The Bible Examiner — Vol. 3, No. 5 (1848)

Download: PDF — The Bible Examiner — Vol. 3, No. 5 (1848)

BIBLE EXAMINER.

"4 PROVE ALL THING, HOLD FAST THAT WHICH IS GOOD."

VOL. III.

PHILADELPHIA, MAY, 1848.

No. 5.

GEORGE STORRS, EDITOR AND PUBLISHER.

J. T. WALSH, RICHMOND, VA., ASSISTANT EDITOR.

PUBLISHED MONTHLY, AT 21 N. SIXTH STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA.

TERMS.—Single copy, for one year, fifty cents; five copies, $2;

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

This paper is subject to newspaper postage only.

THE KINGDOM OF GOD.—NO. VII.

THE FIRST RESURRECTION.

The first question that arises, in the consideration of this subject, is, "What do we understand by the "first resurrection"? and the second question is, "Who will be the subjects of it?"

Let us attend to the first question John, in Revelation, 20th chapter, describes the following scene: "And I saw an Angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand." This "angel," or messenger, we understand to be the Messiah, "the Messenger of the Covenant," who "comes down from heaven" with "power and great glory." The Apostle continues: "And he laid hold on the dragon, that old Serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years." He bound him during the Future Age, or the continuance of his reign. "And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled; and after that he must be loosed a little season." The nations, then, are now deceived; but then their deception will be removed.

"And I saw thrones," says John, "and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them." The Apostle saw the thrones of Messiah's Associate Kings, and those who sat upon them; and says that "judgment was given to them." "And I saw," says he, "the souls of them that were beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But THE REST OF THE DEAD lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is THE FIRST RESURRECTION. Blessed and holy is he that hath a part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."

Is the "first resurrection" the first in fact, or the first in importance? If certainly is not the first in fact, if we consider the resurrection of Christ as a distinct one; for Jesus was "the first born from the dead"—the first fruits of them that slept."

Besides, there were those who "came out of their graves," after the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. We repeat, therefore, that, if the resurrection of Christ be considered a separate and distinct one, the resurrection spoken of by the Apostle John, would not be the first in fact. And we do not see how those who hold this view can well dispose of the difficulty. But we do not so regard the resurrection of the Messiah. We look upon his birth from the grave as a part of the "first resurrection;" and we think this view of the subject can be sustained by the testimony of the Scriptures.

Let the reader remember, then, that Jesus is "the first fruits of them that slept:" he is the antitype of the "first ripe sheaf which was waved before the Lord:" the "earnest of the full harvest;" "the first born among many brethren." The "first ripe sheaf" was a part of the general harvest—"the first fruits" of that harvest. The "first born among many brethren," is, nevertheless, a member of the family—a part of it; and without this order there could be no family; for there must necessarily be a "first born." The Apostle Paul, in the 15th chapter 1st Cor., says: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own ORDER: Christ the FIRST FRUITS; afterwards they that are Christ's at his coming." This is the "order" of the harvest of the dead; Jesus is the "earnest of that harvest"—the "FIRST BORN from among the dead." He, therefore, stands at the head, and as a part of "the first resurrection."

From this view of the subject, we regard the "first resurrection," of the Apostle John, as the harvest of which the Messiah was "the first fruits"—the "first ripe sheaf."

As it respects those, who "came out of their graves," after the resurrection of Christ, as well as others which might be mentioned, it is very doubtful whether they arose "to die no more;" and, consequently, if they did not, they would not constitute any part of the "harvest." It will be perceived, then, that we regard the "first resurrection" as the first in fact, in the sense in which we have explained it. The "first resurrection," therefore, is not only the first in point of fact, but also, in importance.

The next question is, "Who will be the subjects of the first resurrection?"

This is one of the most important questions that can engage our attention; and the reader will excuse us for enlarging upon it.

Some suppose that, when the Lord comes, all the dead will be raised; but it must be obvious to the most unlearned in the Scriptures, that this view would conflict with the idea of a "first resurrection" at all. There are to be two resurrections: the "first" when the Lord comes, (he being regarded as the "first fruits" of it); the second" when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father, that He may be all and in all.

All the dead, therefore, will not be raised at the second advent of Messiah.

From the paragraph, quoted from Revelation, we learn that the martyrs, or those that had "been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God, lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." These, therefore, will be raised from the dead; they will have a part in the "first resurrection."

After speaking of the "scaling" of the hundred and forty-four thousand of the tribes of Israel, John says: "After this I beheld, and lo, a great multitude which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and languages, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; and cried with a loud voice, saying, salvation to our God who sitteth upon the throne, and to the Lamb." Rev. vii. 9, 10. Again, in the 14th verse, these persons are said to have come "out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne will dwell among them. They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. For the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will feed them, and will lead them to living fountains of waters: and God will wipe away all tears from their eyes."

Here we behold an innumerable multitude of Saints, from every nation, kindred, people, and language, standing before the throne. They have come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. And for this reason, they stand before the Lamb, and all tears are wiped from their eyes. In as much, then, as these are to enjoy "the rest that remains for the people of God," in the Age to come, they will be subjects of the "first resurrection." Moreover, the persons represented by the symbols of the "four beasts," and "four-and-twenty elders," are described as singing "a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals of it: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and language, and people, and nation; and hast made us to our God kings and priests: AND WE SHALL REIGN ON THE EARTH." Ch. v. 9, 10.

The destiny of these persons, thus redeemed by the blood of Christ, is to reign with Messiah on the earth. They will, therefore, have a part in the "first resurrection;" otherwise they could not reign with him.

Again, it is said: "Behold he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also that pierced him; and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him." Ch. 1: 7. If those who "perced him" behold him, as he descends from heaven, they must, also, be raised from the dust of death. But this may only refer to the Jews, as such, because it is written by one of the Prophets—"and they shall look upon him whom they pierced, and mourn for him," &c.

We now state a proposition, which, perhaps, may startle some, and extort the cry of heresy from others; but, which, nevertheless, we regard as Scriptural; viz: THAT NOT A SINGLE GENTILE WILL BE A SUBJECT OF THE "FIRST RESURRECTION," EXCEPT THE SAINTS FROM AMONG THE GENTILES. We

find no evidence in the Scriptures to lead us to believe, that any, from among the Gentiles, will be raised from the dead, at the coming of Christ, EXCEPT THOSE "WHO HAVE WASHED THEIR HOBES, AND MADE THEM WHITE IN THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB."

The "first resurrection" will be eminently Jewish. It will embrace two classes—"the children of Abraham by faith," and his literal descendants. There will not only be two classes, but two "orders;" first the "tares," second, the "wheat." The "tares," although gathered at the "harvest," are not a part of that "harvest." They "grow together until the harvest, and are then gathered to be consumed." They are not of the "first fruits," and consequently are not numbered in the "first resurrection." They do not belong to this class—they are not of this order.

We have said that the "first resurrection" will be Jewish; and now let us hear the testimony of Daniel: "And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince who standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." Ch. xii. 1, 2.

The point in this prediction to which we wish to direct the special attention of the reader, is, that when Michael the great Prince—the Messiah—stands up for the children of Daniel's people, every one found written in the book shall be delivered; and that many of them (of Daniel's people) that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some (of Daniel's people) to everlasting life, and some (of Daniel's people) to shame and everlasting contempt.

It is evident, apart from the judgment of the nations indicated in the prophecy, that Daniel's people is the subject of this prediction; and that the resurrection spoken of is the resurrection of "his people"—of Jews only, without even the slightest allusion to the Abrahamic seed from among the Gentiles.

We regard this prediction, then, as relating exclusively to two classes among Daniel's people, and as having no reference to the Gentiles, whether Saints or otherwise.

Regarding it then in this light, we find that all the Jews will not be raised at the time indicated; for the Prophet says many of them that sleep in the dust shall awake." "Many shall awake;" not all. This "many" comprises two classes—the "wheat" and the "tares"—the "chaff" and the "wheat." The chaff and the wheat, though gathered at the same time, share not the same destiny; the one is burned—the other is gathered into the garner of the Lord. So, in the case before us, "some arise to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." An objector may say, that the resurrection of two classes at the same time, clashes with the declaration of the Apostle John—"Blessed and holy is he that hath a part in the first resurrection; on such the second death hath no power."

We reply that the "tares" are not considered as a part of the "harvest"-they are not identified with those who constitute the "first resurrection." Now let us see if the view we have taken of this subject, harmonizes with other testimonies.

Matthew vii. 22, 23: "Many," said Jesus, "will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name, and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess to them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Here we have the awful prediction, that "many" persons, doubtless contemporary Jews, who perhaps, like Judas, may have wrought miracles in the name of Christ, will be raised from the dead, when the Messiah shall be revealed from heaven, and commanded to depart from his presence! This view of the subject is strengthened by the following: "And I say to you, that many (Gentile saints) shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom (some of the Jews—the rebellious) shall be cast out into utter darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Chapter viii. 11, 12.

These Israelites, who rejected the Messiah, will be raised from their slumbers in the dust of death only to behold " Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and all the Prophets in the Kingdom of God; and themselves thrust out! And then they will be the subjects of " weeping and gnashing of teeth."

This harmonizes with the testimony of Paul in his letter to the Hebrews, when he speaks of a "sorer punishment" as the reward of apostacy. The Hebrews were strongly tempted to this sin, and hence the propriety of the Apostle's warning.

The sum of the whole matter, then, is this "The first resurrection" embraces the Saints of all ages—the true Israel of God—the children of promise. But the wicked and Apostate Jews will also be raised, not to life, but "to shame and everlasting contempt." The rest of the Gentile world will not be raised until the "thousand years are finished." Then the dead, small and great, will come forth; the sea will give up its dead; and death and hell yield up their victims; and all will stand before God! J. T. W.

PHILOSOPHY OF MAN.—NO. IV.

BY J. T. WALSH.

THE HUMAN SPIRIT.

We have seen that the term soul, when used in reference to man, signifies: 1. Life. 2. Person. 3. A dead body. 4. Mind. 5. It is used to personify. 6. For being or existence. We are now prepared to examine the term spirit. Solomon says, 'who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth.' Ecole. iii. 21. Although, then, we have said, upon the authority of Scripture, that both beasts and men have spirits, we are not to be understood as saying, that a beast has a human mind; but simply that both have spirits.

The term spirit signifies breath. James ii. 26: 'For as the body without the spirit [breath] is dead,' &c. 'God made man of the dust of the earth, and breathed into his nostrils the breath [or spirit] of life, and he became a living soul.'

It is used as the vital principle, life. Luke viii. 55: 'And her spirit [her life, her vitality, her breath] came again, and she arose immediately,' &c. Job xxxix. 14: If he [God] should set his heart upon man, if he should gather to himself his spirit [his life] and his breath, all flesh would perish together,

and man would turn to dust again.' This text proves that God gathers to himself the breath of man, and enables us to understand the language of Solomon when he says, 'Then shall the spirit [life or breath] return to God who gave it.' 'Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit [of life] shall return to God who gave it.' Eccles. xii. 7. God made man's body, with all its parts, out of the dust, and then endowed it with life. This was from God; and when a man dies, his spirit, or life, returns to God who gave it. Ps. xxxi. 5: 'Into thy hand I commit my spirit; [my life, my being];] thou hast redeemed me, O Lord God of truth.' Christ said, when he was about to expire, 'Father; into thy hands I commend my spirit,' my life. Luke xxiii. 46. Stephen said, 'Lord Jesus receive my spirit,' life. Acts vii. 59. Christ is the Christian's life, and when Christ, who is their life, shall appear they will also appear with him in glory.

It is used for the mind of man. Gen. xxvi. 35: 'Who were a bitterness of spirit [of mind] to Isaac and Rebecca.' Their minds were grieved—they were disturbed Chapter xli. 8: 'And it came to pass in the morning that his spirit [his mind] was troubled.' Chapter xlv. 27: 'The spirit of Jacob their father revived.' His mind, which before was cast down or dejected, now revived and became cheerful. Ex. vi. 9: 'They harkened not to Moses, by reason of anguish of spirit,' of mind. Job xxxiii. 8: 'But there is a spirit, a mind, in man; and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.' Ecclesi. iii. 21: 'Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth.' This text is susceptible of two expositions, and we will submit them both, and let you judge of their correctness. 1. It may refer to the mind; and then its meaning will be, who knoweth the mind of man that goeth upward; that is, ascending, towering, exalted, and exalting, and the spirit, or mind, of the beast that goeth downward to the earth; that is, earthly in its nature, and cannot rise above the things of time and sense. But the context favours this view more than the preceding one, who knows the spirit, or life, of man that goeth upward to God, and that will, consequently, be given back to him again; and the spirit, or life, of the beasts that goeth downward to the earth, and, consequently, penishes? This view of the matter would only prove that man would be raised from the dead; but, that the beasts would not. In this exposition we see the force and propriety of the expression, 'the beasts that perish,' that is, are not raised from the dead.

