angels in heaven be set forth, to warn wicked men of the danger of their course? No part of Revelation that I have read, informs me of the laws that regulate such. Besides, the rebels referred to by Jude, instead of being placed in kingly authority, are said to be reserved in chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Now in that day, as revealed to us, all are to be judged by the gospel. How, then, such beings are to be arraigned under such a rule, I know not. In Matthew xxv. we have a view of that great day, but we read of none but the righteous and the wicked. Does not the case of Korah, Dathan, Abiram, and the fifty princes, apply more correctly? Does not Moses (Numbers xvi.) charge the very sins condemned by Jude upon them? Certainly the judgment executed upon them by God, ought to be a warning through all time.

We have also names ascribed to this arch-adversary taken from Rev. xii. viz. Serpent, Dragon, Satan, Devilwhich we shall take the liberty of noticing, as a little attention may show the error here embraced. It will be seen that in the beginning of the chapter, the church is introduced to our notice as in the pangs of labor, longing to be delivered; and the masculine son born was no doubt the Judaizing doctrine consummated, with which the church has been indoctrinated ever since the gospel began to be preached-nationality and the support of the state, which Heathenism had hitherto enjoyed. Paul had said that the hindrance (Heathenism as the national religion) must first be taken away, then should the lawlessness be revealed. The struggle which took place between Lucian and Constantine, is evidently what is portrayed to us by the symbols of Michael and his angels, Constantine being so represented because espousing the cause of Christianity. Lucian is represented as the Dragon, &c. because this was the name given by the Prophets to the heathen power which he would have perpetuated. (See Isaiah xxvii. 1, li. 9; Ezekiel xxix. 3.) The name was truly characteristic, as it was the enemy of the people of God in every age. Its overthrow is celebrated as the introduction of the kingdom of our God and of his Christ, and the casting down of the accuser of the brethren before the throne of God a form of speech clearly im

porting the continual accusations laid by informers before the Emperor against the Christians. John adds, in his description, " called the Devil and Satan." It is known to most, that Satan is a Hebrew word, and came down to the Greeks just as the Greek term Diabolos comes to us, only receiving a different dress, such as Satanos in Greek, and Devil in English. John, therefore, explains here the meaning of the two terms, showing that they applied to the Heathen power the same as Serpent and Dragon, and importing adversaries and false accusers. Now if our interpretation be correct, it follows that these expressions do not refer to any unseen power, but to the powers that be among men. We only add, that by the term heaven, in this chapter, is meant the seat of imperial power. We have gone further in this subject than we intended, feeling that the views generally given are wresting the Scriptures, and turning the attention of Christians from their real duty. Instead of leading them, as good members of society, to consider themselves called upon to aid in every good work, they dream of an unseen adversary, whom they know not how to resist. But if the forthcoming papers will answer the questions I have proposed, and show the fallacy of what has been presented, they will be gratefully received by an INQUIRER.

LIFE AND DEATH.

DEAR SIR, -Being privileged with a reading of the Harbinger for October last, I saw in it an article headed “ Life and Death," which was an able analysis of a work written by J. P. Ham, minister of Cooper's Hall Congregational Church, Bristol.

This work purports to be the theology of the Bible on "Life and Death." What the Spirit announced in former times, melancholy experience is verifying in our day. Ours is an age of abounding heresy. I am not surprised to find Satan mustering his hosts in his own domain, and carrying out his master-piece, the Roman apostacy. But it is painfully humiliating, that within the pale of the visible church, we should have to battle with a professed minister of the New Testament. I cannot recognize Mr. Ham's work on "Life and Death," in any other point of view than a resurrection to new life of many of

those old heresies that long distracted the churches. I am disposed to judge charitably of Mr. Ham's sincerity, and to give him credit for ability; but, on all the leading points of controversy, his logic is as much at fault as his the ology is dangerous; and from first to last, (wherever he takes exception to the accredited mind of the Spirit) his work is a tissue of Epicurean, Pelagian, and Socinian heresy an elaborated fetch of a Neology long since exploded. In page 9 Mr. Ham says, "The Bible gives a marked prominence to the material form." Mr. Ham is evidently, from this statement, in philosophy, a materialist. "Observe," says he, "the phraseology, God formed man' the body of man, but man,' of the dust of the ground." Again, "The essence and destiny of man's nature is not an immortal, but perishable nature, Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.' The terms point out the personality of the first Adam, as involved in his perishable and mortal nature

6

not

dust,' thou,'' thyself,' 'thy personality,'" &c. In connection with these dogmas of Mr. Ham's, read the statements of Christ, Mark viii. 36-7, "What shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his Is this giving prominence to the material form? Or is this to identify personality with the dust?

soul?"

