Abbildungen der Seite

concerned, a mere machinery for the production of falsehood! Yea, God Himself and all His works are a mere delusion.

Other consequences equally as absurd and monstrous flow from the same scheme. If there is no thinking substance in man-no spiritual conscious being in union with his animal frame, then what are ideas and exercises? They must be, either a new production or the operation of something already existent. If the former, will the advocates of this scheme say whether they are spirit or matter? They surely will not say the former, for that is to give up the point in dispute at once. It certainly would be better for them to admit the existence of a spiritual agent, capable of those acts which we denominate ideas and exercises, than to maintain a continued creating process of spiritual existences, which too, must, as continually, be subjected to an annihilating process or be combined for preservation! If the latter, we had better, at once, admit any of the theories we have already noticed, and maintain thought to be motion, or a secretion, or any thing else, since it must be material, According to the theory which we combat, we must either deny the real existence of man as a moral agent, and convert him into a mere piece of material mechanism, or we must maintain, that ideas and exercises are produced continually by the direct agency of God, and that given series of these creative acts of God constitutes the individual man, The former we have already disproved. The latter may require a moment's attention.

Who does not see that the consequences which flow from such a position affect alike the character of God and of His government, and the very identity of man. We say the character of God, for it makes Him the author of sin, since all the sintul thoughts, purposes and affections of man are but the effects of the divine power strung together in a given series—not the acts or production of a created voluntary agent. And if so, where is the use of maintaining the distinction between innocence and guilt, between virtue and vice, or how can we attribute to man the least accountability? The influence of motives and the sense of responsibility will be alike destroyed, and the whole gorernment of God will be converted into a mere theatrical or other display. We know not well to what it might be

. compared, except to some of the splendid exhibitions of the pyrotechnical art, where there are quick and marvellous successions or series of different coloured flames, and scintellations, all the production of the great master of the ceremonies. And as to man himself, he is even reduced below the level of the dancing puppet, which, though all its motions are mechanical, nevertheless retains its identity, since upon this scheme man's identity is destroyed. For if to him is denied a thinking spiritual substance, conscious of its own acts, into what can identity be resolved? Ideas and exercises are mere occurrences or events produced by some cause sustaining a momentary being, and then perishing forever. The difference in point of time would destroy the identity of ideas, though there should be in every other respect entire resemblance. They could no more be called the same, than we can denominate the strokes of the bell which announce the hour of six this morning the very same with those of yesterday. And what is true in one case is true in all others.

There never can be sameness in man, on this scheme, but he is perpetually varying-ever and anon a new being, as he passes from one point of time to another. His iden tity is destroyed, and no proof of it whatever can be cited. For to infer it merely from his consciousness, is to infer what does not exist by the very terms of the supposition. And what is consciousness itself? It too is but an act. But of what? Of ideas? Or ideas of it? Are ideas conscious each of itself, and one of another? Surely the act or event,

[ocr errors]

which we call an idea, and of which we are conscious, is different from the consciousness which we have of it? If not, why talk of them as distinct? But if so, then what is that consciousness? We must admit the presence of a percipient being attending to, and having knowledge of its own acts, or we must assert and maintain the monstrous absurdity of one idea being conscious of another, for after all our consciousness resolves itself into knowledge and knowledge is thought.

From the above remarks, it must be obvious to the reader, that the scheme which supposes man to be a mere concatenation of thought, without the existence of a spiritual immaterial substance, capable of the various acts of thinking, choosing, comparing, remembering, imagining, willing, &c. is eminently absurd. Indeed it is utterly unintelligible, and that it should be embraced by any, after sober and dispassionate inquiry, is passing strange! We have merely touched the different sources whence we draw the refutations of this scheme, and leave the reader to pursue the subject for himself. We turn from these metaphysical arguments however to another class which serve to confirm the spirituality of the human soul. They are drawn from scriptural facts.

1. Moses and Elias are said to have appeared with Christ upon the mount of transfiguration. Elias no doubt appeared in his entire human nature, for he "went up by a whirlwind into heaven.” Moses however died, and his body was laid in the earth, for the Lord “buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Beth Peor." As to the appearance of Elijah, there is no difficulty. His body was still material, though sublimated, and capable of being seen by the eyes of men as was the risen body of the Saviour. But it was different with Moses; and we must admit

1 2 Kings, ii. 11.

2 Deut. Ixv. 6.


either that it was the spirit of Moses which appeared in some assumed material vehicle or form, or, that his body had been raised from the grave. In so far as one class of materialists is concerned, it is a matter of indifference which supposition is adopted. One thing is certain, that centuries after the body of Moses had been mingled with its kindred dust, he appeared in this world conversing with Jesus Christ face to face, as a man talketh with his friend. And he still exists somewhere in the universe of God-but what is he? A mere material machine? A concatenation of thought? Who does not see the utter absurdity of either supposition!

2. The second fact we notice is that recorded of the dying thief. He prayed to the Saviour, "Lord remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom," and the Saviour replied, “To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” Now thc bodies of the Saviour and of the thief, were, on that very day laid in the grave, so that he must undoubtedly have referred to some other part of their nature than their material bodies. And if so, what could it have been but their immaterial and deathless souls? We can scarcely bring ourselves to notice the miserable criticisms by which those who adopt Dr. Priestley's views attempt to evade the force of this conclusion, when they say that the Saviour meant, by the phrase "to-day," which he used, nothing more than this, I now say to you, or, that as in respect of the eternity of God, one day is with Him as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day, so Christ meant to say by using the phrase "to-day,” in eternity shalt thou be with me. The common sense of our readers is offended by such pitiful trifling. Assuredly they must be reduced to great straits to support their cause, who find it necessary to put a meaning upon the dying Saviour's words, which actually makes Him speak nonsense, or practice a deceptiou.

I like. xxij. 43.

3. We might here cite the parable of Dives and Lazarus, which under all the circumstances related, may, though a parable, be regarded as strictly a matter of fact. Surely the Saviour did not mean to make a false impression on the minds of His hearers, with regard to the state of man after the death of the body. “The beggar," he says, “died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom.” Lazarus is represented as in some way living after death. Surely he did not mean to say, that the angels carried his body into Abraham's bosom! And this carrying was cotemporaneous with his decease. The two events are spoken of in immediate connection. Who would or could be led to suppose, that the Saviour meant the resurrection of Lazarus’ body, which is an event yet to take place?

But if this idea should be adopted by any, the language employed in reference to the rich man is yet more pointed. “The rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom." Whether we understand the word hell? here to mean the place of woe or the state of the dead, it amounts to the same thing. There is no allusion whatever to the resurrection of the body of the rich man, before he was made to experience the torments described. He was buried, and thus disappeared from earth; but at that time he was "in hell," and capable of the very same perceptions, and was possessed of the same sensibilities, which he had in the flesh-yea, and much more acute. We have information too of Lazarus' being in Abraham's bosom, and his knowledge was distinct and vivid, and exactly correspondent with that which in the flesh is had by means of vision. Should this circumstance, viz., that his perceptions and sensations are described by means of terms which undoubtedly denote the influence and ac1 Luke, xvi. 22.

2 Lukc, xvi. 23. 2 ud as-See Dr. Campbell's Preliminary Dissertations, D. vi. p. 2.

« ZurückWeiter »