The Bible Examiner — Vol. 4, No. 8 (1849)

Download: PDF — The Bible Examiner — Vol. 4, No. 8 (1849)

BIBLE EXAMINER.

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

VOL. IV.

PHILADELPHIA, AUGUST, 1849.

No. 8.

GEORGESTORRS, EDITOR AND PUBLISHER JOHN T. WALSH, ASSOCIATE EDITOR.

PUBLISHED MONTHLY, AT 18 CHESTER STREET. PHILADELPHIA, P4.

TREASURE.—Single copy, for one your, fifty cents; five copies, $2;

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

This paper is subject to newspaper postage only.

IMMORTALITY.

Review—No. V.

Mr. Lee says—"Its (the spirit's) improvement, is a distinct matter from the improvement of the body."

What does he mean by the "improvement of the body?" Does he mean the growth of the "body?" What does he mean by the "body?" Does he mean the whole physical organization, or a part of it? If he used the term as indicative of the whole organism, then it is equivalent to the man; which would be to make "the improvement of the spirit a distinct matter from the improvement of the man." Understanding Mr. Lee, therefore, to mean the physical constitution, the question recurs—does he mean by "the improvement of the body" its growth in bulk or size? If so, I would remark, that stubborn facts establish the law, that other conditions being equal; the development of mind is in the ratio of the development of the physical organization. What are these "other conditions?" The answer to this question is found in the fact, that there are several systems of organs, giving rise to different functions, and modifying the manifestations of mind. The sample development of the glandular system does not increase the mental power, but modifies it. The excessive development of the muscular system does not import mental activity; but it gives durability to body and mind. The sanguineous and nervous systems impart physical and mental activity.

Again, a person may be born with an organization unfavorable to the development of much mind they may be idiotic; but, in this case, the nervous system will be defective. Again, they may be diseased, and, from this cause, imbecile. Again, education may have been partial and defective; the muscular system may have been cultivated at the expense of the nervous; and then, "the body may grow and flourish in all the perfection of health, and the mind make little or no progress." Again, the nervous system may be developed at the expense of the sanguineous, and "the body," or man, "be of exceedingly frail structure, pale and wan;" but it is not true that "a giant mind may develop itself from within." The mind of such a person may possess great vivacity, sprightliness and brilliancy, but it will be wanting in strength, depth,

power and durability. But, in all this, the law holds good, that, as is the organization, so is the mind.

Mr. Lee says—"Some of the greatest geniuses the world has ever produced, have had but just body enough to hold the soul." This is a mere fancy sketch, containing no argument. A man, however, may be a "genius," with little or no talent. Again, Mr. L. says—"These facts certainly indicate that the soul and the body, are not one and the same thing!" Truly! who ever contended that they were "one and the same thing!" The one may be an attribute of the other, and both may be mortal—both matter—Mr. Lee's "facts" to the contrary notwithstanding!

Mr. Lee tells us, that "the body comes to maturity and begins to decline, at an age when the mind has but just commenced its career of improvement." This is a fallacy, for the "career of improvement" begins almost with our birth. "A sound mind in a sound body" is a sentiment, which embodies the truth upon this subject. The nervous system may be healthy, unimpaired and elastic, when the muscular and glandular have declined; and the mind may thus be proportionably active, when the physical strength is partially gone. But when there is a general decay of the whole organization, the mind goes down with the body. And whether a man shall be a dotard at "fifty, sixty, or seventy," depends upon the strength, soundness and durability of the whole constitution.

Mr. Lee alludes to the doctrines of phrenology, and informs us that nothing is gained by admitting their truth—that phrenologists "will not make this the issue, and base their science on the doctrine of materialism, to stand or fall with it." If by "materialism" Mr. Lee means matter, I affirm that phrenologists do base their science on "materialism;" for they base it on the anatomy and physiology of the brain—which is matter; while, at the same time, they may not follow up their principles to their legitimate results. I shall not reflect upon the motives of those phrenologists, who have labored to popularize, and harmonize phrenology with secular theology. But, for one, fearless of all consequences, I DO MAKE THE ISSUE, AND BASE THE PHRENOLOGICAL DOCTRINES UPON THE MATERIAL ORGANIZATION OF MAN, INDEPENDENT OF ALL "IMMATERIALITY," IMMORTALITY, OR INCORREDITIBILITY; AND I CHALLENGE ALL PHRENOLOGISTS, NO MATTER WHO, NOR WHERE THEY ARE, WHETHER IN EUROPE OR AMERICA, TO DISPROVE THE CORRECTNESS OF THIS POSITION.

This is the only view that will, or can harmonize with the volume of Revelation; and every effort to harmonize the sublimo science of mind, with the paganized traditions of modern sectarianism, degrades both it and them!

Yes, sir, a voice speaks from the highest heavens and proclaims to all the sons of men; that they are mortal, having not one spark of immortality, but corruptible and perishing; and mental science— the science of man—sends back the sound, all is mortal!

We shall now examine Mr. Lee's concluding philosophical argument, which is this: "The mind often develops itself in greater power and glory, just at the moment of death, shining out from an emaciated body, already wan and cold."

Here Mr. Lee rallies all his powers, concentrates all his forces, and pours along his logical troop! We shall pay particular attention to this argument, not on account of its strength, but on account of its

denly, retains his senses to the end; or, if not dying suddenly, he gradually wastes away by consumption of the pulmonary organs, and dies in possession of a degree of mental power.

Death by coma may either be sudden, or more or less protracted according to circumstances.

These are some of the reasons why some persons die in the possession of some mental power, and others perfectly insensible. These phenomena are perfectly plain upon the view we take of the constitution of man; but can Mr. Lee, or any one else,

proving his position, by proving that the Bible takes it for granted. Let him not assume this, but prove it.

His second proof is Numbers 16: 32, where God is spoken of as the "God of the spirits of all flesh." What has this to do with Mr. Lee's "immaterial soul?" I admit that God is "the God of the spirits of all flesh," because "in Him we live, move, and have our being;" but this does not prove that "the spirits of all flesh" are the "immaterial souls" of all flesh. Inasmuch as "the spirit of life," or "breath of life," which inflates the lungs, lar, in this respect, to the passage, "the soul that sins, it shall die;" and as referring to man, in relation to that attribute of his nature which is the seat, or sensorium of the mind.

