The Bible Examiner — Vol. 3, No. 9 (1848)

Download: PDF — The Bible Examiner — Vol. 3, No. 9 (1848)

BIBLE EXAMINER.

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

VOB. INE.

PHILADELPHIA, SEPTEMBER, 1846.

No. 9.

GEORGE STORRS, EDITOR AND PUBLISHER.

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

PUBLISHED MONTHLY, AT 18 CHESTER STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA.

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

eight copies,8; or thirteen copies,5; ALWAYS IN ADVANCE.

This paper is subject to newspaper postage only.

CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY:

OR, THE CONSTITUTION OF MAN IN RELATION TO IMMORTALITY AND ETERNAL LIFE.

No. III.

MENTAL DISEASE AND DEATH.

In our last article on the constitution of man, we promised to take up the subject of Mental Diseases, and to apply our reasonings on the subject to the doctrine of immortality and eternal life; and we now proceed to the execution of the work.

Let the reader remember the position of our opponents that, when the man is dead, and his brain resolved into dust, he still thinks and feels.

OUR INFERENCE, OR DEDUCTION: If the above be true, NO DISEASE OR INJURY OF THE BRAIN SHOULD INTERRUPT THE MANIFESTATIONS OF THE MIND.

But disease and accidents do destroy the manifestations of the mind; and now for the proof:

A number of persons are born idiots, and never manifest any mind at all. Why is this, if the mind—the intellect, be independent of cerebral organization? If men can think and reason without any brain, (that is, when they are dead,) what should hinder them from thinking with an imperfect brain? And if they cannot reason with an idiotic or imperfect brain, how are they to do so without any brain at all?

Again: in childhood, the mind is as feeble as the body; in youth we find that, as the physical powers are developed, expanded and enlarged, so are the mental; and when manhood arrives, we discover those gigantic intellectual faculties, which are the combined result of a sound, well matured, and well developed organization and education. In childhood, we behold these faculties in an embryo state. We see them gradually unfolding, like the rose, up through youth, until manhood presents us with a full blown intellect, all fragrant with wisdom and knowledge! But in old age, the mind is again as feeble as the body. The whole system, including the brain, becomes shrunk and enfeebled—the limbs totter, and fancy's fires decay.

Why is this, if the mind be immortal? If this were so, should not the mind be as strong, as brilliant, and as profound in childhood and old age, as in the prime of manhood? Upon the hypothesis, that it is immortal, it certainly should.

Even the state of the atmosphere will affect the mind, either elevating or depressing it. Is an immortal mind subject to atmospheric changes?

When the body is diseased, weakness and imbecility of mind are the consequences. What then must be the consequence when the body is dead? Let revelation answer: "In that very day their thoughts perish."

When the skull is fractured and pressure is made upon the brain, all consciousness is suspended; while no such phenomena takes place with any other organ. We will state a few cases in proof of this subject. M. Richerand had a patient whose brain was exposed in consequence of disease of the skull. One day, in washing off the purulent matter, he chanced to press with more than usual force, and instantly the patient, who, the moment before, had answered his questions with perfect correctness, stopped short in the middle of a sentence, and became altogether insensible. As the pressure gave her no pain, it was repeated thrice, and always with the same result. She uniformly recovered her faculties the moment the pressure was taken off. He, also, mentions the case of an individual who was trepanned for a fracture of the skull, and whose FACULTIES and CONSCIOUSNESS became weak in proportion as the plus so accumulated under the dressings as to occasion pressure of the brain.

A man at the battle of Waterloo had a small portion of his skull beaten in upon the brain, and became unconscious, and almost lifeless. But Mr. Cooper having raised up the depressed portion of the bone, the patient immediately arose, dressed himself, became perfectly rational, and recovered rapidly. Professor Chapman, of Philadelphia, mentions in his Lectures, that he saw an individual with his skull perforated and the brain exposed, who used to submit himself to the same experiment of pressure as that performed on Richerd's patient, and who was exhibited by the late Professor Wistar to his class. The man's intellect and moral faculties disappeared when pressure was applied to the brain: they were literally held under the thumb, and could be restored at pleasure to their full activity. A still more remarkable case is that of a person named Jones, recorded by Sir Astly Cooper. Jones was deprived of consciousness, by being wounded in the head while on board a vessel in the Mediterranean Sea. In this state of insensibility he remained for several months in Gibraltar, whence he was transmitted to Deptford, and subsequently to St Thomas's Hospital, London. Mr. Cline the Surgeon, found a portion of the skull depressed, trepanned him, and removed the depressed portion of the bone. Three hours after the operation, he sat up in bed, sensation and volition returned, and in four days he was enabled to get up and converse. The last circumstance he remembered, was the capture of a prize in the Mediterranean thirteen months before.

Will any Christian, or Christian Philosopher, reconcile these phenomena with consciousness in, and after, death? It thought and consciousness can be suspended by pressure on the brain, during life, what becomes of thought and consciousness after death? Are they in full exercise? Let the Bible answer: "The dead know not any thing." 7. In a swoon, blood is rapidly withdrawn from the brain, and total unconsciousness is the result. This should not be the case, if the mind were immortal.

The phenomena of sleep furnish another proof that mind is developed by the cerebrum. In profound sleep all consciousness is suspended, which is incompatible with the idea of the mind being altogether independent of the brain; for we cannot conceive of an immaterial principle asleep and unconscious.

To sum up all the diseased states of the mind during life, we would ask, how are they compatible with the possession of an incorruptible and deathless mind? Only upon the hypothesis that the intellectual powers are totally independent of the immortal soul? And if all the intellectual powers are independent of the immortal soul, and thus become subject to disease, what is the soul which is left? A perfect blank—A NONENTITY.

But death closes the scene: "In death," says David, "there is no remembrance of thee!" "In sheol who shall give thee thanks?" None! No, not one!!

"BORN OF WATER."

However others may differ on the subject of being born of water, to me it is clear that it has not the most remote allusion to our natural birth. In the 1st chapter of John the natural birth is spoken of as the product of the "will of man, the will (or lust) of the flesh," and "of blood." And, hence, in the conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus said to him. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." That is, it is like its origin—fleshly—not spiritual. Thus, "The first man was of the earth—earthy"—animal, fleshy. Nicodemus predicated his hope upon his fleshy birth—upon his being a son of Abraham, according to the flesh. And the object before the Lord's mind at the time, was to correct this fatal error. John the Baptist taught the Jews: "Think not to say within yourselves we have Abraham to our father, for God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham." In our Lord's conversation with Nicodemus, we have this subject presented and illustrated in the clearest manner. "Except a man," says Jesus, "be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus having his whole mind pre-occupied by his fleshy birth, exclaims, "how can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born?" Nicodemus does not comprehend the subject. Now, what did Jesus do? He explains the truth he had previously announced to Nicodemus, by saying "except a man be born of water, and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." "That which is born of the flesh, is flesh," (and not water.) "And that which is born of the spirit, is spirit, (or spiritual.) "Marvel not that I said to thee, ye must be BORN AGAIN," (the very proposition which he had at first announced.) To be "born again," then, is to be "born of water and

spirit." Not "of water and 'ov' spirit," but "of water and the spirit"—two agents, but only one birth. This "new birth," then, is a perfect antitype of the natural birth. The first animal, the second moral or spiritual. Generation involves a process. Re-generation involves the same. It is a law of nature, and of nature's God, that nothing can be born without "emerging" from that of which it is born. Now the saints are born from above—"born of God." He is their Father; and they, as his children, are "begotten unto a lively hope." His word—his truth—indited by his Spirit, is the instrument—the "seed," and an "emergence" from the water completes the one birth. And thus it is that we are "born again, not of corruptible seed," (as in the first case); but of incorruptible by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." There is not one birth of water, and another of spirit; consequently, no "coming up out of the spirit;" but it is a process in which the Spirit of God, the word, and water, are concerned as agencies, concurring to produce the one result—a new birth, of a holy, moral, and heavenly character. And this view of the subject harmonizes with what Paul says in his Letter to Timothy, concerning "the washing of re-generation, and the renewing of the Holy Spirit."

Making two births of one, has introduced all the confusion which we find on this subject. For, whoever severs what Jesus united in the production of the new birth, will make sad havoc of his teaching, and, also destroy the decorum of the figure. It is impossible to be born of water, in the Scriptural sense, without first being " begotten of God." A man may be immersed a thousand times, and if he be not previously begotten by the truth, he will be a spurious offspring—a bastard, having no divine paternity! That which is born of flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of water ONLY is water!

If we understand "Homo" he makes literal water just as essential to the new birth as the Spirit of God. Without the water the Spirit could not produce a new birth. He says the "Spirit and water are two agents producing one birth;" and that "this new birth is a perfect anti-type of the natural birth;" and that "Regeneration involves the same process." That is, there cannot be a birth without a father to beget and a mother to bring forth. In the new birth he makes the Spirit the father and the water the mother; if so, we confess we cannot see how a person can be "begotten" except in the water. But, if we understand "Homo," he says a man must be previously begotten," or by immersion he is only "a bastard." If he is "previously begotten," that is while out of the water, then "the process" is not a perfect anti-type of the natural birth: certainly a child was never begotten out of its mother's matrix—that is the mould in which it is "begotten." But "Homo" seems to admit that "truth" is that by which the new man is "begotten." If so, is not the man's own heart the matrix in which the "seed" is deposited? and not in literal water. In the "natural birth" the child "emerges" from the place where the "seed" is deposited. If so, and the new birth is a perfect anti-type of the natural birth, must not the new birth be effected by an "emergence," of some

REMARKS ON HOMO'S POSITION.

sort, out of the heart of man, or, in other words, be a purely spiritual work, and not a material one? as it would be, at least in part, if it is an emergence from literal water.

"Homo" has a criticism on the word "of;" and says, it is "not of the water, and 'of' the Spirit; but, 'of water and the spirit.'" Though the word "of" is not in the 5th verse, in immediate connection with the "Spirit," yet in the next verse our Lord expressly says, "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit;" so that we confess, we do not see the force of the criticism: and "Homo," himself, afterwards says "The Saints are 'born of God.'" To be born or God and born or the Spirit we cannot suppose differs essentially; so that he, in fact, admits all that we contend for. If a man is "born of God" we cannot conceive that an "emergence from the water completes the one birth." If so—How was the dying thief born of God? if such a thing ever happened. Or, how were Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all the prophets born again? No such completion of the new birth is recorded of any of them. Does the new birth now and the new birth in the days of patriarchs and prophets differ essentially? If not, and they did not have an "emergence from the water" to "complete the one birth," how can it be shown that in order to the new birth a man must emerge from water? Let us not be misunderstood: we believe baptism is an ordinance of our Lord; and one that should not be neglected; but, is it a part of the new birth? or, essential to that birth? If so, it was always essential. It was just as essential to the patriarchs and prophets as to apostles and other Christians. There may be duties essential to be attended to in one age that are not in another; but this is not to be viewed in the light of a duty that depends on positive law, in this controversy. The question here is not so much about baptism, itself, as whether literal water is essential to the new birth. We know that without the new birth a man cannot enter into the kingdom of God: Is an "emergence from water" essential to "the one birth?" If so, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, so far as we have any knowledge, did not experience it; and yet we know that our Saviour hath said—"Ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God;" Lk. 13:28.

" Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God : "

"Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets shall be in that kingdom:

ERGO: Then they will have been "born again." Yet we have not the slightest evidence that they "emerged from water;" Therefore: Water is not essential to the new birth. We repeat what we have said before: we believe baptism to be an ordinance under the latest development of grace, and that all who embrace the Lord Jesus Christ should attend to it: but we consider it appointed for a very different purpose than that of completing the new birth.

INTERMEDIATE STATE. BY ELDER P.M.WAY.

"Then shall ye return, and discern, between the righteous and the wicked."—Malachi 3:18.

This text affirms that clearer light shall be reflected on the character and blessedness of the righteous, under the gospel dispensation. By the

gospel of Jesus Christ, "life and immortality are brought to light." "Adam was made a living soul," Jesus Christ "was made a quickening spirit." Man, though lost, may be "created anew in Christ Jesus," may "pass from death unto life" which "life is in Christ." All, then, who obtain the righteousness which is by faith of Jesus Christ, are restored to the divine image and favour, constituted sons of God, and have secured to them all spiritual blessings, and a deliverance from all the evils which shall finally fall upon the wicked. Among these blessings, is not the least, that the righteous, soon as physical life ends, shall enter upon scenes of conscious blessedness, in the society of "the spirits of just men made perfect."

There are many arguments in proof of the above proposition, but I shall confine my remarks to a very few, which, if I possess the power to "discern," are uncontrovertible. Prov. 4:18. "The path of the just is as a shining light, which shineth more and more to the perfect day." And when the perfect day breaks upon the soul, does it sink into a dark, unconscious sleep? No, verily; the wicked may go into darkness, but the righteous shall be "light in the Lord." Hear the great teacher, Jno. 11:26, "Whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." Physical death does not interrupt our "life in Christ." "For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live, therefore, or die, we are the Lord's." Death cannot separate us from Christ.

The Saviour has illustrated, and given us positive assurance of this precious truth, Matt. 22:31, 32. "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. For all live unto him." i.e., all those who have died in the Lord, are alive still, and subjects of God's kingdom. But how plainly is this taught in Christ's transfiguration, Matt. 17:1—3, when "Moses and Elias appeared, talking with him." Surely, Moses and Elias, though they had been dead more than a thousand years, were not slumbering unconsciously! Again, the promise of Christ to the repenting thief, "To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise," is so plain, as not to require a comment. What some are pleased to call a parable, (Luke 16:19—31,) of Lazarus and a certain rich man, must carry conviction to every conscience, that the spirit of man exists, consciously, separate from the body. 2d Cor. 5:1—10, can never be construed, by fair interpretation, to sustain the notion that the soul of the pious, when "this earthly tabernacle is dissolved," ceases its consciousness. It was that assurance, that his spirit should dwell in conscious happiness, when free from its present "house," that inspired in the bosom of Paul (Phil. 1:21) "A desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better." There are many other proofs from the Bible, but, to my mind, the above texts establish the doctrine beyond successful contradiction. I have not commented on the above texts, for the simple reason, there is no necessity. I have seen attempts to explain them away, but never read anything but what a biblical scholar ought to be ashamed of.

I know it is said, though there are difficulties in the above passage, yet the scriptures do teach that "The dead know nothing"! Now, I apprehend, the mistake lies in not "discerning between the righteous and the wicked;" and applying, indiscriminately, those passages of scripture, to the righteous and the wicked, which lie exclusively against the wicked.

To notice a few of the most prominent which are thus misapplied, (I shall not controvert, here, the meaning of the term death, but will meet the argument on the supposition that all is implied that the destructionist claims, reserving the privilege of holding my own opinion.) It is said, "The Bible teaches that man, the soul, as well as the body, dies." Gen. 2: 17; "In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." "On what authority," it is asked, "do we affirm that this is inapplicable to the entire man? On what authority do we affirm that the main part of man, the very part which is chiefly guilty of transgression, shall escape the penalty, and never die at all?" Answer, from the very good authority, a promise, which was subsequently made, that, though life was forfeited by sin, "Life and immortality" should be brought back and offered to man through Jesus Christ, so, that, all who believe in him "shall never die." But it is said, "man was not created immortal." And will you affirm, that he was not created conditionally immortal? Will you affirm, "though he had obeyed God, yet he must have died"? Nay, do you not affirm, that, after his fall, if he had access to the tree of life, he would "become immortal in sin"? Is it not clear, then, that spiritual life and spiritual death were involved in the penalty, "In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die"? And that physical or temporal death followed as a consequence? "The creature was made subject to death, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope." If so, then, God "told the truth," and "the serpent" lied.

Again, it is said, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." Ezek. 18:4. "Why, then, do any speak of the never dying soul?" I answer; for the very good reason, that God added Ezek. 18:21—23; "If the wicked will turn from his wickedness—do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die." How my good brother Storrs, or any lover of truth, could overlook this plain positive assurance, is beyond my comprehension. "We shall discern between the righteous and the wicked." Again, we are referred to Ps. 146:4, and Eccl. 9:5,6,10. "The dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward—also their love and their hatred and their envy is now perished." I answer, does this apply to the righteous and the wicked alike? Or, can "we discern between them"? By reading the third and fifth verses of Ps. 146, in connexion with the fourth verse, you will see that this language is affirmed of a wicked prince, in whom the righteous are forbidden to trust, because, when he dieth "his thoughts perish." So of Eccl. 9. Though the same event, physical or temporal death, happen to the righteous and the wicked, whilst the wicked perish, "The righteous, and the wise and their works, are in the hand of God." Eccl. 9:1. Surely, then, there is a difference "between the righteous and the wicked." "The wicked is driven away in his wickedness, but the righteous hath hope in his death." Prov. 14:32. Ps. 6:5, is quoted, "In death there is no remembrance of thee;" and also Ps. 115:17, "The dead praise not the Lord." And, as though the question was settled, it is said, "The

pious poet said, 'And when my voice is lost in death, praise shall employ my nobler powers.'" "The pious psalmist said,' The dead praise not the Lord.'" Your quotation from Dr. Watta, is as one-sided as from the Bible. Speaking of the wicked, the Doctor says,

"Like brutes they live, like brutes they die,

Blasts them in everlasting death."

Like grass they flourish, till thy breath.

So, in quoting from the Bible. It is the wicked "who go down into silence! that praise not the Lord. But we will bless (or praise) the Lord from this time forth, and for ever more"!! And that, too, without a space of several thousand years cessation. The wicked do not "remember and praise God." No, verily, "Like sheep they are laid in the grave—but the upright shall have dominion over them in the morning." Let the wearisome hours of darkness and gloom press down the righteous here, and let the wicked triumph, death changes the scene. The light, shining in the distance, becomes clearer and clearer, till the light of the spirit world breaks upon his enraptured vision! Well did the psalmist say of the "ungodly who prosper in the world," "Surely thou didst set them in slippery places: thou castedst them down into destruction. How are they brought into desolation, as in a moment! O Lord, when thou awakeest, thou shalt despise their image."

