George
Storrs
1796-1879
SERMON FIVE
"These were more noble than those of Thessalonica, in that they
received the word with all readiness of mind,
and searched the
Scriptures daily whether these things were so."
Acts 17:11
PAUL
and Silas were persecuted at Thessalonica, for the doctrine they
preached, and had to leave that place. The Thessalonians seemed to
think it was no matter what Scripture proof the Apostles could present
in defence of their position; that question they would not examine. It
was enough for them to know it was turning "the world upside down,"
bringing something to their ears that differed from their long
established ways of thinking; that was not to be endured at all; hence
what they lacked in reason and argument, they made up in contempt of
these disturbers of the established order that existed among them; and
they rejected the Apostles without giving the subject an examination.
Not so the Bereans - they first heard - then examined the Scriptures
to see whether what they heard was in accordance with the sure rule
and test by which all theories are to be tried. They did not go to
their creeds - articles of faith – nor doctors even, but to the
Scriptures themselves, - and this they did daily. No wonder
inspiration should call them noble. They manifested a noble and
praiseworthy spirit: and it is left on record for our learning. Happy
are we, if we act on the same principles. FURTHER OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED It is said, because "the destruction of the wicked is
not so terrible as interminable existence in misery, that therefore it
does not present an adequate motive for repentance, but diminishes the
proper restraints of sin."
Let us examine this point further, i.e. the idea that the penalty of
the law of God is spiritual death. Turn to the account of man's
creation, and the prohibition given him. |
The
fact is, this insensibility to God, and his claims upon us, is an
aggravation of our sin, and not the penalty of the law. The Bible
represents this state as a high crime. "Israel doth not know, my
people doth not consider; O that they had hearkened unto me," &c.
Why all this complaint, if insensibility, or spiritual death, is the
penalty or punishment that God has inflicted on men for sin? Did God
complain of men for not escaping out of his hands, and so avoiding
the punishment? As well might the government complain of the
murderer for not slipping the noose of his halter when hanging by
his neck, on the supposition that spiritual death is the punishment
inflicted for sin. Let no man comfort his soul with that delusive
idea. Depend upon it, our insensibility is a most horrid sin. Let
the Almighty himself speak to such souls; and what is his language
to them? "Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in
pieces and there be none to deliver." But
there is still another view of this subject. The idea of spiritual
death being the penalty threatened is not supported by a solitary
text in the "law or prophets." In every instance where the phrase
"surely die" occurs, it is manifest that a literal, and not a
spiritual death is intended, unless the text Gen.3:17, is an
exception; if it is an exception it is for our opponents to prove it
such, and not assume it, as they uniformly do. When the Lord told
Abimelech, Gen.20th, "Thou shalt surely die, and all that is thine,"
it was not a spiritual death threatened. And when God said of the
murmuring Israelites - "They shall surely die in the wilderness," it
was not a spiritual death spoken of: see Num.26:65. And when Jehovah
spoke by Ezekiel - "When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely
die," he was addressing those who were, what our opponents call,
spiritually dead, for they were "wicked." Were they to die another
spiritual death? I
repeat it - There is no such doctrine in the "law and testimony,"
expressed by Moses or the Prophets, as that spiritual death is a
penalty of sin. Least of all, is there any foundation for such an
assumption in the case of Adam; and I now proceed to notice, that
the Hebrew preposition, here translated in, is b; which has the
sense not only of in, but against, after, &c. This preposition is
prefixed to the Hebrew word ium - day. The text is bium: b being the
prefix determines as to the use of ium, i.e. what day is meant. The
context shows that b is used in the sense of after; and the text
reads, "after the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die:"
expressing the certainty of his death, and not of the particular day
in which that death should occur: the penalty would certainly be
inflicted, but the precise time of its infliction God kept in his
own power, and unrevealed, as it has been to each individual of
Adam's race since. God's
own definition of the penalty, when he called Adam to account fully
sustains the view here taken - "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt
thou return." Thus spake the great Lawmaker and Judge; and none can
safely amend the definition He gave of the threatened penalty. It
was not, "Dust thy body is;" but thou - the man. No exception of an
entity, called an "immortal soul:" a most important exception, if
true, our opposers being judges; for they insist upon it, though
Adam's Maker is silent on the subject. I
judge this point is sufficiently settled; at least till the opposers
can produce something more like proof than any thing that has ever
yet appeared on their side of the question. Some
tell us, that by the destruction of the wicked is meant the
destruction of their sins; and others, the destruction of happiness.
