6

soul can not be proved to have believed that it was a part of the divine nature. This is true of Origen, who agreed with the Platonists in saying, that souls sinned before they were united with a body in which they were imprisoned as a punishment for their sins.-Vide Huetius, in his Origenianæ,' 1 ii. c. 2, quæst. 6. The pre-existence of the soul was early taught by Justin the Martyr.-Dial. cum Tryphone Jud. This has been the common opinion of Christian mystics of ancient and modern times. They usually adhere to the Platonic theory and regard the soul as a part of the divine nature, from which it proceeds, and to which it will again return. This doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul is, however, almost entirely abandoned, because it is supposed irreconcilable with the doctrine of original sin, and if the mystics be excepted, it has been left almost without an advocate ever since the time of Augustine."

reason.

Upon this hypothesis, it may be remarked that it originated with heathen philosophers, who had not the light of revelation, but were guided alone by the dictates of natural To those who deny that the Holy Spirit enlightens the understanding of such as have not the blessing of the revealed Word of God, the progress made by such men as Pythagoras, Plato, and other heathen philosophers, in finding out the hidden mysteries in relation to the creation of the universe, the cause and purposes of our being here, the immortality of the soul, and of a future state of bliss, of woe, etc., must be wonderful indeed.

From the circumstance that they did make such near approaches to a true understanding, in substance, of the facts as revealed to others on such subjects, we have a potent argument in favor of the hypothesis that the Spirit of God does, in some way, teach all nations. Such similarity of views, as held by heathen and Jew, affords a valuable evidence, also, in favor of the authenticity of the Bible.

All must have understanding enough of the nature and laws of God, a future state, and of their responsibilities to their Creator and duties to their fellow-men, to render them justly responsible for their conduct in this life. Without that, they would not be fit to be judged at the great day

and rewarded or punished, as the case of each may require, according to their works, whether they be good or evil. And we are informed by the Sacred Scriptures, that all will be brought before the same bar for judgment and on the same day.

Otherwise, how is it that the heathen and Christian will be alike judged, and at the same time, and each doomed to eternal happiness or misery? All were created by the same omnipotent power. He can instruct the heathen, as well as the Christian, in all his duties. He is said not to be a respecter of persons of men, but a wise and merciful God; of great forbearance and long suffering toward his creatures, willing not the death of any, but that all should return to Him and live. If this be so, is it reasonable that he would bring a vast majority of men into this world in heathen lands and times of darkness, thus denying them all knowledge of himself, of their own condition in this world, and even of the fact that they are to answer for their conduct to any one, or in any way, and then send them to hell forever because they did not observe his laws? If it is unreasonable to believe that such a Creator will so deal with his creatures, then He will not do it: for He is the source, the perfection of reason. We must, then, either believe that the heathen will not be held responsible for their conduct in this world, or that they have knowledge of their accountability. But to return, as it is desired to say more of this in the proper place.

Viewed in this light of human reason, with the aid of such general but vague impressions only as it is believed the Holy Spirit does make on the mind of all men, and in the absence of inspired revelation, this would probably appear to be a reasonable hypothesis, and the most satisfactory to the learned heathen mind of any which was presented. But to us who have the aid of the Bible, as well as philosophical reason, to direct our footsteps in the pathway to truth, objections insuperable will be found, as it is believed, to that theory. For (let it ever be borne in mind), we can not safely adopt any opinion of Biblical truth which

does not accord strictly, and alike with the revealed Word and natural reason.

We may err as to the interpretation of Scripture, if we fail to apply the test of reason, and to compare each passage on the same subject with every other one.

Fallible as we all are in this life, we can not safely rely upon our unaided opinion as to the meaning of many passages of Scripture; and much less can we trust our feeble powers of reason to guide us in the way of eternal life. We should, therefore, content ourselves with nothing short of a solution of such difficulty, which will consist with all that is said in the Bible about it, when diligently searched out and carefully compared each with the other, and with the dictates of reason also. When we have arrived at a conclusion as to the truth of a proposition so important as that now under consideration, which will bear all these tests, and shine with the more luster as each is applied, we may confidently rejoice that we have found a jewel of great price.