In the gospel by Matthew x. 28, we are enjoined to "Fear not them who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him who is able to destroy soul and body in hell?" Does not this passage teach man's compound nature? In Luke xxiii. 43, Jesus

Ham says,

said to the thief on the cross, " To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Mr. "The theology of the Bible gives prominence to the material form" Christ gives prominence to the soul. Mr. Ham associates man's essence and personality with the dust-Christ associates both with the soul: "To-day shalt thou (thy personality) be with me in paradise." Not the gross materialism of which Mr. Ham is so fond, but the immortal spirit, formed in God's image. After having satisfied himself with the Infidel poet,

"That we are the abandoned orphans of blind chance,

Drap'd by wild atoms in disordered dance❞—

he proceeds to deny immortality to man either before or after the fall. We have," says he, " a direct Scripture prohibition against the assumption of immortality by man, God only hath immortality' (1st Tim. vi. 16.) This phraseology, he conceives, precludes man from the slightest participation of this attribute. Let us try this canon. In the preceding verse Paul tells us, God is "the only potentate." Therefore, on Mr Ham's principles, this precludes mankind from the slightest participation in monarchical power! In 1 Tim. i. 17, God is said to be "The only wise God." Therefore, no man can lay claim to common sense. In John xvii. 3, "The only true God"-Revelation xv. 4, "Thou only art holy." Therefore, this exclusive only prevents the utterance by man of a particle of truth, or the possession of a particle of holiness in his nature, even before the fall!

Man, says our author, could not be created in God's image in relation to immortality, "because God's immortality embraces the eternity past and future.”

Mr. Ham asserts man was created in the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness; but does not God's knowledge embrace the eternity that is past, as well as the eternity that is to come? the end from the beginning." Mr. Ham's reason, therefore, for denying immortality, is founded in a fallacy. If we

"He knows

can be created in the likeness of God in

the attribute of knowledge embracing eternity absolute, it cannot be a reason against our possession of immortality, because it embraces eternity absolute.

But, says Mr. Ham, "Immortality is incapable of likeness, since it admits of is true in relation to God, and equally no degree and no imperfection." This true of all God's attributes. But if it be a reason why man cannot be formed in the likeness of immortality, it is equally destructive of the image of God in knowledge, &c. as they admit of no degrees or imperfection. If Mr. Ham deny these conclusions, his logic is as sophistical as his theology of the Bible is spurious.

example of his predecessors, (Pelagius Mr. Ham next proceeds, after the and Celestius, monks of the fifth century) to set aside the covenant of works, and deny all federal guilt in connection with Adam. We see in Gen. ii. 16-17,

66

all the constituents of a covenant. The parties, God and Adam-the conditions, perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience the penalty, death: "In the day thou eatest thereof," &c. with life implied. In Hosea vi. 7, the Spirit says, They, like men, (or, as it is in the original, like Adam) have transgressed my covenant." We believe God when he speaks, though but once, more firmly than we would Mr. Ham, though he were to write during the "gathered and gathering." Mr. Ham tells us, "The guilt of disobedience in Eden was exclusively Adam's" "Guilt is not transferable nor hereditary" "Infinite evil in sin is a speculative opinion"-" I cannot understand," says he, "in what way sin can become infinite; nor can I think that the blessed Jehovah needs to kindle a hell." Such are a few of the gems of this eminent divine. We have only to read Romans v. 12, to see that guilt is not only transferable, but actually transferred, from Adam to all his seed. See also in this chapter Christ contrasted with Adam. If death by Adam, life by Christ. If guilt transferred to the natural seed, so merit is transferred to the spiritual seed. "The Lord has laid on him, namely Christ, the iniquity of us all." But Mr. Ham says, "Guilt is not transferable." Here his lurking Arianism appears, and in order that he may get rid of "Immanuel," he denies infinite evil in sin, and modestly suggests" that the blessed Jehovah needs not kindle a hell!"

