صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

Mark 12. 27; Luke 20. 38.) This was said at a time when the bodies of these Patriarchs had been in their graves not very much short of two thousand years. The narrative plainly shows that our Lord quoted Moses to prove to the Sadducees that their own Scriptures declare the existence of the soul after the death of the body. Again, our Lord saith-" Fear not them which kill the body, but

are not able to kill the soul; but fear Him "which is able to kill both soul and body (uxna "KAI capz) in hell." (Matt. 10. 28.)

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus, related in the 16th ch. of St. Luke, is a direct refutation of Dr. Priestley's hypothesis. It may be objected that this was only a parable; but it cannot be believed that our Lord would illustrate an argument by supposing an impossibility.

We may remark, too, that St. Stephen's dying words were" Lord Jesus, receive my Spirit." (Acts 7. 59.)

In the epistle to the Romans, St. Paul, in language which I believe will come home to the heart of every man who has the courage to examine himself fairly, makes a striking distinction between the spiritual and material parts of man. He says, "I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth

[ocr errors]

no good thing; for to will is present with me "but how to perform that which is good I find " not. For I delight in the law of God after the "inward man; but I see another law in my mem

"bers warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin, "which is in my members." (Rom. 7. 18. 22, 23.)

It appears to me, that the existence of two distinct natures in man-one material, the other spiritual-cannot be expressed in stronger terms. What! shall matter say to matter, "Thou shalt "not do this thing," and matter reply, "I am so

[ocr errors]

66

powerfully inclined to it that I cannot obey ?" According to Dr. Priestley's arrangement of matter," here is one part of our organization set in direct and violent opposition to another part! It is hard to conceive by what kind of physiological reasoning this difficulty can be explained, so as to make it reconcileable with common sense.

St. Peter agreed in opinion with St. Paul. He makes a marked distinction between the spiritual and the carnal parts of man. In his first epistle (2. 11), he says-" Dearly beloved, I be"seech you, as strangers and pilgrims, abstain

66

from fleshly lusts, which war against the SOUL." Archbishop Newcome explains the words "strangers and pilgrims" thus :-" Strangers on earth, " and sojourners in the tabernacle of the body." The same Apostle, in his second epistle (1. 14), says " Knowing that I must shortly put off this

[ocr errors]

my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ "hath showed me." Here the Apostle speaks of the material part, which Dr. Priestley considers to be all in all, as a mere adjunct to be put off, and,

comparatively, of little value. The same idea is expressed by St. Paul to the Philippians, 1. 23, 24.

Upon this subject I will quote but one authority from the Old Testament. It is from the pen of one who, in his day, was considered to be a man of extraordinary wisdom, no less a man than Solomon-" Who knoweth the Spirit of man that goeth upward, and the Spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth ?" And again"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it

66

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]

66

was, and the Spirit shall return to God who gave it." (Eccles. 3. 21; and 12. 7.)

I conceive I have now shown that "the testi

mony of Scripture " " is decidedly opposed to Dr. Priestley's notion. But he says, "the dictates "of reason" support him. This is mere assertion: the dictates of reason are as decidedly against him as is the testimony of Scripture. Reason. without the assistance of Divine revelation, has clearly discovered the existence of that Spiritual and immortal part of man which we call the Soul. If the Doctor had plainly declared his disbelief of a future state, and, with some French philosophers, had pronounced "Death an eternal sleep," shocking as it is, he would have been more consistent: but he professes his belief in the resurrection of the body and a future existence. Now, to suppose that our dust shall be mixed with its kindred earth, and dispersed about for thousands of years, and without any relation to a spiritual part shall be

1

re-animated and endowed with immortality, is surely one of the most unreasonable fancies that ever entered into the mind of man: under such an impression it is hard to retain even the idea of personal identity. According to Dr. Priestley's notion, it would appear that the original creation of man was in no way different from that of the beasts of the field; but the Mosaical record makes a very striking distinction :-" 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." (Gen. 2. 7.) This is not said of any of the irrational creatures, but man is clearly described as being endued with a Spiritual as well as a material part. That ray of the immortal essence which can never become dormant, was infused into his body by the Great Creator, and is clearly expressed by Moses as the breath of life, emanating immediately from the adorable Fountain of Life.

I believe it is admitted by all Christians, that the first-created man was so constituted as to be capable of immortality, if he had remained innocent; but he sinned, and brought death upon himself and his posterity. The merciful Creator had, in the event of Adam's transgression, provided the means of a restoration of the body to life, and the re-union of it with the soul. Thus planned in the infinite wisdom and mercy of Almighty God, it was accomplished in the person

of his ever-blessed Son, as saith St. Paul- For "as in Adam all die, even so in (or through) "Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Cor. 15. 22.) Surely, then, it is much more reasonable to believe that the whole man, soul and body, as he was at first created, shall be restored through Christ, than that the mere dust, or material part alone, should be brought to life, and become immortal.

Dr. Priestley's theory appears to me to be absurd as well as unscriptural.

I have allowed myself to run into this digression from my main subject, in the hope of showing the danger of yielding up our understandings in matters of religion to the direction of any man, however eminent he may be accounted for skill in particular branches of human science, unless his opinions be supported by the Holy Scriptures. Philosophy, under the guidance of a sound and unprejudiced mind, tends to a conviction of the truth of our holy religion; yet men who devote their time and attention chiefly to experiments upon matter frequently go astray when they treat of spiritual affairs.

It cannot be denied that Dr. Priestley was an acute and laborious philosopher; but that philosophers are not always good theologians is obvious, from the glaring contradictions of each other, which we continually meet with in their writings. Mr. Jones, of Nayland,was also an able philosopher ; yet no two men were ever more directly opposed

« السابقةمتابعة »