It will be observed that those who agreed in the main, as to this hypothesis, differed between themselves—some believing that the soul was originally destined for the body and unites with it of its own accord; others, with Plato, that it pertained originally to the divine nature, and is incarcerated in the body as a punishment for the sins which it committed in its heavenly state.

That disagreement was, of itself, sufficient to have cast a thick shade of doubt around the whole edifice. It proves. that the foundation on which the building stood was not strong enough to prevent fear for its safety. So it is always with those who are engaged in the advocacy of error. They can not fully agree with each other. And when that is the case, neither should rest satisfied as to the correctness of the common belief on the chief proposition.

We now come to the second theory as held by the Christian Fathers: "That the soul is created at the moment when the body is produced for its habitation." "The hypothesis of the creation of the soul. The advocates of this theory, called Creatiani, believe that the soul is immedi

ately created by God whenever the body is begotten. A passage in Aristotle (De Gener. ii. 3,) was supposed to contain this doctrine; at least, it was so understood by the school-men; and, in truth, Aristotle appears not to be far removed from the opinion ascribed to him. Cyril, of Alexandria, and Theodoret, among the fathers in the Grecian Church, were of this opinion; and Ambrose, Hilarius, and Hieronymus in the Latin Church. The school-men almost universally professed this doctrine, and generally the followers of Pelagius, with whom the school-men, for the most part, agreed in their views with regard to the native character of man; for these views derived a very plausible vindication from the hypothesis that the soul was immediately created by God when it was connected with the body. The argument was this: If God created the souls of men, he must have made them either pure and holy, or impure and sinful. The latter supposition is inconsistent with the holiness of God, and consequently the doctrine of the native depravity of the heart must be rejected. To affirm that God made the heart depraved, would be to avow the blasphemous doctrine that God is the author of sin. The theory of the Creatiani was at first favored by Augustine; but he rejected it as soon as he saw how it was employed by the Pelagians. It has continued, however, to the present time to be the common doctrine of the theologians of the Romish Church, who in this follow after the school-men, like them, making little of native depravity and much of the freedom of man in spiritual things. Among the Protestant teachers, Melancthon was inclined to the hypothesis of the Creatiani; although after the time of Luther, another hypothesis, which will shortly be noticed, was received with most approbation by Protestants. Still many distinguished Lutheran teachers of the seventeenth century followed Melancthon in his views concerning this doctrine-e. g., G. Calixtus. In the Reformed Church, the hypothesis which we are now considering has had far more advocates than any other, though even they have not agreed in the manner of exhibiting it. Luther would have this subject left with

out being determined, and many of his contemporaries were of the same opinion."

From the above may be observed a general characteristic which is common even with the wisest and best men. It is that prevailing tendency to warp and bend everything else so as to make it comport with a favorite dogma of our own. The great and good St. Augustine at first favored the theory, that the soul was created at the birth of the body, but his contemporary, the learned Pelagius, the champion of the doctrine of free-will, who agreed with him as to the origin of the soul, was making such strong points upon him, drawn from that source, that it became necessary for him to change his base, or abandon his favorite dogma of predestination, which he founded chiefly upon that of total depravity. It was not only true with theologians of that age, that their particular views upon the question of predestination and free-will gave form and tone to all their other religious opinions, but it is equally so at the present time. And, therefore, as soon as Augustine saw that these two doctrines of his could not stand together, he was, no doubt, perfectly satisfied in his own mind that he had been in error as to the origin of the soul. Upon his pet dogma, his mind was fixed; and anything-everything-inconsistent with that had to give way. The same was true with Pelagius; he could not, of course, entertain an opinion on any subject which did not accord with his favorite doctrine of the utmost freedom of the will. That they were both honest in their differing views, there is no reason to doubt, and they may have been both wrong.

"Each claiming truth,

And truth disclaming both."-Cowper.

The fourth and last noticed old theory of the soul is: "That the soul and body are alike and together propagated by their parents, neither having had any previous existence." Of that, Dr. Knapp says: "The hypothesis of the propagation of the soul. According to this theory, the souls of children, as well as their bodies, are propagated from their parents. These two suppositions may be made: Either the