« EdellinenJatka »
that the form of speech which expresses that one is the son of another being the same, except in the difference of the word understood, with that which expresses that one is the brother of another, we must be guided by the context in deciding which interpretation to put upon it. Now, as we have seen three good reasons for translating 'Ιούδας Ιακώβου by Jude (brother) of James, there is nothing to hinder our translating it thus, although the form of expression may be the same as would favor the translation Jude (son) of James.
Another objection. In Matt. x. 2, Peter and Andrew are given as brothers, likewise James and John; while in verse 3, James son of Alpheus, and Lebbeus, are not given as brothers. Moreover, in Luke vi. 14-16, the names of the brothers Peter and Andrew on the one hand, and James and John on the other, are placed beside each other; while those of James son of Alpheus, and Jude, are separated. Guericke concludes from this “that when two apostles are formally separated, we can hardly consider them as brothers."
But the variableness of the methods adopted by the evangelists in their enumeration of the apostles furnishes an easy refutation of both parts of this objection. In the first place, the fact that in Matt. x. 2, James son of Alpheus, and Jude, are not given as brothers, proves nothing, considering that Luke, in his two lists, in speaking of James and John, sons of Zebedee, does not say that they are brothers, (Luke vi. 14; Acts i. 13;) nor in that of Acts i. 13, does he likewise of Peter and Andrew. Finally, Mark, (iii. 17, 18,) as well as Luke, does not give Peter and Andrew as brothers.
The other point, that when two apostles are formally separated, we can hardly consider them brothers, is refuted in the same way, considering that Luke (Acts i. 13) separates two brothers, Peter and Andrew; also Mark, (iii. 16, 18.) Besides, in two of the evangelists the names of James and Thaddeus are put side by side. See Matt. x. 3, and Mark iii. 18. · We have thus "come back to our former conclusion, viz., that the apostle Jude is a brother of the apostle James, son of Alpheus, himself also the son of Alpheus.
Now, therefore,.We are in possession of one fact, which is,
that between the author of our epistle and the apostle Jude there exists a double resemblance, in that both are called Jude, and both had a celebrated brother known by the name of James. If we had not found mention made in the New Testament of another Jude,* who is called the adenoos of Jesus Christ, and who likewise had a brother by the name of James, the question of the authorship of our epistle would have been settled, that is to say, that our author was no other than the Apostle Jud:. But our attention now must first be directed to this Jude, the adenoos of Jesus Christ.
(TO BE CONTINUED.]
ART. II.—THE RELIGION OF PHRENOLOGY.
Moral Philosophy. By GEORGE COMBE. New York: W.
H. Colyer. Practical Phrenology. By 0. S. FOWLER. Theology and Moral Bearings of Phrenology and Physiology.
By 0. S. FOWLER, New York. Published by O. S. Fowler.
It is to be lamented when the discovery of new truths, or the construction, the defence and the practical application of a new science, fall to the lot of men who have little reverence for Divine Revelation, and no living faith in the truths of the Divine Word. Two untoward results are the natural consequence of this state of things. The minds of those who believe the inspired record are unnecessarily and injuriously prejudiced against a science, which is heralded to the world under such auspices; and Infidelity gains a temporary advantage, by the manner in which the champions of such new discoveries pervert and misinterpret the facts which they promulgate, in order to support false systems in metaphysics, and pernicious theories in morals. Such results
* Matt. xiii. 55, and Mark vi. 3. “ Is not his mother called Mary ? apd his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas ?”
are, however, but temporary in their character. Time, that great antidote to all falsehood, generally reveals the true state of the case, separates the precious from the vile, and thoroughly divides false theories, and hurtful deductions, from the facts of nature and science, with which they profess to be connected.
It is no part of our purpose to write an extended review of either of the works the titles of which we have placed at the head of this article. They do not appear to us to possess the intellectual, or moral characteristics to demand, or to repay such a notice at our hands. If it is asked, Why then direct attention at all to them ? our answer is threefold. They have a wide spread circulation and influence. We have met them in the city and in the wilderness; in the crowded emporiums of our eastern seaboard, and in the rising cities and villages in the Mississippi Valley. We have also reason for the painful conviction that they “have destroyed the faith of some;" and we believe that the next great battle between Christianity and Infidelity is to be fought on what purports to be scientific ground. In such circumstances it seems to us to become all Christians, and especially, all Christian ministers, thoroughly to understand the claims set up by Unbelief, and the arguments offered in its behalf.
It may be permitted us to say also, that we do not, at present, enter the lists, for or against what is called, “the science of Phrenology.” We are convinced that it has, so far at least as its fundamental principles are concerned, a basis of truth upon which it
may well rest secure. But whether this be so, or otherwise, is not an inquiry important to the purposes of our present investigation. Assuming, for the sake of this discussion, that such a science does exist, founded, like every other science, upon observed facts, and upon a careful induction from those facts, our business now is with the system of Ethics and Religion, which its more prominent advocates labor to educe from the science itself.
In the works before us, an attempt is made to establish a theory of morals and of religion, on purely phrenological grounds. It is claimed that Phrenology presents us with a perfect system of morals, and, to a large extent, of religion
also; nay more, it is further affirmed that it teaches duty, both more minutely and more accurately, than the Scriptures themselves. That we do not misrepresent, in making this assertion, let the following extract, among many that might be given, prove. Mr. Fowler, in his “Theology and Moral Bearings of Phrenology,” says:
“But where shall we find an unerring expositor of the moral nature of man? Such an expositor, once found, is our talisman, our philosopher's stone, in all matters of religious belief and practice. That found, WE NEED NOTHING ELSE. That obeyed, we are as perfect in conduct, as we are by creation. Where then can that stone be found ? In heaven? No, for we cannot get at it there. In the decalogue ? No, it is too short. In the Bible ? No, not all of it. But in the pages of Phrenology. That dissects it; lays man's moral nature completely open, and reveals every thread and fibre of it. Every law, every requirement, every doctrine, every action, required by the nature of man will be found in this book of man's moral and religious nature. And this science puts all these doctrines, all these requirements, on a scientific basis, on that same basis of positive actual fact on which the science of mathematics places mathematical truth. * * * It is all exact, all demonstrable, all certain, and all plain too. No mist envelopes any point of it. No dark spots remain upon its horizon. Every fact is as light as the noonday sun of eternal truth and unquestionable science can make it." Page 43.
This language is certainly sufficiently explicit, and, we think our readers would justify us in saying, impious also. It contains, most evidently, a claim to reveal clearly and completely man's moral nature, and his religious duties, from the light of Phrenology alone. If what is here asserted is true, in the full extent to which it is affirmed, then the Bible is an antiquated book, whose teachings have been superseded by the superior light, and the greater exactness of a modern science, and a science too, comparatively, yet in its infancy, but whose dawning radiance has even now eclipsed, and rendered useless, the light of the Sun of Righteousness. Be it remembered this last expression is no exaggeration of
It is here affirmed that, "we need nothing else;" that every law, every requirement, every doctrine, every action, required by the nature of man,” is here fully displayed, and completely taught, and that, “it is all exact, and all demonstrable.” It might, perhaps, be thought that we might rely upon the very extravagance, and the manifest absurdity of such a claim to furnish its own antidote, and might, in this instance at least, trust the criminal to find his own halter, and
become his own executioner. But we know that this doctrine notwithstanding reckons its disciples by thousands; that the books which inculcate it are scattered, like the leaves of Autumn, over the land, and that multitudes every year are corrupted through its influence.
Let us proceed to investigate the claim thus explicitly made, in its metaphysical basis; in the harmony of those who institute it, one with another; and in their agreement or disagreement with the revealed will of God.
If we undertake to examine the metaphysical basis, upon which this whole superstructure is reared, two topics of enquiry are naturally suggested.
We necessarily enquire, is the brain the master, or the servant, of the intellect? In other words, does the shape of the brain give character to the mind, or does the mental constitution control, and determine, the configuration of the brain ? If the first of these positions be taken, then it follows, as a necessary sequence, that all mental developments, and all moral character are, alike, the result of mere physical organization alone. Upon such a system the existence of moral accountability, and consequently of moral law, is a mere fig. ment of the imagination, because the attempt to attribute right or wrong to that which is the consequence solely of the accidents of man's material organization, is an absurdity quite too monstrous to require a moment of serious attention. But if the other position be assumed, that the brain is simply the servant of the mind, whose plastic shape is moulded by the spiritual agent which acts upon and operates through it-and this is, in fact, assumed by both these men, when they speak of the brain as the organ of the mind, and therefore simply as the medium through which the mind acts—if this position be assumed, then in Phrenology we have at best only what we before possessed, namely, a means of ascertaining what each man thinks to be right. Before, we had such means in his conversation and conduct, and generally, in the external fruits which his mind produced. Now, we have in addition, at best, only what man believes to be right, as developed in the external configuration of the brain, that plastic substance upon which the mind has enstamped its own image and superscrip