in which you have directly advocated the notion of an immediate resurrection, though in some cases you seem to suggest such an idea. But in opposition to an immediate resurrection, we will urge the 15th chapter of first Corinthians. St. Paul through the whole chapter speaks of the resurrection as a future event. But if each man is raised at death, the resurrection was past as well as future. The Apostle also represents Christ as the first fruits, or as he expresses it elsewhere, "the first born. from the dead." But if every person is raised at death, Christ is far from being the first who arose from the dead; for thousands have arisen before him. St. Paul assures us that the resurrection is to take place at Christ's coming. Now let this coming be when it may, it evidently alludes to some particular period, and consequently the resurrection cannot take place with every man at his death. And further; the Apostle assures us that when the dead are raised, those who are alive on the earth, shall be changed to immortal beings. Hence it is demonstrably evident that the resurrection is yet future. Again: on the day of Pentecost St. Peter cites from the Psalms a passage expressive of the resurrection, which he applies to Jesus Christ. To show that David could not apply this passage to himself, the Apostle informs us that David had not yet ascended, i. e. had not arisen from the dead. Thus it may be seen that the resurrection does not follow immediately upon death St. Paul to Timothy speaks of certain impostors who are filled with profane and vain babblings, and who have erred from the truth, saying, "the resurrection is past already."§ It is not at all probable that these impostors pretended that men then living were raised from the dead; their only meaning, we may presume was, that those who

U. Mag. Vol. 1. Dialogue between a Lim. and a Univ. + Col. i. 18. Acts ii. 26-34.

2 Tim. ii. 18.

had departed this life were raised. So that their heresy amounts simply to the doctrine, that men are raised at death. But if each person is raised at death, the resurrection is past as much as future, and these apostates were not far from the truth. From these considerations it appears that the resurrection is a future event. Jesus Christ himself, though he did not see corruption, did not arise on the day of his death. We challenge the exhibition of a single passage which says that each man is

raised at the moment of death. And if this should be granted, it would profit you nothing; for Jesus declares that some shall come forth to the resurrection of damnation. Therefore, if you say with the apostates of old, that the resurrection is already past, or if you say it is present or future, I think you will do well to get rid of all the difficulties I have mentioned.

I have now examined the three positions on which you ground your doctrine of immediate happiness for all men; viz. 1. that men are saved by throwing off the body. 2. that they are saved by being instructed after death, and 3. that they are saved by the resurrection. But on either ground, we have seen that faith and repentance, those indispensable prerequisites for heaven, are entirely excluded. Besides: these positions are at variance, one with the other. The moment you advance either of these positions, you renounce both the others. Thus if you say that death frees the soul from all pollution, you in reality say that men are not saved by being instructed, nor by the resurrection. If you say that men are saved by being instructed after death, you confess that they are not freed from sin and qualified for heaven by throwing off the body, nor by being raised from the dead. And if you say that men are saved by the resurrection, you admit that neither the dissolution of the body, nor divine instruction, fits the soul for the enjoyment of bliss. And yet you urge each of these positions,

together, as though they were in perfect unison with

each other!

But perhaps you will attempt to maintain a consistency by saying that you predicate your views, not on either of these positions separately, but on all united. This then, is confessing that neither of them separately is sufficient to support your system; so that all arguments resting upon either position alone, are not to be admitted as full proof of your views. This reduces your proof to a chain of three links, each of which must be sound, or the chain is broken. Now if any flaw can be found in either of these links, the chain is broken as effectually as tho every link were destroyed. And all that we have urged against these positions separately, will apply with equal force, if they were united. This ground then is only subjecting you to greater inconveniences; for instead of having one position to maintain, you have three. This perhaps may induce you to rely upon one only. But remember that whenever you urge either of the positions, you renounce both the others.

I have now closed my examination of your system, and what has been offered is submitted to the reader. If I have effected what I attempted to effect, i. e. to show that it has no support from scripture or reason, but is in opposition to both; that it is inconsistent with itself, and acknowledged by yourself to be unfounded, it must surely fall. It is hardly necessary to examine your arguments, for if the foundation on which they rest is sapped, their force is entirely obviated. But as you have several arguments which you keep constantly in view, I will examine them at large in the next Letter.

Yours, &c.

55

Examination of Mr. Ballou's arguments.

REV. AND DEAR BROTHER,

As was proposed in my last, I will now attend to some of the principal arguments on which you rely for the support of your system. The first argument I shall notice is this ;-As sin and misery are inseparably connected, and as there will be no sin after death, so there can be no punishment. That this is an argument on which you rely, will be seen by the following. "As sin had its origin in flesh and blood, and as no intimation is given in the scriptures, that sin ever was or ever will be committed out of flesh and blood, we venture to hope that sin will never exist after this present mortal state shall close." This quotation will justify the argument stated above. And although there is a taking plausibility in this argument, and those of your views place great dependence upon it, still I trust that it can be made to appear that it is as false, as it is specious.

Upon this argument we remark-1. This argument is founded upon the principle that all sin originates in the flesh, and that death saves the soul. But in the preceding Letter, it has been proved from scripture, reason, and your own acknowledgment, that all sin arises from the evil disposition or intention of the mind, and not from the flesh. We have also seen that if death qualifies a man for heaven, he is not saved by Christ, but by a physical law of nature. This has been stated at large in my last, to which the reader is referred. And if what is there advanced be conclusive, then this argument is already refuted. For if the foundation be destroyed, whatever rests upon that basis must fall.

* U. Mag. Vol. III. p. 150. See also Lect. pp. 14, 242.

2. The argument before us is also founded upon the principle, that all criminality ceases as soon as the sinful act is performed; a principle repugnant to the scriptures, and the common sense of mankind. No man is a sinner until he has committed sin, and unless the criminality outlives the act, then guilt is as momentary as the act. And hence all punishment inflicted in this world, is cruel and vindictive, if it continue one moment after the crime is perpetrated. This principle would destroy all society, and fill the world with rapine and blood, should it be reduced to practice. Human laws cannot take cognizance of an act until after it is committed, and if criminality ceases with the act, then all punishments inflicted by human laws are unjust and cruel; then human laws are engines of oppression, and ought to be repealed. Thus, Sir, would this principle destroy all government and law, and introduce a state of general anarchy and confusion. But this principle, dangerous as it is, is the basis on which your argument rests.

The divine law, it is true, is not thus confined. That can punish us in the perpetration of the crime as well as afterwards. But tho the divine law can and generally does punish the sinner in a degree, while in the act of transgression, thousands of instances can be produced in which men are punished by the divine law long after the commission of the crime. You contend that Cain was punished for the murder of his brother by being a fugitive and vagabond in the earth; but was all this inflicted upon him while in the very act of murder? Surely not. When treating upon the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, you say, "For nearly eighteen hundred years the Jews have wandered in outer darkness in consequence of this blasphemy, and how much longer they are to continue in this unhappy situation, none but our merciful Father in heaven knows."* Here then, instead

*Lect. p. 144.