The Bible Examiner — Vol. 3, No. 12 (1848)

Download: PDF — The Bible Examiner — Vol. 3, No. 12 (1848)

BIBLE EXAMINER.

"PROVE ALL THINGS, HOLD FAST THAT WHICH IS GOOD."

PHILADELPHIA, DECEMBER, 1948.

VOL. III.

NO. 12.

GEORGE STORRS, EDITOR AND PUBLISHER J. T. WALSH, RICHMOND, VA., ASSISTANT EDITOR.

PHILADELPHIA, PA.

TARMA.—Single copy, for one year, fifty cents; five copies, $7;

eight copies,3; or thirteen copies,5; ALWAYS IN ADVANCE.

This paper is subject to newspaper postage only.

THE MIND.

SECOND REPLY TO J. T. WALSIL.

DEAR SIR-I wish to call your attention, and the attention of our readers, to a few points now settled.

You admit that it is not the brain that thinks. That none of the mental or moral powers are to be ascribed to it. That the "aggregate of powers" you call the mind, cannot be said to be powers of the brain,—that it would be ridiculous to say that the brain reasoned, hoped, feared, loved or hated.

Hence the destruction of the brain does not in itself destroy that which thinks, and puts forth mental power.

That mind is not a thinking, reasoning power. That these exercises are not the exercises of the mind, but they constitute the mind.

That these powers are to be referred to man as an organized being; and result from his organization, and are put forth in consequence of, and by virtue of the brain.

That there is no such essence, entity, or substance, as mind, to which we may justly ascribe mental or moral power, action, or affection.

And hence you must admit, and maintain, that thought is a necessary, mechanical result of an organized, living, physical machine, called man, and when the organization is disturbed or destroyed, thought, the result of organization, ceases, or is deranged. I hope I have not misunderstood you, and do not intend misrepresentation of your views.

The conclusion seems inevitable, to me, that thought is a mechanical result, and man an irresponsible machine; on the ground assumed by you in this discussion. Organization and cerebral motion produces thought, and if there is no mind presiding over this organized being, or machine, then man is no more free than the solar system; he moves on and thinks and purposes by reason of his organization, till the machine is out of repair, and then ceases to think, and is no more. I have been led into this inadvertently, and will here state, that one of the chief objections to the material view, is, that man is made an irresponsible machine and not a moral agent.

On the ground I maintain, the mind controls, by its free volitions, the movements of this organized body, in which it resides, and the senses are only

windows through which it looks out of its prison upon the world of matter.

When you affirm that the mind cannot think without a brain, you put assertion in the place of proof. Do angels think by reason of a brain? Does God, whose image man is, think by reason of a brain? To say that man cannot manifest thought, and hold connexion with the outward world, when the senses are locked up, is saying very little indeed.

Most persons believe that God can commune with, and influence the human mind, without addressing any of the senses.

Facts show that there can be perceptions without the use of eyes. With the eyes closely bandaged, in a dark room, persons have been known to read a book they never saw, and tell the time of day by a watch.

It is now perfectly settled, that what are termed idiots can be educated. A school is soon to be started in Massachusetts; a teacher has been selected, and is now abroad preparing himself for his task.

I have before observed, that mental power continues to increase long after the whole physical organization has reached maturity.

What are we to understand by the term man, as used in your articles, and to whom you ascribe all mental and moral phenomena. What is that man that thinks? Not any part of his physical system. Is it intended to embrace simply tho whole physical frame? I see with my eye, hear with my ear. Now what is it that sees and hears! Not the eye nor ear, any more than the telescope or trumpet.

By a figure of speech, we say that the eye sees, the ear hears, the hand writes, but clearly they are only agents. Agents of what? Of the man; which being interpreted means—the other parts of the physical organization: that is, the organized man destitute of any property but matter, having nothing but a body, sees out of the eye, one part becoming the servant to all the others, and changing work, to keep the bargain even.

Thus "the eye cannot say to the foot I have no need of thee," for when this organized being wishes to change localities, he uses his feet—when he wishes to speak, he uses his tongue, and so on; thus in turn each is the servant of the whole; a very important lesson to organized society is thus wrought out.

Man's identity resides not in his ever changing body, but in the mind. Paul says, he knew a man caught up to the third heavens—but whether in the body, or out of the body he did not know. Again, in another place, he speaks of being absent from the body, and present with the Lord, as co-existing facts. Clearly, the organized body is not the man, but something that can leave the body—be out of the body.

I have asserted, and again repeat, that according to your views it is the physical man that is born again, for this good reason, that man is wholly phyYou think that my position approaches the abhor it because you understand me to say that it is the mind that undergoes the change called the new birth.

This would make the Lord say, "that except a mind be born again, it cannot see the Kingdom of God." Again, "except a mind be born of water and spirit, it cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

"A mind born of water! What an idea!! So Mr. B's mind has been born again, but Mr. B. himself has not!"

Now, as you ridicate the idea of the mind being born again, it follows, of course, that you believe the body undergoes this change. You make this mistake in respectable company, for Nicodemus had the same opinion.

I grant, at once, that this change of mind, produces a new application and use of the physical organs, but I have yet to learn, that the change is not wholly a change of mind, "making a new heart and spirit," and in consequence of the control of the mind over the whole man, "the body is presented," &c.

But what is this, I am again tempted to ask, that presents the body? Not the mind. You reply at once, the man. But on your theory the body is the man, the whole of man—and hence man, the body, is to present the body "a living sacrifice."

But we need have no controversy as to what it is that is born again, for much as you ridicule the idea, your ridicule hits not me but the Bible.

Tuin to John, 3d chapter, 3d and 6th verses--Nicodemus is astonished to hear it said that a man must be born again. Christ replies and adds, "that which is born of the spirit is spirit." A spirit born again! A spirit born of water and spirit! What an idea! But hod, these are the words of Christ, and here he tells us what he means by man, that must be born again.

I have no desire to burden the columns of your paper with long articles, and therefore omit many things. The challenge contained in your last, is accepted in so far as to be perfectly willing to rest the whole question—Does the soul mind—outlive the body—upon that text, but I cannot confine myself to that text on the main question. Now to the text.*

Observe that "body and soul," are in opposition to each other, and both substantives.

