prove to you, what it is capable of becoming-the Christian's surest safeguard-and lead you on to holiness of mind and perfection of character! I remain, my dear Friend,

66

Your Friend and Brother

"In the Gospel of the blessed God,

THE RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD OPPOSED TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.

ESSAY IV.-THE SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE.

"The more any man is convinced of the immortality of the soul, from "the principles of Aristotle or Des Cartes, the less will he concern himself "about the gospel account of futurity."-Archdeacon Blackburn.

WE commenced the series of Essays under the title affixed to the present one, with the design of shewing, from a view both of nature and the scriptures, that the doctrine which teaches that man is animated by an immaterial and immortal principle, is undiscoverable from the one, and stands in direct opposition to what is taught in the other.

The evidence from nature we brought to a conclusion in our last number;-that upon the scriptural department of our subject, we are now about to enter upon; the investigation of which we shall briefly preface by a reference to one or two documents, which in their day carried with them no mean authority. The first is a canon which was passed under Leo X. by the council of Lateran; and will not be found deficient in the qualities which similar statements generally possess, whether of Catholic or of Protestant origin. "Some have dared to assert concerning the nature "of the reasonable soul, that it is mortal; we, with the approbation of the sacred council, do condemn and reprobate "all such, seeing, according to the canon of Pope Clement "the Fifth, that the soul is immortal; and we strictly inhibit "all from dogmatising otherwise and we decree, that all "who adhere to the like erroneous assertions, shall be "shunned and punished as heretics."-Caranza, page 412

1681.

And among the Protestants, says Archdeacon Blackburn, the honour of condemning such as dissented from Plato and Socrates, was reserved for our English reformers in 1552; whilst on the Continent, when, four years afterwards, the second Helvetic Confession was published, supposed to have been drawn up by Beza, under the article entitled The Creation of all Things, of Angels, the Devil, "and Man," it is solemnly announced, after a description of the qualities of the soul, as well as those of the body"That we condemn all who scoff at the immortality of the "soul, or bring it into doubt by subtle disputation.

For ourselves, undismayed, as well as unconvinced, by these and other documents of an equally formidable description, we are content to rest our faith upon the scriptures of truth, rather than upon the " canon of Pope Clement the "Fifth," although his holiness proclaims so authoritatively that "the soul is immortal:" and we fully coincide upon this subject with the dignitary of the English church, alread quoted, that "the Protestants, either unable or

66

unwilling to investigate the meaning of certain terms "used in the scriptures, weakly concluded, from the mere "sound of them, that the doctrines of the scriptures, and "the reigning philosophy" (concerning a future state) were one and the same thing." What that reigning philosophy was, and, to a certain extent, still remains, we have been engaged in exposing;-and what those "certain "terms" are, which, from their " mere sound," have been pressed into the service of this philosophy, we are now about to inquire; previous to our doing which, in consequence of the obscurity which those who defend the soul's immortality have cast upon this subject, we deem the recognition of certain positions desirable, as well for the right conduct of the argument, as for bringing the evidence home 'to the reader's mind. We would maintain then,

Firstly-That from an investigation of nature a distinct, spiritual, and immortal principle in man not being discoverable, we can believe in such from revelation only; and that explicitly conveyed, and not in such ambiguous terms as to be capable of being misunderstood, or applied to any other subject.

Secondly-That a mere popular belief among the Jews, in doctrines which have not been revealed expressly by God himself, cannot be received as evidence of the truth of such -doctrines. And,

Thirdly-That the language of the scriptures should be

taken agreeably to the sense in which it was understood and intended by the parties composing them, and in connection with the context and general scope of the writers.

Thus endeavouring to establish definite conceptions as to what is and what is not admissible evidence on such a subject, we proceed to an examination of the Old and New Testaments, with regard to the existence of a soul in man, its immateriality, and inherent immortality; carrying with us the important position maintained by its supportersthat upon the truth of that doctrine depends our only hopes of future existence: we therefore, on account of the extreme importance thus attaching to the subject, anticipate a ready acquiescence in the principle we have first laid down

that in so vital a feature of our faith, the scriptural evidence in its support should be clear, distinct and intelligible and not, as is singularly and reluctantly, though certainly with much honesty, admitted by its strenuous advocate, Archbishop Tillotson, "That the immortality of the soul is rather supposed, or taken for granted, than "expressly revealed in the Bible."-Sermons, vol. ii—1774. We hope, however, to prove that the bishop is in error, even as regards what he supposes to be thus taken for granted in the Bible.