Having thus disposed of immortality, the covenant of works, man's guilt either transferred or hereditary, and having got rid of sin as to its infinitude, Mr. Ham then gives a mighty array of Scripture to prove the object of Christ's mission to the earth, namely, to give eternal life. This was unnecessary. All who believe the New Testament believe this to be the object of Christ in visiting our world. We were under a broken covenant of works. He came "that he might redeem us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." We were "dead in trespasses and sins." He came that the law might be magnified, God glorified, and the sinner saved by the infinitely precious blood of Christ. Hence, he says, "Whosoever believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and he that liveth and believeth in me shall

In his

never die." In this passage we see the spiritual and eternal life Christ came to give. In the last lecture Mr Ham disposes of the ungodly in accordance with the dogma that there is no need of a hell. They "cease to exist," he tells us "annihilated." are closing remarks, he leads us to believe this is terrible to contemplate. So it is. Terrible, indeed, that a man should be eternally annihilated for an offence in which there is no "infinite evil." But Mr. Ham sees no difficulty in such a punishment. Professor Bush, of America, a laborer in the same field with Mr. Ham, but a step in advance, denies the resurrection of the dead altogether on scientific principles. He enters the field of revelation with his physiological axe in hand, assailing every tree and plant that impedes his progress. Applying the measuring reed of science, and if they do not suit in size and symmetry - though they had gladdened many a pilgrim's eye, and their fruit been sweet to their taste- he grubs them up by the root, and looks back over the way he has trod, and asserts that no such plant or flower ever grew in the field at all. Such, also, are many of the criticisms of Mr. Ham. But it would require a larger volume than Mr. Ham's to do justice to the tissue of error that pervades it.

Sir, what is the natural tendency of the doctrine, "That the wicked are annihilated?" Is it not the entertained and expressed sentiment of all ages by the godless and infidel? What other belief could influence the mind of the antediluvians, who "ate and drank, married and gave in marriage, till the flood of God's wrath overtook them?" Was it not desperate principles, which led the Israelite, with the thunders of Sinai tingling in his ear, "to sit down to eat and drink, and rise up to play?" This is the doctrine that must produce fruit similar to that which sprang from it in all ages: the quiescent theology that weighs the anchor of the soul, allows the carnal man to float down the tide of time, without remorse for the past, or portentious forebodings for the future. If this doctrine be true, sinners in Zion need not be terribly afraid; but, like their predecessors, unchaining every licentious propensity, say with Isaiah xxii. 13, " Behold, joy and gladness, slaying oxen, and killing sheep, eating flesh, and drinking wine. Let

66

us eat and drink, for to-morrow we shall die." Epicurus, in the first century, denied the immortality of the soul, and more consistent than his disciple, Mr. Ham, sought "pleasure" as the summum bonum" of life. Is not this a branch of the Sadducean heresy against which Christ had to contend? Is not this a species of the infidelity against which Paul argues in 1 Cor. xv. 32, "If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me if the dead rise not? Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." If my time and your space would permit, I might demonstrate the future punishment of the wicked, from the all but universal belief of mankind-the forebodings of conscience-the unequal distribution of rewards and punishments the unphilosophic and absurd idea of annihilation-and the many portions of Scripture that teach it most plainly. Besides another class of texts that speak of degrees in punishment-which, on the principle of annihilation, is impossible-I just submit the evidence of two witnesses, Dan. xii. 2, Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake: some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." Matt. xxv. 46, "These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal." The term translated "eternal" and "everlasting" being the same in both clauses of both verses, by no sound canon of interpretation, by no construction of grammar, by no "usus loquendi,' can eternity be predicated

of it in the one clause and denied in the other. T. G.

be some other way, though unknown, through which they may escape! Ought he not to have assumed some other cognomen than "Philadelphos?" Is it not far better and more philanthropic, by the exhibition of God's plan of mercy, to endeavour to win men from their errors, and thus save them, than to hold out the least intimation, that there may be some other way of escape?

Is it honoring or dishonoring God, to hold out to those who reject and despise his laws, that there is the least possibility for them to escape from the reward of their deeds?

If Judas and his followers can ever at any period of eternity be made partakers of the everlasting bliss, can it be true. "Good were it for that man had he never been born?" If " Philadelphos" would add also "Theophilus" to his name, I think it would cure him of chimerical notions, and save him the trouble of exploring uncertainties, and encouraging impenitence with a may-be escape.

