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 caine 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 nanner? 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.

There has been and continues to be much dispute and opposition of opinion among divines, respecting God's raising up Pharaoh and hardening his beart for eternal destruction. Some insist that the Almighty, by a sovereign act, created Pharaoh for everlasting misery in the eternal world, and that he hardened his heart on purpose that he might commit sin enough to justify his endless condemnation, Others oppose such notions, and charge them with making God the author of sin. But they contend that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, was the sole author of his own sins and is justly sentenced to everlasting perdition together with all his host for disobedience in refusing to let the children of Israel go peaceably out of Egypt. Thus there is one darling point, in which, after they have opposed one another with all the arguments which they can possibly bring to bear on the subject in dispute, and after they have reciprocally censured each other for holding dangerous errors, they meet, and become perfectly quiet in the belief, that Pharaoh and his host are in the torments of hell, from which there is no deliverance.

That which these opposing divines dispute about is not embraced in the present object, to which this research is directed, but the point in which they both meet, and concerning which they entertain no doubt, is the question now to be settled.

But how are we to obtain our object? The tradition of the church says, that Pharaoh and his host are in a state of endless torment. This tradition is now called in question. But how are we to bring this case to a fair decision? The following method is proposed. Let those divines, who hold and endeavour to maintain that Pharaoh and his host are in a state of endless misery pursuant to an eternal decree of God, and those who deny that tenet, but maintain that Pharaoh and his host are in this state of torment in consequence of abusing their moral agency drop their dispute, until they shall have

proved that Pharaoh and his host are actually in such a state. And then let them all agree to believe nothing on this subject more than the divine testimony proves.

When this method is agreed to, the whole question is settled; for the fact is, there is no intimation in the scripture account that Pharaoh or any of his host were sufferers after they were drowned in the red sea.

It is a most humiliating thought, that our learned doctors of the church should so long maintain this phantom of their imagination, to the dishonor of God, and to the discomfort of every tender sensibility of the human heart.

But the day of trial and retribution is come; and this folly must be recompensed. It is true, they may turn away their faces, they may wish to avoid meeting these glaring absurdities; but the spirit of investigation, which is now manifesting itself, will never suffer this matter to rest, until such barbarity of sentiment is totally rescinded.

The hearer is cautioned against the supposition that the preacher takes the least satisfaction in giving those, who maintain the errors which he is endeavouring to expose, the smallest sensation that may disturb their comfort, and against harbouring such a reprehensible disposition. But he may be assured, that no respect due to fellow mortals, can justly prevent us from bringing their false notions to the light.

The next subject, which we propose to notice is that of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. We have an account in the 16th of Numbers of the destruction of these persons, their families, and of all that appertained to them, by being swallowed up in the earth. This is another instance of divine providence, which, those who believe and preach the doctrine of endless, unmerciful punishment advert to as a certain proof of its reality. But how can the account which we have of the destruction of those

people prove what it says nothing of nor even implies? If one should say, that Korah, Dathan, and Abiram with their families went immediately, after they were swallowed up in the earth, to some one of the planets, where they have all lived ever since in a state of affluence, who could prove to the contrary? There is nothing in the account which we have of those people that intimates what became of them after they were swallowed up in the earth.

If we could be satisfied with the account which we have of this matter, there is no difficulty in understanding why these people were swallowed up, and the benefit thereby intended to the congregation.

As these men rose up to oppose Moses and Aaron, and to excite the people to rebellion, Moses told the congregation; "Hereby shall ye know that the Lord hath sent me to do all these works. If these men die the common death of all men, or if they be visited after the visitation of all men, then the Lord hath not sent ine; but if the Lord make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that appertaineth unto them, and they go down quickly into the pit, then ye shall understand that those men have provoked the Lord." According to these words the event took place, and the rebellion was ended.

The question is now put to the candor of this christian audience, what is there in this account that authorises the belief that Korah, Dathan, and Abiram are now in a state of endless torment? Moses did not intimate to the congregation that these people would be tormented after death; and in fact if he had told them so, they could not have been witnesses of the truth of his testimony; nor could any other people since have known whether Moses spoke the truth or not. We have no account either sacred or prophane, that gives any information of the situation of this company after the earth swallowed them up. If they have been in a state of torment ever since, that torment has been no terror to the