The Bible Examiner — Vol. 9, No. 4 (February 15, 1854)

Download: PDF — The Bible Examiner — Vol. 9, No. 4 (February 15, 1854)

BIBLE EXAMINER.

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

NEW YORK, FEBRUARY 15, 1854.

VOL. IX.

NO.4.

PUBLISHED SEMI-MONTHLY At No. 140 Fulton-street.

[T E R M S.--One] Dollar [for the Year; Always in Advance.

GEO. STORRS, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR.

"UNITY OF MAN."

OR, REVIEW OF REV. LUTHER LEE.

BY ANTHROPAS. [Never before published in the Examiner.]

In Mr. Lee's article No.12, he bases an argument on the doctrine of what he is pleased to call "the primitive church" or the "Apostolic Fathers." He says—"In an investigation like the one in which we are engaged, it is of the utmost importance to understand what was the doctrine of the early Christians, who received their instructions from the Apostles, and those who immediately succeeded them."

As a preliminary question, I would ask, What do we understand by "the primitive church?" and "the early Christians?" I understand what Mr. Lee means, but, I apprehend, he is utterly wrong in his hypothesis. "The primitive church," in point of fact, was the first church established by the Apostles; and this will carry us back to Jerusalem, the locality of the first Christian Congregation. "The early Christians" are those who first received the Gospel of Christ, and obeyed it. And, in this view of the subject, I grant that "it is of the utmost importance to understand what their doctrine was; but I do not suppose it possible to determine this point by an appeal to those who have been termed "Apostolic Fathers." But, why appeal to these "Fathers" at all? Mr. Lee's doctrine was either taught by the Apostles, or it was not; if it was, surely he can make it appear from their writings; but, if it was not taught, why appeal to the Fathers to prove that which is false?

That must be a bad cause which requires such testimony to sustain it, in the absence of all scriptural evidence!

But in reference to these Fathers, I will remark, that their writings are not to be relied upon. The five Fathers who flourished in the first century, were Barnabas, Hermas, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp.

The first of these quoted by Mr. Lee is St. Clement. This Clement, if I mistake not, is claimed as one of the Popes of Rome, by Catholic authority. They place Peter in the chair

first, then Linus, who transferred it to Anacletus, then CLEMENT. Eusebius, book iii, chap. 2, page 82; chap.13, page 100.

Speaking of the writings of Clement, Du Pin, who is regarded as an authentic Roman Catholic historian, proves them to be spurious; because, first, "The second epistle of St Clement directed to St. James, speaks of the Ostiarii or door-keepers, arch-deacons, and other ecclesiastical officers, that were not then introduced into the church;" 2d, "This letter mentions sub-deacons, an order not then established in the church." p. 584.

But, in relation to all, or most, of these writings of the Apostolic Fathers, I will again refer to Du Pin. "Criticism is a kind of torch, that lights and conducts us, in the obscure tracts of antiquity, by making us able to distinguish truth from falsehood, history from fable, and antiquity from novelty." T is by this means, that in our times we have disengaged ourselves from an infinite number of very common errors into which our fathers fell for want of examining things by the rules of true criticism. For it is a surprising thing to consider how many spurious books we find in antiquity; nay, even in THE FIRST AGES OF THE CHURCH." He then proceeds to give the reasons which prompted persons thus to publish "Spurious Books," the first of which is, "the malice of heretics; who, to give the greater reputation to their heresies, composed several books, which they attributed to persons of great reputation." &c.. "And thus the first heretics devised false Gospels, false Acts, and false Epistles of the Apostles, and their Disciples," &c.

Mr. Hinton says of these Fathers, that "There are no writings of the venerable men that can be safely relied on as the productions of their pens, except perhaps, the epistle of Clement; and the reader has seen the disposition we make of his writings. Furthermore, he says—"Indeed, such was the state both of literature and morals, in the fourth and subsequent centuries, that the favorite occupation of the Monks of those days, seems to have been first to write the most ridiculous nonsense by way of indicating their literary taste; and then fraudulently to attach to it the name of some eminent Father of the first or second century, by way of proving the high state of their moral sensibility."

Mosheim says-"The epistle of Barnabas was the production of some Jew," &c. "The 'Shepherd of Hermas,' was composed in the second century by Hermes, who was brother of Pius, bishop of Rome."

But, after all, it seems to me that Mr. Lee has rather forced Polycarp to testify in favor of his hypothesis, than otherwise, and that the quotation made does not legitimately prove it.

But, be this as it may, there is little or no reliance to be placed on any of these reputed Epistles, as we have already seen.

But, I would have the reader remember, that even in the Apostles' day, the "mystery of iniquity" began to work, and to develop itself. Many errors, and among them, I apprehend, that advocated by Mr. Lee himself, were quite prevalent; even in the Apostolic Age. Of this class were Hymeneus and Philetus, who, by advocating the opinion now taught by Mr. Lee, Mr. Brewster, Dr. Bush and others, denied the proper resurrection of the body, and "overthrew the faith of some." If a man puts on his "resurrection body" when he dies, then the resurrection of the body at the coming of Christ is a nullity and a fable! This view obtained before the death of the Apostles; no marvel, therefore, that we should find traces of it in the first and second centuries, and down to the present time.

What doctrine, I ask, has not been proved by the testimony of the Fathers? Mr. Lee goes to them to prove the "immateriality" (the nothingness) of the soul: the Pædobaptist to prove Infant sprinkling; the Baptist to prove immersion; the Catholic to prove that Peter was the first Pope, the truth of the doctrine of Purgatory, the invocation of saints, Apostolic succession, &c., &c. Mr. Lee says—"It is of the utmost importance to understand what was the doctrine of the early Christians, who received their instructions from the Apostles, and those who immediately succeeded them." Let him, then, be honest to them, and to himself, and believe all they taught! But, I apprehend, he would not be willing to endorse the sentiments of even all the extracts he has made! And I am sure that their testimony is not necessary, except to sustain a rotten cause!

