ed for their sins, and their rejection of him and his gospel.

Thus we see that this passage can be reconciled, and in fact, that its connexion and all other circumstances, require it should be reconciled with the obvious meaning of the other expressions quoted from the language of our Saviour and the apostle. But can those other expressions be reconciled with the meaning usually attached to the one we have considered! We think not; and the reason why they cannot is found in the connexion in which they stand. It will be recollected that the words of Christ, which have been cited to prove the condition of man in the resurrection, were spoken in answer to a question proposed by the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection; and in stating their question to Jesus, they mention persons who are literally dead; nothing therefore, but a literal resurrection from the dead can be implied from this question and the answer given it by Christ. Paul, in the connexion of the words quoted from him, was also writing of those who were literally dead; and he shows shat unless the dead rise,the whole gospel plan is vain; & those who have fallen asleep, i. e. who have died a natural death are perished, or dead forever. In short all the ingenuity of man, will not be sufficient to show that these passages do, or can relate to a figurative or moral resurrection.

Here then we rest. On this eternal rock we ground our faith, in the fullest confidence that the "foundation of God standeth sure.' And we feel the strongest assurance, that, as God has been pleased to reveal the doctrine of the resurrection of all who die in Adam, to a state of incorruption, immortality, and glory; and as he has illustrated this truth by raising Jesus Christ, the head of every man from the dead, he has not revealed, in any part of the scriptures of truth, any principle of doctrine contrary to this.

SERMON.No. 4

THE DOCTRINE UNPROFITABLE.

HEB. XIII. 9.-"Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines; for it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been exercised therein."

Man, in his best earthly estate, is a frail, imperfect creature. Liable to accidents, exposed to dangers, and subjected to the changes and vicissitudes of this unstable world, while he finds much, if rightly improved, to promote his happiness, he also meets with many circumstances which are calculated to interrupt, if not to destroy the happiness of life. Such is the constitution of our natures, and such the principles implanted within us by the God of nature, that we naturally and necessarily embrace, and cleave to, whatever we think will give us happiness; and ɛ. naturally shun every thing which we believe will have a contrary tendency. Human happiness consists, not only in exemption from positive evil, and the enjoyment of present real good, but also, in the anticipation of future, and greater good; and we fondly cherish all those principles which hold out to us the promise, or encourage within us the hope of future blessings.

Of all the principles which tend to inspire us with hopes of future happiness, there are none on which so great reliance is placed as those of religion. Religion alone, "points out an hereaf ter, and intimates eternity to man;" and hence,

F

Some

in some form or other, it is embraced and cherished by all the nations of the earth. As the principles of doctrine which are supposed to constitute religion, even the Christian religion, are various, and in many instances contradictory, so also the grounds on which they are embraced by different individuals are very different. continue through life to cherish the principles instilled into their minds in childhood and youth, without ever allowing themselves to doubt their truth, or examine the evidence on which they are founded. Others, in maturer years, embrace that form of faith which is most popular in the region where they live, and which they imagine best calculated to promote their respectability in life; and these seldom trouble themselves to ascertain whether their doctrine is true or false, so long as it answers their purpose, by promoting their popularity in the world. There are others,

and we hope the number not small, who adopt a particular system of faith from a full and firm conviction of its truth; and in such we generally discover the influence of their religion on their lives and conduct. There is still another class, who appear to have embraced a particular system, and who continue to adhere to it from a conviction, not of its truth, but of its necessity to their future and eternal welfare. This is particularly the case in relation to the doctrine of endless condemnation and woe; and there are many who believe, or profess to believe, that, however firm may be the faith of a person in God and Christ, however he may exercise love to them and his fellow men, and however he may trust in God for his eternal salvation, if he have not a belief that he will render some portion of his children eternally wretched, his faith and hope are entirely vain, and he is not entitled to the ap

pellation or character of a Christian. Indeed, many appear to think, that without a belief in this sentiment, there can be neither fear nor love to God, or the least degree of true piety in the heart. Hence we frequently hear the assertion, that it is safer to believe in endless punishment, than in universal holiness and happiness.

We are not authorized to condemn any one on account of his religious sentiments; and we ought not to indulge in feelings of hardness towards any on account of a difference of opinion on this subject; especially such as are evidently honest and sincere in their belief. But we must be permitted to examine for ourselves, and bring every principle of doctrine to the test of scripture and reason; and it is our duty to regard the a postolic injunction, to "prove all things; hold fast that which is good.' The doctrine of endless punishment, which has so long and generally prevailed in the Christian world, has already, as is conceived, been shown to be contrary to reason, opposed to all the acknowledged attributes and perfections of God, and unsupported by scripture. What now remains, in relation to this doctrine, is to show, that it is unnecessary, and entirely useless; and that neither the doctrine, nor a belief in it is calculated to benefit any being in the universe.

In order that we may investigate the subject understandingly, we will consider more fully than has yet been done the nature and design of punishment. Punishment is the infliction of pain, either corporeal or mental, for some criminal act, or neglect of duty; and intended for the production of some good as its consequence; otherwise the infliction of it is cruelty, barbarity, or revenge. In the infliction of punishment by human governments, the object is fourfold. L

The reformation of the offender, or person receiving the punishment. 2. To put it out of the power of the offender to be guilty of a repetition of his crime. 3. To serve as an example or warning to others. 4. For the security of the government. As the latter of these objects is incidental to human governments in consequence of their imperfection and weakness, and as it cannot apply to the divine government in which no such imperfection or weakness exists, no further remarks on this particular can be necessary; we may therefore confine our inquiries to the three first mentioned objects of punishment; and it will be our object to ascertain, if possible, wheth er either of these requires the infliction of interminable torment.

1. We will consider endless punishment with reference to the reformation of the offender, or individual doomed to endure this punishment.That this is the first, the great and the leading object of all punishment, whether inflicted by human or divine authority, is a proposition too obviously true to be denied; and it has been shown in a former discourse, that whenever, on this ground, the good of any individual required the infliction of punishment, the mercy, as well as the justice of God, would inflict it. The question then arises, does the reformation, and consequent good of the sinner require that he should be punished eternally? or, ishment effect his reformation? tions can be answered in the we shall be able to discover God in the infliction of endless torment, even to those who are its subjects. But where is the person so blind as not to discover at once the impropriety and absurdity of this supposition? In fact, the only ground on which inter

will this punIf these quesaffirmative, then the goodness of