« PreviousContinue »
larities, in tracing the correct list of the persons from whom Jesus Christ descended, as it relates to his human nature. said apparently incorrect tables, because I am fully persuaded that persons skilled in this branch of science might, satisface torily, solve all the difficulties which occur on this subject. But the limits of your publication will not admit of a full investigation. Suffice it to observe, that the genealogy of Christ is given by Matthew in the line of Joseph, because he was born in wedlock, and therefore generally accounted his son, agreeably to the general custom of tracing genealogy in the line of the father. And let it be remembered, that both Joseph and Mary were of the same tribe, as appears by their going to the same city (Bethlehem) to be taxed. So that it is clear that Christ was the son of Abrahain and David, both by father and mother.
Luke gives his genealogy by Mary. Matthew shews Christ's royal descent from David and Solomon, froin bis father-in-law Joseph, who descended by his own father Jacob froin Solomon. So Luke gives us Christiš natūral descent as “ the seed of the woman," from Mary, daughter of Heli; and thus descended from Nathan, another of the sons of David. The learned investigator may find ample satisfaction, by consulting Mr. Ilenry's Exposition in loc.; and especially the authors quoted by Dr Doddridge, or referred to in his notes on this subject in his Family Expositor, vol. 1. p. 4+, &c.
Plymouth. I remain yours respectfully, H. M.
ANOTHER correspondent refers to Stackhouse's History of the Bible, fol. 2d edit. vol. 2, p. 1957.- Bishop of Llanduit's Answer to Payne, p. 67. - Mr. Scott's ditio, ed edit. p. 6:3.
CHRISTIAN FORTITUDE OF A PROTESTANT PEASANT.
FORMERLY, most of the inhabitants of Kintail, in Scotland, were Roman Catholics, though now it is otherwise. This poor man was tenant to a Roman Catholic nobleinan; and being grievously oppressed, he, in consequence, had arrears to a considerable amount with his landlord. The farmer applied to his lordship's under-factor, or steward, to intercede for him, and procure him some redress. He promised the honest man to speak to his lord in his favour; but he did no such thing. The farmer then addressed the superior factor, beseeching him tu petition his lord for him: he too promised fairly; but did pot perform. The man, in despair, at last took courage, appeared before the lord himself, and told him his simple tale. The lord bad pity on bim, and gave bien a discharge in full for all he owed him; and even condescended to accompany the peasant through the great hall, on the walls of which buns the nictures of saints and martyr, His lord ship asked him,
representatives of saints, to whom I pray that they will inter cede for me with the great Lord of all, to forgive me iny sins.' “ But why not pray to the great Lord of all yourself?" Oh! that would be too great a presumption; -- it is far better 10 have such mediators, as saints, between God and man. “I do not think so, my lord ; and I will prove it :-I first applied to Little Sandy, your under-factor, to intercede with you for me: he did it not. I then addressed Muckle Sandy, the other factor: he too promised, but did nothing neither. Then all at once I applied to yourself, my lord, and you have forgiven me every thing.
AN EXAMPLE FOR PROFESSORS.
The following anecdote, as it shews the power of consistency of conduet in stopping the mouth of prejudice, may not be unworthy your notice. One of the numerous tribe of busy bodies, who go from house to house to sow discorci and division, said lately to the wife of a poor man whom the grace of God the Holy Ghost bad brought to the saving knowledge of Jesus, " Ilow sorry I am to hear that your husband is gone after the Methodists; you will now be a miserable woman as long as he lives; for, in the first place, they will fleece him of every shilling that he earns; and, in the next place, it will not be long before he goes mad!" Why' replied the woman, for aught I see, he is quite as wise now as he was before he heard them; and I am sure lie is a much better husband, for he brings home twice the money on a Saturday night that he ever did till then; and therefore I have determined to go afier ihein too.' It is almost ncedless to say, the objector felt the force of her argument, and withdrew, May all who profess the gospel, and especially those in humbie lite, thus put to silence the tongue of detraction !
NIREUS. BACKWARDNESSS TO MISSIONARY EFFORTS REPROVED.
The primitive Christians expended large suns in propagating the faith and preaching the gospel. They thought that the principal care of a Chrisiian, after bringing into captivity his own thoughts to the obedience of Christ, was to convert others. Ecclesiastical history gives us many examples, and particularly that of St. Chrysostom, mentioned by Theodoret, He assembled monks full of zeal, and sent them to preach the gospel in Phenicia; and having wderstood that there were people dispersed along the banks of the Danube, who thirsted for the waters of glüce, he sought ont men of ardent zeal, whom he sent to labour, like apostles, in the propagation of the faith. I blush to mention this example, because it recalls that reproach which we just now ineptioned, --That we bare no zeal for the salvation of Inficlels; and that the fleets which we send to the new world ile much more avidia wito a desire to accumulate wealth, that io convey the gospeito the natives.
AN ENQUIRY INTO THE SEPARATE EXISTENCE
OF THE SOUL.
When life departs from the body, no outward proof rea maibs of the existence of the soul. If it is still capable of consciousness and exertion, the evidence of so important a fact must be deduced from some other source than that of our natural senses. To ascertain it, is one of the most interesting of all human investigations. When we look forward to our own dissolution, or when we look backward upon that of our friends, how desirable do we feel the certainty of a spiritual state, independent of the body!
Reason offers her mite toward the discovery. “I possess," said a late celebrated anatomist, “ faculties of mind too extensive, and too lively, ever to accomplish the purposes for which they must have been given, while they are restrained by bodily infirmity. They must have their full scope in a future existence.” But,' said a friend,“ do you believe that the body will be raised again? “ No," he replied, " what should I do with these linbs in a superior state ?" — Thus our reasoning faculties, retaining but the shadow of their original dig. nity, partly approve and partly oppose the dictates of the word of God. Their office is to judge of the evidence with which the claim of any declaration, assuming that title, is attended ; not to sit in judgment upon its doctrine, when that claim has been duly substantiated.
Reason, alone, never was sufficient to demonstrate the certainty of a future state; though it has advanced many sound arguments for its probability. The wisest and best of the ancient Heathens remained in painful suspense on the subjecte If modern Infidels have attained to greater confidence respecting it, it is not that they possess a mental superiority over their predecessors, but because they have lighted the smoking torch of their reason at the sacred altar of revelation, which they affect to despise.
Yet while the utmost efforts of human reason have proved incoinpetent to attain to satisfaction respecting a future state, its existence has, in every age of the world, been an object of popular belief. Scarcely a nation can be found, however ig. Dorant and savage, that does not, for the greater part, believe in the separate existence of the soul. Has the coinmon sense of the populace prevailed, where the science and logic of the greatest philosophers have been bewildered? In some instances, it may have done so : but it is not easy to conceive, that theintellect of a South Sea Islander could ascertain what Socrates and Cicero left in doubt. It is, surely, by far more probable that the source of this opinion, like that of the use of sacrifices, should be traced to origio al revelation, of which these precious
fragments have been almost universally preserved, by popular tradition and custom.
“ But," it has been said, “ no express declaration of a future state is recorded in the books of Moses.” Neither is the original appointment of sacrifice there recorded. Yet this was practised from the beginning; and the supposition, that the other was not always believed, is attended with insuperable difficulties. One must, therefore, have been divinely commanded, and the other divinely revealed.
How unintelligible would be the general conduct and the devotional language of the patriarchs and tie prophets, if they did not expect a future state! Yet some of their degenerate posterity, in the time of Christ, rejected that doctrine. History informs us that they were few, compared with the body of the Jewish nation; and that they were inostly rich, sensual, and unprincipled persons. They attempted to confound our Lord, with a cavil about the law of marriage, in the state that should be after the resurrection. This he immediately refuted; and he demonstrated to them, from the books of Moses, which was the only part of the Old Testament that they held in veneration, not merely the existence of the soul after the resurrection, but in an intermediate state. He reminded them that God was entitled, “the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob," long after they had departed from tbis life; and that, therefore, these patriarchs bad entered upon another state of existence : because God would not have called himself the God of persons who did not then exist. Consequently, all mankind that ever lived, are still alive before God, though not visibly so to us *,
This passage, alone, is sufficient both to establish the separate existence of the soul, and to prove that it was not unknown to the more ancient believers. But our Lord did not bring life and immortality to light, merely by expounding the spiritual purport of the Old Testament, and by extending the knowledge of it to the heathen world. He likewise, on several oecasions, illustrated, by his own doctrine, the state of souls during their separation from the body. His account of the rich man and the beggar, after their deaths, states, that the former was tormented, and the latter blessed, while others were living upon the earth : and his promise to the converted thief upon the cross engaged, that, in the course of that day, his soul should gain admittance to a state of happiness t.
Thus it is evident, that both the glory of believers, and the misery of the impenitent, take place inmediately after the actual death of the body. The functions and appearances of life may be suspended for hours; and, in some instances, even for days, before dissolution takes place. Many have seemed,
Exodus iii. 6. Luke xx. 37, 39. + Luke xvi. 19–30, and xxiii. 43.
after such intervals, to become reanimated ; and, I believe, have mostly been incapable of recollecting any mental exercise during the suspension of their corporeal faculties. But ignorance, or thoughtlessness, alone, could urge these instances as arguments against existence after death. What person, well versed in medicine or anatomy, would use efforts for restoring to animation one whoin he knew. to be absolutely dead? Beyond that point, there can be no restoration to mortal life but by miracle: and on this side of it, the soul is likely to be 100 much oppressed by its connexion with the body in such a state, to possess the same capacity of recollection that it coinmonly bas after natural sleep.
It may be objected, that the persons whom our Lord raised from an actual state of death, do not appear to have spoken of the state in which they were while separate from the body : and it may be answered, that it was not the will of Christ they should do so *.
“ But Luke is the only evangelist who has mentioned these arguments for a separate state, independent of the resurrection of the body: and he was not an apostle, nor present at our Lord's discourses; therefore some have doubted his inspiration.” No argument can disprove his inspiration, much less invalidate the authenticity of his narrative. But the doctrine is maintained and illustrated by one whose inspiration no believer in Christ can consistently dispute. The apostle Paul grounds, upon this important truth, his confidence amidst distress and danger. “ Therefore," says he, "we are always confident, knowing that whilst we are at home (or abide) in the body, we are absent (or separate) from the Lord; and are willing rather to be absent (or separate) from the body, and to be present (or to abide) with the Lord t.” Hence, at a later period, when reviewing his usefulness to the church of Christ, he expresses his conviction that it was desirable for him, notwithstanding, to be dissolved. “ To me to live is Christ, and to die is gain; but if I live in the flesh there is this fruit of my labour; and what I should chuse I know not, for I am in a strait between two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ, which is far better I." The apostle had his heart too ' warmly engaged in his Master's service, and enjoyed too much of his gracious presence, to be induced by infirmities, temptations, and distresses, to prefer a state of inactivity and insensibility to that in which he lived. He did not desire to quit his earthly tevement, but to enter into a heavenly one prepared for him; and he knew, from the Spirit of God, that his mortal life would, at the hour of his dissolution, not be lost in unconsciousness, but be swallowed up in lite ş. The plea, that be
* Luke xvi. 37–31.
| Phil. i. 21–23.
+ 2 Cor. v. 6, 8. $ 2 Cor. v. 1-50