It stands for the thoughts, affections, care temper, frame or disposition of mind. 1 Tim. iv. 12: 'Be thou an example of believers in spirit;' in temper, disposition, &c. Col. ii. 5: 'Though I be absent in the flesh, yet I am with you in spirit.' Ps. ii. 10: 'Renew a right spirit within me;' a right disposition, temper, &c. 'If any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his.' If any man have not the disposition of Christ, &c.

It is used for person. Mark ii. 8: 'When Jesus perceived in his spirit;' in himself, or in his mind. Luke i. 47: 'And my spirit hath rejoiced in God, my Saviour;' I have rejoiced, &c. 2 Thes. ii. 2. 1 John iv. 1: 'Beloved, believe not every spirit; but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets, or spirits, have gone out into the world.' See 2d and 3d verses. 1 Peter iii. 19: 'By which, spirit, also he went and preached to the spirits, or persons, in prison.'

These spirits, or persons, were said to be disobedient in the days of Noah. I Cor. v. 5: 'To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit, the person, the man himself, may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.'

It is used in reference to men translated to heaven or raised from the dead. Heb. xii. 23: 'To the spirits of just men made perfect, &c., &c. Alluding to those, perhaps, that were translated to heaven, and to those who were raised from the dead after our Lord arose. Much more could be said on this, and, indeed, on all the above propositions, but this will suffice to give a correct interpretation of the term spirit.

We will conclude this part of our subject by making a few remarks more on spirit. That there is a spiritual essence pervading the whole animal, and particularly the blood and nervous system, carrying vitality, life, and power to every part of the human frame, and evolving thought, and feeling, by means of the brain, which is its grand sensorium, we have already proved. And it is probable that Solomon alludes to this, when he says: 'As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor the structure of the parts of conception in her that is with child,' &c. Ecclesi. ii. 5. Recent discoveries in Physiology clearly show, that while the brain is the instrument of thought, of the mind, there is something whose nature, at least, is semi-spiritual, which operates upon, and moves the brain, and gives life, power, and mental energy. There is an essence which pervades the nervous system, although we cannot see it, or weigh it; although it is not tangible to our senses, yet we are convinced that it is there by actual experiment. And the science of Neurology is bringing to light some astounding facts and truths upon this subject. So, we find no difficulty in admitting and maintaining that man has a spirit. But it is one thing to prove that man has a spirit, and quite another to prove that the spirit is immortal. The evidence of the one is not the evidence of the other. The proof of one is not the proof of the other. The testimony of one is not the testimony of the other. They are two distinct propositions. And if every text in the Bible, in which the term spirit is used in reference to man, means spirit, literal spirit, and nothing else but spirit, the proposition that man has an immortal soul, or an immortal spirit, would not be sustained. It is one thing to prove that man has a spirit, and another to prove that that spirit must necessarily be immortal. If we wish to prove that the existence of God would never terminate, we would not argue this fact upon the hypothesis that he was spiritual, and, therefore, could not cease to be: but we would appeal to the word of God, which says, he is 'immortal'; that he 'alone has immortality.' If we wished to prove that the angels would live forever, we would not predicate by arguments upon their being spirits, but upon some positive declaration of the Holy Scriptures. Let it, then, be distinctly understood, that when our opponents, on the subject of immortality, have proved than man has a spirit, they have not began to prove that spirit immortal. We hope, therefore, that those Phrenologists who teach that man has an immortal soul, or an immortal spirit, will observe this just, logical, and scriptural distinction; and, hereafter, direct their attention, as well as their testimony, to the proper point, and not confound wisdom by words without knowledge. But, in this discussion,

it is taken for granted that because man has a spirit, that spirit cannot die; that it is immortal. Now, we do not ask them to prove that man has a copy and a spirit, but we do ask them to prove that either the one or the other, or both, is immortal. For they do not inform us which is, positively, the immortal part; but, sometimes speak of an 'immortal soul'; and then of a 'deathless spirit?' Has man two immortal principles within?

But, how do religionists attempt to prove that the spirit of man cannot die? 'Why,' say they, 'God is a spirit, and cannot die. This does not come in one thousand leagues of proving it. They first assume that the spirit of man, and the spirit of God are the same in essence, or rather that it is a part and parcel of God himself, and then infer that it cannot die. This is an assumption. The idea itself is blasphemous! It is the offspring of pride. Who has taught man that he has any divinity in him? Pagan Philosophy. Man's spirit is the seat of all his passions, propensities, &c.; No. There is no truth in it. It is a pagan fable. There is not another being in the universe of the same essence of the Deity! Where did this idea originate? Here is its origin: The Greeks and Romans thought they had descended from the gods, and consequently must have some divinity about them. And this idea was dressed up by their ancient poets and philosophers, and handed down to us in the form of an immortal soul. There are various sorts or kinds of spirits. 1. God is a spirit. 2. Angels are spirits. 3. Man has a spirit. 4. Animals have spirits. The scriptures ascribe a soul, spirit, and heart to God; but who would think of teaching that they were of the same essence of the soul, spirit, and heart of man? Who would think of contending that, because the beasts have spirits, they cannot die; that they are immortal? No person, perhaps, but a simpleton; and yet there is as much logic and sound sense in this doctrine as in the other. In a word, we might as well contend that the flesh of birds, beasts, fishes, insects, &c., was the same kind of flesh, including that of man, although the Apostle Paul distinguishes them, as to contend that all spirits were the same.

H. GREW'S RESPONSE TO DR. THOMAS.

Dr. Thomas remarks: "It does not necessarily follow, that if a man be not saved, he is therefore consigned to the lake of fire, which is the second death. It is written 'Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world (aion, age or dispensation) nor in that to come,' Matt. 12:32. Does not this imply that there are some offences, whether of omission or commission, that will be forgiven in the future age?"

I reply, that the passage, whether it imports that those who commit this sin in the present age, shall not be forgiven in it or the future; or that the sin shall not be forgiven whether committed in this age or the future, (in which, although righteousness shall generally be established, some will die an hundred years old accursed, Isa. 65 : 20) it does not necessarily imply that any thing more than that this sin shall never be forgiven. It is therefore an inadequate basis for the opinion that mon dying in impenitence will ever be forgiven. I understand our Lord, John 8: 21, to connect dying in sin with eternal separation from himself,—"yo

shall seek me, and shall die in your sins : whither I go, ye cannot come. 7

Dr. T. asks, "Is there no alternative to the resurrected between possessing the kingdom and being destroyed in the lake of fire?" It appears from the divine testimony that there is not. The names of all the human family are either written or not written in the Book of life. From Rev. 20:27, we learn that all those whose names are therein written, will enter the kingdom, and from Rev. 20: 15, we learn that all whose names are not written there, will be cast into the lake of fire.

"The scriptures teach the non-resurrection of millions." I ask where? Where, I ask the learned Dr., is his scriptural authority for rejecting the literal import of our Lord's words, John 5:28. "All that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth" &c. "There shall be a resurrection both of the just and of the unjust." Rom 2, teaches, that "in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ," he will render to every man according to his deeds, "every soul of man that doeth evil, and every man that worketh good." It is true indeed that "where there is no vision the people perish:" the apostle, however, plainly teaches that those who have sinned without law (i.e. written law) will be judged "in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ," which necessarily implies their resurrection: "It is appointed unto all men once to die, but after this the judgment." Heb. 9:27. If indeed, we have any plain positive declarations that some of the human family will never be raised from the dead, we must understand these universal terms in a limited sense, but not otherwise. Will the Dr. favor us with the chapter and verse? On No. 2 and 4 I remark, most cordially do I agree with Mr. T. in respect to the faith of those who "cry 'Lord, Lord,'" who do not "believe his doctrine or obey his voice." Without holiness "no man shall see the Lord." But he affirms that a man "cannot be saved in any sense, unless he also believe the prophetic truths concerning the kingdom of God." He also maintains "that a correct belief of doctrine and facts, with repentance, immersion and holiness, are indivisibly essential to salvation in the kingdom of God." I reply, 1. Dr. T. has not produced any scripture proof that "a correct belief of doctrine and facts," and "prophetic truths," &c., or that immersion is essential to salvation. 2. We have scriptural truth and fact to the contrary. In 1 Cor. 8: we find the person whose views of the unity of God and of idols were incorrect, recognized as a Christian brother, v. 11. Rom. 14: 1, proves that persons may be "in the faith" of the Son of God, and, consequently, be in a state of salvation, and yet be "weak" i.e. erroneous or ignorant in respect to some truths. Being weak is contrasted with having knowledge. 1. Cor. 8: 7, 11. In the various passages which state particularly the characters which have no inheritance in the Kingdom of God, the unimmersed are never mentioned. It is an undeniable fact, although immersion is the duty of every believer, and consequently, he who is immersed is more "acceptable to God," all other things being equal, than he who is not immersed; there are many real Christians who are unimmersed, who, on the whole, are more conformed to Jesus Christ, and, consequently, are more "acceptable to God," than many real Christians who are immersed.

If a correct belief of all scripture "doctrine and facts" and "prophetic truth," is essential to salvation; if, as the Dr. affirms, "we must believe the whole truth, or, be dashed to atoms," I ask, "Who then can be saved?" Highly as I esteem the biblical knowledge of Mr. T., I assure him that his opinion should make him tremble for his own safety. Has he a "correct" knowledge and "belief" of all "prophetic truth?" Does he discern accurately all things which all the prophets have foretold concerning the Kingdom of God, and the true periods of their fulfilment? If so, I think he may more truthfully adopt the words, "I only am left," than did the prophet of old. For the sake of poor humanity, however, I rejoice in the assurance that he would be vastly further from the truth, than number one is from "seven thousand." The Editor of the Examiner well observes, "If we believed to constitute a man a real Christian, he must be perfect in knowledge and judgment, we should never hope to find a Christian on earth, till the next age shall come."

In Dr. T.'s No. 2 he remarks, "One error is as fatal to a man's salvation as a multitude of errors believed." This, as a general proposition, is inadmissible. Whether one error is so or not, depends upon the nature of it. It is not the number but the character of a man's errors which determines their consequence in respect to his salvation. To substitute my own merit for the foundation God has laid in Zion for salvation, is "fatal;" but neither "one," or a hundred errors, respecting some "prophetic truths," is so. The word of truth teaches the fatal consequence of the former, but not of the latter.

On No. 6 it is observed that "the gospel is made up of particular truths." The question is asked, "Which of those particular truths have we authority to dispense with as unnecessary to salvation?" I answer, such "of these particular truths," as the bible itself does not make necessary to salvation. It is an undeniable fact that the bible recognizes among the saved, some who are "weak," or in error, respecting some "particular truths." It is equally a fact, that it declares some errors to be fatal to salvation. We may well expect then to find a marked line between these two classes of errors. So it is. Those errors of faith and practice, with those principles, which exclude men from the holy kingdom of God, are plainly declared to be thus fatal. See 1 Cor. 6: 9, 10, Rev. 22: 15. Unbelievers and immoral men are excluded, but the unimmersed and those who have not "a correct belief" of "prophetic truth" are not; consequently, no man has authority to exclude them. It is indeed our duty and privilege to occupy our talents and opportunities in seeking after all the truth of God.

On No. 11, I have only to remark, that the person whom "the apostle John forbid the true believer" to receive, &c., was one of those "who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh," 2 John 7: and not one who believes that he has thus come, and, in the flesh, died for our sins, but does not understand and believe the truth that he actually and really suffered and died in respect to his highest and divine nature.

John Wesley justly remarked: "We may die without the knowledge of many truths, and be carried to Abraham's bosom; but if we die without love, what will knowledge avail us?

Just as much as it avails the devil and his angels."

"All seeing God! 'tis thine to know The springs whence wrong opinions flow! To judge, from principles within. When frailty cries, and when we sin."

IIENRY GREW.

THE PROPHETIC PERIODS.—NO. VII.

THE TWELVE HUNDRED AND SINTY DAYS.

By many, who have written on this subject, it has been supposed that the 1260 years of the "little horn." Dan. 7th, must have commenced As D. 538. It must be confessed that that point, when taken in connection with the events of 1798, seemed, beyond a doubt, the true one; but time has demonstrated it to be an error. Some, we trust, are now prepared calmly to review the whole matter on this topic, and to follow the truth wherever it shall lead, without allowing previous opinions to control their judgments.

Let us look at Daniel 7th, and see at what point the "time, times, and the dividing of time" ends. Can it be said to end till "the time" comes for "the saints" to possess "the kingdom?" We think not. This horn "made war with the saints and prevailed against them, until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom;" verses 21, 22. Now, so long as this horn makes war with the saints, and prevails against them, so long they must be "in his hands;" and this is expressly said to be "until the Ancient of days came—and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom." It must be manifest, to the unprejudiced mind, that neither of those events have yet taken place; and as a certain consequence, the "time, times and the dividing of time" is not yet ended, and therefore, could not have commenced at an earlier period than 1260 years ago, or earlier than 588. It is admitted by the same writers, of whom we have been speaking, that the "forty two months," Rev. 13; 5, is the same period, and covering the same ground and subject, as the little horn, Dan. 7th. Now, it is expressly said of the beast, Rev. 13: 5, that—"Power was given him to CONTINUE forty two months." The continuance of a power is the whole period of existence of that power. If it be said, "The marginal reading is to 'make war' forty two months,"—that view will only strengthen my argument, for, in Daniel it is said he shall make war until the Ancient of days comes, &c. In whatever light, then, the subject is viewed, the 1260 years are not yet ended, nor will they end till the fourth beast of Dan. 7th, which bears this little horn, is "slain, and his body destroyed and given to the burning flame." Then the time has come that the saints possess the kingdom. As that time has not yet arrived we are to look for the commencement of the 1260 years some where subsequent to 583.*

We wish, after the experience of the past, to speak without positiveness as to any given year in which that period commenced. If, however, we are to look for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as the point at which to commence, he could not have had that supremacy as late as 590. "Bower's History of the Popes," printed in "London, 1750, is before

us. Bower was "Public Professor of Rhetoric, History, and Philosophy, in the Universities of Rome, Fermo. and Macerata; and in the latter place Counsellor of the Inquisition." Here then we may expect correct information.

Bower informs us, Vol. 2, page 459, that the "Emperor Mauricius" assembled a "Council of the Patriarchs, all the Senators of the Imperial City, and the Metropolitans:" that, "By this great Council was confirmed to John of Constantinople, the Title of Universal Bishop, to be enjoyed by him, and his successors in that See." Bower adds—"I say confirmed, for the Bishop of Constantinople had long before this time a lawful claim to that Title." Here is evidence that the Bishop of Rome was not Universal Bishop up to this period, 588. It is true that this transaction at Constantinople stirred up the rage of the Bishop of Rome, and he called upon the former to "renounce the Title which he had usurped in the pride of his heart, at the instigation of the devil, to the great debasement of the rest of his brethren." Shortly after, the Bishop of Rome died, and was succeeded by "Gregory the Great," in 590. Gregory, at the time of his election, was evidently, for the times in which he lived, a good man, and it was a source of great distress to him to be called to occupy the rest of Bishop of Rome.

As late as 596, Pope Gregory declared that the Title of Universal Bishop was "scandalous, profane, blasphemous" and that "whoever calls himself UNIVERSAL BISHOP, or desires to be so called, in the Pride of his Heart, is the FORERUNNER of Anti-Christ." Bower, Vol. 2, page 515. Could he at the same time, himself, have been a Universal Bishop, or exercising the functions of such an office? I think these facts are sufficient to establish the point, that, up to this time, the Bishop of Rome had neither claimed nor used the prerogative of a Universal Bishop. If others had sometimes called him so, that does not at all affect the question: he clearly never had been such in fact down to 596.

Gregory, like most other men raised to high offices in the church, became corrupted; and towards the last of his life manifested the spirit of devils more than the spirit of Christ, which seemed to characterize him at first: and it is truly painful to see the change that came over him in his controversy with the Bishop of Constantinople.

In the month of November, 601, "The Emperor Mauricius was driven from the throne, and inhumanly murdered, and one Phocas, a Centurion, raised to the Empire in his room." Bower, Vol. 2, page 629. "Mauricius had given no particular provocation to Phocas, who was quite unknown to him, and yet the tyrant, not satisfied with putting him to death, for his greater torment and grief, ordered five of his sons to be first inhumanly murdered before his face. Such a scene of unparalleled cruelty drew sighs and tears from all the spectators, but Mauricius himself, who beheld the death of his children quite undisturbed, without shedding a tear, or betraying the least mark of grief or concern. During the whole time of that tragedy, the most shocking to the eyes of a parent that was ever beheld, he continued, in appearance, quite unaffected, only repeating, as each of his children received the fatal blow—Just art Thou, O Lord, and Righteous are all thy Judgments. Mauricius was beheaded last, and their heads were all brought to Constantinople and cast into a heap

near the Tribunal, where they lay till they became offensive, then the Tyrant [Phocas] suffered them to be buried." Bower, Vol. 2, page 531.

