But, fellow-citizens, we all do fade as a leaf; we are frail dust and ashes; our words soon pass away; they perish from our lips as the sound dies upon the ear. Our opinions are as light as air; but God's Word has at all times firmly stood, and shall from age to age endure. "All flesh is grass, and the glory of man as the flower that fadeth away; but the Word of the Lord endureth for ever." Bring all things, then, to its discriminating and solemn test; what accords with it receive, believe, and practice; what does not, reject as a human invention, and repudiate as a part of the doctrines and commandments of men.

TYRANNY OF OPINIONISM.-No. II.

SCENES IN A WESTERN CHURCH.

[Present-Bishop Omicron, Doctor Virtuoso, Doctor Biblicus, Doctor Doubty, Deacons Mutuns and Equitas, with a crowded house.] A SPECIAL meeting, called on Wednesday evening, seven o'clock. After the opening of the meeting by social worship, Bishop Omicron being in the chair, Dr. Virtuoso arose and said

Brother Omicron, it is conceded to me, by a vote of the church, that I should have a hearing in the presence of the brethren, on a subject of thrilling interest to the community; and this being the time and place appointed for the said hearing, I hasten to open the subject. I have to state to you, sir, that it is agreed by myself and brother Biblicus, that he shall have a right, at any time, at a proper period in my remarks, to interpose any question naturally arising out of my theme; and also, that brother Doubty have the same privilege, as well as the liberty of replying to me, or to brother Biblicus, at proper intervals, and for periods of convenient and equitable length. I proceed then, sir, to state, that it is highly important that we should understand everything revealed in the Bible, and especially those passages which either involve or relate to the future destiny of Amongst these subjects-ever since the Millerites have been in this neighbourhood, and I heard one of their most gifted orators lay open the second advent, and his views of the destiny of the wicked-I have been in great anxiety to comprehend something of the state of the dead;

man.

whether the soul continues in the body, is conscious, or indeed, lives at all, until the resurrection of the just. I find the Millerites are generally getting into the belief that man lives not at all from death to the resurrection, and that, after the final judgment, all the wicked will be raised, judged, and annihilated; or, in other words, reduced to absolute nonentity, so far as conscious existence is at all contemplated. I have been constantly reading the Scriptures since, and I am quite astonished to find how little light there is in them on this subject; still, the conclusion to which they seem most to tend, is rather expressive of the Millerite view. I do not, indeed, find any one passage that clearly intimates a separate state of existence for a part of man called his soul, and for another part of man called his body. I do not find that there are properly two distinct organizations in man; in fact, it would seem to me that, were it not for two or three passages in the New Testament, I would conclude that the whole man died, soul and body, and that this view does much enhance the importance of the resurrection, the scripture doctrine of immortality and eternal life. Some of my brethren, with whom I have freely communicated on this subject, have brought some few objections to my consideration. They have urged, with great earnestness, the following passages, and, as I wish to have them discussed here, I will bring them forward for consideration and discussion. They all seem to fix their attention on our Lord's words to the thief: "To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise." But I wish not to occupy all the time myself, and as brother Doubty understands this subject better than I do, I will give place to him.

Dr. Doubty.-Brother Omicron, I do not think that I can do more justice to this subject than brother Virtuoso; but as he has called me before you I will occupy your attention for a few moments. I think that this passage already quoted essentially depends upon the import of the words "to-day." If "to-day" means that identical day, the space of twentyfour hours, then, indeed, there is weight in the objection: but that it does not, I will prove, sir. First, from the fact that, on the third day from that "to-day," Jesus himself said to Mary, "I am not yet ascended to my Father;" so then, the thief could not have been in Paradise with Jesus yet, before our Lord ascended. But if "to-day" is only to be

understood "quickly," or in a short time, it may be answered that, at Jesus' resurrection many of the saints that slept arose, and came out of their graves after his resurrection. Christ was the first-born from the dead among many brethren. See Col. i. 18; Rom. viii. 29. Thus the promise of Christ was fulfilled to the thief, if he was among those who rose with the Saviour, and it would seem probable that that was what our dying Lord intended. But I will prove that "this day” means sometimes forty years past, and that "to-day" means to-morrow in the Bible. For example, Deut. xi. 8, Moses says, "You shall keep all the commandments which I command thee this day." Did not this command include all the laws given by Moses by the space of forty years? Again, when at the Red Sea, Moses said, "Fear ye not, stand still and see the salvation of the Lord, which he will show you to-day;" and yet in the twenty-first verse, we find that all the night following was occupied in preparing the passage through the sea, and the Israelites saw not the salvation till the day following. Again, the words "to-day" mean a long, protracted time-" To-day, if you will hear his voice,"

&c. If, then, the thief was raised from the dead at Christ's resurrection, the promise-" to-day," immediately, in a short period, thou shalt be with me in Paradise-was fulfilled to him. Such are my views of this passage, and I conclude that it proves nothing for the soul, out of the body, being in Paradise at all. Shall I proceed, brother Bishop, to another point, or shall I wait for remarks from the brethren?

