Is the Lord's Hand shortened?
Kerry Duke

There is an astonishing doctrine among us. It is the belief that the hand of God no longer intervenes in the world. Once whispered in the ear, this view is now shouted from the housetops. Its proponents are becoming bold, and the following statements reveal that this thinking is more widespread and more deeply entrenched in the church than many have realized. One preacher was asked, "Is it scriptural to ask God to help us when we preach to say the right thing? Does God help us in some way?" His total response was:

"I know of no scripture that authorizes praying for a 'ready recollection' for any preacher. To me the request is the same as asking for a direct/immediate intervention of Deity. Brethren should know better."

Another preacher and editor was asked, "If a brother prays before a preacher gets up to preach, 'Lord help the speaker remember what he has prepared to say, and help him say something that will help us,' is that prayer scriptural (can God and does God do something to answer that prayer other than having given the Bible)?" His complete yet bewildering response was:

"Are you asking if God gives utterance to people today as he did to the apostles in Acts 2:4, and as requested by Paul in Eph. 6:19?"

Another brother is so extreme that he writes "God's word does not speak of God's providential care" and charges anyone who believes in providence with upholding the Baptist doctrine of special providence as a necessary part of the once saved, always saved teaching! His mechanical view of the universe is:

"The creation of the heavens and the earth was so perfect that 'all things' remain today just as they were created."

This same brother told me in a conversation that it is even unbiblical to say that God sustains the world!

Consider some promises and statements in the Bible that are rendered void by the position these brethren take:

• God is involved in government. God "raised up" Pharaoh to power (Exod. 9:16). He puts down one and sets up another (Ps. 75:7). He gives kingdoms to whomever He decides and sets up the basest of men over them (Dan. 4:17). If God is not acting in our lives, why does Paul say to pray for rulers (I Tim. 2:1-2)? When we pray for our leaders, are we hoping nature will be good to them or are we pledging to ourselves that we will try to teach them the Bible? Or, are we asking God to do something else—something we cannot observe, something God does behind the scenes?
• Praying for open doors. Jesus said, "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened" (Matt. 7:7). Is it right to pray for opportunities to teach others? Paul asked the church at Colosse to pray "that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ" (Col. 4:3). He also told the brethren in Thessalonica, "Pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course . . . and that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men" (II Thess. 3:1-2). Is it scriptural to pray this prayer today? When we do, are we just acknowledging what will happen anyway, or are we simply hoping out loud?
• Praying for workers. Jesus said, "Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth laborers into his harvest" (Matt. 9:38). Is this prayer scriptural today, or is Jesus talking about God only miraculously sending laborers in the first century? If we can pray this prayer today, are we asking God to perform a miracle or override the free will of people? Are we simply acknowledging what nature will do or hoping a Bible might reach a prospective worker for the kingdom? Or, are we asking for God to intervene in a way that is beyond our comprehension? God set Paul apart from the time he was born (Gal. 1:15). God was behind some of the training and experiences of Paul before his conversion. How did God "separate" Paul from his birth? Through miracles? Through the Word only? By empowering nature to give Paul rain and food so he could live? Or, was there something else that God did?
• Any number of prayers for ourselves. Is it scriptural to pray that the sick will get better? Is it biblical to pray that God will keep us safe on the highways? Is it scriptural to pray for our soldiers and policemen? Is it biblical to pray for strength in times of trial? Can we legitimately ask God to comfort the bereaved? The Bible says to pray for wisdom (James 1:5). Will these brethren contend that this verse does not apply today? The Bible says, "the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much" (James 5:16). Will they say that praying really only acknowledges what God has done and that it actually accomplishes nothing?

These brethren are enclosed by a wall of fear on either side. On one hand, they are terrified to admit that God acts in ways other than the written Word or through what we observe in nature because they might be accused of being Calvinists or Pentecostals. On the other hand, if they come right out and deny that God intervenes in the world (although a few do this), they know the people in the pew will reject them. So, they say they believe in "providence" when what they mean is that they believe the observable processes of nature, the written Word of God, and the free will of man account for all that happens in this life. According to them, we live in a world where God does not answer our prayers and the devil does not tempt us. To be consistent, they would have to say, as the brother cited earlier said, that God does not even sustain the world! This is so because if God cannot act "directly" upon the world, then how does or how can He sustain it? If God cannot act directly or immediately on the world, then how does He or how can He sustain it, except indirectly or not at all? This is just one of the incredible consequences of the position they have taken.

This teaching is frustrating to those who are trying to understand the controversy, discouraging to all who pray for God's help, and embarrassing to those of us who try to teach people outside the church who also believe God intervenes providentially. But the doctrine of God's intervention behind the scenes of this life is a precious promise. "I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee" (Heb. 13:5). "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" (Matt. 28:20). God deliver us from the cold, naturalistic philosophy that seeks to rob us of the comfort and assurance of the promise of divine aid. I will no more allow a man to take this teaching away from me than I will allow a man to break into my home and take my loved ones. As Moses Lard said, I cling to it like I cling to my very breath!

Do They Sing 'Amazing Grace'?
Malcolm L. Hill

We have some preachers and brethren who believe that God has nothing to do with the operation of the world at the present, and their position pushes them to disbelieve that God answers the prayers of Christians. They do not believe that God intervenes in present affairs. They reject "divine intervention," thus, they do not believe in the providence of God. Most of these brethren are afraid to come out with their true belief along this line. They know that the greater part of the brotherhood will be against them. Their position would have many of our hymns we sing to be unscriptural. Do they sing them? Does the church where they attend sing them? Let us show you what we mean.

They could not sing "Be With Me Lord." They could not sing "Hold to God's Unchanging Hand." They could not sing "Great is Our God." They could not sing "Tell Them of Jesus." They could not sing "A Wonderful Savior." They could not sing "Amazing Grace." They could not sing "A Blessing in Prayer." They could not sing "Abide With Me." They could not sing "Anywhere With Jesus." In fact, the songbook they could use would be very thin because many songs in our hymns tell us about God and His being with us in providence, as well as being with us in the world.

We pray for God to strengthen us as Christians. We pray for God to bless the Lord's Supper, and we ask Him to help us take it in a worthy manner. We pray for God to be with us when our loved ones die or are sick. We pray for God to be with our family and our children in particular. We pray for God to see us through perilous times. We pray to God to help the church grow. We pray to God for many, many things. If God has nothing to do with us, then for what can we pray? When folks take God out of the world and His church, things get quite lonely and dead.

God still lives and works in the universe, which includes the world where we live. How hopeless and sad this life would be if Christians did not have God to lean on and have as a helper — and this does not mean that God still works miracles today. We do not know how God works today, but we know He does because the Bible teaches us He does, and this is enough. We will leave the way God works today up to Him and go on trusting His word.

Does the Devil Do Anything?
Kerry Duke

1. True or False: The devil is an actual spirit being.
2. True or False: The devil sustains the physical world.
3. True or False: The devil worked in open-view supernatural ways in New Testament times (e.g., demon possession).
4. True or False: The devil worked behind the scenes in New Testament times.
5. True or False: The devil works miraculously in the world today.
6. True or False: The devil speaks directly to people today.
7. True or False: The devil overrides the free will of men today.
8. True or False: The devil tempts men today.
9. True or False: The devil works in the world.
10. True or False: The devil acts upon the world today.
11. True or False: The devil does something to the world today.
12. True or False: The devil "uses" the world to tempt man without affecting the world.
13. True or False: The devil can act upon the world without performing a miracle.
14. True or False: The devil can act upon the soul of a man without performing a miracle.
15. True or False: Temptation occurs solely because of the lust of man.
16. True or False: Temptation occurs solely because of things in the world.
17. True or False: Passages which say the devil tempts us actually mean that we tempt ourselves.
18. True or False: Passages which say the devil tempts us actually mean the physical world tempts us.
19. True or False: Passages which say the devil tempts us actually mean he really does nothing.
20. True or False: All passages stating that the devil tempts man are merely symbolic.

Questions about passages on the devil:

1. The devil "put into the heart of Judas Iscariot Simon's son, to betray him" (John 13:2). Did the devil put this into Judas' heart:
   1. by words he spoke to Judas?
   2. through natural laws?
   3. by a miracle?
   4. by overriding Judas' free will?
   5. through some other means that is unrevealed and undiscernible to man?
2. Jesus said, "Satan. . . taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts" (Mark 4:15). How does he take away the word sown in these hearts? Does he do this:
   1. by words he speaks to these people?
   2. by using natural laws?
   3. by a miracle?
   4. by overriding their free will?
   5. through some other means that is unrevealed and undiscernible to man?
3. Paul gave instructions to husbands and wives so that "Satan tempt you not for your incontinency" (I Cor. 7:5). How does Satan tempt us?
   1. by words he speaks to us directly?
   2. through natural laws?
   3. by a miracle?
   4. by overriding our free will?
   5. through some other means that is unrevealed and undiscernible to man?
4. The Bible says, "Resist the devil, and he will flee from you" (James 4:7). When this verse says resist the devil, does this mean:
   1. you are merely struggling with yourself inside?
   2. you are simply to deny yourself of something appealing in the world?
   3. the devil is actually doing something in some unseen way to entice you to sin, and you are to resist this temptation?
5. The Bible says Satan caused the loss of Job's livestock, his servants, his children, and his health (Job 1-2). How did the devil cause all this suffering? Was it:
   1. by miraculous power over nature?
   2. by working behind the scenes?
   3. by speaking directly to the Sabeans and Chaldeans?
   4. by overriding the will of the Sabeans and Chaldeans?

Note: If the devil can work in the world without performing a miracle, why would anyone have a problem saying that God does? Or will some brethren say that God does not answer prayer and the devil does not really tempt us?

Some additional questions:

One journal says, "Whenever preachers get a taste of 'success' (large congregations, multiple meetings, exposure from articles/books, and such like), Satan will try to use that to tempt them with pride." Consider these thoughts:

1. Would it be fair to charge the brother with teaching modern-day demon possession?
2. Would it be fair to say the brother has Satan overriding the free will of man and is espousing Calvinism?
3. Would it be fair to say that the brother believes in modern-day miracles?
4. Is the brother teaching a direct operation of Satan, and is he a false teacher if he believes this?
5. Is it not true that the brother teaches that there is some effect the devil has on us that is undiscernible and cannot be attributed to direct revelation, miraculous intervention, or the laws of nature in themselves?

One commentator said that the principalities and powers of Ephesians 6:17 are "evil spirits" or "invisible foes" (David Lipscomb, Commentary on Ephesians). He also said "there is no part of the earth to which their influence does not extend." Lipscomb was frustrated at "the number of those who scorn the idea of personal evil spirits whose sole aim is to antagonize the Lord's work." Consider these questions regarding his views:

1. Do these statements teach modern-day demon possession?
2. Did Lipscomb believe in modern-day miracles?
3. Did Lipscomb believe evil spirits influence men through spoken words?
4. Should this writing be considered heretical? Did Lipscomb teach a direct operation of evil spirits?

Some argue that the devil only works in the world indirectly "through" the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. But what does this mean, if it has meaning at all? Does this mean:

1. That he "tempts" man by example only as men hear about him and follow in his steps?
2. That he puts physical things in front of people to tempt them? But how can he do this without acting directly on these things? And how could he have caused the tragedies in Job 1-2 without acting directly and immediately in some undiscernible way?
   Note: Part of the problem is that brethren automatically assume that "direct" and "immediate" imply the miraculous. This is not true. If the devil acts on the world at all, he must act directly and immediately on something, otherwise, he does not act at all. As long as one does not believe the devil overrides the free will of man or that he communicates directly to man, then why do brethren feel compelled to postulate some "missing link" in Satan's — or God's — acting upon the world?

Me and My Circle
Simon the Pharisee

When I became a member of the church, my circle was very large: for it included all who, like myself, had believed and had been baptized. I was happy in the thought that my brethren were many. But I soon learned to my sorrow that all brethren were not true brethren. A man with a keen mind will learn a lot through observation and I have been a close and constant observer of the brethren down through the years. In watching them, I have discovered their errors. I was forced, time and again, to draw my circle so as to exclude the errorist: for I could not with good conscience tolerate any people within my circle except those who, like myself, were right in all points of doctrine and practice. Every time I drew my circle I placed myself inside where I belonged. By watching the lives of those left within my circle I learned that some had sinned and made mistakes. I was sorely grieved. What could I do about this? What else could a righteous man do than that which I have already done? Good men must avoid sinful men.

So in righteous indignation,

My circle I drew again,

Leaving the publican and sinners without

And me and the righteous within.

I observed that many were self-righteous, unforgiving; they thought they were the only good people in the world. I do not like people who think too highly of themselves and set all others at naught.

So, as a matter of discipline,

My circle I drew again,

Leaving the self-righteous without

And me and the humble within.

Ugly rumors I heard about this brother and that. Brethren should not allow ugly rumors to get started on them. I have never allowed such rumors to circulate about me. Now, what should a man with a good reputation do with brethren in bad repute? Should he not guard his own good name?

In order to save my good name,

My circle I drew again,

Leaving the disreputable without

And me and the reputable within.

My circle had become small. Yet I continued to watch the mistakes in the lives of the brethren. I learned that some of them, though not out-and-out sinners, were worldly minded. I have a way of knowing what brethren are thinking about! The pleasures in which they participate were questionable. They should participate in innocent pleasures. For instance, they should not drink coffee, but like me, drink tea.

So, through a solemn sense of duty,

My circle I drew again,

Leaving the worldly minded out

And the spiritual within.

Only my family and I were left. I wanted my family on the inside, because I loved my family—every member of it. I have a good family. The members of my family were always right except when they disagreed with me. Finally, my family and I had a fuss. There were two sides to this fuss. I was on one side and my family on the other. My side was right and when a man is right he should be steadfast. In all my experiences in church troubles I have never been a factious man. I have always been identified with the true church and never a faction.

So in courage and determination,

My circle I drew again,

Leaving my factious family on the outside

And me and the reputable within.

Reflections on Providence from 1865
Kerry Duke

The July, 1865 issue of Lard's Quarterly began with an article by J. B. Grubbs entitled "The Miraculous and the Providential." In this insightful article Grubbs offers some interesting observations about divine providence. He rejected the theory of providence which says God pre-programmed the world by His perfect foreknowledge so that certain events would coincide precisely at the right time:

Rejecting, therefore, this method of explaining the agency in question, and agreeing with Dr. McCosh, that "it is not needful to suppose that God interposes to change his own laws" to secure the ends of his providence, we shall see whether he, as a believer in the doctrine of special providence, has furnished an explanation of it, which is based upon principles more philosophic and satisfactory. "How is it that God sends us the bounties of his providence? How is it that he supplies the many wants of his creatures? How is it that he encourages industry? How is it that he arrests the plots of wickedness? How is it that he punishes in this life notorious offenders against his law? The answer is, by the skillful prearrangements of his providence, whereby the needful events fall out at the very time and in the way required. When the question is asked, How does God answer prayer? we give the very same reply: it is by a preordained appointment, when God settled the constitution of the world, and set all its parts in order." In this exposition of providential interposition the miraculous certainly disappears, but with it also disappears the peculiar agency demanding explanation. A general providence is all that is left us. The supposition of nothing more than "prearrangements" and "preordained appointments," all set in order "when God settled the constitution of the world," we look upon as wholly incompatible with the theory of special providence.

Grubbs is right in denying this theory. This view of providence has been critiqued before in the Living Oracles (Jan.-Feb. 205, pp. 4-5). The theory is mere speculation about the operations of the physical world only and does not address the question of spiritual influences in this life, whether divine or Satanic. For instance, if providence is nothing more than God creating the world and setting its parts on timers, then how does the devil work in the world? He neither created the world nor sustains it, and Job 1-2 shows he did not pre-program the world when it was created so that these afflictions would happen to Job. This theory is based on guesswork, contains glaring inconsistencies, falls short of explaining key aspects of providence, and does nothing to help refute Calvinism or Pentecostalism.

Grubb's next observation deserves serious and prolonged meditation. Toward the end of the article, he wrote:

In our reflections hitherto upon the various theories of providential interposition and the constitution of the universe we have discovered but two classes of events—the miraculous and the purely natural, or such as result from the mere mechanical operation of the various forces existing in nature. We have now reached a third class, which can not be regarded as miraculous, since they are in strict accordance with the general laws of nature, nor can they be regarded as purely natural, since they result from a cause which does not belong to the established order of things. In this case, the effect produced, instead of flowing from the commencement of the present order of things through a connected series of causes and effects, is attributable to the agency of a higher cause, acting directly upon the established system, and without the suspension or counteraction of any of its essential parts accomplishing the specific end in view, in perfect harmony with the uniformity of the course of nature. How this is done is inconceivable, of course, but the fact itself is not on that account to be denied or disbelieved, since the same mysterious combination is found in every material organism whose movements are regulated by the dictates of a presiding will. All the actions of the human body take place in harmony with general laws, yet they flow in every instance from a special effort of the will. The relation which the human soul sustains to the organism in which it dwells is analogous in some respects to that which the Divine Being sustains to the material universe, and both must remain alike inexplicable till we can comprehend the general relations of spiritual to material existence. How God operates in and through the "laws of order," which, in the beginning he saw fit to establish, we pretend not to explain, but the human countenance does not more impressively manifest the presence of the human soul than does the beauteous face of nature reveal to the eye of Christian faith the presence and power of that august Spirit, without whom the whole universe would appear as dull and lifeless as a cold and palid corpse. Well did the Psalmist exclaim in the deep fervor of his enraptured soul: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork"; for animated with his living presence, the works of his hands glow with divine beauty, and deeply impress the earnest heart and thoughful mind with the great and fearful truth that God lives and moves through all the universe which he has made.

Grubbs, writing in an age when brethren were at war with Calvinism and in a journal that was on the front line of this battle, did not hesitate to assert that divine power acts "directly upon the established system" in providence. Brethren then fought Calvinism as hard or harder than we do, yet Lard as the editor did not consider him a heretic for using this terminology. "Directly" in this statement does not mean visibly or miraculously. Robert Richardson's article "Christian Knockings" in the June, 1851 issue of the Millennial Harbinger mentioned "direct, spiritual communication"—not verbal communication, but communion or communication in the sense of power or influence exerted.

Grubbs' intriguing analogy of the body and the spirit does not, as he confessed, explain how divine providence works. That working is truly "inconceivable." But this parallel does provide a defense against Christians who try to reduce everything that happens to the laws of nature. These laws "govern" things in the physical world—a realm of time and space. The spirit of man "dwells" in the body and moves it. But how can a spirit, which does not occupy space, be in the body? The spirit has no weight, appearance, or dimensions. The skin does not confine the soul so that it stays "inside" the body. The law of gravity does not hold the soul in the body to keep it from floating into the air. When the spirit leaves the body at death, the dead body does not weigh a certain number of pounds less. The spirit's dwelling in the body does not contradict the law of gravity because this law does not apply to this union. The dwelling of the spirit in the body does not suspend this law of nature. It transcends it. The laws of nature hold that two physical objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time and that physical movement is caused by a physical force. Yet the spirit of man dwells in the body and moves the body without violating these laws, and preachers who have gone to an extreme on this subject do not call these feats miracles. Also, the influence of the spirit on the body is direct and immediate, but this influence does not violate the laws of nature. If the spirit of man acts upon the body in a direct, immediate manner without violating the laws of nature, then why cannot God act upon the world and upon man in a direct, immediate manner without violating them?

Moses Lard followed Grubbs' article with some observations of his own. He challenged readers to give a precise definition of a miracle. Brethren today who claim that providential help from God, such as His answering the prayer "Lord, help the preacher remember what he has prepared to say," would amount to a miracle, need to think through this question. To call any divine act or influence a miracle simply because it cannot be explained by the laws of nature is terribly simplistic. Lard is not our standard, but he was no imbecile either. He wrestled with the question and confessed its difficulty. R. L. Whiteside, who was no novice in Bible study, admitted the same: "Let me ask: Can you really define, or explain, what a miracle is?" (Gospel Advocate, Dec. 1942, p. 1238). Here are Lard's thoughts (Grubbs wrote under the pen name Philip):

