Then, says the objector, there is no such thing as disinterested benevolence. We answer, words are used to communicate ideas; there is that, often, in our experience, which is meant by disinterested benevolence. An American is traveling in Europe; he meets, in the street, a young and beautiful fair, bathed in tears, her breast swollen with grief. And her countenance perfectly sad. His heart fraught with the keenest sensibility is moved compassionately to inquire the cause of her grief; he is informed that her father, in a late sickness, became indebted to his physician twenty guineas, for which he was that hour committed to goal when he had but partially recovered his health. Our traveler no sooner hears the story, than he advances the twenty guianes to discharge the debt, and gives her fifty more as a reward for her generous concern. Our traveler did not expect any pecuniary reward, either directly, or indirectly. His charity is called disinterested benevolence. But strictly speaking he was greatly interested; he was interested in the afflictions of the father and child; their relief was his object; charity his passion. Now, did he not act for his own happiness? Yes, as much as ever a man did in his life. What must have been his misery, possessing the same disposition, without the means to meet the need, and relieve. And what a sublime satisfaction he enjoyed, by the bestowment of his favor! Sacred truth informs us, "It is more blessed to give than to receive." We find some men honest and industrious; who think, and think justly, that happiness is not to be found any other way. Others are indolent and knavish, and they expect to obtain happiness in so being. But they are deceived in their object; and will finally learn, that they must be, what conscience has often told them they ought to be, honest and just, in order to be happy. The objector will say, to admit that our happiness is the grand object of all we do, destroys the purity of religion, and reduces the whole to nothing, but selfishness. To which we reply, a man acting for his own happiness, if he seek it in the heavenly system of universal benevolence, knowing that his own happiness is connected with the happiness of his fellow man, which induces him to do justly, and to deal mercifully with all men, he is no more selfish than he ought to be. But a man, acting for his own happiness, if he seek it in the narrow circle of partiality and covetousness, his selfishness is irreligious and wicked. We know it is frequently contended that we ought to love God for what he is and not for what we receive from him; that we ought to love holiness for holiness sake, and not for any advantage such a principle is to us. This is often what we have been told, but what we never could see any reason for, or propriety in. I am asked if I love an orange, I answer I have never tasted one; but am told; I must love the orange for what it is! Now I ask, is it possible for me to either like or dislike the orange, in reality, until I taste it? Well, I taste of it and like it. Do you like it? Says my friend, Yes, I reply, its flavor is exquisitely agreeable. But that will not do, says my friend; you must not like it because its taste is agreeable, but you must like it because it is an orange. If there be any propriety in what my friend says, it is out of my sight.

A man is traveling on the sand of Arabia, he finds no water for a number of days, the sun scorches, and he is exceedingly dry; at last, he finds water and drinks to his satisfaction; never did water taste half so agreeable before. To say, that this man loves water because it is water, and not from the advantage he receives from it, betrays a large share of inconsistency. Would not this thirsty traveler have loved the burning sand as well as he did the water, if it would have tasted as agreeable, and quenched his thirst as well?

The sweet Psalmist of Israel said, "Oh taste and see that the Lord is good." And an apostle says, "We love him because he first loved us." What attribute do we ascribe to God, that we do not esteem on account of its advantage to us? Justice would have been no more likely to be attributed to the Almighty than injustice, if it had not first been discovered that justice was of greater advantage to mankind than injustice. And so of power, were it of no more advantage to human society than weakness; the latter would have been as likely to have been esteemed an attribute to God, as the former. If wisdom were of no greater service to man than folly, it would not have been adored in the Almighty, anymore than folly. If love were no more happifying to man than hatred, hatred would as soon have been esteemed an attribute of God as love.

Undoubtedly, God loves without an influential object, as it would be erroneous to suppose that an infinite being could be operated upon. He loves because it is his nature to love. An apostle says, "God is Love," The sun does not shine because the earth is influencing it. It is the nature of the sun to shine. But all created beings love because of influential objects; and they always love according to the influence which objects have on their minds and passions.