His seventh argument is based on Eccles. 12: 7, "Then shall the dust return unto the earth as it was; and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." This clearly refers to God's "creating man of the dust, and breathing into his nostrils the breath of life;" and has no more to do with the "immateriality of the soul," than the blood of man.

commonsness.

"The mind develops itself in its greatest power and glory, just at the moment of death." This, as a proposition, is monstrous; as an argument, absurd; and as a fact, is not true. "The mind develop its GREATEST POWER and GLORY, at the moment of death!" Did ever the mind of a man, "at the moment of death," develop the powers of a Solomon?—a Bacon?—a Looke?—a Herschell?—a Franklin? Here are specimens of mind in its "greatest power." Did ever the mind of man, "at the moment of death," when the "emaciated body" was "already wan and cold," devolve the "glory"-the eloquence of a Cicero, or a Demosthenes? The answer is, and must be, in the negative. But Mr. Lee says-"It is true that in some cases the mind appears to decay with the decaying body, but to prove that it is the body or any part of it, this would have to be always so without exception, which is not the case." Mr. Lee has the argument here by the blade, instead of the handle; and cuts himself rather than his opponent! The mind should never "appear to decay with the decaying body" if it be immortal! If it be neither

explain them upon his hypothesis? "The mind may kindle up at the moment of death, and blaze out with intellectual fire," but it is the mere flickering—the more flashing up, of the waning intellect, which, like the dimly burning taper, gives signs of its extinguishment! "The body" may be "wan, cold and helpless," and the mind will shine as dimly, and burn as faintly as the expiring lamp! An occasional out-burst—an occasional flash, is not the strength, power and glory of a giant mind; but the sure indications of a speedy dissolution.

Mr. Lee speaks of "the mind, being roused by the prospect of heaven, or selzed with the terror of impending perdition," as "flashing with the fires of immortality," and "shedding a living glare as it quits its house of clay and enters upon the destinies of the spirit world?"

The whole of this is a beautiful delusion! a sublime absurdity!! There is no truth—no argument—no logic in it. This going to "heaven" at death, or down to "perdition," are old wives' fables. They are pagan traditions, newly vamped by the Mother of Harlots and abminations of the earth.

oxygenizes the blood, and gives life to the flesh. is from God; He is emphatically the "God of the lives of all flesh." And, I apprehend, this is the meaning of the passage. In Numbers 27:15,16 there is a passage of similar import.

Mr. Lee's third argument is Job 14:22. "But his flesh upon him shall have pain, and his soul within him shall mourn." Were I disposed to be hypercritical, I might analyze this thus: First, we have the "flesh;" second, the "him;" and third, the "soul." The "flesh" is not the "him," because it is upon "him;" and the soul is not the "him," because it is in "him." It follows, therefore, according to this mode of reasoning, that neither the "flesh" nor the "soul" constitutes the "him;" or man. How will this tally with Mr. Lee's theory? This shows the folly of all such reasoning. The simple meaning of the text is this: The "flesh upon" his person "shall have pain, and his heart within him shall mourn."

His fourth proof is Job 31:30, "Neither have I suffered my mouth to sin, by wishing a curse to his soul." Here, again, I may ask the question,

When man dies, that which came from the earth, returns to the earth; and that "breath of life" which God "breathed into his nostrils" returns to him in the expanse of Heaven. In point of fact, however, the body is not less from God than the spirit, or "breath of life." Both are from Him. And this same author, Solomon, as well as Moses, speaks of the beasts as possessing the same "spirit of life." "They all have one breath; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again."

Mr. Lee's eighth proof is Ezek. 18:4, "Be hold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine." Why did not Mr. Lee quote the whole verse? Why did he omit the last clause? Was it because the whole verse would not answer his purpose? "The soul that sinneth, it shall die," was too strong for Mr. Lee! He reminds me of a person, who is running along a beautiful lawn, where everything is pleasant to the eye, and grateful to the senses; but suddenly an awful precipice presents itself, and the man starts back with horror at the impending danger! So Mr. Lee, conscious of the truth of his position,

"the body nor any part of it," there should be no exception" to the "power" and "glory" of its development "at the moment of death," "which," as Mr. Lee says—"is not the case." And now I will explain to Mr. Lee why it is, that some minds are more brilliant in death than others.

It depends upon the nature of the disease, and its seat. There are some diseases which preternaturally excite the brain, and consequently, the mental powers. We witness this in various forms of fever. And sometimes this febrile condition becomes so exalted and intense, that the patient becomes eloquent, musical, furious and insensible by turns, according to the nature of the case. In this condition the patient's animal, moral, or intellectual faculties may be principally excited, and develop their functions accordingly. They may shout, pray, sing, or curse, swear and rage, just as their different faculties are the seat of the most intense cerebral action. Some, in this condition may "die shouting glory! glory!! glory!!!" and others die perfectly frantic and furious.

Again, in disease of the heart and lungs, the inwhat has this to do with the immortality of the soul? The term soul is often used as a Hebraism for the person, and as often used for life; so that the text and context must determine its signification in any given case. In the text before us, it evidently means life, or the person of whom life was an attribute.

No, gentle reader, man is mortal, death is the extinction of life and sense and mind; and nothing but the resurrection can restore these attributes to man. So we come back to our starting point—no organization, no life; no life, no mind.

And here we leave Mr. Lee, to the mercy of his own ill-fated philosophical arguments.

Having examined Mr. Lee's philosophical argument, I now proceed to his scriptum.

His first argument is based upon Gen. 35 : 18,

"And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing

(for she died,) that she called his name Ben-oni."

