The Bible Examiner — Vol. 9, No. 11 (June 1, 1854)

Download: PDF — The Bible Examiner — Vol. 9, No. 11 (June 1, 1854)

BIBLE EXAMINER.

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

VOL. IX.

NEW YORK, JUNE 1, 1854.

NO.11.

PUBLISHED SEMI-MONTHLY

At No.130 Fulton-street.

Always in Advance.

GEO. STORRS, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR.

ETERNITAS REVIEWED.

BY REV. WM. G. MONCRIEF.

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

[Continued from page 179, Vol.8.]

In concluding our last notice of Mr. Bathgate's work, we left for the consideration of our readers a long extract, which we respectfully urge them to re-peruse, as it seems unnecessary to quote it on this occasion. The extract contains Mr. B.'s solitary direct argument from Scripture in behalf of universal human immortality, or rather of human souls. We remarked on the former time, "That the passage was given by Mr. Bathgate to demonstrate the immortality of the human soul, and the word soul is not in it!" an alarming fact for his argumentation, and one we shall carefully keep in mind. It is disgraceful, and we write this with pain, to build up a pretended argument for the immortality of the soul on a passage that has no reference, at least, direct reference, to souls of any kind. This is conduct that would not be tolerated in the ranks of science for a day, and it ought to be excluded from religious controversy.

Further, we remark, that supposing our Lord in his address to the Sadducees, when he says, "neither can they die any more," refers to the whole of the resurrected human race, this would still leave Mr. B. destitute of valid proof of human immortality. Reflect a moment, and this comes out as demonstration. Mark, then, our Master says, "neither can they die any more," and the no more death in the future is necessarily to be determined as to its meaning, by the death that has happened to the resurrected in the past; just in the same way as if one were to tell a poor man he would on no after occasion feel the want of money, he would know what, according to this promise, he was never to re-experience, by what he had endured in bye-gone days. "Neither can they die any more,"—how had they died previously? It was by death they had become fit subjects for a resurrection,—in what sense had they died? This is the piercing question, one that we must have answered before our author can be permitted to hoist the flag of victory. Overlooking this question entirely, his deductions, no doubt are rather plausible: but the moment it

is taken into consideration, we find his great proof to be destitute of strength. His friends expected an irrefragable, heresy-defying, and heresy-demolishing argument, and lo, it can be easily manifested, there comes up again but the old assumption of man's immortality in a new dress, and on a new stage. Here is the evidence of this strong assertion. And for the better elucidation of it, let us suppose a man is before us after the resurrection has taken place; he consists, as Mr. B. assures us, of two parts at least,—body and soul. Now, let us further imagine this person to ask, "Am I Immortal?" Mr. B. would respond, of course, "yes," and his main consideration for the questioner's satisfaction would be the words of the blessed Redeemer, "Neither can they die any more." Now, here, as already stated, we have a death spoken of which the party is supposed to have undergone, and with which he is well acquainted from experience. The death already endured is the key to the death never to be tasted afresh. Well, then, what was the ante-resurrection death? This man had died, but it is to be borne in mind that he had never lost consciousness, for, according to Mr. B.'s theory, his soul—substantially himself, our author being judge,—had always been alive, and endowed with pleasing or painful experience in heaven or hell, as the case might be; in fact, as this man had only in his death been disembodied, expelled for the time from a fleshly tabernacle, the words "neither can they die any more," could only intimate to him at best that he will never again be disembodied in any after period of his new or resurrected career. He is not to die,—that is, be disembodied—any more! So Mr. B, understands death: in this sense he believes our Lord to have used the word "die," when on other occasions he referred to that event. Had our author contended for a universal resurrection to immortal existence, and freely admitted that death was not a transition to another state of conscious being, but the entire, though temporary, loss of conscious being itself, he might have argued as he has done; but understanding death to be simple disembodiment, the consolation he gives to an inquiring mind on the point in hand is utterly worthless. The resurrected person before us is supposed to inquire if he is immortal,—Mr. B. tells him, he will never be anew disembodied, and leaves him in the dark as to how long this conscious re-embodied existence shall last. The man asked bread and he has got a stone: he wished hope of unending being, and a reed that has neither length nor breadth is put into his hand. What though he shall never be disembodied, may he not cease to exist? The thing is possible,—and may not a soul go out of conscious existence in a body, as well as out of it? Mr. B., then, by his reply to the man's awful query, "Am I immortal?"

might just as wisely respond to him, you will never need food again,—or clothing,—you will never again be subject to diseases you bore on earth, as to say, "you cannot die anew," i.e., enter afresh on disembodied existence. All that may be certain, but still comes up the tremendous demand, "May I not, while embodied, cease to be?" To that question our author gives no reply. Supposing that he is sound as to the universality of the reference to the words,—"neither can they die any more;" had he accepted death in its natural and common-sense meaning,—in the meaning in which he is showing that men are to be exempt eternally from dissolution, as here affirmed in the promise, he might have gloried in being able to give such a decided and unequivocal answer to our imaginary resurrected querist; but he cannot get the benefit of a meaning in the reply of our Lord, which he does not admit to be contained in the question he is understood to be solving and settling. Can they die any more? is the question which Mr. B. understands the Savior chiefly to answer, but he uses the word die in the question, not as it is employed by Jesus, in his deliverance. The value of the Savior's words to Mr. B.'s purpose is in this, that Jesus delivers the doctrine of the deathlessness of the resurrected, and makes no reference whatever to disembodiment; whereas, but when the writer understands death as only disembodiment, all that he can reverentially imagine the Savior to promise consistently, was something in harmony with the supposed need or wish, an exemption from another disembodiment, which of course is in itself no security against entire subsequent destruction of being. He supposes Jesus to reply to a question in harmony with the popular theory as to man's dissolution, in a sense fitting to a question in accordance with our views of the human constitution and death. This cannot be allowed our author. He must be consistent, and consistency is the death of his argumentation.

We might now logically deliver over Mr. B.'s vaunted solitary argument for universal human immortality to its fate, and pass on to examine other paragraphs of his volume. But we can afford to be generous to our readers, as well as faithful to the writer. We shall consider the passage in Luke more fully, as well as some of the reasoning in this work regarding it, which has not yet attracted our notice. It is a mass of forced argumenting from first to last, and serves the purpose of showing how strained an effort is needed to give a rather plain passage a meaning which it never can contain, with a view to keep up a system of crumbling orthodoxy.

With a design to give Mr. B. the fullest advantage of his reasoning, we shall in the meantime assume that there is no invalidating weakness in the word "die," as he understands it; in other words, that the promise, "neither can they die any more," expresses the absolute idea of immortality; and now proceed for a while to determine who are those pledged with endless existence. The weakness of his argument, we have discovered, consists in this, that the Savior's declaration, so often quoted, must employ the term "die" in its natural sense, as loss of being, if it is to be of any service in the grand

controvery, is man according to Scripture, an heir of immortality? and which Mr. B. asserts in the promising words, to be decided in the affirmative; and this being the sense of the word "die," when it is promised that the event will never happen again, it must be so understood in the past history of each of the resurrected, being in the history of each of them an event which has happened once when they passad into the silence of the tomb: but in this sense during the ante-resurrection period, Mr. B. does not understand death, for he holds it to be simply disembodiment involving no actual loss of conscious experience. If the death referred to by Jesus was such a death as Mr. B. understands to happen to every son of Adam when he expires, then he only promises in the post-resurrection future exemption from such a death as the parties spoken of had undergone in this state, i.e., an exemption from disembodiment. But let us suppose the death undergone to be the same as the death from which exemption is promised, i.e., literal death, or death in the sense in which the words "neither can they die any more," must be held if they are to express immortality of being, and proceed to search for an answer to the question to whom is this prospect opened up? Who are to live for ever? Mr. B. says all; we humbly think that even here he fails again, for the more natural interpretation is that which confines it to a class, viz., the righteous. The extension of the words before us to the ungodly, whatever they essentially import, is something almost new in the annals of interpretation, and a procedure that should have been defended by clearer reasons than those adduced before such a hazardous assertion was made. To whom, then, is the promise delivered, "neither can they die any more?"

We have tried to view the whole passage from the side of Mr. B. and his friends, but confess that the longer we have thus beheld it, the more we have been astonished at the vision of those who assert it clearly announces by its signs universal immortality. They see what we cannot find;—we suspect they discover what their theory leads them to wish may be there. The reasoning by which the passage is claimed for the popular side appears to us forced and vain. Overlooking the grand difficulty we have presented, every nerve is strung to pull it over to the help of the orthodoxy: but it stands in its own place, and we feel sure it cannot be moved. We must now quote a few sentences from Mr. B. in confirmation of what we have just declared as to the character of his reasoning; and as matter for some future observation, he says:

"The first clause requiring elucidation is in verse 35 : 'They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead,' &c. By those who say that the righteous only are meant in these words, it is maintained that the term accounted worthy necessarily implies that the persons entering the future world and raised from the dead, have a virtuous moral character, on account of which the destiny here mentioned is awarded, or that entrance on the future world, and the resurrection from the dead, are peculiar favors conferred on the good. The phrase accounted worthy, does not necessarily bind us to think either of moral desert or moral fitness. Evidently none but God can judge as to the propriety of drawing out men's lives beyond the present scene.

May not God deem the human race, as such, apart from virtuous features of moral character, worthy of the destiny here indicated? We think he does. So far as human knowledge extends, God has not deemed the brute creation worthy of a resurrection, or future life. But that he has deemed the human body worthy of a resurrection, and the human soul worthy of a future life, irrespective of the moral condition of the departed, is matter of no revelation. 'There shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust.' 'The hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.' Most explicitly do those verses teach us that God shall deem it proper to summon all bodies from the grave, and all souls to the future world. Thus we are told who shall be deemed worthy of such a destiny. The ground of the destiny of a resurrection, or a future life, is not stated. Probably it lies in the nature of man, as a rational and responsible being. There is then the clearest evidence that all men shall be raised from the dead, and shall enter the great futurity. Next follows the emphatic deliverance, that all the resuscitated,—all those who enter the future world, are immortal.—'Neither can they die any any more.'"—pp. 65, 66.

There is a point in the passage from Luke which Mr. B. has entirely neglected, and one which it is not convenient for truth or our argument that it should be ignored. This is it; the Savior's words, "the resurrection from the dead," are more literally, the resurrection from among the dead. It is the same resurrection that Paul was striving to obtain. "If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead,"—Philippians 3:2. The verse, as it stands thus, is only fitted to perplex ordinary readers, since they will naturally wonder what was the design of any striving on Paul's part to reach what, on common christian consent, he was sure of, whether he strove for it or no,—a resurrection from the dead. The Greek is plain; it is a resurrection from among the dead he was laboring to attain unto. He wanted to rise in the first awakening; not to sleep on till the wicked, the heirs of condemnation, would be summoned from the dust. It was the resurrection here spoken of by the Savior that the Apostle was thristing for, and no wonder, since its heirs are to die no more, and to be as the angels of God in heaven. The very language of the Savior, then, obviously limits the reference in the promise "neither can they die any more," to those who have had, because they were deemed worthy of it, a resurrection out from among the dead, or the corpses. Moreover, the remarks on the words, "they which shall be accounted worthy," we deem very poor and far-fetched. What Mr. White says in his reply to the Rev. John Hinton's criticism on this passage, is worthy of perusal: "Mr. Hinton," says Mr. White, "is obliged by the exigencies of his argument, to attempt to get rid of the idea of moral desert or holy character, which is suggested by the verb of which the words (be accounted worthy) are a translation. His attempt appears to me, if I may say so without offence, to be a signal

failure; for it is notorious that the most obvious rendering of the verb, and of the whole phrase, does involve the notion of peculiar personal qualification. While, therefore, he professes himself content to follow the critical guidance of Schleusner (who seems to have shared in the author's desire to discover the immortality of mankind in the passage before us), and of the elegant Castalio, I must profess myself content to follow the guidance of nearly all critics and commentators of chief repute, and of our venerable translators, re-echoing the rendering of Wicliff, Tyndale, Cranmer, and the versions of Geneva and Rheims, in retaining the common translation of the entire passage, which indisputably supports the opinion that our Savior referred in his answer to the righteous alone. 'The exigency of the passage, and general considerations, decide its meaning.' They who are in the eye of the Judge worthy of a resurrection from among the dead,—i.e., the first resurrection,—shall by and by come forth, and having put on incorruptibility, they shall die no more. Having striven, like Paul, for such a resurrection, it shall be their portion. With a view still further to extend the bearing of the words to the whole race, "neither can they die any more," our author handles the expressions "equal unto the angels" are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection, in a manner similar to his treatment of the phrase, "accounted worthy." To consider his expositions at great length, would not tend to edification. Equal to the angels, he makes as if it had run, all angels; whereas in another place we find it was the "angels of God in heaven," (Matt. 22:30), to whom our Lord made reference. If there is any meaning in words, it could be no great comfort to tell the resurrected as a security of their deathlessness, that they would be equal to angels, "fallen," when they are like their leader, destined to perdition. "The children of God," being "the children of the resurrection," is another part of our Lord's speech which is plundered of beauty to serve a purpose. They are children of God, it seems, whether saints or sinners, in the same sense as we would affix to the words "we are his offspring;" being resurrected from the dead by divine power, is supposed to afford a title to this designation, analogous to that which is involved in original creation. That any person will naturally assign these cold and barren senses to the expressions under notice, we can scarcely believe; and hence there is less need for a special effort to redeem them from any injury they have sustained from the hands of a few, who have found it necessary to put forth some reckless efforts by their agency, to save a sinking theology from utter submersion.

As far as we have gone in the consideration of our Lord's reply to the question of the Sadducees, we may learn four things :—1st. That there it to be a resurrection from among the dead; 2nd. That moral worthiness is to be the ground of it; 3rd. That its heirs are not to marry, or be given in marriage; 4th. They are to die no more, for they shall be equal to the angels of God in heaven. All these points are closely connected, and have a direct bearing on the case presented to our Lord by his Sadducean adversaries.

They proposed the question, "in the resurrection whose wife of them (i.e., of the seven brethren) is she? for seven had her to wife?" The authoritative reply is, that the resurrected he refers to, are neither to marry nor to be giveu in marriage; and the other points, they are to die no more—they are to equal the angels of God in heaven, bear out the idea—dimly we grant, but still as clearly as it can now probably be made,—that a new order of things shall then be founded, and the sons of this resurrection will be differently constituted from what is found in this mortal and soulish period of the history of man. So far the Sadducees were amply replied to—there was to be no marrying, for things would be quite different in that world, or age, from what we see now. The Sadducees imagined that the resurrection would produce an entire identity with the condition of men before death; our Lord shows them otherwise, and turns aside a difficulty that may have sprung up and fastened itself upon his doctrine of resurrection.

At this point it may be wise to advert to another consideration that has been brought forward in favor of the universal reference of the words, "neither can they die any more." It is the very question of the Sadducees, involving all the parties who had been husbands to this daughter of Abraham, as well as the woman herself. The Sadducees say nothing about the righteous, we are told, among her husbands, they appear to make their question quite general; and the exposition of the reply of our Lord, which confines it to righteous parties, represents him, it is added, as not meeting his questioners fairly and candidly. We answer, there is no reason whatever, for supposing that the Sadducees did not refer to all the husbands, and to the woman herself as righteous characters. Indeed, in connection with what other character could they think the question they proposed, worth raising for solution? Jesus taught a resurrection, and it was his doctrine that excited their speculative curiosity. But, if it was his doctrine, then, as we believe, they must have understood him to teach, that if the righteous rose to live, the wicked ascended from the dust to die. He spoke of them as being burned in "unquenchable fire," which was just a strong manner of expressing their entire consumption in Gehenna. Here was no need then for referring to any but holy characters,—those who would gain, as he taught, the resurrection to everlasting life. And would the Sadducees understand this? We answer, the end of the wicked is as clearly taught as the doctrine of the resurrection; and we are bound to admit, that they equally apprehended both. Let it be observed, we affirm not that they approved the Savior's doctrine about the future destinies of men; all we insist upon is this, that they had as good opportunities for learning what he delivered about the end of the resurrected wicked, as about the fact that he disclosed the doctrine of a resurrection at all. When this is taken into consideration, and there is not, as far as we see, the shadow of a reason why it ought even to be questioned, the reference of Jesus in his answer, to the extent we have considered it, is to the resurrection brought forward for his

consideration, viz., the resurrection of the righteous, for it was only to his doctrine regarding them, that the question, "whose wife shall she be?" could sanely be propounded, inasmuch as the condemned could not have time for any fresh alliances like the one specified, their doom being to perish in their sins, and that without any delay. The longer we consider the passage it seems, therefore, wise, nay imperiously demanded by the necessities of the case, to restrict the reference of the grand words, "neither can they die any more," to the righteous alone.

THE CROSS-A REVIEW.

BY HENRY GREW.

Our respected friend, Mr. Ham, quotes the words of Paul, expressing his desire to "fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church." After giving Mr. Barnes' exposition of the passage, Mr. Ham affirms, "In his view they ('Christ's sufferings') were exemplary, not expiatory." I am assured that he will allow me to do Mr. Barnes the justice of correcting this inference. On reference to Mr. B.'s comments on Rom. 3: 25, he will find the following plain and positive declaration:—"It means that God has publicly exhibited Jesus Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of men." "In what sense," asks Mr. B., "is he declared to be a propitiation?" He answers (1) "The main idea, in regard to the cover of the ark, called the mercy-seat, was that of God's being reconciled to his people; this is the main idea in regard to the Lord Jesus, whom 'God hath set forth.' (2.) This reconciliation was effected then by the sprinkling of the blood on the mercy seat. Lev. 16: 15. The same is true of the Lord Jesus—by blood. (3.) In the former case it was the blood of atonement; the offering of the bullock on the great day of atonement, that the reconciliation was effected. Lev. 16: 17, 18. In the case of the Lord Jesus it was also by blood; by the blood of atonement. But it was by his own blood. This the apostle distinctly states in this verse. (4.) In the former case there was a sacrifice, or expiatory offering; and so it is in reconciliation by the Lord Jesus. In the former, the mercy-seat was the visible, declared place where God would express his reconciliation with his people. So in the latter, the offering of the Lord Jesus is the manifest and open way by which God will be reconciled to men. (5.) In the former, there was joined the idea of a sacrifice for sin. Lev. 16. So in the latter, and hence the main idea of the apostle here is to convey the idea of a sacrifice for sin; or to set forth the Lord Jesus as such a sacrifice. Hence the word "propitiation" in the original may express the idea of a propitiatory sacrifice, as well as the cover to the ark. This meaning accords also with its elastic meaning to denote a propitiatory offering, or an offering to produce reconciliation. Christ is thus represented, not as a mercy-seat, which would be unintelligible; but as the medium, the offering, the EXPIATION, by which reconciliation is produced between God and man."

Our friend will perceive, from the above quotations, that so far from Mr. Barnes considering the sufferings of Christ "not expiatory," he considered this "the main idea" of the apostle in Rom. 3:25, 26.

He also makes this general remark, "When therefore the blood of Christ is spoken of in the New Testament, it means the offering of his life as a sacrifice, or his death as an EXPIATION." Mr. B. indeed truly affirms that the apostle desired "to be just like Christ: alike in moral character, in suffering, and in destiny:" i.e., I apprehend, holy in character, patient in suffering, and to share in his Master's sufferings, and in the glory which is to follow. Mr. Ham may as well infer that these words of Mr. Barnes exclude the truth, that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church and King in Zion, because he says the apostle desired to be "in destiny""just like Christ,"as to infer that his words exclude expiation because he says the apostle desired to be "in suffering""just like Christ."

Our friend remarks, "The Cross of the 'orthodox' churches is the symbol of ideas exclusively identified with Christ as the fulfiller in behalf of the human race, of a mission, which the moral government demanded, and which they could not fulfil themselves. It symbolizes the competency to do and suffer, what divine justice made indispensable to the forgiveness of men's sins and their acceptance with God, but for which mankind are wholly incompetent."

Whether or not the Cross was that "which the moral government demanded," the reader may determine for himself by reference to Rom. 3:25,26; Heb. 9:22,&c. If the gracious fact, that the saved are "reconciled to God by the death of his Son," does not teach that fallen man is "wholly incompetent" to reconcile himself to God, does it not necessarily follow, that his agonizing death, for this purpose, was nugatory and superfluous?

It is objected that "according to Christ's teaching—man himself must have a Cross—and take up his cross," &c.; but according to the "orthodox" view, "Christ alone can touch the Cross—he alone can 'take up' the cross, because he alone can express its significance and fulfill its conditions." What is the argument here? It is this, if the disciple cannot bear a cross in all respects as his Master, he cannot bear any cross at all. I ask our intelligent friend if this is sound reasoning? I ask him to take a more enlarged view of "Christ's teaching." The dear Savior indeed has taught that every true disciple "takes up" his cross and "bears" it; but when, I ask, for the holy truth's sake, did he ever teach that any disciple must take up his cross, or "shed" his "blood—FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS," as he taught respecting his own Cross? Certainly, for the honor of the Son of the Blessed, we maintain that, in this sense, "Christ alone can touch the cross—he alone can express its significance and fulfill its conditions." We do say, in reference to this point, to men and angels, to cherubim and seraphim, "stand off," presume not to share an iota of the honor of the Son of God as "the propitiation—for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2:2. Penitent and believing sinners have indeed a precious and glorious "inheritance" in the Cross, but "the Christianity of the New Testament," while it recognizes some important similarity between the Cross of the Master and that of his disciple, recognizes also an important distinction. This I have proved by the Savior's own words above quoted, and by numerous other passages. This, I submit, proves the fallacy of our friend's inference from the passages relative to the disciple bearing the cross, that "the idea of expiation cannot enter into its doctrinal significance" in respect to the Cross of Christ.

Phil. 3 : 10, it is asked, "If Christ's 'sufferings' and 'death' were expiatory, how could Paul suppose that his sufferings could be in fellowship with those of Christ, and his death be conformable to, or resemble, Christ's death?" I reply that they could not be so in all respects, but that they could be so in various respects. I respectfully submit to Mr. Ham, whether or not the oversight of this important distinction is not an error interwoven with his eloquent writings. Paul's sufferings were "in fellowship with those of Christ," inasmuch as they were endured in the same holy warfare with the powers of darkness, and for the manifestation of the same holy truth. In this important sense his death was conformable or resembled that of his divine Master. As Mr, H. himself remarks, "The experience of Christ and his disciples is one in principle, when they suffer for righteousness' sake, and one in actual fact, when, like their Master, their uncompromising fidelity costs them their life's blood. Then they drink of the cup that he drank of and are baptized with the baptism wherewith he was baptized." In this respect, they had "a common experience with Christ," but this is no proof that Christ had no other experience in which they could not participate.

The General of an army, with his subordinate officers and all his soldiers, have "a common experience;" engaged in the same cause, exposed to similar dangers, toils, and sufferings, they have a common fellowship. Yet there is an important distinction. The General occupies a "unique" position: on him devolves the authority and responsibility of supreme command. In this, not a man in the entire army can participate. Many may fall on the sanguinary field, but the death of the General may be attended with consequences which attach to none other. So the Captain of Salvation and his followers are engaged in the same warfare, and have fellowship in its toils and sufferings, and final glorious victory, the passage to which is through the same gate of death. Yet the death of the former may involve consequences to which the death of the latter may have no claim. As the "one Lord," "Mediator," "Head," and "King," he stands "unique" in unrivalled glory.

Our talented friend must yet unite with us "in the new song, saying, Thou art worthy—for thou wast slain, and has redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation."

"THE DOCTRINE OF THE CROSS."—The concluding article of Br. HAM on this subject will appear in our next. The amount of original matter on hand seemed to make it necessary to lay it over this time. We trust this question can be as calmly discussed as any other. Till a writer denies Bible authority, we do not judge him out of our christian sympathy if his tempers and life are in harmony with Jesus.—[EDITOR.

A TEST APPLIED.

Br. Storrs—The Rev. R.S.Foster, of your city, in his work on Holiness or Christian Purity, as taught by the Methodists, has some excellent remarks in reply to objections made against that doctrine by its opponents. I should like to call attention to those remarks when applied to the doctrine of the non-immortality of man. Under the head of objections considered, chapter 4th, he says :—

"To the doctrine taught in the foregoing chapters, it is admitted there are some seeming objections; and to what truths are there not? Nor would we account them insignificant. They are apparently weighty and serious; and however clear and conclusive we may think the reasonings upon which the doctrine is based, it is by no means complete until these objections are candidly and completely answered. The work is but half done, when what we conceive to be a clear chain of scriptural and argumentative proofs is presented to the reader. Opposite proofs are presented by antagonists equally respectable for numbers, talents, and piety with ourselves, to disprove our views, and no dogmatism, no assurance, no attenuated chain of reasoning, will meet the case, if there are grave objections unanswered. Errorists declaim much about evidence—make great show of proof—adduce long lists of arguments—flourish trumpets of reasoning; but they avoid the rencontre with objections—they find no heart for this.

"The reason is apparent: much that is plausible may be said in favor of any proposition, but a real objection is difficult to answer, and unanswered must create doubt, if it does not prove fatal. One valid objection is fatal to a million proofs. Truth has no real objections, error has many. Nor would we, in meeting objections, present them in a weak and impaired, aspect. Let us contemplate them in all their strength—in their utmost force. This because it is our interest to know the truth and nothing less, nothing else. We have no interest to dissemble in favor of any theory, however cherished. It is truth alone that we are concerned to know. What, then, are the difficulties encompassing the doctrine for which we contend? Why should we give it a questioning reception, and not at once, with warm cordiality, welcome it into the chamber of our confidence? There are a number of seeming reasons: I say seeming reasons because I hope to show, however plausible, they are not real. They are of sufficient importance to cause to closely examine our ground, but not sufficiently invincible, as I hope, to cause us to abandon it or leave our opposers without excuse.

"1st. The first objection offered is this: The doctrine cannot be true because many Christians do not receive it, the most learned and excellent divines in great numbers do not receive it, it is not now, and it has not been the belief of the majority of the Church. Many, with undoubted ability and sincerity, have studied the Scriptures for a whole life time, have never found this doctrine therein taught; but an opposite and antagonistic doctrine? How is this to be explained? Were

these men, the majority, in error? Were they not equal in ability to arrive at the truth with their opposers? Were they not as candid and sincere? Why then must we believe they were in error? This is no trifling objection. He would be rashly indiscreet, foolishly self-assured, who could turn away from it without consideration.

"But what then have we to weigh against this objection to break its force? An array of other great names, an equal amount of learning and respectability, and candor, and application? No. This might balance, but not settle the difficulty. We meet it with the word of the Lord! One 'Thus saith the Lord' is more powerful than all the opinions of all the men the world ever contained. The objection is apparently strong, but really feeble. Feeble, because it carries the doctrine to an improper tribunal. It brings incompetent evidence. It is not a question dependent on human opinions, however respectable and worthy of credit; it appeals to one, single, and transcendently higher umpire—the Word of God. But what then? Who shall judge what the word of God is? Let every man examine for himself, as he must give an account, and so judge. If he finds the doctrine therein let him embrace it; if not, let him reject it! This is all—this is plain."

Now, if all the array of objections enumerated above are "feeble, without force, and falacious, are incompetent evidences, and not worthy of credit, because it carries the doctrine to an improper tribunal, and the only tribunal or umpire is the Word of God," the subject is brought down to a very narrow compass; as "the Scriptures authorize the doctrine, and this in a great variety of methods, with great clearness and frequency, it is not readily to be credited that the same inspired authority teaches another doctrine contrary to this so explicitly inculcated."

The soundness of the above rule will be admitted by every fair and candid mind, and I should really like to have Br. Foster apply the rule to the "one thus saith the Lord," and the one objection which I have to submit :—

1 Tim. 6 : 15, 16, " Which in his times he shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords; who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man hath seen nor can see: to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen."

The objection is, the term immortal or immortality, is not applied to man, in the Old or New Testaments, only as an object to be sought after and to be obtained, as the gift of God, through Jesus Christ alone.

If it were necessary I might multiply texts and objections to the doctrine of inherent immortality, almost without number, but I think the above sufficient. JEFFERSON MAYELL.

Albany, N. Y., April 22, 1854.

IS THIS INFIDELITY?

BY N. DABB.

The advocates of the soul's immortality, the consciousness of the dead, and the eternal torments of the wicked, frequently prefer the charge of infidelity against those who differ from them on these points. Perhaps they find it easier to do this than to answer their arguments. To show the utter groundlessness of this charge, we submit the following for your consideration :—

Is it infidelity to believe that the Scriptures are the only and all-sufficient standard, both of faith and practice; and that all religious questions should be submitted to its supreme authority alone? To the law and to the testimony," &c.—Isa. 8 : 20.

Is it infidelity to believe that "The Lord God formed MAN," not a part of him—not his body merely, but MAN, the ENTIRE MAN,—"of the dust of the ground?"—Gen. 2 : 7. Observe, he was a Man before he lived; then God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and Man became a living soul,"—not an ever-living soul, but a "living soul," or creature, or person, as the Hebrew word nephesh signifies. This language evidently means no more than that this "breath of life," simply caused the lifeless Man to live—to become conscious. He was made alive by being made to breathe.

Is it infidelity to believe, that taking away this breath constitutes the death threatened in Gen. 2 : 17? "In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die:" Heb., "dying, thou shalt die." We believe this to have been the case; and the true explanation of this text is given by God himself in Gen. 3 : 19: "Till thou return unto the ground, for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Observe, God says, "dust thou,"—not a part of thee, but "dust thou art," &c. We believe that the same breath that caused Adam to live, inspired all animals with life. Hence "they have all one breath."—Ecc. 3 : 19. Gen. 7 : 22, "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, [Heb., the breath of the spirit of life,] of all that was in the dry land died." Also Gen. 6 : 17. This "breath of the spirit of life," passing through the lungs, and coming in contact with the blood, vitalizes it, and gives it life; hence how appropriate the language, Lev. 17 : 11, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood." 14 v., "Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh, for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof." Also Gen. 9 : 4. These and numerous other passages affirm the blood is the life. Theologians affirm that the life resides in an "immaterial and immortal soul." "Let God be true, but every man a liar;" so said Paul, and so say we. The breath contains the spirit, (or principle of life diffused in the atmosphere.) This principle of life vitalizes the blood, and this, in its turn, gives life to the flesh, or entire creature. This spirit is no more a part of the creature, than it was part of Adam before he lived; but it is essential to the development of the functions of life. This breath, or spirit of life, is in God's hands; and is entirely at his disposal. Dan. 6 : 23, "The God in whose hand thy breath is."

Ps. 104 : 29, "Thon takest away their breath ; they die, and return to the dust." Ps. 146 : 4, "His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth, in that very day his thoughts perish." Job 34; 14, 15, "If he gather unto himself his spirit, and his breath, (i.e., God's spirit, and God's breath,) all flesh shall perish together,and man shall turn again to dust." Job 27: 3," All the while my breath is in me. and the spirit of God is in my nostrils."

Is it infidelity to believe, that man was created neither mortal nor immortal, but with a capacity for either; his future and final condition being left to be determined by his own obedience or disobedience? Immortality was the great privilege offered to him on the one hand, and death (literal extinction of being,) the penalty on the other.

Is it infidelity to believe, that to this death all the race is doomed through Adam's sin? "By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men."—Rom. 5:12.

Is it infidelity to believe God's word, Hosea 13:14, "I will redeem them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death; O death I will be thy plagues; O grave I will be thy destruction." The redeeming plan was introduced to counteract this curse of death. As man had forfeited his privilege of immortality, and become subject to death, Christ came, and suffered death for him; that he might have the opportunity of recovering through Christ, what he had lost in Adam.

Is it infidelity to believe that immortality is ONLY to be obtained through faith in Christ? "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life, but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life." John 3 : 36.

Is it infidelity to believe, that a man cannot be dead and alive at the same time?—that the state of death is a state of unconsciousness ? and that "the dead know not anything?" Ecc. : 9:5.

Is it infidelity to believe that, for a future existence, man is dependent entirely upon a resurrection from the dead? "For if the dead rise not then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished."—1 Cor. 15:16-18. Our Lord, and his Apostles invariably directed their hearers and readers to this, as the great and supreme object of the Christian's hope. "I will raise him up at the last day."—John 6:54. "If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection from the dead."—Phil. 3:11.

Is it infidelity to believe, that men will neither go to reward nor punishment, until they shall have passed the ordeal of the judgment? "It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this [not heaven or hell, and then the judgment, but] the judgment."—Heb. 9:27.

Is it infidelity to believe that the second advent of Christ will be pre-millennial, and not post-millennial, as is now generally taught? "For as in the days that were before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came and took them all away, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be."—Matt. 24:38, 39. In the primitive church the second coming of Christ, and its associated doctrine, the resurrection from the dead, seemed to occupy the very first place in their theology.

They were always dwelling upon it: it seemed to be ever present to their minds. This must be evident to all who carefully read Paul's sermons and epistles. But in modern theology, these doctrines occupy a very subordinate position, and are regarded as things of comparatively small importance. How is this? Does it not arise from teaching the unscriptural doctrine, that men go to heaven or hell immediately at death? for, in that case, what importance can men attach to the advent of Christ and a resurrection? But if men can have no future existence without a resurrection, and without Christ's coming to raise them, then we see at once why the early christians attached so much importance to them.

Is it infidelity to believe this glorious event is now near, "even at the doors?"—Matt. 24 : 33.

Is it infidelity to believe, that this earth renovated, and purified from sin, will be the eternal dwelling place of the saints? and that Christ will here sit upon the throne of his father David, and reign for ever and ever? Dan. 7:27, "And the kingdom, and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High." Ps. 37:9:Matt.5:5. Luke 1:32,33," And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kindom there shall be no end." Dan. 7:14.

Is it infidelity to believe, that God meant what he said, Ezek. 18 : 20, "The soul that sinneth it shall die," in a literal, and not in a figurative sense? Through the whole bible, LIFE and DEATH run together like parallel lines; and what right have men to alter the plain meaning of God's words? "I set before you life and death."—Deut. 30 : 19. "If ye live after the flesh ye shall die, but if ye through the spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live."—Rom. 8 : 13. There is not a word in the scriptures about eternal misery for the sinner. Men use the words very freely, but the bible never. Nor is there one passage, which, if fairly interpreted, gives countenance to the idea. The wicked are threatened with death, destruction, and words of like import, but never once with eternal, conscious suffering. O that men would be content to take the words of God, as they find them, and not subvert and destroy their meaning, for no other purpose than to support their man-made theories.

Is it infidelity to believe, that when both sin and the sinner shall have been destroyed, the universe shall become "one solid temple of pure good?" Rev. 5,13, "And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honor; and glory, and power be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. Amen."

If believing these things constitutes infidelity then, be it known unto you, men and brethren,—I AM AN INFIDEL.

The foregoing will be issued in a Tract in a few days. Price 60 cts. per 100; $5 per 1000.

BIBLE EXAMINER.

NEW YORK, JUNE 1, 1854.

PROPITIATORY DEATH OF CHR1ST.

EDWARD WHITE—author of that excellent work "Life in Christ,"—has favored us with a communication on the topic at the head of these remarks. We have long desired that Br. White, Br. Dobney, and others on the other side of the Atlantic, who are with us on the great fact of LIFE ETERNAL only through Jesus Christ, might feel themselves at full liberty to express themselves in the BIBLE EXAMINER on other topics connected with this theme, though they might take a different view from us on some points. We are gratified, therefore, that Br. White has given us something from his pen. We shall be pleased to "give" him "the opportunity" he speaks of, in the conclusion of his letter. Anything that exalts our Redeemer, and the love of his Father, in giving us such a Deliverer from sin and death, is in harmony with the feelings of our heart—especially if scripturally sustained. On this great subject we have only one desire—one wish: and that is, to be in exact harmony with the mind of God. Any doctrine that shall in the least degree lessen in the mind the value or importance of Christ's great work, as God's appointed Deliverer, can have no place in our mind, if we see its tendency is in that direction. The extremes on this—and all other topics—we hope, through the mercy of God, to avoid. Without the death of Christ we see no way for man's redemption. If he would lift us up from death he must go where we are to be found.—Death had passed upon all our race, in the sentence, and in its process of execution. Jesus "both died and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living." By his death he has obtained the right to deliver the dead from death: and in his resurrection he brought up the "keys of death and hades." But for his death a deliverer never would have entered hades or invaded successfully the dominions of death. Christ went down under death that he might abolish its power; for it was "impossible" for death to hold one who had not sinned, and upon whom therefore it had no claim; and especially had it no claim upon, nor could it hold one who had manifested a perfect harmony with the will of God. Such was the fact in Jesus' case. His death became necessary by the entrance of sin into the world, and man's subjection to the power of death in consequence of sin. God subjected the race of Adam to death in hope. What is that hope? It is the hope of the resurrection to life eternal.

Hence "the Lord Jesus Christ" is "our hope." He is "the Resurrection and the Life." His death—the shedding of his blood—was the price he paid for the right to redeem, or deliver, us from sin and death. Not in the sense of dying "in our room and stead," or in the sense of "paying our debts," but that by descending to the lowest condition to which we were subjected, he might lift us up by his life-reviving power: he touched our dead condition, and became united to his dead members—all true believers who fall asleep in him—and by virtue of that union God will, by Christ, "at the last day," as certainly raise up to life eternal all such, as that he raised up Christ himself from the dead. In this special work of redemption Christ has no partners, nor helpers. He, alone, of all that ever dwelt in flesh, died for us—for our redemption—as none other ever did or ever can. To him, and to him alone, be all the glory of human redemption; but to God his Father, and our Father, be all the glory of a full and free pardon of sins, of his own unbought and boundless mercy, but under the administration of His Son, whom He has given power over all flesh that he might give Eternal Life to as many as God the Father has given him. But we must not detain our readers longer from Br. White's communication.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE BIBLE EXAMINER :—My Dear Sir—On the doctrine of the propitiatory death of Christ, the case, I believe, may be fairly stated thus: Mr. Ham supposes that because the crucifixion of Christ is denounced in the scriptures as an act of wickedness on the part of the perpetrators, it cannot have been in accordance with the will of God, with a view to the expiation of the sin of the word: and, chiefly, if not altogether, on this foundation, he proceeds to explode the doctrine that the death of Christ "answered a great judicial purpose in the moral government of God."

If there be any difficulty in reconciling the wickedness of the crucifiers with the purpose of God in this event, I submit that Mr. Ham must bear the burden of it along with those whom he calls "the priests of a popular prejudice." He maintains that "the obedience unto death of Christ is set forth for our imitation." Obedience implies an authority to whom it is rendered. What was the authority to which Christ rendered obedience unto death?" Clearly it was the authority of God. Christ came into the world to do the will of God. It was then the will of God that Christ should be "obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

God willed that Christ should die. How will Mr. Ham reconcile this with the position that the crucifixion was a "wicked act," an "act uncalled for," an "act most displeasing and offensive to God." It seems, however, that Mr. Ham knows how to regard the crucifixion of Christ in one point or view as a sinful act on the part of men, yet as designed by God to subserve a moral purpose in the administration of the divine government. That purpose he believes to be to afford a pattern for our imitation. He distinctly says that God was not surprised by the crucifixion; that he had foreseen it, and that God "sent Christ into the world" to "set us a perfect example of holy obedience," that being an obedience unto death. Very well. Then, if the crucifixion of Christ, however wicked an act on the part of the Jews, "subserved" one "moral purpose" under the divine government, it may, for anything that appears by this argument, have subserved another. If it were intended by God as an example for our imitation, it may have been intended as an expiatory sacrifice "for the sin of the world." If the wickedness of the act on the side of man forbids us to think that God could have been consenting to the death of Christ in the character of an expiatory sacrifice, that same wickedness must forbid us to think that God could have been consenting to his death in the character of an example of holy obedience. But Mr. Ham maintains that it was according to his will that Christ should be obedient unto death as a pattern; and therefore he is prevented, in my judgment, from using the consideration of the wickedness of the crucifiers as an argument to prove that the crucifixion cannot have been "designed to subserve any great judicial purpose in the administration of God." "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and with wicked hands have crucified and slain." "It pleased the Lord to bruise him; He hath put him to grief." "God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

I venture humbly to think that, with all respect for Mr. Ham's superior learning, piety and sagacity, a few considerations on the method of God's dealings with evil will set in a clearer light the fact that there is no inconsistency in the two propositions, that the act of the crucifiers was an enormous crime on their part, while yet the death of Christ was designed by the Almighty Controller of the Universe as a sacrifice for the sin of the world.

It is in the dark sphere of evil that it has pleased the Deity especially to unfold the attributes of His own perfect and eternal nature; and all the forces aud issues of evil have been comprehended within the vast circle of His designs.

Sin, being in every case a transgression of law, must be considered as rebellion against the will of God, in one sense of that phrase: but since God has chosen to permit the existence of rebellion, there is another sense in which it is also true that God has willed the existence of that which is contrary to his will. This verbal paradox will not trouble the understandings of any who remember, that in the one case the term Will stands for the moral law which God has commanded the creation to obey; in the other it stands for the determination of the Almighty with respect to the results of the free-agency of those who were commanded to obey him.

All evil or sin is the work of sinners, the action of disobediant wills following the promptings of inflamed passion, in opposition to the suggestions of the spirit of God. God has nothing to do with the production of sin. "All that is in the world, the lusts of the flesh, of the eye, and the pride of life, are not of the Father, but of the world." "God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteeth He any man." But God foresees all sin, the evil acts of evil agents, in the same manner as Christ foresaw Peter's three-fold denial on the night of the crucifixion. How God foresees in all cases, without predestinating the sin, we do not understand. It is one of the mysteries of the Infinite Mind. But even we can see that a person habitually accustomed to any course of thought and feeling will certainly act in a particular manner under pressing circumstances of temptation. And since a fallen nature unrenewed by divine grace, is certain to act according to the inward law of sin and death, a law nearly as regular in its operations as any law of holiness and life in heaven, it is not difficult to conceive that the Omniscient God can trace an indefinite series of motives and passions to their practical results, and foretell with infallible precision the deeds which "wicked hands" will be ready to do.

Further, it is demonstrable from the history of divine revelation, that God, by His omnipotence, limits and restrains the manifestations of wickedness. This He does sometimes for the honor of His own character as Governor of the world, sometimes for the welfare of his obedient servants who might otherwise be overwhelmed by the violence of evil, and sometimes out of compassion to the evil agents themselves. God from his inaccessible throne of glory thus exercises a supreme dominion not only over all the righteous powers of heaven

and earth, but also over all the permitted forces of evil present and foreseen: and weaving the whole sum of events into the web of universal providence. He employs all agencies, evil and good, in working out the counsel of His own will;—that highest will which includes for wise, but to us unaccountable, purposes, the temporary permission of evil itself: so that the blind victims of rebellion are yoked along with saints and cherubim, and obliged to draw along the chariot of the manyhanded Omnipotence.

The application of these statements to the crucifixion of Christ is, I think, at once easy and just. Into the fabric of the world's evil history the God of love has, from the beginning, woven the shining pattern of the system of redemption. Be has woven, I say, the beautiful threads of his mercy to sinners into the substance of the woof and the weft of the cross purposes of good and sinful agents here below. The foreknowledge of God casting a steady illumination over the boundless future, His foreknowledge of all wicked men, with their tendencies and temptations, was accompanied by a parallel running line of "determinate counsel," as to the manner in which he would cause them to execute his designs. The development, therefore, of the natural characters of the actors in the condemnation of Jesus, and they included specimens of every variety of wickedness, was made to fit into a different but correspondent series of events and developments in the life and the teaching of Jesus our Lord; as that the "wicked hands" embrued in that "precious blood," without ceasing to be at all the less wicked (since it is the motive that constitutes the sin), actually accomplished the death of Christ, which, viewed on the divine side of the event, was God's method for the redemption of the world. Since "it behoved the Christ to suffer," that event might have been brought about by a direct infliction from the hand of Heaven; but for wise reasons God appointed that sinful men should be the sacrificers of that sacred Lamb, who thus "gave his life for the life of the world," and as "a ransom for many." The Lord sitteth above the water floods! Above the flaming surges of that fiery sea of human and diabolic passion, the Lord sitteth King for ever! He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. The deceived and the deceiver are his. "The things which had before been written, God did so fulfill," and evil, raging in a storm against the monarchy of God, was permitted to strike the blow which has riven the edifice of Satan's dominion down to its foundations. "Through death Christ has destroyed him that had the power of death, that is the Devil, and delivered them who through fear of death were all their life time subject to bondage."

I do think that these considerations are sufficient to prove that the evil character of the crucifiers is no bar in the way of believing that a judicial moral design was contemplated by God in the death of Christ. That such a judicial moral design was contemplated in it, is to be proved by other evidence—the evidence of scripture; and I have no hesitation in saying, that if you will give me the opportunity, I will make it appear that it is impossible to do greater violence to the scriptures than to attempt to expe! from them the doctrine of the propitiatory death of our Redeemer, as understood by the Baptist and Congregational churches of our country. I remain, my dear sir, yours sincerely and respectfully. EDWARD WHITE.

…