p. 74 | THE SECOND DEATH

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 27, 1859

THE SECOND DEATH.

(Concluded.)

I HAVE now noticed all the passages, as far as I recollect, which can be claimed as teaching the doctrine of endless misery, upon which any material reliance can be placed, and have found them insufficient to sustain that fearful theory. Hence, I proceed to observe:

3. That the texts which speak definitely and unequivocally of the future retribution of the wicked, describe it as consisting in absolute and final destruction, and plainly forbid the idea that the second death is endless life in misery. See the following: "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." 2 Thess. i, 9. "Wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in there." Matt. vii, 13. "Whose end is destruction." Phil. iii, 19. "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matt. x, 28. "There is one lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy." James iv, 12. "But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment, and perdition (i. e., destruction) of ungodly men." 2 Pet. iii, 7. "And it shall come to pass that every soul which will not hear that prophet shall be destroyed from among the people." Acts iii, 23. "For, behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall be stubble, and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch." Mal. iv, 1. "As therefore the tares are gathered and burnt in the fire, so shall it be in the end of this world, . . . and shall cast them (the wicked) into a furnace of fire." Matt. xiii, 40, 42. "But the fearful and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." Rev. xxi, 8.

Besides these express passages, the reader is referred to such declarations as the following, which he may readily find: "The end of the wicked shall be cut off;" "in a little while the wicked shall not be;" "he that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption;" "they are utterly consumed with terrors;" "they that have sinned without law shall also perish without law;" "and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries;" "the wages of sin is death;" "he that loveth his life shall lose it;" and "to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever."

The above passages and declarations are definite and unequivocal; and many similar ones might be added, and they cannot be reconciled with the notion of endless misery, without destroying the precision of language. In fact, the doctrine of final destruction, as now set forth, could not be more plainly taught. To sustain the opposite theory, the general current of the Scriptures must be turned from its natural import to mean something directly opposite to what the terms used signify when applied to other cases; and all this to support a theory which is at war with sober reason and common sense, and with every emotion of the benevolent heart.

4. The scripture declarations, often repeated, that God will judge and reward every man according to his works, plainly imply and confirm the foregoing view of the second death.

This rule, so manifestly just, pertains, as is evident, to the gospel system of procedure, and not to the original law of works, as if we were to be rewarded according to our works in a legal sense, we should all be finally condemned and lost. For the law curses every sinner, and we have all sinned. But a new system has been introduced, which promises a gracious reward to penitent and faithful believers, and threatens damnation to unbelievers, and

metes out punishment in proportion to their guilt. Here, therefore, the question naturally occurs, what is the nature of their guilt? Is it infinite or only finite? If it is the latter, and not the former, then

a just punishment, as to positive misery, must be finite also. Positive, infinite misery for a finite offence, yea, for ever so many finite offences, would be evidently excessive. It would exceed the real desert of sin as eternity exceeds time. The advocates for endless misery usually allege that sin is an infinite evil, and hence infer that it deserves infinite punishment; i. e., endless misery. It is said the law is infinite because it is from an infinite being—that men are under infinite obligations to him—and that sin tends to do infinite mischief. For these reasons, sin is termed an infinite evil. But such reasoning is unsound. This liberal dealing in infinites is fraught with inconsistency and confusion. Allow that the law comes from an infinite being, that consideration does not make it an infinite law. We might as well argue that the smallest insect is infinite, because it has an infinite author. If the law were infinite, it would require infinite obedience, whereas it evidently does not. Its claims measure exactly with the capacities and opportunities of men which are finite. Sin is a great evil; but it is not and cannot be infinite. Infinite obligation could not be predicated of men without implying the infinitude of their beings. Neither can they do infinite mischief without investing them with infinite knowledge and power. This notion of the infinite evil of sin demanding infinite wretchedness, is altogether unfounded. And but a little sober argument is frequently sufficient to force its advocates to give it up. But when this is abandoned, the next resort for support for the doctrine of endless misery, is to the plea that although sin is finite, the wicked will be always sinning, and hence always deserving misery, so that their desert of suffering will always keep in advance of their present misery, and thus preclude the idea of its termination. To this plea, it is sufficient to reply that future punishment is inflicted for offences committed in this life, not afterwards. They are expressly said to "receive according to the deeds done in the body;" and these being finite, and no more, their misery must, of course, be finite. Endless wretchedness cannot be made out on this ground. As surely as God is just, and will treat the wicked according to their works, their actual suffering must at some future period cease.

If it be objected that this argument will lie equally against the notion that punishment will terminate in the extinction of conscious being, I would reply, that this part of the punishment is negative, and not positive, and whether God continues being, or not, is a matter of mere prerogative. No being has any claim for existence, unless he is obedient to God's will. Between the two theories, as now presented, there is an immeasurable difference. The forfeiture for disobedience is rightfully the loss of life. For "there is one lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy," and whose unquestionable right it is to do so. In his wisdom and liberality, he has given man two chances to live, first by the law, and secondly by the gospel, and if he does not improve them, it is evidently right that he should die—and that after the infliction of few or many stripes, as the case may require, he should cease to be. If all that is meant by the infinite evil of sin, were, that it is such an evil as deserves severe pains, terminating in the final destruction of life and consciousness, the sentiment would not be objectionable, though we should object to the propriety of the term used to designate it. But this is not the light in which sin is regarded as an infinite evil. It is considered to be in such a sense infinite, as deserves infinite or unending misery; which view is manifestly excessive, and cannot be consistent with the just administration of Jehovah.

5. The endless misery of the wicked is incompatible with the manifested design of Christ's coming into the world; viz., to destroy both the works of the devil, and the devil himself, and to banish sin and misery from the universe, and restore things to the original state in which God pronounced all which he had made very good—otherwise to put all things under his feet, willingly if they can be, and by destruction if they cannot be.

Christ's purpose to destroy the devil, and all who are united with him, will be fully accomplished. His coming to destroy the works of the devil, and to abolish the devil himself, clearly implies the extermination of everything belonging to this adversary's kingdom. How could he be represented as abolished, while remaining in active, malignant existence, foaming and raging against Zion's King? or how could his works be said to be destroyed, while myriads of his angels, and myriads and myriads of wicked men, are uttering blasphemies in the world of wo? If the work of destruction be complete, (and it cannot be reasonably doubted that it will be,) it must imply the utter extermination of wickedness and wicked agents. Perfect order cannot otherwise be restored in the universe. Surely, therefore, all the sinners of God's people, as foretold, "shall be cut off," and "the wicked shall not be."

The result of final holiness and happiness to all the remaining subjects of God's kingdom, is as clear and as certain, on this ground, as it would be upon the plan of universal salvation, while no countenance whatever is given to that erroneous system. And the mind which hates sin, and delights not in misery, finds a place where to rest, without witnessing unceasingly, the rage and misery of God's enemies.

From the foregoing subject we infer,

1. That the natural immortality of the soul is not a scriptural doctrine. There is indeed, immortality to the righteous, but it is exclusively by the gospel. If Christ had not come, died and risen, there could have been no such thing. Death would have reigned in everlasting silence.

The main plea for the natural immortality of the soul, i. e., its undying existence by virtue of its properties and constitution, is its innate desire of life, and dread of extinction. But this, as every candid person must see, is just as good an argument for universal salvation as for immortality. If the soul be naturally immortal, one of two things must necessarily follow, viz., universal salvation, or endless misery. The former, none that are deemed orthodox, will avow. And, is the latter so desirable that it must be held fast in the face of that vast amount of testimony to the contrary, which has been produced? Continued existence, simply considered, is indeed desirable; yea, it is desirable with some degree of pain. But it cannot be desirable under such extreme suffering as pertains to the future condition of the wicked. And it will not do to fritter away the torments of the damned, till their state becomes somewhat tolerable—yea, better than utter abolishment. The genuine doctrine of endless misery is, that the torment which will be endured will be in a burning lake, or at least a state of suffering fully equivalent. How can the advocates of such a destiny contemplate their theory without the utmost trembling and astonishment? But to this conclusion the doctrine of the soul's natural immortality necessarily impels them.

But to the honor of God, and the relief of the benevolent mind, the Bible does not teach this doctrine. Man in his first state was only a probationer for immortality; and while the gospel informs us that, though this was forfeited by sin, it can and will be secured to believers in Jesus, but not to unbelievers, their doom is not immortal misery, but a second death, effected by being cast into a lake of fire and brimstone: dreadful indeed, but infinitely less than the punishment of endless misery!

2. We infer that Christ did not come to exempt men from the death threatened in the law, but to redeem them from sin, and from a state of death—to ransom them from the power of the grave. It is not true that he died that we might not die, as originally threatened, for we must die. The law will have its course. He was in no sense a legal substitute. He verily died as a sacrifice for sin, and was perfected by sufferings; but not to render plenary satisfaction to divine justice, as is commonly taught. That would have closed the door to the reign of grace and forgiveness.

3. We infer that the system of redemption cannot be rightly and thoroughly understood without the adoption of the foregoing theory of the first and second deaths. As in arithmetic it is necessary to commence with the first principles in order to obtain a knowledge of the science, so in the present case it is necessary to commence with the original constitution, under which God placed our first father, in order to understand the system of redemption. We

must, especially, understand the true nature of the death-penalty. A mistake here will involve the whole subject of redemption in darkness. If you make the law infinite, and the sin infinite, and the penalty infinite, you must either impeach the veracity of God, or utterly relinquish the hope of salvation. This has been sufficiently evinced by the foregoing remarks. But if you understand each as finite, then redemption is practicable. Through Christ we can have life again and immortality; and the penalty for the forfeiture through unbelief, will be obviously a just and reasonable punishment, viz., the second death.

4. We infer that the foregoing subject presents the best and strongest reasons for giving due warning to the wicked. We have seen that the threatening of death to man for violating the original law was not a vague and uncertain thing, but a serious and sure reality. The exactness and extent with which it has been fulfilled, presents a clear and striking view of the truth of God. “Hath he said, and shall he not do it?” None can evade this curse. Not merely fools, but wise men die. There is one event to all. “None can by any means redeem his brother, or give to God a ransom for him, that he should still live forever and not see corruption.” And what does this teach in regard to the second death—the death attendant on disobedience to the gospel? It teaches that it will surely be inflicted. As certainly as all men die the first death, such as do not obey the gospel will die the second. The same truth is pledged for the execution of the latter penalty that was pledged for the execution of the former. “How, then, shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?” God's visiting the curse upon Adam and his posterity, and giving proof upon proof of the truth of his threatenings under the legal dispensation, shows his fixed determination to inflict the penalty of his gospel. Sinners should, therefore, be faithfully warned to “flee from the wrath to come.” There is nothing in the punishment of the second death which is excessive or impracticable—nothing which should create the least doubt as to its infliction. God actually means that the wicked “shall be damned,” and “destroyed without remedy.” Let all, therefore, of this character improve the timely warning given by the subject. “Repent and turn from all your transgressions, so iniquity shall not be your ruin.”