truth, and secure salvation. Celsus (A.D. 165) sneers at the Christians for believing that Christ "having failed to convince men here, betook himself to the Underworld to convince those who were there.” Origen denies that he failed to convince men here, and rejoices that he went as a "soul divested of its body to discourse to souls divested of their bodies," so that the dead and the living might have equal opportunities. Arnobius, too, rejoices that to "the souls of former times royal mercy had been imparted, and the divine benefits had equally flowed to all."

The expression in the Apostles' Creed, so called, "He descended into hell," has passed into the creeds of most of the Protestant churches, notwithstanding the difficulty involved in the question, What for? Of course they cannot accept the belief of the early Christians, that he went there to preach the gospel, to release "the spirits in prison," or to offer salvation to Jews or Gentiles who had died before his Advent. This would conflict with their favorite dogma of "no change after death," beside opening the way to the Catholic Purgatory, and making logically possible repentance and salvation hereafter.

The Lutheran Church says "it is enough to know that Christ went to Hell, destroyed Hell for believers, and freed them from the power of death, Devil, and eternal condemnation to Hell's jaws"; and therefore" we should spare inquiry as to the how until we reach the other world."

It is curious to note how little words mean sometimes, especially in theological formulas. What do the compilers of this Lutheran creed mean by "Hell" here? If torment after death, then how came believers" exposed to such peril? If they mean the grave or death, then do they intend to say that Christ "destroyed Hell (Death) for believers" only, and therefore that unbelievers will be annihilated, or will have no resurrection? They certainly mean neither - what then do they mean? There is a good deal in what Talleyrand says, "Language is employed to conceal our thoughts," and especially our difficulties. We think our Lutheran friends are wise, if they wish to save this article of their creed, in postponing all inquiry concerning it until they get into the next world.

The German and Dutch Calvinists, in the Heidelberg Catechism, answer the question, "Why did Christ descend into Hell?" as follows: "By his inexpressible anguish, pains, terrors, and hellish agonies he hath delivered me from the anguish and torments of Hell." Calvin himself says, "It is no wonder if he be said to have descended

into hell, since he suffered that death which the wrath of God inflicts on transgressors."

The English Church declares, “it is to be believed that he went down into Hell." In the first issue of the Articles, in 1562, it is said, "The spirit He gave up was with the spirits who were detained in prison, or the lower regions, and preached to them, as Peter testifies"; but in the revision under Elizabeth this was struck out, and nothing substituted in its place.

The Westminster Confession says that there are only two places "for souls separated from their bodies," Heaven and Hell, and “besides these the Scripture acknowledgeth none." Then it proceeds to affirm that believers "immediately after death are received into the highest heaven"; and yet with singular inconsistency it says of Christ that "He descended into hell, i. e., continued in the state of the dead, and under the power of death, until the third day.”

And so after all, we have three places for "souls separated from their bodies," for Hell means only "the state of the dead" in this Confession. And did the soul of Christ sleep in this state of the dead, or the Underworld, or was it conscious and active? If the last, what was he doing "until the third day?" Was he alone, or were there other spirits there; and were they good, or had, or both? If bad, did Christ preach to them? "Ay, there's the rub"; for, this admitted, repentance after death is possible, or the preaching was a miserable mockery. And then what becomes of our favorite text, "he that is filthy, let him be filthy still ; and that other text of home manufacture, “as death leaves us, so judgment finds us.” So difficult is it for error to be consistent.

On the point of ascent to Heaven "immediately after death," understood in the popular sense, it would seem that Orthodoxy has changed somewhat, as well as on others, since the days of Justin Martyr, who died about A. D. 167. He says to Trypho the Jew, in his usual im perious way, "If you meet with some who are called Christians, who affirm that there is no resurrection of the dead,2 but that at death their souls are received up into Heaven, do not regard them as Christians.'

2 Compare this with 1 Cor. xv. 12 and 2 Tim. ii. 18, where we have the expressions "there is no resurrection of the dead,” and “the resurrection is past already." Is it not possible that these deniers meant only that the soul ascended to Heaven "immediately after death?" And if so, are we to infer that Paul denied this doctrine? Hardly, since in 2 Cor. v., he uses "absent from the body" as the equivalent of being "present with the Lord."

NEW SERIFS. VOL. XVIII :

16

Prof. Huidekoper has rendered excellent service in putting the interested student on the track of early opinions regarding the Underworld Mission of Christ. It is a subject worthy of thought and patient study, as emphasizing the fact that in the earliest days of the Church, there was no one stereotyped set of opinions which could lawfully claim to be Orthodoxy, with the right to exclude all others as Heresy. Indeed, as we have said, many of the so-called heretics had far more spiritual views of Christ's religion than those who declared themselves Orthodox par excellence, and came nearer to his teachings in some things. The truth is, there is scarcely a single dogma of the second and third centuries on which there is identity of belief among the Fathers, or those church leaders who gave tone and shape to public opinion. There was always the same differences of thought and exposition, and the same freedom of discussion regarding them which prevail now.

The reading of Prof. Huidekoper's book may not increase our respect for the good sense or critical judgment of the Fathers, so called ; but it will help us to feel that we need not be troubled, so far as our faith in any special doctrine is concerned, whether these Fathers believed or disbelieved it, whether they denounced it as heresy, or glorified it as Orthodoxy.

Somnambulism, Spiritualism, Materialism.

On certain Conditions of Nervous Derangement, Somnambulism, Hysteria, Hysteriod Affections, etc. By William A. Hammond, M. D., Surgeon General of U. S. Army, &c. G. P. Putnam's Sons. $1.75.

We have read this book, portions of it several times, with a good deal of attention and thinking. It reports a large number of cases of nervous derangement in all its phases gathered from books and the author's professional practice; some of which are certainly of the most extraordinary character, and do not always get what seems to us a sufficient and satisfactory explanation. The author sweeps the entire field of disease, fraud and crazy folly, from epilepsy and false vision through somnambulism, witchcraft, convulsionaries, fasting girls, Shakers, Methodist camp meetings, Catholic miracles, devil dancing, supernatural cures, Mormonism, and up, or down as the case may be - to spiritualism; which last seems to be a favorite target for his heaviest guns.

We are no spiritualist, indeed, we hardly know what kind of proofs would make us such. We doubt, when we consider how the

senses cheat the coolest, clearest, and sometimes, even sceptical minds, whether we could exactly formulate the kind or the amount of evidence which would satisfy us that the claims of what is popularly known as spiritualism are well founded. And yet we are ready to admit that all its phenomena cannot be disproved by a sneer, nor a denial, nor by a simple assertion of fraud. Fraud enough there is, withour question, on the lower levels; but this admitted, there seems to us something on the higher levels, in the realm of mental wonders, which cannot be explained from this standpoint, nor yet from the point of nervous derangement. And it is just here, we think, that Dr. Hammond's book, as well as Dr. Maudsley's, fails to meet the case as regards spiritualism, somnambulism, &c. They are devoted too exclusively to the merely physical phenomena, which they are in very many cases quite successful in unravelling on the score of nervous disease; but to the mental developments they do not give the attention which their singularity and importance demands. This may be accounted for, in both cases, by their philosophy of mind. Our author says, "Science has for ages been fettered by theological and metaphysical dogmas, which give the mind an existence independent of the nervous system, and which teach that it is an entity which sets all the functions of the body in action, and of which the brain is the seat." Again he says, By the term mind I understand the force developed by nervous action." Of course, if mind and “ nervous force are not two things; but one and the same thing, then what explains the marvels of one explains those of the other. But we have not quite reached that conclusion yet, and so we feel the defects of Dr. Hammond's treatment. Take for example the following:

66

"A young girl under my professional care, was cataleptic on au average once a week, and epileptic twice or three times in the intervals. Five years previously she had spent six months in France, but had not acquired more than a very slight knowledge of the language; scarcely, in fact, sufficient to enable her to ask for what she wanted at her meals. Immediately before her cataleptic seizures she went into a state of ecstasy, during which she recited poetry in French, and delivered harangues about virtue and godliness in the same language. She pronounced at these times exceedingly well, and seemed never at a loss for a word. She was an excellent example of what Mrs. Hardinge calls a "trance medium." The materialistic influence of bromide of potassium, however, cured her of her catalepsy and epilepsy, destroyed her knowledge of the French tongue, and made her corporeal structure so gross that the spirits refused to make further use of it for their manifestations." p. 117.

Now we think Dr. Hammond in his anxiety to drop a bombshell into the magazine of spiritualism, has overlooked the fact, that spiritualism out of the question, he has here a problem which is hardly solved by the cabalistic utterance, "nervous derangement." Can he tell us and we honestly ask for information; we have no point to make, no theory to defend can he tell us why the nerves, which in a sound and healthy condition can not master French at all, or do not, stumbling and blundering even in the simple matter of asking for bread, when deranged and diseased can talk French as fluently and correctly as a native Parisian, even to the nicety of perfect pronunciation, so difficult for a foreigner? We think he has here a mystery as great as any that spiritualism offers for his solution. If mind is only "force developed by nervous action," why should this “force” when disorganized and lawless in action know so much more than when acting normally and naturally? Is there any possible or supposable connection in this case between disordered nerves and the French language? If so what is? it what have the nerves to do with such a sudden and mysterious access of knowledge? mark, not of the intellectual power to learn, but of learning itself.

There surely appears to be here a something that demands a more satisfactory explanation than either spiritualism or materialism has furnished. Mrs. Hardinge says it is the spirit of a dead Frenchman who talks through the girl. Admit that she is wrong; and we believe she is, without doubt. Dr. Hammond says it is nervous derangement; but how much is explained by this? how much more do we know now than we did before? how much more does he know? It is simply an explanation which itself requires to be explained.

Let us supplement this case with that of the West Point servant girl, which we remember to have heard about forty years ago, and which was quite the talk among the disciples of mesmerism. Here was an ignorant girl whose life had been spent in the work of the kitchen, who knew nothing of chess, not one piece from another, when in her normal condition; and yet when in her somnambulistic state she could beat the best players to be found. Officers from the fort, who were exceptionally skilled in the game, were beaten repeatedly and quickly as if mere children. Yet as said, when she recovered from these attacks, she could not tell the king from a pawn; and what is more, did not remember one thing of what she had been doing while asleep.

Here we have a simila su lden, almost instantaneous development