REMARKS. It is our object to give fairly and fully both sides of all questions which enter into our religious belief. It is for this reason that we have admitted into our columns so much as we have in opposition to the Sabbath, endeavoring at the same time to show wherein we thought the reasoning defective and fallacious. We once saw a remark in an Advent paper against such a course. The remark was that they did not hold to throwing out poison for the sake of giving an antidote. But when we look into the colums of that paper, what do we see? No lack of posion to be sure; but true to their word, the conductors present no antidote to counteract its effects. Now humanity would seem to dictate that if they are bound to present no antidote they should at least withhold the poison. But we are willing to submit it to the common sense of any man as to which is the better way, to throw out poison as palatable and wholesome food, or to show it up as poison when we see it infecting the minds of men, present the antidote, and put people on their guard against it. We prefer the latter; nor do we intend to deviate from this policy, until we shall see something a trifle more sensible, at least, than the above reason, urged against it.
According to the adage that a man does not really believe who has never doubted, we can say that a person cannot be said to be thoroughly grounded in any theory till he has posted himself in regard to all that can be said against it. And being desirous of presenting our readers with every thing that can be said in opposition to the doctrine of life through Christ alone, so that when they take their stand upon that great and harmonious truth, they may do it with a consciousness that they are taking a position which the wisest, the wittiest, or the wickedest can neither gainsay nor resist, we give the above extract from R. W. Landis.
Perhaps comment is here unnecessary; but it being so manifest a case of attempted theological jugglery, we have a remark on two to offer concerning it.
The extract leads off with an assumption that a soul was added to the corporeal Adam. We say assumption; for it has no support from reason or revelation. Adam was formed of the dust of the ground. His organism was perfect and complete, only waiting to be endowed with life. The only act then performed for man of which we have any account, was the breathing into his nostrils the breath of life, the imparting to him the vital principle, which set the organism in motion; and all the phenomena since exhibited in man result from that organism. Disturb this organism and the results no longer follow. Disturb the operations of the brain, and thought and intelligence at once cease. The possibility of the existence of a mind without a brain yet remains to be proved.
God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life; and Mr. Landis asks where this can be said of any other animal. We answer by asking what possible importance there can be in the manner of imparting this breath of life, since we are assured that all other animals are in possession of it equally with man, that it is in their nostrils as well as his, and that they are also called living souls. These facts are plainly stated; but how is it that a knowledge of them on our part incapacitates us for understanding "philological criticism," he does not tell. The "criticism" he had in mind must evidently be something contrary to these plain statements of the Bible, else there would be no difficulty in our understanding it, or at least in giving assent to it.
But Mr. L. is evidently dissatisfied with the expression "breath of life;" so much so that he does not presume to let it pass uncorrected. We are therefore towards the end of the extract created to his version of the matter, as follows: "He imparted to him directly (breathed into his face, countenance) a principle of intelligence!" So the "breath of life," has finally turned into a "principle of intelligence." Now note his method of arriving at this result. 1st. The animal creation needed an intelligent governor. 2d. Man without this added soul, this principle of intelligence was as unfit for this position as the ourang-outang; therefore 3d. God did in man's case what was done in no other instance of all the animal creation. Now mark: it is here covertly insinuated that man before his endowment with intelligence, which according to Mr. L. is the "breath of life," was a living being. "As yet," says he, "man was only their equal;" that is, the equal of the other living animals; and no more fit to be the governor of the creation than the ourang-outang; implying in all this that man before he received the breath of life, was alive like the other animals. But what lyre in Biblical knowledge will be willing to subscribe to such a sentiment? Every one will be able to detect it as a palpable falsehood. It is then but too apparent that Mr. L. has here endeavored to lead the reader unwittingly to harbor the impression that Adam was alive before he received the breath of life, that consequently God's breathing into his nostrils the breath of life, was not imparting to him life so that he became a living being, but was breathing into his countenance an intelligent principle, superaddling to his nature an immortal soul. Let not the author of such an effort charge upon Mr. Dobney or his friends "a culpable equivocation."