What ground have these persons for their assertions? The destruction
of sin, of happiness, of being, are entirely distinct ideas; though
the latter involves the others, yet each is capable of being
expressed in appropriate language. With respect to the latter, I
know of no way in which it could be more appropriately or clearly
set forth than it is by our Lord, in Matt.10:28 - "Fear Him which is
able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Compare this with the
expression of the apostle, - "Who shall be punished with everlasting
destruction from the presence of the Lord," and with Ps.92:7, - "The
wicked shall be destroyed for ever." What testimony could be more
explicit, that those who obey not the gospel are to be punished with
destruction of being and not of their sins or happiness merely. One
other objection I will here notice from the Bible, which was passed
over in my main argument. It is founded on Daniel 12:2, - "Many of
them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to
everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." It is
said, "they must have consciousness to feel shame." I
reply: Shame signifies not only a passion felt when reputation is
lost, but the disgrace and ignominy, which follows men for bad
conduct long after they have passed away, personally, from
knowledge. Take the case of a traitor to his country. For example,
the conduct of Arnold in the American Revolution. He is never
thought of without the shame of his evil deeds connected with him;
and it is a shame that is everlasting - never can be wiped off,
though he ceases to live to be conscious of it. He may be said,
truly, to be a subject of everlasting "contempt," i.e., he is
despised, and scorned for his vile conduct, and always will be while
the love of freedom exists. I see
no difficulty, therefore, in the text under consideration. Here
also, as I have often remarked elsewhere, the punishment is put in
opposition to life. The natural inference is that those who do not
awake to life, perish from life. The
text then, is far from proving they will live eternally in sin and
misery. At most it can be made to mean no more than an overwhelming
sense of their guilt and folly, when they awake. There
is one other text I will here notice, as it is of the same nature of
the one in Daniel. John 5:28,29, "The hour is coming in which all
that are in their graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth;
they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they
that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation." Let it
be observed here, that life, is the reward named for them that have
done good: the others come forth, but it is not to life; for it is a
resurrection to damnation, or condemnation, for, so the word
signifies. The only question, then, to settle is - what is the
punishment to which they are condemned? That it is a punishment from
which they never recover, I have no doubt. But is it everlasting
life in sin and suffering, or is it death? I think it is the latter.
In connection with the words under consideration, our Saviour said,
at the 24th verse, "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him
that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into
condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." This text throws
light on the other, and shows that our Saviour intended to be
understood, by the damnation, or condemnation of evil doers, a
condemnation unto Death, not to life in sin and suffering. I
conceive this text, then, gives no countenance to the common theory
of eternal being in indescribable torments, but shows that Death and
not Life is the portion of those who have been doers of evil. Again,
it is said, by way of objection, - Your "doctrine was held by the
Arians - is now held by the Unitarians - that it is Christianism -
and finally, that it is Elias Smith's doctrine."
Whether these marvellous objections are true or not, I did not know,
as I had never conversed with any of the above-named classes on the
point, and know not that I ever read a paragraph from any of them on
the subject till after I delivered my original Six Sermons. But
suppose what the objector says is true; it does not touch the
question of the truth of this doctrine, nor at all shake my faith.
We know the time was, when the grand argument against some points of
doctrine was "That's Arminianism" - "That's Calvinism" - or "That is
what the Methodists hold." Such language has passed for a very good
argument to frighten enslaved minds, in the absence of a better. But I
may ask, whether, in a Christian land, there ever was a sect having
no truth in their theory? and whether any sect will have the pride
to arrogate to themselves that they have the truth - the whole truth
- and nothing but the truth? If there is such a sect, it had better
repair to Rome immediately, and get confirmed for infallibility. The
fact is, truth lies scattered among all denominations; none of them
have the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Some have more than
others. The guilt of all sects lies, to a great extent, in that
intolerant spirit, that, in point of fact, claims for itself
infallibility, and harbors, to a greater or less extent, the idea
that "there is no salvation out of" their "church;" whilst
inspiration declares that "In every nation he that feareth God and
worketh righteousness" [i.e. according to the light he has or may
possess] "is accepted with him." Again,
it is said, "You have gone half way to Universalism." That is, I
have granted that even Universalists have some truth: though it is
rather of a negative than of a positive character. They do not
believe in eternal sin and suffering; and I have admitted, that in
this, they are right. Unhappy men! - must they be so "chased out of
the world," to keep up the warfare upon them, that amongst all they
pretend to hold for truth, they are so blinded, that they have not
so much as one negative truth? I am
glad in my heart, if I can approach one step towards Universalists,
without sacrificing truth; for I hope thereby to gain some, and save
them alive, by removing out of their hands their main argument for
universal salvation: viz. that "The idea of the eternal
consciousness of innumerable human beings, in indescribable
torments, is irreconcilable with the perfections of God, and that
