Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

but her breath or life, Gen. 35: 18. Nothing more departed from the child, mentioned 1 Kings 17: 21, 22. And nothing more departed from our Lord, Matt. 27: 50. See Dr. Campbell's note on this last text. What then, Sir, am I to do? Must I still believe the soul is immortal? This is impossible, unless I believe without evidence. But I turn to p. 70 of your Letters, already quoted, and find you tell me the law of Moses did not teach a future retribution or future existence, consequently could not teach your doctrine of an immortal soul. Why then do you believe it? Why, because it was taught in revelations which are now lost. But how do you know this? Why, because you think so; some others have said so; and chiefly because you cannot prove it in any other way. I pray thee have me excused from believing any thing of such importance, on such evidence as this.

It is likely you will object to the above remarks by saying, "this only makes the soul of Adam to be life." Answer. What right have you, Sir, to say it was an immortal soul? To assert it is, proves nothing, but is contrary to the Scripture usage of nephish and psuhe rendered soul in the Bible, for no Scripture writer calls the soul immortal. It is also contrary to the phrases both in the Hebrew and Greek, rendered living soul. Gen. 2: 7. The very same phrase is rendered living creature in other places. See Gen. 2: 19, and comp. Gen. 1: 21, 24. It is the false notion attached to the term soul, imbibed from education, which occasions so much perplexity to people on this subject. If any man will contend that the phrase rendered living soul means an immortal soul in man, let him show us why it does not mean the same when applied to the brutes. See the above texts, and Rev. 16: 3. Modern versions render this phrase" living person." And-"liv

[ocr errors]

ing animal." See Geddes, Newcome, Improved Version, &c. Parkhurst, as quoted in my Essays, denies that the terms rendered soul means an immortal soul. Bates, in his Critia Hebrea, says--" nephish is never, that I know of, the rational soul. It is no more soul than the brain is the understanding, or the heart the will. They who leave the Scriptures and reason from the nature of matter to prove we have a soul, and that it is naturally immortal, are paving the way to a disbelief of both points." Whether, by leaving your Bible, and reasoning on lost revelations to prove the soul immortal, is not paving the way to a disbelief in the Scriptures, I leave to your own sober reflections.

LETTER X.

SIR,

THIS letter shall be directed to an investigation of the origin and progress of your opinions respecting the immortality of the soul and its condition after death, from the earliest times to the first introduction of philosophy into Rome. It has been the burden of your song throughout your book, that "the Scriptures were addressed" to such as believed these opinions, and in p. 70 of your Letters you declared the law of Moses does not teach either a future life or a future retribution, consequently cannot teach the immortality of the soul or its condition after death. It would then be idle to look into the Scriptures to find the origin of such doctrines.

From what source then did the "immortality of the soul and its condition after death originate? You have

contended, that these doctrines had their origin in revelations which are now lost. In refutation of such a

position enough was said in preceding letters. But in further refutation of it, and also of your position that the Gentiles derived such opinions from the Jews, I refer you to Dr. Enfield's History of Philosophy, vol. i. p. 20, 21; and vol. ii. p. 210-221.What he says in these pages is a complete refutation of both these positions, and on which your system rests for support. Dr. Enfield justly remarks, "as to the traditionary law, which the Jewish writers suppose to have been the ground of their cabbala, if it were not a mere invention of later times, it must have been given by divine revelation, and can furnish no argument in defence of the philosophy of Moses. Much less can any argument for this purpose be derived from writings which are confessedly lost, and which have not been proved to have ever existed." Before you can establish your system from lost revelations, two new revelations are necessary; one, that those revelations did exist, and another, that your opinions were taught in them. But two facts, Sir, show that this ground on which you rest your cause is false. 1st. The heathen never alleged that their belief in the immortality of the soul and its condition after death originated in revelations which hap pened to get lost. 2d. On the contrary there is a profusion of evidence that the Jews derived their opinions respecting the soul and its condition after death from their intercourse with the heathen. It would be a waste of time to show this here. Evidence of it will appear in the sequel. See Dr. Campbell's 6th Dissertation with many other writers I might name, who all bear testimony to this fact.

You will then ask, whence could such opinions originate?. It shall now be my business to show this: and before I begin, I premise two things which you

advantages which Thus the human "professing themThat men in after

will not dispute. 1st. Men began at a very early period to speculate on divine revelation. Eve began to speculate on the prohibition, Gen. 3: 4, 5. For my views of the serpent, see Second Inquiry, sect. 2. "Immortality," "ye shall not surely die," and to be "as gods," are held up as the would result from transgression. race, from the very beginning, selves to be wise became fools." ages went on to indulge their own wisdom, is too manifest to need any proof. At the flood "all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.” In the family of Noah, the human race as it were, began anew; but in Abraham's day the world had relapsed again into idolatry. God called him out of Ur of the Chaldees, made him the father of the Jewish nation, and from whom the Messiah was to proceed. Among this nation the knowledge of true religion was to be preserved, amidst the idolatry and superstitions of the surrounding nations. God suffered all nations except the Jewish, to walk after their own ways, and to what extent in superstition and wickedness the indulgence of their own supposed wisdom led them, Rom. 1. shows. But it deserves special notice, that whatever were the opinions of the Chaldeans and Egyptians, in the days of Abraham and Moses, respecting the immortality of the soul or its condition after death, they could not have learned them from the Jews. Enfield, in the pages referred to above, tells us that Thoth, Hermes, Trismegistus, the Chaldean Zoroaster, and other founders of the ancient barbaric philosophy, were prior in time to Moses, and even to Abraham." What opinions the Chaldeans and Egyptians did hold, we shall see presently. But why Abraham and Moses did not teach their opinions, though brought up in Chaldea, and Egypt, and familiar with them, I leave you to ac

count for, if they believed them of divine origin.How do you account for this fact, for you allow Moses in his law teaches no such opinions?

2d. Permit me to premise, that none of the heathen had the least idea of future life by a resurrection from the dead. This remark I believe is without exception true. The very wisest of them deemed a resurrection incredible. It was mocked at when Paul preached it at Athens; Acts 17, and 26: 8.Such a thing was contrary to all their observation and experience, and a divine revelation, they did not enjoy. If the heathen then speculated at all respecting a future life, or entertained any hope about it, it must have been about the soul. That they did speculate about the immortality of the soul and its condition in a future state, is certain. To their speculations I shall now call your attention, and in them we shall find the origin of your opinions.

I have drawn my information from the best sources I could find, and if you know any better, I will thank you to point me to them. The sources of information on this subject are scanty, and Enfield accounts for it vol. i. p. 7-to which I refer you. But, Sir, scanty as these means are, my fear is, I shall not find room for all the materials I have collected. What I cannot quote, I shall condense, or refer to the pages where the information may be found. To understand more distinctly the quotations now to be introduced, it is proper to notice what Enfield says, vol. i. p. 15.. He says "the term barbarian was applied by the Greeks to all those nations who spoke a language different from their own." He adds-" it has long been a subject of dispute, whether philosophy first appeared among the barbarians, or among the Greeks." After showing, p. 15, 16, that the vanity of the Greeks led them to claim this honor, he adds, "on the other hand, the barbarian nations, in their turn,

« EdellinenJatka »