66

It will avail little to the argument that the mere word "SOUL" is to be found in our Bibles-for words, taken alone and independant of their meaning and connection, do not, and cannot establish doctrines. To illustrate this latter assertion, we might instance that all-important tenet in the faith of believers-the existence and attributes of the Divine Being: for, upon reference to the Scriptures, it will be found that the word "GOD," were there nothing but the term itself, would fail in conveying to us either that there was one only God, or that he was a self-existent Being; for even this word is applied in the Scriptures to mere men. The recurrence, likewise, however frequent it may be, of the word SPIRIT, or SOUL, any more than that of the word "GoD," must fail, if adduced, to establish of itself leading and important, or indeed any doctrines whatever. Nor, looking at the language of the scriptures, will the argument of our opponents be aided, should we even concede to them that the Jews believed in the existence of spirits, and their interference, in bodily shapes, with human affairs; for, besides that we should call upon them to prove the consistency of such alleged

appearances with their own definitions of what they term an immortal soul; namely, that it is immaterial-aërial -not visible to the sight, nor tangible to the touch: besides all this, it should be remembered that the Jewish nation, having emerged from one heathen people, and having frequently been captive among others, had naturally imbibed much of the false philosophy, and many of the absurd notions and speculations of such nations; and their history shews us the almost herculean labour which Moses and the prophets had to encounter, in order to purge out from among them their old impurities. This people, also, as is well known, evinced, upon too many occasions, in the early part of their history, a proneness towards idolatry, and were disposed to believe in the existence and power of false gods; so that any opinions held by them, which were not derived either from their divinely appointed teachers (not any of whom, it will be hereafter shewn, ever even glanced at the immaterial doctrine) cannot be entitled to the slightest weight in the argument. Upon this principle, therefore, it will be seen that the present discussion cannot be aided, by a reference to the unauthorized opinions of the Jewish people. Should it even appear that the first followers of Jesus held such views that some of his immediate disciples (being Jews) should have shared in the popular faith-or that even Jesus himself, when addressing the multitude, made use of language not in contradiction to it, (such alone being that which they could comprehend) even these combined facts would neither teach the truth of the doctrine, nor prove that its belief was inculcated by revealed religion. The case of demoniacal possessions might be adduced in support of this position; for this doctrine has for its support all the points of authority above referred to, namely, the popular belief of the Jews, the language of Jesus and his apostles, &c.; yet the most enlightened Biblical critics have proved that it is the cure of certain diseases only which is intended to be conveyed to the readerthat no doctrine of revelation is at all in question-and that the ambiguity arises merely from the use of common language, which was necessarily in accordance with the prevailing belief and superstition. So that, if the mere opinions of the Jewish populace can aid the cause of our opponents on the present subject, then they must take the consequences of their own argument, by having it applied to other cases; and admit, for example, that Mary Magdalen was not cured of an inveterate mental disease, but had actually

expelled from within her seven devils. But it is not thus that the scriptures announce valuable truths and essential principles; for when such are communicated, they have not for their basis the prejudices of the ignorant, nor are we left to collect them in a doubtful, or an inferential manner.

66

66

66

Had, therefore, the doctrine of the immortality of the soul been a true one-and had it been intended to have been revealed at all, it would doubtless have been communicated in a manner equally distinct, because equally required to be so, as that of the existence of but one God-of pardon upon repentance; and of the resurrection from the dead. Thus, to illustrate our meaning, when we turn to the scriptures, we find God and his providence spoken of in the following clear and distinct manner- I, the Lord, speak righteousness; I declare things that are right, who "hath declared this from ancient time-have not I the Lord, "and THERE IS NO GOD ELSE BESIDE ME—a just God "and Saviour - THERE IS NONE BESIDE ME; look unto "me and be ye saved, from all the ends of the earth, for I I AM GOD, AND THERE IS NONE ELSE." (Isaiah, xlv. 20-23.) And wherever the prophets or apostles reason upon the being and attributes of the Deity, they are, alike with the above-clear, distinct, and intelligible. Thus, in the instance of Paul, when addressing the Athenian philosophers--" whom ye worship, him declare I unto you-God that made the world, and all things therein; who dwelleth not in temples made with hands, as though he "needed any thing; seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, "and all things." (Acts, xvii. 23, 24.) Now, we ask, can any man, upon what is here stated, doubt even for a moment but that the writers here meant to convey the oneness, the power, and attributes of the Supreme Being? The announcement, too, of the forgiveness of sins upon repentance, and that of à future state of existence, by means of a resurrection from the dead, are equally clear and intelligible:* and can we believe it possible, had the immateriality and immortality of the soul been a Bible doctrine, that it would not have been taught with equal plainness and distinctness? and if so, it then would not have required support from popular ignorance-it would not have solicited aid from

* In relation to the first of these doctrines consult the following passages: Mat. iii. 2; iv. 17. Luke xxiv. 47. Acts v. 31; xi. 18; xxvi. 20. And upon the latter, see Acts iv. 22. 1 Cor. xv.

B B