The Bible Examiner — Vol. 4, No. 11 (1849)

Download: PDF — The Bible Examiner — Vol. 4, No. 11 (1849)

BIBLE EXAMINER.

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

PHILADELPHIA. NOVEMBER, 1849.

VOL. IV.

No. 11.

GEORGE STORRS, EDITOR AND PUBLISHER.

PUBLISHED MONTHLY, AT 18 CHESTER STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA.

Transm. Single copy, for one year, one dollar; six copies, $1;

thirteen copies,$ 10; ALWAYS IN ADVANCE.

This paper is subject to newspaper postage only.

FUTURE STATES.

BY REV. REGINALD COURTNEY, A. M.

(Continued from page 192.)

St. Paul's declaration that "we are come to the New Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first born, and to the spirits of just men made perfect," has sometimes been held to indicate an intermediate consciousness. Thus Dr. Watts argues in his "World to Come." "The Gospel or the Christian state brings good men into a nearer union and communion with the heavenly world and the inhabitants thereof, than the Jewish state could do. The inhabitants of this upper world, this heavenly Jerusalem, are here reckoned up; God as the prime Lord or Head; Jesus the Mediator as the King of his Church; the innumerable company of angels as ministers of his kingdom; the general assembly of God's favorites or children, who are called the first-born—which may perhaps refer in general to all the saints of all ages past, and to come, whose names are written in the Book of Life in heaven; and particularly to the spirits of just men who are departed from this world, and are made perfect in the heavenly state."

It has been objected," continues Dr. Watts, "that the spirits of the just are not yet made perfect in heaven, because the apostle says, 'These all,' is the saints of the Old Testament, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promises; God having provided some better things for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.' Now these had been dead for many generations, yet they received not the promises, nor were made perfect. Thus saith the objection. But the evident meaning is, that they lived and died in the faith of many promises, some of which were to be fulfilled, after their days, here on earth, but were not fulfilled in their lifetime: they did not enjoy Gospel blessings in that perfect manner in which we do since the Messiah has come, and, by offering himself, 'perfected for ever them that are satisfied.'"

In the sense which Dr. Watte has here given to the word, just men now on earth are as truly "perfected" as those spirits which he imagines to be so in an intermediate state. When it is said that they who are sanctified are "perfected," it is plainly meant that (though they are still required

to go on unto a further "perfection,") yet in as far as their redemption depends on, or rather consists in, the shedding of the blood of Christ, it is a work perfectly accomplished. But in general they are said to be "perfected," who have received their "perfect consummation and bliss, both in body and soul, in God's eternal and everlasting glory;" who have obtained all that God has promised to bestow. In this sense, us the context proves, the spirits of the just will be found to be perfected, when we, who are now simulating them on earth, are admitted, at the Last Day, into their joyful society. For the promises, which they are not to receive without us, are as yet future; are not to be realised, as Dr. Watts maintains, either on earth, by those who live under the gospel dispensation, or by disembodied spirits in the intermediate state; but by the saints of the old, not without those of the new dispensation, in heaven itself, after the Great Judgement-day. For St. Paul is plainly referring to that rest, (in the heavenly Canaan, the New Jerusalem,) which yet "remainth for the people of God;" a rest, promised to the Jews, but to them in common with the whole Christian community of believing children of Abraham. In this view he says, shortly after, "Ye have need of patience, that after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry." We then who are now living by faith, under the Gospel dispensation, have not received the promises, nor are as yet made perfect, nor shall be perfected until Christ comes.

It is indeed abundantly plain that the "promises" spoken of in the epistle to the Hebrews are all to be realized at the resurrection. The thing promised is "a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." And this city does not mean, as Dr. Watts supposes, that Christian Church, or that Gospel dispensation, which was established by the Messiah at his first advent. For they who died in faith, not having received the promises, sought (not merely spiritual privileges such as might be enjoyed in common by just men made perfect in earth, with just men made perfect in heaven, but) emphatically, a "heavenly country." Their hope was "to obtain a happy resurrection;" to enter and enjoy "a kingdom which cannot be moved" after the removal of the present heavens and earth. Here they had not, nor have we, any continuing city; but we are still to seek, even as they sought, one which is "to come."

In the same view said St. Paul, I sacrifice all things, "if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfected.' But he pressed forward, that he might obtain the prize, even that crown of righteousness which the Last day should bring him.

We are come to the spirits of the just made perfect, and to the other concomitant blessings, in this sense—that we are invited now to realise faith by and hope, as far as we may, the blessedness to be experienced in the future world.

Even now we are to act as if in the visible presence of our Judge, and of the myriads of attendant angels; as if the heavenly Jerusalem had already come down from God; as if in the society of all those blessed spirits who shall by regeneration receive their perfect consummation and bliss. In the same sense also are we come to Jesus the Mediator, and to the blood of sprinkling. The benefits of his mediation and atonement are as yet received by us only in part, as far as we may receive them by faith and hope; for we have not yet obtained our promised joint inheritance; our "crown of righteousness" is as yet laid up; our "kingdom that cannot be moved" still awaits the promised shaking of the earth.

It is remarkable that St. Paul mentions both the church of the first-born, and the spirits of the just made perfect. He appears to be viewing the same persons under two conditions, first, as members of the invisible church on earth* in all ages; and secondly, as perfected in heaven. To the former we are already come in part; our communion with the latter is reserved for another world.

"To this end," says St. Paul, "Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living." Hence Calvin argues, that the dead must be in a state of consciousness;—"for he cannot be Lord except of those who are in being." But God is not the God of the dead; and St. Paul's words point rather to the resurrection. Christ is Lord of the dead, just as He is Lord of Death. He has the keys of Hades and Death, but has not yet unlocked their dark gates, nor disenthralled the souls in bondage to their power. "All power is given unto Him in heaven and earth;" but He has not yet "taken unto Himself His great power and reigned." We must not judge our brethren, says the apostle; seeing that we are to live and die unto the Lord alone, before whose judgment seat both quick and dead shall stand.

