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

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

BIBLE EXAMINER.

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

VOL. VIII.

NEW YORK, AUGUST, 1853.

GEORGE STORRS, EDITOR AND PUBLISHER.

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

NO.8.

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

THE DOCTRINE OF THE CROSS.

BY REV. J. PANTON HAM.

(Continued from page 93.)

The history is plainly told. The manifestation of the Lord Jesus Christ was for great purposes of divine mercy towards the human race. He came to rescue the human race from the tyranny of sin,—to strike off the sordid spiritual shackles which debased and destroyed mankind, by holding them in a foul moral bondage, and restraining them within the dominions of the dead. His mission was that of a "Restorer." He came to re-create a race for God, worthy to be honored as sons and daughters of the Lord God Almighty. The materials of this new creation were a morally diseased and mortal race, called by an apostle "the body of sin" and "death." Such a race needed to be impregnated with a new spirit,—the spirit of holiness; and vitalized with a new life,—an incorruptible and immortal life. Sin, which had usurped the throne in the moral constitution, had to be entirely supplanted by an in-dwelling, regnant holiness; and the exposure to death had to be repaired by a resurrection, and immortal nature. "This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." A work of Almighty Power and the project of Infinite Mercy! To accomplish this vast work a peculiar as well as potent system of means was devised, which develops the wonderful resources of God in its admirable adaptation and efficacy. God would give a more special and perfect revelation of himself than he had ever before given: he would accommodate himself, even more than he had heretofore done, to the condition and necessities of the race whom he purposed to redeem.

It is beside our purpose to discuss here the probabilities of a revelation other than God has already given of himself in the vast scope of his material creation. We take for granted, as a matter of fact, and capable of a rational and satisfactory proof, that a more direct and particular revelation has been graciously condescended by God to mankind, and that the Holy Scriptures contain the record of it. In them we have the wonderful history of this more special revelation, and are led to observe that one universal law of the Divine manifestation obtains in both systems. This law is, that God does not reveal himself directly, or in propria persona, but indirectly, through material and other media. It is not perhaps presuming too much to

say that this medial mode of manifestation is the only mode by which God could hold intercourse with such beings as ourselves. Certainly, since such a mode has been chosen, we may suppose that it is the best and most suitable for the purpose. But the operation of this law discloses another interesting fact in connexion with the more special revelation of God to his creatures. There is observable a progression towards a higher and more perfect expression of God in the successive dispensations of revealed religion. In the patriarchal era the divine media of communication were the ministry of angels, visions, and dreams. Under the Mosaic dispensation, besides the written law, we behold an elaborate ceremonial and ritual, and a symbolic representation of Jehovah himself sojourning in the midst of, but unseen by, his people. No angel ministry, vision, or dream conveyed so vivid and delightful a conception of God as did the mysterious light, or Shekinah, the emblem of the pure and benignant Deity, resting above the ark of the Covenant on a Seat of Mercy. There was no possibility of misunderstanding the attitude of God towards his people in this expressive symbol. Here was an emblematic residenec of God among men, and in his chosen attribute of the Merciful One. From that symbolic presence there came through the lips of the High Priest of Israel, the assurance of pardon and acceptance to the chosen people. Every expression of repentance and pledge of reformation which the reeking sacrifice symbolized, was followed by the assurance to the worshipper that his offering had obtained the atonement or reconciliation, and that he might retire from the sanctuary rejoicing that "there is forgiveness with God." But expressive as was that vision of God which the ancient Israelites enjoyed in their sacred institutes, the teachings of their prophets, and the series of extraordinary providences by which their national history is distinguished, it gave place in its turn to the higher manifestation of the dispensation which followed. Glorious as was confessedly that manifestation of the invisible Jehovah, it had comparatively no glory, by reason of the glory which excelleth. The last, or Christian dispensation, presents the most perfect revelation which God has ever made of himself to the human race. The manifestation of God culminated when Christ became the medium. "God was in Christ,"—a personal reality holding personal intercourse with men,—dwelling in very deed with men upon the earth. In Christ we learn to know God, by the character which he acts before us,—we see God in him through the higher medium of a living presence. In Christ we become acquainted with God in a way singularly appropriate and natural to us,—in that facile and perfect way by which we become acquainted with one another,—by looking upon, by conversing, by associating and living with him. The expression which only a human face, a human heart, a human life can give to beings themselves human,—even such an expression of the invisible Jehovah has been granted us by God in Christ.

"For the Life was manifested, and we have seen it; and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us." So perfect is this manifestation of God in Christ, that our Lord said to his disciples, "If ye had known me ye should have known my Father also; and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him."

If what we have already said, appear to imply that we regard Christ in no higher capacity than a human medium, or living symbol for the manifestation of God, let it be distinctly understood that we consider such a representation of Christ as falling very far short of the representation which is given of him in the Scriptures. Our description of Christ as the medium, or mediator, for the purpose of manifesting God to men, under the last dispensation of religion, in which official capacity we trace an analogy to the economy of former dispensations, wherein a system of Divine revelation by the agency of symbolic media develops itself, by no means necessitates the conclusion, that Christ, as the one comprehensive medium of manifestation under the Christian dispensation, is no more than a human symbol. The revelation of God by Christ, while it develops a medial or mediatorial economy, and thus far corresponds with former dispensations, is yet a revelation altogether sui generis. He is not to be estimated as merely the last and grandest link in the chain of the medial manifestation of God; for although he fulfils the purpose of the last link in this wonderful economy, he is infinitely more than this would imply. Although chronologically last, the medial manifestation of God through Christ was the summary and supersedence of all preceding manifestations. It was the economy for "the fulness of times." His high mission was planned "before the foundation of the world," and the lesser manifestations were designed to be the progressive steps upon which were chiselled the suggestive yet faint outlines of the perfect "topstone." Theirs was "the path of the shining light, shining more and more unto the perfect day."

