Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

passed in vision, and that they were not real exhibitions of facts ; the book being a symbolical representation, and not a real account of facts: I answer, that I have no difficulty in granting it; although I have not a doubt, that every one of the things, which I have mentioned, was strictly a matter of fact. At the same time, the argument stands on the same basis, upon either scheme. If the representation be considered as strictly symbolical; still the doctrines, which it contains, are all exactly true. This is all, for which I contend; and this must be conceded by my opponents, unless they are willing to charge God with having taught falsehood to mankind.

In exact accordance with these observations, St. Paul observes, 1 Thessalonians iv. 14, For if we believe, that Jesus died, and rose again; even so them also, who sleep in Jesus, will God bring with him that is, when the Lord shall descend, as he mentions in the next verse but one, from Heaven with a shout, with the innumerable company of Angels; God shall bring with him to this world the spirits of just men made perfect, and re-unite their bodies to them and they, and those followers of Christ, who shall remain alive at the end of the world, shall be caught up together to meet the Lord in the air. A great multitude of these very persons are those glorified Saints, whom John saw, when he was admitted to that happy world.

I shall not insist on the facts, specified in the parable of Dives and Lazarus, as an example under this head; although I think they might be fairly insisted on as furnishing such an example. Instead of dwelling on this, I shall proceed to another specimen, which is certainly secured, if in the view of prejudice any thing can be secured, from evasion and cavil.

When Christ was transfigured on the Mount; there were present with him Moses and Elias, who appeared in glory, and talked with him, and spake of his decease, which he should accomplish at Jerusalem. The body of Elias was changed, when he was conveyed to heaven in a chariot of fire. But the body of Moses was buried by the hand of God in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Beth-Peor; and will rise, hereafter, with other bodies of the saints, at the general resurrection. Yet Moses was actually on this Mount in company with Elias. If Moses when he thus ap

1

peared, was not a separate spirit, I leave it to my antagonists to tell us what he was.

Thus have I summarily considered this subject, as it is presented to us both by Scripture and reason. If the things, which I have said, have the same weight and conclusiveness in the minds of others, which they have in my own, it must be admitted by them as unquestionably evident from both sources of proof, not only that the soul is not material, but that the doctrine of its materiality is sustained by no solid argument whatever. Reason furnishes none: the Scriptures furnish none. I cannot help adding, that, had the doctrine been considered by itself only, and not been thought necessary for the support of some system, it would probably never have been adopted by any man living. I know not, that it was ever adopted by itself, or on account of any evidence which was supposed to attend it, when considered singly, or as unconnected with other doctrines. It seems always to have been taken up, either as subsidiary to the support of other parts of a system, or as necessarily flowing from other doctrines, considered as already established, and as being inconsistent in themselves with the immateriality of the soul. Dr. Priestly ap pears to have adopted this scheme for the former of these reasons; viz. because he thought the materiality of the soul necessary to the support of those parts of his system, which respect the character of the Redeemer. This, at least, is the fact, if I understand his own language. Atheists have embraced this doctrine, because they were driven to it by the fundamental principles of their sysThere is always a rational suspicion concerning the soundness, and evidence, of doctrines taken up on these grounds. A single observation shall conclude this discourse.

tem.

We see, here, one remarkable instance of the agreement of the Scriptures with Common sense.

All nations have united in the opinion, that the human soul is an immaterial being, wholly distinct from the Body. I do not intend, that ignorant nations have formed a system, or a science, on this subject; nor that a savage could correctly define, or explain, his views of it, so as to leave them unobjectionable in the eye of a Philosopher. But I intend, that Immateriality, and distinction from the Body, are essential parts of all his opinions

concerning the Soul. When I mention this as the doctrine of all nations, I would be understood to mean, not that there are no exceptions, but that the existing exceptions are, at least so far as hitherto known, few, and insignificant with respect to this question. The Aborigines of this country, for example, believed, that, although they buried the body of a friend, and left it to moulder into dust, the friend, the man, lived still, and went to a happier world. This man, therefore, was not the body, for that was in the grave; but was an immaterial and separate spirit; the living, thinking thing, which controlled and actuated that Body.

Exactly the same in substance, and altogether more perfect in manner and degree, is the doctrine of the Scriptures. This harmony between the Scriptures and common sense, was indeed to be presumed: for God is the origin of both. Hence, in all cases, so far as the views of common sense extend, they are exactly accordant with the Scriptures. Philosophy has opposed the Scriptures, often common sense never. Accordingly the common people of the Jewish nation, gladly heard Christ in the great body of instances, and his Apostles, after him; in spite of all their prejudices, and the influence of their Rulers; and often awed those Rulers, so as to restrain them from the violence which they intended: On the other hand, the Scribes and Pharisees, and still more, the Sadducees, rejected their doctrines almost absolutely, notwithstanding the confirmation of them by their own Scriptures. In the same manner have the common people in Christian countries generally, when left to themselves, adhered to the genuine scheme of the Gospel: while the numer ous heresies, which have disturbed the Church, and misled mankind, have been, almost without an exception, the offspring of Philosophy.

SERMON XXIV.

THE SOUL NOT A CHAIN

OF

IDEAS AND EXERCISES.

GENESIS ii. 7.

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

IN

my last discourse, I proposed to consider the nature of the human soul. Concerning this subject, I remarked, that there were three entirely different opinions.

The first of these in the order, in which they were then mentioned, is, that man is an immaterial substance, an Intelligent, vo luntary being; the subject of attributes, the author of actions, and destined to immortality.

The second is, that man is a material, thinking, voluntary being; differing in nothing, but his modification and its effects, from other material substances. Some of those, who hold this scheme, believe him immortal: while others limit his existence to the present world.

The third is, that man is neither of these, but a mere succession, or chain, as the abetters of it express themselves, of ideas and

exercises.

In discussing this subject, I proposed the following plan, viz. to prove the first of these doctrines, by disproving the two last:

observing, that, as one of the three is unquestionably true, if the two last are false, the first is true of course.

The second, which asserts the soul to be material, I then considered at length. I shall now proceed to the consideration of the third, which asserts that the soul is a mere succession, or chain, of ideas and exercises.

Before I commence the direct arguments against this doctrine in form, it will be proper to say something on the principal reason, alleged against the reception of the first of these schemes; or that, which I consider as the true one, and made particularly the foundation of the reception of the third. This reason, so far as I have been informed of it, (and I have heard it alleged by the ablest philosopher among all those, whom I have known to adopt this scheme, on this side of the Atlantic,) is the following; that we can form no conception of any thing in ourselves, beyond our ideas and exercises. Of these we are conscious and certain; but of a supposed substance, in which these are inherent; a cause, whence they proceed; an agent, who is the author of them; we have no conception. This argument, reduced to a general form, will stand thus: That nothing exists, of which we have no conception. For, undoubtedly, if the argument is conclusive, or has weight, when alleged against the existence of man, as an agent, substance, or cause; it will have the same weight, or conclusiveness, against the existence of every other agent, cause, or substance; and, in a word, against the existence of every thing, of which we cannot form a conception.

Let us now, briefly, consider the length, to which we shall necessarily be carried by the adoption of this supposed principle. Of God, the original Existence, from whom all things else are derived, it is said in the Scriptures; and Reason subjoins her fullest attestation to what is said; Canst thou, by searching, find out God; canst thou find out the Almighty, unto perfection? It, that is, this subject, is high as heaven, what canst thou do? deeper than hell, what canst thou know? The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea. Concerning the Omnipresence and Omniscience of this great Being, David exclaims, Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, it is high, I cannot attain "unto it. According to the above mentioned principle, all that.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »