Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

selves were amongst the living, and the God of the living was their God. Secondly, For such is the mighty power of God exerted towards the righteous dead, who are worthy of a part in the first resurrection, that when this mortal state of things is over, there is no further increase by marriage, therefore marriage ceases, and the righteous dead become like the messengers of God in heaven.

This reply of Jesus is much illustrated by the transfiguration on Mount Tabor, when Moses, one of the righteous dead, who had been buried in the land of Nebo, appeared as a messenger of God to Jesus, with Elias the prophet, another messenger, and conversed with Jesus on his crucifixion that was to be. This is also farther illustrated by Rev. xix. 10, xxii. 9. In both which places we find, that the angel or messenger of Jesus, sent to make known future events to John, expressly tells John, "I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the teachers, and of them who keep the sayings of this book." Probably a James or a Stephen, one of the first martyred teachers of Christianity; whosoever he was, at least his resurrection and office shew that there has been, and still is, a first resurrection prior to the general resurrection from the dead: and, that such resurrection is not the raising of the body, but the raising of the vital, mental conscious principle; and of which principle Jesus said, Matt. x. 28,"Fear not them who are able to kill the body, but are not able to kill the living principle, but rather fear him who is able to destroy both living principle and body in the grave."

Passing from the New Testament to the Old Testament, there the language for death is," he slept, he slept with his fathers, he was gathered to his fathers," all speaking of the dead as in a state of existence, though their bodies were in general passed away. If we may be permitted to take the language of the historians as evidence of their ideas concerning things, it may be said that the history of ancient times by Moses, confirms the language of Jesus, where he tells the Sadducees that the righteous dead are, in the state called heaven, as the messengers or angels of God. Thus Moses, in the xviii. and xix. chapters of

Genesis, in different places of the same account, speaking of the persons who appeared, he sometimes calls them angels and sometimes men, using the words synonimously with each other, which he could not do if they were, as they appear to have been, supernatural agents, but on the ground of the righteous dead being employed as divine messengers, when the Deity thought proper to appoint such extraordinary intercourse on any occasion with his creature man. This synonimous use of the word is also to be found in Judges xiii. when the angel of the Lord appeared to Manoah's wife; and again in the appearances at the sepulchre of Jesus, by comparing John xx. 12, Luke xxiv. 4, Matt. xxviii. 2-5, Acts i. 10. See also the appearance to Lot, Gen. xviii. xix., and Simpson's admirable Essay on Angels.

From this evidence, and that in my former Letters, I conclude, that seeing all living existence is formed, ab origine, by a union of the vital principle to matter, there is not any ground for supposing that this vital principle does not exist at the death of the body, and completely independent of it, with a capacity of animating with all its recollections such spiritual body, as may be appointed for it, seeing that original life, by its recollections, continues, though the matter is nomentarily changing.

Against this doctrine, Dr. Priestley has justly been considered as the most formidable antagonist. If I understand his arguments they may be reduced to these four objections:—

1, All ideas have come from corporeal senses; thought cannot exist without an organic body; the induction, therefore, from these allowed facts is, that the organic body thinks.

2, That the reason why it is contended that the mind and body are distinct is, that the mind may be proved capable of living after the death of the body; but if it was capable of such separate existence, it would also continue its activity when the body swooned or slept.

3. If the mental faculty is immaterial and immortal, all its particular faculties would be so too; but every faculty is liable to be impaired, and death renders them all extinct.

4, If the sentient principle is imma

1

terial it cannot have extension, and, therefore, all belonging to it must be simple and indivisible; but our ideas, the archetype of our minds, are facts retained these ideas are divisible or they could not be reasoned on, and such reasoning is an extension and divisibility of the mind, and by it proves its materiality.

If I have, as I intended to do, rightly stated the learned Doctor's objections, I think they can have no force against facts and Scripture, and that the reasoning of them confounds the distinct principles of mind and body, and are no more conclusive than the Doctor's argument would be to prove that himself and his pneumatic trough were one person, because the one never did, or could act without the other; but my paper being filled, I have only room to say, that I mean not to be disrespectful to his memory, by observing, that the premises and conclusion appear to me unphilosophical and unworthy so great a man.