And while we are anxious to anticipate and repel the possible imputation of receiving Christ in the capacity of a mere human symbol, we are yet farther desirous of repudiating the supposition that Christ was nothing more than a moral manifestation of God. To express in a human life the moral perfections of God, his disposition towards, and requirements of, his creatures was, undoubtedly, a chief design of the Messiah's mission. But this was not all; for we discover phenomena in the person and ministry of Christ for which no reason can be assigned, if we accept this as the sum of his mission, as the expression or manifestation of the Divinity. The Christ of the New Testament is not so easily brought within the comprehension of the human understanding as this representation allows him to be. There is an obvious mystery, natural and unstudied, investing him in the evangelic narratives, not to acknowledge which is to preclude ourselves from the true perception of his official character and dignity. We could conceive it possible for the power of God to raise up a perfect human being, who should be holy and without blemish from the earliest moment of his moral consciousness, and who in a life of elevated purity

and activity should develop even such moral perfectibility as did Christ himself. But such a being however qualified for the purposes of a merely moral manifestation of God, would come far short of the official dignity of Christ, who embraced in himself a complete expression of God, in so far as this was necessary for the ends which the Divine Being contemplated in so expressing himself to his creatures, and in so far, moreover, as it was possible, submitting as Christ did, in assuming the human form as the chosen vehicle of the manifestation, to the laws and limitations of a finite nature. That man may be an intelligent and devout worshipper he needs to know the object of his worship, and God has condescended to grant him this knowledge. Absolute Deity man has never seen, and necessarily cannot see. "No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." The nature of God is too vast to be comprehended, in its absolute vastness, by man. He has no faculties for the perfect apprehension of essential Deity. There are but two methods by which the nature of God can be brought at all within the capacity of the human understanding: either the human must become the Divine, or the Divine must become the human. The former is impossible: is the latter impossible also? Is it impossible for God to collect, so to speak, the infinite rays of his being into a limited and less dazzling focus? Can he reflect himself in such a way as that the reflection shall be a perfect image of himself? Is it competent for God to reproduce himself, not of course essentially and personally, but representatively, on another and reduced scale—a scale that shall be on a level with the capacities of the being to whom he may purpose to reveal himself? We think it is, and that it is thus that God has chosen to manifest himself to man, in the person and mission of the Lord Jesus Christ. God, we believe, shines forth in Christ in the plenitude of his divine grandeur and majesty. "In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Here is language which unequivocally expresses, not a partial, but the complete expression of God in or through humanity. It represents Christ as the model of God, the visible personification of the invisible Jehovah. And this is the Apostle's chosen figure, by which to express the true idea of Christ, "the image of the invisible God;" still more emphatically, "the express image of his person." "God was in Christ" representatively, and for the purpose of medially, or mediatorially manifesting himself to mankind.

This idea of Christ will, we think, be found to adapt itself to, and to explain, all the phenomena of his person and mission. It has already been stated that the evangelical records invest the person of Christ, to some extent, in an impenetrable veil of mystery. While he draws us to himself "with the cords of love, the bands of a man," we cannot divest ourselves of the consciousness that between us and him, notwithstanding this privileged and intimate oneness, there is yet a distance so vast as to be scarcely, if at all, other than infinite. The endearments of friendship and fraternity, which his condescension obliges us to feel and to acknowledge, cannot obliterate the sense of awe with which we draw nigh to him. We call him our brother, our friend; but do we not feel, while such terms are on our lips, that he is such by gracious and unspeakable condescension?

Are we not conscious all the while of another emotion underlying this emotion of brotherhood, and which we feel owes its birth to some other conviction than that Christ is our brother? And if we were to analyze this deeper feeling, shall we not find it to be akin to that hallowed feeling with which we venerate the Supreme God himself? Nay, more: can our analysis show that the feeling is not really identical? No reiteration of his designation as "the son of man" can force the mere manhood of Christ into the seat of our uppermost conviction. We feel, despite our theologies, that we are in the presence of God when the image of the immaculate Son is before our mental vision.* We may have different speculative theories, concerning the personal nature of Christ, and may variously explain our conceptions of it; but it is more than probable that our feelings are one, and that the feeling is such as we have stated. It might indeed be contended that even if such be the case, it is to be attributed to the influence of a false education, and that such a feeling is rather of traditional and spurious, than of a genuinely religious origin. But we cannot admit this, but believe that it is the genuine product of the evangelical records, with whose historic details we are so generally familiar.

Let us not be misapprehended in these remarks. We pronounce not on the personality of the Son of God, we remember that it is written, "No man knoweth who the Son is but the Father." Our anxiety is to overlook none of the phenomena which the person and life of Christ present. Our views of the mission of Christ oblige us to reject that presumptuous Creed known as the Athanasian, on the one hand, and on the other, that low one-sided theory which professes to explain the Christ of the Scriptures by placing him in the category of mere humanity only.+ We find mystery here, and believe that the clue will never be found, by following which we shall be led into the secret recesses of Christ's personal being, and be able to publish to the world any theory of his wonderful nature.

It is not in the presumptuous attitude of the anatomist that we presume to stand before the Christ of God, and with the scalpel of our intellect attempt the dissection of his peculiar being. We believe this to be neither the proper, nor a devout attitude for us to assume. We welcome Christ, not as a problem to be solved, but as a prophet to be believed in; not as a metaphysical phenomenon, but as the messenger of the Lord of Hosts; not as a physical subtilty, but as a Prince and a Saviour. We receive the Lord Jesus Christ, not as an appeal to our speculative curiosity, but as designed to lead us to a sublime conviction, and lay within us the foundation of a living faith.

Such are our views of Christ, and the purpose of his manifestation. We hail his advent as that of the last and greatest of the Prophets of God,—commissioned, and alone qualified to fulfil, the beneficent intentions of his Almighty Father, concerning our fallen race. His approach excites, not our speculative curiosity, but our hope of salvation. The phenomena of his person is with us a subject of secondary interest to the momentous fact, that he is a special visitor from the unseen world, sent with the powers and privileges of a Plenipotentiary of God, to effect our personal salvation from sin and its wages,—death. The all-engrossing thought is, that this distinguished person has come from the very bosom of our Father in heaven, into whose secret counsels he is specially admitted, and which, so far as they concern mankind, he alone is able to make known. He has come to correct our imperfect notions of God, by giving on a human scale the real representation of him. He has come to destroy our fears, the wretched offspring of conscious guilt, by assuring us that his Father does not impute to the world their iniquities, but is willing to forgive and waiting to be gracious, and to declare that he is the medium, or mediatorial agent of this spontaneous grace of pardon. "The Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins." He has come to display a spirit and life that shall be the pattern of our spirit and life, that we may be transformed into his own holy and perfect image, and thus be restored by him to the family of God, as sons and daughters of the Lord God Almighty. He came to cleanse us from all in-dwelling sin, and wash away the foulness of our conscious corruption. Hence is he described as "the fountain opened for sin and uncleanness." He has come to be the plague of death, "the last enemy" of mankind, which he will finally and for ever triumph over, as "the Resurrection and the Life," when his quickening voice shall give his saints their new birth in a resurrection, or transformation, for the inheritance of eternal life. Such are our views of Christ. We rejoice in him as our Justifier,—for he has proclaimed our pardon on the simple, gracious conditions of repentance towards God, and faith in himself. We rejoice in him as our Sanctifier,—for he has washed us from our personal sins at the cost of his own blood, teaching us by his own perfect example to "resist unto blood, striving against sin." We rejoice in him as our Redeemer, for through him death has no final dominion over us; he ever liveth, and because he lives we shall live also. He is our light; for in him we see the glory of the unseen God, and the beauty of holiness. He is our Life; for by him are we made meet for an eternal existence in the society of the holy and immortal; through him do we receive our resurrection from the dead; and in him and with him shall we ever abide, joint heirs of immortality.

Christ to us is "the power of God and the wisdom of God" for salvation. The mystery of his person we will be content to receive as a necessary but inexplicable part of his great mission of love.

(To be Continued.)

A T E R N I T A S RE VIEWED.

BY REV. WM. G. MONCRIEFF.

" ETERNITAS : or, Glimpses of the Future Destinies of Man. By Wm. Bathgate."

(Continued from page 83.)

We closed our last article of this series with an expression of anxiety to know what is the soul of man, or what is a human soul? Our author gives us his deliverance on the subject, and we might find a great many testimonies, backed by lofty names, in ancient and modern times, to the same effect, or nearly so. Indeed "Eternitas" merely echoes what has been uttered again and again, and is believed by millions as firmly as the dogmas of purgatory and transmigration are accredited in Rome and Benares. The one thing needful is authority to give weight to all these authorities; a voice that will sanction each of these assertions, in which we may unerringly and most securely confide. As a theologian, it was the author's duty to hasten at once to the Volume of the Book, and show us distinctly what is there meant by a "soul;" this he has not done, indeed, it never seems to have entered his mind that there was any need for the service. We listen to human assertion; the Bible is never consulted. We hear a mortal's voice; but what we want to hear, and what must be heard, is the voice of God.

Nothing can be plainer than the seventh verse of Gen. ii:—"the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." Mark the word, he "became"—not he got—but he became a living soul. Man was made of dust, and when the breath of life was put into his nostrils, or when he was caused to breathe, henceforth he was a LIVING SOUL. Any child can see the difference between a soul being put into a body, as a tenant enters his new habitation, and an organized creature stretched on the floor of Eden, a lifeless soul, and the same creature by a specified process, becoming a soul alive, and thereupon beginning to perform all the functions peculiar to his rank in the universe.

With this account of Adam's creation, that of the Mother of us all may be compared, and it is wide as the poles from what the common notions about the human constitution would lead us to expect. Immaterial she is not. Nothing is mentioned in her case, as in his. except organization, formed of existing world elements. "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought

her unto the man." Gen. ii. 21, 22. The Scripture description of a human being is "dust thou art," and to declare that this only means a part of him, in fact not even so much as a part of him, since he is as different from it as the dwelling is from the owner, is to pervert the truth at the bidding of a dogma which has been enthroned in the temple of our divine religion.

A soul, then, is no mystery, in so far as its origin or composition is concerned. It can "be seen touched, measured, or weighed." The wings of fancy are not stimulated by its contemplation; we are saved the necessity of asking, "Art thou anything?" If we have lost a great deal of dreamstuff in our research, we have exchanged it for substantial facts, delivered to us by the surest authority. Enough of wonder is left, that out of dust such a complex being could be formed,a being capable of such varied and sublime functions,such intense sufferings and enjoyments. Jehovah is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working!

But the whole subject may be rendered somewhat plainer, if we inquire, what is meant by man being a soul? The word "soul" is the English translation of the Hebrew nephesh, and this word comes from a verb signifying to breathe. Man is a nephesh, a soul, then, because he lives by breathing; so the term nephesh does not so much indicate what he is in the elements of his being, as the mode in which he is continued in living existence. Man became a living soul, or living creature; a creature to live by breathing vital air.

But, further, since on this account he is a soul, we may reasonably expect that all creatures in the world living in the same manner, will also bear a kindred designation. This is the fact. In the following passages the same word occurs, and it is employed to describe the inferior orders of animal existence. Gen. i. 21, "and God created great whales, and every living creature," (nephesh); verse 24th, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature" (nephesh); Gen. ii. 19, "Whatsoever Adam called every living creature," (nephesh); Gen. ix. 10, "Every living creature (nephesh) that is with you"; Lev. xi. 46, "this is the law . . . of every living creature (nephesh) that moveth in the waters." Every animal living by breathing then, is a nephesh,—a soul,—as certainly as man is; and he is no more soul than they are. They are, in fine, all souls, because they have life maintained by inspiring the common electrified atmosphere, which is therefore called the breath, or spirit of lives. Gen. vi. 17, 22. Ecc. iii. 19. Man's superiority above the other breathing tribes consists not in his being a "soul," but in the magnitude of his powers; in other words, in the loftier position he occupies in the scale of existence as an intellectual, moral, and responsible agent. These humbler souls differ from one another: some tribes have more intelligence, and a greater complexity of structure than others, but he towers above them all. "What a work is man! How noble in reason! How exalted in faculties! In form and motion how express and admirable! in apprehension how like a god!—the wonder of the world!—the paragon of animals!"

