relies with cheerful hope upon the God of all, and that puts the most merciful construction upon his every word, for that is always nearest truth.

I close with the full conviction that the text affords not the slightest evidence of endless torments, and in the language of Dr. Clarke, say :"Let no man's heart fail because of it henceforth and forever."

SERMON IX.

THE SECOND DEATH.

"But the fearful and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and the whoremongers, and sorcerers, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." Rev xxi, 8.

This text contains a plain and positive assertion that certain characters, therein specified, shall have their part in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone, together with an explanatory clause, informing us what is meant by the burning lake, "It is the second death." Relative to the question, whether the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone, is to be understood literally or figuratively, I have little to say. During the dark ages it might have been necessary to discuss that question, but the day has passed when any man, claiming even a tolerable share of theological knowledge, would risk his reputation, as a man of sane mind, in an attempt to maintain the existence of a real lake of literal fire and brimstone, in which immortal and immaterial spirits are to be burned. It is a figure used to represent a reality, and this reality is the second death. I think it most likely that the figure was borrowed from the Old Testament Scriptures,

either from the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, or from the language of the prophet, in reference to the odious valley of the son of Hinnom, where he says, "The pile thereof is fire and much wood; the breath of the Lord like a stream of brimstone doth kindle it." The question, however, is not upon the nature of this lake of fire and brimstone, but rather upon its location and duration.

The believer in the doctrine of endless misery contends that this lake is in another world, and that those who are cast into it must remain there through all eternity. There are others who admit that the lake is in another world; but, instead of keeping men there duration without end, would vary the length of punishment by the different degrees of guilt, which are attached to different persons. Thus some may remain a few years only, while a notorious offender might suffer a thousand years, and by that time they would think he had received his part, and might be liberated. This certainly looks more like justice than the other view; and, though, I would not strongly object to the idea of a just and salutary punishment in the future state, yet, so far as this text is concerned, I feel bound to say, that, in my judgment, it countenances no such doctrine. I have great confidence that I shall be able to convince every candid mind, that this lake of fire and brimstone is in this word, and that such characters as are named in the text, do indeed, and in truth, have their part in it on earth.

The only reason I have ever heard offered for the opinion, that this lake of fire and brimstone is in the other world, is based upon the circumstance, that it is called the second death. Hence, it is

argued, that it must relate to things that are to transpire after death. There is one fact, however, which seems to have escaped the notice of those who reason in this manner, which is: there are several kinds of death spoken of in the Scriptures. There is a natural death, and there is a moral and spiritual death. One thing is said to be second, in reference to another, and a similar thing which precedes it. Surely there may be a question whether this death is called second in reference to a moral death, or the death of the body. The argument, under consideration, assumes the position that it is called second in relation to the death of the body, and argues from that as from an established truth. It is, therefore, what logicians call a petitio principii, a begging of the very question in dispute. It ought, in the first place, to be proved that this death is second to the death of the body, and there will be time enough to make that position the basis of an argument. I doubt the position assumed, and for reasons that appear to me good and sufficient.

First of all, there is not the least imaginable analogy between the two things which are thought to be compared. The death of the body is an extinction of the animal life, and the complete destruction of sensation. But casting a man into a

lake, burning with fire and brimstone, is another and a very different thing. Instead of destroying life, it is said to perpetuate it to all eternity, and instead of putting an end to feeling, it heightens it to the greatest possible extent. There is, therefore, no analogy between the two, which should give them a name in common, and place them in the intimate relation of first and second. A man has a shock of palsy which partially, at least, destroys sensation. After a time he has an attack of the gout, a most excruciatingly painful disease, and as he writhes in his agony, he insists that it is a second attack of palsy. Does not the child see the impropriety of thus associating things so dissimilar? And yet you would have us believe that the Scriptures are guilty of this absurdity in a still more glaring form. A man dies, and is left a cold and lifeless lump of clay, without sensation or feeling. He is raised up from the dead, and cast into a burning furnace, there to live and suffer the keenest agony as long as God exists, and this you call a second death! It may be so, but surely it is not much like the first.

The truth is, this idea of the part in the lake, being called the "second death," instead of being an argument in favor of applying the passage to another world, is proof positive, that it belongs to the present, and precedes the death of the body. He that would correctly understand what is meant by the second death, must know what is the first.