extension; but we can not predicate extension of the soul without making it a material substance. Tertullian and other of the fathers affirm, indeed, that the soul of man, and that spirit in general, is not perfectly pure and simple, but of a refined material nature, of which, consequently, extension may be predicated.- Vide s. 19, ad finem, and s. 51, I. ad finem. And with these opinions the theory of the propagation of the soul agrees perfectly well, certainly far better than with the opinions which we entertain respecting the nature of spirit, although even with these opinions we can not be sure that a spiritual generation and propagation is impossible; for we do not understand the true nature of spirit, and can not, therefore, determine with certainty what is or is not possible respecting it. There are some psychological phenomena which seem to favor the theory now under consideration; and hence it has always been the favorite theory of psychologists and physicians. The natural disposition of children not unfrequently resembles that of their parents, and the mental excellencies and imperfections of parents are inherited nearly as often by their children as any bodily attributes. Again, the powers of the soul, like those of the body, are at first weak, and attain their full development and perfection only by slow degrees. Many more phenomena of the same sort might be mentioned; but after all that may be said, we must remain in uncertainty with regard to the origin of the human soul. Important objections can be urged against these arguments and any others that might be offered; and if the metaphysical theory of the entire simplicity of the human soul be admitted, the whole subject remains involved in total darkness."

As appears from the preceding quotations from Dr. KNAPP, and from other modern writers also, the doctrine of the preexistence of the soul has been generally abandoned; and the Christian world is now chiefly divided between the two opinions-that the soul of each is created by God when the body is born into the world, or that the soul and body are propagated together by the parents-the Catholic Church

holding the former, and the Protestants the latter of these theories.

That they should not have agreed on a question of that sort is natural. And that they may both be wrong is at least possible. Extremes seldom meet, and the truth is often found between them. The centrifugal is stronger than the centripetal force, as between them. I would it were

not so.

It is no part of the present undertaking to advocate or oppose the peculiar views entertained by either of the numerous Christian families on any other question than that to which this labor is alone devoted; and, with that understanding, I may be permitted to say that so far as the doctrine of the origin of the soul is concerned, the Catholics have a decided advantage over some of their Protestant brethren.

If the soul is an original and new creature by a perfect Creator, it is not reasonable to suppose that it is doomed by its Creator to eternal punishment before it has committed sin, or that it is not permitted to act as a free agent, and entitled to be judged according to its own works. The doctrine of total depravity is utterly inconsistent with their notion as to the creation of the soul. In fact, the whole fabric of their faith would seem to have been built on that theory. That fact gives them a fair claim to consistency, if nothing more. So much can not be truly said for many Protestants. They are divided upon the questions of election and free-will; yet all, or nearly so, hold that the soul is totally depraved, and that it is propagated from the parents.

Should they trouble themselves to examine these questions as closely as did the Christian Fathers, some of them would find that they are involved in sad inconsistencies in that particular.

Dr. KNAPP, no doubt, gives the true reason why there is so much agreement among Protestants on that subject, when he says (in the last quotation above): "The reason why this theory is so much preferred by theologians is, that it affords the easiest solution of the doctrine of native depravity." This is natural. The depravity of man is so clearly taught in the

Bible, and not less so by daily observation, that its truth is beyond the reach of successful denial. That the solution of that problem is more easy upon their hypothesis is true. Whether it is satisfactory is another and different question.

If we are the product of sinners, we must be full of sin. We are told, however, that like produces its like; and if that be true, the theory of propagation of the soul falls far short of affording a satisfactory solution of the doctrine of native depravity. We are informed of but one sin having been committed by our mother Eve, and that was under circumstances of the most trying temptation; and she was certainly deceived, and, by one far wiser than herself, beguiled, and was with great reluctance led into it. And pray, what did she do? Nothing but pluck and eat of a beautiful, fragrant, and sweet fruit from a tree growing in her own garden. That was a violation of God's law, however, and for which she was justly condemned and punished. And that she repented, as in sackcloth and ashes for that, we have every reason to believe, and was pardoned. But we have ten laws to observe, the violation of either one of which is beyond all comparison more sinful than was that which she did; and every one of the ten is violated daily and hourly. She killed nobody, stole nothing, injured none in their rights of person, property, or good name. Her son was a murderer; killed his own brother, for no other reason than that he was a more righteous man than himself.

Adam's sin was possibly worse than that of Eve, but he sinned but in one thing, so far as is recorded, and did that but once. He too, no doubt, repented, and after just punishment was, as is most likely, forgiven.

Cain could, with but poor grace, have excused himself for his crime when God called on him to inquire after his brother, by saying that he inherited his wickedness from his parents, and therefore could not avoid that which he had done. Certain it is that he offered no such excuse.

It may be said that each generation grows worse than the former, but that will not account for the wickedness of Cain above that of his parents; for if we had grown worse and worse in that ratio, our race would, long since, have

been extinct. So cruel and bloodthirsty would man have become ere this, that no two could have lived together on the same island or continent, much less in the same house, and have raised a family of children growing up together.

A still more perplexing difficulty arises, however, in the history of the same family in that respect. Abel appears to have been a good man, one who served God acceptably. They were brothers; why so great difference in their dispositions? If they were propagated, soul and body, from the same parents, and associated with no other family, by whose good or bad example they might have been influenced, this will be found a question hard to answer satisfactorily.

Tertullian and others, who, in the early ages of Christianity, held this theory, argued also that the soul possessed a refined material nature, and was, therefore, capable of occupying space, and hence of extension and growth, as other bodies. If that be so, this theory may possibly be true; but on any other hypothesis it is clearly unreasonable.

Modern theologians, however, utterly deny that the soul is material; and insist that it is purely an incorporeal being, or intelligence; thus involving themselves in an absurdity so palpable that no one, so far as I know, has ever undertaken to explain it. That spirit may produce matter is at once philosophical and scriptural, but that matter can produce spirit is inconsistent with both.

These cursory remarks are designed simply as suggestions to the reader of difficulties which surround each of the old theories, and as preparatory for the argument of the main proposition which is submitted in this work. It is, with most of us, more difficult to unlearn that which we have learned amiss, than to comprehend facts, whether of theology or any other science, of which we knew nothing before.

"O hateful Error, Melancholy's child!

Why dost thou show to the apt thoughts of men

The things that are not ?"-Shakspeare.

He might well have added, hiding things that are!

CHAPTER III.

The whole Subject Divided and Arranged under Ten Heads-Atheism Considered-Its Origin-Authenticity of the Old and New Testament Scriptures-Jesus the Christ.

HAVING, for the present, disposed of the four different theories of the human soul mentioned in the first chapter, as preliminary to that propounded for consideration in this work, let us now, in the fear of God and love of His truth, approach that august subject.

That the reader may be conducted by regular advances to and through the main question, and be thereby the better enabled to give to it a more systematic and satisfactory investigation, the whole is here subdivided for discussion in the order and under the heads following, to-wit:

1. That the heavens and the earth are the workmanship of a Divine Architect, and not the fortuitous productions of accident.

2. That the heavens were created and inhabited by myriads of happy, angelic beings long before this world was made, as recorded by Moses.

3. That all rational creatures were originally made by God "very good," and endowed with powers of volition, locomotion, and action, for the glory of God and individual happiness, and were free agents to serve and glorify their Creator or not, just as they chose.

4. That the narrative found in the Apocalypse, although brief, figurative, and mysterious, is nevertheless a faithful and true history of "WAR IN HEAVEN," and of the expulsion of Satan and his deluded followers from the immediate presence of God and His holy angels.

5. That after they were so "cast out," a covenant of grace