The Bible Examiner — Vol. 9, No. 15 (August 1, 1854)

Download: PDF — The Bible Examiner — Vol. 9, No. 15 (August 1, 1854)

BIBLE EXAMINER.

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

VOL. IX.

NEW YORK, AUGUST 1, 1854.

NO.15.

PUBLISHED SEMI-MONTHLY

At No.140 Fulton-street.

GEO. STORRS, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR.

SPIRIT:

OR, THE HEBREW TERMS " RUACH " AND NESHAMAH," AND THE GREEK TERM " PNEUMA." BY REV. WM. GLEN MONCRIEFF, SCOTLAND. [Continued from page 214.]

[Continued from page 214.]

NESHAMAH—Second Hebrew Term.

SEC. I. NESHAMAH, (constructive form nishmath) is a noun : the verb is nasham, to breathe. Gesenius says the verb is not found in the Hebrew Bible. Neshamah is the synonym for Ruach. See Professor Lees' Lexicon: ruach II. It should also be mentioned that neshamah occurs but seldom in the Hebrew Bible.

SEC. II. NEShaMAH is rendered breath.

Gen. 2:7, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (nishmath) of life, and man became a living soul."

Concerning this text, which has already been explained by us at some length in "Soul" pp. 4, 5, 6, we would further remark here.

a. That what in this verse is called the nishmath of life, is, in the following passages, styled the ruach of life. Gen. 6:17, "I do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath (ruach) of life, from under heaven, and everything that is in the earth shall die:" Gen. 7:15, "and they went unto Noah in the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath (ruach) of life." The nishmath and the ruach of life are the same thing;—the breath of life, or the breath that preserves alive all animals on the globe's surface.

b. This breath was not a living being; it was not Adam; by its influence the man Adam was simply made alive. According to the text before us he was completely formed of the dust of the ground : not a part essential to him as a human being needed to be added: the only thing required was that the dust-formed man should be made alive—awakened to consciousness, and the performance of all the other functions peculiar to the human order of created beings. The breath was not an addition to the man already formed; it merely introduced

him into a new condition, or it animated the being. "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," or person. God breathed, we are informed, into his nostrils the breath of life,—thereby inflated his lungs; in the act of their expansion with the vital air, the heart would begin to beat, and henceforth the breathing would proceed by the God-imparted and God-sustained energy of the organization itself. The origin of man cannot be too carefully noted, and the record is so plain that a child may easily understand it. Adam was formed "of the dust of the ground," or of world-matter; and Eve was no less material in her entire being, for it is said, "The Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept, and he (God) 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 man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman because SHE WAS TAKEN OUT OF MAN," Gen. 2:21, 22, 23. We have no mention of how she was made alive; but the record concerning Adam furnishes us with all requisite information to guide us to an understanding of the mode; the Lord God would also breathe into her nostrils the breath of life, and she would become a living soul, or person, likewise.

c. There is not one word in the narrative of man's creation, that gives the smallest countenance to the popular idea regarding the spirit of man. At his creation he received from the Almighty the breath of life; but so far from teaching us that the material organization was merely to be the fleshly dwelling of an immaterial and deathless spirit, indeed of the man himself, for personality is now invariably associated with the spirit of man, or the man considered as a spirit—the narrative of the creation inculcates the very reverse. Personality is there connected with the organization, not with its neshamah or ruach. The organization is the first idea; what was imparted after the building up of the organization is subordinate. The breath, as already stated, was not a part of him, it merely made him a living agent. Now, on the supposition that the common notions about man are true, let us candidly ask, whether should we expect the organization of man, or the immensely important point his spirit—in fact himself—to be urged conspicuously before our view in the creation-history? Surely what is called the house is less important than its inhabitant,—the instrument than the agent to employ it,—the feeble shadow than the actual and momentous reality? Moreover, it seems reasonable to expect that what is not within the reach of vision and, if we may so say, of experiment, will be more likely to constitute the subject of Divine narration than what is sensible and most easily discoverable.

That the organization in man was of dust, or matter, could be easily detected and that unerringly too; but the spirit: how shall man learn that he has that, indeed that he himself is spirit, and that the fleshly structure is only his dwelling, and his instrument for thought and action? This spirit is invisible, impalpable, immortal; and confessedly beyond the sphere of sensible observation and experiment. Was it not of importance that the fact of his being spirit should be known to man? Was it not necessary that this should be chiefly impressed upon him? Shall he be told of his organization and left ignorant of his spirit, in fact of himself? Shall the building of the house be described, and the tenant be utterly forgotten?

These questions, if considered for a moment, will suggest to any mind, their appropriate and natural response. Let the reader, after pondering them for a little, turn and calmly read the account of the creation of Adam and Eve, and see how very different it is from what the popular theory about the being man would certainly lead us to expect. How simple, and yet how sublime withal! Man is formed of dust, and then he is made alive in the manner described by the pen of inspiration. The whole of the volume harmonizes with this account of man; he is of dust, and at death returns to his kindred element. "His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish," Ps. 146:4.

Gen. 7:22, "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land died."

In this verse the two Hebrew words with which we are dealing occur. This fact is not noted in the English text, though it is discoverable in the marginal reading, which runs thus—"the breath of the spirit of life" (nishmath-ruach). The breath of the spirit of life, is literally, the breath of the breath of life; and for a creature to have this, is to have a portion of the breath of life, or a portion of that ruach or neshamah that preserves all organized beings alive. All who had this perished, died, in the flood; and undoubtedly each in the same sense, as in the same manner and circumstances.

1 Kings 17:17, "There was no breath (nesha mah) left in him."

The child had ceased to breathe, he was dead, or on the very brink of dying.

Job 33:4, "The breath (nishmath) of the Almighty hath given me life."

The breath of life is called the "breath of the Almighty," because he is its author.

We may observe that the same language occurs in the Hebrew Bible, in Job 32:8, "the inspiration (nishmath) of the Almighty giveth them (men) understanding." The inspiration is, the in-breathing of the Almighty. The meaning is, God gives breath to men, or he preserves men breathing the vital air, the consequence of which is they live, and exercise understanding, one of the many functions of the animated being man. As we judge,

the passage has no reference to inspiration theologically understood,—that inspiration given to prophets and apostles; it describes how it is that man, as man, exercises the thinking powers common to each member of the race. It brings him, as a living creature, very near to the Almighty. It represents him as immediately dependent on his Creator for the prolongation of life and its phenomena, and is thus parallel to the declaration, "He is not far from every one of us, for in him we live and move and have our being." Acts 17: 27, 28.

