The Bible Examiner — Vol. 3, No. 11 (1848)

Download: PDF — The Bible Examiner — Vol. 3, No. 11 (1848)

BIBLE EXAMINER.

"PROVE ALL THINGS, HOLD FAST THAT WHICH IS GOOD."

VOL. III.

PHILADELPHIA, NOVEMBER, 1848.

No. 11.

GEORGE STORRS, EDITOR AND PUBLISHER. J.T.WAISH, RICHMOND, VA., ASSISTANT EDITOR.

PUBLISHED MONTHLY, AT 18 CHESTER STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA.

TARMS.—Single copy, for one year, ity cents; five copies, 2;

eight copies, 3; or thirteen copies, 5; ALWAYS IN ADVANCE.

This paper is subject to newspaper postage only.

THE MIND.—REPLY TO J. T. WALSH.

This gentleman declares I neither understand him nor his subject. Whether I understand him, he may decide; whether I understand the subject, our readers may. He says he neither believes nor teaches that the mind and brain are identical, and refers me, in proof, to his previous articles on file; but in one published in No. 7, I find the following passages:

"But we shall doubtless be told, that although the brain is the instrument of the mind, nevertheless it is not the mind, and that, therefore, our argument fails."

"This objection introduces another question. 'What is the mind?' The objector replies, the mind is the spirit, the agent which operates upon the brain developing thought and reason. Thus mind is defined to be an independent and separate entity, possessing all the attributes of intelligence, and possessing all the phenomena of an intellectual and moral character." (Vol. 3, No. 7.)

Against this view that the mind is a separate entity, acting upon the brain, he proceeds to present a variety of objections, and succeeds in his own opinion, doubtless, in showing its absurdity, leaving me to infer, as I think justly, that he considered the brain and mind identical.

He now declares he does not, but believes "the mind an effect, an aggregate of powers, as functions developed by the brain."

Again he says, "the brain and the mind stand in the relation of cause and effect."

Mind is the effect of a cause—brain. Brain develops thought, the brain develops mind, mind is the effect of brain—it is an aggregate of powers.

Such are Mr. W.'s definitions of mind. Let us look at them. And first, do they give us any idea as to what the mind is, whether matter or spirit? Do they give us to understand that the mind is an entity! But one thing they do do, they teach us that the brain is the cause of mind; that mind was not created directly by God, but is produced by man's physical organization, and depends upon that for its existence.

"The brain develops thought." What are we to understand by this? That the brain thinks? Such would be the natural conclusion, but that would make the brain and mind identical, which Mr. W. neither believes nor teaches."

"The brain develops mind," is the cause of mind thus the brain precedes the mind, and as all effects correspond to the causes, physical causes producing physical effects, the mind is physical, and if it be an entity distinct from the brain, then the brain has produced a physical substance called mind! Where is it? Why don't anatomists examine it?

What is that mind, the "effect of the brain?" Is it something, or nothing? Is it an agent, and does it perform actions? Does it exist any where, but in the imagination of the writer?

"It is an aggregate of powers." These powers are reason, will, memory, conscience, &c. Powers are mere capabilities of doing certain things. Reason, for instance, is the power to reason.

Now these powers belong to something to which we may refer them. What is it? If the brain, then that is the mind. But Mr.W, don't believe nor teach that.

Memory is not the mind any more than inertia is matter, but it is a capacity of mind. Thought is not mind, but the action of mind. As well might you define God to be an aggregate of powers, as the mind. In this view, to speak of the powers of the mind, is absurd, for the mind is an aggregate of powers. The more I look at these definitions, the more confused and unsatisfactory they appear to me.

I find something in man that thinks, reasons, judges. I ask Mr. W. what it is, and he replies the brain develops thought. But does the brain think; is that the mind? No, says Mr. W. again, the brain develops mind.

I again ask what is the mind when developed by the brain, and am told an aggregate of powers.

But powers are the powers of something; the power to reason, to will, are among this aggregate; to what shall I refer them? They are developed, according to this gentleman, by the brain, and hence to this must be referred; and this brings us back to our starting point; the brain is the mind; for that which possesses the power of volition and reason, is doubtless the mind.

All his reasoning leads directly to this conclusion:

The brain is a part of our physical organization, designed for the production of thought, as truly as the nerves of sensation. In the infant there is no mind. But as the brain matures, it becomes capable of producing thought, and develops certain powers, mental and moral; and these powers thus produced by the brain, constitute the mind, which is nothing but certain powers of the brain.

A power of the brain is a capability of the brain, and again we come round to our starting point.

Suppose I was to define matter to be an aggregate of properties: should I not be pressed with the question, is there no substance to which these properties belong! And what are powers but the powers of something? Neither powers nor propictures exist abstractly from some entity to which they belong

Have devoted the main part of this article to the great point in dispute, the existence of mind as a distinct entity from the brain; but there are several minor points introduced which deserve some attention.

He says I regret the new birth as wholly physical. By no means. That is his position. It man is wholly physical, then the new birth is wholly physical. Then "that which is born of the Spirit is flesh." So thought Nicodemus, so thinks Mr. W. but Christ declares it is not flesh, but Spirit!

If he does, here is the flesh born again, and we might ask what chemical change is produced in the blood in regeneration? If he does not, he believes it confined to the mind, here called man, and hence his play upon this word is done to cast up a breast-work for security.

Mr. W. declares it is man, composed of flesh, blood, bones, nerves and brain, who is the subject of the new birth. Now he either means that this flesh, blood, bones, &c., are changed by the new birth, or he does not.

Several of his logical conclusions are not very alarming. Take the following:

"It is the immortal soul that reasons, is enlightened, saved, &c. But some men, such as idiots and monomaniacs cannot reason. Ego: They have no immortality, and cannot be the subjects of reckemnption."

But Mr. W tells us the Spirit operates through the gospel, and moves to action by its motives and arguments, addressed to the reason and moral sentiments.

But some men, such as diots, &c., have no reason to be addressed, no moral sentiments to be appealed to. Let Mr. W. meet his own difficulties.

The immortal soul thinks; beasts think. Therefore beasts are immortal. This is a favourite resort. When pressed, we are asked if we believe beasts immortal?

The fact that there is a spirit in man, does not, of itself, aside from the will of God, secure immortality. Angels depend upon God as well as men.

And while nothing indicates that beasts were designed for endless being, every thing teaches this of man. Into the Bible argument I do not propose to go in this article; but the text "fear not them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul." receives this singular interpretation: Fear not them that can kill the present life, but are not able to kill the future life. Thus soul and body have the same radical meaning, life. Whereas they refer to entities.

But, it is added, fear him who is able, not only like man to kill the body, but to destroy both soul and body in hell I must close this long article, and will do so by expressing a sincere desire for the welfare of my unknown opponent.

Wm. H. BREXSTER.

WELL, Oct. 1, 1848.

REPLY TO W. H. BREWSTER.

I am willing with friend Browster to refer his understanding of the subject to our "readers." And I wish our "readers" to observe and remember that Mr. B. has lauded to answer the arguments

submitted in my last. After stating my position, as previously expressed, he adds—"leaving me (himself) to infer, as I think justly, that he (I) considered the brain and mind identical." Having disavowed any such absurd position as his "inference;" and in as much as no such "inference" can be logically drawn from my position, I leave it as unworthy of further notice.

But, for his sake, I will further illustrate my views of this matter. Because the human mind is manifested or developed by the brain, does it, therefore, follow that that which develops and that which is developed are the same? If this be his logic, it is not mine! Because the sense of sight is developed by the optic apparatus, or organ, does it follow that the organ of sight and sight itself are identical? And because the auditory apparatus as a whole, is the organ of sound, does it follow that that apparatus and sound are one and the same? Can not the gentleman distinguish between an organ and its function? Can not Mr. B. distinguish between the brain and its functions? Really, I am astonished!

But, after getting through with my definitions, he asks: "Do they give us any idea as to what the mind is, whether matter or spirit?" I give my first answer—the mind is an aggregate of powers, or functions of AN INTELLECTUAL OR MENTAL CHARACTER. And I care not whether Mr. Brewster makes these intellectual powers or functions "matter or spirit;" they are such powers or functions as have no consciousness, apart from the living man, by whose brain they are "developed."

The human mind, human thought, human intellect, of itself, has no consciousness—this latter is an attribute of the man, and not of his thoughts, and hence, when a man dies, his "thoughts PERISH." The five senses, as they are termed, are, by all philosophers, called intellectual. Is sound "matter or spirit?" Is sight "matter or spirit?" Is the shade of a living tree "matter or spirit?" Ah! this word "matter!" It surely was not a fit thing out of which to form "a living soul!" But, nevertheless, God did "form man of the dust of the earth, and breathe into his nostrils the breath of life!"—another material thing!—"and he became a living soul."

What does my friend understand by a distinct "entity?" Does he mean that which has a separate and independent existence? Not independent of God, but of other beings? The soul of man is not such an "entity;" the mind of man is not such either; but MAN, himself, is such a being. Again, Mr. B. quotes me: "The brain develops thought;" and adds, "what are we to understand by this? That the brain thinks?"

Shall I have to tell Mr. B. for the hundredth time, that man thinks by means of his brain, just as he sees by means of his eyes, hears by his ears? &c., &c. Man is the THINKER, and his brain is the organ, the legitimate function of which is to manifest thought; just as he has organs for the development of every function of his whole organization.

"The brain precedes mind," says Mr. Brewster. Yee; the brain of Adam existed before it developed mind; yea, before he had any life! But when his organization was put in motion, his brain manifested thought. Cerebral motion is necessary

to thought. It is even necessary to dreaming, as was proved by the case of the girl, to which I have before referred. I can give expression to my mind. I can spread it out on paper, as I am now

doing; and so can Mr. B. The idiot has no mind, his brain is defective—it is imperfect; he cannot reason; and yet, he has as much soul or spirit as Mr. B. or myself.

May I not retort, and ask Mr. B. "where" his immortal soul "is?" "Why don't anatomists examine it?" If it be a distinct "equality," as he contends, and, also, indestructible, why is it that some physiologist or anatomist has not detected it? And, as he asks me, "Is it something or nothing? Does it exist any where, but in the imagination of the writer."—Mr. Brewster?

Again: Mr. B., speaking of the "powers" which constitute the mind, says, "Now these powers belong to something, to which we may refer them. What is it?" I answer, they belong to MAN; and they are manifested by the brain. Mr. B. appears to refer every thing to an immortal soul and nothing to the man, as such, at all! What sort of philosophy is this?

Mr. B. says, "Memory is not the mind," "but a capacity of mind." Every intellectual organ has its memory. Thus we have a memory of language, of names, of places, of things, of events, of forms, &c., &c. And the same person's memory may be defective in some things, but excellent in all others. Can Mr. B. explain this on his hypothesis? If memory be an attribute of that which is immortal in man; why is it ever defective? Will Mr. B. tell us? Will he explain how it is that partial or total idiocy exists? Will he tell us how and why monomania, or partial derangement, exists, if the mind be not an aggregate of powers? Let him not evade these questions, for I have not evaded him, but let him look them fully in the face.

But Mr. B. informs us that "thought is not mind, but the action of mind." This position is untenable, "Thought is" the result of cerebral "action," or the "action" of the brain.

Further on, Mr. B. says: "I find something in man that thinks, reasons, judges." Truly, Mr. B has made a grand discovery! He says, "I find." Where did, or does he find it? In the heart, in the spine, in the lungs, in the brain, or diffused all over the body? Will he tell us? I am anxious to know its location—its "habitation," that I may "find" it also. And does he find this "something" in all men! In all idiots? This "something" that "reasons" and "judges;" does he find it equally in the possession of all; and if not, what is the reason? Will he not tell us? For my part, "I find" a great many men who cannot "reason," and I rather suspect Mr. B. has seen a few himself! These, of course, have no immortal mind! or, if they have, will Mr. B. explain why it is they cannot "reason!"

Mr. B. is guilty of too much repetition; he repeats and re-repeats the same things over again and again, without advancing a single step. In his article before me, he states my views often enough one would suppose to make them familiar; but he does not refute them. He has too many ifs and suppositions. But let us have some more of his peculiar logic: "Suppose I was to denounce matter to be an aggregate of properties, should I not be pressed with the question, is there no substance to which these properties belong?"

Yes; and "suppose" I "define" the human mind to be an aggregate of powers; and should be pressed with the question, to what do these powers belong?" I should answer most emphatically, ro MAN.

Mr. B. continues: "And what are powers but the powers of something?" True enough; and these "powers" are the "powers" of the man! Again: "Neither powers nor properties exist abstract from some entity to which they belong." Good! And these mental "powers do not exist abstract from" the man! One word on the new birth. Mr. B. very adroitly attempts to make me occupy what I conceive to be his own position on this question. The new birth is not a physical but a moral change wrought upon an animal, or physical man, composed just as I before stated. The spirit of God operates through the Gospel, by motives, arguments, &c., addressed to reason, the moral sentiments, &c., and moves the whole man to action; his head, his heart, his ears, his eyes, his tongue, his hands and his feet. He "presents his body a living sacrifice to God." The new birth does not change flesh to spirit; it is a spiritual or moral change wrought in, and upon, the whole man, who is thus said to be born again.

But let us hear Mr. B. once more: "Mr. W. declares it is man, composed of flesh, blood, bones, nerves and brain, who is the subject of the new birth." Yes I do; and if Mr. B. will take all these away, what will be left to be born again? As to his enquiry about "chemical changes in the blood in regeneration," it is too puerile, too ridiculous to be noted.

What an absurd exposition Mr. B. gives of the Lord's words, "except a man be born," &c., when he says it, the mind, is "here called man!" The mind called man! This would make the Lord say, "except a mind be born again, it cannot see the kingdom of God." Again, "Except a mind be born of water and spirit, it cannot enter into the kingdom of God." A "mind" born of water! What au idea!! So Mr. B.'s mind has been born again, but Mr. B., himself, has not!

As it respects Mr. B.'s syllogism about idiots, it presents no difficulty to me at all. God does not hold idiots responsible. But, if they have immortal souls, I see not how Mr. B. will get out of the difficulty. They are difficulties thrown in the way of Mr. B.'s theory, and he, not I, must remove them. Mr. B. has not met the question concerning the beasts. He must try it again. It is not I, but Mr. B. who is "pressed" on this question.

Mr. R. remarks: "The fact that there is a spirit in man, does not, of itself, aside from the will of God, secure immortality. Angels depend upon God, as well as men."

Very well; if "the fact that there is a spirit in man, does not, of itself, secure immortality, why predicate immortality of the spirit? Immortality "depends upon the will of God," says Mr. Brewster, and so say I; but is it "the will of God" that sinners shall be immortal? Will Mr. B. meet me on this question? "Angels depend upon God, as well as men," for their immortality; but are men now immortal and "equal to the Angels?" Angels are immortal; but men are not, and hence immortality is set before them as something to be sought after. I thank Mr. B. for his admissions! They are fatal to his cause. Again Mr. B. says: "And while nothing indicates that beasts were designed for endless being, every thing teaches this of man: "Nothing indicates that beasts were designed for endless being!" Mr. Wesley, the celebrated founder of Mr. B.'s Church, thought differently past it Mr. B.

make intelligence an attribute of that which is immortal, I see not what other disposition he will be able to make of them. But every thing teaches this of man. Every thing! If this be so, why has not Mr. B. given at least one thing" that "teaches" it? This he has failed to do.

Mr. B. speaks of my interpretation of "Fear not them that kill the body," &c., as a "singular" one. But as "singular" as it may be in his estimation, I am willing to rest the whole controversy upon a full Exegesis of this text. If he foil me here, then am I forever driven from the field! The terms are easy, will Mr. B. accept of them? We shall see. May the truth shine into the mind of Mr. Brewster, is the desire of

His friend and obedient servant,

J. T. WALSB.

SCRIPTURAL PSYCHOLOGY.*—NO I.

in these essays I shall divide the subject in the following order:

Mosaic Psychology;

III. APOSTOLIC PSYCHOLOGY.

JI. PROPHETIC PSYCHOLOGY.

Mosaic Psychology: This phrase embraces a period, extending from the creation of man to the era of Samuel the prophet. To the use of the term soul, during that period, I shall now direct the attention of the reader. But before entering formally into the investigation, I wish to state certain rules or principles of interpretation, which are admitted on all hands to be correct.

RULE 1st. A word, having a variety of significations, must be defined by the context, to ascertain its specific meaning in any given case. The correctness and importance of this rule will be manifest when the term soul is examined.

BULLET. If a given definition be the meaning of a word, in a given place and according to its context, then the definition may be substituted for the word, and it will make sense.

RULE 2.1. Words are to have their primary meaning, unless there is an obvious necessity for departing from it.

I will now proceed: "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, (in Hebrew soul.) and fowl that may tly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." This is the first use of the term in the Bible. In the common version it is rendered "life" but in the original it is soul. Let the reader remember that this is not only the first application of this word in the Scriptures; but that it was thus used to signify life by God himself, nearly six thousand years ago! Here we have both high and antiquated authority for asserting that the primary meaning of the term soul, is life. And, indeed, it cannot simply, or involve, the idea of immortality, for it is here used in reference to "moving" or "creeping" creatures." Do creeping insects possess immortal souls? If the term soul involves the principle of immortality, then they are immortal for they have souls. Moreover, this term soul

These rules will be applied in the course of my examination.

is applied "to creeping" creatures before it is to man; yea, and before man was created! Man was not the first living soul!

Again And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature, (in Hebrew, living soul,) after his kind, cattle, and the creeping animal, and the beast of the earth after his kind.

Here the earth is made to bring forth " living souls " in the form of " cattle, " " creeping animal, " and " beast of the earth." Here we have a variety of " living souls;" are they all immortal? If so, we shall have immortal " cattle;" immortal " creeping animal;" and immortal " beast." " And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every animal that creepeth upon the earth, in which is life, (Hebrew, a living soul,) I have given every green herb for food."

In this place "a living soul" is ascribed to "every beast of the earth;" "every animal that creeps;" and to "every foul of the air." Are these "living souls" immortal? If so, the earth beneath and the heavens above, are thronged with immortals! Are all the beasts immortal, from the great Mastodon to the smallest animalule that creeps beneath your feet? Are all the fowls immortal, from the Eagle that soars beyond the clouds, and gazes at the sun in his splendor, to the little humming bird that sucks sweetness from a thousand flowers! If you respond in the negative, then, I affirm they are "living souls;" and, therefore, if they are not immortal, it follows that "living souls" are not necessarily immortal souls. A living soul is one thing, and an EVER LIVING SOUL is quite another.

In the second chapter of Genesis, seventh verse, we have this account of the creation of man: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul."

We have now arrived at that, which is usually supposed to distinguish man from the brute creation; but we have already seen, that man, as a "living soul," has no pre-eminence over the beasts—they are living souls. The possession of a "living soul" is not the distinguishing feature between man and the lower animals. The superiority of man must be looked for elsewhere: it does not consist in a superior soul, nor spirit, or breath, but in a superior ORGANIZATION, giving rise to a superior MIND.

Man was not created immortal, else the tree of life would have been superfluous; but he was made "a living soul," or person; not an immortal living soul, implying he could never die, nor an everlasting soul, implying he should live forever; but simply a living soul, depending on God for the perpetuation of his life, his existence. Eating of the tree of life was the means by which he was to live forever. This he would have done, had he not been disobedient; and then God would not suffer him to eat of it, lost he should live forever in sin. His expulsion from the garden of Eden was an act of mercy; and yet men are taught to believe now, that God, who would not suffer our first parents to become immortal sinners, will positively keep sinners alive in a burning hell, suffering indescribable torments, through the endless succession of ages! He must have changed since the expulsion?

I shall now examine the places in this book—Genesis—where this word soul occurs, and see what its meaning may be in any given case. Gen.

xii. 13. And Abram said to his wife: "Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake: and my soul shall live because of thee." Now, what is the meaning of this! Did Abram expect to save his "immortal" soul by his wife saying she was his sister? Surely not: he only expected to save his life, which he thought he was in danger of losing on account of her beauty. The context shows the correctness of this. (See the 11th verse.) "And it came to pass, when he (Abram) had come near to enter into Egypt, that he said to Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon: Therefore, it will come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they will say. This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive." Abram apprehended the Egyptians would kill him for his wife; and this was the reason of his request to her, in which he says: "my soul shall live;" a Hebraism for I shall live.

Turn now to Genesis xix. 20. "Behold now, this city is near to flee to, and it is a small one: Oh, let me escape thither! (Is it not a small one?) and my soul shall live." Can any reasonable person suppose, that Lot expected to save his (immortal) soul, by fleeing to Zoah? Certainly not. What then did he expect to save? Did he not expect to save his life? Surely he did; and his language is equivalent to his having said—"and I shall live." The language of Isaac is worthy of note. He said to Esau: "Make me savory meat, such as I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat; that my soul may bless them before I die." This according to the Hebrew idiom, means—"THAT I MAY BLESS THEE BEFORE I DIE."

"O my soul," says Jacob, "come not thou into their secret;—the secret of Simeon and Levi. Do you suppose that Jacob referred to his "immortal" soul? Or, rather, did he not say, that "He did not wish to enter into their secret."

It is said of Shechem—" And his soul cleaved to Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spoke kindly to the damsel."

Now, which shall be believed, the proposition that Shechem had an immortal soul which cleaved to Dinah, or that the whole sentence is but a Hebraism expressive of the fact, that Sheche himself, cleaved to Dinah in love? Again, in the eighth verse, Hamor said, "The soul of my son Shechem longeth for your daughter." Can any one make me believe that an "immortal" soul would "long" for a woman? It is fully to suppose so. No, the truth is, Shechem, himself, "longed for her, for a wife; and this is expressed by his "soul longing."

In the thirty-fifth chapter, eighteenth verse, we have this expression: "And it came to pass as her soul was in departing, (for she died,)" &c. Perhaps some may be disposed to believe that Rachel had an immortal soul, that departed to heaven. This might have some force, but for the expression explanatory of "her soul departing," "for sins died." As it is, this is all the historian meant by her "soul departing."

"BORN OF WATER."

BR. MAGRUDER'S REPLY TO THE EDITOR.

Passing by some points of the Editor's criticism (for the sake of saving time and space) I come to reply to the "red frightly" in which he thinks me

involved, that in John, 3d chap., Christ had no allusion to Christian baptism—that because Abraham, Noah, and the thief were justified and pardoned before the resurrection of Christ, and therefore before Christian baptism was ordained, therefore in John, 3d chap., he was not speaking of Christian baptism. Suppose the Editor be right—that 3d John has no reference to Christian baptism, does it thence follow that because Noah, Job, and the thief were saved without it, we (in this day) may be saved also, independently of this ordinance? Certainly not; for it is answered conclusively, no such command was given to them, and "where no law is, there is no transgression, for sin is the transgression of the law." 1 John, 3d chap. 4. Now such a law is given to our contemporaries, and on that account they must obey it at their peril. And here is the very point of the argument. The argument is not that 3d John 5, relates to baptism, (though I am persuaded it does,) but that because the thief, Abraham, &c., are to be saved without baptism, we are not thence to conclude that we, who live under different laws are also to be saved without it. It is to this point I call the Editor to respond.

It seems to me (in all kindness) it is no answer to this reasoning, to urge that as Christ said, "except a man (that is any man) be born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God," and then to cite the fact that Abraham, &c. have never been born of water, and will be in the kingdom, and so infer that baptism is not essential to entrance into the kingdom. This is certainly not "rightly to divide the word of truth." The declaration, "except a man be born of water," &c., relates obviously to the future, and may be the present, but certainly not the past. What would be thought of a law-giver who, when propounding a new law, should hold it applicable to acts committed or omitted before it was enacted, thus giving it an expos facto effect? The law, "except a man be born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God," of course, and obviously means, "he cannot in future" hereafter no man can enter except on these terms. To illustrate: Moses enacted circumcision, and declared that whoever neglected it, should "be cut off from the congregation of the Lord." Would you therefore contend that no one can be saved unless he be circumcised! Certainly not; the reason is plain. Because no such law is obligatory under the Christian dispensation. In regard to the thief, the case is plain. Christ had the power, when on earth, and often exercised it, to forgive sins unconditionally. He could say to the sick of the palsy, "Son, thy sins be forgiven thee," annexing no condition, because, as he said of himself, "The Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins." So to the thief, he graciously said, "Thou shall be with me in Paradise." But how stands the matter now? He is no longer here in person to forgive sins. He proceeds now by laws, made known in the gospel, "for the obedience of faith among all nations," and in these laws, ordances, and institutions, must we submit ourselves (as did Sand, of Tarsus). Acts 22:14—16.) in order "to wash away our sins," and to obtain the blessings promised. Well may Paul himself say, "How shall we escape, if we suffer so great salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed (or fully explained and chocolate!) by them that heard him." I submit the above as a response to the objection.

for that because Abram, the thief, &c., were saved without Christian baptism, therefore we may escape," though we "neglect" it.

But the Editor urges this question. "Is being born of water, John 3:5. Christian baptism." He replies, "with present light" "it is not." If not then, pray what is it? If not baptism, what is it. I repeat: Those who object, are bound in candor to give us a better explanation of the words than we offer. What is a birth of water if not baptism? What a birth of water and spirit, if not Christian baptism? I await the reply. Meanwhile, let me say, I have never said (I believe) that 3d John 5. had exclusive reference to Christian baptism, implying in the subject a belief in the death and resurrection of Christ. John's baptism was no doubt as essential to those to whom John preached as was the baptism of the day of Pentecost to those to whom Peter preached. Both were "the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." They differed in the facts to be previously believed. Paul says this in Acts 19, "John verily preached to the people that they should believe on him who was to come after him, that is Christ Jesus." Hearing this, they (John's disciples) were baptized in the name of the Lord. For a Jew to reject John's proclamation and baptism, was no doubt as great a sin as for Jew or Gentile to reject the apostle's. Nicodemus was one of these rejectors of John's baptism. Jesus, "who knew what was in man," discerning his incredulity on this point, said to him at once, "Except a man be born of water and spirit (as John's disciples were) he cannot enter," &c. Until this law is repealed, or unless any one in this generation can show that he is embraced in the exception which saves the chief, the palied man and others to whom the Saviour spoke audibly when on earth, let every unbaptized man or woman who hopes for a place and a name in that kingdom, beware of neglecting a compliance with these terms of admission. Such may be among the foolish virgins who go to replenish their lamps at the moment of the Lord's approach, and so are shut out from his presence; for some, we are assured, will experience this bitter fate.

A. B. MACRUDER.

NOTES ON BR. MAGRUDER'S REPLY.

We john look upon John 3: 5. in the light of "tair" at all; it is the announcement of a fact: which fact was just as real and important in the days of Noah, Abraham, Job and Daniel, as in the days of Nicodemus. But if it were a "law" it was in "force" from its announcement, unless the Law Maker specified another time, future, for it to take effect. No such specification is appended, hence Br. M's difficulty remains. The dispute between Mr. M. and yourself is not whether it is essential to salvation to attend to Christian Baptism that topic we have to him and Br. Grew. The entire argument between Br. M and ourselves. Is being born of water, John 3: 5, Christian baptism? Br. M must try to draw the away from that point. He observed, in his previous article, that Christian baptism was not instituted until after our Lord having opened the cross; that admission sustained our position that being born or water, John 3: 5, was not being baptism. Br. M now changes the issue, and thus us to respond to a point in which we and

Br. Grew are at issue; and we must be excused from interfering between them. Br. M. entirely misapprehends us in saying, that we "cite the fact that Abraham, &c., have never been born of water and will be in the kingdom, and so infer that baptism is not essential," &c. Really, Br. M., we did no such thing. We did not say that "Abraham, &c., have never been born of water." We asked if Br. M. would undertake to prove they would enter the kingdom without being "born again!" we know they will be in the kingdom, and we believe they will, at the time, have been born again, in precisely the sense in which our Saviour used that expression, John 3: 5. "The declaration," John 3: 5, "relates obviously" to the "past" as really as to the "future;" if it relates to any thing done this side the resurrection. Our Lord states a fact, not makes a "law;" and that fact was as really a fact in the days of Abraham as in the days of Nicodemus; and none the less so because Nicodemus, "a master of Israel" was ignorant of it. Our Saviour himself virtually affirms this truth, verse 10—after Nicodemus expressed his surprise—"Art thou a master of Israel and knowest not these things?" Poor Nicodemus was blamed, according to Br. M., and those that think with him, for not knowing what was impossible to have been known, because according to them the thing to be known had no existence till now. Really, our Lord was too severe on Nicodemus, "if these things are so." Why censure him for not knowing that a man must be born of water and the spirit, if the fact had no existence in the Scriptures till that hour? and had never in any clear form been stated before? Tell us, ye "masters of Israel," why our Lord blames Nicodemus for his ignorance of a thing that could not have been known, because it had no being before, if your position is the true one?

We repeat, again, that we have made no such statement us Br. M. attributes to us, that "because Abraham, &c., were saved without Christian baptism; therefore we may," &c. When we make such a statement it will be time enough for us to defend it. Br. M. says, "If being born of water, John 3: 5, is not baptism, what is it?" and he adds, "I repeat—those who object are bound in candoor to give us a better explanation of the words than we offer," &c. Br. M. further adds,—"I wait the reply." Now, he need not wait; we gave our opinion in the Examiner, No 8. Dr. N. Smith gave his in No. 9; and if Br. M. will allow us our judgment in this matter, we will say, that either of these opinions are "better" than the one for which he contends, for that, with present light, to us, is the most unlikely and improbable of either.

Br. M.'s assumption that "Nicodemus was one of those who rejected John's baptism" shall have an answer when he gives us the proof; at present the evidence is the other way. His assumption, also, that "John's disciples were born of water and spirit" shall have like attention when he gives us the evidence, as he has offered no proof of either, we need not go into the argument, but meet both with a simple denial.

We have much hope of our good brother M., for he shows, like ourselves, that he is not ashamed to change when he finds his ground not tenable. He found that her a born of water, John 3.4, could not be applied to Christian baptism, so now he has fallen back on John's. We think we shall be agreed yet; at any rate, we will not quarrel if we are not agreed.

' THE SECOND DEATH.

BY RICHARD WHATELY, D. D., ARBIBISHOP OF DUBLIN.

'Many of the ancient Fathers look upon (the expulsion of Adam from Eden) as a merciful dispensation, THAT MAN MIGHT NOT BE PERFETUATED IN A STATE OF SIN.' Bishop Patrick.

Whatsoever had a beginning can also have an ending, and it shall die, unless it be daily watered from the streams flowing from the fountain of life, and refreshed with the dew of heaven, and the wells of God : and therefore God had prepared a tree in Paradise to have supported Adam in his artificial immortality : immortality was not in his nature, but in the hands and arts, in the favor and super-additions of God.' Bishop JEREMY TAYLOR.

We know that in this present world there is evil as well as good, whether in the next world there will be an end put to all evil, is a question on which Scripture, if we look to that alone, gives us only this slight hint; that we are told (by Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 25) that Christ 'must reign till He have put all things under his feet'; and that 'the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.' And this does not seem consistent with the continuance forever of a number of wicked beings, alive, and hating Christ, and odious in his sight.

and obvious in the sign.

The Scripture do not, I think, afford us any grounds for expecting that those who shall be condemned at the last day as having wilfully rejected or rebelfled against their Lord, will be finally delivered; that their doom, and that of the evil Angels, will ever be reversed.

What that doom will be—whether the terms in which its commonly spoken of in Scripture ('death,' 'destruction,' 'perishing,' etc.*) are to be understood figuratively, as denoting immortal life in a state of misery, or, more literally, as denoting a final extinction of existence—this is quite a different question. It is certain that the words 'life,' 'eternal life,' 'immortality,' etc., are always applied to the condition of those, and of those only, who shall at the last day be approved as 'good and faithful servants,' who are to enter into the joy of their Lord.'

'Life' as applied to their condition, is usually understood to mean 'happy life.' And that theirs will be a happy life, we are indeed plainly taught; but I do not think we are anywhere taught that the word 'life' does of itself necessarily imply happiness. If so, indeed, it would be a more tautology to speak of a 'happy life,' and a contradiction to speak of a 'miserable life,' which we know is not the case, according to the usage of any language. In all Ages and Countries, 'life,' and the words answering to it in other languages, have always been applied, in ordinary discourse to a wretched life, no less properly than to a happy one. Life, therefore, in the received sense of the word, would apply equally to the condition of the blest and the condemned, supposing these last to be destined to continue forever living in a state of misery. And yet to their condition the words 'life' and 'immortality' never are applied in Scripture. If therefore we suppose the hearers of Jesus and his Apostles to have understood, as nearly as possible in the ordinary sense, the words employed, they must naturally have conceived them to mean if they were

taught nothing to the contrary) that the condemned were really and literally to be 'destroyed,' and cease to exist; not that they were to exist forever in a state of wretchedness. For they are never spoken of as being kept alive, but as forfeiting life: as for instance, 'Ye will not come unto me that ye may have life:'—'He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God, hath not life.' And again, 'perdition,' 'death,' 'destruction,' are employed in numerous passages to express the doom of the condemned. All which expressions would, as I have said, be naturally taken in their usual and obvious sense, if nothing were taught to the contrary.

That these expressions however are to be understood not in their ordinary sense, but figuratively, to signify an immortality of suffering, is inferred, by a large proportion of Christians from some other passages : as where our Lord speaks of 'everlasting punishment,' 'everlasting fire,' and of being 'cast into Hell, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.'

From such passages as these it has been inferred that the sufferings, and consequently the life, of the condemned is never to end. And the expression would certainly bear that sense; if these were the only ones on the subject that are to be found, in Scripture. 'But they will also bear another sense; which if not more probable in itself, is certainly more reconcilable with the ordinary meaning of the words 'destruction,' etc. which so often occur. The expressions of 'eternal punishment,' 'unquenchable fire,' etc. may mean merely that there is to be no deliverance—no revival—no restoration of the condemned. 'Death' simply does not shut out the hope of being brought to life again: 'eternal death' does. 'Fire' may be quenched before it has entirely consumed what it is burning: 'unquenchable fire' would seem most naturally to mean that which destroys it utterly.

It may be said, indeed, that supposing Man's soul to be an immaterial Being, it cannot be consumed and destroyed by literal material fire or worms. That is true: but no more can it suffer from these. We all know that no fire, literally so called, can give us any pain unless it reach our bodies. The 'fire,' therefore, and the 'worm that are spoken of, must at any rate, it would seem, be something figuratively so-called—something that is to the soul what worms and fire are to a body. And as the effects of worms or fire is, not to preserve the body that they prey upon, but to consume, destroy, and put an end to it, it would follow, if the correspondence hold good, that the fire, figuratively so called, which is prepared for the condemned, is something that is really to destroy and put an end to them; and is called 'everlasting,' or 'unquenchable' fire, to denote that they are not to be saved from it, but that their destruction is to be final. So in the parable of the tares, out Lord

This last expression of his is taken from the book of the prophet Isaiah (Ixvi. 24), who speaks of 'the carcasses of the men that have transgressed, whose worm shall not die, nor her shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all living; flesh.' describing evidently the kind of those inflicted by the Eastern nations on the widest offenders, who were not only slain, but their bodies depredated of the rights of burial, and rather burned to ashes (which among them was regarded as a great insignity, or left to consider above ground and be decimated by traumas.

describes himself as saving, 'gather ye first the tares, and bind them, in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into my garner'; as if to denote that the one is to be jas we know is the practice of the husbandman) carefully preserved, and the other completely for AN END TO.

We must not indeed, venture to conclude at once, from our conviction of the divine goodness and power, that evil will ever cease to exist since we know not how to explain the existence of any evil at all. We can only say that there is some unknown (reagon) for it; and that it is a foolish presumption to think of assigning a limit to the effects of the unknown cause, except where revelation guides us. But when we are told that Christ is to till he shall have put all things under his feet, and that 'the last enemy that shall be destroyed is present'; this does afford some ground for expecting the ultimate extinction of evil and of suffering, by the total destruction of such as are incapable of good and of happiness. If 'eternal death' means final death—death without any revival—we can understand what is meant by 'Death being the last enemy destroyed,' viz.: that none henceforth are to be subjected to it. But if 'Death' be understood to mean everlasting life in misery, then, it would appear that Death is never to be destroyed at all; since, although no one should be henceforth sentenced to it, it would still be going on as a continual infliction, for ever.

On the whole, therefore, I think we are not warranted in concluding (as some have done,) so positively concerning this question as to make it a point of Christian faith to interpret figuratively, and not literally, the death' and destruction' spoken of in Scripture as the doom of the condemned; and to insist on the belief that they are to be kept alive for ever.

There are persons, I believe, who do not like to hear this question spoken of as one that is left undeclared by Scripture. Some would wish that the final extinction of the condemned should be positively declared, because they wish to believe that doctrine true; and some again, from thinking it a dangerous doctrine, wish to have the opposite one positively declared. But all such wishes are quite foreign from the subject. In judging of the sense of Scripture, we should be careful to guard against the error of suffering our wishes to bias the mind. If indeed, we had to devise a religion for ourselves, we might indulge our wishes as to what is desirable, or our conjectures as to what seems to us in itself probable, or our judgment as to what may seem advisable. But when we have before us 'Scripture-revelations' on any subject, it is for us to endeavor to make out what it is that Scripture teaches, and what it does not teach. We may wonder perhaps why Scripture has taught us so and so, or why it has withheld such and such knowledge, or why it has not more distinctively revealed this or that; but if we presume to interpret Scripture according to our inclinations or judgments, or to speak positively on points which Scripture has left doubtful, because we think it invisible that all such doubts should be removed, we plain that this is, not to make Scripture our guide, but to make ourselves the guide of Scripture.

On one point, and that which ought to afford us the most satisfaction, we are left in no doubt. That when Christ, who is our life, shall appear, we also of the number of His approved servants) shall carry with him in glory which is to last for

ever, we have the fullest assurance from Scripture.

Ignorant, however, as the wisest must be on those subjects, the most ignorant of us is wise enough for his own purpose, if he will but seek for the knowledge of his duty, and use what knowledge he has. Short-sighted as we are, we can see by the light of God's word that there are two paths set before us; the ends of which we cannot indeed distinctly see; but we know that the one leads to everlasting happiness, and the other to ruin; and that God has offered us our choice between them, and entreated us to take the better, and promised us strength to walk in it, if we will strive to enter in at the straight gate."

BIBLE EXAMINER.

BIBLE EXAMINER. PHILADELPHIA, NOV., 1848. ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL? "The soul that sinneth it shall die."—Bible.

BIBLE EXAMINER.—The next number will complete the present volume. No person will have it sent to them after that, unless we receive payment in advance—see terms first page. This rule will apply to all who are now subscribers, as well as to new ones. We hope our present patrons will attend to this in season, and avail themselves of some one of the "Three Offers" in our last number. Immediately on the issue of our next number, we shall have a quantity of Vol. III bound. The price of it will be seventy-five cents, single copy, or four copies for $2, current money; sent us free of expense. Those who wish the present Vol. complete, unbound, can be supplied with it at the subscription prices. If they wish us to lay aside any for them, bound or unbound, till they call for them, we will do so if they send us the money with the order. Remember, if you wish the present volume complete, you must apply for it soon.

THE "THREE OFFERS."—In our offer of the "Six Sermons." 18mo., we include our views on the Intermediate State of the Dead, and the tract, "Rich man and Lazarus," with each copy of the Sermons. The postage on each copy, including the whole, is about four cents. We state this for the information of all inquirers. Our "offers" cannot be extended to friends in Canada, without the addition of the amount of postage we are obliged to prepay on the Examiners sent there, which is eighteen cents, on each copy, per year; and also the postage we will have to pay on the Sermone, if sent by mail. The best Canada bank bills are five per cent discount here.

To CORRESPONDENTS.—We wish to all, but we cannot possibly publish every thing we would if we had a weekly issue, or an enlarged monthly. Our friends, they, most bear with us if their corremunications do not always appear. We may also err in judgment in our selections from their favors; but we will do the best we can. We have given place to more commendatory items during the year than we intended at the outset, but it has been done by the desire of others, contrary to our own judgment in some respects.

We are compelled to lay over several articles intended for the present number; and among them the first article of a Review of the Lectures of J. W. Bonham, against the destruction of the wicked, in which that production of endless miseryism is handled as it merits, but kindly, by H. Grew.

"PRONECY OF ZECHERIAN."—The Bible Advocate, published at Hartford, Conn., seems almost to take fire at our remarks upon this prophecy in the last Examiner. It is "half inclined to believe" our article was "designed as a refutation" of one it had published; but the Advocate says:—"Our arrangement and proof are such as are not touched by this reply." We wonder why it "flutters" if it was "not touched?" Why be at the pains of publishing six columns of additional matter to help that which was not harmed?

But, says the Advocate,—"If the Examiner had only published our article, we should have no need to say a word in reply." Did not all those persons see your "article," Br. Advocate, that will see your reply? If so, your "reply" is a "neutral" affair according to your own admission. Did not the Advocate then undertake a work of supervigation in replying at all? Did that paper really think the Examiner would copy its "article?" We must have been excessively fond of accommodation, to have copied six columns and a half from a weekly paper. When did that paper ever set us the example of such disinterestedness? Carefully, it would seem, till now, have the Editors abstained from ever mentioning our paper, though we have published occasionally for more than three years, and regularly for more than a year. They have not copied an article from the Examiner, nor mentioned its name all this long while, except at the time when Dr. Cray has managed the editorial. With that exception, the Advocate never let its readers know that such a paper as the Examiner was in existence. Now it seems to wonder that we could not have copied its long article on Zecheriah! "Consistency should blush for an answer," truly! If the Advocate intends the introduction of its last article, of an old saddle and "Judas" hanging "himself," to illustrate our reasoning, as it evidently does, we will only say—"Physician, heal myself!" we have no controversy with such very logical deductions.

The "article" in our "exchange" patent is which was formed in our last, in one and the sum

paragraph, admits the Mount of Olives, Zech. 14, is literal, and says "the feet of the Lord stood upon" it at his first advent; and then, when it comes to the cleaving of the Mount of Olives, and half of it removing one way and half the other, it means "the destruction of the Jewish polity"!!! Aye, and the "fleeing to the valley of the mountains" is "literally to be dispersed among the Gentiles"!!! If this is not an "arbitrary application of scripture," we may defy a Jesuit to tell what is. But, we leave that paper to pursue its own way, and we shall take the course to which we believe God and duty calls us. We feel no fears in letting our remarks on Zecherish go the world over, without strengthening them, along with the twelve and a half columns our exchange paper has served up for its readers.

MORTAL AND IMMORTAL TOGETHER.—"No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you," Job 12: 2. One of our exchange papers, in laboring to prove us wrong in the opinion that some will be probationers in the next age, or under Messiah's personal reign, and to avoid the difficulty in which it was placed by our argument, from the fact that angels have visited and preached to men; as, for example, Gabriel to Daniel—to the father of John the Baptist—to Mary, the mother of Jesus—and others—gravely inquires—"Are angels immortal?" and adds—"The same argument which proves that they are, will prove that men are." Surely, "wisdom shall die with you," brother Exchange. Our Lord saith—"They that are accounted worthy to obtain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, cannot die any more: [why not?] for they are equal unto the angels." that is the reason why they cannot die any more. Here our Lord clearly affirms that the holy angels cannot die: but our Exchange, says—"They are not said to be immortal:" and it further affirms that "Angels and men will be all of an age in immortality." Our Lord is thus represented as saying—"They that obtain that age," &c., "cannot die any more, for they are equal to themselves." Truly—"How forcible are right words." Will our Exchange give us chapter and verse in proof that "angels and men will be all of an age in immortality"? aye, and a little proof that angels will ever be made immortal at all, if they are not so before men? or, if those are not immortal now who "kept their first estate"?

We conceive our brother Exchange has made another very great mistake in applying Paul's language, 1 Timothy 6:15—10, "to Christ" a misuse, however, which would be predonable in a learner, but hardly so in one who is so positive in conclusions, without evidence, as some of his statements are. His words are - Paul speaking the priest, the only Potentate, says.

Who only hath immortality, dwelling in light, &c." If our brother has put the remainder of the verse, he would have found it to read thus—"Wuch no man can approach unto whom no man hath seen nor can see." Will he affirm that is "Christ?" The same apostle, in the same epistle, chapter 1: 17, affirms that "The King eternal, immortal, invisible," is "the only wise God." He only hath inherent immortality; but, does it therefore follow that holy angels are not immoral, because men are not yet so? Is that logical? Just as much so as the following:—"There is none good but one, that is God,"—"therefore no man nor angel is good." Though God alone is inherently good, yet he, at diverse times, imparts of that goodness to his creatures. How then can our brother Exchange prove that God does not impart immortality at diverse times to his creatures? And hence, how can he prove what he has so positively affirmed, that angels are not now immortal? If his assertion is to be relied upon as proof, it proves too much—it proves angels never can be immortal; for, then the "only Potentate" could not be said "only" to have "immortality."

Our brother seems to say, that our Lord was mortal after his resurrection, and until his ascension for he says—"Nor is there any evidence that he was immortalized, until he was glorified after his ascension." Pray, why did our brother not affirm at once, that he is not "immortalized" yet? For he says—"Angels and men will be all of one are in immortality." "The mon Christ Jesus," [1 John 2. 5.], is not "immortalized" yet, according to these assumptions. We agree with our brother, felty, that "Faith founded in speculation, now supplant Christian faith, but it can never honor the Gospel."

We have received, we presume from the author, a small pamphlet of fifty-eight pages, on "The purpose of God in creating the World." &c. "By E. P. Prince." We Have not examined it as fully as we may. In some things we agree with him; others we are compelled to disagree; particularly in the application of the prophetic periods. But there will soon show if he is right. Those who may wish to procure the work, can obtain it of the express at Seneca Falls, N.Y. Price $1 per hundred square single copy.

THE PENALTY OF ADAM'S SIN

credit for it to the "Bible Examiner." However, we care nothing about that so far as we are concerned: if "Timothy" is afraid to say Bible Examiner, or does not choose to numo it, we have no fault to find on that account.

"Timothy " does not quote us correct, or the Advocate has made him say what he did not mean. He represents us as saying that "It involves the greatest absurdity, and that it confounds language, to suppose that moral death was included in the sentence threatened to Adam."

Our language is, "Some contend that death [threatened to Adam] was a moral death. Such a view involves the greatest absurdity and confounds language. We shall see this by an examination of those texts in Moses and the Prophets where the phrase surely die occurs." We did go into that examination, and found, yea demonstrated; that that phrase is never used where moral death is the subject referred to; and this "Timothy" does not attempt to disprove from Moses and the Prophets; evidently, because it cannot be done. We said not a word about whether "moral death was included in the sentence;" but we did say, that was not the penalty of Adam's sin, which God threatened; and we repeat it—to maintain that it was, "involves the greatest absurdity, and confounds language;" it is contrary to the entire analogy of the language of the Law and the Prophets, as we have shown; and it will be time enough to strengthen that position when "Timothy" gives any evidence that we have misunderstood or misapplied the words of Moses and the Prophets.

The civil law threatens men with death who commit murder—that they "shall be hung by the neck till they are dead." Is that a literal death, or a political one? Perhaps "Timothy" would say it "includes" political "death." Suppose we admit that—is political death the penalty? or, is it a mere accident? an unavoidable consequence, which it would be "absurd" to legislate about? It follows as a matter of course when a man has committed murder, that he loses his political life; but no one ever dreamed that was the penalty for murder. Equally absurd is it, to maintain that when God said to man, whom he had just "formed of the dust of the ground," "thou shalt surely die," he meant a moral death! That would amount to just this—"O. Adam, I have formed thee of the dust of the ground—if thou sinnest, thou shalt surely be a sinner!!!" Most marvellous penalty! Know, O man, if thou dost commit murder thou shalt surely be a murderer!

…