regard then to Shimei who cursed David, it is declared by Solomon: On the day that thou goest out and passest over the brook Kedron, thou shalt know for certain that thou SHALT SURELY DIE.* And touching his delinquency in not obeying that righteous admonition, it is very apparent, what kind of death was intended by the king.

Indeed, if the death contemplated be not embraced in the text, it is difficult to prove there is ought contained in it; or, that Adam had any thing to fear from a threatening really above his comprehension. And to agitate the point therefore in what the divine wrath consisted, were that supposeable, would be in my regard a frivolous design, and involve an inexcusable waste of time and strength. But on the contrary: If the warning of the text do actually embrace the sense I have named, it is important to remark, that the death spoken of implies more than a bare separation of soul and body. It comprehends every thing that naturally conduces to that event or implies fitly, what is found in any manner to have an unhappy bearing on natural life. It comprizes the long train of ills, which, through a habit of corporeal infirmity are found by experience to be either injurious, shameful, or distressing. So that not only the pang of final dissolution, but whatever leads on to it in wasting disease, is realized in fevers, consumptions, plagues, wounds, bruises, distortions, additions and defects in the system, must all be evidently set down to the untold misery implied in the threatening of the divine Lawgiver and Judge.†

* Chap. ii. 37.

The primitive bodies of our first parents were not subject to the deformities and infirmities, the fatigues of labor, and the injuries of climates, or seasons, nor to distempers, violence, and death, which we

This is the view I had purposed to take of this matter, and other sources of proof, I have willingly dispensed with in this connexion.

Again. We may contemplate the death spoken of in the text, viewed as a spiritual effect, and distinguishable in its nature from what pertains to the body.

With regard to the phrase "spiritual death," as freely used, I think no impartial lover of the gospel can consistently object to it. The declaration is often repeated in your hearing: The soul that sinneth, it shall die.* And not merely scriptural propriety, flowing from a similar verbiage, but what is worthy of notice, as most decisive, the death ascribed in Scripture to the immortal spirit, is denoted in Ezekiel by the word occurring in the text, even retaining the same form. An example is this: When I say unto the wicked, Thou SHALT SURELY DIE; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall DIE IN HIS INIQUITY; but his blood will I require at thine hand. It is evident from this statement, that the subject of admonition relates to the soul; and that a death in trespasses and sins is particularly described by the sacred penman. And touching the death spoken of, I may suggest, that in subsequent parts of the same prophecy it is spoken of in are now exposed to; and no doubt but they were built with various beauties of due proportions, color, and form, vastly superior to all tha now appear in the ruins of human nature. And perhaps, in their ori ginal state, there was an amiable and awful lustre shining all around them, and covering them as with a garment, something like that which shone in Moses' face when he had been with God in the Mount.-Ber ry-street Sermons.

* Ezek. xviii. 4, 20. Ezek. iii. 18.

in a manner, as may appear, that is wholly inapplicable to the body. The reason of it also is very obvious. It arises then from the fact, that it is not consummated in the moment of real infliction on the wicked; and again, that the righteous, living as such, or dying unto sin daily, are delivered from a natural trial of its consequences.*

And respecting this dialect as designating a spiritual effect, I will remark by the way, that the figurative nature commonly ascribed to it, may be justly suspected.. To say nothing of death as an attribute of some nature, I regard it then as a point of philology. And viewed in that light, nothing is more common among men than the use of a word in a twofold acceptation; and in respect to either, the meaning ascribed to it is equally proper. This is true of words that constantly recur, whatever be thought their primitive application. And manifestly of a particular class, which denotes not only

*I say, in regard to the wicked is not consummated, i. e. perfectly displayed while in the present world, though they live under its fatal tendencies. In proof of it, take the following: "Again, when the righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and DIETH in them; for his iniquity that he hath done SHALL he die." It is very plain, that the death contemplated in this passage, does not answer fitly the character of temporal death. Also, in regard to the righteous, I intimate, that they are delivered from a proper trial of its effects. With respect to that point, take the following: "Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions, that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he SHALL NOT DIe."† It is equally evident in this, as in the other instance, that the death spoken of, can be only a death in sin; and from which in their own experience, as a vindicatory manifestation of divine hatred toward it, they are justly and everlastingly delivered.

*Chap. xviii. 26. xviii. 27, 28.

sensible objects, but the more refined and spiritual endowments of our nature. Of those referred to, you may take for example the words heart, sense, light, conception, and some others. And in regard to this class you perceive immediately, that they are used, not only to denote sensible forms, but also gifts and operations of a very diverse description. A trait of speech, peculiarly prevalent in eastern idioms. And in respect to the Hebrew, is certainly one of undoubted interest; and can hardly escape the notice of any one, in the least acquainted with the original languages of the inspired volume.

But in relation to spiritual death, as implying what I have said, a difficulty arises frequently in the minds of some respecting its penal nature. The matter they suggest with great plainness. In their own dialect it is briefly as follows: "Is not the notion of punishing sin with sin implied in the fact?" Yea, if admitted, "is not the divine law in its coercive power made to subserve this dark and mysterious dispensation ?"

In reply to this, I cheerfully premise the sense of a late writer. He says: "We must here, however, carefully distinguish between what in spiritual death belongs formally to the nature of sin, and that which is the effect of judicial infliction. To the former belongs the privation of rectitude, and the corruption of the whole man; to the latter pungent sorrow, and the privation of mental enjoyment. The former constitutes the sinfulness of man's fallen state, the latter its misery. That the former is not strictly penal must be obvious to every person of discernment. Whatever is strictly penal in spiritual death must be from God; but were this death as it lies in the privation of moral rectitude the ef

fect of divine infliction, God would be the author of sin. Man sunk into spiritual death by his own delinquency, and not by judicial infliction on the part of God. By the same act of transgression which constituted him a sinner, he fell under the power of this death. The law and justice of God, it is true, gave him up, when thus fallen, to its dominion; so that by the force of his own depravity he sinks more and more under its power, unless that power is counteracted and overcome by supernatural grace. But this is a consequent of judicial permission, and not an effect of sensible wrath; and must be referred to that misery which springs out of the being of sin, and not that which arises from penal infliction on the part of God.*"

The words of this author I have repeated with a view to a fair consideration of this topic. If the distinction be a just one that he insists on, between what is implied in the origin and predominance of moral pravity, and that in respect to it which is certainly penal, a foundation is laid for a reply that is usually made, viz., That God, as a righteous Governor, may punish sin with sin, but not as sin. It is predicated on the fact, as you must perceive, that sin is a natural no less than moral evil, a hurtful no less than moral disability which hinders us from attaining the end of our existence. Viewed in that light, it may be a means in the hand of God of expressing his sovereign displeasure against iniquity. It can be adopted for that purpose, viewed merely as a positive calamity. And considered in that light, no doubt it has been employed by the supreme Majesty, and the principle asserted is made a matter of unchangeable record. And do you STEVENSON on the Atonement.