Job 34:14, "If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit" (ruchu), that is, the spirit God had given him, "and his breath" (venishmathi), i. e. the breath God had given. What would be the consequence to men? Would they depart to exist in consciousness somewhere else in space? No; the next verse proceeds, "all flesh SHALL PERISH together; and MAN SHALL TURN AGAIN UNTO DUST."

Job 27:3, "all the while my breath (nishmathi) is in me; and the spirit of God (margin, 'the breath which God gave him') in my nostrils."

His breath was also God's, inasmuch as it came from the Creator. What is here called "my breath," and "the spirit" or breath "of God" is, in Gen. 2:7, denominated the "breath of life."

Job 37:10, "By the breath (nishmath) of God frost is given." "The breath of God" here means, the cold wind. Ps. 150:6, "Let every thing that hath breath (neshamah) praise the Lord;" i.e., let every living creature praise the Lord. Isa. 2:22, "Cease ye from man, whose breath (neshamah) is in his nostrils; for wherein is he to be accounted of?"

For man to have his breath in his nostrils, is to have an existence frail and fleeting. "As for man his days are as the grass." Ps. 103:15; and Ps. 39:4. His days, not on earth, but his days as man, are as grass.

Isa. 30 : 33, "The breath" (nishmath), or the anger "of the Lord, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it" (Tophet). Isa. 42:5, "He giveth breath (neshamah) unto the people upon it (the earth); and spirit (ruach) to them that walk therein." Compare Job 27:3, and 34:14, quoted above. Here, probably, "spirit" stands for life, the result of breathing. Dan. 5:23, "The God in whom thy breath" (nishmah)—thy life "is, hast thou not glorified." Dan. 10:17, "Straightway there remained no strength in me, neither is their breath (neshamah) left in me."

Sec. III. NESHAMAH, like ruach, is rendered blast.

2 Sam. 22 : 16, "At the blast (nishmath) of the breath (ruach) of his nostrils." Job 4:9, "By the blast" (nishmath) or anger "of God they perish." Ps. 18:15, "O Lord, at the blast (nishmath) of the breath of thy nostrils."

Sec. IV. NESHAMAH, in constructive form, is once translated "spirit."

Prov. 20 : 27, "The spirit (nishmath) of man is the candle of the Lord, searching all the inward parts of the belly."

The word nishmath here appears to designate the powers of conscience and self-consciousness which are essential characteristics of a human being.

A God-produced discernment of inward and outward right and wrong belongs to men. God as it were in the man, teaches him right and wrong; or what is right and wrong in the sight of the Creator is, by the human moral and intellectual capacities, revealed to each member of our race. With us conscience is popularly called "the voice of God;" and Solomon here styles it "the candle of the Lord," and both forms of speech embody a universally understood and universally acknowledged fact in the human constitution.

What is here ascribed to the "spirit of man," inasmuch as it is by the respiration of nishmath chayim (Gen. 2.: 7), i.e. "the breath of life," or vital air, that every operation belonging to man is performed, is, in other parallel passages, connected with his "heart." For instance, 1 John 3:20, 21, "If our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things: beloved if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God." (See also, Judges 5:16; 1 Sam. 24:5; and Rom. 2:15.) Now, who really believes the heart in his bosom condemns or approves his conduct? What man on earth believes his heart to be himself, a distinct living entity, capable of existing after death? And why believe these things of the nishmath, the breath or spirit? The inspired writers employed current phraseology in using the words "spirit" and "heart," and are no more to be understood as teaching us that the mental functions, obviously imported by them in such cases, are executed either by the "heart" or the "spirit," than they are to be held as really declaring God himself to be possessed of a "heart," or "bowels," or "nostrils," or "feet," or "hands," which are freely ascribed to him in the sacred volume. The fundamental idea is that THE BEING MAN has these mental attributes, or performs the acts of condemnation and approval of himself and his neighbors; and it matters not what part of him they are immediately connected with, or by the name of what physical organ belonging to him they are called, like the "heart" for example, or should it even be the very breath itself which gives animation and energy to all.

Sec. V. NESHAMAH is used in several instances to express a living human being.

Deut. 20 : 16, "thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth," literally, 'not shalt thou save alive all breath' (neshamah), i. e. thou shalt save no living being, or man. The same idea is expressed differently at the commencement of the succeeding verse :—"But thou shalt utterly destroy them," &c.

Josh. 10 : 40, "utterly destroyed all that breathed"—literally, 'all the breath' (neshamah) ; i. e. every living being. 11:11,"There was not left any to breathe" (neshamah), margin,"any breath," i.e., any living being. 11:14,"neither left he any to breathe" (neshamah), or any man alive. 1 Kings 15:29,"he left not to Jeroboam any that breathed" (neshamah); or any breath; any breathing being.

Sec. VI. NESHAMOTH, the plural form of nesha mah, is once rendered " souls."

Isa. 57:16, "For I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth, for the spirit (ruach) should fail before me, and the souls (neshamoth) which I have made."

"The exact sense of the Hebrew" (neshamoth), says Prof. Alexander on this verse, "is breaths; here it stands, as in the examples given in the last section, for human beings. There are two parallels in the whole verse, the first couple are these,

"For I will not contend for ever.

Neither will I be always wroth ;"

and they express the same idea. The second couple are,

"For the spirit should fail before me.

And the souls"—breaths—"which I have made;" and they also embody the same thought, viz., that men would utterly perish, were God to act as indicated by the first two lines. To bear the Divine wrath, then, for ever is beyond the endurance of any human being. Does not this, by the way, contradict very explicitly the hideous dogma of eternal torments?

"The learned," says Dr. Clarke, "have taken a great deal of pains to little purpose on the latter part of this verse, which they suppose to be very obscure. After all their labors upon it, I think the best and easiest explication of it is given in the two following elegant passages of the Psalms, which, I presume, are exactly parallel to it, and very clearly express the same sentiment.

"But he in his tender mercy will forgive their sin, And will not destroy them;

Yea, oftentimes will he turn away his wrath,

And will not rouse up his indignation :

For he remembereth that they are BUT FLESH,

A breath that passeth, and returneth not.

Ps. 78:38,39.

"He will not always contend,

Neither will he for ever hold his wrath; As a father yearneth toward his children,

So is Jehovah tenderly compassionate towards them that fear him;

For he knoweth our frame;

He remembereth that WE ARE BUT DUST."

Ps. 103: 9, 13, 14.

Will the reader believe it, that this good and learned man, immediately after presenting the above passages as a development of the sense of the verse before us, proceeds immediately to explain "the souls" (neshamoth—'breaths'), as meaning "immortal spirits!" The pious Commentator's creed spake about "immortal spirits" to him; but neither is the phrase "immortal spirit," nor the idea it embodies, contained within the boards of the Book. The language of Dr. C. about "immortal spirits," as being referred to in the text, contradicts in the most palpable manner his own words. He says the passages from the Psalms are "exactly parallel" to the verse under examination, and no language could be better chosen to utter the ideas that man, as a being, is flesh, and not spirit; that he is mortal, and not deathless. "He remembereth that they are but flesh, a breath that passeth and returneth not"—"He knoweth our frame, he remembereth that we ARE BUT DUST."

UNCONSCIOUSNESS IN DEATH. By Dr. John Fondey, Philadelphia.

Br. Storrs:—In reference to the subject of the unconscious state of the dead, it strikes me that if one point was explained, it would give men a clearer view of the matter, and I will simply throw out the hint for consideration. It is this: We know that when man is alive he is conscious—this, we have been taught, is owing to the presence of a distinct thinking principle in him. When he dies we have been told this principle, which gave him consciousness, has departed, and still retains the power of knowing. You maintain that no such principle was imparted to man; that the breath of life, or a living principle, was put into him, which has no consciousness in itself; that when this union takes place, then consciousness follows, and when this union is dissolved consciousness ceases. Now the opponents of this truth know what your views are—but they know also that God is a Spirit—they consider man to have been created in his image—this image, they consider not only a moral but a mental image, that is, a capacity of thinking. Now these views of theirs they cannot reconcile with your own; they cannot understand how the simple union of the breath of life with the body produces thought, and of course cannot see how unconsciousness can be the result of its abstraction. Men want to know the reasons of things! the cause—how can such a result be produced by the union of the principle of life with a bodily organization? Why, very easily, if God has so arranged matters. And has not God so ordered many things in the natural world, that results almost as wonderful are witnessed? Why do flint and steel, when struck together, produce sparks? Why do small bodies gravitate towards larger ones? Why does light, when admitted to a healthy eye, where the brain is also healthy, disclose to us the beauties of creation? Simply because God has so arranged matters, that when two or more things are brought into contact, certain phenomena are the result. Take the lowest orders of animals, and how far removed from man? Take those which approach the nearest to man, and in how many respects, perhaps not in outward form, but in mental manifestation, do they resemble man; and why the difference? Because in the lowest orders of animals there is the least, and in the higher order of animals the greatest approach to the organization of man. The principal point of difference, and the cause of the difference, is to be found in the nervous structure. The lowest animals have a low order and small amount of nervous structure, the higher animals a higher order of nervous structure, with a larger amount of it. Hence the higher order of animals seem to think and reason. Now if the soul be a distinct thinking principle, then these animals have souls also. The reason why these animals differ so much, I conceive to depend altogether on their structure. And the reason that man differs so much from them, arises, I conceive, from the higher organization he possesses. He has a higher order of brain and more of it, in those parts which phrenology shows are appropriated to the exhibition of the higher manifestations. His body is full of organs, which vary in

their organization, and are acted upon by the same principle of life, and yet owing to their peculiar structure they produce dissimilar results. The liver forms bile, the glands of the eye tears, and so on with the different organs; but with respect to the brain, its organization is peculiar, and God has so arranged it that when this brain is healthy and is acted upon by the principle of life, it shall produce thought. How much the infant resembles the lower order of animals, but as it grows and its brain enlarges and acquires consistency, its mental and moral powers develop. If its brain is of an unhealthy character, or deficient, there is weakness of mind or idiocy. As the old man becomes diseased, his brain partakes of disorder and he returns to a state of childhood. If God had put into man a distinct thinking principle, would it thus be fettered by the organization?—No. When disease clogs up and obstructs the organs, the principle of life is withdrawn. It goes to God—he takes back the energy that while united with the organization produced such wonderful results. The brain has nothing now to stimulate it to action—it cannot produce thought. That is its duty, and office, while the living principle acts upon it; when that departs, its work is done—it ceases to think—his body comes under the same laws that govern vegetable matter—decomposition results. Hence he cannot be conscious in the arrangement of things until the resurrection—then his organization is restored, and also the principle of life—then he will think and feel and act. To my mind the subject of the intermediate and unconscious state of the dead is as plain a truth as any other in God's word. One thing, perhaps, that makes it much clearer to my mind, is, that I can, without violation of the rules of man's organization, understand how it is that man can thus become conscious or unconscious from the presence or absence of the principle of life. And there is a glory about the resurrection that I never before realized.

CHINESE BARBARITY. "O HORRIBLE! O HORRIBLE! MOST HORRIBLE!"

The following case of judicial vengeance was lately reported from the empire of China, and published in our magazines and newspapers :—

"A Chinese merchant named Hiamly, convicted of having killed his wife, was sentenced to die by the total deprivation of sleep. The execution took place at Amoy. The condemned was placed in prison, under the charge of three guardians, who relieved each other every alternate hour, and who prevented him from taking any sleep, night or day. He lived thus for nineteen days, without having slept for a single minute. At the commencement of the eighth day his sufferings were so cruel, that he begged as a great favor that they would kill him by strangulation."

Here is a criminal (and we would be the last to reduce the enormity of his guilt) sentenced to die, but the manner of his execution is awfully revolting. There was in it a refinement of barbarity, that was at least fully equal to the devices of the atrocious misnamed christian inquisitors of Rome, who slaughtered thousands for the extirpation of heresy.

Who does not, in his heart, loathe the tribunal that could pronounce such a doom, and the hireling monsters who could carry it into execution? As for the poor wretch himself, how dreadful must his sufferings have been,—day after day with a burning, swimming brain, and boiling blood. Not a moment of repose, himself compelled to be his own tormentor. One sees the wild blood-shot eyes, the emaciated trembling form, the imploring look for some kind hand to end, however violently, his intolerable woe. "He begged as a great favor that they would kill him by strangulation," after he had undergone seven days of the agony. And can we wonder at it? He asked it as a favor,—he would have given thousands of gold for that release—he longed for death more intensely than he had ever pled for the preservation of his days. What his barbarian attendants refused, by and bye was granted by the last friend of the wretched in this world. It is consolation—a wild one, no doubt—that the anguish in his case must have an end; there is a limit beyond which cruelty may not pass, and the grave sooner or later opens its portals for the exhausted child of pain. He expired at length, and found the couch "where the wicked cease from troubling, and the weary are at rest."

How would the reader have felt had he passed the prison, say on the tenth day, and been informed of the tragedy of barbarism that was performing within? It would have haunted his sensitive heart and his midnight dreams, if it did not banish repose from his eyelids. The supposition is only human; to imagine anything else would be to fancy that men had been converted into relentless fiends, or into walking images of stone. How does the reader, we again demand, conceive he would have felt, had he been told, on a day, that the weary hours of the culprit were concluded, that he was now beyond the reach of pain? Would he not have experienced an indescribable relief to his heart? cried out, in the instinctive overflowing of his humanity, God be praised!

It is in cases like these that we feel kindly toward Death, otherwise abhorrent as the King of Terrors. We look forward to his approach with ardent desire, and when he has performed his emancipating and composing service on behalf of the agonized, even though they are dishonored by acts of blackest criminality, we cannot but be thankful that his arm has been extended with resistless power.

And what shall we think of the dogma of endless torments beyond the grave—torments to be imposed by him who reveals himself as the God of love? We revolt at the contemplation of the Chinese barbarity,—shall we feel otherwise toward cruelty in another realm, inflicted by a greater power? Eighteen days' torments on earth harrows our nature, shall we imagine hell's perpetual agonies, and continue insensible, yea, be expected to approve? No; the better feelings of man rise up in arms against the imposition. We denounce the infliction as inexpressibly savage. But when we utter against it our unqualified anathema, we are set against no Divine arrangement. On the

contrary, we are merely scorning a wild fiction of the human brain, baptized by the appellation of a Scriptural doctrine. "The wages of sin is death," and not those agonies that a cruel theology has invented, alike to the dishonor of God, and the alienation of man from his service.

You abhor the Chinese cruelty,can you laud a sleepless infliction for unending ages?

You could scarcely have sunk to rest had you been told, in passing along the prison wall, of the agonies on the other side of it, supposing even the man to have been to you a stranger, and one confessedly dyed in blood. Can you sleep now, when you probably believe that myriads are tossing somewhere in uninterrupted misery, and among them is, may be, your father or your child? What kind of place would heaven be to you were the tremendous thought to brood over your heart, that, in some distant realm, your former associates and relatives,—multitudes of your fellow-creatures,—were tossing on the red billows of scorching, but unconsuming wrath?

"The thought that any should have endless woe,

Would cast a shadow on the throne of God

And darken heaven."

The death of the Chinese criminal was longed for by you, and also by himself; you felt a deliverance when his bitter agonies were closed. Is it possible you could think of hell's sorrows and have no desire to see them terminated,—no wish that death would come with his cold, yet soothing band, and lay the victim to rest? Is death better than God? Are you kinder than the Almighty? You would find comfort if these tempestuous woes were ended. Can you imagine that He will have satisfaction in prolonging their duration and giving them augmenting intensity? You abhor, then, the dogma of ceaseless torments for man or devil. See that you defend the character of God from the black aspersions that are—we doubt not by mistake—thrown upon it. Tell the world that He is the rightequs, and not the relentless, Governor of the universe,—that he holds out immortality to the pure and pious, and has written it on the judgment-book, that "the soul that sinneth, it shall die."—Moncrieff's Expositor, Scotland.

WITH GOD.

"While I was musing, the fire burned, then spake I with my tongue."—Ps. 39: 3.

This afternoon the sun went down to his rest enveloped in robes of crimson and gold; he quickly disappeared, as if weary of looking down on a world like this; and yet the manner of his departing was expressive of hope and encouragement, rather than of scorn and disgust. I watched till the last beam expired, and was saddened by the vision. I felt as if a great friend of humanity had gone. How awful had been the feeling, if no assurance had been possessed, that the great orb would again appear, and dispense his cheering illumination. To bid farewell to the sun—to know that one had witnessed his glory for the last time, what a thought! Henceforth darkness, sterility, and death; the conception is enough. Dark as it is now, and the night is as yet moonless and starless, the gloom will rise like a veil from the face of nature; and, in a few hours, the stream of splendor from the orient fountain, will be flooding all with brightness, as fresh as on that morning when the voice of heaven approved the production of Omnipotent energy and skill.

How majestic and stupendous the machinery of nature. How awful the constancy; and yet how varied; how startling, how ravishing at times, the changes that occur. God is here; my Father,—the Universal Parent,—presides over all these movements, and carries them on with untiring might. This afternoon, I saw Him guide the blazing luminary along its course; I saw him gather around it at last, all the splendor of imperial state; I saw him lead out the shades of evening from their mysterious chambers; and I heard him, as it were, say, "Fear not, I remain, though the sun departs; and even it will by and by return." Thou art here, O my Father, and I see Thee not; this room is full of Thee; the great palace of creation, on which I look out from my window, is full of thy glory. I do not see Thee! I do see Thee! Thou art invisible to the eye: visible to the thought, the discernment. I am exposed to Thy view, as a watch when opened is disclosed to the eye. May the order of my being be Thine! May my faithfulness in Thy service meet Thy approval.