SIR,

A

N.*

Stockport, July 9, 1817. S a friend to free inquiry, and an impartial examination of subjects connected with religion and morals, I rejoice that so convenient and valuble a medium for discussion is presented to the public through your Repository.

The topic of vitality has, in some late Numbers, been considered by your Correspondent N. (pp. 210 and 342). In his two Letters or Essays he has, doubtless, discovered much knowledge of natural science; yet it appears to me, that the points which he aims to prove are not so clearly established, as I apprehend he imagines, and that there is much justice and force in the remarks of your Correspondent E. (p. 341), upon his first essay. The subject, if I rightly understand the author of the two essays, is the same as that which has often been discussed by metaphysicians and divines, whether the soul is a principle

[blocks in formation]

distinct from the body, and can exist without it or not? This, I presume, will, to many persons, be in general an interesting topic of inquiry; and is, perhaps, at the present time more peculiarly interesting, on account of the expected approaching trial of Mr. John Wright, on the charge of blasphemy, in consequence of having, in a discourse, advanced sentiments upon this subject contrary to the popular notions. Sentiments similar to those espoused by Mr. J. W. were many years ago publicly professed by some persons of high rank in the Church of England, as well as by men of research and learning amongst the Dissenters. Your Correspondent V. F. (p. 276), has made some just remarks upon the speech of the Bishop of Chester, in the House of Lords, as given in some of the public prints, in reference to the case of Mr. J. Wright, The father of this prelate, the late Dr. Edmund Law, Bishop of Carlisle, was a man whose soul could not be confined by the shackles of an established system, but would avail itself of its natural liberty. Those who wish to make themselves well acquainted with matters, which have a connexion with the topic discussed in your learned Correspondent N.'s essays, and with the subject, which is the ground of offence in Mr. J. Wright's Sermon, would do well to consult Dr. E. Law's "Discourse on the Nature and End of Death under the Christian Covenant, with the Appendix and Postscript," subjoined to his “Considerations on the Theory of Religion." This judicious and learned writer, in this Discourse, considers 1, "In what sense we are delivered from death by the sufferings and death of Christ." "Why so much of the power of death is still permitted to continue in the world." 3, What notions of it are now proper and agreeable to the Christian state." Under the first head he endeavours to ascertain the meaning of the word death, as it is strictly and properly applied in Scripture; and to do this, he refers to that "remarkable passage, where it is first used in that denunciation which brought Adam and his posterity under it, and where, we must suppose it used in all the plainness and propriety of speech imaginable." (Gen. ii. 17.) Our author asserts, that the original

[ocr errors]

2,

Hebrew signifies, "thou shalt utterly die." He supposes that this matter is "sufficiently explained in the sentence passed on our first parents; where they are reminded of their original, and of that state to which this change should reduce them. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.' (Gen. iii. 19.) This language, he considers, must have been understoc 1 by our first parents, as meaning "a resumption of that natural life, or conscious being, which their Creator had been lately pleased to bestow upon them, the forfeiting which, must necessarily include a total loss of all those benefits, that then did, or ever could proceed from him." After considering the meaning of the word death, he proceeds to shew, how we are delivered from it by the obedience of our Lord. This, he asserts, "will appear more clearly from the date of that deliverance, and this is every where in Scripture represented as commencing at the resurrection. Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection from the dead,' and as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.'" Under the second head our author takes notice, that mankind "could not have subsisted always in the present world; at least not been supported in such numbers as now take their turn there, and supply each other's places in succeeding generations." He also says, "could we, at any time, without pain or the apprehension of auy, quit our abode here, and convey ourselves to the realms above, how ready, on every slight occasion, would each be to dispatch himself and others thither!" Our author likewise shews, "that such a dispensation as this of death, however disagreeable, is yet in our present circumstances of great service." Under the third head of the Discourse, the writer intimates, that we have ground for comfort, and that we may look upon death, as "a passage from a mixed, imperf ct, to a pure and perfect portion of relicity, the end of all our labours in one state, and the beginning of our recompense in another. Mortality is swallowed up of life.'" Death is represented as a sleep.

