The Bible Examiner — Vol. 8, No. 4 (April, 1853)

Download: PDF — The Bible Examiner — Vol. 8, No. 4 (April, 1853)

BIBLE EXAMINER.

NO IMMORTALITY, NOR ENDLESS LIFE, EXCEPT THROUGH JESUS CHRIST ALONE.

VOL. VIII.

NEW YORK, APRIL, 1853.

NO.4

GEORGE STORRS, EDITOR AND PUBLISHER.

PUBLISHED MONTHLY, At No.140 Fulton-street,(Up Stairs.)

TERMS.--Single copy, for one year, 1; six copies, 5; thirteen copies, $10; always in

sophy. The departed souls of the early Christianity were the shades of Homer and the Greeks.

We are anxious to guard our readers against the very natural mistake of identifying the ideas of the early speculative Christians with those of the sacred writers. The terminology of their philosophy, in regard to the terms soul spirit body flash is the

advance.

HISTORICAL INQUIRY.

BY REV. J. PANTON HAM.

Continued from page 39.

FROM THE SECOND TO THE FIFTH CENTURY.

The controversy concerning human immortality, commenced so early as the latter part of the second century, and was, as might be supposed, considerably influenced by the philosophical notions of the time concerning the constitution of man. The anthropology, or doctrine of man, of the earlier theologians embraced a threefold division of the elements of his nature into body, soul, and spirit. The language of the Apostle Paul, in 2 Thess. v. 23, was accepted, not in its proper rhetorical, but in

terminology of the Scriptures, and there is a danger of concluding that these terms, common to both, have a common value and signification. The locality or state of the dead, moreover, is called, both in Scripture and the Greek philosophy, Hades,\* the unknown or unseen place or state, as this word etymologically means. But it may suffice to mention here, for the sake of showing the difference between the Hebrew theology and the Grecian philosophy, that while the Greeks peopled their Hades with disembodied spirits or souls in a state of consciousness and activity, the sacred writers describe their Hades as the resting place of the dead,—a condition of "darkness,"—a "land of forgetfulness,"—where thought and memory are extinguished, and silence alone prevails. "The dead know not anything." "In that very day their thoughts perish." "The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence." Let our readers mark this important distinction, lest they be betray-

a strictly philosophical sense, and interpreted according to the philosophy of the times. Some adopted the dualistic theory, or twofold division of the nature of man into body and soul; the latter being regarded as a substance essentially distinct from the corporeal part or body. The question of human immortality thus from the first became mixed up with speculative ideas, and a phraseology, the offspring of the primitive philosophy, was begotten, which has unfortunately survived to our own times and added much to the confusion and difficulty of the inquiry. It is of the first importance to apprise the student of this controversy that the inquiry took at the outset a particular form,—a strictly philosophical form. The question was rather metaphysical than religious, although it involved important religious consequences. The ancient anthropology lay at the basis of the theological inquiry concerning the immortality of man. Hence the peculiar phraseology of the primitive

ed into the common popular error of supposing that the terms soul, body, &c., of Scripture have the same verbal value as these terms have in the speculative theology of the second century, and which, through the prevalence of the ancient philosophy during the successive periods of historic Christianity, has become the orthodox theology of our own times. Modern, as well as ancient Christianity, retains the faith of the old Pagan philosophy of the Greeks concerning the soul and its immortality, and regardless of the extraordinary consequences of imposing these Pagan ideas upon the sacred nomenclature of the Bible, persists in avowing the ancient

philosophical theology. The question was not concerning the immortality of man in his complete characteristic nature, but concerning the immortality of the soul as a supposed distinct and separable part of man, and the seat of the human personality. If immortality pertained to man's natural constitution it could only pertain to that part of him which was imagined to be independent of any material organization, and not liable to the laws of material existence. The soul was considered to be this part,—an immaterial substance, capable of existing in a state separate from the body. It is undeniable that this notion about the separate state of the soul, and its being the seat of personal consciousness, was an importation into Christianity of the old Greek philo-

Septuagint sense into the Christian Scriptures. The term hades in the sacred writings has a widely different signification from the same term as employed by the Greek philosophers and poets: it is the Greek New Testament equivalent of the Hebrew sheol. Neither of these terms express a real locality,—they only express our ignorance of the condition, so to speak, into which the deceased have passed. When a person died, the Hebrews said he had descended into sheol, and the Greek Christians into hades; not meaning thereby that the person deceased had gone as a conscious being into some new place of abode, but that he had experienced that mysterious change, of which we are all necessarily ignorant. Both the words sheol and hades signify in their respective languages that which is unseen or unknown.

philosophical faith, and interpreting the Scriptures on its false principles.

The scriptural inquiry, as we have already remarked, concerns not the soul as a distinct substance and part of man, but man as a creature of God, "fearfully and wonderfully made." The former is strictly philosophical, the latter a religious inquiry. But the deductions of human philosophy have ever been intruded into this religious question, and have so effectually influenced the language of the controversy, that without carefully noting this fact confusion and dissatisfaction must necessarily ensue. At the very opening of the inquiry, in the discussions which took place in the second century, we observe a departure from the language of Scripture, and a phraseology employed coincident with the ancient philosophy. The inquiry improperly relates to the soul, instead of the whole man, of how many soever parts he may be compounded. But notwithstanding this circumstance, there were those who, inclining no doubt to the Scripture revelation,—that immortality is a gift or Christian reward, and not a personal or inherent possession,—denied the immortality of the abstract soul, and maintained that it perished in death with the body.

Among these Justin Martyr must unquestionably be numbered. In his Dialogue with Trypho there occurs a passage which, whatever he may have meant by it, certainly involves the conclusion that the soul is not in itself, by constitution, immortal. "I indeed say not that all souls die," certainly implies that some souls die, and if some die, then there is nothing in the soul's constitution essentially independent of destruction. "At the time of judgment," he again says, "those souls that appear worthy of God die no more; but the rest shall be punished as long as God shall be pleased to continue their existence, and their punishment." Tatian is more explicit. "The soul in itself," he says, "is not immortal, but mortal; nevertheless it has the power of escaping mortality." Theophilus of Antioch raises the following question, "Was Adam created with a mortal or immortal nature?" and replies, "neither the one nor the other, but he was fitted for both, in order that he might receive immortality as a reward." The historian of doctrines, Professor Hagenbach, remarks on the state of the controversy at this period, that it had "more of a philosophical than Christian bearing... The Christian doctrine of immortality," he says, "cannot be considered apart from the person, work, and kingdom of Christ, and must rest upon Christian perceptions and promises."