God is silent: He speaks; He is at rest; He rushes on; He is near; He is far away. How wonderful art Thou, O God! O my God! When the forces the Almighty has generated, for instance, the storm, the earthquake, the lightning, the volcano, are so tremendous, how vast the immeasurable power in His arm. Were He merely intelligence and power, His presence would be terrible; but He is love,—He is a Father, and He may be regarded with perfect confidence and joy. Let the universe even shake, His servants need fear no more than the child when his mother rocks the cradle. Infinite God come near me, and pour Thy love into my heart; I am Thy child, and I wish to be shielded by Thy might; I would draw nearer Thee, I would seize the skirt of Thy gargarment, yea, I would hold Thy hand, I would hear the beating of Thy most tender heart. Say to me, "My child," I say to Thee, "O my Father."

God kindles the stars; all eyes see them, many see beyond them,—and they are blest. Above, all is clear and serene; no storms reach you distant realms; the home of the eternal stars is unruffled, like the clime of the immortals. Below there is gloom and storm, sometimes light and calm. The greatest darkness, however, is that which is found in the minds of men; the most awful storms are those which agitate the hearts of guilty sinners. Darkness there, and few to give light! storms there, and few to say, "Peace, be still!" Alas! my brethren, my kinsmen, according to the flesh, ye are dear to me, and I would speak of the darkness that prevails, and of the few stars—the gleams of truth and hope,—not yet eclipsed; and of the morning that is coming,—when a day of preternatural glory will dawn upon our world. God is love, He loves you; and though legions of men and demons should affirm the contrary, believe them not. He sent His Son to save you. I

would proclaim to each child of man, and encourage him to receive the sin-dispelling and death-conquering Redeemer as his friend, and the pledge of the divine compassion. No wanderer need despair, no sinner need die, for the voice from heaven is the voice of mercy; and the gift from heaven is "eternal life." God wishes to conquer man by love. to gain human hearts as His prize and His joy.

"Nor gold, nor silver seek I; but above

All gifts, the heart, and buy it with my love.

God spurns the riches of a thousand coffers.

And says, "My chosen is he, his heart who offers." The Exp. of Life, &c.

SIMPLICITY OF FAITH.

The simplicity of faith was once illustrated by a pastor thus :—

"I was preaching," he said, "my ordinary weekly lecture in the evening, when I was sent for in great haste, to visit a woman who was said to be dying, and who very much desired to see me. I closed the service as soon as I could, and went immediately to her house. She was a member of my church, whom I had known very well for years, with whom I had been acquainted ever since her first serious impressions, before she became a communicant. As I entered the room where she lay, I found it filled with her friends who had gathered around to see her die. Making my way through the midst of them, I reached the side of her bed, and found her apparently in the last agonies of death. She was bolstered up in her bed, gasping for breath, almost suffocated by the asthma; and the whole bed shook by a palpitation of her heart, which seemed to be shaking her to pieces. It appeared to me that she could not live a quarter of an hour. I said to her—

"Mrs. M., you appear to be very sick."

"Yes," said she, "I am dying."

"And are you ready to die?"

She lifted her eyes upon me with a solemn and fixed gaze, and speaking with great difficulty, she replied—

"Sir, God knows-I have taken him-at his word-and-I am not afraid to die."

It was a new definition of faith. "I have taken him at his word." It struck me in an instant as a triumph of faith. "God knows I have taken him at his word, and I am not afraid to die." It was just the thing for her to say. I have often tried to think what else she could have said that would have expressed so much in so few words.

I prayed some four minutes by her bedside; recited to her some passages of God's word, and was about to leave her for a moment to her friends, whom she seemed anxious to address. She held me by the hand, and uttering a word at a time, as she gasped for breath, she said to me—

"I want to tell you—that I can—trust—in God while—I am dying. You have—often told me he would not—forsake me—and now I find—it true. I am—at peace. I die willingly—and happy."

In a few minutes I left her, uttering to her such promises of the Saviour as I deemed most appropriate.

However, she did not die.

She still lives. But that expression of her faith has been of great benefit to me. It has aided me in preaching, and in conversation with inquiring sinners very often. It gave me a more simple idea of faith than I ever had before. It put aside all the mists of metaphysics, speculation, and philosophizing. It made the whole nature of faith plain. Everybody could understand it: "God knows I have taken him at his word."—Pastor's Sketches.

On the State of Man in Death.

On the best consideration I have been able at various times to give the subject, having as evidence nothing more than the information which Scripture affords, but taking the whole of that information, I come to the satisfied conclusion that the interval between death and the resurrection is to the individual a period of unconscious rest;—that, consequently, to him death will be followed by the solemn summons to life, when that which is sown in weakness, dishonor and corruption, shall be raised in power, and glory, and immortality, and instead of perishing bodies we shall be clothed with those which shall be incorruptible, being fashioned like the glorious body of him to whom the Almighty Father hath given the power to subdue all things unto himself; that, consequently, the eye that closes one instant on the night of death, opens the next instant at the morning of an eternal day. —Dr. LANT CARPENTER, from an unpublished MS. in the possession of Mrs. Carpenter.

HOW TO SPEAK TO CHILDREN.

It is usual to attempt the management of children either by corporeal punishment, or by rewards addressed to the senses, and by words alone. There is one other means of government, the power and importance of which are seldom regarded. I refer to the human voice. A blow may be inflicted, and accompanied with words so uttered, as to counteract entirely its intended effect; or the parent may use language, in the correction of the child, not objectionable in itself, yet spoken in a tone which more than defeats its influence. Let any one endeavor to recall the image of a fond mother long since at rest. Her sweet smile and ever clear countenance are brought vividly to recollection; so also is her voice; and blessed is that parent who is endowed with a pleasing utterance. What is it which lulls the infant to repose? It is not an array of mere words. There is no charm, to the untaught one, in letters, syllables, and sentences. It is the sound that strikes its little ear that soothes and comforts it to sleep. A few notes, however unskilfully arranged, if uttered in a soft tone, are found to possess a magic influence. Think we that this influence is confined to the cradle? No; it is diffused over age, and ceases not while the child remains under the parental roof. Is the boy growing rude in manner and boisterous in speech? I know of no instrument so sure to control these tendencies as the gentle tones of a mother. She

who speaks to her son harshly does but give to his conduct the sanction of her own example. She pours oil on the already raging flame. In the pressure of duty, we are liable to utter ourselves hastily to children. Perhaps a threat is expressed in a loud and irritating tone; instead of allaying the passions of the child, it serves directly to increase them. Every fretful expression awakens in him the same spirit which produced it. So does a pleasant voice call up agreeable feelings. Whatever disposition, therefore, we would encourage in a child, the same should we manifest in the tone in which we address it.—Chris. Reg.

