« AnteriorContinuar »
is explained in these words, “And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground ;" but we do not find that he became a living soul, till "he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” Now if Br. Brooks can prove that the Lord God breathed into the nostrils of the man, nothing but dust, he has the argument; otherwise, he has failed in obtaining his object.
It is not at all strange that God, in addressing man, with reference to his mortal state, should call him dust, when at the same time he possessed that which is not dust. This figure of speech that puts a part for the whole is used in several other passages. It abounds repeatedly in Rom. vii. 14—22.
Tho man is called a living soul in two passages which my brother has quoted, (the one, however, being a quotation from the other) which may mean that he is a living animal or a living creature ; yet some passages of scripture speak of soul and body as distinct parts. Matt. X. 28; 1 Thess. v. 23.
St. James speaks of the body as being dead without the spirit. Job says, "there is a spirit in man;" and St. Paul speaks of preserving spirit, soul, and body. *
From the testimony of scripture, it is evident that Adam had spirit as well as other men, tho it prove true, that dust is not spirit; and if he had spirit, it was without doubt living; for we never read of a dead spirit. Adam then was a living spirit ; but Christ, a spirit which gives life : avevua Swortocow. The spirit of Christ is pure; but the spirit of Adam was defiled by sin. Should it be said that God's pronouncing man dust overthrows the idea of his being a living spirit; I say, the same would overthrow the Apostle's affirmation that Christ was "a quickening spirit,” or more properly, a spirit which gives life ; for he “took part of the same” dust. It does not then appear supported that "it rests entirely on the proposition, that we shall bear the image of the heavenly, whether there be any such thing as what is called a future state for us ;" for this being predicted on the position that man is merely dust, fails for want of strength in the position itself. It is as easily proved from scripture, that there is a spirit in man, which my brother says is not dust, as that he is a living soul.
*Thess. v. 28.
Br. Brooks says, “In order to exist in any state but that which is merely dust, we must be changed ; and we shall all be changed in a moment," &c. According to his views, he should have said exchanged. There is no such thing as a thing being changed, and yet retaining nothing of its original principles. I cannot see that Br. Brooks' idea of a future state, can be any state for us; for he seems to make its inhabitants separate and distinct beings. If I am nothing but dust, and, when I die, the Lord makes a spiritual being, which has nothing of dust, and of course nothing of me, how then can that being be any more I than any other creature which the Lord has made ? And if it be no more I, then there is no future state for me altho I may have a suecessor in such a state.
Under the second hcad of argument, it seems that Br. Brooks has partly mistaken my reasoning. The opinion of the Jews on the subject of future punishment was not addressed as any sort of direct authority. Nor did I consider the silence of our Savior on any subject which they believed, an argument in favor of their sentiments. The use that I was disposed to make of these circumstances, was to facilitate the labor of interpreting our Lord's words. When we address men according to their sentiments, and mean something very different, we act a deceptive part, that is altogether unworthy of our Lord. If the Scribes and Pharisees believed in a future retribution, the object of our Lord would not be
defeated, when he said, “For every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgement,” tho its place or mode should be different from his own ideas. Their faith united with the plain import of the expression, would lead them very near the true spirit of the subject. The very drift of my reasoning on this subject he has adınitted, and then endeavors to cut me off by the doctrine of transmigration. It seems he cannot but see that he is here off the question, even tho I should grant that he is right in the aforenamed Jewish doctrine. The manner, mode, or place, of judgement, was not the subject of conversation, but the certainty of it.
But I do not find that Br. Brooks has rightly represented the ancient Jewish doctrine. Buck, in his Theological Dictionary, is decidedly against him. See him on the articles, Pharisee, and Jew. The author of the book of Acts* says the Pharisees confess both angel and spirit. If spirit does not mean dust, or flesh and blood, their views of the resurrection could not be by transmigration, as represented by Br. Brooks. So when he said, "All this is very well," alluding to what I had before offered on the subject of future judgement, it seems unfortunate for his ground, that he should attempt to spoil mine, by what appears a mis-statement of transmigration.