The testimony of Irenæus, the contemporary of Justin Martyr, is equally emphatic. He argued that whatever had a birth or beginning must be mortal and corruptible. "Life," he writes, "is not from ourselves, nor from our nature, but it is given or bestowed according to the grace of God; and therefore he who preserves this gift of life and returns thanks to him who bestows it, he shall receive length of days for ever and ever. But he who rejects it and proves unthankful to his Maker for creating him, and will not know him who bestows it, he deprives himself of the gift of duration to all eternity. And therefore the Lord speaks thus of such unthankful persons, 'If you have not been faithful in that which is least, who will commit much to you?' intimating thereby unto us that they who are unthankful to him with respect to

this short transitory life, which is his gift, the effect of his bounty, shall be most justly deprived of length of days in the world to come." No language can be more explicit than the foregoing. It expresses, as definitely as language can, that man has no constitutional immortality, and that unless "born again" of "incorruptible seed,"—the "word of God which liveth and abideth for ever," he must without doubt perish everlastingly.

The theory of Tertullian, who flourished in the third century, exhibits the extent to which speculative inquiry went in connection with the doctrine of immortality. This celebrated Father put forth a new doctrine, as much physiological as theological, in which he maintained that the human soul was propagated, like the body, by ordinary but distinct generation,—the soul being begotten by the soul, as the body by the body, of the parent. He tells us that God made Adam's soul "matricem omnium,"—the fountain or source of all souls. His theory is known by the name Traducianism (per traducem.) Dodwell justly reasons that Tertullian's opinions concerning the soul "are inconsistent with its independence upon purer matter, though it might survive the grosser organical body of our visible humanity... If therefore," he argues, "it be preserved from actual mortality it must be by the like interposition of an extraordinary providence, as that by which our bodies* themselves are to be immortalized after the resurrection."

In the following century the Traducianism of Tertullian was opposed by the doctrine that the soul had its creation immediately from God, and was neither propagated by traduction, nor born together with the body, as Lactantius and others supposed: This new theory is denominated Creationism. The difficulties involved in these respective systems inclined many theologians, among whom was Augustine, to ignore the controversy altogether, and declare their opinion that human science found a limit in this direction, beyond which it was impossible to pass. The two theories were consequently tolerated as legitimate speculations, and although they necessarily involved the natural mortality of the soul, were not on this account pronounced heretical. "It is plain," writes Dodwell, "that they did not then, in the fifth century, believe this doctrine of the soul's natural mortality heretical, so long as there was no question made of its being actually immortal." The strength and influence of both parties led to something like a mutual compromise, nevertheless the orthodox doctrine was that the soul is constitutionally immortal. Lactantius contended that immortality was not the natural property of the soul, but the reward of virtue; and in this opinion he was fortified by the testimony of the earlier Greek theologians, who affirm that the Hebrews did not believe in the constitutional immortality of man, but considered it dependent upon a virtuous character. Nemesius, a Greek philosopher of the fourth century, and a convert to Christianity, afterwards made Bishop of Emesa, in Phoenicia, also testifies to the faith of the Hebrews:—"The Hebrews confessedly say that man was created from the first neither mortal nor immortal, but capable of either nature; that should he incline to fleshly passions, he might incur the fate of the flesh; but if he aspired after spiritual excellence, he should be esteemed worthy of immortality."

Origen differed both from Tertullian and the Creationists, and gave it as his opinion that human souls had a pre-existence. By this theory he easily disposed of the objection that what had a beginning could not be inherently immortal. "Among the primitive Christians," says Dodwell, "this doctrine of Origen was taken for very singular, nor did the great authority of the man recommend it to many among them. They generally condemned it in Plato himself. They generally took it for a maxim in arguing, that whatever had a beginning

ism, which of all philosophical systems stood the nearest to Christianity. While many Platonic philosophers were brought over to Christianity by this internal relation, they received the latter as the most perfect philosophy, and retained, with their philosophical mantle, their philosophical turn of mind also. They set out with this principle * that the truth taught by Plato was derived from Moses and the prophets. The arbitrary mode of interpretation then current furnished them with the means of proving their views, even from numerous passages of the Old Testament, which they could use, indeed, only in the Septuagint version. Thus, then, they overvalued even the actual agreement of Plato with Christianity, and believed that they

could not be necessarily or naturally immortal. On this principle they owned none immortal but God himself,—no, not the angels."

Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, informs us of a sect existing in the third century, in Arabia, who denied the natural immortality of the soul. They appear to have been of sufficient importance to give occasion to "a considerable council," to take into consideration what at this period among professional theologians was pronounced a heresy. "These," writes Eusebius, "asserted that the human soul, as long as the present state of the world existed, perished at death and died with the body, but that it would be raised again with the body at the time of the resurrection." Against the opinions of these primitive Arabians, the theological powers of Origen, the great champion of the nascent orthodoxy, were enlisted, and who appears to have been successful in overturning their previous faith, and bringing them to the persuasion of the new Platonfound many a Platonic idea in the latter, which in reality they themselves had first introduced into it." (To be Continued.)

"THE EXPOSITOR OF LIFE AND IMMORTALITY." This is the title of a magazine started by our fellow-laborer, W. S. MONCRIEFF, in Edinburgh, Scotland. We rejoice in its appearance, and hope it may be abundantly sustained and widely circulated. We give this month his "Introductory Statement," and two other articles, editorial—from his magazine—entitled "Jesus the Life," and "Christian Love." They are the following :—

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT.

This magazine has originated partly in a desire to awaken attention to the Scriptural views of

ism, or philosophical Christianity, which was rapidly extending itself over the ancient Christendom.

Some of the Fathers of this period, among whom were Cyprian, Arnobius, and Athanasius, considered the soul to be naturally mortal, and ascribed its immortality to the communication of the Divine Spirit. It must, however, be acknowledged that the doctrine of the Church,—the orthodox, and which was daily becoming the popular doctrine was, that the soul is immortal. Subtile disputes in theology were, in those earlier times, as in our own, mostly confined to professional theologians, the "laity" not concerning themselves with these disputes, grew in a less discriminating and more dogmatic faith. The immortality of the soul, in some sense or other, was the orthodox, if not the universal, belief.

In concluding our sketch of the state of the doctrine of immortality at the close of the fifth century, it is scarcely necessary to remind the reader of the

"Life and Immortality," by a wish to meet, as far as possible, the demands of the increasing number of inquirers throughout the country for light on these great Bible truths, and others that are inseparably connected with them. The cause in which we are engaged in one of pressing and incalculable moment, and the friends of the "Life-Truth" are anxious that others may enjoy the openings up of Scripture, which have had so delightful an effect on their own minds. We begin depending on God; we express to Him our gratitude for having opened to us another door of usefulness. May he grant such a blessing as shall cheer his servants engaged in this undertaking for his glory; may he use this work for the enlightenment of his people, and in drawing sinners to the peace, and joy, and hope of salvation. He, in the greatness of his love, says to each sinful child, "Why will ye die?" We shall repeat our Father's words again and again to those who are continuing in rebellion, and shew them

very speculative character of the period comprised in this section. The doctrine of the immortality of the soul took its rise in mere philosophical conjecture; was debated as a question of human science, and established upon this necessarily imperfect basis. Its introduction into the earlier Christianity is attributable to the influence of the Greek and Latin Fathers. Gieseler, in his Compendium of Ecclesiastical History, acknowledges this influence in the doctrinal theology of this period. "A speculative treatment of Christian doctrine was," he says, "generally indispensable, if Christianity should be accessible to the philosophical culture of the times, and was rendered unavoidable by the measures of the Gnostics. It could only proceed from Platonthat blessed Redeemer who gave his flesh for the life of the world," of which they are members.

We can make no promises as to the future; all we can say is that it is our wish, and it shall be our aim, to make the Magazine fit for its mission. The articles, as a general rule, will be short, simple, varied, and as uncontroversial as possible. Our design is to speak the Truth plainly and fearlessly; our intention also is to utter it in love. We firmly believe that the spirit of truth is calm and kind; yea, that Religion itself may be summed up in love. "Though I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing," 1 Cor. 13:2 Having been in error ourselves on the very subjects we are to explain, we feel for those who remain where we were; we feel for them in their manifold difficulties, and even in their suspicions of those who, like ourselves, are wont to publish "strange things," and we would esteem it an honor to be employed in removing their hindrances, and in bringing to them better and more sanctifying views of God, and of gospel truth in general.

When we try to speak in love, we respectfully ask from those whom we address, a patient and candid hearing. For the truth we have no fear; but, let it be acknowledged frankly, we tremble lest it may suffer in our hands. To superiority and infallibility we make no pretensions; when we pen a word that reasonably offends, and in weakness such may actually happen, let our readers remember we are men: and should they gather benefit from our writings, we would have them to bear in recollection that we have given them only what we have received. Let the God of Truth and mercy obtain all the glory.

There is already a Magazine in existence, The Christian Examiner and Bible Advocate, under able editorial management, extending the sublime doctrine of Life and Immortality through the Lord Jesus, and we wish it to be distinctly understood that we rise not to oppose or rival that periodical, but on the contrary, to second its efforts. There is ample field for both periodicals. Each in its place, we fondly trust, will do service over which many will give thanks. The Examiner is right worthy of support; our wish is that its circulation may increase with rapidity. It has done good already, even though its months are but few; a great deal more, we firmly believe, will be produced by its agency.

Along with the original articles which will appear in each number of The Expositor, it is designed to furnish select and useful extracts from larger works that have appeared on the Life Question; there will also be quotations taken from other religious books, which may be thought calculated to profit the readers. In this way we hope to serve not a few of our friends, for the works referred to are, in general, beyond the reach of limited means, and often designed more for what are styled professional than general readers.

It seems very unnecessary to write, that, had not friends generously come forward with supplies, The Expositor could not, in present circumstances, have appeared; for, a little reflection may convince any one, the business expense connected with it is far from being small.

The Editor and others on whom will devolve much labor, are all working without recompense, and hence those who sympathise with us in this undertaking, can the more boldly be asked to help on the sale of our Magazine. We cast it upon them wherever they may be; and if the past may be held to be a token of the future, our hopes of their efficient and prayerful co-operation will not be disappointed. Brethren! our end is one; each must work in his own sphere. You see what we want, what is needed, will you help? Work, fellow-heirs! the Lord is at hand; the crown of glory is our promised reward.

"Party men always hate a slightly differing friend more than a downright enemy."—Colridge.

JESUS THE LIFE.