We have given this extract for two reasons—First, to show the wicked character of Phocas, who is hereafter to establish the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome: and, Second, to show how Gregory the Great had apostatised from the spirit that characterized him at his election. After Phocas had manifested his horrible depravity and cruelty towards Mauricius and his family, Gregory wrote him a letter, in which he says—"We have been hitherto most grievously afflicted; but the Almighty has chosen you, and placed you on the Imperial Throne, to banish, by your merciful disposition, all our afflictions and sorrows. Let the heavens, therefore rejoice, let the earth leap for joy; let the people return thanks for so happy a change." Bower, Vol. 2, page, 533. In the same letter Gregory says—"May the Holy Ghost that DWELLS IN YOUR BREAST, ever guide and assist you."!!! Phocas commenced seeking the favour of Gregory, Bishop of Rome, because his wickedness did not meet with favour from the Bishop of Constantinople, who opposed his murderous projects against the family of Mauricius. "The Empress Constantina, and her three daughters, had fled for refuge to one of the churches of Constantinople. Phocas ordered them to be taken by force and publicly executed. But they found in the Patriarch Cyriacus, a kind friend and protector, who opposing with great resolution and courage, the execution of the order, would suffer no kind of violence to be offered them in their asylum." Bower, Vol. 2, page 537. From that time Phocas conceived a hatred of the Bishop of Constantinople, which the Bishop of Rome took the advantage of to gratify his own envy and hatred; hence he flattered the blood-thirsty tyrant, Phocas, and extolled him almost to a God. Gregory died in 604, on the 12th of March. If Phocas conferred on him the Title of Universal Bishop, Bower has not recorded it: though it appears that he took every opportunity to oppress the Bishop of Constantinople and exalt the Bishop of Rome. On the 13th of September, the same year that Gregory died, Sabinian was chosen to fill the vacancy of Bishop of Rome. He proved to be a wicked, avaricious, and cruel wretch, and was hated by the Roman people. He died, or was killed, Feb. 22d, 606. He was succeeded by Boniface III. His election, Bower supposes, was not till about one year after the death of Sabinian; yet he says, "no writer accounts for" so long "a vacancy." It is possible that the defect may be in the date of his election; and that it should have been 606 instead of 607.

With respect to Boniface, I shall give a copious extract from Bower, Vol. 2, page 545. "Boniface was a Deacon of the Roman Church; was a native of Rome, and sent by Gregory, in the year 603, to Constantinople, with the character of his Nuncio [Envoy or Messenger] to congratulate, in his name Phocas on his accession to the Imperial Crown. Upon the death of Gregory he returned to Rome; and Sabinian, dying soon after his return, he was chosen to succeed him, as one who was not only well known to Phocas, but greatly favoured both by him and his wife; for by flattering the usurper, as Gregory had done, and conniving at his cruelties, if not applauding him in them, while the rest of mankind exclaimed against him as an outrageous Tyrant, he had so insinuated himself into his good graces, as to become one of his chief favourites, or his only favorite, being the only person in the whole city of Constantinople, who approved, or could so dissemble as to make the tyrant believe that he approved of his conduct. For that merit alone Boniface was chosen; and though he enjoyed his new dignity but a short time, for he did not even live to the end of the year in which he was raised to it, yet it may truly be said, that to him alone the Roman See owes more than to all his predecessors together. For he no sooner found himself vested with the Papal Dignity, than, taking advantage of the partiality and favour of Phocas to him, and of his aversion and hatred to the Patriarch Cyriacus, he not only prevailed on the Tyrant to revoke the Decree, settling the Title of Universal Bishop on the Bishop of Constantinople, but obtained what no man could have believed could have ever come into the thoughts of a successor of Gregory to demand, were it not vouched by all the historians to a man, and obtained a new decree, settling on himself and successors, that very Title, which his immediate Predecessor but one, and all his Predecessors, the best and greatest, had so often condemned in any Bishop whatever, and rejected with the utmost abhorrence, when offered to himself, as vain, proud profane, impious, execrable, blasphemous, anti-christian, heretical, diabolical. Boniface could not but know that the converted title had been thus stigmatised over and over again, by two of his Predecessors successively, Pelagius II. and Gregory. But so inconceivably great was his ambition, so utterly unbridled was his desire of exalting his See, that rather than let slip the favourable opportunity that now offered of raising it higher than it had ever yet been, or, in the opinion of his predecessors, ought ever to be, he chose to stand condemned, out of their mouths, as a Heretic, a follower of satan—a rival of satan in pride—and the forcerunner of anti-Christ. The Edict issued by Phocas on this occasion has not reached our times; but that thereby the Decree of the Council of Constantinople in 588, entailing the Title of Universal Bishop on the Bishop of Constantinople, and his successors was revoked and annulled; that the said Title was transferred from them to Boniface, and his successors, and the Bishop of Rome declared the HEAD OF THE WHOLE CATHOLIC CHURCH, is what all the historians, whom I have quoted above, unanimously vouch. In the Bishop of Constantinople, the Title of Universal Bishop is generally thought to have been no more than a badge of honor, or an honorary title, without any accession of power. And it does not appear, that in virtue of that Title, he ever exercised or claimed any. But Boniface had scarce obtained it when he took upon him to exercise an answerable jurisdiction and power—a jurisdiction to that time [606 or 607]] UNKNOWN and UNHEARD OF in the Catholic Church. No sooner was the Imperial Edict, vesting him with the title of Universal Bishop, and declaring him Head of the Church, brought to Rome, than he assembled a Council in the Basilic of St. Peter, consisting of 72 Bishops, 34 Presbyters, and all the Deacons, and Inferior Clergy of that city: he acted there as if he had not been invested with the title alone, but with all the POWER of an Universal Bishop—with all the AUTHORITY of a SUPREME HEAD; or rather, ABSOLUTE MONARCH of the Church.

By a Decree which he issued in that Council, it was pronounced, declared and defined that no election of a Bishop should thenceforth be deemed lawful and good, unless made by the people and clergy, approved by the Prince or Lord of the City, and CONFIRMED BY THE POPE interpoing his authority in the following terms: "WE WILL AND COMMAND." Thus was the power of the Pope, as Universal Bishop—as Head of the Church, or, in other words, the Papal Supremacy, first introduced."

Such appears to be the true history of Papal Supremacy. Whatever may be said of the acts of Justinian in 533 to 541, it is clear no Bishop of Rome claimed or exercised that power till the period brought to view by Bower, as briefly presented in the foregoing extracts. Now, unless the Papal Supremacy can be dated from the decree of the Council at Constantinople, 588, which is not at all probable, there is no point of time short of 604 to 607 for it. From that point 1260 years carry us to 1864 to 1867, as the time when Papacy is to meet the "Judgment" of the "Ancient of days" and "the time" comes "for the saints to possess the kingdom." We repeat what we have before said—the termination of the 1260 years marks the sum total of the existence of the "little horn," Dan. 7th, and not 45 years before. It will be "destroyed," and there ends its "time, times and dividing of time." We are satisfied that those who take any other view of the subject are doomed to be disappointed.

