THE SECOND DEATH by Jabez C. Chadwick, A. M.

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 13, 1859

THE SECOND DEATH.

By Jabez C. Chadwick, A. M.

The following sermon on the Second Death is from the pen of Jabez C. Chadwick, A. M., an elder of the Christian denomination. A brother has placed it in our hands in pamphlet form, dated Ithaca, N. Y., 1855. Thinking it will be of interest to our readers as a clear and concise presentation of the teaching of the Bible on the destiny of the wicked, we have concluded to insert it in the REVIEW. In his preface the author says:

"To prevent misunderstanding, it is proper to state, that the ensuing sermon on the second death, is not offered to the public as the sentiment generally embraced by the Christian connection. For it is conceded that probably the greater part hold to the doctrine of endless misery. A very considerable portion, however, of the connection believe in the final and absolute destruction of the wicked, so that their consciousness will utterly and forever cease. And it is confidently claimed that the advocates of this theory are not inferior to their brethren of the opposite opinion, either in talents, piety or usefulness. Moreover, the history of the Christians shows that from their first rise, as a distinct denomination, both of these views have been adopted and published, with the express understanding that there should be a mutual toleration."

THE SERMON.

"On such the second death hath no power." Rev. xx, 6.

The second death!—what is it? Is it endless misery—a death which never dies, as it is frequently called? Or is it a final abolishment, produced by the just and omnipotent wrath of God poured out without mixture upon the ungodly? This is a question of unspeakable importance. I do not say it is indispensable to salvation to believe the one or the other of these theories. Nevertheless, the honor of God, the cause of truth, and the enlightenment and well-being of mankind must be deeply involved in its solution.

Passing over but lightly, for the want of room, and for its comparative unimportance, the nature of the intermediate state, as it is commonly termed, I shall treat particularly and definitely of the final end of the wicked, here called the second death; and shall undertake to prove that it will not consist in endless positive misery, but in limited sufferings terminating in the utter and irreversible destruction both of soul and body.

The all-important point at issue, is the ultimate doom of the wicked. Is the doctrine of endless misery implied in the second death? Has God threatened to consign such as believe not, to endless torture? Is this "the terror of the Lord," which being known by Paul and others in the primitive age, led them to persuade men? Is this the counterpart to the assurance given that "he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved"—a doctrine to be preached in all the world to every creature? Is the preacher to stand up in his pulpit, and proclaim the awful and spirit-withering fact, that infinite wretchedness is due for finite guilt, (for surely it can be no other,) and that the damned, after suffering millions and millions of years, will be no nearer the end of their wo, than at the moment of its commencement? And all this, while we are assured that God is love—that his ways are just and equal, and that he delighteth not in their death? If this be the real truth, let it be promulgated and believed. Let the preacher lift up his voice like a trumpet, and give the warning night and day—"in season and out of season."

Let him not speak in that reserved, half-hearted and wavering manner which is often observed; but let him stand up like a man—like an undaunted lion, and with heaven's eternal curse full in his view, let him speak out in thunder tones, whether men will hear, or whether they will forbear.

Otherwise, let him not venture upon a theory so unaccountable and fearful—so contrary to any natural notions of justice that the best enlightened entertain—so adverse to the disposition which is wont to be attached to the character of a father, that we cannot (it would seem) attribute it to the great Father of the universe, till we have first divested him of the heart of a father. Let not the damnation of endless misery be proclaimed, because it is the popular doctrine—because priests, and popes, and councils have decreed it—and because a preacher's place, honor and emolument cannot be secured without doing thus. Let not this doctrine be advanced, because it has been so long inculcated, and by such high dignitaries, and is thought necessary to impose proper restraints upon the wicked, and wake up serious attention to "the one thing needful." God will take care of his own truth; and if he has said the wicked shall be cast into hell, and die there, and be burnt up, root and branch, it is because he judged that such a denunciation was sufficient to answer all the lawful purposes of terror. Let not the doctrine of the second death, as scripturally defined, be kept back or evaded, or couched in uncertain terms, to accommodate the feelings of friends, or to escape the rod of excommunication, or any thing that is crossing to the flesh. Seeing "the Lord hath spoken, who can but prophesy."

Once more, let not this view of the matter be suppressed, through fear that we shall be stigmatized as universalists, or infidels. It is not naturally connected with either of these theories. What is the principal cause of men's running into these errors? Is it not the promulgation of the doctrine I am opposing? I wonder there are not ten driven to these extremes where there is one. It is natural for men to run from one extreme to another. It is by exhibiting "the truth as it is in Jesus," that I would reclaim universalists and skeptics. I would not despise their persons and treat them harshly, because they have erred. They are entitled to sympathy and respect. Let them, therefore, be told the plain truth, and faithfully warned of the second death, and consequently invited to Jesus for life and immortality.

But it is time to introduce the proof that the second death does not imply endless misery.

1. Endless misery was evidently not implied in the first death, or the death threatened in the Adamic law, and if it was not contained in that, it will follow from the law of analogy, that it is not contained in the second death. It will be readily seen that a second death implies a first. And there can be no reasonable ground to question that the death with which the second is contrasted is the death threatened to our first father in case he should eat of the forbidden fruit. God said to him, "in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die," or more strictly rendered from the Hebrew, "dying, thou shalt die." The plain meaning is, that he should at once become mortal, and at length expire.

This is the proper starting point. What, therefore, did this threatening imply? We have been gravely told that it was death spiritual, temporal and

eternal. But spiritual death it could not be; for this would confound the crime with the punishment. And eternal death it could not be, without either impeaching the veracity of God, or utterly closing the door of redemption. It is especially evident that it could not be eternal death, if (as is consequently held) eternal death means endless misery. In that case, redemption was out of the question, and man's last doom was sealed forever.

This conclusion cannot be avoided, by introducing the notion of a substitute. For God did not say that man should die, or a substitute for him. The threatening was to him personally and absolutely. Moreover, if a substitute were admissible in the case, the difficulty would not be obviated. For the substitute must, of course, be consigned to eternal death, i. e., endless misery; and hence what benefit could he be to the human family? Let no one here resort to the theory of equivalency; for it is unwarranted by the Scriptures, and the whole of it rests upon assumption. Remove the curse from man himself, and you are lost in the wild mazes of conjecture and inconsistency.

We come then to the plain fact in this case, viz: that the death threatened in the Adamic law was temporal, or natural death—the event so denominated the world over, and in all generations. And being simply death, without being qualified with eternal, endless, or irremmediable, it left perfect room (though it gave no intimation of the kind) for a recovery, if God pleased. And, blessed be his name, he was pleased to introduce a new covenant, with the promise of life and immortality, through faith in a coming Saviour. And this Saviour, although the pre-existent Son of God, by taking a part or portion of "flesh and blood," like the children whom he came to redeem—in other words, a human body in connection with a super-angelic spirit, could die the very death threatened to man, and survive; thereby abolishing death, and bringing life and immortality to light. Here is no contradiction of God's testimony. God meant as he said in the original threatening; and he has done as he threatened—all which is true of the theory which I am advocating, and of no other.

And when God threatened death to Adam, including his race, he excepted no part of him, and hence this death implied the destruction of the entire man, or the extinction of his life and being. But it placed no veto upon his recovery, as is the case with the second death. Hence the scheme of redemption was perfectly practicable, without any impeachment of the divine veracity.

If, therefore, there be any analogy between the two deaths, the second death will be as truly an extinction of life—a destruction of the conscious being of its subjects—as was the first. Its pains will indeed be vastly more severe, and a recovery from it be rendered absolutely impracticable, nevertheless it will be death. And this, with the qualification of second, to distinguish it from the Adamic law penalty, is the entire penalty of the gospel. Take any other view of it—extend it to endless misery; to an undying, immortal state, and you destroy the analogy between the two cases—you corrupt, and even annihilate the precision of language, and virtually "call evil good and good evil." In fact, the Bible, upon that principle, ceases to be a revelation, and becomes an unmeaning record. The conclusion from the above train of proof is plainly, that the second death does not consist in endless misery, but in limited pains and final destruction.

2. The scripture terms, phrases and declarations pertaining to future punishment do not necessarily imply endless misery. This is an important item, and should be examined with great care. I shall endeavor to notice all the texts which have any material bearing upon the subject.

The Saviour's final commission to his apostles contains this solemn and emphatic sentence, "But he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark xvi, 16. The words, damned, condemned, and judged, are translated from the same Greek word. The second definition is manifestly the one to be adopted here. To be damned is to be condemned. To what, then, is the unbeliever to be condemned? To the second death, most surely, which has already been described. There is no proof in this text that he is to be condemned to endless misery. But as man under the law was condemned to the first death, so the unbeliever under the gospel is to be condemned to the second death, which is destruction without remedy. Allow this to be a complete contrast to eternal salvation, which is unquestionably promised to the believer, and it furnishes no proof of endless misery.

"But is in danger of eternal damnation." Mark iii, 29. This is predicated of one that blasphemes against the Holy Ghost. But to say that eternal damnation is eternal misery is mere assumption—a begging of the question. Damnation here, as in the previous case, is condemnation. And such it will be, if the blasphemer is condemned to the second death, which is an everlasting destruction both of soul and body. The qualifying term, eternal, proves nothing for endless misery, because the condemnation is not to this, but to the second death, from which there is no reprieve. Everlasting death and destruction are appropriately termed eternal damnation. This passage utterly fails of proving the point at issue.

"It is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, (Greek, gehenna,) into the fire that never shall be quenched." Mark ix, 43. But, until it is proved that the fire of hell may not continue after the sufferers are consumed, (which has not yet been done,) this passage is adduced in vain for proof of endless misery. It is the natural and necessary tendency of fire to consume that to which it is applied. And the wicked are, in their nature and constitution, consumable. Hence God threatens to consume, destroy, kill, devour and burn them up. It is said expressly that he is a consuming fire. Therefore, if the wicked are cast into gehenna, "into the fire that never shall be quenched," this fact, instead of proving the endlessness of their misery, proves directly the reverse. This passage does not furnish the requisite proof, allowing the unquenchableness of the fire to denote its endless continuance. But there is no necessity for admitting this. The phrase necessarily means no more than the continuance of the fire till everything subject to its power is consumed. It is frequently applied in scripture to scenes which have long since terminated, as to the destruction of Jerusalem, Idumea, &c. But give it the utmost latitude, and it does not prove unending misery, but simply the utter destruction of the wicked. God says in reference to his covenant people of old, "I will not contend forever, neither will I be always wroth; for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made." Isa. lvii, 16. This plainly teaches that if his wrath does not abate, (as it surely will not with regard to the finally impenitent,) it will inevitably cause them to cease to be. A thousand such texts as the one under consideration would only prove the reverse of endless misery.

"But he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." Matt. iii, 12. The remarks just made will show the irrelevancy of this passage. Surely chaff that is "burnt up" is not always burning.

"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." Mark ix, 44. "Their worm dieth not," is evidently a figurative expression, denoting the successful and effectual means of their punishment. All, therefore, which the passage teaches is that these means will not fail, but continue unabatingly till their complete consumption or destruction is effected. Whatever their worm denotes, it is something which devours and wastes, and so must eventually terminate the existence of that upon which it preys. This idea is carried out more fully and forcibly in the additional clause, "and the fire is not quenched." Thus, the argument from this formidable passage is fairly disposed of.

(To be Continued)