In reading the New Testament every one must notice how frequently the words "life," "live," "live for ever," "eternal life," "everlasting life," occur. So common are they that one can hardly open a page at random without meeting them. Jesus himself said more than once, "I am the life;" and "eternal life" is invariably connected with a cordial reception of him as the Saviour, and a full submission to his will. Language which is found so often on the lips of Jesus, and in the pages of his apostolic servants, must be important, we would say unutterably momentous. Without a clear notion of its import much of the Book will remain in comparative obscurity, and a great personal loss be sustained by every reader and disciple of Christianity. Let us try to get at the meaning of these words. As a safe guide let us follow the direction of Hooker, in our interpretations on this and all occasions:—"Hold it," he says, "for a most infallible rule, in exposition of sacred Scripture, that where a literal construction will stand, the furthest from the letter is commonly the worst. There is nothing more dangerous than this licentious and deluding art, which changes the meaning of words, as Alchymes does, or would do, the substance of metals, makes of anything what it lists, and in the end brings all truth to nothing." What then is the literal meaning of "Life?" The Greek noun rendered life in such expressions as "I am the life," "everlasting life," and the like, is zoe, of which the primary sense is "physical life, and existence, as opposed to death and non-existence." All admit it is so used in verses like these, "He giveth to all life (zoen) and breath and all things," Acts 17:25; and "If in this life(zoe) only we have hope in Christ," &c., 1 Cor. 15:19. Every person understands such phrases as these so well—"the man is alive yet," "save my life," "he lost his life there," that no explanation can make the import of "life" when so used, any clearer. Life has its universally known signs; so has death, its opposite. Now, when the blessed Jesus is called the "Life," and the giver of "everlasting life," it is very common to understand these terms as signifying not life literally, but a kind of it, that is, happiness, and happiness to run on without a close. In other words, the literal idea of life is excluded, and the secondary, or figurative one, of happiness preferred. Thus a very great change is effected on the representation of the Book, for if the Saviour wishes to be understood as the life, that is, as the author of life, in its primary sense of conscious existence, and if he intended us by "eternal life" to receive the meaning of unending conscious being, we certainly lessen the force of his words greatly, when we regard him as only a bestower of eternal blessedness. Following that most excellent rule afforded us by the distinguished writer named above, we proceed to ask if "a literal construction will stand?" That is, in the case before us, must we set aside the literal for the figurative? Must we reject the simple idea of being as the gift of Jesus to his followers? We verily believe the literal will stand, for this reason, that unless we get life, and everlasting life from Jesus, in its primary sense, then we must ultimately enter on a condition of eternal non-existence. Had men been naturally immortal, then having in themselves life, or being heirs of ceaseless existence, they could in no way require a Saviour to come and yield them what they had already.

But in Scripture where are we pronounced immortal? The Book uses language of a thoroughly opposite character, as when it speaks of us as "mortal," and "corruptible;" as when it declares "all flesh is grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass;" and to add no more, when it exhorts us to "seek for immortality." Rom. 2:7. Were we possessed of inherent immortality—a life that would go on unwinding and unwinding for ever, we might need to seek for immortal or eternal happiness, but not immortality itself. In consequence of assuming that men are to live for ever, as surely as God himself, no wonder that the gospel "life" has been set aside in its primary import, and happiness, ceaseless happiness, alone been held forth as the great blessing to be obtained through the interposition of the Son of God. The whole mistake, and a melancholy one it has been, has proceeded from the assumption just mentioned, and in what that originated we stop not at present to consider. For the honor of the Lord Jesus, for the consistency of his teaching, for the unspeakable delight of his people, for the enlightenment of poor sinners, let us no longer assume that men are immortal beings.—On the withdrawal of this assumption a great erection of misapprehension, and not a little superstition, perishes; the gift of God beams forth in richest glory, and the universe is bathed in a mellower light. Jesus imparts life, and endless life to his friends; happiness no doubt he gives also, but being—immortal, incorruptible being—through a resurrection from among the dead, is the grand product of his philanthropy and power. His mission among men had a view to the future especially. It was among the dying and the dead that he proclaimed "I am the life;" "he that believeth on me though he were dead," though he must die, "yet shall he live," and "live for ever." In a world of immortals he might have given the announcement, "I am the blessedness;" among men who had no life in themselves, whose breath was in their nostrils, who were hastening to the grave, he was required as the LIFE-GIVER—one who would resurrect the inmates of the sepulchre, and cause his saints to inherit an angel-like and deathless state of being. Let us then disclose him as the Life of men; and assure the Christless that eternity instead of being their home will be their grave! "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so was the Son of Man lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:14, 15. The bitten Israelites needed life; all that they had they would have given to escape impending death; without money life was restored to them, their days were prolonged, by looking at the brazen serpent. So now it is life, life from the dead,—an immortal and incorruptible resurrection—that is needed by men, and lo! it is reachable, for Jesus is "The Resurrection and the Life." Ere long he will impart to his followers eternal life, and they will continue in being because his years are unending. "God so loved the world," each of us on earth, "that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." It was love divine that wrought the miracle in the desert;

mercy shown there in benign effulgence, but oh! how it radiates from Jesus, and from his cross, and from Joseph's tomb. The Israelites had their existence continued for a brief space of time, and then the dark foe of man flapped his wings over them when his talons entered their vitals; the life set before you in the gospel of heaven is one that death will never reach. Life and love radiate from the Divine Throne, they are concentrated in the Son of the Blessed, and the blaze is excessively glorious. The proof that God loves you is discoverable in this fact that there is a Jesus; the evidence that the Infinite and All-merciful Parent wishes you to be immortal in his universe, and perpetually in bliss, is that Jesus sits behind yon skiey veil, and that his voice comes to your ears burdened with sorrow and desire, "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."

CHRISTIAN LOVE.

The gracious feeling of charity or love delights itself in God, and in the happiness of man. It is opposed to selfishness, which leads a person to make an idol of himself, and withhold supreme reverence from his Creator; to exclude all sympathy with his fellow-beings, and often to treat them with positive injustice and cruelty. To the absence of love for God we are authorized by Revelation to trace all blasphemy, impiety, and idolatry existing on earth; and to absence of all love for man we are warranted by the same authority, to trace envy, avarice, malignity, and oppression in its thousand forms. The gospel of Jesus is the grand antagonist of this baneful selfishness; it inculcates and inspires affection for God and man. Love is the very essence of his religion. A selfish Christian is a pure contradiction. A Christian cannot be destitute of love for God and his fellow-creature. When living Christianity is thus synonymous with love we need not wonder that "charity" is so often inculcated in the sacred volume, and so highly extolled. Looking up to God, who himself is love, the inspired writers with one voice exclaim, "O love the Lord all ye his saints." Looking abroad on the Christian world, the inspired servants of the Redeemer proclaim these exhortations,—"Above all things have fervent charity," or love, "among yourselves." "Seeing you have purified your souls," or yourselves, "in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that you love one another with a pure heart fervently;" and the great command of our Master is, that we should "love our neighbors as ourselves;" be good Samaritans, as he taught us in his parable.

"The fruit of the Spirit is love." They who are in Jesus have his spirit, and brotherly kindness and charity are among the beautiful and heavenly products of grace. Unless we live in love we are unpardoned,—we are not of God. Man-love springs up side by side with the love of God in the heart. Whoever loves God, and this affection is wrought in us by understanding his love for us as it is manifested especially in Jesus, is constrained to feel kindly toward his brother. The benevolence of the gospel, is the product of the gospel. It is a love to man for God's sake; he is its spring, its support, and his glory is its aim. A fine illustration of this truth is given by Mr. Moffat, in his work on Africa, in the case of Africaner, whose life he records.

Before his conversion, he was alike the enemy of God and man; fierce, savage, revengeful, and bloody, his name was terror, and like the lion of his native wilds, he roamed about only to plunder and destroy. But when the doctrine of the Cross melted his heart, there was a blessed transformation speedily accomplished. The lion became a lamb,—no more plundering, no more slaughter; the doctrine that moved him to love the merciful Jehovah, filled his bosom with benevolence to man. Having been born into the family of heaven, he loved the brethren with especial affection; the yearning of pure and holy philanthrophy characterised his being. Oh! happy change; when will the world be filled with hearts like his?

As soon as we discover that a wrong has been done us, we naturally feel angry, and this feeling, if not crushed, will rise into revenge, and be manifested probably in some of the forms of retaliation in our power. We see this process exemplified in the inferior animals, when an injury has been inflicted by any of their number; and their Creator has actually endowed them with weapons, so to speak, by which to defend themselves, and chastise their enemies. The serpent has a sting, the bull horns, the tiger has claws, and in their case, in consequence of their constitution, the infliction of an injury and an effort at revenge, are purely instinctive and simultaneous. In savage life, and in some men who are supposed to be civilized, there is a striking and sad resemblance to the inferior creatures around them, they boil with rage, utter their wrath in horrid and often fiendish imprecations, they glory in returning the wrong in an aggravated form. Even though we may have no resemblance to these excessively wicked men, we all experience, at least for the moment, a desire, it may be feeble, yet still the desire is felt, to punish the person who willingly affords us pain. Now this feeling of resentment, and particularly if allowed to assume the form of revenge, is peculiarly abhorent from the genius of Christianity. We are to forgive our enemies; to love them, to pray for them that despitefully use us and persecute us. We are to imitate our Master's example, who pardoned even the man who denied him with oaths; who, when on the cross, prayed for his murderers.

Love in the heart will expel all anger and malice, and terminate all evil speaking. Love cheers the home; love irradiates and tranquillizes the church. It is of divine power, and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God and God in him. Heaven is the home, the temple of love; and in proportion as we love, we know the sympathies, the joys, and even the sublime sorrows of that distant shore.

A SOUL.--ITS VALUE.

BY H. L. H.

As we are informed that he that converteth a sinner shall save a soul from death, and as the question has been propounded by the Great Preacher "What is a man profited if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" it may be proper to occupy ourselves a little with contemplating its value.

By the term soul, here, we are to understand a human being; for a parallel passage represents the gainer of the whole world, as "loosing himself or becoming a cast away."

This question of the Saviour, in itself, would be sufficient to awaken our attention to a consideration of the value of man—as he seems to throw him singly into the scale, and weigh him against the world—certainly he must be of immense and incalculable value.

We sometimes attach value to an article on account of its origin. And if the lovers of the beautiful, would spare no wealth to obtain a block of marble chisseled by the hand of a Praxiteles, or a picture drawn by the pencil of an Angelo, what must be the value of the living specimen of Jehovah's handiwork? What must be the price of that clay that has been moulded in beauty by the hands of Elohim, and enlivened by the breath of his lips?

Or, if we estimate the value of a substance by the associations that it recalls, if we value some battered and mutilated statue because it presents not only the glory of Grecian art, but also the image of a Grecian Hero, and the story of his noble deeds, then how highly shall man be valued—since he furnishes us with our nearest and most perfect type of Him, in whose image he was created, and also appears to us as a rich though ruined relic of the golden age that has long since passed away?

But this is an age when men are busy enquiring after the profit, the practical value, and utility of things. And in this point of view, if we value the mechanism that in its operations transcends the wildest fancy of days gone by,—if we prize the master products of human ingenuity,—if we contemplate with astonishment and admiration the fruits of human intellect, wherewith shall we value the being that has within him not only the elements of these magnificent productions, but also the germs and seeds of other and mightier ones, that are yet unborn?

We value a seed because it may with careful culture expand and display a gorgeous flower, or spring upward and become a stately tree. We value a helpless child because he is the father of the man, and within that infantile mind are undeveloped powers that will grow with its growth, and strengthen with its strength, until earth shall tremble with fear, or smile with delight at the mention of his name. And if we thus value these things, how shall we value man, the noblest work of God, who, if planted in a nobler soil, and beneath a kindlier sky, and endowed with continuance there, might and would, in his expansion, as far transcend his present littleness as the tree in the branches of which all the fowls of the heaven do lodge, exceeds "the mustard seed," "which is the smallest among the seeds."

Not the least valuable property of man is his capacity for enjoyment. If his ice-like heart was warmed by no kindly glow,—if he was void of emotion, as the machinery that he produces—if joy never could cause his heart to beat higher, and his eye to beam with an unwonted brightness, then his value would well nigh be gone. Who would desire to preserve a race unfeeling as the stones? Who would weep to see the waters of oblivion close for ever above a generation that could never be happy?

But man is not so. O, there are even in this world, days of joy that would repay long years of toil. There are hours into which the bliss of a life-time seems to be crowded, and which make the weary son of sorrow forget his toils and repent of his murmurings, and say, "It is good for me that I have lived upon the earth." But these mountain tops with their sun-gleams are rare, and the intervening valleys with their gloom are deep and dreary. But there is another world, where the gladness of an earthly life may be comprised in the period of a single hour—where all the melody of earth shall be forgotten in one glorious burst of music from "harpers harping with their harps"—where all the grand and thrilling anthems of this world shall lose their harmony in that one song of "Salvation to our God." And man may be there! Man who takes so much delight in earthly joy, may share that which shall be perfect and unending. Man who wears out his life in the pursuit of a few evanescent pleasures, may share that fullness of joy, and possess those pleasures for evermore.