Philip's article inaugurates in the Quarterly the discussion of a subject which every thinker will readily admit to be at once important and difficult. That there have been miracles, the Bible affirms; that there is a providence, no Christian denies. This makes the topics important. Yet neither that nor this is the subject of formal Bible decision. This makes their discussion difficult. Yet we believe they should be discussed, and that, too, in a more direct way and on a more extended scale than Philip has adopted. In order to this, the first thing necessary is the true definition of a miracle. I have never yet seen one that I felt to be satisfactory; nor do I believe that such a one is in print. What is a miracle? Who can answer precisely, giving neither too much nor too little? Again: what is the exact definition of the providential? What are we talking about when we are talking about the thing? If definable, let us have the definition; if describable, let us have the description. Then let the line, deep and bright, be drawn between the miraculous and the providential—between the providential and the non-providential. Then on all these definitions and distinctions let the Bible be laid, that we may see how complete the correspondence between the human work and the facts and implications of the divine volume; and if differences exist, in what they consist and how they may be remedied. Then shall we begin to approach the final, and therefore the satisfactory. The popular mind is cloudy, particularly on the subject of the providential. Who will speak to its clarifying? Philip's object was one—the refutation of a subtle infidel objection. In this object we think him successful. We here propose another object in harmony with his—a really antecedent work, and one underlying his. Is there an immediate intervention of the divine in human affairs? If so, where shall we find the proof—in the Bible or elsewhere, or in the Bible and elsewhere? To all these hints and questions we should delight to have a masterly response.

Articles on the Article
Kerry Duke

There is a mistake I have seen more times than I can remember concerning the Greek. It is the assumption that anytime the definite article occurs before a noun, this definite article in the Greek should be translated "the." For instance, if the Greek definite article comes before a noun like pistis, faith, many conclude that "the faith" or the system of faith, the gospel, is meant. Sometimes this construction does signify "the faith" and should be so translated. But the context determines whether "the faith" or a person's "faith" is the meaning, not the mere presence or absence of the definite article.

Just a little reading and translating of the Greek New Testament exposes the fallacy of this assumption. Consider Paul's statement in Titus 2:2 that older men are to be "sound in faith, in charity, in patience." Each of these three nouns has the definite article. Would anyone suggest that this expression should be translated "sound in the faith, in the charity, in the patience"? There are numerous other examples in the New Testament, but this one case is enough to prove that attempting to translate the definite article in every case with "the" in the English will not work. The Greek definite article is varied and flexible in its use, and no single "rule" of translation will cover all these uses.

Again, the context is the key, not a pre-made and artificial "rule" of translation. Interestingly enough, the most knowledgeable students of Greek must use this factor in order to decide whether "the faith" or someone's "faith" is the meaning intended.

The Lord's Prayer According to Some Brethren
Kerry Duke

Our Father which stays in heaven,
Removed from us is your hand.
Thy intervention is gone.
Thy will has already been done,
In earth as it was in heaven.
The creation will give us this day our daily bread
And forgive us for asking you to intervene,
As we forgive those who intervene against us.
And we will not lead ourselves into temptation,
But we promise to deliver ourselves from evil.
For ours is the kingdom and the power, and the glory, forever, Amen.

Christian Knockings
Robert Richardson—Millennial Harbinger June, 1851

We have already adverted to man's spiritual susceptibility. We have found that they who deny, in general, the existence of direct, spiritual communication in these our days of philosophical refinement, admit, at least, that Satan still retains this power. And well they may, for the proofs of it are abundant. To what other source, for instance, shall we attribute it, that a man in the night watches, in the midst of silence and darkness, where there is neither word, nor look, nor gesture, to suggest ideas: that a man, I say, under these circumstances, as it appears in confessions of criminals, shall have thrown into his mind suggestions of crime; that he shall then form conceptions of atrocious iniquity, and in these seemingly solitary communings with himself, digest and arrange his nefarious purposes, and nerve himself to carry them into execution? The questions here are simply these: Does man himself originate evil? If not; is not Satan, in the case supposed, just as present in the individual thus cogitating and resolving, as is the soul of this individual itself? And again, on the other hand, when a man, under similar circumstances, devises plans of beneficence; when he feels his heart burning with desire to accomplish good, and with love to God and men; when he is filled with inexpressible happiness in the contemplation of the divine character, and with earnest desires and fixed determinations to fulfil the obligations of duty, is not the Holy Spirit of God just as present to that man as is his own spirit? How is it possible for any one to make a difference? Are we to refer such reflections to re-awakened memories of the past, or explain their cause away, as a simple association of ideas? The question will then recur, who awakened these memories? Who associated these ideas, so as to lead to such results? Are human affairs fortuitous? Is man ruled and directed by chance? Or is there a plan in his destiny and a method in his progress?

But it is not necessary to take cases where individuals are wholly secluded from external avenues of communication, and where it is manifestly impossible for them to receive any suggestions through the bodily senses. We hold it to be impossible for any mortal to trace always to words, gestures, look, or any other external modes of exciting mental action, the thoughts and reflections which pass through the mind in the midst of day and in the usual pursuits of life. It is in the city, amidst the crowd, in the busiest mart of commerce, that we would willingly select the example, and we should in vain call upon our mental philosopher to trace to external circumstances each thought that presented itself to the mind during the brief period of a single day. It is true, indeed, that the general current of thought may be found connected with the particular matters in which the individual is engaged. It may be shown that the words, looks, gestures, etc., of his associates, have suggested various ideas to his mind. But this will not be enough. It will fairly devolve upon the propounder of the theory in question, to show that it is applicable to all the workings of the mind, and that it can account for the origin of every thought and of every impulse that may have been communicated to it.

It is perfectly natural, that the general train of a man's ideas should be directly connected with the impressions made on his senses by the things around him. Every such impression is a knock at a door of the mind, which opens readily at the summons. But the mind must have more doors than the senses furnish, else inspiration would be impossible, and revelation incredible. It is doubtless the well known general connection of thought with the things around, that has led many to suppose all thought to be thus connected, and man to be thus a mere creature of circumstances; a shapeless mass, fashioned by the plastic power of accident; a fragile bark, without captain, crew or pilot, impelled by every wind, and the sport of every wave. By nothing, however, in the wide-spread domains of nature, has the suggestion ever been made to the minds of these philosophers that there may be a great difference between the ordinary working of the mind's machinery, and the forces by which that machinery is moved, and between both of these and the influences by which the course of an individual is directed. However powerful the apparatus which propels a missile, it is not to be confounded with the force that moves, much less with the circumstances, often slight and imperceptible, which give direction to that which is propelled. It is not by the blustering winds or bellying sails; by the noisy crew or the bustling and vociferous commander, that the stately ship is made to take a particular direction amidst the watery waste, but by the unobserved action of the rudder, moved only at intervals by the silent and solitary steersman at the wheel. As well might we attempt to account for the ship's track by the working of the sails and the force of the winds alone, as to explain the course of any individual by mere motivity, in its common acceptation.

The general connection, indeed, of the thoughts with sensation and with present objects, is not to be doubted. By this the mind is crowded with images and set in motion, and it is this very movement which enables the spiritual pilot to vary the course at pleasure, by the gentlest action of the helm. That the pressure of external circumstances will often drive the mind from the intended track, is also true, but it will speedily be brought back again to the course prescribed. It is not these transient and accidental influences which shape man's destiny; neither is this accomplished by the busy throng of sensations which crowd the mind in the common pursuits of life. On the contrary, we presume that every observing and intelligent mind will be able to trace to its periods of solitary musing, those guiding suggestions which have directed its future course. It is when the soul is most abstracted from the bustle of the world, that it is most susceptible of communion with the spiritual system; and hence it is made an important duty, on the part of the Christian, to retire often to solitude, to pray in secret, and seek the holy spiritual fellowship of the gospel in silent meditation.

How very slight, how imperceptible to man himself, may be the occasional impulse which gives direction to thought! How often is it the case that a single idea will revolutionize the whole mind and character of an individual! How easy, one would think, for a spirit, present with the soul, and familiar with its workings, to give, at the proper moment, the necessary impulse to direct its course! And it is direction that is needed, rather than new revelations to the mind. It is the grouping together of particular ideas, the awakening of particular memories, the fixing of the attention upon particular circumstances, which lead the mind to new resolves, and even to new discoveries and applications of truth. Surely man's spiritual habitability, and the laws of the human mind itself, would render it not only possible, but altogether probable, that spiritual beings, in attempting to influence his conduct, would not only dwell in him, but touch with skill those chords of his nature which might best suit their purposes—whether memory, or imagination, or intellect, or passion. They would act in harmony with the organization of the mind itself, and without even indicating, in many cases, their presence to the consciousness of the individual himself, assume, from behind, the guidance of his heart and the direction of his hands.

But it may be urged by those who oppose the doctrine of direct spiritual agency in modern times, that the demoniacal possessions, as well as the "out-pourings of the Holy Spirit" recorded in scripture, were miraculous, and restricted entirely to the period of the introduction of Christianity. As respects the demoniacal possessions, there seems here to be a confusion of thought on the part of these objectors, since it was not possession that was the miracle, but dispossession. From the scripture account of these matters, it is manifest that possession by a demon was regarded as an affair quite in accordance with the laws both of the spiritual and of the human nature, and that the miracle consisted in controlling or suspending those powers or privileges which spirits possessed in accordance with these laws. Demons seem to have had no difficulty, at any time, in entering into men, and not the slightest wonder is any where expressed at such an occurrence. Having once entered, the difficulty was to get them out again, and this it was that required miraculous power, and excited the astonishment of the Jews. For our own part, we are quite content to leave the matter where the scriptures thus place it, and to believe that spirits may dwell in the human body, and actuate, by a direct agency, the human mind. It is to our philosophical objectors, that we may legitimately leave the performance of those mighty miracles of logic by which these spirits are to be expelled.

With regard to the "gift of the Holy Spirit," the "out-pouring of the Spirit," etc., if from the use of the terms "out-pouring," "gift," etc., any one regards these manifestations as miraculous, or as at any time necessarily connected with the exhibition or impartation of miraculous powers, we would merely remark, that one or two phrases afford a very slender foundation for so weighty a conclusion, and would recommend to him a closer examination of the scriptures upon this subject. He will there find that Peter expressly applies the promise (Acts 2:39) to all that were to be called, whether speaking of the common salvation, (Titus 3:4-6) distinctly affirms it to be effected by "the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit, which," adds he, "he shed on us abundantly, that we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." And to this agrees the language of the same apostle, in the Epistle to the Romans, (8:9-17), where it is shown that the possession and indwelling presence of the Spirit of God is essential to sonship; sonship to heirship, and heirship to a well founded hope of eternal glory. While the objector, then, in the former case, confounds things that are different, he attempts, in the present instance, to make a distinction where there is no difference; all the phrases in question, the "gift," the "shedding," "the pouring out" of the Spirit, having reference to the same grand fact—the great characteristic of the Christian institution—the impartation of the Holy Spirit to every believer; a matter which is to be regarded as independent of the miraculous powers, or any other accidents connected with Christianity.

After all, indeed, it may have been unnecessary to refer to these objections, since they who make them do admit man's spiritual habitability at the present day, so far, at least, as respects the Spirit of God, and the Adversary of God and man. This admission is, as respects the main subject before us, quite sufficient for my present purpose, and I have been led to make the preceding remarks, not because this admission is not broad enough to cover the ground on which we design to build, but because, on the part of some, it seems to be nothing but an admission, and not a matter of lively faith and earnest affirmation; a guarded, and, as it were, a reluctant assent to a loose, general proposition, rather than a cordial reception and zealous support of an important practical truth. It is easy to admit, in general terms, a general, or even a special Providence, yet explain away each particular case by the doctrine of circumstances and the laws of nature. It is easy to admit the existence of ministering angels, yet, by the timely aid of accident and luck, accomplish their work, and leave nothing for them to do. It is easy to assent to the proposition that the Spirit of God dwells in the heart of every true believer; yet, at the same time, by a theory of his mode of action, restrict his influences entirely to external media, and while he dwells within, deny to him the power to act, except from without. Such admissions amount to nothing. They grant to the ear what is afterwards denied to the understanding, and render the whole subject confused and dark, from their incompatibility with the philosophical menstruum in which men vainly endeavor to dissolve them.

I desire not, however, to run a tilt at the wind-mill machinery of theoretical religionists or metaphysical abstractionists, or to controvert the received or modern philosophy of the various forms of insanity or monomania, but it is not easy to perceive why direct interference with the mind should be restricted to so few cases, or why it should be supposed that Satan, rather than his subordinates, should be, in every case, the active agent in creating the moral, intellectual, and even physical disturbances and distractions of life. In all these matters, it seems to me best to look at philosophy through the Bible, rather than at the Bible through philosophy; and to be, even if it be so, superstitious with the former, than sceptical or infidel with the latter. Certain it is, that the Bible presents far different views from those often entertained on these subjects, and that the professing Christian makes a poor exchange, when, for the rationalism, motivity, and frigidness of philosophy, he barters away the very soul of religion; the chief joys which the Bible presents to faith; the ministering angels of the divine covenant, and the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit of promise, the only earnest of a future inheritance.