that you know NOTHING of a future state, but are TOTALLY ignorant of it. Now it is not a little surprising that a person who is so completely, so totally ignorant of a future state, should be so intimately acquainted with immortality, as to know, that it necessarily excludes all suffering. When your system requires it, you know nothing at all about a future world! But no sooner is the case altered so as to require more knowledge, than your former ignorance is entirely forgotten, and all at once you are so well acquainted with a future world, and the texture of immortality, that you know that immortal beings can experience no suffering! But where do you obtain your knowledge, that immortality cannot suffer? No where. You say yourself, "For aught we know for certainty, sin may exist in a future state, and may then be purged by the power of divine goodness, and yet we may now be enabled to prove this to be the case!"'* In this passage you confess that you know not, but that men may suffer condemnation for sin in a future state. Nay, you confess that this may be the case, though we are unable to prove it.

Now after these numerous concessions, with what propriety can you assert that immortality excludes misey? You lay it down with all the force of an axiom, that immortality cannot suffer; and still you admit that the soul of man is immortal in this world, and experiences a great degree of suffering! In fact you urge this as an argument to prove that men will not be punished after death. Since men suffer so much mental agony in this state, you think, it would be unjust to punish them beyond the grave! Now this is giving up the whole force of the argument. For if the immortal soul suffers in this world, with what consistency can you assert, or even suggest, that immortality cannot suffer? The soul you acknowledge is immortal here,t

* U. Mag, vol. III. p. 186, † See Atonement, pp. 32, 33.

and of course, it can be no more than immortal in a future world. And if it suffers here, it may suffer there; at least immortality will not prevent it. Now if your sentiment, that the immortal soul suffers here be true, then your statement, that immortality cannot suffer, must be false. But if the latter be true, then the former must be false. But as you constantly admit, and as your system requires that you should admit, that the soul is immortal in this state, and does experience misery, it follows of course, that your position, that immortality cannot suffer, must be false.

But perhaps you will say, that in the present world the soul is united with a sinful body, and this occasions the suffering which the soul feels; but in a future state, the soul will be delivered from this corrupt body, and consequently will be exempt from all misery or pain.— This is giving up the whole position at once. It is saying, that immortality does suffer in this world, and might suffer in the next, were it not separated from corruption or sin. This then is resting your system of immediate happiness, not upon the supposed fact, that immortality cannot suffer, but upon the circumstance, that men will then be free from sin. This is giving up the ground on which your argument is based. But no doubt you wish to inquire, whether the apostle does not declare that men shall be raised incorruptible, as well as immortal. We answer yes--he says this of certain characters. But this again is deviating from the point. By referring to this scripture, you seem to admit that it is not from the simple fact, that men will be raised immortal, but from something else, that you would infer their happiness. The passage to which you refer shall be attended to in its proper place; but this is not its proper place. The simple inquiry before us is, whether immortality excludes all suffering.

On the subject of immortality, I conceive that many

may be either virtuous or We cannot prove that God fact that he is immortal.

people essentially err. The word immortality, simply denotes an exemption from death, or an endless life. This term has reference only to the endless continuance of existence. It has no reference to the character of the being, or to his situation, relative to happiness or misery. An immortal being vicious, happy or miserable. is good or happy, from the The soul you acknowledge is immortal here, and still you confess that it is sinful and unhappy. In a certain sense, every man is immortal in this world. He has an immortal soul. He may be immortal in another sense. You, Sir, contend that all things take place by divine appointment, or in other words, are as God predetermined they should be; and consequently they could not have been otherwise.* Now Adam, for instance, lived nine hundred years. And according to your views, it was the purpose of God that he should live to that advanced age; and it being the purpose of God that he should live thus long, it was impossible that he should have died before. During that period then, he was immortal. He was not subject to death; it being as impossible for him to die, as it is for the purpose of God to fail. Now if the life of Adam had been protracted to ten thousand, or ten million of years, that would not have altered the principle. Or, if the Deity had been pleased to have continued him in being to eternity, the nature of his existence would have been the same. The nature of his existence would not have been changed, if his life had been continued from period to period, and even to eternity. If we live for a limited period, we live not only by divine permission, but by divine support. If we live only for a limited period, we are upheld by God, and that continually. This is a truth you will readily acknowledge. Now if our lives are continued to eternity,

* Atonement, pp. 37-40.

this cannot alter the principle in the least. For surely, if we cannot live for a limited period without being constantly upheld by God, we cannot expect to live through eternity, independent of his support. St. Paul in a connexion where he was treating of a future, as well as the present life, says, "In him we live, and move, and have our being."

But you seem to speak of immortality, as though it were a certain substance, which if once given to men, they would always possess; or in other words, as though the Deity in a future state would give man a constitution, which would continue itself in being to eternity, without the upholding or supporting hand of God.-This notion, I conceive, is contrary both to scripture and reason. The sacred writers plainly teach us that our present and future existence depends constantly upon God. Our Savior when teaching a future life, says to his disciples, "Because I live, ye shall live also." This passage teaches us that we shall live in a future state by the constant support of Christ, as agent of the Father. The saints shall live, because Christ lives. But if the constitution given us in a future state, be immortal from its very nature, so as to require no support from God, or his Son Jesus Christ, there can be no propriety in the declaration of our Lord; for on your view of the subject, if men are once raised to a future life, they would live to eternity, though Christ should not. Our Lord confirms this interpretation, in the same connexion, by saying, "I am the vine, and ye are the branches." Branches, we all know, are constantly dependent upon the vine. The branches live, not because the vine gives them an existence which will continue them in being without support from the vine, but because the vine constantly nourishes and supports them. Without this support from the vine, the branches will soon perish. The branches live by

*Acts, xvii. 28.

+ John, xiv. 19.

John, xv. 5.

being constantly supported by the vine. This is a just representation of our future life. It is a representation given by our Savior himself. Our future life will be endless, not because God will give us a constitution which will necessarily continue us in being to eternity, and render us independent of the divine Being, but because the Deity will be pleased by the constant exercise of his power, to continue our lives to endless ages.

1

This is the view of immortality which the scriptures hold forth, and this view is consonant with reason and philosophy. It would be absurd to suppose, that at the resurrection, God will give his creatures a nature, which will render them independent of him to eternity. It is a false philosophy which teaches us that God put all things in motion, and gave them such powers as render them independent of himself for ever. It is unnatural to suppose that, when every thing else is active, the Deity has nothing to perform, and is only an idle spectator of the scene. "It has been the opinion of many of the wisest and best philosophers," says a learned writer, "that the laws of nature are not only the appointment, but the actual agency and immediate energy of the divine Being himself, exerting itself according to certain stated rules which infinite wisdom has prescribed." The same writer quotes the immortal Newton, together with Drs. Price and Priestley, to substantiate this principle.* These distinguished philosophers unitedly contend, that every cause and every effect depend upon the immediate and constant exercise of the power and mercy of the divine Being.

Thus we see that the common sense and the most learned philosophy of man concur with the scriptures, in teaching us, that every cause and effect depend upon the constant exercise of the power and energy of God.

* See Belsham's Evidences of Revealed Religion, pp. 18, 19. See also Farmer on Miracles.