Yes: for ever, for man may be brought up from the dust of death—his weakness may become power—his dishonor may become glory—and that which was natural and dying in its constitution, may become spiritual and immortal by the will and power of God. And does not this render his value incalculable? The proudest works of man must pass away and moulder down. History shows us this. But while of the Temple of Jerusalem, with its magnificence, only a few pilgrim-kissed stones remain; while the Parthenon, the brightest gem of earth's broad zone, is but a heap of ruins; while the Palaces of the Cæsars has become a rope-walk—the Roman Forum, a cow-market—and the Tarpeian rock a cabbage garden,—while even the Pyramids themselves are all hastening to decay—while earth and all its glory rolls on to dissolution and desolation; while the works that are in it, however costly or enduring, must kindle the fires of the burning day, man may survive them all, and though in the cycles of eternity, star after star may disappear from view, yet shall the saint of God live onward. And is he of no value?

Let us look from another point of view. Go, mourner, go and gather to thyself all the wealth of many lands. Enter the caverns of the deep and bring up the riches of sunken argosies, ransack the bowels of the earth—enter the coffers of the rich and the covetous—traverse the broad world and return and bring its gold and silver and heap it in one vast and glittering pile. Go again and bring "each gem that glows amid earth's treasures of darkness," bring the sapphire and the emerald, the ruby and the crystal, the diamond and the onyx, bring up each pearl that lies hidden beneath the ocean wave, and pluck each brilliant that sparkles in the coronet of royalty—bring all these, and lay

them with all the broidered robes and costly apparel, with all the fragrant perfumes and precious spices of eastern lands,—by the loved one's grave, and thus see if you can buy back a single one from the embrace of death. Yea, go and bring every gem that sparkles in the foundations of the City of God—bring every treasure that is there displayed, and bribe the grim king of terrors to let thy loved one go. And there, while the gates of the grave are yet unclosed, and while no answer comes from the guardian of those gloomy realms, learn the value of a soul!

Nay, we must go farther to learn it. We must pass by the treasures of earth as of no account—we must leave behind us the precious wisdom of the sages of olden time—we need not bring the prayers of the good, they will not avail, even the tear of penitence, so precious in the sight of God, is worthless here. We must forget all these and yet enquire the value of a soul. We must traverse every land, and survey every product of God's creative energy, and having sought throughout the universe, we must come back, and stooping down beside the cross of Calvary, we must grope amid the "darkness" that is "throughout all the land," until the returning light reveals to us the Saviour dead, and the earth crimsoned with his trickling blood. Here shall we find the value of a soul, and here standing beneath the shadow of the cross we will read—"Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot."

Here is the long-sought price—the equivalent of the soul. No wonder that the Apostle exhorted his brethren to care for the flock of God, since he had bought them with his own blood. This is the price—the blood of the Son of God for the soul—the man.

And now need I say one word to influence any to engage in the work of saving mankind? This soul once lost is lost forever. This soul must be saved "from death," or it must "die." It must live onward while eternity shall roll its ample cycles, or it must be "punished with everlasting destruction," and "be as though it had not been." These are the utterances of inspiration, the oracles of eternal truth. And that "soul" is yourself, or your brethren, your sister, your wife, your husband, or your neighbor.

Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him, let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall SAVE A. SOUL FROM DEATH, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

Plymouth, Mass., Feb., 1853.

CALLS.—Bros. Wilkinson and Brown, at Danville, N. Y., are informed that it is impossible for me to visit them at the time they speak of, and I fear not for some months to come. I am sorry also to say to Bros. Pickard and Cherry, in central Ohio, that I see no possible way to visit them at present. Never did it seem as if there must be men of God sent out into the work as at this moment. Who will go? and who will help to sustain them? All communications on the subject may be addressed to me, New-York. GEO. STORRS.

BIBLE EXAMINER.

NEW YORK, APRIL, 1853.

VISIT TO BOSTON.—Since our last issue, we have spent eight days in the City of Boston, and preached there ten times. The meeting was well got up by Brs. Geo. T. Adams, P: Dickinson, and others. We had large and attentive audiences in their new and commodious Hall. Many came in from surrounding towns, and the calls were pressing to visit various places in that quarter. We think the truth of Life only through Christ our Life-Giver, was greatly promoted in that vicinity; and our brethren saw the good effects of giving proper notices and scattering hand-bills; which was done in the public houses; Sabbath mornings. By this means strangers, from distant places, were induced to come out; and a number from far-off took works on the subject. One gentleman from Kentucky became a subscriber for the Examiner. "Spirit-Rappers" are to work in Boston as elsewhere. Nothing kills them like the truth that dead men "know not anything," and that there is Life only through Christ by a literal resurrection from the dead.

We were kindly and happily entertained by Bro. Adams and his beloved wife, where we felt much at home. May the Lord reward them.

Bro. J. S. White preached there, we suppose, the two Sabbaths following our visit, and we have no doubt he watered the seed sown and scattered an abundance more in that field which seemed to offer more encouragement for cultivation than we ever witnessed in Boston before.

"The French Empire."—Our opinion is unchanged on that subject. Nothing has appeared to weaken our conviction of the general correctness of it: but we have not the space, time, nor inclination to enter into controversy any further about the matter. Unless future events shall show us incorrect we are sure none can show the contrary. Here we leave the matter till further developments in history shall settle clearly where the truth is.