It is declared, that while men can kill the body, they cannot kill the soul, which is not true if the soul dies when the body dies.

It is declared that God can destroy both in hell or as Luke says, "whath power to cast into hell" after death.

We must understand by hell a place, and state of punishment after death. Now, on your interpretation, that the body means the present life, and the soul the future life, the text would read . . . Fear not them that kill the present life, but fear him, who after he hath killed (the present life) hath power to destroy both the present and the future in hell. Thus the present life is destroyed twice.

If this is your logic, it is not mine. I have only to say in conclusion, that leaving you to manage your side of the controversy as you please, I shall do the same on my part, always intending to be re-peated in language.

Respectfully Wm. H. Brewster.

RESPONSE TO MR. BREWSTER.

DEAR SIR—In your "points now settled" you make the same incorrect "inferences," which you made in all your previous articles. I now despair of any thing but misrepresentation on this subject, though, I doubt not, it is unintentional on your part. The "points" which you regard as "settled;" are far from being so in my estimation; one or two of them, however, are not so objectional as the others. Imitating your example, I will also state certain "points" which I consider "settled" in previous articles, and "post up" the controversy to the present time.

Man thinks, reasons, reflects, judges, compares, loves, fears, hopes, generates and adores by means of his brain. The brain is the seat of those organs whose FUNCTIONS are above indicated.

"The mental and moral powers," while they are attributes of the MAN, "are to be ascribed to" the brain—they being FUNCTIONS of that instrument. "That the aggregate of powers," I "call the mind," are "powers" of the MAN, and FUNCTIONS of the brain; and that it would be ridiculous to say the brain reasoned, hoped, feared, loved or hated," seeing that THESE, while they are FUNCTIONS of that organ, are in reality ATTRIBUTES of the MAN—organized and living, and not of his brain abstractly or when dissected out.—

This meets your first "point."

not of his brain destrasty or when misunder- " Hence the destruction of the brain does" " in itself destroy that which thinks, and puts forth mental power; because the " destruction" of the brain—the instrument of thought—involves the destruction of the THINKER— MAN.

This meets your second "point."

Your third "point," while it is not expressed in my language, may pass current without further notice.

Your think point, while your language may pass current without further notice.

Your fourth "settled point" is an admitted refutation of your first, and part of the second 'point.' That these powers are to be referred to man as an organized being, and result from his organization, and are put forth in consequence of, and by virtue of the brain." Of course, then, the "destruction" of the brain, is the "destruction" of that "which thinks!" So much for your fourth "point."

Your fifth "point," "that there is no such ESSENCE, ENTITY, OF SUBSTANCE, as mind, to which we may justly ascribe mental or moral power, action or affection;" must be received with a qualification. In relation to Man it is true; and it may be true of angels, and of Christ; but we do not affirm it of "Him who dwells in light inaccessible." I apprehend that there is much error in the world; in relation to spiritual bodies; and I cannot conceive of any being thinking without an instrument of some sort; but him who is uncreated, unorganized, and self-existent!

Thus far we have "posted up" this controversy. The inference you draw from the "settled points" is utterly at variance with the premises. I neither "admit" nor "maintain," "that thought is a necessary, mechanical result of an organized, living physical machine, called man. "Moral and mental functions cannot be ascribed to "mechanical" laws. Electro-magnetism, modified by the laws of the living organism, of which the brain may be styled the "battery," and the nerves the "conductors," contains the principles by which this question is solved. There is not a single faculty of man, moral, mental, or animal, which cannot be made to manifest its function; WITH INCREASED POWER, by means of

electra-magnetism! This has been done a thousand times! I have both witnessed and performed it! MAGNETIC VIBRATION, PRODUCING "CHEBRAL MOTION" EXPLAINS IT.

Will Mr. Brewster tell us how these effects are produced, if the brain be not the seat of these functions? If they be attributes of the "immortal soul," why are they influenced by magnetism? Is immortality governed by magnetic laws?

As it respects "human responsibility," it is abundantly established by what you are pleased to call "the material view." The brain, as the sensorium of man, is made up of various organs, each organ possessing a distinct function. These functions are moral, mental, and animal. The moral and mental should govern the animal. Man, possessing the power of will, is "responsible" for the right use of all these faculties. They have a legitimate, and an illegitimate use. They are to be used, but not abused. Every moral law in the Bible is directed against their abuse. As this is your principal objection, I will enlarge upon it. Man possesses an organ—cerebral organ, I mean,—which prompts him to adore. Combining its influence with his will, he determines to worship something. If he is not enlightened, he will worship idols; but if the light of Truth has illuminated his understanding, he will respect men and "worship God," which is its legitimate function. Hence its unlawful exercise is forbidden—"Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."

This illustration is applicable to every animal and moral faculty of man, so that he is, in the fullest sense, a "responsible agent." He is responsible for the right use of all the powers, with which God has endowed him. But if man has an "immortal soul," or if his mind be a distinct "essence," "entity" or "substance," capable of life, consciousness and intelligence, when separate from the body; then this "soul" or "essence," which you call the mind, is alone "responsible," and the man, as such, has no "responsibility." If a man were to strike you, or slander your character, would you hold his "immortal" part "responsible," or the man himself? Am I to understand that your "immortal mind" is "responsible," for what you write, and that the man—Mr. Brewster—has no "responsibility" at all? Why hang a man, for the sins of his "immortal soul?" This is punishing the innocent for the guilty! Either let a man go free, or punish the real offender. But, sir, so sure as God is just, he, as well as men, will hold the MAN, and not his body, his mind, or his "immortal soul," "responsible" for his evil deeds! The Man, the whole MAN, AND NOTHING BUT THE MAN, is responsible before God!

You say that "on the ground" you "maintain, the mind controls, by its free volitions, the movements of this organized body, in which it resides: and the senses are only windows through which it looks out of its prison upon the world of matter." Here, for the first time, you have given us a synopsis of your theory! Let me analyze it:

"The mind controls, by its volitions, the movements of this organized body."

It "resides" in the body, as in a "prison."

"The senses are only windows, through which it looks out upon the world of matter."

According to what you "maintain;" then, the "immortal mind" only has "free volitions;" and this "mind" controls the "movements of this

organized body." Immortality, then, "controls the movements" of that which is mortal. Why is it, Mr. Brewster, that these "movements" are so irregular, accentric, defective, deranged and insane? "God only hath immortality," and he only bestows it upon his creatures. He is the fountain of this attribute in angels, and will be its source in men. But it "resides" in the body. Where is its location? This was asked in my last article, but you gave no answer. Does it "reside" in the brain? If so, what is it? What is it like? Again, it is in "prison!" Pythagorianism to perfection! Immortality in "prison—looking through windows upon the world of matter!" But suppose all these "windows," the "senses," are closed, then it cannot see out "upon the world of matter." All is blind, all darkness, all "confusion worse confounded!" Again, you say, "when" I "affirm that the mind cannot think without a brain," I "put assertion in the place of proof." Now, I have not said that "the mind cannot think without a brain;" but I have said that man cannot; the proofs of which have been given abundantly in previous articles,—proofs which you have failed to invalidate. When you have answered the arguments already submitted, it will be time enough to advance others.

You ask—"Do angels think by reason of a brain?" I answer angels are not the subject of discussion; but so far as we can judge from analogy, and from what is revealed concerning them, they certainly think by means of some instrument. They have an immortal and incorruptible organization, but this does not preclude the possession of an organ of thought. But, be this as it may, it has nothing to do with the question before us.

Again, you ask, "Does God, whose image man is, think by means of a brain?" I have already answered this question, but I repeat, that God is unorganized, uncreated and self-existant, and the laws of thought, which govern mortal man, are not applicable to the uncreated God. Man was created in the image of the Elohem—the holy men—the angels; and all we know of them, as taught in the scriptures, confirms the account given by Moses.

Once more, you observe, that, "To say that man cannot manifest thought, and hold connection with the outward world, when the senses are locked up, is to say very little indeed."

Ah! a while since you told us that the "mind looked out upon the world of matter, through the senses—the windows" of the soul, but now you tell us the mind may "hold connection with the outward world, when" these "windows"—the "senses are locked up!" Do you mean the "five senses," or the moral and mental which are within the brain? "Most persons," you say, "believe God can commune with, and influence the human mind without addressing any of the senses." If you mean the five external "senses," I grant its truth; but if you mean the moral and intellectual. I deny it.

"Facts show that there can be perceptions without the use of eyes. With the eyes closely bandaged, in a dark room, persons have been known to read a book they never saw, and tell the time of day by a watch." True; but this does not favor your views of the subject. Cataleptic patients can do this; so can magnetic subjects. In the first case, it is a diseased state of the nervous system; in the latter, it is superinduced by magnetic influence. The brain is magnetic electric and pho proctor.

These make it luminous. When the magnetism of the atmosphere and the brain are in rest throa, the electro-magnetic light. "the eyes being closed," passes through the cranium, excite the optic nerve to ribbon, and thus the person can see through a magnetic medium. Destroy the optic nerve, however, and you destroy all sight. We now come to a most astounding development! Here it is. "It is now perfectly settled, that what are termed its, can be educated. A school is soon to be started in Massachusetts, a teacher has been selected, and is now abroad preparing himself for his task."

Well, reader, I thought I had investigated this subject; that I had learned something concerning the constitution of man; but, really, if Mr. Brewster be right, I am in worse than Egyptian darkness!

Idiots to be educated! Then they will be idiots no longer! Let the earth rejoice! Let the inhabitants of the earth shout! and the heavens echo back the sound, for the world is now to be rid of all "idiots!" I would smile, but the subject is too grave!

But, seriously, I regard the scheme as utopian and "idiotic." You might as well try to teach a monkey to be serious, a horse to adore, or an ass to pray, as to teach a congenital "idiot." I speak not of those who are partial "idiots," but of those who are completely so. Those who are merely idiotic, may be educated, in a limited sense, to the extent of their educability. But congenital "idiots" are hopelessly doomed to ignorance. When a man is educated his moral and mental powers are brought out, trained and properly directed. Before you can educate a man, he must possess powers to be educated. The "idiot" has them not, and education cannot create them. Before you can educate an "idiot" you must re-organize him physically. No system of training can do this.

"A school is soon to be started." And a "teacher is now abroad preparing himself for his task!" A mighty "task" it is! He may go "abroad;" he may travel all over Europe, and the world; he may visit those ancient seats of learning in Greece, Rome, and Egypt; he may consult the eastern majus, astrologers, soothsayers and diviners; he may walk through the ponderous volumes of antiquity, and consult the wisdom of all ages, and even then he will not be qualified for his "task."

You ask, "what are we to understand by the term man, as used in your articles?" I thought I had been sufficiently explicit, but as you seem not to understand me, I will, for the last time, in this discussion, define man. Man is an organized being; composed of bones, muscles, tendons, nerves, veins, arteries, brain, &c., &c. He is made up of body, limbs, abdominal and thoracic viscera. All these are chemically organized. The organization being complete, it is put in motion, and kept in motion by electro-magnetism. Life is thus developed. This electro-magnetism is modified by a vital chemical action, and is then termed "nervo-vital fluid." The brain is its "battery," the nerves its "conductors." The brain is a conglomer of organs. They manifest animal, moral, and mental functions. "The life of the flesh," which is electro-magnetic, "is in the blood." Man breathes electricity, light, oxygen, &c. All these elements, physically, electrically, magnetically and chemically combined, by a process known only to God, he calls man. "The first man

was of the earth—earthy"—animal. This is all I can say now on this point; it would take a volume to elaborate it.

to elaborate it. But you ask, "What is that man that thinks?" I have answered this question several times; why put it again? Time and space are too precious for such repetitions.