It might be useful to show that Scripture throughout is harmonious in its teaching with the creation record concerning the material and organic nature of man. We are "dust" and "but flesh"; never are we said to be spirits dwelling in organic habitations.

Much as we hear about "the spirit being the man," the Bible uses no such language, and associates human personality, in page after page, with what the eye can see, and the hand can handle. Indeed the Scriptural fact, which is now beginning by writers in this controversy to be acknowledged, that all breathing creatures are souls, is enough to convince the world that there must have been an unmeasured quantity of nonsense uttered about the human soul, and many a long argument spun to connect man as a soul with the exalted and the everlasting, which turn out to be no better than ropes of sand. "A soul cannot die," "a soul cannot sleep," "a soul must live forever," are rather common expressions, and if they are worth anything as far as man is concerned, they are equally so with regard to the meanest beast that runs, or insect that divides the liquid air. The dog as well as the man is a soul. Can he not die? Can he not sleep? Must he live for ever? Ere long, his breath, ruach, will go forth, and he will return to his native dust. Can more be said of man? Can less? We have all one breath, we are all of the dust. When the Great Proprietor summons back the life he has given us, which life is but a vapour, the shadows of the grave gather around us, and whether they are ever again to be scattered, is the grand problem which revelation professes to solve. "If," says our author, "there be nothing more in man but flesh and blood, then his entire mortality is settled." p. 43. And settled it is—if we are to abide by the record. A resurrection man may have, yea, even a resurrection to immortal being every one may receive,—and the teaching of the Word on these points we shall by and by consider; but that he is now immortal, and that he in any sense survives death in a continued uninterrupted consciousness, notwithstanding all his gifts, faculties, and capabilities, is utterly without foundation. When a house can be in ruins, and at the same time, entire—when a harp can be unstrung, and yet give forth its tones—then, man may be dissolved, and yet be entire:—his powers be in active exercise, when the organism has mouldered into dust. Being material—flesh and blood, his entire mortality is demonstrated, and the labor to prove him deathless has been expended in vain. The sentence, "unto dust shalt thou return," is no mockery; the affirmations, "man dieth and wasteth away," are no deception:—on the contrary, they are stern and awful facts, which orthodoxy is most loath to admit. No elixir can preserve these transient souls from decay: no spices from India and "Araby the blest," can hinder their resolution into their original elements. "Corruptible man" must bow, like the other organisms around him, to the inevitable law: the hare-bell and the rainbow, are emblems of his frailty. "The glory of man is as the flower of the grass."

Man's being "but flesh and blood,—material in his constitution—is about as unwelcome a statement as can be uttered in the ears of spiritualistic orthodoxy. It may be so, but it must be heard. We are not, kind reader, speculating when we announce it; interpretation is all that the case requires. Yea, we are so bold as to aver, that the speculative tendency is all on the other side. As interpreters we ask reverentially at the Divine Oracle, "What is man?" And the answer cometh forth "the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground." With this we are content, and if we had not an intention

of regarding the answer as satisfactory, why did we go to the Oracle at all? Had we found no information as to what man was made of, had we seen all left in inextricable confusion, we might have forthwith commenced to speculate as to where thought in him originated, and perhaps summoned into his origination some immaterial and inscrutable nondescript entity, after the fashion of the popular "soul," or "spirit," to account for his mentalizing functions; but we detect no need to waste our energies in this undertaking when the Book is so explicit. Often do we hear the words "matter cannot think," and the trumpet of orthodoxy summons us to attend. In our simplicity we have been led to reason thus: matter cannot think—God made man of the dust of the ground—then of course man cannot think! He may grow like a palm tree, but can reason no more than it. Now this argumentation seems really valid, and yet every human being in his senses laughs it to scorn. I do think, is the protest of each child of humanity,—then if you do, we respond, in your case matter must perform the function of reflection and kindred operations. More than living organization you are not, and if you declare living organized matter incapable of thought, we are bound to infer that you have no thought at all. Accepting your premises, we must hand you the conclusion. The logic is good, but we are generous enough to allow that we cannot subscribe it.

It has often occurred to us as a fair procedure, just for the sake of bringing orthodoxy to a stand, to assert that spirit cannot think; of course, we are only referring to created beings, on this occasion. We have often tried to understand the popular idea of a spirit; and we must confess, that it defies our apprehension. It is something, nothing; a substance, an essence; everything by turns, and nothing long. To believe that such a production could evolve thought, is an inordinate demand on human credulity. How the expedient was resorted to, we cannot tell: was it because thought is invisible, that this invisible parent was sought for it? Then, why not trace heat beyond the fire, perfume beyond the rose, attraction beyond the sun, and vitality beyond the branchy oak? Of all insane fancies, this human spirit is the most complete; we have no wish to give offence, but the truth must be spoken.

"Matter cannot think;" who said so? Is there a man on earth, who would have the audacity to affirm, that Almighty God cannot make living matter evolve thought? We once asked that question of a reverend defender of spiritualism, and he was dumb. When the Creator announces that man's brain, or, if you please, the organized being—man, cannot manifest thought, it will be time to seek some other cause to explain his higher and sublimer functions. When we are informed that man is dust, and that at death his very thoughts perish, had it not been for the deplorable infusion of the heathenish element into the church, the dreams about human souls, and spirits would long ago have been universally regarded by the students of the Word as another evidence of the tendency of poor humanity to wander farther and farther into the wilderness of delusion, unless guided by light from the Eternal Throne.