"A testimony against them [who hold the sleep of the soul] is borne," says Calvin, "in heaven, before God and His angels, by the souls of the martyrs, who with a loud voice cry from under the altar, 'How long, O Lord, dost Thou not avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth. And white robes were given unto them; and it was said unto them that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow-servants also and their brethren that should be killed as they were, were fulfilled." What, O slumbering spirits, are white robes to you? Are they cushions on which you may repose in sleep? The white robes suit not sleep. They must needs be awake who are clothed thus. Doubtless the white robes signify the commencement of that glory which Divine Goodness confers on the martyrs, while they await the judgment-day."

Probably Calvin is perfectly right in this. And these martyrs are the same with "those that came out of great tribulation, and had washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb; and the same as "the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for

the word of God; * who sat on thrones, and had judgment given unto them, and lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." And Calvin is probably correct also in his opinion, that St. John "sets forth a twofold resurrection; one of the soul, before judgment, the other when the body is raised." For it is expressly said that "the souls of them which were beheaded, etc , lived and reigned with Christ;" and that "the rest of the dead" (souls surely?) "lived not until the thousand years were finished." And what is a resurrection of the soul before judgment, or a soul's living with Christ while the rest of the dead live not, but a restoration to life and consciousness?

Some have maintained that "the first resurrection" is corporeal: but even admitting this, it cannot be admitted, that when souls are said to live, it is meant that bodies only are restored to life, and that the souls were alive before: and also that, when it is said, "the rest of the dead lived not," corpses only are intended. But in order to obtain from the above passages a proof of intermediate consciousness, continuing from the time of death, we must further believe that the first resurrection includes all the dead, who die in the Lord: whereas the Scripture speaks of martyrs alone.* They will live, i.e. their souls will live for a thousand years before the rest of the dead are restored to life; but there is no ground for supposing that the souls and bodies of all the redeemed will enjoy a millennial reign; supervening upon an indefinite period of hopeful consciousness. It is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment;—not two protracted states of intermediate life. The martyrs indeed shall be in a state to cry unto God, and receive white robes, for a little season before that judgment on their persecutors; on which, as it appears, the millennial reign of Christ shall ensue. But we need not expand this little season even in their case, much less that of others, into untold thousands of years.

Strange it is, seeing that death and judgment are in Scripture brought so near each other, that there are many who have familiarized their minds to the belief that two states must be passed through, and each of great length, before the deceased Christian encounters the final judgment seat, to "receive the things done in the body, whether they be good or bad." Many expect to be in great bliss and glory, emancipated from the bondage of the flesh, and with Christ, immediately on their departure from this world; and hope to exchange this wholly spiritual state for a Millennial reign with Christ upon the present earth, before the second resurrection. And this their millennial state, in which the body is, as they suppose, re-united to the soul, is of course expected to confer on them an addition of happiness and glory. But let them consider well, what further bliss they reserve, in their imaginations, for their fourth state, after the judgment, when heaven and earth have passed away. In truth, they practically reserve none: but appropriate to themselves, in their second or third state, every particular form of blessing which God has

promised to confer at, and not before that time when the "blessed of the Father," having been finally judged, "inherit the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world." Nay, in too many instances, they actuall, apply to their supposed third state all the magnificent language in which the closing chapters of the Apocalypso describe the new post-millennial heavens and earth!

there yet remains one important passage, which is commonly held to convey the most direct proof, not of consciousness merely, but of peculiar happiness and glory, during the intermediate state. To the believing robber on the cross, who prayed, "Lord, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom," our Saviour replied, "To-day thou shalt be with me in Paradise." Beyond dispute, the reward promised was not one that might be conferred at the general resurrection; for thus Jesus would merely be remembering the suppliant "when he came in his kingdom;" though in what it actually consisted is less evident. But be it what it may, nothing can be more presumptuous and unwarrantable, than to expect the same reward, or even any reward like it, for all believers in Christ. As well,—nay, less presumptiously—might we expect that all who "walked with God" should be translated with Enoch and Elijah, and never see death. For as far as we can judge, the faith of the penitent robber exceeding theirs; as it exceeded that of the apostles, and probably of every follower of our Lord. When the enemies of Jesus to all appearance, prevailed, when he submitted to stripes, insults, and finally the most ignominious death, the triumph of the unbelievers was complete; and the last hopes of his followers seem to have faded away. One of them had betrayed him, another repeatedly denied him; the rest forsook him and fled. His enemies exulted in the proof which, to their minds, his degrading death afforded, that he could not be the anointed of God; saying, If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross and we will believe: that he should save himself was the only way they could imagine of his making good his pretensions. And accordingly one of his follow sufferers revived him in the same terms, "If thou be the Son of God, save thyself and us." Then it was that the other malefactor not only rebuked his companion, and bore testimony to the innocence of Jesus, but acknowledged him as a triumphant sovereign about to enter upon his kingdom.

His faith stood a trial before which that of all the other disciples was shaken. Having once, on good and sufficient grounds believed on Jesus as the Christ, he remained unshaken in his trust, even at the moment when the enemies of the crucified King were filled with triumph, and his disciples with doubt or despair. Whether any of us does actually possess faith equal with this man can be known only to the All-wise God. But we may be sure that none of us can display equal faith with his, because the circumstances are such as can never occur again. To those therefore, who do not claim for all Christians a faith equal to that of the penitent robber, it must be a matter of comparatively small moment to attempt to determine what is meant, by being with Christ in Paradise.

In all probability however the Paradise intended is the same as is mentioned elsewhere in the New

Testament. "To him that overcorneth," our Lord declared by St. John, "I will give to eat of the tree of life, that groweth in the midst of the Paradise of God." This is evidently a promise of a reward after the general resurrection, when the redeemed shall be permitted to eat of the precious fruit mentioned in the last chapter of the Apocalypse.