Bishop Omicron.-Has any brother any thing to observe on the subject before the assembly?

Biblicus. If, sir, in order, I desire to make a few remarks?

Bishop Omicron-It is in order, sir-proceed.

Biblicus.-Though, sir, I have understood that many of the Millerites have gone over to "destructionism," and "soulsleeping," I do not believe that this is one of their peculiarities. I know that we have some "soul-sleeping" and destructionist Unitarians," in New as well as in Old England, and that our brother Doubty has not derived his views from them, nor they from him, I admit; still the arguments he has offered, if arguments or objections they be, are those used by Mr. Storr, a celebrated Millerite and Destructionist, who, if he had not been quite so fond of novelties and abstruse

speculations, might have been a useful man. He speaks well, and reasons well; but generally, on these topics, his premises are assumed; and therefore his reasonings are fallacious, extremely fallacious, on this subject at least. But, sir, this is a new revelation to us Christians of the nineteenth century. I say it is a new revelation, and every one in this house feels it to be so: in two points it strikes us all as new. That Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Samuel, David, and all the prophets are now in dust-and in the dust-not one of them living in body, soul, or spirit; that Abel, and Paul, with all the apostles, are nowhere, neither in heaven nor in earth, nor in hades, any more than the pure dust and ashes that have been in a thousand plants and animals since they were part and parcel of them; that all the wicked will be annihilated at last, and reduced to absolute nihility, nonentity, &c., is to me, and to you, my brethren, a new revelation. This is real new-lightism; and all it wants, to be hailed by me, and put upon file with other learned discoveries, is a little evidence from the Bible-That I have received as God's light to my soul, (if I have any!) and to that I intend to take heed, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in my heart. So far, then, as these brethren profess to illuminate us on this subject, from the Bible, I am all attention, and so long, sir, as you and the brethren please, I will listen to the whole testimony and argument offered. I shall, therefore, examine the objections. made to a passage long held by us as a ray of light from the regions of the dead; a ray of consolation, too, that immediately after death the dead saints are with the Lord. This has been the faith of the church, as I believe, since Stephen died. It is mine too. But still I will give it up as a notion, a pleasing dream, a consolatory delusion, the moment it is disproved from the Bible. Now, sir, for the text: "To-day shalt thou, dying thief, be with me in Paradise." Yes, sir, in Paradise! But we have been told that to-day means forty years past, and forty, or four thousand years to come; that it means both yesterday and to-morrow! This also is a new revelation in language. If, then, we must first have a new revelation in language, to open the way into a new revelation from the Bible, I feel myself rather in a dangerous predicament. Mr. Storr has somewhere said, that "Words are to have their primary and obvious

meaning, unless there is a clear necessity of departing from it. By their primary and obvious meaning, I mean the plain and direct sense of the words, such as they may be supposed to have in the mouths of the speakers that used them, according to the language of the time and country in which they lived; and without any of those learned, artificial, and forced senses, as are put upon them by those who claim to be the authorized expounders of the Bible." Very good. Well, then, is there no force in making "to-day," in a plain answer to a dying man's last prayers, mean two thousand years to come! as it must mean according to the reasonings of brother Doubty, and friend Storr, upon this passage, as the sequel will show. But we must weigh the logic and arguments offered. The first and most plausible is, that Jesus said on the third day following, that he had not "yet ascended to his Father;" of course, then, he must have spoken figuratively! But Jesus is risen from the dead on the third day. He is now embodied, and the converted thief is yet disembodied; consequently, they cannot be together, unless the latter be also raised from the dead. Well, that can be accomplished by hypothesis. It is adroitly and ingenuously supposed that, as many graves were opened, and bodies of the dead saints raised, immediately after Christ's resurrection, the converted thief was among them. But then, hypothesis can just as scripturally and as rationally suppose that he was not among them; and what comes of the proof of soulsleeping? It falls upon its knees and begins to pray for evidence! In mercy, then, let it have the benefit of one fundamental hypothesis; say that the converted thief was one of the saints! Ah me! it is almost too hard a case for even the mercy of an hypothesis. Well, we shall try it again. Suppose, I say, that the pardoned malefactor instantly became a saint, and was honoured with a part of the firstfruits of the distinguished saints of olden times, and rose with them, where was his soul in the meantime? I say, sir, where was his soul during this interval? for, remember, brethren, that the book says bodies, not souls, came out of the grave. Now, what comes of the hypothesis? Souls and bodies are not identical words, nor synonymous in the Bible style. When the Bible says bodies it does not mean souls, according to Mr. Storr's sound law of interpretation. Bodies of the saints arose." Saints have bodies, in scripture

66