DISHONESTY.—When an association, or individuals publish sentiments which the author has publicly renounced—and give no notice of the renunciation all men, who have knowledge of the facts must pronounce it an act of dishonesty. Such an act "The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald" has been guilty of, in publishing a discourse of ours on "The Return of the Jews," delivered in 1843-ten years ago—and which we acknowledged in 1845, was incorrect, so far as it excluded the return of

the literal seed of Jacob: and also protested against any one thereafter publishing it as our views: yet these sticklers for the observance of the "Seventh Day Sabbath"—as a part of the law from Sinai—have violated "the whole law" in bearing "false witness" against us, by publishing that discourse as ours—"By George Storrs"—without one hint that it is not now, and has not been approved by us for eight years past. If these persons wish us to think they are honest in their contention for the observance of the Seventh Day Sabbath, let them confess the wrong they have done in this matter, and do works suitable for repentance.

RESURRECTION OF THE WICKED—OPINION OF THE JEWS. "The Jews believed that the wicked should have no resurrection: and that the principle that led to the resurrection of the body in the righteous, was the indwelling Spirit of God. This is positively asserted in the Shir Hashirim Rabbi. See Schoetgen."—Dr. Adam Clarke's Commentary, on John 6:39.

"It was an opinion of the Jews themselves, that their fathers who perished in the wilderness, should never have resurrection."—Dr. Clarke on John 6:49.

CHRISTIANITY IN THE THIRD CENTURY.—"Godlike life and a holy life—these were inseparable notions in the Christian mind; both were comprehended in the single notion of aphtharsia—incorruption. Now the Logos was regarded as the source of this life; Christ as the appearance of the Logos in humanity—as the Mediator of this higher life." NEANDER: Church History, vol. 2, p. 388. Bohn's Ed.

FROM DR. LEES, ENGLAND.

Kent Honse, Meanwood near Leeds. Feb. 20,1853.

My Dear Mr. Storrs: Though it is long since you heard from me, you are not forgotten, nor the good cause you advocate, in which I am as much interested as ever. But illness last year, and much travel and literary occupation since, have prevented me writing anything thereupon. Some day (when I have finished publishing my Works) I propose writing a long paper for your Examiner, on a subject that wants a fuller and more exhaustive treatment than it has yet received—the doctrine of the Future Life as taught in the Targums and Rabbinical writings.

Our friend, Panton Ham, has commenced a new periodical (published by Whitfield, London,) called the Christian Examiner: Four Nos. of which are out-devoted very much to the same object as the Bible Examiner.

I find the Truth making way amongst various sections of the Church. "Mr. Marshall Hall Higginbottom, Surgeon, of Nottingham," the other day enquired of me about the doctrine, and ordered a set of the Truth-Seeker on account of that work containing a discussion of the subject. I advised him to get Mr. Ham's books and periodicals.

An intelligent lady amongst "the Friends," also, got another set for the same reason; and a good number of the Episcopal Clergy are inclining in that direction. Dr. Ackworth, of the Horton Baptist College, in a debate with Mr. Holyoake, the leader of the English non-theists (Secularists, as they prefer to be called,) was sadly nonplussed on this very point—and, allowing eternal torment to be a fact in the universe, said it was surrounded with inexplicable difficulties! He was for postponing the solution—but his opponent acutely observed, that revelation ought to remove natural difficulties rather than add greater ones of its own. The sceptic, it is clear, CANNOT be met by the pseudo-orthodox.

With kindest regards, Yours, very truly,

FRED. RICH'D LEES.

Dr. Lees will accept our thanks for the foregoing short note, and the information it contains. We hope he may favor us soon with the promised article from the Targums and Rabbinical writings. We want all the light we can get on this subject.

TRUTH ONWARD.—We take the following from the Methodist Quarterly Review of January last. It is found in an article on the "Incompetence of Reason in matters of Religion, by Professor H. M. Johnson, Dickinson College." We wonder if our opponents will not use one another up. Surely Prof. Johnson uses up such reasoning as that of Luther Lee, and Eld. Stearns. Here is the extract; let it be pondered well.

"Descending from Deity to man, we notice his efforts to prove his own immortality. It has been common to establish, by a series of negative conclusions, that soul or spirit is not subject to the laws of matter, and then from immateriality to conclude immortality, or imperishability. But why such an inference? Is it that we see matter constantly perishing, and, from the unlikeness of spirit in other respects, we infer dissimilitude in this also? Such deduction were even then illogical; but, on the other hand, matter does not perish obviously; and, we suppose, cannot, except by the hand of the Omnipotent. The power which created, could doubtless uncreate; and if this be true, no reason can be given why spirit is not, equally with matter, obnoxious to such a fate. It is only in its organic forms, and the principle of physical life, that matter

seems to lack permanence and durability—mere conditions of matter, and conditions in which, if approximation could be said at all, it approaches nearest the nature of spirit.

"But this argument is generally abandoned now by those at all conversant with the subject, and that on which reliance is had, casts itself into this form : It is asserted that the soul can perish in but one of three ways, to wit: either by dissolution, by privation, or by annihilation. Granted; and what next? First:—That which is without parts cannot be dissolved. The soul is simple and uncompounded; therefore, it cannot perish by dissolution. So we believe; but not by virtue of this syllogism. To say nothing of the fallacy lurking in the ambiguous forms of the major term, the second premiss here assumes to define the nature of spirit, whereas it is only shown that we cannot define it. Water and air were believed to be simple and uncompounded elements. Platinum and hydrogen are still believed to be so. Some substances which are reckoned such now, are strongly suspected to be compound. Of spirit we can only affirm, in this regard, that it cannot be subjected to analysis, and, for aught we know, may be the most simple or the most complex thing created.

"But, secondly, What can be said of privation? By this term our metaphysicians seem to understand, the soul's ceasing to exist, or gradually relinquishing life, "by the tendencies of its own nature." And they argue that, if its natural tendency be to death, it will, by virtue of this property, at some period, cease to exist; if its tendency be to life, it will live forever. And that it now exists, they claim as sufficient evidence that its natural tendency is to existence. What is this, but stark atheism?—a making of certain properties necessarily inherent in the soul? If God created the soul, it was for him to give it its conditions of existence; and for aught that human reason can tell, it were as easy for him to make the condition of the soul's existence the life of the body, as to make the presence of light the condition of colors.

