already believed so strongly in Jesus, that his death only made them believe him alive, then the difficulty is to explain this faith which evoked the resurrection. The difficulty is not removed: it is only thrown a little farther back. But the disciples "were in an excited state." Yet people in an excited state do not usually imagine supernatural events with such power as to revolutionize a world by force of their imagination.

The writer posits this dilemma: "If they saw their Master, he was not dead. If he was dead, they did not see him." This is merely saying, in an antithetical form, that to see the dead is impossible. But why?

The

reason is merely this, that no one ever has seen a dead man; that is, the reason is not a reason, but an assumption. How do you know that no one ever has seen a dead man? You do not know it: you only think so. So the supposed dilemma softens down into a private opinion.

There is certainly nothing contrary to reason in the continued life of man after death; and, if man continues to live, there is no reason why he should not be seen. Empiricism declares that all experience is against it. But if by experience is meant the general testimony and belief of mankind, experience is not against it; for there has never been an age or a nation which has not believed in the visible return to earth of the dead. The shallow philosophy of the eighteenth century derided ghosts and spirits; but its ridicule rested on no basis of fact or reason. It may be unreasonable to believe in ghosts: but the men of the eighteenth century did not prove it to be so; they merely assumed it to be so.

The view taken of Paul and John is wonderfully superficial. According to our writer, Paul was really the author of Christianity. And so we have another problem to solve: How was Paul developed into a teacher

of universal religion? Paul himself makes Jesus his life, his strength, his intelligence, his inspiration. "The life I now live, I live by faith in the Lord Jesus." "Not I, but Christ who dwelleth in me." This, it seems, was a mistake. And as for John, the Gospel which bears his name came from some Valentinian Gnostic of the second century. This is as if one should say that Shakspeare's plays were written by some unknown author of the time of Dryden.

We confess that reading such articles as these excites our wonder. They are written by sincere and intelligent men, no doubt; but the attempt to develop all of life from the earth, instead of allowing any of it to fall from heaven, seems to us one of the most profitless labors of the human brain.

A CRITICISM.

To the Editor of the "MONTHLY JOURNAL."

SIR, - With many other readers, I have been much interested in the series of "Essays on the Truths and Errors of Orthodoxy," which have appeared in recent numbers of the "Journal." I could not but wish, sometimes, that the personal character of the articles was more carefully defined, as they now and then have contained expressions of opinion that seemed to me peculiar to the author; but the general ability and fairness with which they have been written preclude unfriendly criticism. In the last paper of the series, however, the writer has fallen into what must be regarded by many persons as a singular violation of propriety, and what I cannot but consider an erroneous and injurious statement. On page 384, he says,

"A simple Unity, as held by the Jews and Mohammedans, and by most of the Christian Unitarians [the Italics are mine], is a bald Unity and an empty Unity. It shows us one God, but God withdrawn from nature, from Christ, from the soul; not immanent in any, but outside of them, It leaves nature godless; leaves Christ merely human; leaves the soul a machine, to be moved by an external impulse, not an inward inspiration."

The author of this paragraph may have certain philosophical explanations or technical definitions of his language, which shall protect him from the charge of even unintentional misrepresentation; but, in its obvious sense, such language covers a wide departure from truth. "Most of the Christian Unitarians" now hold, or ever have held, as the fundamental article of their faith, a doctrine which "leaves nature godless, Christ merely human, and the soul a machine, to be moved by an external impulse, not an inward inspiration"! This is an interpretation of their belief which I think very few of them would be willing to accept, and which, as I conceive, does them gross injustice.

If the article, of which this paragraph is a part, had appeared as a separate publication, or if it stood in the "Journal" wholly on the personal responsibleness of the writer, however keen our sense of the inaccuracy of his description, we might be silent; but when a remark of this kind, casting undeserved opprobrium on "most" of those who belong to the Unitarian Association, and suited to wound their religious sensibilities, is found in the organ of that body, with the implied sanction, because without any word of dissent, of the officers whose names are presented to the eye in close proximity with the article, is it not a right and a duty to enter an earnest remonstrance against committing the authority of the Association to the support of such actual though undesigned misrepresentation?

G.

REMARKS BY THE EDITOR.

We certainly, in our remarks, only intended to characterize a system and its general influence, not the character of those who hold it or have held it. Jewish Monotheism we meant to describe as an undeveloped Monotheism, in which God was beheld as a Will chiefly, and in which the divine elements of Love and Wisdom were subordinate to Will. So, much of Christian Unitarianism has seemed to us deficient, because associated with a philosophy which left the Deity outside of the world and of the soul, as the Creator, Ruler, and Upholder of both, but not as the indwelling God.

But, if our language has suggested to others what it has evidently suggested to our excellent correspondent, we can only say that we expressed ourself imperfectly, and we are glad of his correction.

REV. G. G. INGERSOLL, D.D.

Born in Boston, 4th July, 1796; died in Keene, N.H., Sept. 16, 1863.

THE grave, that but a few days since received all that was mortal of the friend of our earlier and of our later years, is a mute and yet an eloquent monitor of truths at once consoling and elevating.

It was the simplicity that is in Christ and his gospel that particularly interested our departed friend. In the innocence and animation of childhood, he saw beautiful illustrations of the regeneration and life which the teachings of Christ and the grace of God would bring about

and consummate. His presence and pleasant words were always attractive to children; and they loved to look upon his cheerful countenance, and to hear his affectionate voice. The position of his mind, with regard to the truths of Christianity and its precepts, in distinction from the dogmas and rules of the Church, was decided. The state of his health, which was never strong, forbade his entering the arena of polemic strife; and it was more in accordance with his gentle and peaceful spirit to sit meekly at the feet of Jesus, and learn of the divine Teacher. Doubtless, if he had been gifted with a stronger constitution, he might have attained to a higher literary distinction. But it were in vain to look in that direction for the honor of him whom we commemorate; since the work which his Father gave him to do, was, in proportion to the strength given him, and in accordance with the temper with which he was endowed, well and faithfully done.

In Burlington, Vt., for twenty-two years, he gave his strength, all he had, and his affections in all their warmth, to the service of a kind and devoted people, in behalf of evangelical truth and righteousness. It was only at the call of a prostrate constitution that he resigned a pastorate so long and happily sustained. And the avidity with which his professional labors have been since sought in various places and for various periods, as his health would permit, testifies to their value and usefulness. Always cheerful, and thus exemplifying a prominent feature of our benignant religion, he was able to bear up under many infirmities. When others, perhaps, would have halted in the way, he has persevered to the end. His high honor, in the estimation of his friends, and that shall comfort them now that he is gone, is, that he has well done his life-work. His reward, by the grace of God, as we trust in Christ, is in heaven.

H.