It seems then, says the objector, that our vices are not to be attributed to the devil, but to the influence which the object has on our minds. Surely the reader ought to expect, that after we have denied the existence of a being, we would also deny the existence of his power. Perhaps however, the reader may be surprised, to find that we do not believe in the existence of a being so universally acknowledged among Christian people, and which perhaps, has been of as much advantage to some, as the goddess Dianna was to the craftsman of Ephesus. But we are willing to give our reasons for not believing with the multitudes, in this particular. A created individual being cannot be in more than one place at the same time. But how many millions of places must this evil angel be in, at once, in order to perform the business which Christians have allotted him? In order for us to believe in such a being, we must give him the omnipresency of the Almighty, which belongs to none, in our opinion, but our maker.

Again to admit the existence of such a being, would be of no avail, as there is nothing for him to do. There is, says the objector; he tempts men to sin. But does he tempt men contrary to their passions and the influence of their motives? Answer, No. Then the temptation is of no possible consequence. Supposing a man to be exceedingly hungry, and an agreeable meal is set before him, and he is invited to refresh; at that moment, the devil comes and tempts him to eat, what effect would the temptation have on the hungry man? Or supposing, instead of tempting him to eat, he tempts him not to eat. Would he be likely to succeed?

But What Means The Scripture Which Speaks Of A Devil?

Who is this creature who was a liar from the beginning? We answer, we have no objections to believing that there is such a devil as the scripture speaks of. He is called the old serpent, and is the same we have described, which beguiled the woman in the beginning; and is the carnal mind which is enmity against God. "I will put enmity between thee and the woman," said the Lord. The apostle said " The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh, that ye cannot do the things you would." And that this was the first beguiler, we may learn, from the scripture, before quoted which saith," Lust when it conceived, brought forth sin, and, sin, when it was finished, brought forth death." An apostle also says, "When a man is tempted, he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Any person, who is wholly directed by a carnal mind, may justly be called a devil, as in the case of Peter and Judas. As our Lord said to the Jews, also, "Ye are of your father, the devil; and the lust of your father, you will do." But says the objector, do you think our Saviour was tempted by the power of his flesh, when it was said he was tempted by the devil? We ask in our turn, for what is this particular circumstance introduced? If we cannot prove from our own experience that we are tempted by some other being than our own fleshly appetite, would it be anything more than a speculative belief to admit another tempter? But says the objector, That does not answer the question. Then let us look at his temptation. When he hungered, he was tempted; by what? and to what, Answer, by hunger, to turn stones into bread. Here was a fleshly appetite. When he had a view of all the kingdoms of the earth and their worldly glory that surely was to become a temptation to the base nature. Here was an appeal to the natural ambition, such as give rise to the victories of Alexander. When on the pinnacle of the temple, the tempter gave the appeal to satisfy the ambition to cast himself down, as it was written concerning him, that God would give his angels charge over him. Here was that passion which gives rise to presumption, and wishes to avoid duty. But it is said , the devil taketh him about, thus and so; not literally, however, for there is no mountain in the world that commands a prospect of but a small part of the kingdoms of the world. In a word, the scriptures inform us that he was tried in all points as we are, yet without sin. If, therefore, we know how we are tested and tried, we know also how he was tried. It is my conviction, that we ought not to argue that for truth, in matters of this nature, which we have no knowledge of by experience.

Having illustrated the original cause, and the secondary cause of sin, I pass to take notice of its consequences.

The Consequences of Sin

In order to have our work plain before us, I observe, sin is the works of the flesh, which are opposed to that true light, "Which lighteth every man who cometh into the world." And Paul, as quoted, says they are manifest. "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like:" Galatians 5:19-21a. These are the sins which our fleshly minds are daily producing and their consequences are witnessed by a miserable world. By these sins, with their associates, mankind is rendered miserable indeed. Social and domestic happiness are frequently destroyed.

Idolatry is the sin of worshipping that which is not, in reality, the true God. The old serpent could never hold the creature in captivity, if he did not allow him a god to worship, and religious duties to amuse him. Man is constituted in such relation to God; that to worship is perfectly natural. Then, in order for the carnal mind to take the lead of the whole man, it must introduce a god to worship that does not put restraints upon the activity of the carnal man. But demands certain duties whereby this god will be pleased, while making the creature believe that this God is the true god, and that those religious duties are of the genuine kind. But this God will surely possess all the vile passions of the old Adam, and those religious duties must consist in certain rites which bear no relationship to heaven born charity, or deeds of kindness. An Almighty, omnipresent, infinitely good and wise, may be talked of; but his wisdom, power, and goodness must be ignored; and he must be a great many millions miles away, fixed to a specific place, yet everywhere present; Infinitely wise and powerful, yet the author of a system that demands everlasting misery to those who violate his will; possesses infinite wisdom, yet, is disappointed in his plans; loves some of his creatures, hates others; is pleased and displeased with the conduct of his creatures; is perfectly unchangeable, yet loves at one time and at another time hates the same object. Such an idol will answer for thousands. Now what are the consequences? Answer, one nation supposes to itself the only favorite of God; others are hated of him, and hated by him. If God hates those who hate him, we ought to do as our God does, and hate them also. One denomination of Christians has different ideas of the attributes of their God from another; and they are violently apposed to each other; they are at swords point; and call each other heretics, and pronounce endless torment and wrath upon each other. All such religion is of the flesh; the wisdom of it is not from above, but it is earthly, sensual, and devilish, and those who embrace it are tormented by it. Turn to history, calculate the rivers of blood which have been shed on account of religious disputes and ask yourself the question, Is this religion masterminded by a supreme being. The devil will have religion, and will have it maintained as long as he can: but then, he must tell the people, that it is none of his but that it came from the true and living God, or they will not believe it. It is an object with the old serpent, to have a great many denominations, and to persuade them that they are indisputable right, and indubitable wrong, and to stir up their minds to maintain their respective tenets, and to wage war with each other, which he calls contending earnestly for the faith. Many who profess to be called by him, who loved sinners, to preach his Gospel, and who profess to adhere completely to the principles laid down by the Saviour and to walk in the path of meekness, gentleness and long-suffering, if they happen to think a little differently, in matters of faith, they are filled with great vehemency toward each other, which they call holy wrath, or indignation and you might as well reason with hungry lions, or tigers, as with them, for they worship the beast, and partake largely of his nature, and manifest it.

Did they worship the true God, in the Spirit of that lowly Nazarene, difference, in particular sentiments would not hinder their fellowship, and love of one another; all the religion in our world, founded on partial principle of man's inventions, pointing out particular modes of faith, and forms of worship, is from the carnal man. Discord and contention ensue; wars and fighting are the consequences: hatred, wrath, strife, emulation, and rivalryship rage in the minds of those who possess this spurious religion.

What I say, is a truth of universal notoriety; and yet, what is very strange is, people are not convinced of it. As is a monstrous wolf should ravage in open day light, in the high and low part of the shepherds pasture, gorging his carnivorous appetite with the fat of the flock; and the shepherd thinks it is all right, because somebody has told him that that creature is a sheep, and that it will, therefore, do them no harm! How miserable has religion made mankind! But says the reader, it was sin that you were to tell the consequences of, not religion. We tell you, kind reader, that the religion of which we speak, is opposed to every degree of the Spirit of Life in Christ. Which has ever been revealed to mankind, and therefore, is sin; and that which is attended with the most pernicious consequences. It is this kind of religion which takes away the "key of knowledge;" varieties neither enter the kingdom of heaven themselves, nor suffer those to enter who would. All worship, which is dictated by modes and forms, as inventions of men, is opposed to the true worship. "The Father seeketh such to worship him, who worship him in Spirit and in truth." Nothing satisfies the carnal man better than religion; but it must be a child of her own and look just like herself. The carnal mind being the hotbed where all the roots of bitterness grow which trouble mankind, we ought to look there, for the foundation of all that religion which bear the features of the serpent. Pride is the most prominent characteristic of a fleshly mind, its religion dictates to look with contempt on those who are not from the same mode of faith, who do not subscribe to the same article of belief, and are not called by the same denomination; and says, "Stand by thyself, come not nigh me, for I am holier than thou." It dictates to give thanks for not being like others; it boasts with performances wrought with great pains and expense; it boast of having "borne the burden in the heat of the day." and dictates to expect more than others receive; "But the carnal mind," says the reader, "makes nouse of the scripture, does it?" Always, be sure, where it is fashionable to believe them, and men are despised if they do not. Anything will do of which the creature is proud and is willing to persecute others for not adopting. But ought not men to be despised, and called all to naught, who do not believe the Bible to be the word of God? Men ought not be despised for not believing them; and if they are they ought not be despised, but pitied and enlightened. Remember our acceptable High Priest was one who could "have compassion on the ignorant, and on them who were out of the way." Emulation, or rivalry is one of the works of the flesh, and it is enmity against the meek and humble Spirit of Christ; and its consequences are pernicious beyond description. In matters called religion we see much of its iniquity, as well as in natural things.

One denomination wishes to rival another; one preacher wishes to rival another; and how often it is the case, that professed Christians will act more underhandedly to obtain an advantage over a professor of a different denomination, than a common jockey is willing to do, in order to obtain a bargain. And we will say no more, we have often seen, in the same churches, persons at such variance, about matters of their religion, that truth, seemed not to be regarded, in the least, on either side; each would strive to crush his brother, until two parties were formed, and a whole town set in an uproar. This is the religion which pleases the carnal mind, but it is death.

"From whence come wars and fightings among you? Come they not even from your lust, which wars against the soul?" It is recorded in the scripture, that the love of money is the root of all evil. But men would have no love for money were it not for the earthly advantage obtained by it. Then, the passion is really covetousness, and the consequences is mischievous to mankind.

One, for the sake of money, will steal, another will lie, another will counterfeit the currency, and another will murder. Were it not for the sake of property, would men do these things? Answer, no. Then the case is plain, that they both act from the same main passion, which is want, and to the same main object, which is happiness. But their minor objects and their minor passions vary. What need would there be for government were it not for sin? If all were willing to do, as they would be done by what an enormous expense would be saved; as it would render governmental laws useless.

But by reason of men's passion, and mistaken objects influencing them, our lives are exposed to be taken by our neighbors. When passion reigns all the tender charities of humanity are suppressed; all the bowels of compassion are frozen; a deaf ear is turned to the needy in their distress; the poor are despised by the rich, the rich is envied by the poor; parents are dishonored by their children; children are abused, and provoked to angry by their parents. The vile afflictions of sin will burn to the destruction of the sweetest harmonies of nature.

The Torments of Sin

Yet, listen to the worst of torments, in consequence of sin. "A wounded conscience, who can bear?" A fire that burns all the day long, a sword that continually pierce the soul, a sting that cannot exhaust its poison, a fever that never turns until the patient dies. A dart struck through the liver, what ails the sinner? Why his hand on his breast? There gnaws the worms that never dies, there burns the fire that shall never be quenched.

A mistaken idea has been entertained of sin, even by professors, I have often heard sincere ministers preach, in their reproofs to their hearers, that it was the greatest folly in the world, for people to forego salvation, in a future state, for the COMFORTS and PLEASURES OF SIN in this. Such exhortations really defeat their intentions. The wish of the honest preacher is, that the wicked should repent of their sins, and do better; but at the same time, he indicates, that sin at the present is more productive of happiness than is righteousness, but that sins bad results will, only come in a future age, and though righteousness is unrewarding as far as happiness and the fulfillment of man's pleasurable desires is concerned in this age. One must, nevertheless forfeit the bliss and delightful happiness that sin could offer him forever, settling for something that is much less rewarding in order to appease his Creator and escape his unmerciful wrath. One can witness the heartache and misery of sin, yet the above statement would suggest that it is sin, not righteousness, that is productive of happiness. One who would hold with this opinion has not experienced a change; his passion is fear, his motive is escape and his heart is filled with unfulfilled and corrupt passion. He may abstain from some outward enormities, yet his heart is filled with the desire of them. Yet I have been told by persons of high profession in Christianity, that if they could be certain of escaping hell's torment that they would commit every sin to which their unbridled passion might lead them.

Sin deprives us of every rational enjoyment, as far as it captivates the mind; it is never able to furnish one drop of satisfaction to the spirit. Sin is a false mirror, by which the sinner is deceived in everything on which his mind contemplates. If he thinks of his maker, who is his best friend, it strikes him with awe, fills his mind with fearful apprehension, and he wishes there were no such being. If he thinks of any duty which he owes his Maker, he says, "God requires more of me than I can produce, therefore he is an unreasonable hard task master, and to do his bidding deprives me of my happiness and ability to survive in this age. I must rule my own temple. Religion is only calculated to blind men, and make them miserable; righteousness blunts my passions, and deprives me of pleasures for which I long." But it represents "Stolen waters to be sweet, and bread eaten in secret to be pleasant." In a word, sin is of a torment-giving nature to every faculty of the soul, and is the moral death of the mind.

Sin is Limited

Well says the reader, Can sin have all those evil effects and not be infinite? Undoubtedly; as all those evil effects are experienced in this finite state. Thousands, who I hope, are gone to greater degrees of rest than the most upright who enjoy the dominion of the carnal mind. The effects of sin, as sin, are not endless, but limited to the state in which it is committed. This perhaps, will be contrary to the opinion of many who read this treatise, as they are want to suppose that there are three cardinal consequences produced by sin, viz. (1) Death temporal; (2) death spiritual; (3) death eternal. As to the first of these consequences, I say men die natural deaths because they are naturally mortal; but they are not mortal because of sin, for man was mortal before he sinned; if he were not, he never could have sinned. Our opponent will say, that the death of the body is the consequences of sin, when one man murders another; to which we reply, one man could not murder another if men were not mortal. Sin cannot be said to be the cause of natural death, any more than of natural life. We will acknowledge that sin is often the means whereby natural life is ended, and our opposer must acknowledge, that it is often the means of persons being introduced into natural life. Perhaps a hundred are introduced into existence by illicit connections, where one is taken out by malice pretense. But the meaning of the objector is that man became mortal by sin; to which we reply, if immortality be corruptible by sin, the Christian hope of immortality is a vain one. The death that Adam died in consequences of sin, happened on the day of transgression, if we may believe the scripture account about it; but Adam did not die a natural death, on that day, nor for some hundreds of years afterwards.

The way in which many have tried to reconcile the scriptures with their traditions, in this matter, appears strange to us; they quote 2 Peter 3:8, "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." And as Adam died short of a thousand years, he died in the day of his transgression. But in order for the text to read to their meaning it ought to read thus, "One day with the Lord is a thousand, and a thousand years is one day." As they understand the text, the conjunction `as' has no possible meaning. In respect to spiritual death, we believe it was all that was meant by the word," In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." But if eternal death were in- tended, there was no recovery for man. Why divines have carried this matter so erroneously beyond all scriptural testimony, we cannot imagine. But it is said, spiritual or moral death would be eternal, were it not for the dispensation of the Gospel, by which death is swallowed up in life. So we might say of any thing else, even of a momentary nature; it would be eternal if it were never to end. The days of a man's life would be eternal, if they were never to end. The spring would be eternal if it were not succeeded with the summer. A rose would be an eternal flower, if it never withered, and youth would be eternal, if it were not for old age and death. But what do all such arguments avail? The grand sublime and glorious system of God, carries every thing away that it births from mortality and time.

We have already hinted, that sin might have consequences which were not evil, but not as sin. By the infinite wisdom and goodness of the Almighty, sin may be of advantage, even to the sinner himself, but we say again, not as sin. If the infinitely Wise and Good intended any one thing for good, which we rightly call sin, that event in respect to the divine intention, is not sin. We have introduced a circumstances, in the forepart of this work, in which, what we are now endeavoring to illustrate, may clearly be seen. It is evident that that which Joseph's brethren meant unto evil God meant unto good. Now the immediate consequence of the sin, to them, was guilt of the first magnitude. Who could calculate the one half of what they endured in consequences which God intended, in the issue of event, were altogether beneficial; and those who committed the sin, by the mercy of God were made partaker of the benefits contained in the purpose of him who meant it for good.