therefore all men will be saved." The hearer seeing no other view of
the subject, but eternal sin and suffering, or Universalism, takes
hold of the latter. Every
one, who has had anything to do with Universalists, knows this is
their main fort; and here it is they always wish to meet their
opposers - and their converts are made more from the exhibition of
the horribleness of the punishment, which their opposers say is to
be inflicted upon the wicked, than any other, and all other
arguments they use. If,
then, I have taken this weapon from their hands, which is no where
explicitly taught in the word of God, am I not better prepared to
come down upon their hearts and understandings by the express
declarations of the Most High, that, "The soul that sinneth it shall
die;" - that, the wicked "Shall be punished with everlasting
destruction from the presence of the Lord;" - that they shall be
"Cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, which is the second
death;" - that they shall "utterly perish" - "be destroyed forever"
- "be consumed with terrors" - "shall not see life" - be cut off
forever, from all the pleasure derived from "everlasting life,"
because they have refused to come to Christ that they might have
life? Is
there nothing awakening in all this? Nothing calculated to arouse
the sinner to seek life? And the language too is Scriptural, and
less likely to objection than the unscriptural language of "immortal
soul" - "deathless spirit" - "always dying and never dead" -
"eternal being in torments," &c. &c., all of which are of human
invention, to say nothing of some of them being a contradiction in
terms, and a flat denial of the testimony of God, that "The soul
that sinneth, it shall die." To
talk of a "soul always dying and never dead;" or, of "a death that
never dies," is such an absurdity, that I wonder how it was ever
believed by any man who thinks for himself. A doctrine that involves
such a palpable contradiction is not to be promulgated for truth,
unless we wish to bring discredit upon revelation itself. And I
cannot divest myself of the conviction I have so often expressed,
that the theory I oppose has driven many thinking men into
infidelity. That any man can embrace it, I cannot account for,
except from the fact, that they have been early taught it, and the
dread of feeling the indignation of bigoted men who think it a crime
to depart from what they or their fathers have baptized "orthodox."
Another objection to the theory I advocate, and perhaps the one that
stands most in the way of its being received for truth, is, - "If
this doctrine is true, why has it never been found out before?" I do
not know but it has been found out before. I lay no claim to being
the discoverer of it. I am told that Samuel Bourne of Birmingham,
and John Taylor of Norwich, held the same sentiments, "in substance,
making due allowance for the shape and color they have received from
the peculiar mind of Mr. Storrs." Whether that was true or not, I
did not know at the time I first advocated the views here
promulgated, as I had never seen their writings. My attention was
called to the subject by a small pamphlet, in 1837. Who was its
author, I did not know, as it had no name attached to it; but
afterwards learned it was by Henry Grew, of Philadelphia. I read it,
but did not think much of it at the time. I suppose I felt like the
objector; i.e. if this view of the subject be true, why is it that
Christians and ministers have not learned it before? Nevertheless, I
could not resist the impression to examine the subject for myself. I
did so from time to time for several years, and conversed with
ministers on the subject; for I would not then allow myself to speak
upon it with laymen, lest I might lead them into a belief of a
doctrine which I had not fully investigated, and be the means of
their going astray. I studied the Bible, reading and noting down
every text that spoke of, or appeared to have reference to the final
destiny of wicked men. The result of my investigations and
convictions I have laid before you. I published a small pamphlet on
the subject in 1841. In 1842, I preached my original Six Sermons in
the city of Albany, N. Y. But few Reviews have ever appeared; and
all of them that I have seen have tended to confirm me in the
general correctness of the position I maintain on this great
question. The
fact that a particular view of religious truth is new, is no proof
of its incorrectness; it may be a reason why we should not embrace
it without thorough investigation. How many things passed for truth
in the dark ages of the church, that have since been exploded! and
when they were first brought to light, the "innovators," as they
were called, were branded as "heretics." We
should do well to remember that we have but just emerged from the
dark ages of the church; and it would not be at all strange if we
should find some "Babylonish garments" still worn by us for truth;
or to speak without a figure, we have no reason to suppose that the
Reformers, as they are called, divested themselves of all the
superstitions and false interpretations that had been put upon the
Bible, when ignorant men were kept in awe by the supposed sanctity
of the priests. The
Reformers may have done well, considering their circumstances, and
the prejudices of their education; but must we sit down and quietly
follow exactly in their steps, without employing the understanding
and Bible God has given us, to see if there are not things "new," as
well as "old" in God's blessed word? Our Saviour saith: "Every
scribe which is instructed unto the Kingdom of God, bringeth forth
out of his treasures, things new and old." Must we, then, confine
ourselves to the old track; and must every thing that is new be
rejected? Apply that principle to the arts and sciences, as well as
religion, and the world is at a dead stand. There
are many points of doctrine that a few years ago passed for truth,
that are now rejected. That this is the case in science, generally,
no one will doubt. How long is it since men were satisfied that the
world is round and revolves on its axis? Those who advocated such a
theory, no doubt, were thought to be stark mad! - To the minds of
their opponents, it was as clear as the light, that the world was
flat - their fathers had always believed so; and all the reservoirs
of water would have been emptied long ago, if the world turned over!