The same place of bliss was beheld in vision by St. Paul, whowas "caught up into Paradise," and there heard unutterable words. Into the same place the believing robber was probably admitted as soon as Jesus himself entered it. But notwithstanding the weight due to the expression "to-day," it may be questioned whether our Lord entered Paradise before his ascension, or at the earliest, before his resurrection. For was he in the place to which St. Paul was "caught up,"—in a region belonging to those new heavens which are eventually to "come down from God,"—at the very time of his descent into Hades? Was he,—was his human soul,—at once above earth and below it, of whom St. Paul says that he who ascended "first descended into the lower parts of the earth!" This seems improbable; and therefore, if a strict interpretation of the expression "to-day" be contended for, there is no alternative but to place Paradise below, in that Hades, into which our Lord's human soul most certainly descended. But this alternative would probably be found no less inconvenient; for it is hard to believe that our Lord's human soul was in Paradise both when he was in Hades, and also when he left it; or to place it in the Hades which shall eventually be "cast in the lake of fire." Paradise is probably above, and was entered by our Lord at his ascension. The question is certainly obscure; but whatever may be understood by Paradise, it can never be shown, that Christians in general have a better claim to be admitted to the privileges of the robber, than they have to be translated or transfigured with Enoch, Elijah, and Moses.

Questions may perhaps be raised,—whether the condition of souls in Hades was not changed for the better by the first advent of Christ? or whether the partial victory over death, obtained through His death and resurrection, operated before the event, so as to render the conquest of death, over the souls of those who died before our Lord's coming; less complete than it would otherwise have been? Both inquiries are important in reference to the question of an intermediate consciousness. If such consciousness be, as has been maintained above, altogether anticipatory of resurrection, not necessarily or naturally consequent on death, they who died before Christ's coming must have been unconscious, (at least until His coming,) unless His resurrection operated by way of anticipation. And that it did so operate is more than can be proved from Scripture. To Adam was given the promise "Thy seed shall bruise the serpent's head." The victory was ordained, but not accomplished; the Old Serpent Satan did not immediately feel his deadly wound. The liberation of the souls which were to pass into Hades was also ordained; but it does not follow that the power of the grave was then impaired, and "the gates of hell" shaken, and that the fetters forged by Death for souls yet unborn were then wrested from his hands.

And if Christ's resurrection did not operate before the event, neither did it immediately afterwards.* "The whole creation," says St. Paul, "groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now;" that is, "up to this present time," long after the ascension of the Lord.

It groaneth thus, every creature groaneth, waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God," at the resurrection. "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. Christ the first fruits, afterwards they that are Christ's at his coming." Certainly this passage is unfavorable to the belief, that the death originally introduced through Adam is in any wise removed; through Christ, excepting at his second coming, at which the "dead men shall live."

Again it deserves to be considered, that since our blessed Lord himself, as haa been argued above, "tasted death for every man, and through death overcame him that had the power of death," he must, as it appears, from the very nature of the case, have partaken of the full unmitigated penalty of death;—tasted of death, such as, but for His coming, it would have been to the soul of every child of Adam. If this be so, it follows that death is, to the soul of every Christian, what it would have been, but for Christ, to the souls of all men; unless we prefer to believe that the faithful followers of our Lord have, as we are nowhere informed, a better passage through the dark valley than their Lord himself!

But rejecting this supposition, we must needs conclude that death is now both such as it ever has been, and such as (allowing the supposition) it would have been, but for the Advent of Christ: not being changed as yet, in any degree, either in its nature or power, by his first coming, either at the time of his resurrection, or before that event: but still reigning over every deceased soul, forbidding it,—since the God in whom we live and move, and have our being, is not the God of the dead,—to live, to move, or to be.

BAPTISM.

The following communication was received too late, last year, to be inserted in the December number, where we thought best to terminate a discussion which we had reason to think our readers did not care to have continued. Br. Magruder, however, thought it due to him that we should publish his "final" reply to Br. Grew. We have concluded to let them both speak once more, which will be considered the end of that controversy in our columns, for the present. All will understand, that these brethren are equally strong in the belief of immersion being essential to baptism: they differ only as to its necessity to salvation.

ESSENTIALITY OF BAPTISM DEFENDED. REPLY TO MR. GREW. No. II.

In the hope that the reader will keep in view the question in debate between myself and Mr.

Except perhaps in the case of the comparatively few "saints which slept," who arose and came out of their graves after Christ's rekorrection, manifesting thus, (and not by any mere change in their disembodied souls.) His power who now hold the keys of Mades: and who, as there is reason to conjecture, never returned to the tomb.

Grew, I proceed to offer some reply to his "Response" (in the October number of the Examiner) to my first article.

It is not advisable to expend time and space in combating minor arguments, and seeking small advantages, in such a discussion as this. If triumph, instead of truth, were the object of our pursuit, such acts might subserve the purpose, but as I hope and believe the discovery of truth—that "pearl of great price"—and the vindication of God's ways to man, to be the great object of both, I shall not be tempted to turn aside from the plain and direct path before me. What, then, is the simple issue before us?

I maintain that the baptism or immersion of a believing and penitent subject, is one of the conditions of salvation from sins—pardon—regeneration—remission of sins—adoption as a child of God, &c. This Mr. Grew denies. Holding the affirmative, of course, the burden of proof devolves on me, and I accept the task, and appeal to the only infallible standard—the word of God—either directly expressed, or clearly implied. Here there can be no mistake. What, then, saith the Scripture? "How readest thou?" I cite the following passages from the sacred record, reserving comment for the present.

John iii. 5. "Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Mark xvi. 16. "Preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."

Acts ii. 38. "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of the Lord Jesus, for the remission of sins."

