deified and devilized man - exalted Satan - reviled the Bible - fed infidelity - nourished and brought up Universalism - robbed Christ - filled the world with hate and hypocrites. This it has done -" ignorantly, in unbelief," I hope. Let men learn to call their sins their own, and acknowledge the long suffering and love of God, till they shall both hate their sins and abandon them, from a deep conviction of the amazing wrong they have done to God by living contrary to that course his love and kindness has marked out for us, that we might attain "unto holiness, and that the end might be everlasting life, through Jesus Christ," the Son of God, and our Life-Giver.
There is, in my judgment, not a particle of evidence, in the Bible, that Adam lost anything for his posterity except access to the tree of life; and hence entailed upon us corruption and death. Doctors of Divinity have puzzled their own brains, and those of students in theology, with labored efforts to find out what infants need to have done for them, and how God does it, to fit them for heaven. Long and labored arguments and inquiries have been entered into about the depravity of infants - how they are justified - how they are made holy - and whether all of them go to heaven, or a part to hell, &c. &c. The whole of these discussions have only served to make darkness darker. The truth, I conceive, is very simple, and that, perhaps, is the reason why great men overlook it. It is simply this - Adam lost all claim to immortality – and therefore could not communicate it to his posterity, any more than an impoverished parent could communicate riches to his children; the consequence is, all his posterity are born, not liable to eternal sin and suffering, but liable to perish, to lose all life, sense and being; and what they need, previous to personal sins, is simply salvation from perishing, or they need immortality, eternal life. Christ came to redeem man from death, or that loss of being to which he was exposed, and open eternal life to all; or, he "abolished death and brought life and immortality to light." But that eternal life is the gift of God, through Jesus Christ. Under the Gospel we are required to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, as he that "came down from heaven" to give "life unto the world." This is the great test question; because he that truly receives Christ, receives all the other truths connected with his mission to earth; and he manifests that faith by obedience; so that a true faith is as certainly known by the conduct and conversation, as a living man is known from a dead carcass. And for a man to pretend that he has faith in Christ, while he does not walk in obedience to all the known commands of God, is as absurd as to say, that a sick man has faith in a physician whom he refuses to employ, and whose directions he will not follow.
I conceive, all the "evil nature," about which there has been so much discussion in the world, that man inherits, from Adam, is a dying nature; the entire man perishing. By Adam "all were dead;" i.e., the natural tendency of all born of him was to perish, in the sense of ceasing to be. - Christ died for all, "that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life." Adults then pass from death, i.e., from condemnation to death, unto life, through or by faith in Christ - and thus are said to be born again. That which is born of the flesh, is flesh - corruptible, like him from whom it sprung; so, that which is begotten of the Spirit, of the spiritual, living Adam, Christ, is spirit; is endowed with that Spirit which will raise them up from the dead, or "quicken their mortal bodies," or, hath eternal life; according to the Scripture which saith, "he that hath the Son hath life," whilst "he that hath not the Son hath not life."
If I mistake not, then, the true state of the case is this. - All the offspring of Adam, are destitute of immortality; God has given His Son Jesus Christ to die for us, that we might not perish, except by our own fault. He sets "life and death before men," and calls upon them to "choose life," that they "may live;" - if they will not come to Christ they perish under an insupportable load of guilt and shame, for having preferred animal pleasures - which, when they are the supreme pursuit, are the pleasures of sin - to Life Eternal. Shall any of us be guilty of such folly and madness? Come to the LIFE-GIVER, - lay hold on ETERNAL LIFE.
The most blasphemous part of all is, that the God of Truth and Love is represented as causing Adam's posterity to inherit a morally depraved nature, "whereby they are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and that continually:" - Assembly's Catechism. When will such reproach of God our Maker have an end? "Oh, let the wickedness of the wicked come to an end;" - Psalmist. What has the doctrine of man's natural immortality done? Blasphemed God - both deified and devilized man - exalted Satan - reviled the Bible - fed infidelity - nourished and brought up Universalism - robbed Christ - filled the world with hate and hypocrites. This it has done -" ignorantly, in unbelief," I hope. Let men learn to call their sins their own, and acknowledge the long suffering and love of God, till they shall both hate their sins and abandon them, from a deep conviction of the amazing wrong they have done to God by living contrary to that course his love and kindness has marked out for us, that we might attain "unto holiness, and that the end might be everlasting life, through Jesus Christ," the Son of God, and our Life-Giver.
There is, in my judgment, not a particle of evidence, in the Bible, that Adam lost anything for his posterity except access to the tree of life; and hence entailed upon us corruption and death. Doctors of Divinity have puzzled their own brains, and those of students in theology, with labored efforts to find out what infants need to have done for them, and how God does it, to fit them for heaven. Long and labored arguments and inquiries have been entered into about the depravity of infants - how they are justified - how they are made holy - and whether all of them go to heaven, or a part to hell, &c. &c. The whole of these discussions have only served to make darkness darker. The truth, I conceive, is very simple, and that, perhaps, is the reason why great men overlook it. It is simply this - Adam lost all claim to immortality – and therefore could not communicate it to his posterity, any more than an impoverished parent could communicate riches to his children; the consequence is, all his posterity are born, not liable to eternal sin and suffering, but liable to perish, to lose all life, sense and being; and what they need, previous to personal sins, is simply salvation from perishing, or they need immortality, eternal life. Christ came to redeem man from death, or that loss of being to which he was exposed, and open eternal life to all; or, he "abolished death and brought life and immortality to light." But that eternal life is the gift of God, through Jesus Christ. Under the Gospel we are required to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, as he that "came down from heaven" to give "life unto the world." This is the great test question; because he that truly receives Christ, receives all the other truths connected with his mission to earth; and he manifests that faith by obedience; so that a true faith is as certainly known by the conduct and conversation, as a living man is known from a dead carcass. And for a man to pretend that he has faith in Christ, while he does not walk in obedience to all the known commands of God, is as absurd as to say, that a sick man has faith in a physician whom he refuses to employ, and whose directions he will not follow.
I conceive, all the "evil nature," about which there has been so much discussion in the world, that man inherits, from Adam, is a dying nature; the entire man perishing. By Adam "all were dead;" i.e., the natural tendency of all born of him was to perish, in the sense of ceasing to be. - Christ died for all, "that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life." Adults then pass from death, i.e., from condemnation to death, unto life, through or by faith in Christ - and thus are said to be born again. That which is born of the flesh, is flesh - corruptible, like him from whom it sprung; so, that which is begotten of the Spirit, of the spiritual, living Adam, Christ, is spirit; is endowed with that Spirit which will raise them up from the dead, or "quicken their mortal bodies," or, hath eternal life; according to the Scripture which saith, "he that hath the Son hath life," whilst "he that hath not the Son hath not life."
If I mistake not, then, the true state of the case is this. - All the offspring of Adam, are destitute of immortality; God has given His Son Jesus Christ to die for us, that we might not perish, except by our own fault. He sets "life and death before men," and calls upon them to "choose life," that they "may live;" - if they will not come to Christ they perish under an insupportable load of guilt and shame, for having preferred animal pleasures - which, when they are the supreme pursuit, are the pleasures of sin - to Life Eternal. Shall any of us be guilty of such folly and madness? Come to the LIFE-GIVER, - lay hold on ETERNAL LIFE.
