question of man's Immortality can be most satisfactorily determined when examined by itself. More than this; it ought in fairness to be determined before the subject of Future Punishment is entered on. The conception of endless suffering is apt to agitate the feelings too strongly to allow a calm exercise of the judgment; and there is reason to think that some who have denied the natural immortality of man, have been led to do so in part, either because the admission of it threatened to bring the eternity of future misery in its train, or because the denial of it seemed to afford a more satisfactory ground than could otherwise be taken for resistance to so dreaded a conclusion. But an argument ought not in any case to be decided by the feelings. Every question relating to truth should be decided by its appropriate evidence. Let the question of Man's Immortality, therefore, be so; and then, with the result of the inquiry in our hands, we shall best advance to the investigation of any other doctrine to the discussion of which it may be tributary.

I have written because I have read, and because I wished to test the force of reasonings which opposed my long cherished opinions. I publish, because I hope it may be useful to others to be acquainted with the course and

issue of my thoughts; but if in this hope I should be disappointed, I shall have the satisfaction of bearing, what I trust God, who knows it to be such, will accept, a single-hearted testimony to that which I believe to be His truth.

The course I have pursued in the composition of this work is, I am aware, open to animadversion. No one will read it without perceiving that he is led more than once over the same ground. He will naturally say, Surely this repetition might have been avoided, and the sentiments of the several writers on the same topic might have been collected, and disposed of at once. There are reasons, however, for the course I have preferred. The five writers I have noticed, although maintaining a common conclusion, do not maintain it by the same arguments. It is by no means clear that any one of them was acquainted with the sentiments of of the other four, so that they are not actuated by any impulse of mutual harmony or support. If any one of them really was acquainted with the sentiments of all the rest, Mr. White has the strongest claim to such a distinction; but he, instead of supporting his coadjutors in the general issue, bases his whole argument on a theory of life, death, and immortality, which subverts their fabric from its foundation. Amidst so many and such irreconcilable differences, I

found no course practicable but a separate examination of the respective works; and, if perhaps an abler hand might have overcome the difficulty, I must beg the reader to accept as it is my less perfect endeavour. It is possible, however, that the course I have taken as the easiest may be found to be also the best; the best, at least, that is, the most satisfactory, for the studious and reflecting reader, whose habit of patient inquiry requires the field of controversy to be thoroughly, and step by step, explored. It is for such readers chiefly that I have written. The works on which I have animadverted are the following:

1. A small anonymous work, "by a Clergyman of the Church of England,” entitled “Christ our Life."

2. "Notes of Lectures on Future Punishment," and the enlarged edition of the same work, entitled "The Scripture Doctrine of Future Punishment," by the Rev. H. H. Dobney, of Maidstone. As in his second edition this author takes an extended notice of the article on his "Notes" in the Eclectic Review for August, 1845, and as it has become generally known that that article was written by me, I have replied at some length to the animadversions made upon it.,I have also, for the sake of reference, reprinted the article from

the Eclectic as now part and parcel of this controversy, at the end of the Second Book.

3. "Life in Christ," an octavo volume, by the Rev. Edward White, of Hereford.

4. "An inquiry: Are the Wicked Immortal? In Six Sermons, by George Storrs."

5. "Thoughts on the Popular Opinion of Eternal Punishment being synonymous with Eternal Torment." This tract is anonymous, but is stated to be the substance of Five Lectures delivered at Bristol.

I have noticed all these publications, because they all fell into my hands, and all became mixed up with the course of reading and reflection through which I have gone. This statement will suggest a reason why I have not adverted

to

any other works on the same subject; it will probably be admitted, however, that, for a single combatant, I have taken upon myself to encounter adversaries sufficiently numerous.

To the successive notices of the works abovenamed, I have added one chapter (the last) not controversial, but devoted to a simple and direct statement of the doctrine of Man's Natural Immortality, and its proofs.

To the Four Books on Immortality, is appended a reprint of my recent pamphlet, entitled, "Who will Live for Ever? an Examination of Luke xx. 36;" a step which has been

taken in order to present to the readers of this volume the whole of what I have written on the subject of which it treats. And as, during the passage of this work through the press, two Replies to the pamphlet have appeared, one by Mr. White of Hereford, and one by Mr. Morris of Plymouth, I have added at the close the Rejoinders which were respectively required. The great length to which my Rejoinders have necessarily gone, has unexpectedly and undesirably increased the bulk of the volume.

I feel no inclination to complain of the authors whose works I have reviewed, for having done what may be adapted to disturb, in any measure, the popular belief. The search for truth is open to all; and mankind have no greater benefactors than those who, with sufficient wisdom on the one hand, and sufficient courage on the other, endeavour to rectify deeply rooted and prevalent mistakes.

In addition to these general considerations, however, which adequately vindicate the writers in question, I feel the influence of a personal one, which awakens towards them in me a somewhat peculiar sympathy. In the early period of my life and ministry, I occupied a position similar to theirs. In my first production, Theology, and afterwards more fully in my treatise on the Work of the Holy Spirit,