But, how different with the righteous; "Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory. My flesh and my heart faileth, but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion forever." I consider the question, "Is the soul of the righteous conscious between death and the resurrection?" one which does not necessarily involve other questions generally appended to it, and have thus considered it; but, as Brother Storrs affirms, that life is only attained at, or by the resurrection, I may hereafter devote an article to that subject. I will close the present, already too long, by a "reply" to your exposition of John 14: 1-3. "If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to myself." Now, all is made to turn on the time when Christ "will come again." Does it mean at the resurrection, "at the last day"? flow prove you this? By begging the question. Let me state the argument. Christ will come to raise the dead at the last day: therefore, whenever the Scriptures speak of Christ's coming, it must always, necessarily, mean at the resurrection. Pardon me, brother; your argument certainly reads thus to me. In the 18th verse of the same chapter, Christ said, "I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you." And in the 23d verse, "We will come," i.e., I and my Father "will come unto him," &c. Now, no sane man will affirm that Christ here means, in the resurrection. Again, Matt. 18: 20, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst." And Rev. 3: 20, "If any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him," &c. Was Stephen mistaken, when in death he said, "I see Jesus," and cried, "Lord Jesus receive my spirit!" No, verily. Christ did come and take his redeemed spirit to "a place prepared." Was Paul mistaken when he said, "We know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens"? "To depart and be with Christ is far better"?

"Then shall ye return and discern between the righteous and the wicked."

Syracuse, August, 1848.

Yours, for truth.

REMARKS ON BR. WAY'S LETTER.

Br. Way's leading and concluding text—"Then shall ye return and discern between the righteous and the wicked," declares a blessed truth, but we dissent from its application to the "gospel dispensation," if he means by that phrase the dispensation under which we now live. "Then shall ye return," &c. When? Answer. "In the day when I make up my jewels:" then will God "spare them that feared the Lord," &c., "as a man spareth his own son that serveth him:" Mal. 3:16, 17. In that day "ye shall return and discern between the righteous and the wicked," &c., "for, behold the day cometh that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall LEAVE THEM NEITHER ROOT NOR BRANCH." Br. Way will not pretend that day has come yet; but that is the day in which ye shall "discern between the righteous and the wicked."

Br. W. says,—"The righteous, soon as physical life ends, shall enter upon scenes of conscious blessedness, in the society of 'the spirits of just men made perfect.'" If this text, Heb. 12: 23, proves any thing in favour of the theory of Br. W., it proves too much; for Paul says—"Ye are come," &c., not you "shall, soon as physical life ends." Br. W. says—"Death cannot separate us from Christ." He doubtless refers to Rom. 8: 35-39; though he does not give it as a quotation. If any one will examine the text, they will see, at a glance, that Br. W.'s conclusion is not quite correct. Death indeed, "cannot separate us from the love of Christ," nor "from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord;" therefore he will raise his saints from the dead; for that redemption Paul groaned; see verse 23. The saints "sleep" at death, "in the dust of the earth;" not separated from the love of Christ, but in his love and remembrance; and when he "descends from heaven" they shall awake, and no longer be separate from him.

If they are not separated in the sense of being "absent" from Christ, by death, so neither are they separated by "life," or while they live; for Paul affirms the same of life that he does of death in Rom. 8th. The text has nothing to do with the saints' consciousness when dead, but to the constancy of Christ's love, which is not shaken even though his saints sleep one thousand or ten thousand years "in the dust of the earth;" but if there is no resurrection of the dead, "they are perished;" even though they "fell asleep in Christ." See I Cor. 15: 16-18.

On the text Matt. 22: 31, 32, Br. W. says: "The Saviour has given positive assurance—that those who have died in the Lord are alive still," &c. Tell us, then, thou "Master in Israel," how our Saviour's argument with the Sadducees proved the resurrection of the dead? the very point in debate. Does proving that "disembodied spirits" are alive demonstrate a future resurrection, "at the last day?" or, has "Swedenborg" convinced you there is no such resurrection? Br. W. next gives us a list of texts on which he does not "comment"—

"for the simple reason, there is no necessity;" and says, he has "seen attempts to explain them away, but never read any thing but what a biblical scholar ought to be ashamed of." We, of course, do not know what Br. W. has "read," but we have read and written much against his view of those texts that we do not even begin to be "ashamed of;" nor shall we, till we can find better arguments on the other side than we have ever "read."

If we understand Br. Way—he maintains that it is the wicked dead that "know not any thing," and that when the Psalmist said, "The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence," he meant the "wicked dead." Surely! And did the wicked living "praise the Lord?" When Hezekiah had recovered from sickness, which he was told, at first, should result in his death, and he was praising God for preserving his life, he says,—"The grave cannot praise thee," &c. Now, if we can "discern," he does say that if he had died, when dead, he could not have praised the Lord; but he adds,—"The living, the living, he shall praise thee as I do this day," &c. Isa. 38: 18, 19.

Hezekiah was a righteous man. Isa. 38: 3.

But if he had died he could not THEN have praised the Lord.

THEREFORE, the RIGHTEOUS "dead praise not the Lord."

The Psalmist is equally as conclusive. Let any one read the sixth Psalm; David is there complaining, as the whole Psalm shows, of sickness and disease which he feared would result in death; and he piously and pathetically entreats the Lord to deliver his soul, i.e. himself; and adds as a reason for his prayer, "For in death there is no remembrance of thee; in the grave who shall give thee thanks?"

David was a RIGHTFROTH man.

Engo. The righteous dead are unconscious.

< But, if he had died he would THEN have had no REMEMBRANCE of God.

Jesus Christ has ascended into the heavens. Hcb. 8:1.

Engo. The righteous dead are unconscious.

Again. "David is not ascended into the heavens.

Acts 2:34.

Thus, "in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word is established," that Christ does not receive the saints to the conscious enjoyment of his presence AT DEATH.

THEREFORE, David is NOT "with Christ."