But, in order to rebut all the remaining force of Mr. Lee's argument, I will introduce a passage from Justin Martyr, who was born A. D. 89. and suffered death for Christ A. D. 163. He tells Trypho, the Jew, "that some indeed called Christians, are in fact atheists (atheai—without God) and impious heretics, because in every way, they teach blasphemy, impiety and folly." He gives proof of his own sincerity, and protests that he was "determined to follow no men, nor human authority, but God and the doctrine taught by him;" adding "should you happen upon some who are called Christians indeed, and yet are far from holding these sentiments, but even dare to assail the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob with blasphemy and say, 'there is no resurrection of the dead; but instantly when they die, are received up into heaven, do not count these among Christians, even as they are not Jews, if accurately considered, who are called Sadducees, and the like sects of Genistar, Meristar, Galileans, Hellinists, Pharisees, Baptists, (a sect that followed John the Baptist) and others: but under the

name of Jews and sons of Abraham, they worship God, as he accuses them, with their lips only, while their heart is far from him. But I. and all who are sound in the Christian faith, are acquainted with the resurrection of the body, and the 1000 years in Jerusalem, that shall be rebuilt, adorned, and enlarged, as the Prophets Ezekiel, Isaiah, and others declare." Brooks on Prophecy, page 52; also Duffield's work. Justin Martyr himself affirms that he was contemporary with the Apostle John, who wrote the Revelation, in which mention is made of the 1000 years five times, in connexion with the universal subjugation of evil, the resurrection from the dust of the sleeping saints, and their reign with Christ.

Here, then, we have a clear and distinct expression of sentiment, in relation to this point; while Mr. Lee has to infer from the language he quotes, that such was the view of the authors he cites. Justin Martyr distinctly tells Trypho, that he was not to "count those as Christians" who believed the, now, popular doctrine! Mr. Brooks says—"Irenæus ranks these professors, in his work against Heresies (book v.) as among the heretical; and the testimony of the church is uniform on this point (if we except some questionable passages in Cyprian) down into Popish times; and, indeed, it was the general opinion of the Greek and Latin churches down to the Council of Florence, held under Pope Eugenius IV., A. D. 1439."

Bishop Taylor, in his work on the 'Liberty of Prophesying' (viii.) sets this in a clear light. He says—"It is a plain recession from antiquity which was determined by the council of Florence—That the souls of the pious being purified, are immediately received into heaven and behold clearly the Triune Jehovah just as he is; for those who please to try, may see it resolved dogmatically to the contrary by Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Origen, Chrysostome, Theodoret, Arethas Cæsariensis, and Euthymius, who may answer for the Greek church. And it it is plain that it was the opinion of the Greek church by that great difficulty the Romans had of bringing the Greeks to subscribe to the Florentine Council, where the Latins acted their master piece of wit and stratagem—the greatest that hath been till the famous Council of Trent. And for the Latin church, Tertullian, Ambrose, Austin, Hilary, Prudentius, Lactantius, Victorinus, and Bernard, are known to be of opinion, that the souls of the saints are in abditis receptaculis et exterioribus atriis—in unseen receptacles and outer darkness—where they expect the resurrection." &c.

The early Reformers maintained the primitive faith on this point, plainly perceiving that the object of the Papists was to help forward the doctrine of purgatory and invocation of saints. Thus Tyndal, disputing with the Papists, says, "If the souls be in heaven, tell me why they be not in as good case as the angels be? And then, what cause of the resurrection?"

And, again, in reply to Sir Thomas More, who objects against Luther—that his doctrine encouraged the sinner to continue in sin, seeing it so long postponed the ultimate judgment, Tyndal says, "Christ and his apostles taught no other, but warned to look for Christ's coming again every hour; which coming again, because ye believe it will never be, therefore have ye feigned that other merchandise"—of the instantaneous translation of souls to heaven at death!

Calvin also, in his Psycopannuchia, replies thus to another objection against this doctrine:— "I answer, that Christ is our head, whose kingdom and glory have not yet appeared. If the members were to go (to heaven) before their head (comes) the order of things would be inverted and preposterous. But we shall follow our Prince then, when he shall come in the glory of his Father, and sit upon the throne of his majesty, p. 255 . It is greatly to be lamented, that the Protestant Church of a latter period should have fallen into the errors of the Papists on this subject (abating the distinct acknowledgment of Purgatory)—errors, the adoption of which has done more than any other thing, perhaps, toward withdrawing from the church the lively expectation of Christ's Advent." This doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul, being pagan in its origin, was incorporated with Christianity, and constituted the grand work of the Apostacy. Upon it was built the doctrine of Purgatory, invocation of saints, &c. When Martin Luther first commenced his crusade against "the Mother of Harlots and abominations of the earth," he repudiated the doctrine in question, as a part of the strong delusion of the wicked One.

D'Aubigne says—"Duke George of Saxony, who would neither connect himself with Rome nor with Wittemberg, had written, as early as the 15th October, 1521, to Duke John the Elector's brother, to induce him to side with those who opposed the progress of the Reformation. 'Some,' wrote he, 'deny the immortality of the soul, and these Friars too, drag the Relics of St. Anthony through the streets, and through them into the gutters. All this comes of Luther's teaching.'"

The following is an extract from Audlin's Life of Luther, which will prove that Luther rejected the pagan dogma of an immortal soul in the animal Man. "He is speaking of the bad principle of every one construing Scripture to suit himself, and adduces the Italians as illustrative of its evil tendency, which practice, says he, was first introduced by Martin Luther. Thus he writes:—"These were new lights, who came to announce, that they had discovered an irresistible argument against the Mass, Purgatory, and Prayer to the saints. This was simply to deny the Immortality of the soul, an idea that had been hatched in the brains of some Italian refugees, who were publicly laughed at. They left Wittemberg and went to Geneva, where we find them in 1561, sustaining in a crowded school, and in printed theses, that all which has been said about the Immortality

of the soul was invented by Antichrist for the purpose of making the Pope's pot boil. Purgatorium cum missa et pontifice romano melius abolere possumus, quam si dicamus simul anima cum corpore extingui. Quidquid animarum habetur immortalitate, ab Antichristo ad statuendam suam culinam excogitatum est. This proposition was really maintained in Geneva, not however in General Assembly as Prateolus relates in Elench. voce. p. 72, but by some Italian exiles, who published their theses, and maintained them in full school.'—Boyle, Art. Luther.

"They quoted Luther, who had said, 'It is idle to trouble ourselves with endeavoring to prove that the soul is produced by propagation, or that it is infused into the body at the moment of creation. I maintain with the poet, that the child follows its parent. Op. Luther, t. xi; Boyle, Art. Luther. They misunderstood the passage." Audlin, pp. 192, 193.

The doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul, is the foundation on which the Harlot Mother sits; and, as she is the mother of harlots, all her daughters have drank deeply of her spiritual fornication! The whole Protestant world is tinctured with this subtile heresy; and in vain do they oppose the Mass, Purgatory, and the invocation of saints, whose very existence depends upon the popular dogma of immortality, while they maintain, uphold and defend this foundation! If the popular doctrine be true, what argument can you bring against Purgatory? What against the invocation of saints? None, so effective as the one we oppose to those false and delusive dogmas.

Men, Brethren and Fathers! be Protestants indeed, and renounce every relic—the last vestige of Catholicism, or cease to call yourselves such! We are now grappling with the great City of Pago-papal Babylon; come, and with us lay hold of the mighty lever of truth, that the superstructure may fall, and, like a millstone cast into the deep, be found no more at all!

THE CROSS-A REVIEW.

BY HENRY GREW.

[ Concluded from page 31. ]

That "the parable of the wicked husbandmen," and other passages, fully show that "the crucifixion" of our blessed Redeemer "was the highest expression of human wickedness," is no subject of our present controversy. It is to the inference deduced, by our respected author, from this obvious truth that I demur. The inference is, that it could not have been "for any purpose connected with his (God's) own righteous government," &c. We may as well infer from the fact of Joseph's brethren delivering "with wicked hands" their brother to the Ishmaelites to go down to Egypt, that God did not send him there "to preserve a posterity in the earth and to save (their) lives by a great deliverance."

Gen. 45:7. So fully is the divine purpose recognized in the affair, that it was affirmed by Joseph to his brethren (to be understood of course in a qualified sense) "So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God." verse 8. It is a glorious truth, both rational and spiritual, that the Ruler of the Universe causes "the wrath of man to praise him." What man does for evil, God overrules for good. The word, which we declare to be "the only rule of faith," as positively declares the crucifixion of the Lord of glory to have been according "to the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God," as that it was done "with wicked hands." Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28. Their voluntary wickedness was indeed, as Mr. Ham observes, "the proximate cause" of the atrocious act. The purpose of God was the remote cause, operating in some manner, inscrutable to finite minds, in perfect harmony with the moral agency of men. "The stern logic of common sense" must admit, that the ways of an infinite being may, in some respects, be "past finding out" by finite minds.

Mr. H. argues, "that as Satan was the prime instigator of that deed (the death of the Lord Jesus) Satan must have given the satisfaction," i.e. "for sins."

For the phrase "satisfaction for sins," being unscriptural, I do not contend. The argument however is, that Satan must have done the good which the death of Christ did. If so, it follows that as Satan instigated Joseph's brethren to sell him to go into Egypt, Satan must have the credit of saving many "lives by a great deliverance!" Satan indeed did, in both cases, instigate that to be done which was the occasion of great good by God's overruling wisdom. But as he meant that for evil which God meant for good, he is justly condemned; and to God belongs the glory. A murderer may aim the fatal ball at my head, it may pass me and enter that of a wild beast, who is ready to tear me to pieces and thus save my life. This alters not the murderer's guilt. It does, however, according to Mr. D'Israeli's logic.

Again, it is argued that if "the justice of God was maintained and magnified by the death of the Lord Jesus Christ, then it follows, from the New Testament representations of the causes of Christ's death, that God's justice was maintained and magnified by the highest injustice and wickedness of men." The truth that Jehovah thus causes the wrath of man to praise him is established and illustrated by various scriptural facts. The history of Joseph, already considered, presents one of these facts. The justice of God was maintained and magnified by the wickedness of the King of Assyria, who was the sword of the Lord's anger against Israel for their sins. It was not in the heart of the proud monarch to fulfil the divine purpose; his object was the gratification of his own selfish ambition, he was therefore justly punished. Isaiah 10:12. Wicked men are God's sword. The Philistines, &c., were such. Modern wars are exhibitions of the same. Wicked nations are

the executioners of God's righteous judgments against other wicked nations; "for God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will." Rev. 17: 17.

It is also inferred from the supposition that the death of Christ is "the reason why God forgives sin," that "the world's guilt was purified by the foulest guilt the world ever perpetrated," &c. The abstract contemplation of this atrocious act, independently of other aspects, in which the Spirit of truth has taught us to view it, may indeed excite the exclamation. "Marvellous conclusions!" We shall however demand of "the stern logic of common sense" that it shall suspend its decisions until all the divine testimonies relative to the subject are considered. By quotations from these testimonies I have shown that "whatsoever" "wicked hands" did in this case was what God's "counsel determined a fore to be done," "to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins," &c. Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28; Romans 3:25, 26; &c., &c. "It pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed," &c. Isaiah 53d chapter. "Marvellous conclusions" indeed of divine wisdom and love, which "the angels desire to look into," transcending probably, in some respects, their perceptive powers as they do ours.

In connection with the atrocity of the Jews, we must consider the fact of the voluntary sacrifice of the Son of God who "died for our sins;" ("I lay down my life of myself." said the friend of sinners. "I lay down my life for my sheep,") as well as the fact above stated that, "It pleased the Lord to bruise him" and to "make his soul (life) an offering for sin." What, I ask, has "the stern logic of common sense" to object against the principle, that a being of infinite perfections should overrule evil for good, the greatest evil for the greatest good?

I would ask the intelligent writer, in view of what I have stated above, whether the representation, that "it follows" from the doctrine of vicarious suffering, "that the greatest sin which was ever committed is the reasonable cause why God should forgive all other sins." is not too limited and partial? Must not the voluntary offering of the matchless Son of God, who is the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of his person, be involved in "the reasonable cause" of God's forgiving the sins of the penitent believer? That there is something pertaining to this wondrous transaction which transcends human reason is freely admitted.

How our respected author can maintain his views consistently with his avowed determination "to appeal first and last to the law and the testimony for the rule of our faith," I cannot possibly conceive.

It is remarked that "men must and will reason." Certainly. But what has reason to offer in objection to the proposition that a being of infinite wisdom can overrule evil for good? What has reason to show that the voluntary offering of the Son of God, may not so "magnify" and make "honorable" his violated law, that he may now "be just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus?"

Admit however, that the subject transcends the compass of human reason, I affirm that it is both reasonable and scriptural to admit also, that the ways of the infinite Jehovah should, in some respects, be "unsearchable" and "past finding out." The candid and talented writer well remarks, that "it is both wise and Christian to compare notes." He will admit, that proving some of the popular views of the doctrine of atonement, or reconciliation, to be wrong, is not proving his own views to be altogether right. It is indeed absurb, and palpably false in fact, to suppose that our blessed Lord suffered the entire penalty of the law for sinners; for this penalty is the eternal death of all who have sinned; whereas the Saviour does not die eternally even for one sinner. This, however, is no proof that his death was in no sense vicarious, or that he did not die "for us according to the Scriptures."

The prayer of the Saviour, "Father, forgive them," is indeed incompatible with the supposition, that he has given entire satisfaction, in the sense of paying the Father our whole debt. This, however, does not prove that his death was, in no sense, a judicial transaction; or that it was not necessary that God "might be just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." The divine wisdom has seen that this sacrifice was needed, that "mercy and truth," "righteousness, and peace" may embrace each other in the wondrous plan of our salvation. It may be supposed that forgiveness, in this view of the subject, cannot be entirely free on the part of the Father. I reply, that neither Scripture or reason require any such freedom in the case, as shall subvert the truth, that "God for Christ's sake hath forgiven" us. Eph. 4:32. "God is Love." To this infinite source, we must trace the entire system of our redemption from sin and death, both in respect to means and end. Yet "the oneness of Christ and his Father," in this glorious work, is, as our author represents, perfect. There is indeed a theory which seems to imply that "the compassion is—all on Christ's side." This involves the absurdity that there is a being in the universe more merciful than "the Father of Mercies." The scriptural truth that God will "declare his righteousness" as well as his mercy in the forgiveness of sin, implies no such degrading incongruity.

"Now unto Him who is able to" unite us in truth and love, and "to present us faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy; to the only wise God our Saviour be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

BOUND VOLUMES OF THE EXAMINER can be had for '50 and'51; also, for '52 and'53: the two years in one volume : price $1.50 per vol.

EXPOSITOR OF LIFE AND IMMORTALITY (Scotland), for February, just received.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE CROSS. THE FACTS AND PHENOMENA OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST.

BY REV. J. PANTON HAM.

[Continued from page 20.]

The incidents of the closing scenes of our Lord's life, as they present themselves to our mind, abundantly confirm the views we have already expressed of the causes and characteristics of his death on the cross. Guided by the light of Christ's own teaching, and the manner in which he was wont to speak of his own death, we have read the historic facts of the crucifixion from a new standing point, and have obtained altogether new and more intelligible impressions as to the real moral significance of that stupendous event. To investigate the manner in which Christ alluded to his death, and the moral aspect in which he was accustomed to place it, may, to some of our readers, be a new direction of inquiry; but the reasonableness of such a course will at once commend itself; for who ought to be supposed to know best the nature and objects of the crucifixion than the Crucified One himself? It seemed to us when first examining this subject, that the best expounder of the doctrine of the Cross would be Christ himself, and we took for certain, that an event of so much magnitude in his own personal history, would not fail to be fully expounded by him. Our anxiety to know the truth of this matter, and determination, by God's help, to pursue it, were favorable to a successful inquiry. We had studied, to some extent, the history of doctrinal development in the Churches, from the earliest ages down to the present time; and that study did much towards setting us free from our earlier confidence in the necessary perfectibility of popular and so called "evangelical" opinions. We had seen the various misapplication and abuse of the holy term "evangelical"—how it had been made to patronize the most conflicting and, ultimately, exploded opinions—and that, like a throne or national diadem—it had been seized upon and worn by one usurper after another—the strongest party, for the time being, claiming it exclusively as their own. The assumption of the title "evangelical," by one party of religionists, is akin to that impertinent conceit in the commercial world which claims to be the sole manufacturer and vender of a certain article of trade; and when the assumption is allowed, what is it but a popular patent, or charter of monopoly, which may have been granted by popular imbecility and ignorance, as well as by popular intelligence. The "traditions of the elders," in the course of our inquiry, relaxed their ancient hold upon our conscience and confidence, and set us free to sit at the feet of the great Teacher. Before this revolution in our mental experience, we never thought of asking the Lord Jesus Christ the meaning of his last sufferings and death; we thought we understood this and all other first principles of the Christian faith. But when we did ask this question, we got but one unvarying answer from his lips.

His crucifixion, he tells us, was an act of highest impiety and cruel wrong;—a manifestation of godless hostility to the holy laws and purposes of the Most High; and meriting the severest marks of the Divine displeasure. He says no more. His parable of the wicked husbandmen explains the causes, and describes the real character, of this awful event. It was no display of God's righteousness, but of man's unrighteousness: it did not set forth the rectitude of the Divine law and government, but was a more emphatic rejection of that law and rebellion against that government. Hence the enquiry, "What, therefore, shall the lord of the vineyard do unto those husbandmen?" and the just and natural reply, "He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard to other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons." And this description we have found to accord with the several incidents of the crucifixion. All the facts and phenomena of our Lord's last sufferings and death, support, and only support, the view which he gives of the moral turpitude of that event. He ever described it as a wrong; and when he suffered, he suffered as one consciously enduring a wrong. He stated of the active agents in his death, that they were impelled by wicked—even Satanic influences; and when they execute their foul deed, he prays for them as men needing pardon for their great sin. He betrayed no consciousness of any interruption of filial intercourse with his Father: he never acted or spoke as one who was sensible that he was enduring the Divine wrath; his whole demeanor is at the farthest possible remove from any such conviction as that he was sustaining a part in a great judicial tragedy, and especially that part which is commonly assigned him. The candid inquirer must, we think, be struck with such phenomena as the historic incidents of the cross develop: he cannot but marvel, that the theory of the common theology is so entirely discrepant with the actual facts of the case. We do not think that we have unduly treated those facts, nor in the least distorted their natural and obvious significance. To us it seems reasonable that the alleged theory should be borne out by the historic facts, and if not so borne out, that the theory, and not the facts, should be discarded. On this reasonable principle we have acted, and by it we feel bound to abide.

The last illustration of this part of our argument, which we would introduce to the notice of our readers, will, we think, add additional weight to those which have preceded. It is furnished in the dying words of our Lord, when he said, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit," and bowed his head and expired.

How natural is this language in the lips of the dying Christ, on the supposition that he was conscious, at this time, of no other than an endeared filial relationship towards his Divine Father; and how unnatural, on the supposition that he was conscious of being in the attitude of an imputed criminal, expiating a world's offences by suffering the penalty due to those offences. We lay great

stress on the oft repeated statement, that we cannot discover in the phenomena of the crucifixion any evidence of that peculiar consciousness which Christ must have had, and must have expressed, had he been enduring the weight of God's judicial wrath against sin. The dying Jesus expresses the consciousness of a different experience. His is not the attitude of one "stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted;"—and we "esteem" him wrongly when we so interpret the cause of his grief; on the contrary, it is the attitude of one who was "despised and rejected of men,"—whom he came to serve and to save, and whose ingratitude and impiety pierced his loving heart. Surely, this act of self-commendation to his Father betrays no consciousness of that vast distance between himself and his Father, which, for the time being, at least, would have been possessed, had he been, in the eyes of the Holy One, but as the incarnation of a world's guilt. Here is no standing far off from God, as the Avenger of sin, but a drawing nigh to him, in filial confidence, as a Son to a Father. The Lord Jesus, at this time, was only conscious of a Father's presence, and a Father's sympathy; hence he addresses him as "Father," and commends himself to his care. "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit."

We can scarcely imagine any more unsuitable language for the holy Sufferer to employ, than that of a personal commendation of himself to God as a Father, on the supposition that he was the substitute for a criminal world at that time, and that then was the hour of his judicial execution. This language is highly inconsistent with the alleged circumstances;—another class of emotions, and other speech than such as indicate a filial and confiding consciousness, would certainly have more accorded with the supposed circumstances. So far from addressing God as a Father, we should have expected language from the dying One which recognized, pre-eminently and exclusively, the Rectoral and Judicial character of God; and instead of commending himself, in death, to the care of God, as his Almighty Parent, language betokening a sense of the most distressing rejection by God, as the Punisher of sin, would have been more suitable to the tragic scene. It should be borne in mind, that the popular theology recognizes in Christ on the cross, an imputed criminal, and affirms that such was his personal consciousness, and the light in which he was regarded by God. Is it not then, highly proper that we should confront this theory with the actual incidents of the crucifixion, and expect an agreement between those historic incidents and their theological explanation? Is it not natural that we should express surprise, that One sustaining the part of a Substitute for criminals, and therefore a criminal by imputation, should be found commending himself, in his dying moments, to the Sovereign whom, by his substitutionary attitude, he is supposed to have wronged?

If, instead of the substitute, the sinners themselves should suffer the wrath, which, it is said, God is morally obliged to inflict on the violators of his law, can we imagine any language more unsuitable and offensive to the Majesty of God, than that which expressed the personal commendation of a world of sinners to Him?

Christ is said to have endured what, in the sinners' experience, would have been the terrible hell punishment; if, then, the Substitute could "commend" himself to God, so, too, it would appear, might the sinners themselves, whom he was then representing. But conceive the offensive idea of sinners in hell commending themselves to God, in the language of confiding self-complacency!

It is not the wont of a criminal, in the act of dying under capital punishment, to "commend" himself to the state or society he has wronged. Such commendation would be loathed as most execrable, and regarded as an additional offence to the state. The consciousness suitable to such a season, is that of painful repudiation; but Christ exhibits no such consciousness in the hour of his death; his is the consciousness of a calm and consoling communion; his, the sense of the recovered presence of his heavenly Father—of which, in a brief, dark season of despondency, he had felt himself bereft. The dying Christ fell asleep in the bosom of a Father—not under the judicial wrath of an Omnipotent Executioner. His was the death of the beloved Son of God, not of the bruised and broken substitute for sinners. Throughout, his was the intercourse of a Son with a Father. We discover nothing of fear and trembling, of groaning under a sense of oppressive wrath, but filial tenderness and Divine affection, and solacing heart-communion with his Father in heaven. Such, too, was the impression received by the actual spectators of the crucifixion. "Truly," said one, "this was a righteous man!" "Truly," exclaimed others, "this was the Son of God!"

The traditions of the historic Church have preserved another theory of the death of Christ, than that which Christ and the facts and phenomena of the crucifixion give. They have distilled, out of this dark human depravity, a doctrinal significance of a most opposite character. This ostensible vice, according to the dominant theology, is the casket of purest virtue. From the dense blackness of human guilt, a light is conceived to break forth, which envelopes the throne of God in a halo of brightest holiness. This guilt of man is thus made to involve God's greatest glory. Such offence to the understanding and moral sense of mankind, is perpetrated by the traditionary theology of the dominant Churches.

Christ, however, dissipates this darkness, by a purer doctrine. No such amalgam of offensive absurdities can be found in his teaching. The crucifixion was, in his judgment, a crime against truth and justice, followed by a merited curse on its guilty perpetrators—the curse of a national blasting, and world-wide banishment. These shreds of savage sinfulness are never woven, by his hands, into a robe of righteousness, to conceal the guilty nakedness of human character,

and render our race more estimable in God's sight—they demonstrated, on the contrary, the deep depravity of the human heart, and the wonderful lengths to which human wickedness can go. And with this teaching agree the historic incidents of the crucifixion. The phenomena of this tragic sequel of the Saviour's life verify the judgment which his own lips had passed on it. We see the great Sufferer succoured by his sympathizing Father; praying for the pardon of his murderers; astonished at his sense of desertion by God, and, finally, commending himself to that Father, who, from first to last, sustained no other than a Parental attitude towards the Son in whom he was well pleased. Nothing is expressed by Christ on the cross, which indicates his consciousness of being a substitute for a guilty world; expiating its sins by the endurance of its judicial deserts. Throughout, we discover only the consciousness of the holy Son of God—bearing, meekly, the wrath and rejection of men, to exemplify the perfection of an obedience unto death. It has remained for a scholastic theology to discover a theory of judicial expiation in the Cross of Christ—a theory which transforms wrong into right—human wickedness, into a manifestation of Divine rectitude; and which asserts the possibility of what the prophet so confidently challenges, when he asks, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?"

[ To be Continued. ]

GOOD ADVICE.—Dr. Taylor, Norwich, England, at the close of one of his works says:—

"If in perusing this book you have discovered any truth you did not before understand, it is my earnest request, you would rather lay it up in your heart for your own use. than make it the subject of contention and strife, the fuel of party zeal, or the occasion of despising or censuring those who do not yet see it. And if you would enter into discourse about it, let it be with all moderation and coolness on your part; in the spirit of peace and mutual forbearance. Therefore never converse upon this, or any other point, with an angry man. Passion and heat blind the judgment: nor with a Bigot, who is determined for a scheme, and resolved to open his eyes to no further evidence. Whenever anger and bigotry appear in a conversation already begun, break it off; for, you cannot proceed to any good purpose, and will be in danger of catching a spirit which is quite contrary to the Gospel. Hold the Truth in Love. Fear God, and keep his commandments—despise [set light by] earthly things—restrain and regulate your passions—be constant in reading the Scriptures; fervent in prayer to God; kind and compassionate to all men; punctual and cheerful in every duty; humble in all your deportment; upright and honest in all your dealings; temperate and sober in all your enjoyments; patient under all afflictions; zealous in every good work; then with joy look for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, for he will assuredly appear to your everlasting salvation."

BIBLE EXAMINER.

NEW-YORK, FEBRUARY 15, 1854.

ETERNAL TORMENTS. OR, AN EXAMINATION OF REV. 14:9 to 14.

BY THE EDITOR.

"If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead or his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb; and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever, and they have no rest day nor night who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."

It is maintained, with great assurance, that this text teaches, that "eternity of eternities" is the period of the torments of all wicked men; and, therefore, proves them immortal.

In order to make this text available to our opponents, they must prove three things. First—That it is spoken of ALL wicked men. Second—That it relates to their punishment beyond this life. And, Third—That the term "for ever and ever" is used in its primary and absolute sense of endless. Neither of these points have they ever proved, and we are persuaded they never can. It is not enough for a man to affirm all these points: let them be proved. We say again, it never has been done and never can be.

Is this language used in reference to all wicked men?

We answer, no. It is a specified class, viz: "If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand." This is the class spoken of and threatened; and it comes almost infinitely short of embracing all the wicked.

Let us examine the connection and see when the "beast and his image" arose. The previous chapter shows that they did not come into existence till after the Christian era; nor indeed till the old Roman empire was in its divided state—as the ten horns clearly show—which could not have been earlier than the fourth or fifth century after Christ. Hence, the wicked spoken of in the text under consideration, did not embrace any that lived before the Christian era, nor any that lived for three or four hundred years after. Here, then, is a large exception of the wicked.

But we shall probably find a still larger exception, by an inquiry as to which beast is spoken of; for two are mentioned, viz: a ten horned beast, and a two horned one: and nearly all commentators are agreed that the two horned one came up at a much later period than the other; and some doubt if it has even appeared yet. If the two horned beast is the one spoken of in the text under consideration, then an exception must be made of the wicked during the centuries that elapsed from the rise of the first to that of the second beast. Hence here is another large number of the wicked, who are not embraced in the threatening. That it is the worshippers of the two horned beast, who are threatened, seems likely from the fact, that it is that beast that causes the image to the first to be made. Thus another period must elapse, after the second beast arose, before men could "worship his image;" and hence many other wicked would not be embraced in the judgment denounced in the text we are examining. Then we must inquire who or what power this "beast and his image" represent. Protestants, quite generally, say, it symbolizes Papacy. If that be so, then no Protestant sinners are included in the text; so that none of them need fear the threatening, whatever it embraces, unless they turn Papists. Possibly the Papist might say, the beast, &c., is Protestantism. If so, then all Catholic sinners escape. Thus, we see, it is a mere assumption to say, "The punishment foreshown, Rev. 14:9 to 11" is "precisely" that to which "all the wicked will be subjected," as "D. N. Lord" said, in his review of Dobney on Future Punishment, Theological Journal for 1850, p. 416.

The dynasty of rulers symbolized by this beast and his image are of late origin, if yet in existence; hence it is impossible that more than a small portion of the race of Adam can come under the threatening of chapter 14. This fact alone shows the absurdity of our opposers quoting it in support of their theory, which is, that all wicked men will be involved in endless torment.

Does the judgment threatened in this text relate to wicked men beyond this life?

Can our opposers prove that it does? They can assume it; but assumptions do not pass for evidence in these days of investigation. Have they any evidence of their position? If so, what is it? and where is it found? But as they have none, we proceed to affirm, that those inflictions, on the worshippers of the beast and his image, relate to judgments in this life, "on the earth," and not in some fancy hell in another world.

The previous chapter gave us an account not only of the beast and his image, but the threatening of the beast, "that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed;" verse 15. To counteract this, God caused an angel to make the terrible threatening in the text; and its appropriateness to deter men from obeying the beast is apparent.

The chapter following the text opens thus— "I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues ; and in them is filled up the wrath of God." The original is, "In them was completed the wrath of God."

Mark well, these plagues are the last on somebody; and they are to have a completion; hence it is impossible that they can be eternal, or endless. Now observe, verses 7 and 8, it is said, "One of the four vital beings gave unto the seven angels seven golden vials full of the wrath of God," &c. "And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from his power; and no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled," or completed.

Let it be distinctly noted, these plagues are THE LAST, and that they complete the wrath of God on the power to be visited; and also that no man can enter into the temple of God till they are completed. Now what follows—If these plagues, or any part of them, fall on the wicked spoken of in chap. 14: 9—11, then either no man ever can enter the temple of God, or the wrath spoken of will have been completed, or finished. Now listen—"I heard a great voice out of the temple, saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God [where?] upon THE EARTH:" not in hell, nor the moon, nor any other fancy location. "And the first went and poured out his vial upon the earth." Well, what happened? "And there fell a noisome and griervous sore upon the men which had THE MARK OF THE BEAST, and upon them which worshipped HIS IMAGE."

Here is the commencement of the exact fulfillment of the threatening in chap. 14. There we find the threatening; here the wrath in a course

of accomplishment, and it has not missed the persons threatened. These plagues are all to fall on men upon the earth; chap. 16:1; they are the "filling up of the wrath of God"—and they are "the last:" and till they are filled up and completed, no man can enter the temple of God: then what becomes of "the eternity of eternities" of their torment? It has passed away, like other fancies of mere theorists.

The judgments embraced in these seven last plagues are fully developed in the 16th, 17th. 18th, and 19th chapters, and result in the entire destruction of "Babylon the great"—which seems to be only another symbol of the beast. Babylon is judged, condemned, thrown down, burned with fire, and to "be found no more at all," chap. 19:21. The terrible torments inflicted on her, and her devotees, as set forth in the chapters named, is a full and perfect fulfillment of chap. 14:9 to 11; and it is seen to be "on the earth;" and no support or countenance is given to the assumption of endless sin and torment.

As we have shown that the threatened wrath is to be "upon the earth," and that it must have a completion, or no man can ever enter the "temple in heaven," it is unnecessary to spend time to prove that the term, forever and ever, in the text, is used, as often elsewhere, to signify no more than a protracted period, without defining its exact length. We might greatly extend our remarks on this subject; but we trust we have said enough to convince all candid inquirers, and more would not avail with bigots, and dealers in mere assumptions.

"BEARING THE CROSS."

BY THE EDITOR.

Much is said, among professed Christians, about "bearing the cross;" but we fear little is understood or really practised in this manner. Some seem to think speaking in meeting is the cross they must bear; and when they have done that they think little more about the cross. We apprehend that is a very small item in bearing the cross. Men are all naturally in love with this present world. To this world we must become crucified. Crucifixion is a hard death; but few persons are willing to die such a death; there is, however, no other way of entering into the kingdom of God. We must be "crucified unto the world, and the world unto" us. Most professed Christians, it is to be feared, have made a covenant with the world, not to part with it; and the tempter satisfies them if they speak in meeting some times, and give something to support the gospel, they may keep their covenant with the world: but, "If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him."

1 John 2:15.

How then are we to be separated from the love of the world, and be crucified unto it? First—By a believing view of the Lord Jesus Christ, who became poor—was despised of men—a man of sorrow, acquainted with grief—endured reproach—resisted temptation, though he "suffered, being tempted"—when he was reviled, reviled not again—murmured not, though wounded, bruised, put to grief, and his soul made an offering for sin. scourged, spit upon, his hands and feet pierced with nails, his soul in agony—all this he bore, and no lisp of impatience ever escaped him. Would you be crucified unto the world, go learn of him; contemplate his poverty—his life—his sufferings—his resignation—his patience—his loving and forgiving spirit, till the whole mind is humbled within you: and then realize this truth—"If so be we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." Rom. 8:17. Do you ask what it is to suffer with him? We answer—To suffer with the same meek, patient, forgiving, resigned spirit that he had. This leads us to say—

Second—If you would bear your cross and be crucified unto the world, REMEMBER, every trial of your life—whether temporal or spiritual, personal or family, from friends or enemies, direct or indirect, great or small, of short continuance, or long, or whatever be the nature or character of it, is by the appointment or permission of that God who willeth not the death of the sinner, but who is seeking by all these trials to crucify you unto the world, and fit you to be glorified with his Son Jesus Christ. How shall this design of our heavenly Father be accomplished? It cannot be, unless you "bear your cross." Do you ask again—What is it to bear my cross? We answer—It is to suffer all the trials, of which we have spoken, patiently. You are not to quarrel with the instrumentality God may employ, nor indulge in fretfulness under it. If you do you do not "bear the cross." And though you should speak like an angel in meeting, yet if you fret and complain under any of the trials of life, by which God is seeking to crucify you unto the world, it is hypocrisy for you to talk about your "bearing the cross"—you are but deceiving your own soul. God has assured us, "all things work together for good to them that love him;" Rom. 8:28; yet, you can murmur, fret, and complain at those things which God has permitted or appointed!! Alas, alas! Do not dream you are ripening for the kingdom of God while this is the case. No, you are ripening for death--for perdition. Saith our Saviour—"In your PATIENCE possess ye your souls." We shall learn soon, or when it is too late, that those words are words of solemn and awful import. If you indulge in murmuring, complaining, or impatience at any trials, insults, sufferings, or injuries, from whatever instrumentality

they may come, and that spirit is increasing upon you, you are just as surely traveling in the road to perdition as God has said—"The soul that sinneth it shall die." We speak not now of one "overtaken in a fault," to which all are liable in the hour of temptation, but we speak of him upon whom this spirit is not abating but increasing—and it is increasing, except we bear our cross daily: for every day will bring some cross, in some form. Happy the soul who is constantly looking to God for grace to bear every cross. We may pray to have the cross removed; but we may not pray for it only in submission to the will of God. "If it be possible let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not my will but thine be done." That is our example; and we cannot safely follow any other. "My grace is sufficient for thee," will often be the answer; and did we know now what we shall know hereafter, we should praise God for every trial and every cross we have to bear: yea, a living faith will praise God even now, that he does not leave us to our own way, lest we should be like the children of Israel, whose impatient murmurings were answered by giving them "flesh," but "leanness" was "sent into their souls." "Be patient in all things:" that is bearing thy cross; then, when Christ appears, you shall have a crown.

"Why Serve the Lord?"—The following article was published in the Examiner, August, 1846. We publish it just as it was written then; not to show how true were our forebodings, but because we wish again to impress the minds of all with the importance of serving God from principle. At the time this article was written there was a movement on definite time for the Advent in 1847, as there is now in some parts of this country for it this year, 1854.

WHY SERVE THE LORD?

According to my observations, all, or nearly all the exhortations of professed " Adventists," to saints and sinners, to serve God, are based upon this one thing—"Do it, for the Lord is coming-You will perish then if you do not serve him."

Such exhortations are proper enough in their place: but to make them the burden of our message to saints and sinners, in my judgment, is nothing more than an appeal to the selfishness of the human heart. It seems to say—If the Lord was not coming so soon, you need not be so particular to serve him!!

Every child of man on earth is under just as much obligation to serve God, with all his heart, if Christ was not coming these hundred years, as if he was coming to-day. The obligation to serve God lies much higher than the mere fact that the day is most over. This appeal to any man will seldom, if ever, produce genuine preparation to meet God.

The reaction that will take place if '46 and '47 pass by as they may, without witnessing the advent, will be disastrous beyond all conception. Experience proves this—I mean the experience of '43 and '44. Where are the great majority of those now who, professedly, were "aroused to serve God" as they ought by that cry of time for the Lord's coming? And echo says—where!!! Scarcely one in ten of them are now found walking so as to honor their Christian profession. Why not? They were stimulated by wrong motives. Their selfishness was the principal thing appealed to and excited. They were just like the sinner who thinks himself nigh to death on a sick bed or in a storm at sea. If he must die, he will become a Christian. If he knew he was out of danger, he would be as indifferent as ever. Repentance under such circumstances is always of a doubtful character; and, where the person has survived, has almost invariably proved a delusion. Why is it so? Because their selfishness was all that was moved. There was no deep sorrow for the dishonor done to God by a life of sin; or abhorrence of sin on that account. No: if they could escape the dreadful consequences which they fear for their sins, no penitence would be seen in them; they would still "roll sin as a sweet morsel under their tongues." Just so the preaching of definite time for the advent, and urging sinners to get ready, because the Lord was coming so soon, and they would be destroyed if not ready, has been demonstrated, in general, to have had no other effect upon saint or sinner than to move their selfish feelings. The cause of excitement failing, they are the same careless souls as ever, or seeking new fancies to keep up their excited minds, which must result, if repeated disappointments occur, in deep disaster if not in ultimate ruin. Not a few have already passed into that state of mind that must, without an extraordinary exertion of the grace of God, land them in endless ruin.

For what are Christ's disciples left in this world? Is it just to get safe out of it? Or, is it to glorify God and the Lamb upon earth? Or, which is the same thing, it is, that they may be lights in the world: yea, "THE LIGHT OF the world"—that they may "let" their "light so shine before men that they may see your good works. and glorify your Father which is in heaven." Who has God to glorify him on earth? The Son of God is not here to do it. He was here, and said, when about to leave,—"I have finished the work Thou gavest me to do." He is not here now to glorify God before men. Angels cannot do that work on earth: wicked men will not do it. Who then shall do it? The followers of Christ. Are they under any more obligation to do it if their Lord is to return to-day than if he was not coming for a hundred years? Certainly not. To show a greater concern to do so on that account, manifests too much the spirit of an eye-servant. He thinks the master is soon coming—the day is

nearly ended—he will be all engaged in the work just at that moment!! He has been sluggish all the day—has taken little or no interest in his master's cause, and would have done nothing only he was "afraid." Efforts have been made to rouse him to his duty to his employer—all has been unavailing till he is told that employer is coming: he is then aroused and outstrips all the other laborers in activity and zeal!! Is it love to his employer and his service that has thus aroused him? Not at all. His course is perfectly hypocritical. He thinks to secure the master's favor by his present extraordinary exertions, and perhaps is ready to condemn those who have kept constantly engaged in their work all the day long, because they do not just now manifest the same zeal and activity that he does. He is now all activity, I repeat it, not from love to the work or the master; but, the reckoning time is so near; and he has just cause to fear condemnation for his past neglect. Watch that man carefully. The report that the master was coming at that particular time proves to be erroneous, and it is now uncertain when he will come. What do we now see? Ten chances to one if you do not see that same zealous do-every-thing, when he thought the master was right upon him, now slack off—grow weary—lay down—fall asleep, and perhaps never wake again till the cry—"The master is here."

Let us work while it is day—and all the day; and work too, because—We have a good Master, who has loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood. Let gratitude to him stimulate us to do all in our power to promote his honor or glory in the earth. Have we no concern for the glory of God and the Lamb? Have we any too much time to do this work in? Shall we wish, like the eye-servant, the day was gone? If so, do we not discover more concern for rest, or wages, than we do to have accomplished much for God and our Lord Jesus Christ? Should we not be as ready and cheerful to labor and suffer too, to promote the glory of God in a wicked world, as to reap the promised reward? And should we not rejoice, if we are accounted worthy to be continued longer in the field, that we may sow and reap a larger crop for our blessed, loving Lord and Master? Why this haste to have our labors and suffering for Christ ended? Should we not rather desire that we may be able to do and suffer much for him who has done and suffered so much for us? Oh, my brother, let us leave the "times and the seasons" for the coming of the Son of God where he taught us to leave them, viz. "in the Father's own power," Acts 1: 6, 7, and go to our work in the love of it, that we may glorify God on the earth and finish the work he has given us to do; then we need have no fear but that when he comes, however sudden or unexpected it may be, he will give us the "crown of life." Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, mind, and strength, and thy neighbor as thyself, is just as obliga tory, on us all, at any period of life, or any age of the world, as the day the Lord will come: and no period, or time of the world, can change, alter, abate, or increase that obligation.

…