Acts xi. 13, 14, in connection with Acts x. 43, 47, 48. The angel said to Cornelius, Peter "shall tell thee words whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved." And Petor said, in fulfilment of this promise, the "words"—"to him give all the prophets witness that, through his name, whoever believeth on him shall receive remission of sins;" adding, (when he witnessed the descent of the Holy Spirit on these Gentiles) "Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized?" and commanding "them to be baptized in the name of the Lord;" by all which "words" or commands (baptism included) he and "all his house" were saved, as promised in the 14th verse of the 11th chapter.

Acts xxii. 16. Ananias to Saul. "And now, why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

1 Cor. xv. 2, in connection with Acts xviii. 8. "The gospel I preached unto you—by which also ye are saved," &c. Read 1 Cor. xv. with Acts xviii. 8: "Many of the Corinthians hearing believed and were baptized." Thus, they were "saved" by belief and baptism.

So far the testimony of the "Gospels" and "Acts," the historical records of the sayings and acts of our Lord and his apostles in the progress of their proclamation of the gospel "for the obedience of faith among all nations." I shall now cite the testimony derived from another part of the same record, addressed to persons differently situated, viz: that contained in the "Epistles," which, we know, were letters addressed to those who were already Christians. I shall show, from this authority, that these were addressed as those who had

been baptized, and were thus recognized as "saved," "washed," "regenerated," "renewed," become "the children of God," &c., with direct, plain, and undeniable citations and allusions to baptism as one of the means by which they had changed their state before God. "To the law and to the testimony" again!

Rom. vi. 2—5. "How shall we (Christians) that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so, we also should walk in newness of life;" i.e. after baptism the "newness of life" begins, and not before.

1 Cor. vi. 10, 11. "The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God—nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, &c. &c. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus," &c. Now these very Corinthians, we have seen, were "saved" by belief and baptism, according to 1 Cor. xv. 1, 2, and Acts xviii. 8.

Gal. iii. 27. "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." How, then, of those who have not been baptized into Christ? Have they "put on" Christ? Mr. Grew will hardly say so, I think. If not, then baptism is an essential condition of putting on Christ.

Ephesians v. 25, 26. "Husbands love your wives; even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word." A plain allusion to baptism as a means of sanctification.

Coloss. ii. 12. " Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him;" to that " newness of life " spoken of, under the same figure, in Rom. vi.

Titus iii. 5. "According to his mercy he SAVED us,"—(How? I ask;)—"by THE WASHING OF REGENERATION and the renewing of the Holy Ghost," &c.

Hebrews x. 22, 23. "Let us draw nigh with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." Is not here an allusion to that preparation—baptism being a part of the process—which is essential to acceptable worship, "in the full assurance of faith?"

1 Peter iii. 18—22. "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the spirit; by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, which sometime were disobedient, when once the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

I pause here, and I submit it to Mr. Grew and

the candor of the reader, if this testimony from Holy Writ does not establish the position, beyond doubt or question, that baptism is essential to salvation? Peter declares above, that Noah was "saved by water;" and immediately adds, so, too, baptism, of which the flood was the type, "doth also now save us." Yet Mr. Grew insists it does not save us. That we are saved without it. Well, I only reply again, Mr. Grew and Peter are directly at issue, and it is vain to escape this dilemma by his reply, "the question is, is Mr. Magruder's construction of the passage correct?" for it is not a question of construction. I offer two construction. I cite Peter's plain and positive declaration, "baptism both also now saves us;" and it is that Mr. Grew combats and denies. I hope he will candidly acknowledge the error and not impeach the apostle's veracity. In any other than an unkind spirit, I beg my respected and intelligent correspondent to remember the solemn injunction in Romans iii. 4.

It would require more space than the " Examiner " can spare, to present a commentary on the several passages of scripture which have been cited above. I regret that the time fails me to show how they all, when fairly and intelligently construed, harmonize, and sustain the general conclusion.

In religions, as well as in all other controversy, extremes are apt to beget each other. Thus has it been with baptism. The Roman Catholics, the earliest apostates and corrupters of the truth—by administering the rite to infants and idiots—by the absurd practice of clinical baptism, and similar mummeries, drove the Reformers to the opposite error of undervaluing the ordinance, and denying its essential efficacy, even when properly administered to a fit subject; so that while the Romanist yet upholds its necessity, and even superstitiously magnifies its virtue, the Protestant, concluding the very opposite must be right, argues that it is wholly unimportant, and therefore either neglects it altogether, like the Quaker, or contents himself with the Paido-baptist apology of sprinkling, whilst the Baptist sectary, afraid of his orthodoxy, invents a compromise, by holding it important enough to be made a test of fellowship at the Lord's table, but not so essential as to interpose a barrier to fraternal relations in any other respects. This last, with strange inconsistency, rejects those whom the Lord has received; for if Christians, though unbaptized, and on that account denied his fellowship, is it not clear that, in his zeal for his sectarian badge, he has been driven to the exclusion of those who (being in Christ, as he allows.) have been recognized and adopted by the Master! Such are the consequences of a blind adherence to sectarian tenets, rather than the "word of the truth of the gospel."

Mr. Grew will pardon me, I trust, for presuming to say, in conclusion, that I think I discern the source of his error in regard to the subject in debate. It is of easy discovery, and belongs to all that class of disputants whose minds have reached a foregone conclusion, and, instead of following out the testimony to its legitimate results, look around for authority to support an opinion already embraced. He argues that baptism cannot be essential, because salvation is so often associated with faith on its instrumental cause. This is granted. But it is not thence to be inferred that baptism is excluded, any more than repentance, holiness, the love of God, the blood of Christ, good works, &c.