BIBLE EXAMINER.

PHILADELPHIA, MAY, 1848.

ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL?

VISIT TO MILVILLE.—The Editor of the Examiner spent eight days at Milville, New Jersey, during the month of April. He left this city at eight o'clock, A. M., passed down the Delaware Bay by steamboat, some sixty or seventy miles to the mouth of the Cohansey River; thence up that river twenty miles to Bridegton; then ten miles by stage, arriving at the place of destination at six o'clock, P. M.; preached the same evening, and each successive evening during his stay, and three times on the Sabbath. He was most cordially received and entertained by Brother Jacob Johnson, who was formerly a Methodist Preacher, and much esteemed in the Methodist E. Church in that place, till he embraced the Scripture doctrines of the end of the wicked and sleep of the dead: finding he could not live in peace in that Church, he withdrew from it. His house has ever been a home for Preachers, and no good man, we should think, need feel any otherwise than at home there. Brother Chester, also once an Exhorter in the Methodist E. Church, is of like mind with Brother Johnson. The cry of "Infidel" was raised against them and others

$

\mathrm {}

$

who avowed their faith in the Bible truth—"all the wicked will God destroy"—and that "the dead praise not the Lord." These brethren had desired the Editor of the Examiner to visit them for some months past, and the opposers began to think he would be among the things that are not present; but he came upon them in an hour they were not aware. He had a most candid hearing from those who were not too bigoted to hear; and there were many that did hear. The last evening, by special request, he addressed the "young men of Milville." The house was literally overflowing, and numbers could not get in. The things of the Kingdom of God were presented to their minds, and the high honour God designed to place upon them if they would make those things their first choice. After a discourse of nearly an hour and a half, the Lord's Supper was eaten by such as had a mind thereto, proceeded by some remarks on what constituted a church, and by what authority each person partakes of the Supper. This closed up the labours of that campaign. The good effected remains to be seen. If we were to do like some others who describe the glories of their labours by the excitement and appearances at the time of their visits, we might conclude that "the cause" received a powerful impetus at Milville. Some attended the meetings throughout that never visit other places of worship—some who have been skeptical, were led to say they never saw the Bible in this light before. Universalists confessed their foundations were all broken up; and such reading their Bibles, and "searching the Scriptures," it was said, had "not been seen in Milville for twenty years." We are aware, however, that the excitement produced by the presentation of truths which before lay hid from the mind, or by the labours of a minister on an occasional visit, is not evidence that the ultimate results will be what the friends of truth may desire or hope. Herod heard John the Baptist "gladly," and did many things," and yet John's labour was ultimately lost upon him. We are to sow the seed. It will be a savor of life unto life to some, and of death unto death to others; and who is sufficient for these things? At any apparent success that may attend our labours in trying to do good, we have all therefore occasion to "rejoice with trembling." Most earnestly do we pray that those precious souls who gave such candid and earnest attention to the word spoken at Milville, may not have heard in vain, but have reason to rejoice in the day of the Lord that they were called by the truth of God to contemplate both their Maker and themselves in a light they had never before seen.

CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY, or the Constitution of Man in relation to Immortality and Eternal Life," is the title of a series of articles that Brother Walsh will

furnish for the Examiner. We regret that the first number of the series came too late for our present number. If Brother Walsh is as interesting in the succeeding numbers as in the one on hand, we can promise our readers that they will get the worth of their year's subscription to the Examiner, in those articles alone. Do try, friends, to scatter our paper more widely, that others may be benefitted as well as yourselves. All new subscribers will have the Examiner sent them from the commencement of the present volume. We cannot consent to take subscribers on any other terms, at present, as we have printed a regular number each month, and do not wish to break a volume; especially, when the whole volume is but fifty cents.

AN ANTI-DESTRUCTIONIST. — We have received from a friend a copy of a truly remarkable document, from the pen of Abraham C. Raysor, which, we are informed, was published in "The Church Advocate," under the caption, "A correspondence between a Storrite and a believer in Bible Truth."

We beg leave to decline publishing it. How much edification our readers will lose by this determination, may be imagined by a specimen we will give of Mr. Raysor's belief and advocacy of "Bible Truth."

BIRLE TRUTH.

"When all the workers of iniquity do flourish, it is that they shall be destroyed forever." Ps 92:7.

"Thou castedst them down into destruction." Ps. 73:17.

"Broad is the way that leadeth to destruction." Matt. 7:13.

"If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy." 1 Cor. 3:17.

"Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord," &c. 2 Thess. 1:9.

"Whose end is destruction." Phill. 3:19. "All the wicked will He (God) destroy." Ps.145:20. Rev. 11:18.

"What if God willing to shew his wrath," &c., "endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction." Rom. 9:22.

"Fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matt. 10:28.

"Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed." Prov. 13:13.

ANHARAM C. RAYSON.

"I tell you plainly that there are many things among the Advent believers that I do not believe in, and among others is that doctrine of soul and body resting in the grave, and soul-destroying and diabolical doctrine of destructionism, which I firmly believe had its origin in the infernal pit of hell."

"I tell you plainly, that at the coming of Christ, I would as soon be found a believer in the religion of Mahomet; or a worshipper of the idol Juggernaut, as to be found a believer in that soul-destroying, abominable doctrine of destructionism."

Mr. Raysor's opposition to "Storrites" is of little

consequence; but his antagonism to that word which abideth forever, as exhibited above, demands his more serious consideration. We pray the merciful Lord to forgive the blasphemous effusions of his intemperate and erroneous zeal. H. C.

"REVOLUTION IN FRANCE."—Our article under that head was written immediately after the reception of the news of that event, but not in time for the last Examiner. The events in Europe since that time, made known by later arrivals, serve to strengthen our convictions that we have taken the true view of that subject; but, after all, time must determine: we dare not speak with too much positiveness: modesty becomes us all in speaking on unfulfilled prophecy, or prophecy that is not fully developed.

"THE BEAST AND IMAGE BEAST."—Br. Alling's "Exposition of the 13th Chapter of Revelation," has been received and read. We are obliged to him for the copy sent us. It is as good as most we have seen on the subject; but, we have never yet seen anything on the two horned beast and its image that has perfectly satisfied us; and confess that we are still learners on that topic. Br. Alling's view is, that "The Holy Alliance" constitutes the two horned beast, with England for one horn and Russia for the other. The number of the beast, 666, is not so easily disposed of. "Let him that hath wisdom" do it. We must confess that we strongly incline to the "Latin Kingdom," as giving anything of a tolerable solution of this point.

"DASH THEM IN PIECES."—Psa. 2:9.

Who are to be dashed in pieces? Why, say those who believe the world is to be burned and every body but the saints burned up with it at the time of the second advent, "all the heathen are to be dashed to pieces, so that none of them will be left."

We reply, first.—Zechariah positively declares there will be "LEFT of the nations" after the advent; and that too of men in the flesh. See Zech. 14: 16, to the end. The above construction, then, put upon the second Psalm, cannot be true. If the dashing of the heathen to pieces is what is spoken of, and breaking them with a rod of iron, then it must import the subjection under which they shall be brought to Christ and his government, as nations; which government it will be as impossible for them successfully to resist as for a potter's vessel to resist and withstand the blows of a rod of iron; so that it shall be true, as saith the prophet Isaiah, chap. 60: 12; "The nation and kingdom that will not serve those shall perish; yea those nations shall be utterly wasted."

But we are inclined to the opinion that the Psalmist is not speaking at all of the people of the nations, in the second Psalm, when he speaks of being broken with a rod of iron and dashed to pieces; but that he had special reference to the "kings, rulers and judges of the earth." They indeed hate to surrender their usurped authority to Christ "the King of kings." But "the decree" has gone forth, and in due time will be executed, and God will "set" or "anoint his king upon his holy hill of Zion," on "David's throne;" and Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the Son of David, will then "be the glory of thy people Israel," also, "a light to enlighten the Gentiles," who shall then especially be given to him for an "inheritance" with the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession; for "ALL NATIONS SHALL SERVE HIM?" Psa. 72:11; and "He shall rebuke strong nations afar off, and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares," &c. Micah 4:3.

Against this subjection to Israel's king, on the throne of his father David, "The kings of the earth set themselves, and the riders take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his ANOINTED;" and the result of their consultation is, that they will not submit to this new government. But, "the Lord shall have them in derision" for their pride and folly. "Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure:" His decree shall stand.—His Son shall have the kingdom under the whole heaven; and he shall "break them [viz. the opposing kings, rulers, and judges] with a rod of iron; he shall dash them to pieces like a potter's vessel."

That this is the true meaning of the Psalmist is evident from what immediately follows, viz: "Be wise now, therefore, O ye kings, be instructed, ye judges of the earth; serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling; kiss the Son, [submit to him] lest he be angry and ye perish," &c. Thus it appears, it is the kings, rulers and judges, of the earth who conspire against the purpose of God that his Son shall be King, and that all nations shall serve him, who are to be broken with the rod of iron and flashed in pieces, if they do not heed the counsel to submit themselves to the government of the king on David's throne. We look upon the 7th and 8th verses of the second Psalm as a parenthesis which includes the decree that aroused the kings and rulers of the earth to resistance; but, they are informed that their rage is vain, and that unless they peaceably submit to the Son of David, the king on the holy hill of Zion will destroy them. This being the case, there is nothing in this Psalm to countenance the notion that all men, except the saints, are to be cut off from the earth at the time of the second advent; and that notion is a most palpable contradiction of many of the most explicit and plain propheces of the Bible.

THE REVOLUTION IN FRANCE

We approach this subject with views and feelings different from many of our contemporaries. We look at it in the light of prophecy, and believe it may be the commencement of the fulfilment of several. Two in particular will engage our attention at this time. The first is Daniel 2: 31—45. The second is Rev. 16th. In Dan. 2d, we have described what may be called four universal monarchies, or kingdoms—the head of gold; which is Babylon: the breast and arms of silver; or the Medo-Persian kingdom: the belly and sides of brass; or Grecian kingdom: the legs of iron, or the Roman kingdom: then, the feet and toes; or the Roman kingdom in its divided state, which divisions occurred in the fifth and sixth centuries, and have since that time increased to a multitude of lesser divisions. In this divided state of the fourth, or Roman Kingdom; when there are many divisions into kingdoms, and when though "they mingle with the seed of men," by the various Sovereigns inter-marrying with each other's families, but cannot for all that "cleave one to another;" then, in those days "shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom," or the fifth universal Monarchy, which is to "fill the earth and stand forever." To prepare the way for this last Monarchy, or Kingdom, "a stone rent from a mountain [so the Septuagint reads] without hands" is to smite the feet and toes of the image, "which were of iron and potter's clay, and at last break them to pieces." The smiting process is first, but "at last" [Septuagint] the breaking takes place; and after those monarchies are destroyed, the kingdom and empire of God will be fully developed and fill the whole earth. The stone, we think, represents principles which were to act upon the thrones of despots by a continuous smiting, till under the power thereof the whole system of despotic governments, whether civil or ecclesiastical, shall be broken to pieces and be carried away like the dust of the summer's threshing floor: then those principles are to have a final embodiment in the establishment of the Kingdom of God, that is to succeed the present monarchies of the eastern world. The stone was rent from a mountain without hands; indicating that it was a work dependant more upon God, than any agency he might employ. It was rent from the mountain not in the time of either of the universal monarchies, but in the divided state of the fourth: it was at that point in the prophecy the stone was seen rent from its lofty height. We are compelled to the conclusion, from present light, that the stone represents the principles of man's individual responsibility to God—his right to think, and to speak the convictions of his own mind untrammeled by civil or ecclesiastical despots. A long night of darkness had hung over the world on this subject: so deep was it that in the 12th, 13th and 14th centuries it was death to read the Scriptures in the language of the people. The great principle of man's right to read, think, and speak, responsible to God alone, was "rent" out by Martin Luther and the Reformers, as God's instruments to smite the image upon what was at that time, and still is, its feet. Those principles are a living, active, unyielding, and mighty engine, in the providence of God, to smite every species of despotism, till "at last" the image shall be destroyed and no place found for it. These principles after struggling long in Europe for a resting place, took refuge in America, and here had a partial embodiment in the "Declaration of Independence," a noble instrument, and though disgraced

…