but the revelation of the Holy Ghost, who inspireth the true Enthusiasts and fanatics prate about hearing the voice of God speaking from heaven as Moses heard it in the Mount, or as St. Paul in paradise. When, therefore, we express ourselves as hearing the voice of forgiving mercy, we are instantly charged with a similar delusion; as if there were not a rational, scriptural sense in which this language may be employed, and as if we had not a thousand times discarded the former and avowed the latter. We again repeat, we use these terms, borrowed from the outward man to express phenomena connected with the inward man-figurative terms being the only terms that can be employed for that purpose. We mean, what it is generally supposed the psalmist meant, when he said, "I will hear what God, the Lord, will speak: for he will speak peace unto his people and to his saints," Ps. L, xxxv. 8; and what the apostle meant, when he said, "God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son, into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." "To this purpose," says Dr. Donne, "does St. Basil call the Holy Ghost, Verbum Dei, quia interpres filii: The Son of God is the word of God, because he applies the Son. Christ comes with that loud proclamation, Ecce auditum fecit, Is. L xii. 11, Behold the Lord hath proclaimed it to the end of the world, Ecce Salvator, and Ecce merces, Behold his salvation, Behold thy reward, (this is his publication in the manifest ordinances of the church,) and then the Holy Ghost whispers to thy soul, as thou standest in the congregation, in that voice that he promises, Sibilabo t populum meum., Zach. x. 8, I will hiss, I will whisper to my people by soft and inward inspirations. Christ came to tell us all, that to as many as received him, he gave power to become the sons of God, the Holy Ghost comes to tell thee, that thou art one of them." Šer xxxiv. The result of the Spirit's testimony is the same in regard to the object for which it is borne, as that of any verbal communication which may be made to our outward ear-we are made acquainted with that of which we were previously ignorant. The use of figurative expressions referring to the faculty of speech and the sense of hearing-and the same may be said of the other senses-to convey a notion of a communication or testimony made immediately to the mind and comprehended by it, is so far from being extravagant and calculated to mislead, that we challenge the acutest metaphysician to point out a less ambiguous style. But employ what terms we may, enthusiasts and fanatics have perverted them, by pressing them into their service, and when we employ them, howsoever legitimately and discreetly, to express the phenomena of inward religion, those who have neither part nor lot in the matter, will not be slow to charge us with whatever delusions and extravagances may have been at any time, or by anybody, wrapt up in the drapery by which we set forth the truth as it is in Jesus. By such unscrupulous misrepresentations and slanderous caricatures they have succeeded in abusing the minds of men who are far better than themselves; and who have been induced to harbor suspicions in relation to the direct witness of the Spirit and its abettors. But we have reached our limits-and that too without touching some of the most important parts of the subject; the examination of which must consequently be postponed to the April number of the Quarterly. ART. V.-A RESPONSE TO "J. B." ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. THERE are two very serious objections to the popular argumentation of the present age, and it is humiliating that we are compelled to acknowledge that religious and theological controversy partakes of those errors to nearly as great an extent as that which is more loosely put forth upon secular or political subjects. Inadvertence or carelessness on the part of the public, and, perhaps we might say, a somewhat loose state of religious morals, has given license to controvertists to act upon the principle that "all is fair in time of war," and hence we oftentimes see what at first was, or was intended to be, a discussion of a question, now changed into a personal contest between two men. The one who wields his lance with greatest skill, "heads" his adversary with greatest generalship, or retorts upon him with the keenest personal sarcasm, has succeeded in the argument! And again it is perfectly allowable, if you can do so without detection, to remove your opponent from the position which he chooses for himself, and place him in one more vulnerable, so that you may make your attack the more easy. If your antagonist cannot be removed from his fastness, just assume that he is out there in a more exposed situation, and after showering your bullets over that place a while, proclaim him slain! It is not intended to urge the former of these objections against "J. B." although it is difficult to discover the material difference, so far as the merits of the question are concerned, whether "R. A." "hails from Yazoo, Mississippi," or resides in the more refined and beautiful plains of South Carolina. But it is regretted that the same disclaimmer cannot be made in relation to the latter. The article of "J. B." in October is published as a reply to mine in July on the subject of capital or death punishment; and yet it is remarkable that the former scarcely attempts to controvert a position assumed in the latter. The opening argument of "J. B." and which is continued at intervals through his article, is an attempt to prove that society has the right, by its laws, to inflict capital punish 1 ment for murder; and that the command in the Decalogue, "Thou shalt not kill," is not intended as a denial of that right. This being the most prominent and lengthy of any division of his whole argument, it would be, of course, presumed that it was intended to deny something which I had affirmed. But the truth is that not only have I not for a moment questioned the possession of that right on the part of society, but on pages 416, '17 and '18 of my article in July, may be found about two pages of argument, attempting to show in clear light that society has the right to punish crime with death, and may exercise it whenever it is found to be necessary. About one third of his article, then, falls harmless to the ground. "If we understand "R. A." his strong parts are, 1. That God did not intend the passage in Genesis (9 and 6) as a command, because, (1.) The violation of it involves no direct personal guilt," &c. It was just as easy for him to have quoted me correctly. I said of the passages in question:-"Whatever else it may be it is not a command of universal binding force upon all mankind. 1. Because it is in its nature incapable of being obeyed by all men, or by any man in a country governed by such penal laws as are universal-all Christendom." There is considerable difference between my statement and his understanding of it. If it is a law it is capable of being violated, and if violated the violation would involve direct personal guilt. But if "the violation of it involves no direct personal guilt," as to be admitted, then how can it be a law binding now upon all men? Of this we are informed by "J. B." And it is humbly conceived that we have here a most extraordinary explication of God's commandments to men. seems "We suppose, then, the passage in Genesis has a national application; indeed from the very nature of the case it cannot be otherwise, and any other construction is a perversion, and is begging the question." This is new, to say the least of it. The nation is commanded, but the people composing it are not! No man is commanded-no number of men are commanded-the nation is commanded! And what is the nation separate and apart from the persons who compose it? What is the whole of any thing, considered separate and distinct from all or any of its parts? Then, the nation and not the people being commanded, the command, if violated, is violated not by any persons, but by the nation. Sin is the transgression of the law, we are told, and the soul that sinneth, it shall dis. In case of disobedience, then, the soul of the nation is sent to hell. I do not believe a nation has a soul. But we are told that "the violation of a national command implies national guilt, and national scourges are inflicted for such violation." The bible and the books lead us to believe that general wickedness is oftentimes followed by general (or I have no objections to use the term "national") scourges; but we always learn that this wickedness or "violation" is committed by individual men, and in such a way as to "involve direct personal guilt." Surely there can be no other kind of violation of God's law, or of any law indeed, but by a man, in the wicked perverseness of his heart, and if unrepented of and unforgiven, he will assuredly be punished in hell, notwithstanding any "national scourges or any other incidental temporal inconvenience or punishment that may flow from it. Again we are told:" The violation of a positive command of God implies punishment here or hereafter, or both." Such monstrous perversion of the very title-page of theology, in open daylight, is inadmissible. Sin is the transgression of the law. The soul that sinneth shall die. And yet we are told that "a positive command of God" may be violated with impunity, saving some temporal inconvenience or punishment "here." The violator, of course, takes his seat in heaven; and is there justly chargeable with "the violation of a positive command of God," unrepented of and unforgiven. His reply is, "I was punished for that in the other world." How are we to know what sins are punishable "here," and "what hereafter?" Or, in other words, what sins need the atonement of Jesus Christ, and what ones do not! This doctrine is gravely held by one who complains that the bible is so often "brought to sustain any position, however absurd, that is, provided such position be assumed before the word of God be consulted at all." And who also greatly fears that the substitution of incarceration, for death punishment, will establish the doctrine of Universalism. The leading doctrine of which, I believe, is punishment for sin here. On page 609 "J. B." "turns the tables" upon the writer, in this wise: "His (my) reasoning upon the passage in Genesis "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood |