Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1859-05-26
Spriritualisnl.

Could not the writer on spiritual communl
cations make himself more iatelligble? Either
his views are too vague ard confused to be un
derstood, or he writes above my comprehension
| think. However | Lrdcistuhd Lin to some ex
tent. In the Freeman of April l4th he re-
marks a" Tie reason that tie Frtsnt mannc1
Of sririt communication las lot lccn known
on tur.h before. is that the world was not re-
plrsd to receive such, aaA 1t was Mt NJ ssary.
In view Of t'.is declaration lr9pnse rom
fu.ris;
/, If the present manner Of spirit cUn!hu!ri
cation WIS ui.'l cessagl formerly what has mad
II Necessity now Or wi y do re need Il irR
communications in manner V! ic', CTR fathers
did Rol II; cd
=, What new lr parAti,a has the world re-
celvcd for this new mdnn Of communication /:
3, Does the noN mlnn.r Of slnit c1inmun
cation imrart any new teaching or new dec
trines not contain in the bible?
4, If it imparts nothing new, what is S Is
or necessity?
5, It it mpirts new doctrines witch tie
Holy spirit did not See fit to teach in the Bible,
ought they not to be rejected as false?
After all it is doubtful whether there is any
thing essentially new in the spiritual communi-
cations of which we hear so much Very an
ciently communication were received from " IA
miliur spirits" and the world was as well pre-
pared to receive them then as now. The famed
ancient oracles were doubtless as reliable as any
of the present'day.
The writer On SpAitualisln is unfortunate in
his remarks on the various style Of the inspired
writer's. lie thinks Peter in his style "exhib
tied boldncss, Paul, learning and philosophy, y
&c. Now, if Peter was more remarkable fol-
boldness than other inspired writers, it would
be impossible to learn the fact from his own
writings. Paul was quite as bold writer al
Peter. But he who alone of all the apostles
poured such contempt on the wisdom OF thu
world, should be the last to be accused OF sea-
soning his writings with learning and philoso
phy. If Paul was better Greek scholar thar
Peter or John, he taught no more philosophy
than they, and was as far as either of then
from using learned illustrations. Peter and
John could not have written like learned phi.
losophers, if they would; Paul aoouid not, il
he could. He regarded his divine message al
something above philosophy. He seems to have
been called partly because it was most suitable
that learned man should teach that the world
by wisdom knew not God. The Jews" said
he, " require a sign, and the Greeks seek after
wisdom; but we preach Christ crucifed, to the
Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks fool
shness" Thus the learned apostle shows his
estimate of 90 learning and philosophy" He
even discarded the gift of eloquence, lest il
should defeat the gospel. Hear him; 6 Not
with the wisdom of words, lest the cross Of
Christ should be made of none effect" And
I, brethren when came unto you, came moi
with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declar
ing unto you the testimony of God, for deter
mined not to know anything among you save
Jesus Christ and him crucifed" And more tc
this effect. What then? Was Paul an ad.
vocate Of ignorance? Not he. Hear him again
Z" Howbeit VIC speak wisdom among than thai
are perfect, yet not the wisdom of this worlt
-" He then goes ON to describe a heavenly
wisdom, taught by the Spirit of God, but say
nothing about medium.
Now, is it safe to confde in any wisdom
taught by imperfect spirits through imperfec
mediums, especially when we consider that lying
spirits are always ready to be teachers?
I. SMITH.