The reader will please bear in mind that the subject before Mr. Lee's mind is the "immateriality of the soul," and that this text has been adduced to prove it! But if he can see any connection between it and the subject, he can see far better than I can. Her "soul departed," ergo, it is immortal! Truly, this is an "age of reason." Mr. Lee says, "Her body did not depart. Her brains

His fifth argument is chapter 32:8, "But there is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty gives them understanding." This is the most plausible scriptural argument yet offered by Mr. Lee, but this does not prove his point. Mr. Lee himself admits that this "appears to be an allusion to God's breathing into man the breath of life, after he had formed him of the dust of the ground, by which he 'became a living soul.'" In addition to this admission on the part of Mr. Lee it is remarkable that the spirit is represented as being without knowledge until the "inspiration of the Almighty gives them understanding." Mr. Lee makes another important admission, which hope the reader will remember. It is this: "Man here denotes the visible, tangible frame, the body in this there is a spirit." Very well: "man" then

passes rapidly from text to text, hoping to fortify his favorite doctrine of "immateriality," when suddenly and unexpectedly he treads upon the very brink of a logical abyss, where all his arguments are in danger of being precipitated to the gulf below. He pauses, starts back, and retreats! with the words sounding in his ears, and vibrating along the fibres of his brain. "THE SOUL THAT SINNETH, IT SHALL DIE." This text, so far from helping Mr. Lee, is fatal to his whole theory; for it affirms that the sinful soul shall die, which is incompatible with his view of the subject.

His next argument is founded on Zech. 12:1, where God speaks of forming "the spirit of man within him." There is no difficulty here, according to our view, whether we understand the term "spirit" to apply to the life or the mind. Both life and mind are "formed," developed, or manifested "within" the man. But Mr. Lee takes a liberty which the rules of logic do not allow him. He proves that man has a soul or spirit, but its nature he takes for granted. He is not required to prove that man had a "spirit," but to prove that spirit "immortal." This he has failed to do; for to

tegrity of the mind is partially maintained till death closes the scene; but this is because the brain is not immediately involved in the disease, and therefore it manifests its functions, though with less power, to the last.

Another cause, already hinted at, is, the fact that death sometimes commences at the heart, and at the lungs. The first is called death by anemia—the want of a due supply of blood to the heart. In this case the faculties may be retained to the last for the reason already given.

The same remarks apply to death by apnaa, privation of breath. The person, being cut off suddid not depart!" And was there nothing else which could "depart," and which, in scripture language, is termed the "son?" Could not her breath her life depart, and "her body" and "brains" remain? This text proves only one thing, and that is the departure of the woman's soul, life, or breath; and has no bearing whatever upon Mr. Lee's question.

But Mr. Lee thinks his doctrine of "immateriality," is taken for granted in the Bible! This is begging the question. The Bible, so far as I know, takes nothing for granted; and, even if it did, this would not do away with the necessity of Mr. Lee's

is the "body," animated by "a spirit"—"the breath of life," and God gives them "understanding." Thus Mr. Lee has helped us to the refutation of his argument.

Mr. Lee's sixth proof is Proverbs 19:2, "that the soul be without knowledge is not good." He thinks "this text clearly implies the existence of an intelligent soul, distinct from the body." But how can an "immortal soul," which is self-conscious—self-intelligent, "be without knowledge?" Hero Mr. Lee is caught in his own snare! I regard this text; therefore, notwithstanding what Mr. Lee says about the definite article, as being simido this it is not enough to prove that the spirit is a distinct entity from the body; but he must also show that it is necessarily immortal. This he can never do.

His tenth argument is based on Rom. 8: 16, where Paul speaks of the witness of the Holy Spirit "with our spirit." On this I remark that neither God nor man "bears witness," except by words or signs addressed to the minds of men. "The spirit bears witness with our spirits," minds, or hearts, if you please, that we are the children of God: but this "witness" is in his word, and addressed to our understandings; and not to our feelings or passions.

The christian has better evidence of his being a "child of God," than a mere impulse, or feeling, which is the sport of a thousand circumstances. When his heart, his life, his words, &c. are all in harmony with the Gospel, then it is that "the spirit," by that word, "bears witness" with his mind, his conscience, that he is born of God.

His next proof is 1 Cor. 2:11, "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of a man which is in him?" This belongs to a class of texts already examined, and means no more, I apprehend, than that a man is alone conscious of the operations of his own mind.

Mr. Lee refers to chap. 6:20 as a proof—"For ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body, and your spirit, which are God's." This proves that men can glorify God "in the body," although "matter," which, I suppose, is more than Mr. Lee would willingly admit. The text clearly teaches us the whole man, "soul, body and spirit," should be devoted to His cause. That all the physical, moral and mental powers should be consecrated to his service. I see nothing in this to favor the popular theory.

He then refers us to 2 Cor. 4:16, where Paul speaks of an "outward" and "inward man." I am willing that Peter shall explain Paul. See 1 Peter 3:3, where he defines the "inward" or "hidden man" to be "the heart."

His fourteenth proof is 2 Cor. 7:1, "Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit." Apart from the absurd idea that "filthiness" is here ascribed to an "immaterial spirit," it must be evident to those who think for themselves, that the apostle meant no more than that they should put away all evil—all immoral contaminations, and be holy in life, temper and disposition.

Mr. Lee's final argument in the article I am reviewing, is James 2:26, "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." In this passage, it is perfectly evident the term "spirit" signifies "breath," the breath of life; and it is so rendered in the margin. This text is against Mr. Lee, and proves that, after the expiration of the breath, there is not an "immortal spirit" animating the body; but that as "faith without works is dead," so "the body without breath is dead also."

In Mr. Lee's concluding article on the immateriality of the mind, he argues thus: "The same words which are applied to man to describe his spiritual nature, are applied to God," "and any criticism which will invalidate the evidence in proof that the human soul is spirit, and not matter, will equally weaken the argument in support of the idea 'that God is a spirit.'"

Now, kind reader, that you may see the force of this argument, I will apply it to another matter, thus: "The same words which are applied to" the wind," to describe" its "spiritual nature, are applied to God," "and any criticism which will invalidate the evidence in proof that the" wind "is spirit and not matter, will equally weaken the argument in support of the idea that God is a spirit."

