George
Storrs
1796-1879
SERMON S
"I
will not contend forever, neither will I be always wroth;
for the
spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made."
Is. 57:16
WE
are too apt to take the words of Scripture and apply them to all men
indiscriminately, without regarding the character of the person spoken
of. In this way we pervert the word of the Most High, and sometimes
comfort those whom God has not comforted. I conceive, that has been
done with the words of my text. They have been applied to all men;
when the context shows, most clearly, they are spoken only of the
"contrite ones," who are "humble and contrite" under the judgments, or
chastisements that God had inflicted upon them for their sins: while
it is expressly said, in the same connection, there is "no peace to
the wicked;" - God's wrath abideth on them; and abiding on them, they
will certainly "fail." The term "fail," used in the text, though it
has other significations, is, I think, generally used by the prophet
Isaiah, to signify "to perish." He says, 21:16 - "All the glory of
Kedar shall fail." And 19:13 - "The spirit of Egypt shall fail in the
midst thereof." |
I consider the sense of the text, then, to be this - "With those persons who truly humble themselves, and repent, under my rebukes, I will not continue my displeasure - for if my wrath should remain upon any man he would utterly perish, soul and spirit, as surely as I have made him." - Hence, the doctrine of the text seems to me, to be - 1st. God is the Creator of the souls and spirits of men, and, of course, can DESTROY them. 2d. If God's wrath should continue, upon any man, without being withdrawn, it would certainly cause him to "fail" - perish; or cease to exist: he could not continue in being under it. 3rd. But upon those who do repent, that wrath shall not abide. These
remarks have chiefly been made to meet an objection that man is
composed of three parts - body, soul and spirit; and that, though his
body and soul might perish, his spirit could not. I have used the term
soul throughout my discourses in its broadest sense as including the
essence of what constitutes a man; and I am satisfied that is the
general sense in which the Scriptures use it, though in some texts it
is used in a more restricted sense. It is a
matter of indifference how it is applied in my text; for the
expressions are such as to include the whole man, and to show that
every man on whom the wrath of God abideth will perish - utterly
perish - body, "soul and spirit." I shall now proceed to notice one of
the evils of the opposite theory; or the maintaining that such
expressions as die –death - destroy - destroyed - destruction - burned
up - perish, &c., are not to be understood literally, i.e. according
to their obvious meaning, when spoken of the final destiny of wicked
men.
ONE EVIL OF THE COMMON THEORY It sustains the mischievous practice of mystifying, or making the
Scriptures to have a secret or hidden meaning, in the plainest
texts. In these sermons I have endeavored to show that man by sin lost all
title to immortality; and had it not been for the "seed of the
woman" the race would have utterly perished, or ceased to be, and
would have been as though they never had been. There is not a
particle of evidence that the original threatening embraced a state
of eternal sin and suffering, that idea has puzzled our greatest and
most learned divines, to tell how an atonement could be made
adequate to redeem men from such a punishment. To meet the case,
they have gone to the idea that God, himself, suffered to make the
necessary atonement; and then they have started back from that
position, as being impossible that the Godhead could actually
suffer, and so have substituted the "human body and soul" of Jesus
Christ, as united with the Godhead, and the human nature of Christ
only suffering. This has led others to deny an atonement altogether,
as they have contended that the man Christ Jesus, while the Godhead
did not suffer, could not, by any sufferings he might endure, give
an equivalent for endless torments in the fire of hell. Pressed with
this difficulty, the advocates of the endless sin and suffering
theory have been led to say, it was not necessary to an atonement
that the sufferer should endure the very same punishment that the
guilty were liable to, but only such as should show that God would
not let sin go unpunished. Others have taken advantage of this
admission to deny the necessity of an atonement at all, and hence
have opposed the idea of one. This has resulted in a still further
departure from truth, and they have taken the position, that if man
suffers for his sins, himself, that is all sufficient; and that his
sufferings are bounded by this life, or at most, to a very limited
period in a future state, after which he will have an eternity of
happiness.