The truth is, that all these together, and no one or two alone, are so many means to an end. In the scriptures, we are said to be saved by faith, by grace, by hope, by baptism, by works, by the blood of Christ, by holiness, by the word, by the spirit, &c. Now, while Mr. Grew would exclude some of these—baptism, for example—I would insist on all as essential to the grand consummation. What God has joined together, I would not put asunder. To quote passages to show that salvation is by faith, and thus argue that baptism was a non-essential, would be as wise and pertinent as to cite authority from a work on architecture to prove that a foundation was a necessary part of a house, and therefore the walls and the roof were non-essentials.

A. B. MAGRUDER.

H. GREW'S REPLY.

By reference to my former articles, my friend will find my arguments to disprove his construction of some of the texts he has adduced in the present communication. I shall not repeat all these arguments. I submit it to his intelligent consideration, whether or not, as "an ally" to Dr. Thomas, he ought to show, if he can, the fallacy of my arguments, instead of re-quoting the texts and repeating the objectionable constructions. Other passages, however, are now quoted, which demand our impartial consideration. Far be it, that any of us should seek "triumph instead of truth." I desire to bring every theological opinion to the test of that word which abideth for ever: even the opinion, which consigns thousands of the holiest and most devoted servants of the Lord Jesus, since the days of the apostles, to the lake which burneth with brimstone and with fire, which is the second death! We must not shrink from the scriptural investigation of a tenet, although it clearly implies that such men as Martin Luther, Philip Melanthon, John Knox, George Whitefield, Philip Dodridge, and a host of holy men, who have willingly gone to the stake for the truth of the Lord Jesus, because they did not understand their duty to be immersed in water, will be "punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power!"

Mark 16: 16, and John 3: 5, I have already considered.

Before commenting on other passages, I beg leave to call attention to a scriptural fact which may aid us in coming to the knowledge of the truth on the question at issue. We find two classes of passages in the holy volume. One class teaching us all Christian duties, and another teaching us what will certainly exclude us from the kingdom of God. These must not be confounded. Our Lord makes this distinction, Mark 16:16, between faith and baptism. Many true Christians "suffer loss" by their prejudices against, and misapprehension of, some truths; yet they shall be saved. A man suffers inconveniences and delay, by not choosing the very best road to the place of his destination. This, however, is no proof that he will never arrive there.

Acts 2:38 connects repentance and baptism with "the remission of sins." In the case of Paul, washing away of sin (in some sense) was connected with baptism. Col.2:12, rising with

Christ is connected with it. Peter, 1 Epis 3: 21, connects it with salvation. Are we not, by other passages relative to the subject, to ascertain in what sense baptism is to be understood in those texts? Now it is a remarkable fact, that in every one, baptism is connected with something else, without which it would be worthless? In one it is connected with faith, in another with repentance, in another with "calling on the Name of the Lord," and in another, with "the faith of the operation of God." Yea, in the only passage which declares that the figure of baptism saves us, the inspired apostle precludes the idea of this "figure" saving us, in any other sense than figuratively, by saying, "not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God." Were Simon Magus, Ananias and Saphira, Demus, &c., saved by immersion in water, in any other sense than figuratively or professedly? I ask my opponents whether a "figure" (1 Peter 3: 21) saves really or figuratively? Mr. Magruder's comments and inferences on this passage are as unworthy of his good sense as of his christian charity. He remarks, "Mr. Grew and Peter are directly at issue." What does Mr. Grew say? I say that baptism is a figure of our salvation, and that it does not really save us, nor is it absolutely essential to real and eternal salvation. What does Peter say? He says that baptism is a "figure," and saves us, but that it is "not the putting away the filth of the flesh (i.e. by water) which saves us, but the answer of a good conscience towards God." My friend objects to my question, "Is Mr. Magruder's construction of the passage correct?" adding, "I offer no construction." Is it no "construction," to say that the passage imports the essentiality of immersion to eternal salvation? Does Peter say this, or any thing which necessarily implies it? Let every candid reader judge. Mr. M. further remarks, "I cite Peter's plain and positive declaration, "bapeism born also now same us," "and it is that Mr. Grew combats and denies." Mr. G. does not deny this. I admit it in the sense which Peter explains it in the entire passage. Mr. M.'s citation is partial. Why did he not fairly quote the whole of it? I deny my friend's inference that the passage implies that no man can be saved without immersion in water. For this he is pleased to represent that I "impeach the apostle's veracity!" Suppose that I misapprehend the apostle, in understanding him that the "figure" of baptism saves us only figuratively; is this impeaching his veracity? I ask, with Christian meekness, that Mr. M. would consider the fact, that, on a mutilated passage, withholding that part which supports my view, he bases, not only the above serious charge, but implicitly (by referring me to Rom. 3: 4) the more awful one, of being a liar against God! "Judge not that ye be not judged," &c.

Acts 2: 38. The plain and numerous promises of pardon to penitent believers in the scriptures refute my opponents' construction of this passage. I have examined their reply to this declaration, and endeavored to show the fallacy of it. It remains for them to prove that I have not done so.

Acts 11: 13, 14, in connection with 10: 43, 47, 48. Peter "shall tell their words whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved." What words? "To Him (i.e. Jesus Christ) give all the prophets

witness that through his Name, whosoever believeth on him shall receive remission of sins." Thus do "all the prophets witness" against my opponents, who teach that there are thousands who believe on the Savior, who never "receive remission of sins." The apostle indeed "commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." May we justly infor from this that no man can be saved without baptism? What are the premises from which this inference must fairly flow? That the knowledge of, and obedience to, ALL the commandments of the Lord is essential to salvation. This is a false principle, for it is in manifest contradiction to scriptural precept and to scriptural fact. It is opposed to the imperative requisition to receive the "weak" (or ignorant) who are "in the faith" of the Lord Jesus. Rom. 14: 1, 3. It is opposed to the fact of the believer being recognized as a christian by the apostle who, like modern trinitarians, had not a correct knowledge of the divine unity, (1 Cor. 8 chap.) a subject of much more importance than a correct knowledge of the figurative ordinance of immersion. The argument proves too much, and, consequently, proves nothing. You may as well quote Acts 9: 42, to prove that the christian, who conscientiously declines the literal breaking of bread in commemoration of the death of Jesus Christ, understanding it (erroneously) merely in a spiritual sense, cannot be saved. On the same principle we must make the correct knowledge and practice of all things pertaining to the order of the christian church essential to salvation.

1 Cor. 15:20, in connection with Acts. 18:8, proves that we are saved by the truth of the Gospel. The declaration that the Corinthians "hearing, believed and were baptized," certainly does not necessarily imply that baptism is essential to salvation. Indeed if the declaration was that they were saved by hearing, believing and being baptized, it would no more necessarily imply that they could not be saved without baptism, than the declaration that A. was saved from drowning by B. C. and D. necessarily implies that he could not have been saved without D.

Acts 22: 16, must be understood figuratively. The sins of Simon Magus were not really washed away by baptism. To have our sins cancelled or washed away and to be justified, are synonymous expressions. We are justified by faith, which precedes baptism.

Rom. 6: 2-5. It is preposterous to understand this passage otherwise than figuratively. The allusion is indeed to our literal baptism, but were we literally "baptized into his (Christ's) death?" Our immersion in water is figurative of our holy change, we die to sin and rise to "newness of life." So far from the figurative ordinance being essential to this holy "newness of life," it is an undeniable fact that among real christians, we find some unimmersed more holy in their habitual walk than some of the immersed.

1 Cor. 6: 10, 11. Here are the persons enumerated who shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Alas! for our opponents, the unbaptized are not among them. It is well for the penitent believing thief and many others of the godly. It is for Mr. M. to inform us the reason of this important omission from this and every similar passage in the oracles of truth.

Gal. 3: 27. The question, "Have they (who

have not been baptized) put on Christ?" I not only answer in the affirmative, but affirm that some of this class do so, more than some real christians who are immersed. They are indeed in fault, neglecting, through ignorance, to put on Christ in the ordinance of immersion. I ask my friend if he will deny, that those put on Christ, who "put off the old man" and "put on the new," who "put on... as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, mockness, long-suffering, forbearing one another and forgiving one another." I pray that he may put on Christ by forbearing his weak brother.

Eph. 5: 25, 26. I admit that baptism is, to believers, "a means of sanctification." This, however, is no proof that all other means, without this, are inadequate to that sanctification which is essential to salvation.

Col. 2: 12, I have answered.

Titus 3: 5. I have no objection to McKnight's rendering. "The bath of regeneration." I admit the allusion to be to immersion. But I ask, was their immersion real "regeneration," or was it a figure or profession of their previous renewal? Was Demas really regenerated by baptism. No man is qualified for baptism who is not previously regenerated.

Heb. 10: 22, 23, admits of a similar answer. Baptism is an important part of that worship which is "acceptable" to God; but this is not proof that it is so important that no worship can be acceptable without it.

1 Peter 3: 18-22, is answered.

You think that the Romanist "superstitiously magnifies (the) virtue" of baptism. Surely he may say, "Physician heal thyself."

I cordially unite with you in your charge of inconsistency against those baptists who make immersion "a test of fellowship at the Lord's table," but not "to fraternal relations in any other respect."

In my remarks on the term "born of water," B. Ex., Vol. III., page 116, you will find a reply to some of your closing remarks. You should have proved the fallacy of this reply, if you can. "I would insist" on obedience to all the holy principles, and also to all the ordinances of the Gospel, as essential to the perfect christian. Blessed be God, he does not reject, or allow his children to reject, the "weak in the faith," because they are not thus perfect. You say, "what God has joined together, I would not put asunder." To this my inmost mind responds. The question is, Has God joined together, faith in his Son, &c., and baptism, not only as duties, but as duties essential to salvation? What is the fact? What has Jesus Christ done in relation to this matter? In the great Commission, when he sent forth his disciples for the salvation of a lost world, he joined faith and baptism as duties, and separated them as essential to salvation, resting final and eternal condemnation on unbelief only. Mark 16: 16. You therefore, I think, join what Christ has separated, which is no less objectionable than to put asunder what he has joined.

I hold that God's promise of salvation to the believer in Jesus excludes every thing, as essential to salvation, but what is essential to faith in his Son. If not, his promise fails. Faith and love, i.e. obedience to all his known commands, are inseparably connected. Baptism is not so connected.

This is an important truth, overlooked in your argumentation. The pertinency of your final illustration depends altogether on the question, whether or not baptism is essential to salvation, as the walls and roof of the house are to the existence of the house? "To quote passages" which show that baptism is a duty and essential to a perfect christian, and argue that without it no man can be saved, "would be as wise and pertinent, as to cite authority from a work on architecture, to prove that" a variety of things are necessary to a perfect house, and then conclude that if one of these is lacking, it is no house at all.

In the commencement of his article, my friend expresses his "hope," that "the discovery of truth" is "the object of both." I regret to perceive that, in the close, his charity takes wings. He sits in judgment on my motives, and traces my supposed error to a disposition "to support an opinion already embraced," instead of "following out the testimony to its legitimate results." I pray the Lord to grant us both a single eye to his holy truth.

HENRY GREW.

BIBLE EXAMINER. PHILADELPHIA, NOVEMBER, 1849.

ENDLESS LIFE ONLY IN CHRIST.

"He that hath the Son hath life : he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."—1 John 5: 12.

BIBLE EXAMINER. Our absence has prevented the appearance of the Examiner sooner this month; and now we have not half funds enough to pay the printer. Still we will redeem our pledge to issue the November and December numbers to complete this volume, trusting that the expense will be met. So far as we have conversed with the readers of the Examiner, there has been but one expression in regard to its continuance, and their willingness to pay one dollar per year for it, just as cheerfully as they have paid fifty cents heretofore. We expect to be able to interest our readers the coming year not less than the present, but of that they will be able to judge as we proceed. The greatly increasing interest on the immortality question in England will furnish us, we expect, with much matter of instruction.

Terms of the Examiner, for 1850, one dollar. For 5 six copies will be sent, and for10 thirteen, to any address that may be ordered.

All communications and remittances designed for the Examiner, should be addressed, "George Stones, Philadelphia, Pa."

LATE VISIT NORTH. Since the last Examiner was issued we have visited Albany and Utica, N. Y. We spent about one week in each place, and had good and attentive congregations. Albany

is where we originally preached our "Six Sermons." In our visit there, now, we dwelt mainly on the prophecies. At Utica we had never preached on the question of immortality. We were residing at that place in 1837, when our attention was, for the first time, drawn to contemplate the possibility that wicked men might utterly perish, though we did not become settled in that view till 1840, some two years after we removed from there. We now felt a satisfaction in visiting that place; and the reception we met with from some of our old friends was truly comforting and refreshing. We know not when we have passed a few days with so much satisfaction. For the first time, in that city, we opened our mouth on immortality, eternal life, as no part of man's inheritance by creation or generation; but only a gift bestowed by God through Jesus Christ on those who by patient continuance in well doing seek for it. Truly, never did we realize more of the presence and blessing of God, for a few days, than in our ministrations at Utica; and we cannot but believe that the word spoken will prove a savor of life unto life to some who heard it. Two evenings, after our discourses, we gave full liberty for any who chose to question us; and about half or three-quarters of an hour was thus occupied each of those evenings, which, we trust, gave satisfaction to all, and tended much to give interest to the subject, as many questioned were asked and answered.

VOLUMES OF THE EXAMINER BOUND.—We shall have the volumes for '48 and '49 bound in one immediately after the next number is issued. Those who may wish the work must send their orders soon, as it is only a limited number that we can now furnish for both years. The price will be 1.25 single copy, or five copies for5.00.

"Who will Live Forever?"—We have just received "A Reply to the Rev. John Howard Hinton's Criticism on Luke xx: 36, with an Appendix on the Signification of the terms Life and Death. By Edward White, Minister of the Church of Christ at Hereford," England. We presume we are indebted to the author, or Dr. Lees, Leeds, for the favor. Whichever it may be, he will please accept our thanks. We shall give a part if not the whole of it in future numbers of the Examiner.

We have yet much matter by the English writers on the immortality question, which has been necessarily crowded out this year, that may be expected in our next volume, and new matter is multiplying by the discussion in England.

TO THE READERS OF THE EXAMINER.—Two years ago I became associated in the editorial department of the Bible Examiner. I have now deemed it

best to withdraw my connection, and, in doing so, I desire to bid a kind farewell to all its readers. It is not necessary to enumerate the reasons of my dissolving this connection; and I will therefore detain you no longer, but most devoutly pray, that "the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit may ever be with you." JOHN TOMLIN WALSH. November 1st, 1849.

Donations since our last to complete this volume.

John Stetler, Philadelphia, $1.00

Capt. Bloomer, Jersey City, N. J., 1.00

William Mayell, Albany, N. Y., 3.00

NOTES ON "ATHANASIA." No. III.

Mr. Hinton maintains that "There are no texts that teach never ending existence to be the gift of Christ to his followers." "The phrase everlasting life," he says, "is unquestionably used to express the entire felicity of the redeemed; and it cannot, therefore, when so used, be understood according to a different analogy, that is, of never-ending existence." p. 123.

The question is not whether the phrase is sometimes used to express the entire felicity of the redeemed; but—Is that its general or uniform use? We maintain that it is not; and that it is not its primary use. And we appeal to Mr. Hinton, himself, whether that phrase could alone, or by itself, without other texts of Scripture, prove the happiness of the redeemed at all? and whether we are not dependant upon more explicit declarations as to the happiness of saints beyond this state? The saints live now, but they are far from being always happy. Eternal life, then, for all that phrase alone can determine, may not be always happy. To quote a solitary text, in which Paul says, "Now we live if ye stand fast in the faith," to prove the phrase life is sometimes used analogically to signify happiness, and then come to the conclusion that "The phrase everlasting life is unquestionably used to express the entire felicity of the redeemed," is truly a summary way of coming to the conclusion that in the multiplied times in which the phrase occurs, it does not mean "never-ending existence." But to do Mr. H. justice, we say, his language is very guarded here; yet to us it seems strangely contradictory. He says, "the phrase is used to express the entire felicity of the redeemed, and when so used, cannot be understood of never-ending existence:" which language implies an admission that it is not always "so used." Pray, then, what does it mean when not so used? for he says—"There are no texts that teach never ending existence to be the gift of Christ to his followers;" yet the phrase eternal or everlasting life is either directly or indirectly used uniformly to teach something that is the gift of Christ, or the gift of God through Christ, to his followers. Pray what is it, if not never-ending existence, when not used for happiness? On this point Mr. H. has left us in the dark, and we must wait for light.

We now join issue with Mr. Hinton on his assumption that "There are no texts that teach never-ending existence to be the gift of Christ to his followers." We begin with Rom. 5. Here the apostle "is unquestionably" speaking of death in the primary sense of the term. And for the sake of meeting Mr. H. fairly, we will let him have his own definition of the term. "Death," he says, "in its strict and primary import, signifies nothing more than that condition of an organized substance in which the organic functions have ceased:" p. 38. Rom. 5: 12.—The apostle says—"By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men: Death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression: If by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness [followers of Christ] shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ: as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation [to death—"dust thou art unto dust shalt thou return;" see Gen. 3: 19, the only condemnation Paul could have referred to:] even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life; [the exact opposite of what came upon all by Adam's sin, viz. a resurrection from the dead;] as sin hath reigned unto death, [in the primary sense,] even so might grace reign through righteousness unto ETERNAL LIFE by Jesus Christ our Lord."