This is Mr. Lee's argument, only it is applied to the wind instead of man; and the reader can at once see its fallacy. I could give examples as Mr. Lee has done, but this is unnecessary. We might as well argue that because certain terms, generally

applied to other objects, are used in relation to God, that their natures were similar, as to argue that because the term spirit is applied to man, therefore his spirit is like God's—immortal. The terms "sun," "soul," "heart," "wings," "shadow," &c. are used in relation to Jehovah; but who would thence infer that He is of the same nature with the "sun," or that His "soul" and "heart" are of the same nature with the "soul" and "heart" of man?

Does Mr. Lee really believe that God has a "soul" and a "heart?" If so, He is a compound being, and no compound is eternal. These words are used in reference to Him, in an accommodated or figurative sense; so also is the term spirit when applied to man—to the wind—to the breath of life—to the mind—and to the life itself.

"God is a spirit" in the highest sense of the word; but when this term is applied to the wind, and to man, it is used in a subordinate sense. As well might Mr. Lee argue that because the same word is applied to the beasts; therefore, they have "immortal spirits." Mr. Lee's argument, to be valid, must hold good in all cases to which the term is applied; or else, if there be an exception, I shall maintain that man- is an exception.

Mr. Lee refers to the text, "the spirits of just men made perfect," which, I apprehend, applies to persons raised from the dead, and not to men in the flesh. He also quotes the text, "God is spirit; and they that worship him must worship him with spirit and with truth;" to follow his reading. What is the meaning of the passage? It is this; that mere outward forms—the "drawing nigh unto God with the lips, while the heart is far from him"—is not acceptable worship. His worship must proceed from the heart—be pure, sincere, and according to the "truth;" for "in vain do you worship me; teaching for doctrine the commandments of men." But the text contains not the slightest proof that the spirit of man is immortal, which is the point to be proved. Mr. Lee has signally failed in this part of his argument; indeed, we may say of them all, that they contain the elements of their own refutation. He set out to prove the "immateriality of the soul," and the reader can judge how far he has succeeded. Sometimes he affirms "immateriality" of the "soul," and then of the "spirit;" he quotes a text to prove this of the "soul," and, anon, of the "spirit;" so we are, after all, at a loss to know whether he affirms "immateriality" of both, or of one. The popular theory presents a chaotic system—a confused mass—a perfect Babel, without order and without light. The advocates of it talk of "spiritual substances," and yet deny the existence of spirit-matter, as though there was any difference between "substance" and "matter!" But I have gotten through with Mr. Lee's arguments, and must await his next article.

THE DISCUSSION.—As Br. Lee, of the True Wesleyan, has expended his strength, in his article No. IX. on the immortality of the soul, particularly on a paragraph in our "Six Sermons," we have judged best to give the reader his entire article; and we should be pleased to see Br. Walsh's reply to it in the Wesleyan. We really wish we were publishing a weekly paper; for, in that case, we

would give all Br. Lee's articles entire, which would give us much pleasure; and we have been half tempted to give them as it is. We would reply to the following article ourself, but do not choose to interfere with our Associate Editor in his review.

THE CONSCIOUS EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL AFTER THE DEATH OF THE BODY.

An argument from the immateriality, or spiritual nature of the soul.

Our first argument in proof that the soul does not die with the body, but maintains a conscious existence after the body is dead, is drawn from its immateriality or spiritual nature. The foundation for this argument has been laid in the preceding numbers, in which the immateriality of the human soul has been proved. We are not called upon here to prove this point, but only to make an application of it as a truth already established.

Before we enter upon the direct argument, it is necessary to state the precise point to be proved by it. It has been misunderstood, and hence, met by a misdirected and insufficient reply. Rev. George Storrs, in his six sermons against the soul's immortality, meets the argument thus :

"It is said—The soul is spiritual, hence indestructible, and therefore immortal. One single consideration is sufficient to overthrow this argument, and show that it has no force. He who created can destroy. Our Saviour sajth—Fear him who is ABLE to destroy both soul and body in hell."

It should be remarked on this extract, that as a reply it is defective in two particulars:

It assumes that "destruction" means a loss of conscious existence, when applied to the soul. This is not admitted, but as it belongs to another division of our subject, we will not argue it here, but leave it to be attended to in its proper place.

Its capital defect is, it entirely misapprehends the question. The argument does not rest upon the assumption that God cannot destroy or annihilate a spirit after he has created it, but only that the soul is immortal in its nature, having no tendency in itself to annihilation, and must exist forever, unless sent into non-existence by the same Almighty Power which gave it being. There is an important distinction between the natural immortality of the soul, and God's power to annihilate it, which Mr. Storrs entirely overlooked in his attempt to meet the argument. God may be able to destroy what is immortal in its own nature, and what would live forever but for such destruction; hence, could it be proved that God can destroy the human soul; yea, could it be proved that he will annihilate it, it would not follow that it is not ever living in its own nature. 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.

This argument then, is not designed to prove that God cannot destroy the human soul, nor even that he will not, but only that the soul, being spirit and not matter, simple and not compound, indivisible and not dissoluble, it must be immortal in its nature, and live after the body is dissolved, yeah, live forever, unless destroyed by the Almighty Power that gave it being. To this point we will now direct a few thoughts.

The soul being an immaterial, uncompounded spiritual essence, as fully proved in the preceding, it cannot be affected by such agents as operate upon and destroy compound bodies and organisms. Frost will kill the body, but no one will contend that an immaterial spirit can be frozen to death. The body is divisible, and may be cut to pieces, but it will not be pretended that an immaterial, intangible, indivisible soul can be cut to pieces, with saws, knives and axes. It is admitted that the soul resides in the body during our natural life; now suppose a machine should be constructed, which at one blow would cut the body as fine as the sand upon the sea shore, would the soul be cut to pieces by the operation, admitting it to be in the body at the time? It certainly would not, unless that which is immaterial can fill space so as to obstruct matter—unless that which is indivisible can be divided.