"Though in the sight of the unwise we seem to die, yet is our hope full of immortality." In the Appendix our author treats, "concerning the use of the words soul or spirit in the Holy Scriptures, and the state of the dead there described;" and he says, that "all philosophical arguments drawn from our notions of matter, and urged against the possibility of 'ife, thought and agency being so connected with some portions of it as to constitute a compound being or person, are merely grounded on our ignorance, and will prove equally against known fact and daily observation; in the production of various animals, (oviparous and vegetable ones particularly,) as well as against the union of two such heterogeneous principles, as those of our own soul and body are supposed to be." In the Postscript Dr. Law defends his sentiments relating to the subject which he had been discussing, and points out the inconsistency of the popular scheme with the gospel, representing it as “a total subversion of that positive covenant which professes to entitle us to everlasting life."

S. P.

Mr. Belsham's Animadversions on the
Attack, in the "Monthly Retrospect,"
upon his "Plea for Infant Baptism.”
Essex House,
SIR,
October 8th, 1817.
THE writer of that article in the

T Repository for July, which is

rather quaintly styled "The Christian's Survey of the Political World," has thought fit to travel somewhat out of his record, [p. 448,] in order to pass a censure upon a work which he has probably never read, and to controvert an argument which it is plain that he does not understand. As the passage is but short, as it is a sort of bonne bouche in controversial theology, and finally, that I may not be accused of misrepresenting a writer upon whom I find it necessary in self-defence, and in justice to the argument which I have advanced, to animadvert, I will, with your permission, transcribe the passage entire.

"But we must not be too severe in our strictures on this abuse of baptism, (alluding to the unwarrantable stress laid upon the rite of baptism in the Roman Church as applied to the in

[ocr errors]

fant daughter of the Duchess of Berri,) when even in our own body is found a writer to set up the strange notion of the propriety of infant sprinkling as a Christian rite, derived from the apostles. The true Christian will not, however, be led away by such strange fancies: he will consider what baptism really was, and that it could not be introduced till the parties were prepared to be disciples. Make disciples was the precept; the initiatory rite was the consequence: and how a disciple is to be made of a babe who cannot assent to any proposition, it is in vain for any learned Rabbinism to attempt to explain. We must not set the plain terms of a law aside to bring it within the pale of tradition. For, had the tradition been well-grounded, and we believe that there is no foundation for it, this would no more justify the practice than it would justify Peter's error which was by Paul so justly condemned."

Upon this precious morceau of theological lore, which, in the estimation of the writer and perhaps of the O TOλλ with whom confidence of assertion and a contemptuous sneer supply the place of proof, is regarded as a decisive answer to a late PLEA FOR INFANT BAPTISM, I beg leave to offer the following animadversions.

In the first place, this political Christian, or Christian Politician, professes to soften the severity of his censure upon the Romish error of baptismal salvation out of courtesy to the author of the Plea, who has asserted the obligation of infant baptism upon totally different grounds. The author is not insensible to the intended kindness, and in return he would whisper to his gentle monitor, that another time it might be advisable just to take the pains to understand a question before he publishes his remarks upon it.

But the Christian Politican regards infant baptism as a strange fancy. Perhaps he considers infant circumcision as also a strange fancy: and yet there are many true Christians who seriously believe that circumcision was a divine institution.-Ferhaps the Christian Politician may go a little further still: he may think public worship a strange fancy: he may call the Lord's Supper a strange fancy: he may regard the appointment of the Lord's-day as a religious and joyful

commemoration of the resurrection of Christ as a strange fancy; for these external rites, however reasonable and useful in themselves, yet as Christian institutions, they stand upon uo other foundation, nor can a better be desired, than infant baptism, viz. the uniform, universal, undisputed practice of the primitive Church from the apostolic age. This the Christian Politician, by a misnomer, calls tradition, whereas it is in truth the very strongest species of historic evidence. It is by far the surest method of tracing an institution to its original authority, infinitely better than any positive testimony from single texts which are liable to be altered and mutilated in a thousand ways. And, in fact, it is the self-same evidence by which the records of the Christian religion are authenticated and their genuineness is established. For how is it known that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew, and the Gospel of John by John, but from the uniform undisputed testimony of Christian antiquity: and why do the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Book of Revelation stand upon a lower scale of credibility or rather of authenticity than the Gospels and Paul's Epistles: but, that they are in the number of the avlideyoμeva, books whose genuineness was not universally admitted by the earliest Christians?