HEAVENLY CONTEMPLATION.—As Daniel, in his captivity, did three times a day open his window towards Jerusalem, though so far out of sight, when he went to God in his devotions; so may the believing soul in his captivity to the flesh, look towards Jerusalem which is above. As the pretty lark doth sing sweetly, and never cease her pleasant ditty while she hovereth aloft, as if she were there gazing into the glory of the sun, but is suddenly silenced when she falleth to the earth, so is the frame of the soul most delectable and divine, while it keepeth in the view of God by contemplation; but alas! we make there too short a stay; down again we fall, and lay by our music.—Baxter.

The Christian's Solace BY MRS. A. C. JUDSON.

"The triumphing of the wicked is short."—Job 20: 5.

In this day and time of evil, while "iniquity abounds, and the love of many waxes cold," the wicked bear rule, and their nefarious plots are fully consummated,—how comforting to the lover of righteousness is this divine assurance: that their triumph is short.

Truly, they have triumphed, in spite of all the efforts of good men. Most emphatically, on every side, the "wicked bear rule." But, thanks be to God! His purposes will not fail. He hath "appointed a day in the which he will judge the world in righteousness," and then will the scales be turned. The wicked will be driven away in his wickedness," and truth and holiness will prevail. Delightful hope! Heart-cheering consolation! Not one feeling of revenge or animosity dwells in the bosom of the true Christian—the holy God knoweth no such feelings. Yet we do rejoice to know that iniquity will be done away, and that the time will come when the whole earth shall be full of the glory of the Lord. And not one vestige of wickedness be found in all God's universe. The earth may now be convulsed, and tossed to and fro, as it were, with the earthquakes and volcanoes of evil; but by and bye the Prince of peace will wave his sceptre, and to the warring elements will cry, "Peace, be still!"

BIBLE EXAMINER.

NEW YORK, AUGUST 1, 1854.

Intermediate State of the Dead.

"The intermediate state of the dead is a state of conscious existence." So saith "Rev. D. W. Clark, D.D.," of the Methodist E. Church.

We proceed in our notice of his articles in the Christian Advocate, which, it seems, were copied from the Ladies' Repository. The Doctor says—

"Philosophy has found itself able to solve but few of the subtle mysteries of the soul even in its present state. No wonder, then, that it is still less able to solve the mysteries of its separate state. Here it is blended with an organic, material body, and manifests its being, power, and condition in a thousand ways; and yet it must be confessed that, as to the modes of its existence—its peculiar relation to the body, its dependence upon it or control over it—we know comparatively little. How, then, can we expect to unravel all the mysteries of its separate state?"

Philosophy has never "found itself able to" show that man is possessed of such an entity as Theologians call "the soul." No wonder, then, that both Philosophers and Theologians "know comparatively little" about that which has no existence except in their imaginations. "The mysteries of the separate state" of such a soul it will take long for them to "unravel." But saith the Doctor—

"We are not left in any necessary darkness in relation to the great facts of that mysterious state. And perhaps the most important of all those facts as it is fundamental to all the rest—is that which we have just announced; namely, THAT THE INTERMEDIATE STATE OF THE DEAD IS A STATE OF CONSCIOUS EXISTENCE."

Was there ever a more palpable contradiction than is apparent in this "announced fundamental!" "The most important of all those facts" is, that "the state of the dead is" that they are alive! or, which is the same thing, they are in "conscious existence"! "Thou shalt surely die," Adam. That is, "You shall go into another state of conscious existence!"

But our friend Clark proceeds to argue the case, and speaks thus—

"Does not God reveal to us this great fact—a fact that constitutes a broad platform upon which rest our most glorious hopes in relation to our intermediate state? If such be not the case, why did St. Paul 'desire to depart,' that he might 'be with Christ?' If the soul sleeps with the body till the resurrection of the dead, he would be no nearer to the accomplishment of his wish in dying than he was while he lived. Indeed, if the doctrine that the intermediate state is one of annihilation or of unconscious existence be true, St. Paul is no nearer heaven than he would be had he lived to the present hour. Neither is he so near the attainment of his desire now as he was during his life; for while he lived he enjoyed communion with Christ; but, being dead, even the communion he did enjoy is cut off, if the spirit sleeps with the body in unconscious repose. All intercourse with the Deity, with heaven, with the saints of God on earth, and even with the glorious truths of the gospel, is utterly broken off, and in one long, oblivious sleep have that intellect so vigorous, those affections so pure and so ardent, and those aspirations so glorious and sustaining, been pent for nearly eighteen centuries; and altogether unconscious of the history of the Church and of the fate of the gospel, of the glory of Christ or the bliss of heaven, while he still continue to slumber on till the trump of God shall arouse the unconscious dead at the resurrection morning. Call you this 'being with Christ?' Alas! then, what is it to be separated from him? If, between death and the resurrection, 'the soul is either extinct, or in a profound and dreamless sleep, forgetful of all that is past, ignorant of all that is around it, and regardless of all that is to come,' how fearfully mistaken was the great apostle when he desired to depart, in order that he might 'be with Christ!' Better, indeed, were it to return to life, for here we may see, even though it be only as through a glass darkly; but there we see not at all! It is, truly, a land of darkness as darkness itself!"

We love to be generous to an opponent, and we can afford to be; so we have given Br. Clark the benefit of his entire argument on this case of Paul. In the first place, Paul does not say that he wished to die to be with Christ. In the second place, Paul saith not one word about his soul in the text or context: and in the context he does say that he labored and suffered, "If," says he, "by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead;" and he adds, "Our conversation is in heaven; FROM WHENCE also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like to his glorious body," &c.

Thus, in this very epistle, we see what was Paul's real desire and expectation : not that of departing and being with Christ as a disembodied soul, but to have his "vile body" changed, and made like Christ's; not by death, nor at death, but by a resurrection when Christ shall return from heaven.