Again, it is evident from the scriptures that Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together against the Lord, to do what the council and the hand of the Almighty had determined to be done. "The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his anointed. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel were gathered together. For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy council determined before to be done," Acts 4:26-28. Had Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, any better meaning, in crucifying Christ, than Joseph's brethren in selling Joseph to the Ishmaelites? All who read the question will answer, no. But the sacred text says, they were gathered together to do whatsoever God's hand and council had determined to be done. Now we ask, was not the determination of the murderers of Christ, the same, with the determination of Divine Wisdom? Says the reader, I cannot say it was not, and yet I dare not say it was. We will then answer, the Almighty intended all they did, should be done; but he intended it for a very different purpose from what they did, who did it. They intended the destruction and overthrow of the doctrine which Christ preached, and they hoped the things which he had spoken, concerning them, would fail of taking place. But the means which they used to oppose the cause of Christ, were those which God intended to promote it. They missed of their intentions, and the Lord carried the whole of his into effect. What Christian is there in the world, who will say, the consequences of the death of Christ are not good? or, that those who were his murders for whom he prayed on the cross, will not receive an advantage from his death, which they meant for evil?

Or who can limit the good contained in the design of the Almighty? But will this rule do, says the reader, to apply to all sin? We answer without hesitancy, that we fully believe it. Food for the body would never please the appetite, unless we first experience hungry; the cooling spring would not be sought for, if men were never thirsty; health could never be prized, could we not contrast it with sickness; ease is appreciated by the remembrance of pain; and a physician would never be wanted if it were not for our infirmities; a Saviour would never have been praised by his redeemed had they never been in bondage; the song, "Thou hast redeemed us to God, out of every kingdom and nation," could never be sung, had redemption not been needed; a fountain would never have been opened for Judah and Jerusalem to wash in, from sin and uncleanness, had it not been for sin and uncleanness.

Then, says our opponent, we may do evil, that good may come. This objection has often been stated to us in conversation on this subject. Our reply is short. There is a self contradiction in the objection; to do anything whatever, for good, is not a moral transgression. Had Joseph's brethren been taught of God that it was necessary for them to sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites, that he might go down to Egypt, and there prepare for the famine and they had done it for the good which God intended, it would have been no more sin in them than there was in the design of God. Then it is plain, that to do evil that good may come is impossible.

Again, had Herod, Pontas Pilate, the Gentiles and the people of Israel, intended the good which God intended in the crucifixion of Christ, sin would have been out of the question. Saint Paul ask the question to his opposers, after he had argued, that where sin abounded grace did much more abound, "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" and answers it thus, "God forbid. How shall we, who are dead to sin, live any longer therein? If we are truly enlightened into the nature of the all abounding grace of the Gospel, it causes us to die to sin, and if we are dead to sin, we shall not live in it. God has forbidden it, in the nature of things and rendered it impossible.

As we have limited sin in its nature, the reader will not expect to find unlimited consequences attached to it in this work. Were it so, that the fullness of the divine law was perfectly comprehended in the mind of the creature and he should go contrary thereto, his sin would be as infinite as the law transgressed; but we argue, that the law transgressed, is a law formed in the mind of an imperfect being by the imperfect knowledge which he obtains of the divine law, which is no other than God himself.  This knowledge being imperfect, forms a law like itself, imperfect and mutable; and an imperfect, mutable law does not afford data from which to argue endless consequences.  The sacred oracles declares. "The soul that sins shall die." If it had added and said, "and shall never live again." It would have carried the consequences of sin infinitely farther than the Holy Spirit intended.  Sin is death to the soul, as long as it sins, be that  time longer  or shorter.  In order  to argue an endless  consequences, we must first state an infinite cause; and as we have argued sin on a finite scale, and in a limited circle, we must rationally limit its consequences.

Section 4