Br. W. understands us to say—"Whenever the Scriptures speak of Christ coming, it must always, necessarily, mean at the resurrection." We are sorry if we gave our good brother any occasion to understand us so; we surely did not intend it; and if he will read our remarks again, we think he will be undeceived. The point in discussion there was the meaning, and application of the phrase, "come again." To come again implies a previous coming; we showed that previous coming was personal—that the going away was personal, and hence to come again was to do so in the same personal manner; and not in some hidden, secret manner, altogether unlike the previous. Should we "state the argument" for our opponents as Br. W. has for us, we might say "Christ will come to receive the souls of his people at death; therefore, whenever the Scriptures speak of Christ's coming, it must always, necessarily, mean at death; therefore, he will never come again personally." Would that be a fair version of my opponent's views? Not one of Br.

W.'s texts in disproof of our position affirm that Christ comes again at the time spoken of. Spiritually he never went away, and therefore spiritually does not come again; but personally he once came—personally he went away—and personally he will "come again;" then, and not till then has he ever promised to receive his followers unto himself; though Br. W. affirms he "did come and take Stephen's redeemed spirit to a place prepared." But the Bible affirms, Stephen "FELL ASLEEP;" yes, he sleeps, Br. W., and when the Lord comes again he will "wake him out of his sleep," and Stephen will not be conscious that he has slept a moment, if it is "thousands of years." Not one of the texts that Br. W. has quoted says that Christ ever came again at any man's death; or, that he came at death at all. We asked "for a single text of Scripture that says, Christ comes again at the death of his saints." Has Br. W. produced bone? "Let the reader judge.

THE SON OF GOD.—NO V.

BY HENRY GREW.

AN EXAMINATION OF THE DIVINE TESTIMONY RESPECTING THE IMPORT OF THE TERM SON OF GOD, AND WHETHER IT IS, OR IS NOT EXPRESSIVE OF THE HIGHEST CHARACTER OF OUR BLESSED LORD.

It has long been a sentiment of very general belief in the Christian church, that the terms Son of God, only begotten Son of God, are expressive of that divine relation to the Father in which his highest character consists. These terms are now considered by some, who are to be respected for their talents and piety, as referable to the humanity of Christ peculiarly begotten; and not as importing his most exalted nature.

In relation to this interesting and important subject, we may consider the following truths derived from the divine testimony.

It is in the character of the Son of God, that the Saviour is presented to a lost world, as the great object of faith, and with the belief of this truth salvation is connected.

It is in this character, he is an object of worship.

Jesus Christ during his ministry on earth never claimed a higher title.

The highest title ever given him in the Scriptures of truth, even that of God, is given to him as the Son of God.

If these propositions are clearly supported by the word of God, can we possibly avoid the conclusion that the terms under consideration import the highest character of our Redeemer?

That "the Lord from heaven," is presented to a perishing world as the great and glorious object of faith in the character of the Son of God, with the belief of which truth salvation is connected, appears from the following passages. Matt. 3:17; 17:5; John 1:34; 3:18, 36; 6:69; 9:35:11:27; Acts 8:37; 9:20; Rom. 1:4; 1 John 4:15, &c.

That it is in this character he is worshipped, plainly appears from Heb 1:6, When he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, and let all the angels of God worship him. See also John 5:23; Matt. 14:33; John 9:35, 38.

No passage can be found in which "the faithful witness" ever claimed a higher title. On this high

That it is as the Son of God on the throne of the kingdom, he is called God, is evident from Heb. 1:8. Ps.14:6, But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, &c.

claim, the charge of blasphemy by his opposers was fonduled. John 10:36. This claim excited their utmost rge. John 5:18.

The first chapter to the Hebrews illustrates this important truth. It is manifestly the design of the inspired apostle in this chapter, to set forth our adorable Redeemer in his highest dignity and most glorious character. He represents him, verse 2, as the maker of the worlds. Verse 3, as the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of his person. Verse 4, as being much better than the angels. Verse 6, as the object of their worship. And verse 8, as God. But it appears from verse 2 and 3, that it was in the character of Son that he made the worlds. If, then, his creating the world, if his being "the express image" of the invisible God, denotes his divine nature, the title of Son must denote the same. Why is he made so much better than the angels? Because he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. But what is this excellent name? It is the Son of God. This is evident from verse 5. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, thou art my Son, &c. But if this name is applicable only to his humanity, it must rather signify that he was made "a little lower than the angels;" and the inspired apostle appears wholly to have failed in his proof, verse 5, which he evidently considers as conclusive.

Mr. Fuller, in his essay on this subject, justly remarks, "The glory of the only begotten of the Father, and the glory of the Word, are used as convertible terms, as being the same; but the latter is allowed to denote the divine person of Christ, as antecedent to his being made flesh; the same therefore must be true of the former. The word was made flesh, and we behold his glory; that is, the glory of the Word, the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." John 1:14.

John 3:16, For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, &c. Here our Lord exhibits to us the great love of the giver by setting forth the excellence of the gift. But all this excellence is comprised in the phrase," his only begotten Son." This phrase must, therefore, include the highest character of our blessed Redeemer, or it is totally inadequate for his purpose, to set forth the amazing love of God towards us in "his unspeakable gift."

Heb. 4:14, We have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God. "The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." If, then, there is any divinity in his priesthood, to give virtue to his sacrifice and intercession, that divinity is in the name of the Son of God.

So also, when he is exalted as King on the holy hill of Zion, the decree is declared, "Thou art my Son," &c. And when we are required to be reconciled to his government, we are commanded to "kiss the Son." Ps. 2:7, 19.

John 17: 5, And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. The obvious truth in this passage is, that the Son possessed glory with the Father "before the world was," and, consequently, that these relations then subsisted. But if the term "Son of God," is not expressive of the Redeemer's highest character, it follows that the Son of God, so far from

possessing glory with the Father before the world was, has not yet existed two thousand years!

It is remarked by the respected author before quoted, that "God is frequently said to have sent his Son into the world." John 7: 18; 10: 36; I John 4: 9, 10. But this implies that he was his Son antecedent to his being sent. To suppose otherwise, is no less absurd than supposing that when Christ is said to have sent forth his twelve disciples, they were not disciples, but in consequence of his sending them, or of some preparation pertaining to their mission." Moreover, to say that god sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, is equal to saying, that the Son of God assumed human nature: he must therefore have been the Son of God before his incarnation. Christ is called the Son of God antecedent to his being manifested to destroy the works of the devil: but he was manifested to destroy the works of the devil by taking upon him human nature: consequently he was the Son of God antecedent to the human nature being assumed."

"It has been frequently suggested that the ground of Christ's sonship is given us in Luke 1:35, and is no other than his miraculous conception. It is true that our Lord was miraculously conceived of the Holy Spirit, and that such a conception was peculiar to him; but it does not follow, that by this he became the Son, or only begotten Son of God. Nor does the passage in question prove any such thing. It may be a reason given why Christ is called the Son of God; but not why he is so. Christ is called the Son of God as raised from the dead, and as exalted at the right hand of God. Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:4, 5. Did he then become the Son of God by these events? This is impossible, for sonship is not a progressive matter. If it arose from his miraculous conception, it could not for that reason arise from his resurrection or exaltation; and so on the other hand, if it arose from his resurrection or exaltation, it could not proceed from his miraculous conception. But if each be understood of his being hereby proved, acknowledged, or, as the Scriptures express it, 'declared to be the Son of God with power,' all is easy and consistent."

Rom. 1:3,4, is an instructive passage. Our Lord was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness," &c. It is admitted by learned Trinitarians that "it is not the third person in the Trinity that is referred to here." (See Barnes, Poole, &c. on the passage.) It is Christ's spirit in contrast with his body. He was of the seed of David in respect to his flesh or body. Observe, not according to his flesh and human soul, but simply in respect to his flesh or body. "A body, (not body and soul,) hast thou prepared me." "The Word was made flesh," not flesh and soul. But "according," or, in respect, to his spirit, he was "the Son of God." The passage proves that he was so before his incarnation. Mr. Barnes observes, "The expression according to the spirit of holiness does not indeed of itself imply divinity. It denotes that holy and more exalted nature, which he possessed as distinguished from the human." The distinction, however, in the passage, is not between two spirits of different natures, but simply between the nature and origin of his one holy spirit and the nature and origin of that flesh or body which that spirit assumed.

We have, then, sufficient proof from the divine estimony, that the term Son of God is expressive of the highest character of our Saviour. The reflecting

reader will discern that we have equal proof that he is, in his highest nature, "the only begotten of the Father," and must, therefore, be necessarily dependent on him for all things, agreeably to Christ's own words: "all things are delivered unto me of my Father." Mr. Fuller, although a Trinitarian, acknowledged in the conclusion of his essay on the sonship of Christ, that "in the order of nature, the Father must have existed before the Son." He indeed supposed the Son to be "properly eternal," as well as the Father. But to reconcile this idea with the above concession, is, to me at least, absolutely impossible.

Is this with any of us a subject of mere speculation? God forbid; In this name, my brethren, is concentrated all the glory of God ever viewed by mortal minds. In this name centers all our hope, and peace, and joy. It is this dear name that draws forth our souls to Jehovah, in wonder, love, and praise. This is the blest name that comprises all those glorious "things the angels desire to look into." And it is in the knowledge, love and adoration of this name that the saints shall be "filled with all the fulness of God."

"Oh, may I live to reach the place. Where he unveils his lovely face; Where all his beauties you behold, And sing his name to harps of gold."

Mr. Henry Hayes writes from Worcester, Mass. :-

Br. Storrs:—I perused with interest the articles by Br. Walsh on the Kingdom of God, which appeared in several numbers of the Examiner: I was not aware, however, that he had finished them when the last appeared. I looked for more from him upon the subject. The last three numbers contain nothing more from his pen on that subject. I would enquire, if he considers he has completed it in the main, not to say the whole? If so, I think it will be easy to show, there is much he has left untouched, and much too that is important to be considered.

With the articles of Dr. Thomas and Br. Grew, I have also been much interested. If Dr. T. be correct in the belief that the unimmersed are, without exception, excluded from the kingdom of God, I think he is bound to show to the candid seeker for truth, however limited his intellectual powers may be, that immersion is the only true mode of baptism, in so clear a manner, as to leave no room for an honest doubt. On the supposition that Dr. T. be wrong, what a stand it is for a man to take—to allow a person may be prayerful, pious, sincere, Bible searching, truth seeking, &c. &c., and yet, because he has not conformed to a requirement he did not know of, must necessarily be excluded from the saint's inheritance! Bless God, there are some who know too well the enjoyment of communion with God, to be driven to doubt and despair by men's notions, however positively and emphatically they may be published. Notwithstanding I speak thus, I view immersion to be the correct mode, to which I conformed several years ago: yet I know such a peron as a Christian man, exemplary, bible-loving, whose arguments in favor of sprinkling, I feel unable fully to refute. Shall I say to him, your piety, your spiritual enjoyment, your consistent works will all be fruitless—you have not been immersed—although you don't see this your duty, no matter, you have no reason to expect inheritance with the saints in the kingdom!

No, indeed, unless by greater light through D. T., or some other means, I see more manifestly the correctness of the Doctor's position. But I may have more to say on this at a future time.

I am interested with the Examiner. I read each number from beginning to end. I had apprehensions of a want of advent spirit in its editor; but of late I have been in a measure relieved from such feeling. That while it is published it may be fully worthy its name, is the hope of your feeble, yet truth-seeking brother. HENRY HEYES.

BIBLE EXAMINER.

PHILADELPHIA, SEPT., 1848.

ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL? "The soul that sinneth it shall die."—Bible.

BIBLE EXAMINER. — The present volume is drawing to a close, and we are disposed to say some things thus early, that both our subscribers and ourselves may understand the position we occupy. We have given our patrons more matter, and a neater paper, than we at first promised. In consequence of this, the expense of publishing has been at least one hundred and fifty dollars more than was contemplated at the beginning, while we have made no charge, and received nothing for our services, and the Assistant Editor has not only given his services, but has actually contributed more funds than any other ten of our friends, since the monthly issue commenced.

We are satisfied from what we hear and know, that the Examiner is needed, and will be sustained, so far as paying the printer is concerned, and we never contemplated any pecuniary advantage in ourselves in publishing it. Though we are poor, and have nothing of this world's goods, we ask nothing of the friends of the Examiner, save that they see to it, that we are preserved from becoming indebted to the Printer. This can now be easily done if our present subscribers continue for the next volume, and send us only one new subscriber each.

Our purpose is, to continue the Examiner in the same form as at present, and at the same price; published monthly. Our terms are low, and we must insist upon payment in all cases in advance. We have no idea of doing as some do, that is, to be dunning our subscribers all the year, and telling them how much they face us, and how much we are suffering for the war of it. We shall have but one rule viz: PAY IN ADVANCE, or the paper will not be sent, either to old or new subscribers. No person will have a bill sent with a charge for the passing year if they have not paid, and no one will receive the Examiner, after the present volume, who has

not paid for it as above stated. We give this notice thus early, that all who design to continue as subscribers, may have ample time, before the first of January, to save fifty cents and forward it, which must be done free of expense to us, but may be sent by mail at our risk.

We have taken and are taking much pains to secure an amount of matter for the Examiner, in future, which we doubt not will give new interest to the paper. Dr. Lees, Leeds, England, has promised to contribute to the Examiner. The article in our January and February Nos., on "Future Punishment," signed "PATHFINDER," was from his pen. In the present number, we have the first communication, direct from him, "for the Examiner," and we expect it will be followed by many others. Dr. Lees is "Doctor of Philosophy of the University of Giessen; F. S. A. Scotland, or Edin." His letter, found in this number of the Examiner, will prepare the way for what is to follow. We have a considerable amount of matter on hand, from his pen, of much interest. Some of his views differ from ours, at present, but, we are in search after truth, and if convinced of the correctness of his positions, we shall embrace them fearlessly. This getting into a stagnant pool, never to have a "new notion," as some are pleased to call every new thought that is at all ahead of the walls of their theological prison, we abhor. The great body of so called Protestant religionists are as much bound by the superstitions of Paganism and Romanism as Romanists themselves; they hug their chains, and denounce those who strive to set them free, and vainly suppose that they have all the light that can be elicited; hence they hate the light, and will not advance one step.

We are not of those who are ready to adopt every new thought that may be suggested, but we do hold to proving all things, not by the creeds or inventions of men, but by the Truth of God, whether that truth be found in the works or word of God. God's works and word must and do agree, and they can no more be found at disagreement than He can "deny himself." When men, therefore, ask us to throw away our reason, the noblest faculty with which our Creator has endowed us, or the noblest work of God in man, to follow their creeds, under the pretence that we must exercise faith, yea, a blind faith, in the doctrines of their own inventions, we pray to be excused. God himself has placed, in his word, the broad seal of his unqualified condemnation on all those who lightly esteem the reason He has given us: "Come now," saith the Lord of all, "let Us REASON TOGETHER:" Isa. 1: 18. And we are to give "a REASON of the hope" that is in us: 1 Pet. 3: 15. And Paul "reasoned" with his hearers, both from the Scriptures and "the things that are made," or the works of God. None but bigots demand implicit assent to their dogmas, and none but bigots,

and such as "know nothing as they ought to know," think that they have attained the acme of knowledge. The command to "grow in knowledge," is as imperative and binding as the command to repent, or believe. But there can be no growth in knowledge, while men refuse to admit a doubt as to their previous theories. The admission of doubt does not imply an abandonment of the views, but only leaves the mind open to investigate: the investigation may result in the full confirmation in previous views, and in that case we shall be able to give a reason to every man that asketh us. Most religionists, at present, can give no better answer for their faith or practice, than that their church, or fore-fathers, believed and did so. We pity all such. May they attain unto that freedom which the word and works of God giveth, through his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

"THE CHRISTIAN SUN," AND IMMORTALITY. Some of the correspondents of "the Christian Sun," are discussing the subject of immortality. Mr. Alexander McCaine is on the side of immortal-soulism. He reminds us of the "mountain in labor," which, after all its travail, "brought forth a mouse." We would ask Mr. McCaine a few simple questions, which, we hope for the truth's sake, he will answer.

1st. Is there anything "good" in man by nature? 2d. If "God only hath immortality," by what means do his creatures possess it?

3d. If man be born of "corruptible seed," whence his immortality?

4th. Is immortality an attribute, or an entity?

5th. What is life?

6th. What is death?

When Mr. McCaine has answered these questions, we have a few more to propound for his solution. J.T.W.

P. S. Will the "Christian Sun" copy the above?

CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.—As we come to make up our paper for this month, we see that the subject of baptism occupies a larger space than some may think desirable. If the subject is to be further discussed, we suggest if it would not be best to confine the remarks, till that point is sufficiently examined, to this one question:

Is baptism, with water, EXCLUSIVELY by immersion? We received an article, some months since, in defence of baptism by sprinkling, but thought not best to publish it, and were willing that every person should "be fully persuaded in his own mind;" but as Br. Magruder thinks that wont do for "a Bible Examiner," we are willing the discussion should go on, but, let us have a dofinite point. This remark is not designed to interfere with Dr.

Thomas's and Br. Grew's controversy. Let them finish as they please.

PROGRESS OF THE TRUTH IN BRITAIN.

We have received a communication from the Editor of the Truth Seeker and Christian Thinker, Dr. FREDERIC RICHARD LEES, of Leeds, England, from which we have pleasure in quoting the following extracts. They evince that the Truth is travelling" far and fast over the world—that the days of the Fraud and Falsehood of misnamed "Orthodoxy," are indeed numbered—and they prove, once again, the justness of the old persuasion, that "Truth is stronger than all things: it liveth and conquereth for evermore."

LEEDA, July 15th, 1848.

"My dear Mr. Storns:—I respond with pleasure to your request for information as to the state and progress of 'the Immortality question,' in England and Europe; and gladly furnish you with such as I am in possession of. Of Europe generally, or rather of its profoundest scholars and Divines in Sweden, Germany, and France, I can affirm that their closer acquaintance with the machinery and organization of the Divine developments in nature,—and the perception of the want of clearer and better definitions than an effete orthodoxy can furnish,—have led to the abandonment of those old idea-less phrases concerning 'Mind' or 'Spirit,' which represent Thought as existing without a Thinker, and a 'Mind.' without a 'Min!'

The influence of Swedenborg's philosophy has been very considerable on this subject, for, taking its stand-point in the great principle that 'Man is an Organ of God,' it legitimately asserts, that neither in this life nor the life-to-come, can there be any action, any life or movement, without an organization of action, movement, or manifestation—i.e. a body of some kind, no matter whether we call it 'material' or 'spiritual.' Hence there must be—(according to all the processes of God's providence)—a Resurrection before there be a future Life—a standing-again (anastasis.) The Thinkers of Europe are also fast repudiating the distinction-of-opposition set up between 'Matter' and 'Spirit'—disavowing the notion of a double substance, and maintaining unity of atomic Substance, in variety of Manifestation. Berkeley said—'There is but one substance—Mind.'—PRIESTLEY said—'There is but one substance—Matter. We are now saying—'There is but one substance—no matter what we call it.' On the Continent, however, while the false form of the doctrine of Immortality is giving way in favour of the true one of Resurrection through Christ, I know of no eminent writer who advocates the Truth in the precise form which it assumes in America. Further, while many are Restorationists, there are a few who are Perditionists, (i.e. believers in the loss of the Life of the Wicked, by the destruction of that 'organization' through which alone life is possible.) The whole tribe of fallacies arising from viewing Life, Mind, Personality, &c., as things instead of states—and as self-existing instead of existing by and through means—are fast vanishing away with the childishness of the past age.

"Of Britain I can speak more specially and BIBLE EXAMINER

in detail, both of the Persons entertaining these views of Life, and of the Literature they have given rise to. In the first place, I will give you the History of my own Thoughts and Efforts, and, in the second, an account of the Controversies with which I have since become acquainted, conducted by others, with a partial list of the works which they have occasioned.

Some ten years ago I read Dr. Law, the Bishop of Chester's 'Theory of Religion,' and 'Essay on

ed, and the young plant of Truth took fast and lasting root. A discussion of the subject commenced in the second volume of the Truth Socker, which was continued over two years. I send you some of the articles.

"In 1846 I began to find that other and influential persons in Britain, had also had their thoughts turned to this topic. My friend, Joseph Barker (now of Wortley, near Leeds,) formerly a celebrated Methodist Minister, but expelled for heretext as he does. Nevertheless, he may be right, the fact is only a presumption against him. I therefore give an analysis of his work in my Magazine for your consideration.

BIBLE EXAMINER.

"There are many able and excellent men, (as the eloquent H. MELVILLE, B. D., of London,) who incline more or less to our views. Foremost amongst these, we may place Dr. WHATELY, the Archbishop of Dublin. In Exeter, quite a controversy has been lately got up on the subject; J. N. Darby, the Plymouth Brother, taking the Heffish role of the

"saints" who are changed to immortality at the advent; nor can we assume the fearful position towards which some have seemed to lean, viz. that "if those left do not come up they will be cut off, and if they do come up they will be cut off!! All the attempts of Mr. Miller and his followers to get over this chapter have but involved them in the greatest absurdities. We once favored his views, for a time, of 'no probation to any soul of man after the advent,' and tried every possible way to

Death, which rid me at once of my guilt in the current doctrines of Methodism on the subject, though the half-dozen texts on which they are based, prevented me arriving at satisfactory conclusions on the whole question. I was subsequently led to apply my knowledge of Chemistry and Physiology to this topic,—to look at the law of the procession of life and consciousness as God evolves it in Nature,—and then I found, for the first time, firm foothold. Nowhere did I behold Life and Mind except in connection with a specific Organization, while every where I beheld Life disease, and Mind disappear, with the ruin of the organ. Everywhere I beheld an exact Correspondence between the Organ—manifesting, and the Mind or Life manifested. Everywhere, I beheld this law inscribed upon nature—'Use, and you shall secure Profit and Increase;—neglect or mis-use, and you shall suffer Loss and Decease.'—I then appealed to Scripture, and commenced my studies by a careful examination of every text bearing on the future life, or referring to Soul, Life, or Death, to Heaven and to Hell, by which alone I could gather the real opinions of the ancient writers. I compared the English version with the originals, always having my Hebrew and

sy, had republished your six Correctors a cheap form, and circulated them amongst his friends—'The Christian Reformers'—throughout the North of England. The late Thomas Foster, the author of 'the Evils of popular Ignorance,' and the greatest writer amongst the modern Congregational Divines, had given up the notion of Eternal Torments, and within his circle of correspondents, produced a great influence. Archbishop Whately, also, had favourably noticed our views. In the West of England, the 'Destructionist heresy' grow apace. M. Doeney, of Maidstone, published his 'Notes,' which drew down some severe critiques from the monthly organs of the body. These he logically replied to, in a second and enlarged edition. In 1847, Mr. White, a popular congregationalist at Hereford, sent forth his 'Life-in-Christ,' which excited the wrath of a disappointed rival priest (a Dr. Redford) in the Eclectic Review, who grossly misrepresented the work. Matters grew so serious, at last, that the Congregational Union, in order to put down, at one blow, the double heresy of Restorationism and 'Destructionism,' engaged the services of R. W. Hamiltron, D. D. of Leeds to deliver the annual 'Congrega-

question, (as you would see from Truth Seeker, No. 2, new series,) and several others the opposite side. Receive the assurance of my sincere sympathy with you in your warfare against Error. You have, my dear Sir, and will have, your 'reward.' It is a noble thing to be active in the cause of Truth—a true life, this battling against Falsehood. I also, have found God to be with me. Though only thirty-three years of age, broken off from all sects and parties, and denounced by most, I have, by God's help, raised up a noble army of Truth-Seekers—fearless and faithful men—who from John O'Groat's to the Land's End, are everywhere lifting up their voice for the Truth. Let us take courage, and persevere—and, at any rate, we can die in the battle! The more the enemy rage, the more reason

…