But though the rite of infant baptism stands upon this very strong ground of primitive antiquity, yet it appears that those who practise it are not true Christians in the estimation of our Christian Politician. Christian will not," says he, "be led "The true away by such strange fancies." This, methinks, is somewhat of a sweeping censure. I have myself been pretty severely schooled for not extending indiscriminately the appellation of Unitarian to the mixed multitude, who, for one reason or another, claim the title, and who gather in such swarms around the Unitarian standard, that they almost remind one of the old saying, "how we apples swim!" But never did I dream of excluding from the great community of Christians any who professed to believe in Christ, and whose lives were correspondent to their profession, for any difference of opinion or practice relating either to Christian

doctrine or to positive institutions. But this Christian Politician wields his theological hatchet with a more ruthless mind than the savage throws his tomahawk; and in the true spirit of the imperial tyrant who wished that the Roman people had but one head that he might enjoy the pleasure of striking it off, he severs at one mighty and decisive stroke, from the Christian community, the great mass of professing Christians for the first ten centuries, all the members of the Asiatic, the African, the Greek, and the Roman Churches; Catholic and Protestant, Lutheran and Reformed, Episcopalian, Presbyterian and Independent, the vast majority of martyrs and confessors of ancient and modern times, the teachers, the reformers, the pillars and bulwarks of the church, and without hesitation he delivers them over to Satan, and assigns them their portion with hypocrites and unbelievers; for whatever they might profess, or however eminent they might be for talents and virtues, for their piety, their orthodoxy, their zeal and usefulness, they baptized infants and consequently were no "trueChristians." Indeed, according to this new gospel, SO "strait is the gate and so narrow is the way," that few beside the Christian Politician himself, and the noted John of Leyden, and those far-famed Christian politicians, the pious German Anabaptists of the sixteenth century, and a few worthy and good men of modern times, stand any chance of salvation.

But the Christian Politician appeals to positive law. "Make disciples was the precept: the initiatory rite was the consequence. We must not set the plain terms of a law aside to bring it within the pale of tradition." Granted. But does it follow that because proselyte baptism is a Christian institution, infant baptism is not? Where is the Christian Politician's logic, if from such premises he draws such a conclusion? Proselyte baptism is unquestionably a rite of the highest authority: and upon what ground does the evidence rest? Not surely upon the doubtful authority of a doubtful and reasonably suspected text: but upon the uniform, universal, and invariable practice and testimony of the primitive church; upon that high ground of historic evidence, which

the Christian Politician is pleased to call tradition, but which he well knows is the only evidence upon which the Gospel of Matthew can be received as genuine, and consequently the only authority upon which the precept rests. But the very same testimony which establishes the obligation of proselyte baptism, establishes that of infant baptism: and if it is competent to authorize the one, it is equally competent to authorize the other. What foundation is there, then, for that unmeaning sneer of the Christian Politician, “how a disciple is to be made of a babe, who cannot assent to any proposition, it is in vain for any learned Rabbinism to attempt to explain"?

But the Christian Politician demurs to the fact. "We," says he, meaning, I suppose, himself and his snug party of true Christians, "believe that there is no foundation for it." Had these true but simple Christians been men of sound understandings and of competent learning, they would not only have told us what they believe, but why they believe; they would have shewn, that though Jerome and Augustin on the one side, and Pelagius and Celestius on the other, who examined the subject with the greatest attention, declare the universality of infant baptism, and that they had never seen or read of any he retics so impious as to deny it; yet that nevertheless these great and learued men, the most eminent writers of the fifth century, were quite mistaken; and that there had been a time, when the whole Christian church were utter strangers to infant baptism, and applied the rite only to adults. They would have appealed to some nation, or sect, or church, in which adult baptism only was practised: or they would have produced some early instance of the descendant of a baptized person, whose baptism was deferred to years of discretion or at least some early ecclesiastical writer, who opposed the practice of infant baptism, and denied its apostolical authority. And finally, these well-meaning true Christians, if they had understood any thing of the art of reasoning, would have endeavoured to shew how it came to pass that when Christ and his apostles had appointed one mode of baptism, the universal church should, in less than a century, practise a different mode; and that this great change should have

« ZurückWeiter »