"The third point—that the Almighty can annihilate the soul—may not be questioned; and whether he will, must so obviously be matter of revelation, that philosophy even must consent to resign us to that source of instruction."

THE WINE QUESTION Considered in an entirely novel point of view, with ILLUSTRATIONS (philosophical and critical,) on the PRINCIPAL PASSAGES OF THE BIBLE connected with the subject: Appendix to Works of Dr. Lees," England.

We have received a copy of this work from the Author, but have not had time to examine it. From a hasty glance over it we should think it might be very instructive and useful, containing a large amount of information calculated to interest those desirous to investigate the subject. It most likely will be reprinted in this country : at least, we hope it may be.

CORRECTION.—For "full of ruth," read scant of ruth, in Feb. Examiner, p. 19, line 30 from bottom in the version from "Jean Paul," by Dr. Lees.

BRO. JONATHAN WILSON.—This aged brother, (now about 75,) it seems has not lost his missionary spirit; as he writes us, he is about starting on a tour to Indiana. We are glad the Lord has blessed him with strength to continue in the work. Strong in the Lord, and in the faith of Life only through Christ, we doubt not he will prove a blessing where- ever he may go. We hope the friends in the West will receive him with open hearts and help him on his way after a Godly sort. May the Lord make him a great blessing among you.

"BIBLE VS. TRADITION."

We give the following from that part of the work which consists of an examination of the Hebrew term Sheol, and the Greek word Hades. To feel the full force of it, it is necessary to read the whole chapter on the subject: but this extract may create a desire to see the whole work.

Sheol is the only word that is translated hell in the O. T., and as we shall see, it always means the state of death, the grave, and corruption; and never can mean a place of conscious torment. The learned George Campbell observes, that the word sheol in the O. T. means no more than kever, the grave, or sepulchre, excepting that it has a more general sense. Kever, we have seen, is never translated hell.

To show more conspicuously the glaring absurdity of considering the Hebrew sheol, as a burning hell for the torment of the wicked, we adduce sheol as being the name of the first king of Israel. In later times this name has been differently pointed, thereby making a little difference in the sound of the letters, without altering in the least degree their meaning, and is written Saul. See the meaning of Saul in Cruden's Concordance, p. 716. This caps the climax. It will be recollected that the chief apostle of the Gentiles, being a Hebrew of the Hebrews, was named Saul. But how would it shock a Christian congregation to hear a child, at baptism, named Hell! Yet when Hebrew children were brought before the Lord, at circumcision, many of their names were called Sheol, or Saul! And as the Hebrews considered this an appropriate name in the days of the apostles, it is impossible to believe that they ever associated with it the idea of the comparatively modern invented and 'orthodox' HELL!!

Where the word hell is found in the common version, grave is often found in the margin, and the reverse; showing that the translators regarded either of these two words as a suitable representative for the word sheol; yet have they availed themselves of every opportunity to insert the word hell, where it would favor the popular tradition. We give a few instances where the margin and the text differ. Ps. 55:15, "Let death seize upon them, and let them go down quickly into (sheol) hell." Margin, the grave. The meaning of both clauses is similar: Let them die. That his enemies should be horribly tormented for ever, was a more suitable desire for Moloch than for David. Ps. 86:

13, "Thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest (sheol) hell." Margin, grave. Assemblies of violent men had sought after the soul of David, the life and being of David; but God had delivered his soul, himself, from the 'lowest sheol,' from the most terrible and cruel death. Jonah 2:2, "Out of the belly of (sheol) hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice." Margin, grave. Sheol here, a figure of death. Isa. 14:9, "(Sheol) hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming." Margin, grave. Verse 11, "Thy pomp is brought down to the (sheol) grave." V. 15, "Yet thou shalt be brought down to (sheol) hell, to the sides of the (bour) pit." V. 18, "All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house," (or separate sepulchre). V. 19, "But thou are cast out of thy (kever) grave, like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with the sword, and go down to the stones of the (bour) pit, as a carcass trodden under feet. Thou shalt not be joined with them in (kevoroh, allied to kever) burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evil doers shall never be renowned." If "going into sheol' and 'going into the grave' are identical and synonymous expressions in verses 11 and 15, and are made to agree with house or sepulchre, and kever, and bour the grave, and pit, v. 18 and 19; then certainly sheol in v. 11 means the same, and all imply a state of death. And going into sheol, and going into a grave cut out of the sides of the pit, equally expresses only a state of death. Mark particularly the reading of v. 11, "Thy pomp is brought down to sheol, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee." But this sheol was in 'the sides of the pit.' In Ezek. 32:23, kever, the grave, is likewise in the 'sides of the pit.' Whose (keoreem, plural of kever,) graves, are set in the sides of the (bour) pit." From this we likewise prove, that kever, the grave, and pit, and prison, all imply the same thing, and that sheol, hell, if you please, implies no more, only as being a more general expression.

In nearly all the thirty-three places where sheol is rendered grave and pit, it would be extremely absurd to call sheol hell. Nevertheless we will call sheol hell—the very orthodox 'hell where the wicked are tormented for ever'—seeing ye will have it so, just for a little while, only that you may the better perceive the absurdity. Gen. 37:35, Jacob said, "For I will go down into (sheol) hell, unto my son mourning." Jacob supposed that Joseph was torn to pieces, yet in sheol. Did Jacob believe that his son Joseph was in hell, and that he would soon follow? Remember we are justified in calling sheol hell here, if the translators are in thirty-one other places. Gen. 42:28, Jacob again said, "Then shall ye bring down my grey hairs with sorrow to (sheol) hell." The same words occur in Ch. 44:29, 31. Did the sons of Jacob think that they would bring down their father with his grey hairs to hell to meet there his son Joseph? 1 Kings 2:6, 9, "Let not his hoar head go down to (sheol) hell in peace...But his hoar head bring thou down to (sheol) hell with blood." David gave these directions to Solomon concerning Joab and Shemei; Did David believe that the hoar heads of these two would go in "peace" into a hell of torments, if not slain by violence? He says not a word where their immortal ghosts" were to go.

…