- Copernicus, it is said, was compelled, by public opinion, to keep
his discovery of the true solar system to himself more than thirty
years. And Galileo, for avowing his belief in the same system, was
cited to appear before the Pope, and condemned to prison, while his
writings were publicly burned in the streets at Rome. Men
had lived thousands of years before the circulation of the blood was
discovered. When that discovery was made, it was ridiculed and
opposed as a most dangerous error, and as promising no good to the
world; and this too, by the learned and knowing ones, and years
passed away before the theory was generally received. If it
is a fact, in science generally, that false theories have been held
for ages, may it not be so in religion? Since my recollection, the
theory has been held, and promulgated for Bible truth, that there
were "infants in hell not a span long" –and that "God made some men
on purpose to show His power in their eternal torments in hell
fire." Yes, and that He "decreed all their sins which led to that
result," and sent "the gospel to some people on purpose," i.e. with
the design "to increase their damnation!" And it is within my
remembrance, that a man was not considered orthodox who did not hold
these views. But, I doubt if any man now can be found who holds such
sentiments; or, if he does, will be willing to avow them. Is it
to be wondered at, then, if in an age when such shocking absurdities
are but just passing away, there should be found still left a
remnant of doctrine belonging to the same class? Mr.
Benson, the eminent English minister, to whom we have before
referred, in a sermon on "The Future Misery of the Wicked," says,
"God is present in hell, in his infinite justice and almighty wrath,
as an unfathomable sea of liquid fire, where the wicked must drink
in everlasting torture - the presence of God in his vengeance
scatters darkness and wo through the dreary regions of misery. As
heaven would be no heaven if God did not there manifest his love, so
hell would be no hell, if God did not there display his wrath. It is
the presence and agency of God, which gives every thing virtue and
efficacy, without which there can be no life, no sensibility, no
power." He then adds - "God is, therefore, himself present in hell,
to see the punishment of these rebels against his government, that
it may be adequate to the infinity of their guilt; his fiery
indignation kindles, and his incensed fury feeds the flame of their
torment, while his powerful presence and operation maintain their
being, and render all their powers most acutely sensible; thus
setting the keenest edge upon their pain, and making it cut most
intolerably deep. He will exert all his divine attributes to make
them as wretched as the capacity of their nature will admit." After
this he goes on to describe the duration of this work of God, and
calls to his aid all the stars, sand, and drops of water, and makes
each one tell a million of ages: and when all those ages have rolled
away, he goes over the same number again, and so on forever. And
all this he brings forth with a text of Scripture that asserts the
wicked "shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the
presence of the Lord." Such a description as here given by Mr.
Benson needs no comment – it defies comment - no language could be
employed to make a subject look more horrible than what he has used.
He dwelt upon the subject, himself, till his own soul was filled
with horror, and he cried out - "Believe me, my poor fellow mortal,
thou canst not, indeed thou canst not bear this devouring fire! Thou
canst not dwell with these everlasting burnings!" There
must be some defect in a theology, it seems to me, that leads great
men into such palpable contradictions. Mr.
