to express merely a limited duration. That the Greek word, answering to this, is once used used by the writer of the New Testament in this limited sense, is far from being certain, though it is not improbable.

In addition to this let it be considered, that in the very same sentence, in which the future life of the righteous is said to be eternal, the punishment, of the wicked is asserted to be eternal. These shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal. That in the latter part of the sentence, the word auarios signifies duration without end, cannot be questioned: tnat it should mean less in the the former, especially considering the common import of the term, is by no means credible.

It will readily occur to you, that unless the scriptures prove the eternity of future punishment, they do not prove the eternity of future rewards, nor even the eternal exist ence of the soul. And, if the pains of reprobates will have an end, so, for ought, which appears, may the happiness of the righteous.

But the arguments, drawn from the words is alavas and alovios, however cogent, are far from being the only ones, which support the doctrine in question; which doc trine might have been proved from scripture, even if these terms had never been used. Consider the following pas sage, recorded in the 9th chapter of Mark. "If thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet, to be cast into hell, into the fire, that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." It is difficult to conceive, whence language more powerful and more determinate, could be obtained. That the fire in which the wicked shall suffer, is not quenched, our Saviour has asserted no less, than five times, within the compass of a few verses. It has, I well know, been replied, that allowing the fire to be unquenchable, and the worm immortal, it does not hence fol low, that the wicked will be eternally tormented by the one or the other. This answer is too trifling to give satisfaction.

For what imaginable reason should our Saviour speak so explicitly and so repeatedly of the perpetuity of the fire, unless it were to be the perpetual instrument of punishment to the sinner? Its duration is mentioned by our Saviour, as a weighty motive to deter from crimes. But of what importance is it to the wicked, whether the fire, from which they are delivered be extinguished, or maintained?

Concerning those, in the invisible world, it is said, "Let him, who is unjust, be unjust stiil, and let him, who is filthy, be filthy still."What is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?-To the wicked God says, "I will laugh at your calamity and mock, when your fear cometh. When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction as a whirlwind."-It is said of the wicked, that they "shall be destroyed without remedy:" and repeatedly, that their "hopes shall perish."

Further, our Saviour said concerning Judas, " It had been good for that man, if he had not been born." As an argument against the final salvation of all men, this passage is conclusive. For, if salvation is universal, Judas is not excluded. But if Judas partakes of salvation, his existence is inexpressibly valuable. Suppose him to endure as great sufferings as you please, yet being limited, they bear no proportion to the glory, which is to follow. His existence on the whole, would therefore, be to him, immeasurably advantageous.

It would be easy to accumulate passages of scripture, similar, in their import, to those which have been adduced. It is believed, however, that the evidence already exhibited is sufficient to prove, that the punishment of the wicked has no end. But to prove a doctrine, is one thing: to make men feel and live, as if it were true, is another. The latter, in regard to the doctrine, now discussed, is far the more difficult. By persons, who entertain a holy confidence in the government of God, the subject may, perhaps, be contemplated without agitation, though not without the

In view of this painting, so vivid and so terrific, you perhaps exclaim, the doctrine must be false. Then I will make but one request: it is, that you would abandon every immorality, all profane language, all contempt of the Lord's day, all dissipation; and exhibit the feelings of rational be ings and christians, till you can prove the doctrine false, or even incredible. Do this, and I am silent forever.

LECTURE XXIV.

10001

Resurrection.

THOUGH in contemplating human mortality our first anx iety is naturally, and with good reason, directed to the intellectual part of our natures, it is impossible to avoid all anticipation of that change, which death produces in the human body. As the body has been our constant companion from the first moment of our being until the present time; as it has been the medium, through which many pains and many pleasures have been communicated; as its preservation has engrossed so considerable a portion of our thoughts; it is by no means surprising, that a kind of dread is excited, at looking forward to the time, when all its functions shall cease, when its parts shall be separated, and when it shall be concealed in the earth, to prevent it from being either injurious or offensive to the living.

Though, without revelation, it would not occur to man, that his body would be re-organized and revived, the thought, whenever suggested, could scarcely fail of meeting the most cordial welcome. The desire of existence is universal

And, though this desire is peculiarly strong in relation to the soul, it extends with no inconsiderable power to the body. Our present attention will be directed to that doctrine, which teaches the resurrection of the dead.

Though the Stoics believed, that certain revolving periods would produce successive renovations in the system of the universe, it does not appear, that any tenet, similar to the christian doctrine of a resurrection was believed, or even known, among the pagan philosophers. However congenial this doctrine is to the native feelings of man, the opinion, which some of these philosophers entertained as to the inherent malignity of matter, and its influence in contaminating the soul, would have led them to view an eternal separation from it, as a thing more desirable, than a permanent reunion. When certain Epicureans and Stoics at Athens heard St. Paul discourse of Jesus and the resurrection, they treated him contemptuously: observing that he seemed to be a proclaimer of foreign deities; not undestanding, as it is believed by very learned commentators, the term, which is translated resurrection; but conceiving that avaotaois, as well as Inoous, was represented by St. Paul, as an object of worship.

The doctrine of a resurrection was not expressly taught to the Jews by their inspired lawgiver.

There is but one passage of scripture, I suppose, which will be thought to militate with this remark. It is found in the 22d ch. of Matthew. On a certain occasion, the Sadducees, who denied not only the resurrection, but the existence of angels and spirits, came to our Saviour with design. to perplex him, by asking, to whom would belong, in the resurrection, the woman, who had been wife to seven brethren. Jesus, having first answered, that in the resurrection there is neither marrying, nor giving in marriage, adds, "But, as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living?"

As our Saviour's interpretations of scripture are infallible, and as he here refers to a passage in the writing of Moses, in proof of the resurrection, it may be objected, that one pas sage, at least, in these writings, teaches this doctrine.

The assertion which we have made, you will observe, is only, that this doctrine was not by Moses expressly taught. That it was taught by implication, I neither affirm nor deny. Let any one revolve in his mind these words, "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," and he will, I apprehend, hardly profess himself able to discern, how they directly prove, that the dead will be raised. At the time, when the words were uttered, the bodies of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were dead; no language, therefore, could be designed to prove them alive.

The Sadducees, it has been observed, denied the future existence of the soul; and this was probably their principal reason for denying the resurrection. Our Lord, it seems, aimed to prove the former of these, in order, that he might remove their objections against the latter. God called himself, says he, in the time of Moses, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob. But he would not call himself the God of any not living. Therefore, these patriarchs were then living. Now, though this conclusion, could be applied only to the soul; yet, as the Sadduces denied the future existence of the soul, to prove such existence was much to his purpose. If there had been any other passage in the books of Moses, more directly proving the resurrection of the body, this, it may fairly be presumed, would not have been cited: and, if there be none, it will hardly be pretended, I think, that the doctrine is expressly taught in these books. In our Saviour's time, however, the resurrection of the body was believed by many among the Jews. This opinion was held, it appears, by the sect of the Pharisees. For, when it is said, of the Sadducees, that they deny the resurrection, and the existence of angels and spirits, it is added, "But the Pharisees confess both." And when Jesus said to Martha,