Here is plainly life and death contrasted: That the word death is here used in its primary sense, we presume Mr. Hinton will not call in question: life, then, must also be used in its primary sense. Let Mr. H. have its primary sense according to his liking, viz: "the active or living condition of organic substances;" and then it follows that the future active or living condition of the organic substances entering into the resurrection organism of the followers of Christ is a free "gift," bestowed "by Jesus Christ;" and that organism is said to be "eternal" to such as "receive" the grace of God, and the "righteousness," or holiness which is essential to ensure the ETERNAL life promised. Here then, to our mind, nothing can be plainer than that the phrase "eternal life" is used to signify "never-ending existence" in a conscious state. If this were the only text to prove this point we should think we have fairly shown that Mr. H. is mistaken in his assumption: or, at least, it forms an exception to the uniform use of the phrase in the sense of "happiness," and leaves us at full liberty to use it generally, yes, uniformly, to denote eternal conscious existence, unless it can be shown that there are exceptions, and then these particular cases will not affect the general use of the term to express "never ending existence."

Thus far we have proceeded on the ground that Mr. Hinton's definition of the primary sense of the words life and death is the correct one, and have met him on his own ground; but we dissent entirely from him in the definition of those words. Our previous articles give our reasons for doing so on the word life; and as he, after defining what is the primary sense of the term death, p. 38, says, "Life is no doubt its opposite," we do not judge it necessary to spend labor to show what is the primary meaning of the word death. We have attempted to show, in our first article, what is the primary meaning of the word life; if we were successful in that attempt, as he has admitted death and life are opposites, we have equally established the point that his view of the primary meaning of the word death is erroneous: it is not merely the disorganization of organic substances, but the cessation of conscious existence.

This being lost by the first death, is restored to men by Christ through a resurrection, but is eternal only to those who have become righteous under whatever dispensation they may have lived. Though they have never heard of Christ, their future life, by a resurrection from the dead, comes through and by him; and whether that life shall be eternal, depends upon whether they have "feared God and worked righteousness" according to the light they had. Christ came that men "might have LIFE, and that they might have it more abundantly:" even an ETERNAL LIFE. See John 10: 10.

THE "TRUE WESLEYAN" AGAIN.

The editor of that paper, in his article which we copied into the August number of the Examiner, says:—

"If the soul is not immortal in its own nature, it must cease to exist by the operation of the laws of its being, just as the body does, and can need no destruction from the Almighty, any more than the body, to cause it to cease to exist. To argue that God can destroy the soul, as Mr. Storrs does, implies that it will not die of itself, without the direct exertion of Almighty Power to do it. The body is mortal, is a compound, an organism, and by the operation of the laws of its elemental and organic nature, must wear itself out and cease to exist, without being destroyed by the direct operation of external force, as is implied when Mr. Storrs affirms that God can destroy the soul. On the other hand, if the soul is a simple spiritual essence, immaterial, uncompounded, and indivisible, it must be immortal in itself, and must exist forever, unless actually destroyed by the Almighty Power that gave it existence."

There are several points here to which we wish to call attention. Br. Lee admits the body is not "immortal in its own nature;" and that "by the operation of the laws of its elemental and organic nature, must wear itself out and cease to exist, [be "annihilated?" En.] without being destroyed by the direct operation of external force," &c. Br. Lee here affirms too much. What is it but a plain declaration that the "body" "must cease to exist"—be "annihilated"—whether man had sinned or not! So Br. Lee fully gives up the natural immortality of man's body; for, the body would "die of itself, without the exertion of Almighty Power to do it," he says. According to this logic, "death" did not "enter the world by sin," as Paul tells us it did; for our logician plainly affirms that "the body must cease to exist [be "annihilated"] by the operation of the laws of its being." So it turns out that Paul was mistaken, and man's body would have died—"ceased to exist"—been "annihilated"—if sin had not entered into the world. Thus, after all, man was only half immortal at creation; then our opponents admit half we contend for; that's something gained in the argument, though we do not hold ourselves responsible for the position on that point Br. Lee has assumed. But as man naturally was only half immortal, let us see how Br. Lee disposes of the other half, viz., the soul.

He says—"The soul is a simple spiritual essence, immaterial, uncompounded, and indivisible." We ask, where is the proof of this assertion? Of course it is in his logic, for it is not in the Bible. He says the soul is an "essence." What does he mean by "essence?" The essence of a thing is "the nature of a thing." Sometimes it signifies "existence." We do not know in which sense he uses the term; nor does it matter. He admits that the soul is created. If it is created, it is something that has "organism:" for the very idea of creation is organism; if it has organism it must be compounded; if it is compounded it is divisible, and Br. Lee's assumption falls to the ground. There is no way that we can see to avoid this conclusion but to deny that the soul is created; and we hope for the honor of Christianity he will not assume that pagan fable. We state the matter thus—If the soul is created it is an organism; if it is an organism it is compounded; if it is compounded it is divisible; if it is divisible it is not in itself immortal. And, if Br. Lee's reasoning is correct about the body, it follows that the soul will "die of itself—wear itself out and cease to exist," unless causes out of itself prevent it.

But, says Br. Lee in another part of his argument, if the soul dies with the body there can be no resurrection—it must be a new creation—it is another man. But we ask him to stop and look at his statement that the "body must cease to exist [be "annihilated"] by the laws of its being." Then at death, according to his own theory, and to use still his own phraseology, the body is "annihilated." If so, then on his theory, its resurrection is impossible—it must be a new creation—another body which the soul had never seen before; and for aught its own consciousness could determine might be entirely a new one; and thus his theory is as fatal to the resurrection of the body as he would try to make it appear ours is to the resurrection of the man.

…