Suppose you cast both soul and body together into a furnace as hot as the one prepared by Nebuchadnezzar, and what will be the result? The body will be consumed in a moment; but the soul will not be burned up. An immaterial, uncompounded spirit cannot be affected by material fire, any more than it can by frost; it could dwell alike in the sun or in the polar regions. The reader will now see the importance and force of our long argument on the immateriality of the mind. It is a vital point; if we have proved in the preceding numbers, that the human mind is an immaterial spirit, as we trust we have, the above reasoning shows that it must be immortal in its own nature, and that it will live forever unless it be destroyed by God its Maker. By all the conclusiveness, then, by which we have sustained the immateriality of the soul, does its immortality follow.

The argument drawn from the immateriality of the soul, not only proves that it is immortal in itself, living forever, if left to the operations of the laws of its own nature, but it proves that God cannot destroy it, in the manner in which destructionists generally suppose. Be particular; we do not say that God cannot annihilate a human soul, or any simple spirit which he has created, but only that he cannot do it in the manner in which destructionists generally contend he will do it. If God should annihilate the human soul, it would require a simple withdrawal of that Almighty Power which he put forth when he created it, and which not only sustains every human soul, but the universe of both matter and mind. This mode of annihilation forms no part of the creed of destructionists; they argue their doctrine from the Scriptures, which threaten and describe the punishment of the wicked; and represent the loss of existence as a part of, and end of this punishment, and as the result of positive infliction and suffering; and hence, they rely upon the words, destroy, burned up, consumed, and other like expressions. The argument founded upon the spiritual nature of the soul, proves that God cannot annihilate it in this way. If God himself has made the soul immaterial, he cannot destroy it by bringing material agents to act upon it. God cannot dissolve that which is uncompounded, or divide that which is indivisible. The reader is requested to bear in mind that the question at this point, is not—would the soul fall back into non-existence, should God withdraw his creating and sustaining power? but—can the soul be burned up, or be annihilated by the exertion of power upon it? We will close this argument, with the following extract from Mr. Drew's essay on the immortality of the soul.

It may not be conclusive in itself, but taken in connection with our reasoning, on the immateriality of the soul, is not without its force.

"It has been already proved, that material bodies can never act but when they bring their surfaces into contact with each other. As an immaterial substance has no surface, it is a contradiction to suppose that matter can ever be brought into contact with it; to suppose such a contact possible, is to suppose a surface in an immaterial being, which at the same time is excluded by its natural immateriality. Whatever has an exterior, must have an interior; and what has both must be extended; and what is thus extended, cannot be immaterial. An immaterial substance, therefore, can have no surface, and that which has no surface can never be brought into contact with that which has; it therefore follows that the soul must be inaccessible to all violence from matter, and that it cannot perish through its instrumentality. As matter can only act by contact, it follows that without being extended beyond its physical nature, it never can destroy the soul. And to suppose matter to be thus extended, is to suppose it to be matter and not matter at the same time. Nor can any accession of power overcome the contradiction. No acquisition of power can alter the identity of its nature, or communicate to it a force of which its nature is incapable.

"We cannot conceive that an accession of power can cause matter to accomplish everything which is placed within the reach of its nature; but to suppose matter to extend its influence beyond the limits of its own existence, or to act where it is not, is to suppose its presence and absence at the same time. And to suppose it to annihilate a nature with which it has no physical connection, is to suppose it to act where it can have no influence; or that it can act and not act at the same time; which every one must see, is not only a moral but an absolute impossibility. It therefore follows, that the soul cannot perish by the instrumentality of matter, whatever influence be attributed to the application of its power; hence in reference to every material weapon,

"The soul, secure in her existence, strangles At the drawn dagger and defies its point."

"It is certain that nothing cannot communicate what it does not possess; nor produce what it has not the power of producing. A being which can communicate annihilation, must be one which is in existence, for that which is not in existence can communicate nothing; and for the same reason can produce no effects. And that being which is in existence, cannot from the certainty of its own existence, include the absence of existence within its nature, and consequently, can never communicate to another that absence of existence or annihilation which it does not possess itself. Annihilation, therefore, can never be communicated, either by a being which is in existence, or by one which is not."

If the soul be annihilated, it must be either by something which is in existence or by something which is not. But that which is in existence, can never produce what is physically contrary to itself; and that which has no existence can never act. The power which is supposed to reduce the soul to a point of annihilation, must either exist in this given point or it must not; if it exist we have not yet arrived at that point which describes a nonentity; and where nonentity is not, annihilation can never be; and if it exist not in this given point, the soul can never be annihilated by its influence.

"Annihilation must be the result of power or it must not. If it be the result of power, power must continue to operate upon a subject, until the subject itself, through the influence of that power be reduced to a nonentity. But in admitting power to have an active operation, until it produces a nonentity, we

admit a palpable contradiction. The admission of a power which is known to exist only because it produces a nonentity furnishes the mind with a chaos of contradictions—because that which produces a nonentity is not power but nothing."

The above extracts from Mr. Drew go to show that the soul cannot be annihilated, as destructionists suppose, by the punishments and pains of hell; and as it (the soul) cannot be annihilated in the way they suppose, and as their arguments all tend to prove that it will take place in this way, so far as they prove anything, their entire theory must fail. But we have got yet to consider the main point, which is the Bible doctrine on the subject.

REVIEW—No. VII.

In Mr. Lee's article No. 9, he takes up the question of "the conscious existence of the soul, after the death of the body." His argument is "from the immateriality of the soul." He tells his readers that "the foundation for this argument has been laid in preceding numbers, in which the immateriality of the human soul has been proved." Those of our readers, who have read his articles, and our Review, will doubtless be prepared to determine whether Mr. Lee has "proved" the "immateriality of the soul." I humbly conceive he has not "proved" it, nor is it in his power to "prove" it, by all the argument he can bring to bear upon the question.

Mr. Lee thinks the question has been "misunderstood," and attempts to define it more accurately. He quotes from Brother Storrs' "Six Sermons" the following paragraph :

"It is said—The soul is spiritual, hence indestructible, and therefore immortal. One single consideration is sufficient to overthrow this argument, and show that it has no force. He who created can destroy. Our Saviour saith—Fear him who is ABLE to destroy both soul and body in hell."

Upon this he remarks, that "as a reply, it is defective in two particulars:"

But, perhaps, Mr. Lee alludes particularly to the latter part of this paragraph, where Mr. Storrs says "one single consideration is sufficient to overthrow this argument, and show that it has no force. He who created can destroy. Our Saviour saith—'Fear him who is ABLE to destroy both soul and body in hell."

It assumes that "destruction," means a loss of conscious existence, when applied to the soul; which is "not admitted;" but, because "it belongs to another branch of the subject," he does not argue it. I will also let it pass, at present, for the same reason.

Mr. Lee says—" Its capital defect is, it entirely misapprehends the question." Let us see: Mr. Storrs states the argument of his opponents thus: " The soul is spiritual, hence indestructible, and therefore immortal." There is no " misapprehension" of the question here, for Mr. Lee himself argues upon this hypothesis; and the very article I am now reviewing, is based upon this assumption.

I apprehend that, if Mr. Lee will examine this argument again, he will find more force in it than he is disposed to admit. The radical idea of immortality, in not subject to death, or deathlessness. It follows, therefore, that that which is absolutely immortal cannot be "destroyed" by any power in the universe; for, to reason otherwise, would be to make it mortal and immortal at the same time,

which is an absurdity. And hence the force of Mr. Storrs' argument—if God be "able" to "destroy" the soul, it is not absolutely immortal, because if immortal, it is necessarily indestructible. There is more argument, therefore, in Mr. Storrs' reply than Mr. Lee could perceive, or, perhaps, was willing to admit. Mr. Storrs' argument stands thus:

That which is immortal cannot be destroyed ; But God can destroy the soul ;

Therefore it is not immortal.

But, I apprehend, Mr. Lee himself does not state the question as clearly as it ought to be stated. The primary question, and the one Mr. Lee has been discussing, is this—is the soul naturally immortal? Mr. Lee says it is; and that it is in its nature analogous to the nature of God. If so, it cannot be destroyed; because God cannot destroy himself! But God can destroy the soul, therefore it is not analogous to the nature of God—it is not immortal. Thus Mr. Storrs' argument comes back in all its original force.

We take the broad ground, first, that the soul is naturally mortal; second, that he is able to destroy it; and thjrd, that he wills to destroy it, if wicked. In order, therefore, for Mr. Lee to meet this question fully in all its latitude, he must prove, that the soul is naturally immortal—that God is not able to destroy it—and that he does not will to destroy it! under any circumstances.

But, the fact is, Mr. Lee does not know what the soul is. He says "it is a simple spiritual essence, immaterial, uncompounded, and indivisible. Now, how does Mr. Lee know that the soul is "a simple spiritual essence, immaterial, uncompounded, and indivisible?" All this is mere assumption, without the shadow of a shade of proof! May I not ask Mr. Lee how he knows the soul is "uncompounded and indivisible?" From whence did he get his information? for it must be based upon facts, or be a matter of revelation. If upon facts, where are they? And, if upon revelation, give us the proof.

But he says—"This argument is not designed to prove that God cannot destroy the human soul, nor even that he will not, but only that the soul, being spirit and not matter, simple and not compound, indivisible and not dissoluble, it must be immortal in its nature, and live after the body is dissolved; yea, live forever, unless destroyed by the Almighty power that gave it being."

Here Mr. Lee argues the immortality of the soul, upon the absurd assumption that it is "spiritual uncompounded and indivisible!" What an argument! Credat Judeus Apelta. But, after all, Mr. Lee virtually yields the question, for he does not introduce this argument to prove that God cannot, or that he will not destroy the soul! Then, pray, what is gained to his cause by his argument? I confess I can see nothing, for he says it "will live forever, unless," yes, "unless destroyed by the Almighty Power that gave it existence!" Well, suppose God should "destroy" it, as he says he will, what then becomes of Mr. Lee's favorite doctrine! It will be as though it never had been! Moreover, in confirmation of this view of the subject, we are taught that the Lord God "drove out" the man from the Garden of Eden, lest he should partake of the tree of life, eat, and live forever, an immortal sinner. Immortality, being an attribute

of God—"he only having immortality,"—he cannot destroy that which is immortal, because to do so would be to act contrary to himself. To prevent, therefore, such a result as would have followed the act of Adam's eating of the tree of life, he drove him out, and obstructed his way to the life-imparting tree; knowing that, if he should partake of it, he would live forever as a necessary consequence. All the evidence, then, going to prove that God is "able," and that he wills to destroy the soul of the sinner, equally disproves the "natural immortality of the soul."

But, I repeat it, Mr. Lee does not know what the soul is. He speaks of it as an entity—as a distinct thing or essence, "uncompounded" and "indivisible." But, the truth is, Mr. Lee has been discussing the merits of an attribute, rather than an entity. Life, strictly speaking, is not an entity but an attribute. Immortality is not a thing-entity or essence, but a quality, an attribute of the thing of which it is predicated. Reasoning, therefore, upon a false assumption, what a flourish of "saws," "knives" and "axes" Mr. Lee makes in his first paragraph. His whole argument on this point, is inconclusive and defective in the extreme, when considered in relation to the truth of his own theory! The fact is, he subverts his own hypothesis, as we shall presently see.

Mr. Lee concludes from his reasoning on the "immateriality of the soul," that "God cannot destroy it, in the manner in which destructionists suppose." Further on he says—"God cannot dissolve that which is uncompounded, or divide that which is indivisible." Thus Mr. Lee's own reasoning brings us back to the point; that, if the soul be immortal, it will, by a necessity of its own nature, live forever. But, as God has declared that, "the soul that sins shall die," it follows, as a necessary consequence, that it is not immortal; and, therefore, that it can be destroyed by an "exertion of power upon it;" and also, by being left to the operation of its own laws, as in the case of Adam.

Having subverted his own theory, Mr. Lee invokes the aid of Mr. Drew to effect its annihilation! Mr. Drew's first sentence is a death-blow to Mr. Lee's whole argument on the fancied "immortality of the soul!" Mr. Drew says—and Mr. Lee endorses it—"It has been already proved, that material bodies can never act but when they bring their surfaces into contact with each other!" This may have been deemed sound reasoning in the days of Mr. Drew, but, at the present time, every school boy of ordinary intelligence, knows better. Mr. Lee appears to have been asleep for a quarter of a century, without even dreaming in the time; and now that he is waked up he supposes every thing is just like it was when he fell asleep! He is waked up in the wrong place! and supposes himself living a quarter of a century past; and, consequently, speaks and reasons in harmony with the ideas which he obtained at that time! But he is behind the age, or else he would never have endorsed the sentence already quoted. Mr. Drew continues: "As an immaterial substance has no surface, it is a contradiction to suppose that matter can ever be brought into contact with it," &c.

I am willing to submit it to the reader, yea, to Mr. Lee himself, whether Mr. Drew has not disproved the very position he intended to establish! Let the reader remember, then, that Mr. Drew and Mr. Lee regard it as "a contradiction to suppose that matter can ever be brought into contact with" that which is "immaterial."

It follows, therefore, from their own principles; that, as the body is matter, and the soul, in their estimation, is "immaterial," they can never be brought into contact! They, therefore, have no connection whatever! If this argument is not suicidal, there is no truth in the universe. According to this absurd and "vain philosophy," God, being "immaterial" in their view of the subject, can have no connection with the universe of matter he has created. I hesitate not to say, that this opinion is atheistical in its tendency, and absurd and monstrous in fact!

Mr. Lee, by endorsation, says—"Whatever has an exterior, must have an interior; and what has both must be extended: and what is thus extended cannot be immaterial." Mr. Lee, by the aid of Mr. Drew, has clearly proved, admitting the correctness of their reasoning, that the soul is nothing! The following is their description of it: It is "simple," "uncompounded," "indivisible," "indissoluble;" without "exterior" or "interior surface," is not "extended," and "can never come into contact with matter!" Thus they have, by laboring to make the soul everything, reduced it to nothing! They have proved the very point we at first stated, viz.; That that which is immaterial is nothing—it is a nonentity!

And, just at this point, let me ask Mr. Lee a few questions: Upon your hypothesis, was the "immaterial soul," as you will have it, created of the dust, or breathed into the nostrils of Adam? If created of the dust, it is not "immaterial;" and, if breathed into his nostrils, it had "extension"—"surface," and necessarily came in "contact with matter:" and is, therefore, not "im-material."

Again, how many "immaterial souls" did God create in the beginning? How many had Adam? How many had Eve? Did they have more than one each? If they had only one each, when he have their numerous offspring derived theirs? You say it is "indivisible" and "indissoluble," consequently it is not transmissible! And that which is transmissible comes in "contact with matter;" but you say the "immaterial" soul "cannot come into contact with matter;" therefore it is not transmitted; and, consequently, unless God creates an "immaterial soul" for every child born, the offspring of Adam have no "immaterial soul"—enjo, in your opinion, they have no soul at all! So Adam, according to the working of your philosophy, has given birth to a soulless progeny! Thus Mr. Lee, in attempting to prove that men have "immaterial souls," has actually proved that they have none at all!

The remainder of Mr. Lee's article abounds in the same sort of logic; it is suicidal in reference to his own theory! If Mr. Lee can reason no better than this upon his favorite view, he will murder his own cause, and bury it so deep, that no mortal hand shall ever be able to disinter it!

It would be a waste of time to extend the review of this article any further; but the reader, who is curious to see how completely Mr. Lee subverts his own theory, is referred to the article itself.

In conclusion, let me say, that Mr. Lee is utterly unable to sustain his theory by such arguments as he has adduced in the above article; nor do I believe that the man lives who can do it, by any sort of argumentation within the grasp of mortal intellect.

We fall back upon the conclusion, established

alike by philosophy and revelation, that man is mortal in every part; and that immortality is the gift of God, through Jesus Christ, by a resurrection from the dead!

BIBLE EXAMINER.

PHILADELPHIA, AUGUST, 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.—We have now exhausted all the funds we have to publish the Examiner. We are in debt to our subscribers, who have paid for this volume, four numbers more, which we intend they shall have if we can contrive any way to pay the printer; till then our friends must not look for the Examiner's regular monthly visits. We regret that we are brought to this necessity, but "the destruction of the poor is their poverty;" so we submit. We can still furnish the back numbers of the Examiner from January 1848. About three hundred new subscribers for the present year would give us the means to complete this volume; and we can furnish that number with the Examiner from January last; here we leave the matter.

ANY PERSON who will send us one dollar, current money, free of expense, for the Examiner for 1850, i. e. for Vol. V. before the middle of December next, we will, on the receipt of the money, send them one copy of Dobney on Future Punishment, in paper cover; or, three copies of the Six Sermons, 18mo; that is—the pamphlet of 120 pages; and if the Examiner is not published next year, we will send, instead of it, two more copies of Dobney; or, eight of the Six Sermons, as they shall choose. Please state distinctly in all cases which you will have. This proposition cannot apply out of the United States.

Look at This. One of our monthly exchanges, printed on paper about the same quality as our own, with 40 pages to the number, exceeding the Examiner in amount of matter only as 70 exceeds 42, that is, to use a printer's phrase, it has 70 thousand ems, whilst the Examiner has but 42 thousand, is 2 per year in advance. Each number has a paper cover, and so the postage is 3 1/2 cents instead of one, or 1 1/2, like the Examiner. Now look at the following statement. This monthly exchange gives its readers 840 thousand ems annually, at a cost to the subscriber of 2 42 cents, including postage; we now give 504 thousand ems at a cost to subscribers of from 62 to 68 cents!! We propose to give our subscribers for 1850 a semi-monthly, which will make one million and eight thousand ems, [1,008,000] or an excess over our exchange of

168 thousand ems, and all at a cost, including postage, of from 124 to 136 cents, or about one half the price of our exchange, provided we receive two thousand paying subscribers for the next year. But if we publish only once each month, as now, and yet increase the price of the Examiner to $1 00, we shall then give you nearly five-eighths as much matter as our exchange gives for less than half the money.