In the remainder of your philosophical argument there is nothing new. You go over the same ground again and again. "Tis true you vary the questions—you change your language, but they are the same still. Like one in a "tread-mill," you continue to step without advancing. When you present a new argument, I will notice it; but until you do, I must be excused from travelling over the same ground every month.

With these remarks, I leave the philosophical part of this subject, to attend to your scriptural allusions. Paul teaches a lesson which you seem not to have learned, although you quote him. In 1 Corxii, he says: "For the body" (the man) "is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but ONE BODY?" Thus "God hath tempered the body together." The man is made up of the body and its members, as I have before explained. There is no "schism" in it, but it is a perfect whole. It is not "one member," but many. All the parts of the body and man are perfectly adapted to each other. I thank you for referring to this illustration of the Apostle. It is just the thing.

"Man's identity," you say, "resides not in his ever-changing body, but in the mind." If this be so, how is it that personal "identity" is deranged? Identity resides in the mind," and that "mind" is "immortal;" how then does it become destroyed? Is an "immortal mind" susceptible of any sort of derangement? But the "body" is no more "changing" than the mind. What in common parlance we call the mind, is as "ever-changing" as the "body." "Identity," then, according to your theory, cannot "reside in the mind." The truth is, there is a cerebral organ which gives rise to personal "identity," and supplies the I of consciousness. This can, and sometimes does become diseased and deranged, producing double consciousness, &c.

Your allusion to Paul's vision is too slight and vague, for me to notice it at present. When you make it the basis of a regular argument, I will give it a full reply.

Your assertions concerning the new birth, may pass for what they are worth. He must be extremely ignorant of the truth, who does not know that the new birth is a moral or spiritual change. The Lord Jesus taught this in the very quotation which you have used to sustain your theory. "That which is born of spirit, is spirit," or spiritual; not fleshly or carnal. Jesus did not say, "that which is born of the spirit," is the human spirit, mind, or soul: but spiritual. You might as well say that that which is "born of God," is God, as to affirm

what you have, concerning being born of the spirit. You again repeat the misrepresentation of a "change in the body," when a "man is born again." This you have done so often, while I have as often refuted it, that I shall not pay further attention to it, other than to observe, that you, yourself, are "in respectable company" in misunderstanding, like Nicodemus, the nature and process of the new birth.

In your next paragraph you grant me that, which in the one just noticed you deny me—that is the moral change in the whole man, when he is "born again."

But passing over all minor points, I come now in the text upon which I proposed to rest this controversy. You say my "challenge" is accepted, but you are not willing to rest the "main question" on that text. Well, sir, let it be as you will. But to the text itself. Matt. x. 28: "And fear not them who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

The parallel of this is found in Luke xii. 4, 5. "And I say to you, my friends, be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom you shall fear: Fear him, who after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell; yeah, I say to you, tear him."

"And fear not them who kill the body." The word "kill," in this sentence, in the original, signifies to "murder;" to put to death with an evil purpose. "But are not able to kill the soul." In this sentence it signifies to "destroy;" "to bring to nought."

"But rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." The word "destroy," in this sentence, signifies to "dismiss from life,—to bring to nought." Is it not evident, then, that the Lord exhorted his disciples not to fear those who merely had the power to commit "murder," or to "kill the body;" but had not power to "dismiss from life," or "to bring to nought," in the sense of precluding the possibility of timing again?

This is clear from the fact, that he commands them "rather to fear him," who not only had the power of life and death here, but who also had power to "destroy," "dismiss from life," or "bring to nought," "both soul and body in gehenna."

This view is confirmed by the passage from Luke, where the Lord says: "Fear not them that kill" or "murder" "the body, but after that have no more that they can do." They cannot preclude the resurrection to eternal life; "for our life is hid with Christ in God."

I could say much on this topic, but must wait another month, as this article is already too long. In conclusion, I would suggest the propriety of narrowing down this discussion to a few prominent points, in order to save time and space.

With much respect, I am yours. J. T. WALSH.

"PRIDE OF OPINION."

We clip the following excellent sentiments from the editorial department of the "True Wesleyan" of New York city, a paper we are as well pleased with as with any of our exchanges, though we differ from it on many points.

Men are often too proud to confess their errors or to change when they are convinced that they, are wrong. There is nothing more absurd than man's pride of opinion. For men to persist in an error, after they are convinced, lest, by giving it up, they should show themselves to have been mistaken, is madness. There is one thought that should humble this pride of opinion. It is this: all men have been and still are more or less mistaken in many important matters. To this we should add the fact that wherein we are in error, if we do not correct ourselves, others will be sure to correct us, as human society progresses towards its higher destiny. When we look at ourselves as individuals, we see that we have arrived at our present position by a succession of changes, and yet we are ashamed to change. The whole path of life, from the cradle to the grave, is strewed with cast off ideas and opinions. We have taken up an idea and brought it on with us for a time, and cherished it as truth, but after bringing it for some time, we threw it down and picked up another, or picked up two in place of it, for most men increase their ideas. These were retained for a time and then cast off for others, and in this way we have arrived at our present positions, changing at every step, and yet all the time ashamed to change, lost the world should know that we had been mistaken. The same is true of society in general, for the changes of individuals effect changes in society, and all the changes of society are but the changes of individuals that compose society. The present state of the arts and sciences has been arrived at by a succession of changes. The principles of the several sciences which have been settled by one generation, have been rejected and exploded by the next, and yet men are proud of their opinions. All improvement involves change, and yet men are ashamed to change. If men will change from bad to good, and from good to better, the more rapid their changes, the better will it be for themselves and the world."

REPLY TO C. B. HOTCHKISS "QUERIES ON BAPTISM."

"Ques. 1." It is admitted by learned pedobaptists that the Greek word imports immersion. See G. Campbell's dissertation on the word. He admits that it ought to have been so translated. Julian could not well immerse by sprinkling. Surely he need not have gone to Enon "because there was much water there," if he only wanted to wet a bunch of his sop.

The sprinkling "described by Paul, Heb. 9: 19, is a sprinkling of blood, typical of the atomic blood of our blessed Lord. Our immersion in water is an appropriate emblem of our burial with Christ and rising with him to newness of life. See Col 2: 12. Buried with him in baptism," &c.