GOD'S
WORKS HAVE Or, as
Tertullian says - "In the Creator's universe all things occur in the
order of gradual development, each in its proper place." That is -
Whatever God has accomplished, so far as known to us, has ever been
by a gradual development and a steady accumulation from a lesser to
a greater. The work of creation was not accomplished in a day; but,
from the first movement of "the Spirit of God upon the face of the
deep," each succeeding day gave birth to some new development in the
process of formation; every day increasing perfection; though every
part of the work was perfect in its kind for the designed object or
use. I stop not here to inquire whether the materials of which the
earth was formed had been in a process of accumulation for untold
ages prior to the Spirit moving upon the mass to bring order and
arrangement out of that which was "without form and void," it might
have been so without at all affecting the accuracy of the Mosaic
account of creation - but the fact that the actual production of the
"heavens and the earth" was by a gradual process is undeniable. The
revelation that God has seen fit to make to men has always been
gradual and progressive: all was not revealed at once; and what has
been communicated, as prophecy, has had a gradual and progressive
development and accomplishment. Take Abraham as an example. First,
he is called to "get out of" his "own country" - then he is shown "a
land" that is promised him - a son of promise is presented to his
mind, Isaac - he learns his seed is to be in bondage 400 years -
after that to be brought into the land of Canaan - that from him was
to proceed a seed in whom "all the families of the earth were to be
blessed" - that his posterity should be as the stars of heaven for
multitude, &c. All these things in their accomplishment were gradual
and progressive, occupying many centuries, and are to have still
further developments before the greatest perfection is attained
contemplated in these providential works of God. What
is true in the case just contemplated, is true in the general course
of God's dealings with men. The Fetus does not come to maturity to
be ushered into the world in a day; and when the child is born how
slow the process by which even its physical nature arrives at
maturity; equally gradual and progressive is the development of its
mind and mental energy. Improvements in the arts and sciences, on
which side soever we look, and in all departments, are gradual. Many
of those improvements are the work of ages; others are brought
forward more rapidly. A single thought at first set the train in
motion that has resulted in mighty developments, which have
astonished, delighted, or benefited mankind. It were easy to trace
out a multitude of particulars, but to the reflecting mind this is
unnecessary - it will readily call them up.
THE CREATION OF MAN Where
is the evidence that God acted contrary to what is, evidently, His
established order in the Creation and Development of Man? In other
words - Where is the evidence that Adam was, at the first period of
his existence, such an intellectual and moral giant as the current
theology makes him? I am persuaded there is more fancy and
assumption than proof of any such giant-like knowledge and holiness
as has been attributed to him. It appears to me these assumptions
have grown out of that misanthropic spirit which takes delight in
maligning Adam's posterity under the pretence of honoring God, and
has been the prolific parent of hatred to our fellow men, instead of
that love which God requires; and its tendency is to produce despair
in the minds of men of ever attaining to that knowledge and holiness
which God requires.
ADAM'S INTELLECTUAL NATURE I see
no reason for departing from the analogy of God's works on this
point. His intellect was gradually developed, most likely, like any
child's. The animal, or physical, first appears - then, gradually
maturing, the intellect commences its development, with one idea or
thought at a time. Up to the time Adam took the forbidden fruit he
is, evidently, very imperfect in the development of intellect. But
says one, "he must have been very wise and knowing, for he gave
names to all the cattle, &c." What if he did - does that prove him a
giant in knowledge? I know it is said, he gave them names
descriptive of their natures, but I know, also, that such a position
is a mere assumption without proof. Who can tell now what name Adam
gave to one of the "living creatures?" And if they could, how can it
be proved that that name is any more descriptive of its nature than
any other? Parents now delight to try the intellect of their little
children; and it not unfrequently happens that these children give
some very odd names to some things, and their parents delighted with
this effort to use intellect often adopt the name the child has
given to an object; and for a time will use the odd name with much
pleasure, because it proves to them an opening mind, and this gives
them joy. This circumstance of Adam's giving names to beasts, &c.,
is but a sorry proof of his being such an anomaly in knowledge as
our modern theology represents him to have been.