Paul's desire then to depart and be with Christ can have no reference to the state between death and the resurrection. It was not a hope of being with Christ at death; for hope is made up of desire and expectation. Paul expresses a desire to depart and be with Christ, but saith nothing of an expectation of being with Christ till the "vile body" is changed and made like to Christ's. Hence Paul's desire to depart and be with Christ was not a desire to have a disembodied presence with Christ, but must have been a desire for translation, like Enoch and Elijah, which was better than either to live in this state or to die.

If he could have a translation, that he should "not see death," he would prefer that to death; and thus to depart and be with Christ was a matter of innocent "desire;" but he expresses no expectation that his desire would be granted. Indeed, what follows shows he did not expect his desire to be granted; hence he labors to have part in the "resurrection" and looks for his change when Christ

made to the thief. The thief's prayer is the clue to our Lord's answer. What was that prayer?—“Remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” Archbishop Whately says, “into is a mistranslation; it should be in thy kingdom. The meaning is, at thy second coming in triumphant glory.”—Bishop Whately on Future States, p. 324.

Thus understood the promise is, "This day, of which you have spoken, thou shalt be with me in Paradise." Three days after this, Jesus expressly said to Mary, "I am not yet ascended to my Father" John 20:17 Now if Paradise and

surrection, and looks for his change when Christ shall come from heaven.

The Apostle then was not "mistaken" about his "soul" being with Christ, in a conscious existence, between death and the resurrection, for he had no such expectation, and expresses no such desire : that is a pure assumption, to which the universal teaching of Paul, in relation to the hope for the dead, is in complete and perfect hostility.

The Doctor concludes this case, by saying, if death is a state of unconsciousness, "It is truly a land of darkness as darkness itself!" That is—It is just what inspiration testifies it is, Job 10:22. We marvel that our friend Clark should thus stumble into the truth. It is just as if he had said "If the dead are not in a conscious state, then the

heaven are one, as the Doctor holds, here is evidence positive that Jesus did not go to it the "very day" of his death, and had not been there for three days after. Our friend next leads on Moses and Elias. He says—

"Upon the mount of transfiguration Moses and Elias, though the one had been dead nearly fifteen hundred years, and the other had been translated over a thousand years before, not only appeared in the form of living men, though with bodies glorious—emblematic of the glorious resurrection state but they also conversed; thus demonstrating that they were not only alive, but conscious. And if Moses has a conscious existence in the intermediate state, why may not all others?"

Here the Doctor admits that Moses appeared in "plorious" body, then he must have had a re-

Spirit of God inspired a true sentiment when it caused Job to say, when a man is dead he is in a 'land of darkness as darkness itself.'" Truly, Br. Clark, your case is not quite hopeless if you have conscience left, and will not obstinately persist in "infidelity." The Doctor next brings up the case of the thief, and says—

"To the penitent thief upon the cross our Saviour said, 'To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise.' On that very day both our Saviour and the penitent thief expired. Did he mean that the penitent thief would with him that day cease from all conscious existence? What mockery to make such a promise as an antidote to the agonies of the dying man!"

Here our friend makes short work, and decides

surrection from the dead; for they tell us the soul is disembodied at death; but saith our friend these two men "appeared with bodies glorious." If then Moses was raised from the dead, for this occasion, it is proof against the Doctor's theory, and is no evidence of a living conscious existence in the intermediate state. But Doctor Clark adds, that these bodies were "emblematic of the glorious resurrection state." If then, they were emblematic they were not the real bodies of Moses and Elias; and hence the evidence is, that Moses was not really there,but only emblematically so, or it was a visionary representation of the future glory of Christ and his saints after the resurrection, and so affords not the slightest proof of

the whole with a very brief assumption, which is false in fact. He says, "On that very day both our Saviour and the thief expired." Now it is a fact that the thief did not expire on the very day the Saviour did. And any one by comparing the Evangelists will see, that while Christ expired on that very day the thief was alive at the commencement of the next day, and had his legs broken to hasten his death. Let it be remembered the day always commenced at evening among the Jews. Now read the Evangelists and see if the two deaths occurred in the "very day" the address was

a conscious intermediate state of dead men.

The Doctor proceeds in the following strains-

The Doctor proceeds in the following strains— "While reasoning with the Sadducees, one of whose doctrines was that there is no spirit, no conscious existence independent of the body, our Saviour says, 'God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.' And yet God said to Moses, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of 1saac, and God of Jacob,' two hundred years after the dust of the last had been consigned to the cave purchased by Abraham in the field of Machpelah. Hence, it must follow, if there be any verity in God, that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, though dead, still had a conscious life. The same conclusion will be reached with an equally invincible force, when we remember our Saviour himself declared, ' Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad.'"

We confess ourself shocked at this paragraph for two reasons : First—It is a total misrepresentation of the case in hand. Though the Sadducees, as a matter of fact, denied the existence of spirits, neither that nor the conscious existence of dead men was at all the matter in hand in the discourse of our Saviour with them on the occasion here brought to view. Why then did my friend Clark state two things that were not the subject of discourse, and entirely hide, and not mention the real matter at issue, which was the "resurrection of the dead?" The very sound of the true issue would have opened the eyes of some of his readers to see that he evaded the doctrine of our Saviour's discourse, which was not about the conscious state of the dead, but of the rising from the dead; and it goes to show conclusively that if there is no resurrection there is no future life, and God could not be their God ; but if they are alive now, as the Doctor affirms, then God can be their God whether there ever be a resurrection or not ; and thus our Lord's argument for the resurrection is made "void through your tradition" of a living conscious state in death. But what particularly shocked us is, that the Doctor should affirm, "If there be any verity" [truth] "in God, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, though dead, still had a conscious life!"

Now we would rather confess that we might be a thousand times mistaken than thus to stake the veracity of God. Look at it. "If I am not right in maintaining that the dead are in a state of conscious life there is not any truth in God; His word can in no instance be trusted."

We cannot but hope that Br. Clark will feel it a duty and privilege to modify this expression of his, or withdraw it entirely. Will he not do it for truth's sake, and the honor of God?

IS THE SOUL A DISTINCT ENTITY? Affirmative by C. F. Hudson.