"Ques. 2. John not only preached repentance, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Mark prefaces his record of John's ministry with the words. The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ," Mark 1:1 Paul confirms the same, Acts 19:4. "John verily baptised with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is on Christ Jesus." Behold (said John) the Lamb of God which taketh away the sore of the world! I wish that all modern preachers preached the Gospel as as John. Surely the baptism of Christ and the opening of the Gospel, 3 22, was connected with the great king of the Gospel of the kingdom.

Ques. 3." I not only do to read 2: (baptize) were immersed," but the fulfilment of the predic tion Acts. 2: 2 to 1 requires it. When they were baptized with or in the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, they were immersed in the holy element, for "a filled all the house where they were sitting" "in a literal fire" they were neither immersed or sprinkled. The prophet is not to be so understand.

"Q. es. 4." Peter's hearers in the house of Carmelius were indeed baptised with or in the Holy Ghost. I see no objection to our friend's supposition that this was the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost. But the record of this whole case is fatal to his sentiments; giving in fact a clear affirmative to his question, is there any other baptism left for the christian dispensation but the baptism of the life and of the Holy Ghost? After they were baptised with the Holy Ghost, Peter said "can any man forbid warfa that these should not be baptised which have received the Holy Ghost as well as God." And he commanded them to be baptised in the name of the Lord? Acts 10:44-48. To suppose then that the baptism of the Holy Spirit supercedes the ordinance of immersion in water under the christian dispensation, is to "be wise above what is written" by the Spirit of Truth.

"Quiz. 5" Baptism is not "the antitype" of Moses sprouting with blood. The blood of Jesus is the antitype of this. John never "sprinkled all the people" He did not rantize them. He baptised them, immerse them. As the sound like a night wind and the eleven tongues fell on the lips of the day of Pentecost when they were baptised with or in the Holy Ghost, it is proper to say of Peter's hearers Acts 10, that when the Holy Ghost fell on them, they were baptised in the same

figures 6.7 I agree with our friend on this question and think that John 3: 5, may be understood in a sense different from literal water.

To suppose that the new birth insisted upon by our beloved Savior, refers to the time of entering the kingdom at his second appearing, to suppose that we are not the children of God until that period. We are not his children until we are begotten and born of him. John writes of those who received Christ, when on earth, as persons who were then born of God. John 1: 13. This phrase is not used in reference to our entering into the joy of our Lord at his glorious appearing.

With all due respect for theolgical mind of my friend, I really think the probability of her being mistaken is quite as "strong" as that she should be so, who were so inspired by the Holy Spirit to teach those things, and only those things which Christ remembered them, that He that kneweth God hearest us.

In respect to our consciousness, was touching the Godless which believe, we (said James) written and concluded that they observe no particular time. Arts 21, 25. In respect to the Lord there was no command for them to discover at any particular time. The only case we would impose practising it is Paul's sincerity. In any whose mother was a Jewess. He

is nothing." He taught those who depended on it, that Christ would profit them nothing.

"Ques. 9." Whether there is, or is not "salvation without immersion," it was "benvolent in Paul to thank God that we had baptised but two or three" of the Corinthians, so long as they were glorying in men, and saying "I am of Paul and I of Apollos." Paul did not thank God that he had baptised no more of that particular church, because baptism was not a duty, or because it is unimportant, but "lest any should say that (he) had baptised in his own name." 1 Cor. 1: 15. He preferred the honor of his divine Master to his own. By the declaration "for Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the gospel." we must under that the annunciation of the glad tidings of salvation to a dying world, was the principal and great object of his mission. If he had no commission from Christ to baptize he could not have baptised at all; for that only which he "received from the Lord Jesus," he taught. See 1 Cor. 11: 23, Matt. 28: 19, 20.

"Ques. 10." The true answer to this question is found in the practice of the apostles. This practice proves that Matt. 28: 19 means immersion in water, which (as is evident from Acts 10: 44—18,) was not superceded by the baptism of the Holy Ghost. See also Acts 8: 36, 38. Acts 2: 38. This could not be the baptism of the Holy Ghost for this was promised them as a subsequent favor. Acts 8: 15 to 17 proves the same. The Samaritans were not baptised with the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the apostle's hands until some time after they were immersed in water by Philip.

Paul's act in Acts 19: 6 is not explanatory of the baptism mentioned in the 5th verse, but a subsequent act. Strictly speaking, neither the baptism of water nor the baptism of the Holy Ghost (in the scriptural sense of that phrase,) can save us The bestowment of miraculous gifts, and not the conversion of the soul to God, is the true import of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. The apostles were converted long before the day of Pentecost. When they were then baptised with the Holy Ghost, they were furnished with miraculous gifts "and spake with other tongues." Acts 10: 44, 46, confirms this. It was water baptism which emblematically washed away Paul's sins. Acts 22: 16.

HENRY GREW.

As the foregoing article will probably close, for the present, the discussion on the subject of baptism, we take the liberty to dissent entirely from Br. Grew's position that the baptism "with the Holy Spirit" was being "immersed in the holy element" for, if the house was "filled" with it, it was filled by the spirit being "poured out, or shed forth" upon them, and not by their being "immersed in" it. We wish not to protract the discussion, and therefore say no more at present. Ed. Lc.

"SAINTS REIGN IN THE AIR."

In the Examiner of September, we gave a prior communication from Dr. Smith of Hallowell. Me as the above subject, which the reader is requested to look at again, page 112. We appended a single

remark " by way of dissent in the following language:

"We do not see how the devil and his hosts, by going 'up on the breath of the earth,' are to compass the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city,' which are 'in the air,' nor how the saints are to 'relics with Chuiet a thousand years in the air' with nothing to reign over."