Benson preached two whole sermons on these subjects, in which he
scarcely produced a text of Scripture in support of his theory -
they appear to be, throughout, a work of imagination. I
consider, to charge the infinite God with the design and
determination of exerting His almighty power in holding innumerable
human beings in indescribable torments, in a state of necessary
sinning and blasphemy, is of the same character as the other
horrible doctrines that I have named; and is not to be believed
without the clearest and most positive testimony. Such testimony the
Bible does not furnish, to my mind, and therefore, I reject such a
theory as opposed to the Bible, to reason, and to common sense: and
I have very little doubt, the time will come (perhaps I shall not
live to see it) when that theory will be generally exploded. The
theory I advocate has one great difficulty to overcome, viz: the
strong prejudice of early education, backed up by the consideration
that the common theory has been so long the established faith of the
church. But, even that difficulty is overbalanced by the fact, that
the sympathies of our nature, and reason, are opposed to the common
theory, and are towards the views I advocate, when once presented to
the mind: and a spirit to examine for ourselves, instead of leaving
our thinking to others, has gone forth in the earth. If the
fact that a theory has long ago been settled, and always believed by
the "fathers," is a good reason for rejecting, as untrue, any other
theory, then the Jews have the best reason they could desire for
rejecting Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. The Jewish Church "long
ago" decided that he was an impostor, and crucified him as such. The
Jews of the present time, then, may say - "Our church long ago
settled the point, that Jesus was not the promised Messiah; and who
were better qualified to judge than they to whom the Scriptures were
committed, and in whose language they were written? Besides, our
fathers have always believed and maintained that Jesus was an
impostor. Hence, we consider it a settled point." Now, I
ask, if such an argument is not quite as good and forcible, as the
one used by some of my opponents, that my view must be false,
because, as they suppose, the church long ago fixed on the opposite
theory as true, and their fathers have always believed it? Let such
persons make no more attempts to convert the Jews. Indeed, they
ought to turn Jews. The
notion that there is life in the soul of the wicked, or a principle
that cannot die, was taken from the Platonic Philosophers, and was
introduced into the Church, as a Scripture doctrine, in the third
century.
Mosheim, in his Ecclesiastical History, Vol I. p.86, says: - "Its
first promoters argued from that known doctrine of the Platonic
School, which was also adopted by Origin and his disciples, that the
divine nature has diffused through all human souls; or in other
words, that the faculty of reason, from which proceed the health and
vigor of the mind, was an emanation from God into the human soul,
and comprehended in it the principles and elements of all truth." Such,
I conceive, is the true origin of the doctrine of the natural
immortality of man. It originated in heathen philosophy, and was
grafted on Christianity to its immense injury. No wonder Paul,
Col.2:8, said - "Beware lest any man spoil you through Philosophy
and vain deceit, after the Traditions of men, after the rudiments of
the world, and not after Christ."
Whether others see as I do on this subject or not, it is a matter of
unspeakable consolation to me to believe, that the devil and all his
works will be utterly destroyed; and that a universe will appear
unstained by sin, misery or death. - If others believe the contrary,
it will be no cause why I should disfellowship them, provided they
walk in obedience to the will and word of God. The Lord, I trust,
has delivered me from that spirit of bigotry which would shut out
from my Christian regard and fellowship any man, simply because he
does not agree with me in sentiments, especially if he is striving
to live in a holy life, by obeying the commandments of God; for,
"this is the love of God that we keep His commandments" - and "he
that saith he loves God and hateth his brother, is a liar and the
truth is not in him." In
conclusion, I would say, to all, if I know my own heart, I have no
selfish purpose to serve, in taking the foregoing views. It has been
a subject that has employed my thoughts, more or less, for years
past; and it was not till after much searching the Scriptures, and
prayer to God for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that I came to
the conclusion here promulgated. If it is not truth, let it fall;
and may the Lord hasten it. But with my present light I can see no
other way, and see no reason to doubt the correctness of my general
view on the subject. That
there are no weak parts in my argument, I do not pretend: I should
claim to be more than man if I did. - My desire is to know the whole
will of God, as revealed in His word: and when satisfied what truth
is, I trust, never to shrink from proclaiming it, however unpopular;
or whatever may be the reproach I may endure on account of it.
Whether the doctrine I have advocated is true or false, matters not
to me personally, further than truth is concerned. For, by the grace
of God, I intend to "fight the good fight of faith," and "lay hold
on eternal life." All those that do this, I know, for the Bible
declares it, will be crowned with "honor, and glory, and
immortality." Those who do not do it, will "not see life." Awful
indeed, will be their end. O, that sinners may awake to see their
danger, and fly from the doom that awaits them. To perish like a beast - to perish without hope - to perish without recovery: to be consumed - devoured - burned up –blotted out of life as too vile to live - they having formed such a moral character as to make a living existence a curse to themselves, and a curse to others: to be so unlike God and good beings as to make it a moral necessity that they should be "destroyed forever!" What a character! What an end! "Why will you die?" Turn to God through His Son, our Life-Giver and Lord; "lay hold on ETERNAL LIFE." |