Look through this microscope, friend, and watch the myriads of animalcules in the drop of water submitted to inspection. They are so small, that Ehrenberg has computed that not fewer than five hundred millions can subsist in a quantity of water like that under your view; each of these monads has its appropriate organs, possesses spontaneous power of motion, and enjoys an independent vitality.

Watch them, and you see will, and desire, and anger, and affection; and yet I suppose each of them is held wisely to be a unity; no need is seen, by competent judges, for a thinking spirit to act, by their vile organization. Here is matter—a very speck itself, invisible to the naked eye—endowed with forces of thought, and volition, and passion, which, though limited in their compass, are indisputable and astonishing realities. What the Almighty can effect on a lowly platform, cannot he accomplish on a higher and broader one? From studying the microscopic creatures, turn attention to the fish, the dog, the elephant, the eagle, and we see similar, and higher manifestations of cerebral function, or mentalizing. To assert that they have all more than material organization, is to assume what has never been proved to be necessary; and which never can. It may suit a whim, a dogma, a system, to announce, oracularly, that the fish must have a thinking soul, and so must the stork, and so must the tiger: but philosophy is of sterner stuff; and on the side of philosophy, is here found the angel of piety; and they both demand,—Are you not content with what Omnipotence has given? Can you not admire him in producing thought from organization, as well as from some mysterious indweller, called by you a "soul?"

In general, however, there is no special necessity avowed for a thought producing soul bearing the popular stamp, till we come to man. The monads, the monkeys; the lambs and the lions can shift very well without it, but man must have this inexplicable endowment, yea, be a "soul" without organization, an airy nothing now incarnate, and soon to be discharged into the bounds of space. Brain, and nerve matter, can produce animalcule-thought, and lion-thought, and elephant-thought; but is incompetent to evolve man-thought: at this stage the Creator was baffled, or the elements were too vulgar and too cheap, when a responsible agent was to be awoke into consciousness and activity. So dreams the benighted wisdom of men styled philosophers and theologians; and we turn with pleasure to the old, but valuable record, "the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground!" and profess ourselves content to have a place among the breathing creatures,—the living souls,—that people this section of the universe along with us. We are one with them in the brotherhood of organizations, formed and attuned by the hand of Omnipotence, and inasmuch as we are gifted more richly, and have a destiny hereafter sublimer than theirs brought within our grasp, we try to extol him the more acceptably, and "by patient continuance in well doing to seek for glory, and honor, and immortality." Had he pleased, notwithstanding all our powers, and longings, and capacities, he might have permitted the grim messenger to lead us, as he conducts the lowly ones around us, into the halls of silence never to be disturbed by the pealing notes of the resurrection trumpet; but since he has otherwise resolved, and since the hope of an incorruptible revival is disclosed for our encouragement, we discover the greatness of his philanthropy, and desire to be made meet for the unfading crown.

(To be Continued.)

HUMAN MATERIALISM.

BY WM. GLEN MONCRIEFF, SCOTLAND.

It is not long since a friend of ours told us with much gravity that some ministers, whom he named, were in the habit of experimenting on a clairvoyant, and that the said clairvoyant was wont to see in heaven well known pious individuals recently deceased, and, if memory fails us not, he added, the clear-seer likewise held converse with these disembodied saints, old and young. This he appeared to think was mighty confirmation to the common opinion about separate spirits, or souls, and it certainly had been handed to him to establish his faith on that point. Persons but partially acquainted with the phenomena of mesmerism, are very apt to be deceived by such statements, and put the fancies of an extatic or a clairvoyant on a level with indisputable facts. As far as our knowledge extends, even those who have faith in clairvoyance, and profess to have witnessed most of it, acknowledge that not one word uttered by persons in the clear-seeing state can be in itself depended on; it must be confirmed by inquiry before it can be regarded as anything else than innocent delusive imaginings. Now suppose one in a natural or artificial clairvoyant condition, to affirm that he sees and maintains converse with departed friends or strangers, would it not appear wise for men, at least men avowing a belief in revelation, to enquire at its columns what it has to declare about the constitution of man, is he material or spiritual? and about the situation of the dead? These treatises "soul" and "spirit" may perhaps enable enquirers to judge what the Word represents a man to be; and declarations like these, "the dead know not anything," "the dead praise not the Lord," &c., seem enough to make a considerate man stagger at the pretended visions by clairvoyants of human spirits, and conversations said to have been held with them. What source of information as to the invisible have we save the Book? Have the doors of eternity been opened to our tread? Can we ascend and search the courts of heaven for those who have gone hence, and are by orthodoxy affirmed to be there? When a clairvoyant says a quantity of stolen gold lies in a particular locality, it is easy to confirm or disprove the statement; but who can determine the accuracy of his affirmations about dead men? since it is confessed the realm of the unseen is not reachable by us, so as that such declarations can be calmly and philosophically tested. But more than this, as doctors are said to differ, it is a notorious fact that with regard to the unseen and the future, clairvoyants differ also. In No. xxxvi of the Zoist, there is a conversation by the Rev. Mr. Townhend, London and Lausane, which he held in Paris with Alexis Didier, a famous clairvoyant. Among other things the Rev. gentleman records, "Partly misunderstanding a question of mine, he assured me he knew nothing of the state of the soul after death. Dieu seul le sait (God only knows), said he." "It is true," he continued, "many somnambulists pretend to make revelations about a future state. But the proof they are all wrong is that no two of them agree: all give different accounts," p. 409. We may further state, that in another number of the same magazine, there is a review of a French work by M.

Alphonse Cahagnet, well deserving an attentive perusal. The review is able, calm, and instructive; it demolishes the erections framed from clairvoyant fancies with admirable logic and success. The writer,—the Rev. G. Sandby, Vicar of Flexton, Suffolk,—is a pious man who does not wish the future and its hopes to be established on dreams, but on a surer word of prophecy to which we do well to take heed. Let us make a few quotations, more particularly as the magazine may not be easily found by many of our readers. We should state, perhaps, that Mr. Sandby is a believer in the common doctrine about the spirit of man, and this just the more increases the value of his remarks which are to be transcribed. It is not for the ideas of the writer about spirits, but for his judgment about these clairvoyant visions of spirits and conversations with them, that we quote his words—

Now M. Cahagnet attaches great importance to these two cases, arguing, that if the spirits of living men ("great virtue in this ir") could thus make their appearance and converse, it follows a fortiori that the spirits of those that are separated by death from the body must, with far greater probability, possess the same power, and that thus by these two cases we have acquired a certitude of all that he had hitherto asserted in this respect. The enthusiasm of M. Cahagnet prevents him from seeing that his own facts, it is to be feared, overturn his own hypothesis, and prove the unsubstantiality of his visions; for we must nail him and his followers down to these two cases, and bring their possibility to an easy test. For instance, these alleged communications were real or unreal; if real, and it be true that the spirits of these two men, the one resident in Mexico, and the other on the borders of China, could thus maintain a conversation with a somnambule, (and whether that the somnambule's spirit travelled to them, or that theirs travelled to the somnambule, is unimportant,) it is clear that the men themselves must have been conscious of the intercourse. The spirit, according to M. Cahagnet's own doctrine, is the actual man; it must have been the spirit, then, that spoke, and asserted that he was living; the reality, therefore, of the whole transaction is easy of proof. We do not want these two men to be fetched from afar to narrate their singular experiences; the fact can be tried nearer home. Let Adele one morning communicate after the same fashion with the spiritual part of some person resident in Paris or France,—let her hold a dialogue with them, as she did in Mexico and Russia,—and unless these absent persons become conscious of the communication, and agree in the accuracy of the conversations in which they are supposed to take a part, the unreality of the assumed 'perception' is at once obvious, and we have incontestible proof that the whole is a mental delusion.

"I contend, then, that we have in these two cases evidence conclusive that a reflection of persons or things can be so strongly mirrored on the brain by some power of concentration, as to assume the semblance of an actual embodiment. Now an effect, which I assume to be possible in respect of parties supposed to be living, can be equally possible in respect to parties supposed or known to be dead. The illusion in both instances is identical. The characteristics of each class of apparition are one and the same, and though we cannot prove that the

spirits of the departed do not communicate with this lucid lady, as she so confidently asserts that they do, we can yet prove that the spirits of the living do no such thing (unless she fulfil the condition above referred to); and inasmuch as both communications fall under the same category, and are both attended by the same class of circumstantial and supposed facts, the nature of these visions becomes at once evident, and the refutation of the theory complete.

"To prove still more clearly the reductio ad absurdum to which this doctrine of apparitions is pushed by M. Cahagnet, I must furnish you with one more case before I leave this part of the subject, for it clearly marks the true character of these visions; for if there were any apparition at all in the following story, it was an apparition of spirits by the legion.

Madam Osborn (v. II. p. 199) receives from Adele a description of the death of an uncle, who had died in battle some years before. The ecstatic sees the whole battle in action; she sees the uncle struck down by a cannon ball; she hears the sound of the cannon when it is fired, and feels an inexplicable oppression at the noise. Now so far as I can understand the above facts, they are remarkable instances of the power of imagination upon the brain in that sensitive state when clairvoyance is in action; but M. Cahagnet regards them as proofs of a spiritual existence. Either, then, he must believe that the spirits of all those that were engaged in the conflict were so obliging as actually to re-appear before Adele, and to fight their battle over again for her instruction; in which case, his belief is comprehensive enough, and he must certainly regard the world of spirits as marvellously condescending, or, if he admit that any part of the above vision were but a picture on the brain, he admits the possibility of a spectral illusion, and the argument on his side is closed at once. For everything else that he has mentioned may equally be the same sort of cerebral deception, and one spirit is no more real than another.

"I was noting down for comment the points in which these volumes differed from the disclosures given through Davis and Madam Hauffe, but more especially the manifest discrepancies that existed in the volumes themselves, when I suddenly came upon a piece of information that at once relieved me of this labor. The 'Revelations' are, in fact, scarcely revelations. The contradictions, in short, are so palpable, that they are at once admitted, and our author gives the explanation. It is this—it is not that the spirits are 'lying spirits,' but that the fancies, the feelings, the studies, the pursuits, the society, nay, the religious and philosophical notions of this life so accompany the spirit on his arrival into the other, that he is scarcely more instructed upon any single point than we are; so that, in fact, when we receive a communication from him, his statements are so colored by his antecedent habits and opinions, that we not only do not obtain the absolute truth, but not always an approximation to it. In other words, a Jew seems to remain a Jew, a Catholic, a Catholic; and a miser to be as fond of gold as before; and thus disclosures, which are magnificently put forth as being the secrets of the future unveiled, turn out to be a mass of misstatements, on the accuracy of which not the slightest reliance can be placed.

Truly, a most lame and impotent explanation! but it illustrates what I have before advanced, that Adele, as she progressed, improved greatly upon her first communications; and the reason is obvious: somnambules who talk much require good memories. The consistency of their statements is sure to fail them sooner or later." Zoist, No.28, pp.426-429.

BIBLE EXAMINER.

NEW YORK, AUGUST, 1853.

THE AWAKENING BEGUN.—The Bible Examiner has for years uttered a note of warning to the churches, that unless they awoke from their slumbers and reformed their theology, skepticism and infidelity would overwhelm them, and sweep them as with the besom of destruction. But we have as often been met with scorn and sneers. At last, however, there seems to be one symptom of a waking up on this subject. Under the head of "Modern Skepticism," "The Independent," of this city, for July 7th, has an article that gives signs of the revival of common sense against the traditions and superstitions of past centuries. The Independent is "Conducted by Pastors of Congregational Churches," and published weekly. The article before us opens with a lament that "teachers are sometimes those who know least about the public mind." It then proceeds to say:

"We believe that a great change is preparing in religious opinion, of which these and many of our best men know nothing. To those who are thrown into the currents of life, it is evident that men's minds are in unusual working, and that the very foundations of Religious Belief are rotten and shaking. Among all the earnest-minded young men who are at this moment leading in thought and action in America, we venture to say that four-fifths are skeptical even of the great historical facts of Christianity. What is told as Christian doctrine by the churches, is not even considered by them. And furthermore, there is among them a general ill concealed distrust of the clerical body as a class, and an utter disgust with the very aspect of Christianity and of church worship. This Skepticism is not flippant; little is said about it. It is not a peculiarity alone of the radicals and fanatics; many of them are men of calm and even balance of mind, and belong to no class of ultraists. It is not worldly and selfish. The doubters lead in the bravest and most self-denying enterprizes of the day. It is not an Unbelief to be laughed, or hooted at, or hunted down. It is calm, abiding, earnest, sorrowful. Not much is known of it above; but it underlies now all the strongest and external movement. There are, however, glimpses of it. You see it in the daily diminishing influence of the Pulpit, and the increasing influence of the Press; in the lessening number of strong and original minds who take hold of Theology, and the tone of the men who are leading American thought. It speaks in these strange longings for new revelations, and in the occasional denunciations of the old. To us it seems strange

that those Christian men should be boasting about church-organizations and technical dogmas, or be troubled about consistency with orthodox standards and catechisms, or anxious about the question of pastors' salaries, and what not, when the very ground and basis beneath our Christian Church is trembling to its depths—to be squabbling over uniforms and rations, when the very citadel is being sapped! For ourselves, we watch all this with painful suspense. Is the fate of Germany before us? Will the Unbelief ereep out from the better minds who have held it among the masses, drying up all humane, and generous, and religious action, as it has done there? Shall the American mind sweep past the great anchorage-ground of humanity—the belief in God and an endless life—or shall it work out to a purer Christianity? Of these doubters and "Infidels" we could never speak harshly. To them often is their unbelief a sorrowful, solemn thing, even more than to us."

The article then proceeds to state some other facts of the development of this skepticism, and says: "As religion has presented itself to them, (the skeptics,) it is repellent and disgusting; and they would rather go in the blank Future, lonely and faithless, than violate their own instincts by receiving it." The writer then proceeds to inquire, "Why all this?" Among other things he says:

"The curse to the American mind, as we believe, has been the aspect presented in a portion of our theology of Deity. The God of some of our theologians is not a Being whom the human heart could either respect or love. Men have ascribed acts and feelings to Him which they would utterly revolt at in themselves or their fellows. We are not overstating. We know those with whom the memory of family prayer, early religious teaching, and Sabbath sermons is so entwined with the picture of a hateful and repellent Deity, that they loathe and reject, in consequence, the whole religion of their childhood. To them always the first unconscious thought which enters the mind concerning God, is the dread thought of the God of their Theology. Along with this, on every side weakening human faith, is the Formalism of present Christianity."

We would ask our friend of The Independent, how anything else than "Formalism" can grow from the "picture of a hateful and repellent Deity," such as he admits theologians represent their God—a God who has brought unnumbered millions of intellectual beings into existence, under the dreadful and fearful liability of an endless and eternally increasing torment and torture? Such a God deserves to be hated; and nothing but formalism can be practised in the professional approaches to him, unless you can shut out from the intellect such a horrid representation of his character. Never did Satan oppose so effectual an obstacle in the way of the sincere and fervent homage of the heart to God, as the lying representation we have just spoken of. Says Bishop Newton, in his "Dissertation," No. 60, "On the Final State of Man;" God is love, and he would rather not have given life, than render that life a torment and curse to all eternity.

Imagine a creature; nay, imagine numberless creatures produced out of nothing delivered over to torments of endless ages, without the least hope or possibility of relaxation or redemption. Imagine it you may, but you can never seriously believe it, nor reconcile it to God and goodness." Such was the utterance of a great and good man, burdened with the theological representations of God and his purposes concerning man. This utterance is skeptical; but skeptical concerning what? of the truth of Christianity? No: but of the theological dogma of endless torture. And what mind not as hard as adamant, or as superstitious as the most servile Papal or Protestant devotee, would not be skeptical of the theological blasphemy of which we have spoken. Truly it is "The curse of American mind," and of all Christendom—that such "has been the aspect presented in a portion of our theology of Deity:" and we are glad our friends of the "Independent" are waking up on the subject; and we entreat them not to stop in the branches of the poisonous tree, but go down to its roots: they will find them in the first utterance of Satan—"Thou shalt not surely die."

"The Whole Truth."—We remarked in the last Examiner that if we were called upon to act with the lately organized "Evangelical Society" we would rather they should specify what they consider "the whole truth" which they propose to publish; and that it was our preference to act in relation to some neglected truth where we could act in perfect agreement, so far as associated action could be employed, leaving each individual at perfect liberty to teach the whole truth according to his conviction of what it embraces. Br. Marsh, of the Advent Harbinger, in a very friendly manner objects to our view of the subject. He thinks it wrong and fraught with evil to "select any specific point or points of neglected truth to proclaim to the world, by the associated agency of any number of persons, or otherwise." By the whole truth, he says, he means "the same as the word, the Gospel, the faith, the truth, the doctrine of God," &c. This, to us, is just as if he had said, "preach the Bible." Well, that we intend to preach, and nothing else; but till men become infallible, or get an infallible head, such as the Romish Church profess to have, they "know in part," and hence must necessarily "prophecy [teach] in part:" so saith Paul, 1 Cor. 13:9. And we do not think "that which is perfect is come" yet, or is likely to come till Jesus returns from heaven. Besides, Jesus taught his disciples, even while with them, "in

part," and told them he had "many things to say unto them," but, said he, "ye cannot bear them now." Then he did not preach to them "the whole truth" at once, but only such as was most important for them to know at a given time; leaving other truths to be developed in their natural order. Paul acted on the same principle of teaching in part, at first, for saith he, 1 Cor. 3:2, "I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able." What, Paul! not able to bear "the whole truth!" Truly "wisdom is profitable to direct." The whole truth is to be preached, but it may not always be by one man, nor at one time. One man may be able to bring out some truth, and especially some "neglected truth" which another is not yet qualified to do; and that man, if he acts in harmony with the providence of God in giving him light and ability on that subject, will make that neglected truth the prominent theme of his preaching. Others can preach familiar truths who are more statedly preaching in a particular place. Br. Marsh says, "We have no right to select any specific point or element of that one gospel to present to the people to the neglect of others, it is our duty to proclaim THE Gospel as a WHOLE, as the Lord has commanded."

Now this is true as a general principle; but is it true in specific cases? Did Br. Marsh, himself, feel it was binding on him, on his eastern tour last year? We think not, for he had for his principal theme what he regarded as a neglected truth, which occupied most of his time: it was right he should so preach, even though others might think it was no part of the gospel. To his own master he stands or falls.

We might greatly enlarge our remarks on Br. Marsh's other objections to association for promulgating a neglected truth, while other truths are left to ordinary efforts, but we wish not to make words on the subject. Let each and all act on these subjects according to their convictions of duty to God and his cause. Sure, we are, there can be no associated action, however "Evangelical" it may be called, and professedly embracing the whole truth, but it is liable to become a sectarian engine, whatever the movers intend. We therefore are of the same opinion as before, to go on in scattering light on the Life theme; each individual preacher being left perfectly free to preach on all other gospel topics whatever he judges necessary at the time and in the places he may visit; we, as a "Provisionary Committee," holding ourselves only responsible, in aiding him, for his preaching on that theme Now, friends of the "Evangelical Society," "let there be no strife between us:" act in your own way and we will do the same, and be at peace.

We must be our own judges of our "right to select any specific point ***to present to the people," responsible only to God.

Post Office Violations.—Some persons in sending us Newspapers or Pamphlets take the liberty to write on them or on the envelope. They should know that any writing, however trifling, beyond the mere direction, designed to give any information to the receiver, if it is only the name of the sender, subjects the paper or pamphlet, with the envelope to letter postage. We have been lead to speak of this now by seeing a note in "The Christian Examiner and Bible Advocate," published by J. Panton Ham, Bristol, England: it is as follows:—

"AN AMERICAN FRIEND sent us, during the past month, a publication of some kind, but through violating a law of our postal arrangements, we were deprived of the pleasure of its perusal. It contained writing within the wrapper, which brought it under the description of a letter, and was therefore charged twelve shillings, on which account we were obliged to return it to the office unopened. Our friends on both sides of the Atlantic, will oblige us by paying strict attention to this postal law—which requires that publications be left open at each end, and that neither the work itself nor its wrapper be written on."

"The Doctrine of the Cross."—We hope the articles on this subject, which we have commenced republishing in the Examiner, will be read with much care; they are much needed in these days. Br. Ham notices the commencement of our republication thus, in his last paper.

"GEORGE STORRS, New York.—We rejoice to see, by your publication, in the 'Bible Examiner,' of our articles on the 'Doctrine of the Cross,' that you are not disposed to exclude this important part of Christian doctrine from your valuable Magazine. If it be important to correct the popular errors on the subject of Immortality, it cannot be less important to disabuse the public mind of those God-dishonoring views which constitute the popular apprehension of the Cross. The 'Bible Examiner' will be the more valuable for teaching "Christ crucified,' as well as 'Christ our Life.' The misapprehensions about the Cross of Christ are, in our humble opinion, far more injurious to personal piety and salvation than any other doctrinal apprehension whatever. May God speed you, dear brother, in your distinguished labors!"

Br. Ham will see by the Bible Examiner, several years ago, that we rejected the doctrine of substitutionary sufferings. We then said—and our mind has remained unchanged—that if Christ died as a substitute—"in our room and stead," or to "pay our debts," then is Universalism true; for nothing is plainer than that "Christ died for all." Besides,

this doctrine of his dying as a substitute, or to pay our debts, robs God of the privilege of forgiving sins, and makes the "Lord's Prayer" an absurdity. "Forgive us our debts." Jesus taught us to pray. If the doctrine of Christ's paying our debts is true, there is not, and, in the nature of the case, there can be no such thing as forgiving them, on God's part.

NOTICES OF VARIOUS WORKS. "The Christian Examiner and Bible Advocate," for July, is received from Bro. Ham, Bristol, England: Also, "The Expositor of Life and Immortality," for July, from Bro. Moncrieff, Edinburgh, Scotland. Both these monthly magazines are good, and ably conducted. We hope they may be widely circulated and well sustained.

The "Child's Friend," published at Rochester, N. Y., by O. R. L. Crosier, comes to us in a new dress. It is a folio of four pages at 371-2 cents per year, published monthly. Four copies to one address for $1.

The "Advent Harbinger," published at Rochester, by Joseph Marsh, has also been treated with a new dress, and is much improved, typographically.

The "Scripture Searcher," Nos. 1 and 2, have been received: they are traets of one page; each of which is headed by a particular subject, and the most important texts of Scripture relating to that subject arranged under sub-heads, so as to be easy of reference. It is a good idea. The two received are on "The Destiny of the Wicked," and "The State of the Dead," with ten sub-heads each. We presume the projector is Bro. H. L. Hastings, of Plymouth, Mass., though his name does not appear with them. Price 25 cents per 100. Published at 26 State-street, Hartford, Conn. They are to be followed by others.

…