Books by MAIL—Our friends who order bound books sent by mail are informed, by law they "are not mailable matter;" and our Post Office will not forward them. We have had several calls to send bound Hymn Books and Sermous by mail: we cannot do it. Please remember this.

THE IMMORTALITY DISCUSSION.—Br. Lee, of the True Wesleyan, has nearly finished his side of the question. The Wesleyan of July 14 contained three numbers on the subject; in reference to which the Editor says—"This week's paper contains the whole of the direct argument against annihilation, at, or subsequently to the resurrection;" and he asks "particular attention to this argument;" and adds—"We believe it to be unanswerable, though we are liable to over value our own argument; at least, we could not answer it to our own satisfaction, and that is our rule of testing an argument." We thank Br. Lee for this very candid confession: we should not expect he could answer two sides of any question to his own satisfaction at the same time. We have been in a similar position sometimes ourselves; but further light has shown us that we could answer our previous argument to our entire satisfaction. And we think Br. Lee may yet, with the light that shall be shed on his path, be able to answer his own argument to his entire "satisfaction," so far as he has stated the argument of his opponents clearly; which he has by no means done in all cases. His favorite phrase is "annihilation;" with that he and our opponents generally try to make a sound; and many minds are more affected by sound than sense. Let any one, even Br. Lee himself, read over his entire argument and substitute death for his unscriptural and unwarrantable word "annihilation," which we never use, and the largest portion of his argument will be found powerless. Just here we cannot forbear giving an extract from a letter we received from the late Orange Scott, founder of the "Wesleyan Methodist Connection of America." Writing us not many months after the first appearance of our views, in 1841, he says:

"S has been out against you; and, two weeks ago, B preached, or rather read a labored discourse against you. It was full of sophistry! and so are P**s articles!! and so is every thing I have yet seen against you!!! You must, however, expect something when Lee comes out, for

ho can make a lie appear like the truth. You are likely to have work enough to answer all who oppose you; but you have put your hand to the plow and must not look back."

Br. Lee seems to lay considerable stress upon the opinions of "the fathers" in this controversy, so we have thought to give him a specimen of the opinion of a father of the Wesleyans in America. The letter of Br. O. Scott was written to us before we had put forth the strength which the Lord afterwards gave us, by which he enabled us to bring out the "Six Sermons;" those were not preached till a year later; and to use Br. Lee's language, "We believe" the main positions of our Six Sermons are "unanswerable;" sure we are Br. Lee has not answered them; "though we are liable to overvalue our own argument." Br. Lee has put forth his strength; and we acknowledge that we expected if any man could show us to be in error, that man was Brother Lee; but skillful as he is both in logic and "sophistry," in our judgment, he has utterly failed, this once, to make the pagan fable [we will not say "lie"] "look like the truth." So far from it, that we now consider the matter settled firmer than ever before, that man has no immortality out of Christ; and no future life except by a resurrection from the dead; and, also, that "all the wicked will God destroy"—"THEY SHALL BE AS THOUGH THEY HAD NOT BEEN:" Ob. 16. Call that "annihilation" if you will: it is what God says of the wicked, in plain words, in opposition to all pagan, papal, and protestant inferences. We rejoice that Br. Lee has made this last effort; and we wish to make no other reply, ourselves, than what is contained in our Six Sermons and views on the intermediate state as found in our 18mo. pamphlet; we will risk that with Br. Lee's "unanswerable argument" the world over, and have no fears for the result in any mind not bound by sectarianism. Our Associate Editor will, of course, finish his Review of Br. Lee's argument so soon as we shall have the means to publish it; and if the "unanswerable argument" is not thoroughly answered and its fallacy fully shown to the "satisfaction" of others, if not to Br. Lee's mind, we are greatly mistaken.

Note.—We wish it distinctly understood, that Br. Scott's reference to Br. Lee related only to his logical and controversial powers; not that Br. Scott or we ever had an idea that Br. Lee would knowingly attempt to make a lie look like the truth, but that such is his skill, that if he took the side of error, he could make it seem truth.

THE ATONEMENT. We have heard that some persons have busied themselves in reporting that "Br. Storrs denies the atonement;" and some, we fear, under the garb of professed friendship, have helped on this falsehood by insinuating their fears that we deny the atonement. If you read the Examiner you need have no fears but that you will know our belief, for we have not shunned to declare our views on any Scripture subject when we thought there was a call for it.

Br. E. Miller, Jr., has written on the subject of the atonement in the Advent Harbinger, and we are gratified to see that he advocates the same view that we expressed in the Examiner as long ago as April, 1848. We have not hesitated to express them publicly and privately since. We have no room to enlarge now, though we had intended to do so soon. But those who have read the articles in the late numbers of the Harbinger, by Br. E. Miller, may regard these views as substantially our own. We believe Christ died for our sins, but not in the sense of "paying our debts," nor "in our room and stead." if so, universal salvation inevitably follows; and it is mockery to ask God to forgive our sins when the debt is paid. Some men's theology converts the God of love into a demon, and then deprives him of all exercise of the glorious prerogative of "forgiving iniquity, transgression and sins." We believe they do it "ignorantly in unbelief," being blinded by the creeds and traditions of men. May the Lord forgive them.

PREACHING every Lord's day, morning and evening, at the Saloon of "TEMPERANCE HALL," Third Street, below Green, west side, by the Editors of the Examiner.

CHORERA—We are living in the midst of this sweeping scourge. Several of our Congregation have been attacked by it and suffered severely. We have been called to mourn its fatal visitation in the loss of our beloved brother James Masson, who died July 14th. Br. Masson was an every day christian one of the right sort. He was always in his place in our public worship. He was one of our earliest friends in this city, and could always be depended upon. It is sad to see his place vacant. Great as the loss is to the Church; it is greater still to a large family of children, and other relations, to whom he was a father indeed; and to add to their affliction, Sister Masson, whose health has long been feeble, followed her husband in a few days to to the silent grave; and thus are their household, almost with one stroke, deprived of both father and mother. Two more consistent Christians are seldom met with: their last end was peace—they fell asleep in Jesus in the full hope that they would be awakened by him at his appearing and kingdom. Happy they who are always ready.

…