To this Br. Smith has replied at some length. We intended to insert his reply in the last Examiner, but it was crowded out; and, as we are hard pressed for room still, he will excuse us for giving only that part of his article which is a direct reply to our objections. Br. Smith, after enlarging on his previous article, and speaking of the wicked dead being raised out of this earth, (in opposition to the new earth, as Mr. Miller's theory maintains,) at the close of the Millennium, says:

The New Jerusalem is in the air, and in plain sight. This must be, else every eye could not see him, (Jesus) and they also which have pierced him, and all kindreds of the earth could not wail because of him. Also they are to see those that have come from the east, west, north, and south, in the kingdom with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and they themselves thrust out. Hence you see the saints must be in the air with Christ, and the whole host of the wicked must be raised from the dead in order to see their great loss, and know their final doom. Satan will now deceive them—then they compass the camp of the saints about. See Webster's Dictionary, where the sixth definition of the verb "compass" is, "to purpose—to intend—to imagine—to plot—to contrive" as we may say, to go about to perform in mind only. Thus you see, that to compass, is to plot, plan, contrive, imagine, &c. Thus they will do while the saints are in the air.

Paul says we are compassed about with such a cloud of witnesses. Hence, to compass about, denotes an array of evidence. Webster says, when this is the meaning, "it is in mind only." Thus it will be with this miserable company for the word says: "Fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them." The heavens and the earth which are now, are reserved for this very purpose. Peter tells us "the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works therein shall be burnt up." This I believe, as an honest man, will be the literal "lake of fire, and brimstone," and will be the hell of the Bible into which "the wicked will be turned with all the nations that forget God." "The ungodly and the sinner will be rewarded in the earth;" Ps. 11:31. And in this pool of liquid fire the devil and all wicked man, and women will be "burnt up, root and branch," so that there will be no wicked man, woman or devil in the universe of God. See Psa. 37: 9, 10, 20, 34, 38; also, 101: 35: Prov. 2: 22, and 11: 31; Isaiah 1: 28, and a host of others.

But we according to his promise look for a new heaven and a new earth wherein dwelt the multitudes." After the abate scene of the resurrection of the saints, the melting of the earth, the descent of the devil and the wicked passed upon John's mind, in vision, he says he saw the New Jerusalem

while it was coming down, and after it was down, and the glory connected with the seed of Abraham, and David's royal sons entering the Kingdom, under the whole heavens in which they will reign "for ever and ever," and not merely for a thousand years, as some suppose; that time will be then in the past; occupying the period while they reigned with Christ in the air.

Hence you see, the heavens will retain Jesus till the restitution of all things spoken of by the mouth of all the holy prophets since the age began—till all things are subdued under him—his enemies destroyed and made his footstool, and he takes the kingdom under the whole heaven.

"Who will they reign over?" Ans.—the Bible does not say they will reign over any one; but, "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

I expect that when "the Lord shall take to himself his great power and shall reign," they will reign with him. After the saints were raised and were heard praising God in heaven, Rev. xix. 1, &c. they gave glory to God "for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth," verse 14th. We might infer that they reigned with him who was styled "the King of kings and Lord of lords." In the Psalms it is written that "the upright shall have dominion over them in the morning;" again, "he shall subdue the people under us and the nations under our feet." Paul says, "know ye not that the saints shall judge the world," (not decide the cases.) John says, "he that overcometh and keepeth my word unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron." From the above we believe that this reigning with Christ must be after his saints meet him in the air, and before he decends in the New Jerusalem with all his saints, to take possession of the redeemed earth which he purchased by his death and sufferings: see Eph. 1: 11.

May our Heavenly Father by his word, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, lead us all into the truth as it is in Jesus.

To " reign with Christ " is to reign over something. To talk of reigning with nothing in subjection is beyond our conception. The Queen of England and her Lords reigning without a subject would seem a contradiction. But Br. Smith has a right to his views; others must judge of their correctness.—Ed. Ex.

A CONTEMPLATED GREAT WORK ON THE MILLENNIUM.

THE AGE TO COME.—It is proposed to publish, if sufficient encouragement is offered, a work of 800 pages, entitled THE AGE TO COME.

It will present a full and entire History of all Theories touching the great question of the present ed. MILLENNIAIAN THEORY, both Ancient and Modern. It will seek to show what is true, and what is false, in these Theories. This will constitute Part First of the Work. These are the leading Theories:

MILLENNIAIAN THEORY. Ancient View.

LIGHTFOOT'S THEORY. Revived by Bash.

THE FIFTH MILLENNIAIY THEORY. A English Heresy.

MILLERISM.—History. Principles.

MEDICALS - HISTORY, PHYSICAL, ECONOMICS

SOCIALISM - FRENCH SOCIALISM

MIRROR — The Popular View.

Paul Simon of the Work will contain an Exhibition of the features of The Age to Come as they are presented in the Scriptures.

The book will be of the size, and general style, of Pawling's History of Londonism. It is intended to be a Work on the Age—a work for the Clergy man, the Theological Student, and the Common Virtue—Pun in Two Dollars.

BY A CLERGY MAN. Who has devoted much time to the subject.

BIBLE EXAMINER.

PHILADELPHIA, DEC., 1848.

ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL?

"The soul that smooth it shall die."—Bible.

BISHOP EXAMINER.—We have never supposed that we could give that variety in a monthly issue which could and would be given in a weekly paper. Our object has been mainly that of presenting the immortality question, and the topics naturally growing out of it, of the support would warrant it, and our friends desire it gradually advance to a semi-annual or weekly. But while we publish only monthly and at the low price that we charge for the Examiners, we know our readers will be likely to be interested in some weekly paper which will take up a variety on the common religious topics. We are gladly furnish them such matter did our friends wish us to publish weekly, and create one half, or more, of the Examiners in the general religious topics, and passing events we will do so when fifteen hundred shall please ourselves to send us two dollars each per year. A religious paper issued weekly ought to occupy all the time of, at least, one Editor so closely that he could scarcely be expected to be engaged in any other matters; and he must therefore look to the subscribers to sustain him in a pecuniary view. We are of opinion, however, that our present course is entirely the best that is, to let our readers look to these weekly papers they have been in the history of sustaining for general matters, and let us prepare their investigations to which it seems to us, we have been specially called.

