possess as much goodness as he does wisdom and power, it is palpably absurd to believe that he is the author of any being to whom he is not good; and it is equally absurd to say that God is good to the Sodomites if they are consigned to a state of infinite misery.

That our heavenly Father was good and bountiful to the inhabitants of Sodom in their mortal state is evident from our context, in which we are informed of the idleness of the people, their fulness of bread, and their criminal neglect of the poor and needy. These accusations fully show that they were guilty of abusing the goodness of divine Providence; by which it is clear that God was good to them. Now as it cannot be denied that our heavenly Father was good and bountiful to the inhabitants of Sodom in their mortal state, is it consistent for us to believe that he is not good to them in the eternal word, if he there continues their existence? Where is the evidence that he, who alone can create, and preserve the existence of rational beings, ever does this to the damage of his creatures?

The plain truth is this; in room of having such clear and positive evidence in support of this common notion of the endless misery of the inhabitants of Sodom, as reason would require, there is not the most distant hint of any such thing, in the account recorded in Genesis.

There is a passage in the epistle of Jude, which speaks of Sodom and Gomorrah as follows; "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." This passage is frequently cited to prove that the eternal state of the inhabitance of Sodom and Gomorrah is miserable. Let us examine the passage and see if it afford any such conclusion. The words," are set forth for an example suffering the vengeance of eternal fire," are supposed to support

the opinion in dispute. In order to show that these words have no such meaning, we will notice two passages where St. Paul uses the words, "set forth." See Rom. iii. 25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God." 1. Cor. iv. 9. "For I think that God hath set forth us the Apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and unto men." In. both these passages, the words "set forth" evidently mean a most open and clear manifestation of that which was "set forth." But who will pretend that the eternal torments of the Sodomites, in the burning lake of the invisable world, are set forth for an example?

When God "set forth" his dear Son for a propitiation of our sins, thousands of witnessing eyes beheld him and saw his miracles of mercy; thousands of ears heard the gracious words which he spake, and thousands felt the life giving, and bealth restoring power of the Saviour. His whole process from his birth to his 'ascension was attested by many witnesses, who could not have made any material mistake respecting the subject of their testimony. But have we the testimony of a single individual, who has seen the Sodomites in torment since their destruction, or heard their groans? It is true, and it is spoken with regret, that our terrific preachers speak on this subject, with as much seeming assurance, and in terms as positive as does the historian who relates an account of which he is an eye witness.

The Apostles were "set forth ;" and being "set forth," were a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men; and Sodom and Gomorrah were set forth for an example;" but who were the spectators? Who were the witnesses? Have angels and men seen them in the torments of the invisable world? No, there is no such thing; but we are informed, by the divine historian, that " Abraham

gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the Lord. And he looked towards Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace." There can be no reasonable doubt that the destruction of the inhabitants of Sodom and the Cities of the plain was, "set forth" before the eyes of all the inhabitants of the surrounding country; and there can be no doubt but that it was considered by those who saw it, as a dispensation of divine Providence for the wickedness of the people. And it was recorded in the scriptures for an example, and a warning to the inhabitants of the earth not to practice their sins.

The fire which destroyed Sodom and the cities of the plain, is called eternal fire on account of the long time it continued in the country, and burned in those pits of slime of which we read in the account of the battle between five kings on the part of Sodom and its confederates, and the four kings who went against them.

But the fact is we are assured in the most plain terms that the punishment of the sin of Sodom is not in a future state, but was executed on its inhabitants in a most sudden and expeditious manner. See Lam. iv. 6. "For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom, that was overthrown as in a moment, and no hand stayed on her." By this testimony we learn the following facts, which relate to the argument under consideration.

1. The punishment of the sin of Sodom, was their temporal destruction.

2. This overthrow, which was the punishment of their sins was executed in a very short time.

3. There was no protracted punishment executed on them after this sudden overthrow. This we learn from the concluding words of the passage quoted; "No hand stayed on her." And

4. This punishment of the sin of Sodom was less than the punishment of the iniquity of the house of Israel. And it is furthermore worthy of observation, that if the punishment of the sin of Sodom be endless misery, it is a most palpable absurdity to say, that the punishment of the iniquity of the house of Israel was greater. The punishment which the prophet describes, as being greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom, was altogether the calamities of wars, famines, and other temporal judgments which came on the people for their iniquities. And by the prophet Ezekiel, in the place where our text is recorded, we have the reason given why the punishment of Jerusalem aught, in justice, to be greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom. It is here stated that Jerasalem was more corrupted in all her ways, than Sodom.

Having fully proved, as far as any thing can be proved by the divine testimony, that the common opinion concerning the punishment of the Sodomites is not only without foundation in scripture, but also in direct opposition to the plain testimony on the subject, we may now notice the words of our text, by way of the following inquiry.

As God says, by the prophet, in our text; "Therefore, I took them away as I saw good," what good was there effected by their being taken away in such a manner? The reason why they were taken away, was their sins. Now if they remained as great sinners after they were destroyed, as they were before, then the occasion of their being taken away was not removed by their destruction. Here then we see, what we always may notice in false notions of the ways of God. They always represent the divine Being as capable of acting without effect, or in a partial manner, or to a malevolent purpose. God destroyed the Sodomites because they were sinful; yet after their destruction they were no less sinful. Thus the object failed. After their destruction, as their sin remained, the

Almighty consigned them to burning flames eternally, not to reform them of course, but to vent on them his eternal wrath. Thus error represents the divine Being, revengeful and cruel.

A desire is felt, that the hearer would lend an attention to these questions, viz. Why should our heavenly Father manifest any disapprobation of sin? Does he suffer any inconvenience from it? Does the happiness of the sole Governor of the universe depend on the conduct of his creatures? Now as all will agree that the Almighty cannot be injured by sin, so it is reasonable to conclude that he forbids it because it is injurious to man; and it is reasonable also to conclude that the judgments, by which the divine disapprobation of sin is manifested, are designed to lessen and not to increase human misery. But will any one undertake to prove that human misery is lessened by inflicting unspeakable torments on mankind as long as God shall exist?

Let us, my friends, lay aside all the vain notions of tradition and superstition respecting our subject, notions which suppose that our Father in heaven is acting the part of an implacable enemy to his own rational offspring, and let us listen to the language of our text; and let us realize it as the language of a kind and merciful father. "Therefore I took them away as I saw good." My friends, how does this language sound to you? Does it carry any idea of unmerciful vengeance? No, it does not. But it gives a clear idea that God acted in this instance, consistantly with his nature which is love, and with his character as a Father. He acted for the good of his creatures.

According to promise, we may now proceed to notice some other instances of the destruction of the wicked, which instances are generally used in support of the system of terror to which the destruction of the Sodomites is so universally applied.

The first we propose to examine is the destruction of Pharaoh and his host in the red sea.