There are two or three of the last sentences in his piece which I am now considering, that I hardly know how to understand. Did I possess a better knowledge of my brother's general sentiments, who has a mind of much originality, perhaps the ideas would be clear. Whether he means that there is no future state but what is in this natural life on the earth, or whether he means something else, I cannot tell. His language is very peculiar.
S. C. LOVELAND. * Chap. xxii. 8.
A NEW ASSOOIATION OF UNIVERSALISTS. The rational cause of liberal christianity having taken deep and effectual root in the minds of many brethren, in the state of New Hampshire ; and these brethren being favored with the annual meetings of the General Convention but unfrequently, neither privileged with the sessions of the Eastern, Western, Northern, or Southern Associations, those being holden respectively in the adjacent states; and being desirous to extend the principles and advance the prosperity of Zion's cause in that region ; they were anxiously desirous that an association should be formed, the meetings of which should be holden within that State.
Accordingly a number of ministering brethren conferred on the subject of this desired object and decided in favor of an acquiscence ; consequently, set apart the second Wednesday in June (1824) for this purpose.
The society of Universalist brethren in Westmoreland (N. H.) by their early request, claimed that the first meeting be holden there; accordingly, the following ministering brethren assembled at the house of Nathan G. Babbitt, Esq. viz; Samuel C. Loveland, Robert Bartlett, Dolphus Skinner, and Lemuel Willis, and met in council, together with the brethren of that place, on the morning of the second Wednesday, to make arrangements for the order of divine services on that day, and consult on the expediency of organizing an association to be holden in that state, and proceeded to business, aster invoking the blessing of Deity by brother Robert Bartlett,
1. by choosing brother Samuel C. Loveland, Moderator. 2. by choosing Br. Lemuel Willis, Clerk.
3. Voted to organize an Association to be denominated, The New Hampshire Universal Association.
The public services were as follow : 1st. Introductory prayer by Br. Samuel G. Loveland, sernion Br. Lem
nel Willis, from Luke xvi. 26; concluding prayer, Br. Dolphus Skinner. ed. Introductory prayer, Br. R. Bartlett; sermon, Br. D. Skinner from Isa. XXV, 6, 7, 8; concluding prayer, Br. L. Willis.
3d. First prayer, Br. D. Skinner; sermon, Br. Samuel C. Loveland, from 2 Cor. iv. 1, 2; concluding prayer, Br. R. Bartlett.
Met in council after public exercises, and voted to request the several universalist societies in this region to represent themselves, in future, by delegates, as is usual in our general meetings.*
Adjourned to meet again at Hancock, N. H. the second Wednesday and Thursday in Jule, 1825. Prayer by Br. Samuel C. Loveland.
LEMUEL WILLIS, Clerk.
Beloved brethren of the same most precious failh with us,
We ought not to consider that any labor of ours in the harvest of the great Redeemer is hard or unpleasant, although as teachers and believers in general on the account of the systematic opposition of our opponents, we must expect to subject ourselves to many things disagreeable, or what would be as such if it were not for the extrenie satisfaction that every faithful servant feels in having done his duty, although arduous. It is our duty, having enlisted under the great captain of our salvation, to fight valiantly, but not with carnal weapons. Should a Goliath approach, let us go to the brook proceeding from the mountain of the Lord's house, and there extract a few smooth stones. Do the spotted leopards of our enemies' camps prowl about us ? Let us remember the Lion of the tribe of Judah. vailed to open the book, given as a rule and guide to
He has pre
* It was the calculation of a number of the brethren that this Association, be represented the General Convention of Universalists ; but this calculation, through inadvertence, was de. glected to be acted upon. If, however, any of the ministering btethren are disposed to represent this connexion to the general budy, it is presumeed a one will make any objection.