THE VEIL UPLIFTED: AND MESMERISM TRACED TO ITS SOURCE. BEING AN EXPOSURE OF THE LEADING ERROR OF PHRENOLOGY; OF THE OBJECT OF MESMERISTS TO CONFIRM THAT ERROR; AND AN EXAMINATION OF THE PRETENSIONS OF ELECTRO-PSYCHOLOGY. BY A CHRISTIAN. London: BENJAMIN L. GREEN, 62, PATERNOSTER ROW. 1852. 265.4.35. INTRODUCTION. IT cannot be denied that Evil (which the Scriptures term Sin) is in the world, and that it is a Principle or Influence, producing certain results which are, by the general voice of mankind, pronounced to be intolerable; and which, if unchecked, would lead to the total disruption of society. Neither can it be denied that God has, in the Scriptures, both authorised and commanded punishments for evil, in this present world; and that he has therein declared that he will also, himself, punish for evil in, and through, Eternity. But it follows necessarily, from the last-named circumstances, that he cannot by his own act in the constitution of man, have planted in him that principle or influence by which crimes are evolved, for if he had done so, it would be impossible for him to sanction punishments, either in Time or in Eternity. Since, however, Evil does exist, and since it is impossible he can have been the author of its introduction into the world, it follows that that principle must have come in, in some other way; and the Scriptures have, in the most clear, unequivocal, and explicit language declared what that other way was. Yet clear and unmistakable as is the language of the Scriptures on the subject of the entrance of evil, it has, nevertheless, not met with adequate attention. The Church seems to have been ashamed of so very simple an account of it, and has tacitly disavowed it; as if the declaration of the Scriptures upon this head, had not precisely the same claim to implicit reception that every other of its statements have-namely, that both it and they are alike "by inspiration of God." Had it it been otherwise: had the Scripture account of the mode of sin's entrance into the world, been always taught and insisted upon, in its literal simplicity and upon the ground of its being contained in the Word of God, the disquisitions of Materialists and others, on that point, would either not terrible is such a possibility to those who disregard them! How overwhelming their confusion, how unutterable their horror, when awakening in an eternity which they have refused to believe and anticipate here, they find that the soul certainly has immortality, but to them an immortality of woe alone! But if God imparted to man a soul which was necessarily and essentially imperishable, it follows that when He spoke of death in connection with Adam's disobedience, He could not possibly have intended the annihilation of the soul. As Adam stood erect before God in the day he was created, he had a body, which having been composed of matter, was not essentially imperishable, and a soul which, having emanated from the living God, was essentially imperishable. If, therefore, the death of which God spoke had any character of annihilation, it is evident it could respect that of the body alone; wherefore the words spoken to Adam after his disobedience, “Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return," could refer only to the part of Adam which was dust, and could have no sort of reference to that part of him which was not dust. But the Scriptures give sufficient reason to conclude that the death of which God had forewarned Adam that it would result from eating of the tree, had no sort of reference to the death of his body; that it was not of its death he spoke, but of the entrance of evil alone. In the first place, the death of the body did not result from eating of the tree, but was brought in by a separate sentence of God; a sentence which was pronounced because of the disobedience of Adam; but evil did result, and it resulted from the eating of the tree alone. In the second place we see that God had distinctly apprised Adam both of the nature and of the property of the tree of which he forbade him to eat; He had called it the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Now we know that no good whatever resulted, but that positive, unmixed evil, did result from Adam's eating; wherefore it was of the nature of the tree, as of evil knowledge, that Adam was forewarned. God had also apprised him of the consequence of his eating, "In the day thou eatest thereof thou wilt surely die;' property, therefore, of the tree was that it would bring in an immediate death. Let us reflect if these two results were not in fact identical; in other words, whether it was not of one result, namely of evil knowledge in its character of moral death alone, that Adam had been forewarned. "the The words of God point to the tree as that from which the death was to result. The words of the serpent (Satan) were more pointedly expressive of the same fact; he said, "God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, THEN your eyes shall be opened." Adam and Eve ate, and immediately, even as Satan had said, "the eyes of them both were opened." But to what were they opened? To a perception of evil alone. If we trace the results we observe that they perceived they were naked, were ashamed, and made themselves aprons; they conceived an aversion to the presence of God, and hid themselves from Him; and, finally, we see in Adam a combination of meanness, lying, and daring impiety; he accused the woman, he lied to God, and ended by casting upon Him the authorship of his fall, because He had given the woman to be with him. Now the Scriptures give just reason to believe that before Adam had eaten *Note. The entire context evinces that the words of God were in warning, and o that "will" is the proper rendering. Eve's words corroborate this; she says, hath said ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." "God of the tree, he had been in the habit of open, face to face communion with God, and that supposes, not merely the absence of fear, but the presence of confidence and love; but from the moment he had eaten, his whole soul had undergone a revolution, and had been translated into the very opposites of confidence and love! Why was this? There are but two ways of accounting for it. It must have been either because Adam feared the consequences of his disobedience, or the revolution in his soul had sprung entirely from the tree of which he had eaten. But the former of these conclusions will by no means meet the facts of the case. No doubt Adam feared to meet God because he had disobeyed; but had that been all, had fear been the only inmate of his heart, it would not necessarily have induced the mingled course of meanness, lying, and impiety, which he took; there was the equally open way of confessing and deploring his fault. Had Adam's original perceptions of the character and goodness of God been unchanged, they would certainly have impelled him to the latter course; therefore the fact that he took its opposite, is clear proof that his perceptions of the character and goodness of God had become radically changed. But besides this, neither fear nor a guilty conscience at all serve to account for the previous opening of his eyes, nor for his knowing his nakedness, nor for his being ashamed. The whole mystery lies in these circumstances, and it has been solved for us by God Himself. He said, in reference to these very circumstances, "Who told thee thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee saying thou shalt not eat of it?" That is as though He had said, "Thou knowest thy nakedness! Then, thou hast eaten of the tree!" It is the effect seen, and its cause distinctly assigned. There can, therefore, be no doubt that it was of the entrance of evil alone, in its character of moral death, that Adam had been forewarned. The death of the body neither followed" in the day," nor did it result from the tree itself. It was added by God because evil had entered, and in the sole view of limiting the period of its action in the race to spring from the man in whom evil knowledge had become the principle of sin. This may be seen by a careful sifting of the reasons assigned for driving Adam out of Eden. See Gen. iii. 22, 23.* But there is another most important conclusion resulting from the Scripture record of the entrance of evil; a conclusion which strikes at the very root of the doctrine both of Phrenologists and Mesmerists. It is this; if the Scriptures are the word of God, if they were penned by inspiration of God, and are therefore THE TRUTH, it follows that evil did not result from the matter of which God created man, and that so far from "the actions and thoughts of man being" (as Materialists assert) "the inevitable results of his cerebral organism," they are the result of an acquired principle of sin. But let us enter more deeply into this important subject. The Scripture narrative of the creation and fall of man, warrants two lines of induction; separate, yet pointing to one and the same conclusion. They are these : It is written that Adam was created in the image of God; and as this *Note. Thus, omitting all those words, which are, in a manner redundant, the passage will read, "And the Lord God said, behold, the man is become-to knowEVIL: and now, lest he-take also of the tree of life and eat and live for ever-THEREFORE -He drove out the man." In other words, Adam being now possessed of the principle of evil, was driven out of Eden that he might die, and not live for ever in the flesh. |