The L. N. work. — According in previous notice, that and is the best to all subscribers who do not understand the terms of payment always in advance. We shall be very sorry to part with any who have been put on probation. A few have done nothing who have had the Examiner sent to the courtment of the New Series a certain amount of the present volume. We are paid as nothing who have taken it without mention of the present volume. We never in both cases, is sure and we may give them all, and take our leave.

of them with none other than the kindest wishes for their present and eternal welfare. Those who have paid for the Examiner up to the present time, we hope have felt themselves benefited sufficiently to determine to continue. From all such, and as many more as are minded to become our patrons, we shall be glad to hear before our January issue. Unless we do hear from them, or find them credited beyond this number, we shall take it as an expression of their wish to discontinue the Examiner. It will be painful to blot out any name from our books; but, we wish not to send the Examiner to any who do not value it worth fifty cents per year, and we have no means of knowing that they do thus value it unless they send us that amount. We must treat all alike in this matter. Let none, then, think we slight them if we do not send them another number. The reason will be, we do not find them credited for 1849. If, however, any should not receive it who know they have sent us payment in advance, beyond the present number, if they will inform us when they sent, and how much, we shall take pleasure in sending the paper, even if we find that the money never reached us. In any mistake, of this kind, the information may be sent at our expense. We earnestly solicit all to continue their subscriptions, and send, at least, one new subscriber each. We will do the very best we can to make our paper interesting and instructive.

THE Sermon on "Profit and Loss," in this number of the Examiner, we hope, will not merely be read, but studied. We do not agree with every expression it contains, but we have received much "profit" from the study of it. We have read it some half dozen times since we received it, and shall not fail to read it again; and we must say, our interest in it increases the more we examine it. May the Lord make it a blessing to all who read it.

FUTURE PUNISHMENT,—By H. II. Dobney.—In the list of works sent us by Dr. Lees, Leeds, England, is that of the "Scripture Doctrine of Future Punishment, by H. H. Dobney." This work we had heard of before we received Dr. Lees' communication, and had sent to England for it. It was the only one in his list we had any knowledge of prior to his faves.

The work of Dobney we have received, since the last Examiner was issued, and find it exceedingly interesting and instructive. It is a 12mo. of 278 pages, in two parts. The last part is divided into four chapters, in which the author takes up the Reasons for Discussing the Subject—the Relation God sustains to Man—the True Life of Sin—the Moral System—Excellence of Law—Propriety of Unjustice—Punishment Involved—Punishment not Corrective, but Penal &c. This group is about seventy pages.

In the second part he takes up the question of the nature and character of the punishment; which is handled in a very kind and conciliatory spirit, but still in a manner that is calculated, all but irresistibly, to carry the mind in the conclusion that the popular notion is an error, and that the wicked will be "miserably destroyed;" and "be as though they had not been." This part of the subject is treated of in eight chapters of over 200 pages. We sincerely wish the whole book could be reprinted, and circulated over the United States. Had we the funds we would do it ourselves; but we have them not, and so fear we shall have to content ourselves by giving portions of it in the Examiner. Reprinted it should sell for about seventy-five cents. The cost of the copy we have caused to be imported from London has been one dollar and seventy cents.

Dobney, we believe, is a Baptist minister, though no statement of his ecclesiastical relation is given in the book. Those who wish to see large extracts from the work will be gratified if they subscribe for the Examiner for 1849.

We will cause the work to be reprinted if one thousand copies are ordered within six months, and the money pledged to be forwarded when the work is ready for delivery; and to all who buy to sell again. 33 per cent discount will be made.

P. S.—Since writing the above, we have loaned the book to a friend, who, having read it, pledges to take fifty dollars in the stock necessary to republish it. The probable amount necessary to publish the first thousand copies will be $500. Any amount pledged shall be refunded in the books at cost.

PROSPECTUS.

CHRISTIAN PSALMODY;

Or, Hymns, Psalms, and Songs, suitable to the worship of God and the proclamation of his truth.

BY J. T. WALSH.

We propose publishing a cheap edition of Hymns, &c., free from the errors which obtain so extensively in every Hymn Book extant. The work will be suited to the Christian worship, and adapted to the faith of a people expecting the Messiah, and the establishment of his kingdom. In a word, it will melodiously set forth the views advocated in the Bible Examiner and other periodicals devoted to the same objects. The work will be published so soon as the author can do it with safety to himself. Any person feeling a disposition to aid in the enterprise, can do so by forwarding their contributions to Bx. Sroans.

It will be seen by the foregoing that Br. Walsh intends to furnish a "Hymn Book" such as many of us have felt is much needed. We rejoice the he has made up his mind to undertake it, and hope he may be all currently sustained in that labor. If

any of our friends have good hymns, suitable to such a work, will they favour the object by sending them to our office? And do not forget to let us know at once your wants in regard to such a hymn book, and what you will do to aid in its issue.

BIBLE ADVOCATE.—The apology our brother of the Advocate has given us for the "tone of" his "reply" to our article on Zech. 13th is perfectly satisfactory. On our part we are glad to correct the "sad mistake" we made, in saying the present editor of that paper "had not copied an article from the Examiner." Our brother says:

"If you will turn to volume IV, number 8, page 62, you will find two articles selected from the Examiner, and duly credited. Also, same volume, number 15, first page, you will find a very lengthy article, duly credited: and we were thankful for the opportunity of making each and all these selections."

We are truly glad, brother, to receive this information; and by our "mistake" we did you injustice, for which we are sorry: we thought these articles were selected by Dr. Crary, in the absence of the editor: we are glad to find it otherwise, and trust you will forgive us the error.

We certainly "intended no wrong" in any of our remarks; but we did think there seemed to be an air of positiveness in the articles of our "exchange" which needed some reproof; we regret if we were not as "courteous" as the gospel requires in giving it, and will try to do better in future.

EXAMINER FOR 1848.--The volume is now completed. Any wishing to avail themselves of all the numbers, can have them at the subscription price, if they send their order and money soon. We are satisfied that new subscribers will regret it if they do not order the paper from January, 1848. Let all persons ordering the Examiner write the names of persons and places plain; for we have no means of "guessing" them out. For terms and address see first page.

LETTER FROM THOMAS SMITH.

But. Strokes.—I am very much interested in the "Bible Examiner," especially in that part which sq fearlessly and ably discusses the "Immortal Soul" question. It appears that men are beginning to think for themselves on the trans-Atlantic shores, as well as on our continent; and the result seems to be an abandonment of those long established notions that men have "immortal souls" naturally. I was struck recently with a little occurrence in the State of Massachusetts, while in board a packet An intelligent Sea Captain, a fellow passenger, and a professor of religion, were on board, to whom I proposed the following question: "What sin do you suppose will be the nature of the punishment of the wicked in the future world." Soil be, "Why, I suppose it will be a harbor of conscience, or something of that kind." I then repeated numerous Scriptures by which to show how that the Bible taught they would be cast into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

BIBLE EXAMINER.

of thee — that we would to serve them—burn them.

Not knowing my truth, he very readily commenced. Why, sir, if that be the nature of their punishment, they will be annihilated, will they kill? I think gave him some Bible testimony, and the result was that he acknowledged that their objection was the most Scriptural and reasonable. To this conclusion, it appears to me, men must come in order to admit a harmony in the attributes of the Father of mercies. Numbers of

But in judgment he is no respecter of persons; greater privileges lay us under superior obligations; and if we fail, the greater will be our condemnation. We can "see neither reason nor scripture in" the objections made to the idea of probation, to some, after the advent; but we do not condemn others, who think differently, so long as they manifest an honest desire to know what truth is.

BR. ELON EVERTS, Vergonne, VI., writes:

Communicated for the Bible Examiners.

PROFIT AND LOSS—A LAY SERMON.

By FREDERIC R. LEES,

Doctor of Philosophy of the University of Goshen, F.N.A., Edin.

Editor of 'The Truth Sucker,' etc.

Proached at Leeds, England, A. D. 1845.

Godlikeness prolificeth for all things. — Paul.

What is a man profited. If he gain the whole world, and lose his soul? — The Christ.

For a recompense—him ye enlarged. — Paul.

The principle of Profit and Loss, as embodied in the

things are not ideal impossibilities, for they have been realized, and may be for evermore. Christ, our Lord and leader, has been in the wilderness before us; he has conquered the demon principles, and triumphed over our real enemies—those of our own household. As our 'elder brother' and 'exemplar,' and 'the captain of our salvation,' he has actually achieved such perfection thro sorrow, conflict, and suffering, and is even now gone before us to point and prepare the way; He, our Precursor and our Pledge, has risen from the Dead, physically and spiritually, that we may rise also! For, as Paul declares, 'If the spirit of the Raiser of the Saviour

strong minded men of my acquaintance are ingrins and have merged into universalism, because of the so-called orthodox creed of dernal life in meccan and they will increase more and more unless the true light upon this important subject is brought to bear upon their minds, and then I trust, if they are candid, they will readily exchange their error for the truth.

I cannot, for myself, see either reason or Scripture in your ideas of probation after the coming of Jesus. In fact, if such a thing should be—and men are of the same nature as they are now, and the claims of Jehovah the same—I cannot see that but very few, if any, would be benefitted by it and should the Lord in any way afford them a superior opportunity to what man now have. He would in that case show himself a respecter of persons—which idea the Scriptures contradict.

St. praying to be led into all truth, I am your brother in trinitarian, hoping for eternal life at the appearance and kingdom of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

Davis East, September, 1848.

Br. Stromas:—I find once and awhile one who dares read the Examiner, and after trying its "heresy" by the balances of the sanctuary of truth, they find (although widely different from the popular theology of the age.) that it agrees so well with the scaled weights, that they want more of it. Many are inclined to cast their old weights (heathen traditions, endorsed by the creed making sectarian, honoured and endorsed however much,) "to the moles and bats." I send enclosed three dollars to be appropriated for the Examiner.

I am glad to see that you propose to speak occasionally on the reign of David's rightful heir and his kingdom. Will it not be profitable to say something on the unfulfilled promises, made by God to a people that suffered over 400 years in Egyptian bondage, and brought out with a high hand, and placed in a goodly land, and had wholesome laws, but they broke them, and then were carried away captive into all nations, their city destroyed, and their land made desolate and trod down by the Gentiles? All this has taken place literally, to a literal Israel, and upon a literal land and city. And God that has done this just precisely and

startling question of the Great Teacher, contains at once the seed, the sum, and the substance of that divine gospel, which it was the mission of the Messiah to declare and develop.

Tho' a problem in heavenly arithmetic lying at the basis of all Life, He was the first to give it a full and living solution; to exemplify the ideal principles of his sacred Ethics in real and vital being. In words, indeed, he has broadly and beautifully shadowed out the interior principles of his Father's government, but in works he has declared them with a depth and distinctness which none can mistake. From the first and fearless utterances of the Spirit, which ensured the hate and persecution of the Priesthood, to the hour of his crucifixion on Calvary, when the false triumph of his foes opened wide to him the Gates of Glory, his life was one long and illustrious commentary on the principle expressed by his Apostle—'Whatsoever a man sows, even this shall he reap; therefore the sower to his fresh, shall of the flesh reap corruption, while the sower to the spirit shall of the spirit reap life everlasting.*

THE GRAND LIFE-PROBLEM.

MAN, spiritually, was appointed in the divine image in other words, he was both designed and adapted to

from the dead, dwells in you, the Raiser of the Archted from the dead, will make even your mortal bodies live. If you live fleshly you shall die; but if you put to death in the spirit, the doings of the body, you shall make yourselves live. If indeed sons, also heirs, heirs verily of God, follow heirs indeed of the Messiah; if we are fellow sufferers, it is our duty to be also fellow glorified. Thus all is prepared for the establishment of that 'kingdom of God'—which cometh not with observation; for, behold! the kingdom of God'—with all its life-laws and everlasting principles—'is within you.' Here Doubt and Despair are expelled by the demonstration of a Divine Life, while Truth, and Hope, and Love, abide for ever.

…