Page images
PDF
EPUB

In a sermon on "submission to divine providence in the death of children," the pious Dr. Doddridge says, "Pious parents have reason to hope it is well with those dear creatures who are tak en away in their early days. I see not that the word of God hath any where passed a damnatory sentence on any infants; and if it has not, I am sure we have no authority to do it; especially considering with how much compassion the divine Being speaks of them in the instance of the Ninevites, and on some other oceasions. Perhaps, as some pi

ous divines have conjectured, they may constitute a considerable part of the elect, and as in Adam they all died, they may in Christ all be made alive. At least, methinks, from the covenant which God made with Abraham and his seed, the blessings of which are come on the believing gentiles, there is reason to hope well concerning the infant offspring of God's people, early devoted, and often recommended to him, that their souls will be bound in the bundle of life,' and be loved for the parents' sake."

WELL-TIMED REPROOFS.

THE celebrated Mr. John Howe, being at dinner with some persons of high rank, one gentleman of the company said many things in praise of king Charles the first, and made some indecent reflections on other persons; nor had he the good manners to refrain from intermixing horrid oaths with his discourse. Mr. Howe observed, "In my humble opinion, you have omitted one very great excelleney, which is generally acknowledged to belong to the prince you have so much extolled." The gentleman seemed pleased that Mr. Howe should unite with him in ap. plauding the prince, and pressed him to name the excellence to

[blocks in formation]

ON THE WORD BλaoQnux, [BLASPHEMY] BY DR. CAMPBELL. "I PROPOSED, in the second I am far from affirming, that in place, to offer a few thoughts on the present use of the English the import of the Greek word, word, there is such a departure frequently translated blasphemy. from the import of the original,

as in that remarked in the preceding article.

"But it deserves our notice, that when the Greek word refers to reproachful speeches against God, and so comes nearer our word blasphemy; still the primitive notion of this crime has undergone a considerable change in our way of receiving it. The causes, it would not perhaps be difficult to investigate, but the effect is undeniable. In theological disputes, nothing is more common, to the great scandal of the christian name, than the imputation of blasphemy, thrown by each side on the other. The injustice of the charge, on both sides, will be manifest on a little reflection, which it is the more necessary to bestow, as the commonness of the accusation, and the latent, but contagious motives of employing it, have gradually perverted our conceptions of the thing.

"The Greek word comprehends all sorts of verbal abuse, imprecation, reviling, and calumny. Now let it be observed, that when such abuse is mentioned, as uttered against God, there is properly no change made in the signification of the word; the change is only in the application, that is, in the reference to a different object. The idea conveyed in the explanation. now given, is always included, against whomsoever the crime be committed. In this manner, every term is understood, that is applicable to both God and man. Thus the meaning of the word disobey is the same, whether we speak of disobeying God, or of disobeying man. The same may

be said of believe, honor, fear, &c. As therefore the sense of the term is the same, though differently applied, what is essential to constitute the crime of detraction in the one case, is essential also in the other. But it is essential to this crime, as commonly understood, when committed by one man against another, that there be in the injurious person, the will or disposition to detract from the person abused. Mere mistake in regard to character, especially when the mistake is not conceived by him, who entertains it, to lessen the character, nay, is supposed, however erroneously, to exalt it, is never construed, by any into the crime of defamation. Now, as blasphemy is in essense the same crime, but immensely aggravated, by being committed against an object infinitely superior to man, what is fundamental to the existence of the crime, will be found in this, as in every other species, which comes under the general name. There can be no blasphemy, therefore, where there is not an impious purpose to derogate from the divine majesty, and to alienate the minds of others from the love and reverence of God.

"Hence, we must be sensible of the injustice of so frequently using the odious epithet blasphemous in our controversial writ ings; an evil, imputable solely to the malignity of temper, which a habit of such disputation rarely fails to produce. Hence it is, that the arminian and the calvinist, the arian and the athanasian, the protestant and the papist, the jesuit and the jansenist, throw and retort on each

[ocr errors]

other the unchristian reproach. Yet it is no more than justice to say, that each of the disputants is so far from intending to diminish, in the opinion of others, the honor of the Almighty, that he is, on the contrary, fully convinced, that his own principles are better adapted to raise it, than those of his antagonists, and, for that very reason he is so strenuous in maintaining them. But to blacken, as much as possible, the designs of an adversary, in order the more effectually to render his opinions hateful, is one of the many common, but detestible resources of theological controvertists. It is to be hoped,

that the sense, not only of the injustice of this measure, but of its inefficacy for producing convietion in the mind of a reasonable antagonist, and of the bad impressions it tends to make on the impartial and judicious, in regard, both to the arguers and the argument, will at length induce men to more candid methods of managing their disputes; and even when provoked by calumnious and angry epithets of an opposer, not to think of retaliating; but to remember, that they will derive more honor from imitating the conduct of him, who, when he was reviled, reviled not again."

REMARKS ON THE EXTRACT FROM DR. CAMPBELL.

THE observations of Dr. Campbell on the improper conduct of controversial writers, in accusing each other of blasphemy, are worthy of the author, and deserve the most serious consideration. We sincerely hope, that the evil, of which he complained, is falling into disrepute. Nothing short of the prevalence of the christian temper will so effectually restrain men from this unreasonable practice, as a uniform expression of public sentiment against it, as dishonorable and infamous. It behoves every friend to religion to do all in his power to put an end to a custom which has so long disgraced the

name of christians.

But the unfounded accusations of blasphemy are not the only things, against which the Doctor remarks may be made to bear. There are other charges

equally unfounded and injurious, in which controversial writers have indulged themselves one against another. Nor are such writers the only persons who have been guilty of this antichristian conduct. Too frequently things of a similar nature have been heard from the pulpit. This is not all, as we might naturally expect from such examples, private professors have learned the infamous dialect. Alas! how often have some of them been heard to utter the language of defamation against fellow christians, in a manner which might shock the feelings of men, who have had their education in military camps, or ships of war.

The temper, the language, and the lives of professors, should afford a daily comment on the precepts and examples of their

Lord and Master. Nor will they be properly distinguished from the world, until the temper of Jesus so far prevails in their hearts, as to bridle their tongues, and lead them to treat one another with more decency, respect, and tenderness.

If it be, as Dr. Campbell supposed, that the practice under consideration is an evil, imputable solely to the malignity of temper," what a shocking solecism is implied-malignant christians! malignant followers of the BENEVOLENT PRINCE OF PEACE! What words can be brought together to form more palpable self-contradictions? It surely behoves such professors to change either their names or their man

ner's.

What possible inducement can any believer in divine revelation have to propagate a sentiment, which, in his own view of it, is blasphemous or reproachful to God? What private interest is to be advanced, by conduct so preposterous and abominable. Or, may we imagine that such men would act a part so wicked without even the motive of private advantage? What then can be more reasonable than the candid suppositions of the Doctor, that each writer of the different sects believes his own opinions more honorary to God, than those of his opponents? And that each one supports his sentiments under the influence of such a belief? Shall such conscientious conduct be branded with the name of blasphemy, in fidelity, or damnable heresy?

Should the expected milleni, um arrive, when the religion of

Jesus shall become universal, and have a more perfect governing influence in the hearts of men; and should the writings, which contain such horrid accusations of one sect against another, be handed down to that time, it may then be a matter of astonishment, that such writers ever so much as dreamed that they possessed the spirit of the Lord Jesus, or that, in such writings, they were influenced by love to him. How shocking is it now to us, to read in ancient history, that christian bishops excited war and bloodshed, or supported their respective opinions by the point of the sword! This however is probably not more shocking to our minds, than the practice, which Dr. Campbell has censured, will be to the minds of those who shall live in the millenial state of the church. If, then, living writers or preachers, who are chargeable with such abuse, wish to have their names regarded as belonging to the christian catalogue, when that time of love shall have arrived, does it not behove them to wipe away the reproach, by a humble confession of their faults, and by faithful exertions to counteract the contaminating and deleterious tendency of their past examples?

more

In proportion as people shall obtain more correct views of the christian religion, such conduct will become more and shocking and detestable. In that wished for period of the church, it may be as difficult for christians to reconcile such a custom with the meek and benevolent spirit of the gospel, as

it now is to us, to reconcile with the same spirit the bloody or the fiery arguments of the ancient bishops of Rome. It may require more of the spirit of delusion and the arts of sophistry, than will fall to the share of good people in the millenial state, to show how the spirit of Jesus could ever lead his ministers to think of supporting their respective opinions, and reforming their opponents, either by the edge of the sword, or by the edge of the not less carnal weapons of anathematizing denunciations and calumny.

It is truly painful to remark on such inconsistencies in the conduct of those who have been ministers of the christian religion; and more especially so, as the remarks must bear on some, who, in other respects, have been worthy of esteem. But being ful

[ocr errors]

ly convinced that the practice is an evil, under the weight of which christianity groans, an evil which obstructs the progress of light and truth, an evil which ought to be corrected, and which must be corrected before christianity will appear to advantage; we were willing to second the efforts of Dr. Campbell, to put an end to practices which afford urbelievers such deadly weapons against the christian clergy. As we can account for the lamentable practice on no other ground, than that of the delusive, bewildering influence of prejudice, we hope that he who prayed for his murderers, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do," will, on the same principle, show more compassion to his ministers, than they have exercised one towards another.

A REMARKABLE PARAGRAPH FROM A CENTURY SERMON,
BY DR. KENDAL.

"THE bill of mortality I shall exhibit is for thirty years, beginning Jan. 1, 1783, and ending Jan. 1, 1813. I have no document to enable me to extend it farther back. There stand on my records 416 deaths; from which number deduct 20 that do not properly come into the accourt, being only visitors, or such as had come into the town in the last stages of disease, hoping to find relief from the salubrity of the air. After this deduction the number is 396, making the annual average number thirteen and one fifth, or sixtysix in five years. Of the 396,

ninety arrived at the 70th year of their age and upwards, making more than one in four and an half that arrived to what is called the common age of man. Out of the ninety who lived to this age, fifty two attained to their eightieth year, and upwards, giving more that one in eight that arrived to four score years. Of the fifty two that arrived to this age, twenty seven lived to eighty five, and upwards, giving one in fourteen and two thirds, that attained to these advanced years. Twelve lived to ninety, and upwards, making one in thirty of this very great age,

« PreviousContinue »