ADAM'S IGNORANCE On the
other hand his ignorance is notorious. He was too ignorant to know
he was "naked;" for he was naked and was "not ashamed." Why was he
not ashamed? You may say, "because he was innocent;" but, that was
not all - he did not know he was naked; see Gen.3:7; he was
ignorant, like children, who, to some years, have no more shame than
Adam had, and for a similar reason - they have never been taught it;
and their intellects are not enough developed to discover it.
Further, Adam was so ignorant that he did not know the difference
between good and evil. It is useless to say, he could not have known
this without he had sinned; for God knew that difference, as is
evident from his language, Gen.3:22, "the man has become AS one of
US to know good and evil." This language is further proof that Adam
had been too ignorant to discern between them, previously. But God
had that knowledge without having sinned; and, at a proper time,
doubtless, would have communicated it to man, had he been obedient
and waited the gradual and progressive order established by his
Creator; and thus would have attained that knowledge without the
evil that attended his neglect to heed his Maker's instruction.
Again - "Adam was a figure," or type, "of him that was to come;" see
Rom.5:14, and compare with 1Corth.15:45. The Second Adam was the
anti-type. Did the type come into the world with more knowledge than
the anti-type? Jesus was a child - for a time helpless - without
knowledge; for "the child Jesus grew - and increased in wisdom and
stature, and in favor with God and man:" Luke 2:40,52. Shall we
admit these things of Adam the second and deny them of Adam the
first?
ADAM'S HOLINESS As on
Adam's knowledge the most extravagant notions have been assumed, so
in regard to his holiness the most unbounded descriptions have been
given of its extent, and how it pervaded his entire being,
regulating all his faculties, members, and senses; so that he has
been made to appear as the sum of all perfection, and a perfect
giant in moral life and power. All this has been done, doubtless,
thinking to honor God, and the better to show off what monsters in
depravity Adam's posterity are. Such persons never seem to have once
thought in what a ridiculous light their view places the Creator of
Adam; and how perfectly irreconcilable such theory is with the easy
victory temptation had over him. Did his Creator make him a giant in
holiness, and then suppose there would be any temptation, in the
midst of unbounded enjoyment, by simply directing him not to eat of
a solitary tree? The idea is supremely absurd – thousands of his
posterity have withstood and overcome temptations far greater than
that by which Adam fell. Adam at creation had no moral character -
he was neither holy nor unholy. There is not one word said of Adam's
being holy at his creation. The same is said of him that is said of
all the other works of God - he was "very good" - the same is said
of "every thing God had made;" see Gen.1:31: but not one word is
said of the holiness of any of them. Holiness is a relative quality,
and presupposes action towards some other being, preceded by
knowledge and understanding, based on choice. Without this there
cannot be either holiness or unholiness in any created thing. I
conceive that all the talk about Adam's holiness is "mere patch
work" - designed to patch up the work of God, but has only shown the
pride of men's hearts in desiring to "be as God." Adam was a "very
good" animal, of the highest order - designed to be king, or to have
dominion, over all the others; and possessed with those more perfect
faculties which made him capable of developing a moral nature, or of
manifesting moral actions, by certain appliances called a command,
law, or prohibition. Without such command, law, or prohibition,
there could have been no development of moral nature, or character;
and an would have only remained the highest of animals, and like
them remained very good, but without the character of holiness or
unholiness, for the very sufficient reason, there was nothing to
develop such a relative quality. That
Adam was a mere animal, at creation, is further evident from the
account of creation; Gen.2:7 - "The Lord God formed man of the dust
of the ground," &c.; and verse 19, "Out of the ground the Lord God
formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air," &c.
These last the Lord caused to pass before Adam, to see what he would
call them, at the time when he proposed to make Adam "a help meet,"
or a companion suitable for him: among none of them was such a help
meet to be found. Adam was superior to them all, and designed to be
their lord; Gen.1:26; yet, he had the same origin, i.e. from the
dust of the ground, with such an organization as gave him faculties
for higher developments, and capable of moral manifestations; or,
capable of attaining unto holiness. "The first Adam was made a
living soul;" 1Corth.15:45; not "an immortal soul" - that error lies
at the root of all other corruptions of the Scriptures and the truth
of God. The honor of making man an immortal being was reserved for
the second Adam - he it is that is "made a quickening spirit," or
through and by whom any man can attain to immortality;
1Corth.15:45-49. Adam
then was first developed, if I may use that phrase, an animal, with
an aptitude to attain knowledge superior to any other animal; and
herein was to consist the "image of God" in which he was created; as
appears from Col.3:10 -" Renewed in knowledge after the image of him
that created him:" not, renewed in knowledge after the image of
Adam; but, after the image of Adam's Creator. Adam, himself, after
being formed of the dust of the ground, needed and was designed to
have this renewal [this renovo - to make new] in knowledge after the
image of his Maker. Adam
therefore did not "lose the image of God," as the current theology
teaches; and for which teaching there is not one word of authority
from Genesis to Revelation; nor did he lose holiness, for he had
none to lose prior to his trial; till then a moral character was not
developed - till then he was very good, in common with the animals
and other works of God, but was no more holy than the beasts of the
field were holy: he could not therefore actually lose what he did
not really possess. He did possess a capacity for holiness; that
capacity he did not lose by his disobedience; but, it developed
itself in a wrong direction - it now for the first time, became
manifest that he possessed such a power - he now, for the first
time, came to know the difference between good and evil - he knew
not the one from the other previously; but now, said God, "the man
is become as one of us to know good and evil" - has attained to a
knowledge that exhibits the image of God: he has indeed attained to
it by an improper course; but still he has attained it. But, says
one, "Adam lost knowledge." So speaks the current theology; but, it
is to give God the lie, and charge the God of truth with uttering a
falsehood. God
declared he had gained knowledge. Who is this that blasphemeth his
Maker by affirming the contrary? But, continues the objector. "It is
evident that Adam lost knowledge, for he attempted to hide himself
among the trees of the garden, which he would not have done if he
had not lost the knowledge of God's omnipresence." This is another
pure assumption. Where is the evidence that Adam ever had the
knowledge of God's omnipresence? Or, that any such knowledge had
ever been communicated to him? There is none - he seems to have
regarded God as any child regards his father; and when he is
conscious he has been doing wrong he is afraid to see his father,
and strives to hide himself; just so Adam acted, and for the same
reason - i.e. "shame."
ADAM'S TEMPTATION Many
people murmur and complain about Adam's Temptation; they seem at a
loss to know which to blame most, Adam or his Maker. They might as
well complain that we had not all been left to grovel in the region
of the animal appetites, with no capacity for higher and God-like
attainments. I have already shown that to develop moral qualities,
or to bring out holiness - which is but another word for
self-government - there must be trial of some sort. God adapted the
trial to Adam's weakness and IGNORANCE - He gave him the least
possible trial that could have been used to develop a moral
character at all, or to test man as to his capacity of
self-government. If he could not govern himself, he could not govern
the creation at the head of which his Maker designed to place him,
in dominion. I say, the prohibition out of which the trial was to
grow, and which proved the occasion of his temptation, was the very
least it could be. Look at it - Man's intellectual nature was not
yet developed. His Maker therefore adapted his enjoyments to his
present capacity – or animal nature - by causing "every tree to grow
out of the ground that is pleasant to the sight and good for food,"
&c. In the delightful garden in Eden he placed man, with full and
unrestrained liberty to regale and enjoy himself to the utmost
extent of his present capacity, with but one solitary restriction.
How very trifling this. There was no want of means for enjoyment.
The restriction was designed for his advantage, by leading him to
develop and form a moral character, and learn self-government, which
would open up a new, more noble, and God-like source of happiness
and enjoyment. In this view the restriction was one of love and good
will. If man's capacity for a moral nature could be developed, and a
character of holiness established by this easy test or trial, God
determined it should be; but if that failed to bring out a holy
moral character He determined to place the race under a course of
discipline more severe, i.e., one of labor in sorrow, and death: and
at the same time, to the favor already bestowed upon man, to add a
"much more abundant" supply of aid to attain unto holiness, through
the blessings to be bestowed in another dispensation, to be
immediately opened for Adam's posterity if man failed in the present
trial. "Oh, the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and
knowledge of God," and also of his goodness and love to man! Here I
stop to ask - How is it possible that character can be known or
developed without trial in some form? For example - How can it be
known that a man is a temperance man, and able to govern himself in
reference to inebriating drink, if he has never had a trial? To try
him, would you put that drink under bars and bolts that it was
impossible for him to break? If such a course could be called a
trial, you might try him fifty years, and both he and yourself would
be just as ignorant at the end of that period as at its commencement
as to his capacity for self-government; and he, on that point, would
not be a particle more holy than the first day of that period. To
bring out and fix a moral character, in that respect, he must have
access to the liquor; but you, as a benevolent man, if he was
ignorant of the fact, would warn him that if he did indulge his
taste to any extent, intoxication and shame would follow. Thus
situated, denying himself, or practising self-government, would be a
virtue, and he would, by every victory over the temptation, have a
new consciousness that he was capable of governing himself, and a
renewed evidence of the exalted character of manhood, and thus be
led to a higher and more holy estimate of the excellency and glory
of that Being who had created him with such powers, or capacities.
If in the supposed case the person should fail of self-government,
and partake the inebriating liquor, the intoxication and consequent
shame that follows his failure are a mercy; because calculated to
arouse him to an effort to gain a temperance character, the
importance of which he may now see more than before. Apply
this illustration to the case of Adam. A moral character, holiness,
or self-government could not have existed, in fact, without trial;
and that would have been no trial which had placed it out of his
power to act wrong. The least trial that could be employed was first
used, with the information beforehand that if that failed to produce
a holy moral character, man would be subjected to a much more severe
trial, i.e., "dying to die" - implying sorrow, suffering, and labor,
to wind up in "DEATH."
ADAM'S FAILURE Adam
failed to bring out a holy character in his trial. That is no proof
of any defect in his constitution, or creation; or of any moral
depravity previous to that time; nor did that "ruin" his posterity,
as the self-styled orthodoxy affirms; nor, bring "the wrath of God"
upon them. True, they were "subjected to vanity, [or, suffering and
death,] not willingly, but by reason [or, in the wisdom] of him who
hath subjected the same in hope," and in promise of deliverance from
that death by a second Adam, the seed of the woman. All the acts of
God towards Adam, after his sin, manifest mercy, not wrath. He told
them, indeed, that they must now be subjected to sorrow, labor and
death; but at the same time spoke to them words of encouragement and
hope for their seed, or posterity. He also provided for their
clothing, and guarded them against inflicting upon themselves the
curse of immortality in sin, by removing them away from the tree of
life; which, instead of being a curse, was a blessing; that they
might not by any possible means inflict upon themselves an
immortality in sin and suffering. Thus the notion that Adam died a
moral death is proved to be a mere outburst of a distempered
imagination: he never had moral life before he sinned: he had only
animal life: the death to which he was subjected was only animal.
God in wisdom, and for man's good, put the race under a severer
discipline, as parents often do their children, and that in love and
the most tender pity and good will. How is God - the God of love –
often dishonored by the representations of his dealings with our
first parents and their posterity because of their failure. No
wonder men are made infidels by such blasphemous insinuations - no
wonder men bewilder themselves, and are lost in the fancies which
grow out of their absurd and contradictory theories. The
most blasphemous part of all is, that the God of Truth and Love is
represented as causing Adam's posterity to inherit a morally
depraved nature, "whereby they are utterly indisposed, disabled, and
made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and that
continually:" - Assembly's Catechism. When will such reproach of God
our Maker have an end? "Oh, let the wickedness of the wicked come to
an end;" - Psalmist. What has the doctrine of man's natural
immortality done? Blasphemed God - both deified and devilized man -
exalted Satan - reviled the Bible - fed infidelity - nourished and
brought up Universalism - robbed Christ - filled the world with hate
and hypocrites. This it has done -" ignorantly, in unbelief," I
hope. Let men learn to call their sins their own, and acknowledge
the long suffering and love of God, till they shall both hate their
sins and abandon them, from a deep conviction of the amazing wrong
they have done to God by living contrary to that course his love and
kindness has marked out for us, that we might attain "unto holiness,
and that the end might be everlasting life, through Jesus Christ,"
the Son of God, and our Life-Giver. There
is, in my judgment, not a particle of evidence, in the Bible, that
Adam lost anything for his posterity except access to the tree of
life; and hence entailed upon us corruption and death. Doctors of
Divinity have puzzled their own brains, and those of students in
theology, with labored efforts to find out what infants need to have
done for them, and how God does it, to fit them for heaven. Long and
labored arguments and inquiries have been entered into about the
depravity of infants - how they are justified - how they are made
holy - and whether all of them go to heaven, or a part to hell, &c.
&c. The whole of these discussions have only served to make darkness
darker. The truth, I conceive, is very simple, and that, perhaps, is
the reason why great men overlook it. It is simply this - Adam lost
all claim to immortality – and therefore could not communicate it to
his posterity, any more than an impoverished parent could
communicate riches to his children; the consequence is, all his
posterity are born, not liable to eternal sin and suffering, but
liable to perish, to lose all life, sense and being; and what they
need, previous to personal sins, is simply salvation from perishing,
or they need immortality, eternal life. Christ came to redeem man
from death, or that loss of being to which he was exposed, and open
eternal life to all; or, he "abolished death and brought life and
immortality to light." But that eternal life is the gift of God,
through Jesus Christ. Under the Gospel we are required to believe on
the Lord Jesus Christ, as he that "came down from heaven" to give
"life unto the world." This is the great test question; because he
that truly receives Christ, receives all the other truths connected
with his mission to earth; and he manifests that faith by obedience;
so that a true faith is as certainly known by the conduct and
conversation, as a living man is known from a dead carcass. And for
a man to pretend that he has faith in Christ, while he does not walk
in obedience to all the known commands of God, is as absurd as to
say, that a sick man has faith in a physician whom he refuses to
employ, and whose directions he will not follow. I
conceive, all the "evil nature," about which there has been so much
discussion in the world, that man inherits, from Adam, is a dying
nature; the entire man perishing. By Adam "all were dead;" i.e., the
natural tendency of all born of him was to perish, in the sense of
ceasing to be. - Christ died for all, "that whosoever believeth in
him might not perish, but have everlasting life." Adults then pass
from death, i.e., from condemnation to death, unto life, through or
by faith in Christ - and thus are said to be born again. That which
is born of the flesh, is flesh - corruptible, like him from whom it
sprung; so, that which is begotten of the Spirit, of the spiritual,
living Adam, Christ, is spirit; is endowed with that Spirit which
will raise them up from the dead, or "quicken their mortal bodies,"
or, hath eternal life; according to the Scripture which saith, "he
that hath the Son hath life," whilst "he that hath not the Son hath
not life." If I mistake not, then, the true state of the case is this. - All the offspring of Adam, are destitute of immortality; God has given His Son Jesus Christ to die for us, that we might not perish, except by our own fault. He sets "life and death before men," and calls upon them to "choose life," that they "may live;" - if they will not come to Christ they perish under an insupportable load of guilt and shame, for having preferred animal pleasures - which, when they are the supreme pursuit, are the pleasures of sin - to Life Eternal. Shall any of us be guilty of such folly and madness? Come to the LIFE-GIVER, - lay hold on ETERNAL LIFE. |