Dear Examiner:-My last closed with Acts 7: 59. The next passage in my list iswould be no hope in their case if Christ had not risen. But Christ has risen. What then? THEREFORE they have not perished, is what every Corinthian child must infer. And this hypothetical mode of stating a case is well known among logicians, as one of the most conclusive methods of argument. "Except those days should be shortened," said Christ, "there should no flesh be saved." And even if Christ had not added another word, every one would confidently infer that some flesh will be saved.

1 Cor. 15:17, 18. This is the passage which, I said, is claimed on both sides in this question. And it is claimed by my opponents upon what seems to me a marvelous misapprehension of Paul's hypothetical reasoning. If Christ be not raised, says Paul, then they which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. And hereupon, Mr. Ham asks, "How have they perished?" ("Man in death," chap. vi.) Why, my dear friend Ham, that deceased Christians have not perished is the very thing that Paul proposes to prove. There

In the same way, when Bro. Storrs remarks, "If there be no resurrection, then, at death, man ceases to have existence, and will live no more forever," [“ Intermediate state,” page 20,]—we can only infer, that at death man does not cease to have existence, for there is a resurrection. But the body has perished, as Mr. Ham admits. “Surely,” he says, "Paul could not have meant by this expression mere dead bodies! Dead bodies are not they which have fallen asleep in Christ." Hence, we are forced to conclude, that Christians, at least, have souls that can survive their bodies, awaiting the resurrection. If they have not such souls, then they have actually perished, and a resurrection of one who has perished is absurd.

2 Cor. 5:4. "Not for that we would be unclothed." Here and in the context, the body seems to be spoken of as the tabernacle or vesture of the soul. In the interim, between death and the resurrection, the soul is untented and unclad; which could not be, if it had no separate existence. Some interesting facts, that have nothing to do with our modern "spiritual manifestations," but which do seem to indicate the precise advantages of embodiment to the soul, I reserve for a future letter.

2 Cor. 12 : 2. "Whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell; God knoweth." But my good friends would have told Paul at once, that this could not have been out of his body, for aside from his body he could not have existed. Paul's doubt is a marked dissent from their theory.

1 Thes. 5:23. Did the preservation of the "spirit and soul," depend, either physically or morally, on the preservation of the "body," until Christ's coming? Now if the soul cannot exist without the body, the physical dependence must have been utter and complete. And as for the moral dependence, I should shrink from a combat with the materialist, upon the theory held by my good friends. I must leave that point of courage to "Anthropos," who is so ready to carry out the doctrines of Phrenology consistently, and fearless of all consequences. (See his "Unity of Man," page 26.) For my own part, I recognize the facts of Anthropology as an important half of truth, relating to our compound being. But I cannot take any mere Natural History of Man as the rational basis or rule of truth, or as defining the Future History of Man, until Gal. 5:17, and several like passages are expunged, and certain facts of consciousness are forgotten.

Heb. 12 : 23. Are not the "spirits of just men made perfect" by passing from the "unclothed state to that in which they are " clothed upon " with immortality?

What need of supposing, as my friends must suppose, that these spirits are perfected by passing from a state of temporary nonexistence?

1 Pet. 3 : 19. Are the " spirits in prison" embodied? What is meant by the " preaching," or rather " heralding " here spoken of, is no part of our argument. If the spirits of the just are intended, Heb. 12 : 23 and 2 Cor. 5 : 4, are parallel passages. If the spirits of the unjust then I must refer to 2 Pet. 2 : 9, and ask, Does God reserve [Gk. Terein, to keep watch of; to hold in custody] the unjust in non-existence until the judgment?

Rev. 6 : 9. Here I need only remark that the souls of martyrs are spoken of just as if they had survived their bodies, and had now a separate and actual existence before the resurrection. See v.11. The force of the passage can be evaded, it seems to me, only by quoting those hyperboles in which God is said to employ "things that are not" to bring to nought things that are, and the like.

I have now gone over the first list of passages which I gave in the Examiner for July 1. The reader will judge whether they prove that the soul is a distinct entity, capable of a separate or disembodied existence. I might adduce other Scriptural proofs, but need not do so at present. Upon the second list of passages it behooves me not to comment until the list shall have been accepted or corrected by Br. Grew.

Hoping to pursue this discussion in due time, in its rational, historical, and practical bearings, I am yours in the love of Christ,

C. F. HUDSON.

Response by Henry Grew.

Dear Br. Storrs:—On 1 Cor. 15:17, 18, Br. Hudson remarks, "Why, my dear friend Ham, that deceased Christians have not perished, is the very thing that Paul proposes to prove." "Christ has risen—THEREFORE they have not perished, is what every Corinthian child must infer." This is true; but the question is, does the apostle's declaration imply that the dead had not perished at all, or that they had not perished forever? What is the argument of the inspired writer? Is it that dead Christians had not perished, because they "have souls that can survive their bodies?" Not a word of this. I ask Br. H. candidly to consider, ought not this to have been, and would not this have been the argument of the apostle, if such was the fact? But he predicates this blessed hope, that the dead saints had not perished for ever, on the fact of Christ's resurrection, and the consequent resurrection of his saints. He became "the first fruits of them which slept," by his own resurrection.

The representation is, yea, the positive plain declaration, not that man survived the dissolution of an outward material tenement, but that THE

MEN, the "brethren," v. 6, "they," the persons, had fallen asleep in death; v. 18. Now, instead of relying altogether on the fact of the resurrection, to prove that they had not perished for ever, if Br. H. is correct, such an argument would have been entirely inappropriate and superfluous. If their souls "survive their bodies," the apostle had only to declare the fact to prove that the saints had not perished. There was no need to refer to any resurrection. Man had not died; he had only escaped as a bird from a cage. Suppose a man to strike the bird-cage and break it to pieces. The bird flies away. Who, in his senses, would argue that the bird had not perished, because the cage could be mended? The entire argument, throughout the glorious chapter is adverse to the popular sentiment, and in perfect harmony with the declaration of the inspired psalmist, That in the day of death the "thoughts (of man) perish;" which Br. H.'s views deny. The resurrection of men, who have temporarily perished in death, involves no absurdity, and is perfectly competent for the Almighty to accomplish, who of stones can raise up children to Abraham.

…