ing an attribute of the Creator, can be possessed by them, except in consequence of the divine, that is, the infinite, nature having been communicated to them, through a medium suitable to its conveyance.

INFERENCE FROM THE ANSWER.

Human beings thus possessing the principle of immortality here and hereafter only in consequence of Christ's nature having been imparted to them, it is obvious, that their possession and enjoyment of immortality can extend no farther than to the degree in which they are possessed of the nature of Christ,

THIRD QUESTION.

Is there any authority in scripture, or in reasonings legitimately derived from scripture, for the ordinary doctrine that the wicked shall be eternally punished in a future state of existence ?

Were it not that I am determined to sift this subject to the very bottom, and to afford antagonists the most complete opportunity of detecting flaws and fallacies in my reasonings if they can, I might here bring the discussion to a very brief and speedy conclusion. No man who has given the requisite attention to the preceding part of the work, and has observed the line of argumentation which I have pursued, can remain long at a loss to perceive the inferences which fall to be deduced. I have proved, in the first place, that Adam, when he sinned, lost only creature righteousness and creature life; and, in the second place, that the resurrection of the dead to a divine and immortal existence hereafter, is solely in virtue of their connection with the Lord Jesus. Now, what are the plain and obvious conclusions resulting from these premises? Why, 1st, that there is Ho life hereafter to man, except through Jesus. John xi. 25, 26. 1 Corinth. xv. 21, 22. 2dly. That as Adam transmits only a life similar to his own to his

N

posterity here, so Jesus transmits only a life similar to his own to his posterity hereafter; 1 Corinth. xv. 48; that is, in other words, the only life possessed and enjoyed hereafter, is a life similar to that of Jesus, or spiritual and eternal life. Ibid. 49. 3dly. That as the life of Adam, or human nature, begins and terminates with this present world; and as there is no life hereafter, but the life of Jesus, or the divine nature; there can, therefore, be no punishment, in the ordinary sense of the term, hereafter, except on the absurd and revolting hypothesis of the divine nature being the subject of punishment!—a hypothesis which, of course, refutes itself. Thus, then, does it appear to be impossible to admit the accuracy of the preceding statements and reasonings, and at the same time to reject the conclusion to which they inevi tably lead; namely, that the doctrine of eternal punishment, of the nature of torments, being inflicted in a future state, is a mere figment of the human mind, having its origin in early prejudices, or in mistaken views of the meaning of scripture.

But briefly and conclusively as the matter might be settled by a simple reference to preceding statements and reasonings, I am far from intending, in this abrupt although strictly logical way, to supersede farther discussion. On the contrary, I shall endeavour, by a series of additional views and arguments, to afford additional conviction to the mind, staggered in some measure perhaps by the novelty of the subject, and the importance of the conclusions to which it leads. Besides, I shall thereby

pave the way for those ulterior developments of the divine purposes towards the family of man, to which it is my intention in due time to direct the thoughts of my

readers.

In the prosecution of my object, I shall, first of all, consider and refute two of the principal arguments by which the ordinary doctrine of eternal punishment hereafter is supported. These are,

First. The infinite nature of evil.

Secondly. The necessity of eternal punishment, in the popular sense of the term, to the administration of the moral government of God; or, the necessity of preventing, among superior intelligences, the commission of crime, by the salutary dread which the everlasting torments of the wicked are calculated to inspire.

First. The infinite nature of evil.

Here I at once join issue with the advocates and supporters of the ordinary system, by denying, in the most pointed terms, that sin or evil is infinite; and demand, that the matter may be remitted to trial.-The arguments for sin being infinite are:

1. That it is committed against an infinite Being. But this argument, however much vaunted, is in reality a mere sophism; falls to be ranked under the head of those absurdities which have been so happily ridiculed by Johnson, in the well-known line,

"Who drives fat oxen, must himself be fat;"

and is calculated to impose only on such as do not re

flect, or are not capable of reflecting. It is liable to the following objections, which I conceive to be completely fatal to it. 1st. If sin be infinite, it is possessed of a divine attribute, or of the divine nature-infinity being an attribute of God; that is, in other words, sin, according to this scheme, is one with God. 2dly. Sin, which is merely the act of a creature,* being infinite— and yet, it never having been pretended that creatures themselves are so we have, according to this rational, luminous, and self-consistent system, the acts of creatures invested with an attribute which does not belong to those by whom the acts are committed. 3dly. If sin be infinite, it cannot, in any case, or by any possibility, come to an end, or be removed; the very circumstance of its termination or removal declaring it, in the teeth of the supposition, to be finite. 4thly. If sin be infinite, it cannot have had a beginning. But has this ever been alleged ?-How, I ask, are these four objections to be got over?

This

2. That it required an infinite atonement. argument likewise, as applied to its present purpose; is a mere sophism: for, although I grant, taught by the word of God, that not by human nature merely, but by the divine nature in conjunction with human nature, sin has been taken away; † and, although it evidently follows from this fact, that by the Infinite Being alone sin could have been atoned for; yet both the fact, and the conclusion resulting from it, instead of estab lishing, tend to subvert the very position in sup

* Or, a quality of creature action.

+ Romans viii. 3, 4.