I did not wish, in any way, to appear in your valuable periodical; but as you published my former letter, you may give the foregoing, if you think fit. Your wellwisher, GAEL.

INWARD TEACHING.

DEAR SIR,-Your reverence for the Sacred Scriptures, which I would be sorry to make light of, encourages me to make yet another effort to convince you, that what I have written on the inward teaching of the Father, is not, as you and some of your correspondents seem to have thought, the work of my own imagination, nor "jargon and vain jangling" which ought not to have been allowed to appear in a publication ostensively devoted to the spread of primitive Christianity; but is, notwithstanding these rash judgments, not only true in itself abstractly considered, but substantially the teaching of that book from which you profess to have learned your religion. "No man," said Jesus, 66 can come to me unless the Father who hath sent me draw him: and, no man knoweth the Son but the Father, nor any the Father save the Son." In such passages, which might be multiplied, it appears to me, that the inward spiritual teaching of the Divine Spirit is plainly acknowledged and referred to. We cannot spiritually know the

Him, unless the Father by His Spirit inwardly reveal him to us; and in having the Son so revealed, we have the Father revealed also, for in seeing the Son we see the Father in him. The written word can make us acquainted with Christ's outward history, with His sayings and doings; but the Scriptures abundantly testify, that the intrinsic excellence of His nature and character as the Son of God, we cannot discern, but in the light of the Father's Spirit, whose Son he is

Will you be entreated by one who most sincerely wishes you well for time and for eternity, to read with him from the beginning of the Gospel according to John:-" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Bear with me, dear friend, in what may appear to be my folly, when I ask, if you think that by "the Word" John meant the written word-was it the Bible that the inspired Apostle had in his mind's eye? You will answer "No, it certainly was not the Bible; for we cannnt say that in the beginning was the Bible, and the Bible was with God, and the Bible was God." Well, if it was not the written record, but God Himself in one of His essential distinctions, that the beloved disciple had his mind fixed upon, it must, I humbly think, appear plain, that John did not regard the Bible as the only true light of men; for he said, (verse 4), "in him, (namely the Word) was life, and the life was the light of men.' And farther on, still referring to the Word which was in the beginning with God, and was God, he said, "That was the true light, that lighteth every man that cometh into the world." This inspired teacher of Christianity, therefore, teaches the very same thing which I have been reproached for attempting to inculcate, namely, that not the Bible, but the life eternal which is in God, is the true light of men. Verse 14, " And the Word was made flesh." In the Word's being made flesh, I can see the light of the Divine life made ours, given to us of God, to be consciously in us, as a light for us to live and move in consciously. "We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren," "He that loveth his brother is in the light, and hath none occasion of stumbling in him." Does not the Apostle here identify Divine

light? The Bible, I cannot regard as being any more the true light of men, than a written account or description of a thing is that very thing itself. Words are not to be confounded in our minds with the things to which they refer us.

That I have discarded prophets and apostles, and trodden under foot the testimony of the Bible, I deny. Taking care not to allow the spirit which has preferred this charge against me to possess my soul, I do most solemnly, as in the presence of God, in love and forgiveness, firmly repel the accusation. I will not retort the charge of such wickedness upon those who have, in their fiery zeal, tried to fix it upon me. Let us be calm and considerate, as well as zealous. God knoweth all hearts, and He will in His own good time reward the patience of His children, by making their obedience manifest, and He will shame the transgressors, whoever they be. I will only charge my accusers with having been in too much haste to condemn what they evidently do not understand, and with having suffered themselves to be carried away by a spirit which blindeth the mind's perceptions. 'Keep thy heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life."

To the subject in debate, it may be said, but it is by means of the written word, that the light of the Eternal Word, which was made flesh, finds an entrance into men's minds and hearts. As we cannot know a man's thoughts and feelings until he gives them expression by words, so neither can we know God's thoughts and principles, but as they are expressed in the sacred volume. This is partly true. I never denied that the Scriptures are, when used-not as a thing to occupy the exclusive attention, but as a glass to look through to objects beyond it-a means of spiritual illumination. But this is not exactly the ground of controversy. Is there, or is there not, an inward dealing on the part of God with the human soul, apart altogether from any thing external, and is this inward teaching not the key which unlocks the treasures of wisdom and knowledge contained in the Scriptures of truth, and in all God's outward dealings with men? We argue there is, and must be, such an inward teaching, in order that there may be any true knowledge of God at all. No