ATHEISM. 55 Original. ATHEISM. PERHAPS a more lamentable instance of atheism is not recorded in the annals of modern times than that of Percy B. Shelley, the friend and boon companion of Lord Byron. Being of an ardent temperament he commenced his career as an author at the early age of fifteen, and continued it with more or less brilliancy until the close of his life, which occurred during a violent storm while on a sea excursion near the headlands that project from Leghorn into the Mediterranean. Immediately subsequent to his death, his poems were collected and published in volume form, between those of Coleridge and Keats; and as such, having been stereotyped, they have obtained a place in the choicest libraries. A formal review of his works is uncalled for on the present occasion. To say that we admire the precision of his style, the originality of his thought, and the finish of his execution, is equally unnecessary. Those who have given the least time in examination of his productions, particularly Cenci and Prometheus Unbound, must acknowledge that he possessed the inspiration of poesy in a high degree. We do not consequently feel it incumbent on ourselves to discuss his claims to authorship, nor have we any disposition to enhance or diminish the admiration which they, as literary productions, may receive; we speak simply of their moral tendency, and this we claim the prerogative to discuss so long as they are permitted to be before the public. It cannot have escaped the observation of the reader of Shelley's works that in his several prefaces he endeavors to forestall criticism; not on what might be termed the blemishes of genius, but on the moral sentiments advanced and dextrously interwoven in his poems. He seems to have been conscious at times of the turpitude of his course; and fearful of animadversion or exposure, he strives, by raising the hue and cry of superstition, to silence all remark respecting the preposterous notions contained in his creed. His biographer offers no defense of his conduct here; but regrets that one so full of ideal beauty and enthusiasm should have subjected himself to the accusation of being unable to conceive of the existing state of things as it practically affects the nature and condition of man. At the University of Oxford he rendered himself notorious by publishing a pamphlet under the absurd and world-defying title of THE NECESSITY OF ATHEISM; for which he was expelled that institution. This event proved fatal to his prospects for life. Exasperated almost to madness by this "devilish movement of the University," as he terms his expulsion, he indulged in the bitterest rancor against its officers and faculty; and "bolstering himself up under the idea of persecution for opinion's sake,” he remained inexorable to the admonitions alike of friends and relatives. Notwithstanding the pertinacity with which he at first maintained his dogmas, it is to be surmised that after years convinced him of his grosser metaphysical errors, and that it was "No pleasant voyage, to float Like Pyrrho, in a sea of speculation." His virulence somewhat relented, and he is said to have disclaimed being the author of certain profane expressions in Queen Mab, one of the most exceptionable of his poems. And from this circumstance we might feel inclined to forgive the iniquity of his youth. It should be recollected, however, that subsequent matters will not justify us in supposing that he was concerned about the laxness and infidelity of that poem, or that he suffered the least compunction for his sins and transgressions. If he experienced sorrow in having vilified the cause of virtue and religion, why was there no retraction? This he could have made in the following editions of that work; but we see nothing like it from his pen, and we are forced to believe that if he lamented any thing, it was the very unenviable position he occupied in the eyes of the community. In point of style, Queen Mab may be inferior to the Don Juan of Byron, yet it is certainly not less unhinging and ruinous in its tendency. No intimation is given of the circumstance, but it is probable that this poem is founded on a meagre skeleton of Volney's Ruins; for it arrives, although in a less logical manner, at the same notable conclusions, namely, that "necessity is the mother of invention," and that "there is no God." In the notes appended to it, the author affords numerous and unequivocal proofs of his depravity. He seems to stand alone. His heart seems totally depraved; his thoughts are evil and evil continually. His language is the language of defiance and scorn. In fact there is nothing in the recklessness of Tindal, or the ribaldry of Paine, that will compare with the foulness of this vile blasphemer. He condescends indeed to speak of the Bible, not however that he may commend it, but to caricature it; not to attest its authenticity, but to evince his contempt for its commands and precepts. As an example of his rashness we have the following: "I had rather be damned with Plato and Lord Bacon than go to heaven with Paley and Malthus." As a palliation of the enormities of Shelley, it has been alledged by some that in disposition he was ever mild and amiable; and although occasionally given to metaphysical revery, he was nevertheless remarkable for his complaisance and benignity of heart. This allegation, specious as it may appear, is absolutely groundless, having no foundation either in honesty or truth. Anxious as was his 56 WHERE SHALL I SPEND ETERNITY? biographer to conceal his defects, and make his life upright and honorable in the sight of men, he was compelled to pronounce him often silent, sombre and misanthropic. There are points in his private history which afford mournful evidence that "he lived as the fool liveth." But we forbear to mention them. The atheist, however much of humanity he may boast, is still the same heartless being, the same cold-blooded, gloomy speculator, the same determined foe to happiness, "the devil's pioneer, who cuts The fences down of virtue, saps her walls, And opes a smooth and easy way to death." After he has destroyed our belief in a superintending providence, after he has persuaded us that the prospect of an hereafter is but "the baseless fabric of a vision," after he has taught us to despise the precepts, ridicule the doctrines, and brave the threatenings of the word of God, after he has succeeded in making us believe that this earth upon which we dwell is nothing more than a vapor eddying in the whirl of chance, undestined, uncompassioned, unupheld, and after he has wrung every drop of consolation from our souls and dried up our very spirit within us, then he leaves us-leaves us in despair-leaves us to wander on in night without a guide, without a ray to light our path, without a hope to cheer our gloom. "Ah me! the laureled wreath that murder rears, As waves the night-shade round the skeptic's head." From such philosophy, and from such comforters may Heaven preserve us! "O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honor, be not thou united!" E. H. 1440 DEATH OF THE YOUNG. BEAUTIFUL is that season of life when we can say in the language of Scripture, "Thou hast the dew of thy youth." But of these flowers death gathers many. He places them upon his bosom and his form is changed to something less terrific than before; we learn to gaze and shudder not, for he carries in his arms the sweet blossoms of our earthly hopes; we shall see them again, blooming in a happier land. Yes; death brings us again to our friends-they are waiting for us, and we shall not be long-they have gone before us, and are like angels in heaven. They stand upon the border of the grave, to welcome us with countenances of affection, which they wore on earth, yet, more lovely, more radiant, more spiritual. Death has taken thee, too, sweet sister, and "thou hast the dew of thy youth;" he hath placed thee upon his bosom, and his stern countenance wore a smile. WRONG MOTIVES. WE are too apt to offer children wrong motives, or inducements; that is, we make a wrong use of things good in themselves. For example, how often have I heard a Christian mother say to her child, "For shame, you disgrace yourself before your uncle," or, "You ought to be ashamed to be seen doing so"-instead of teaching the angry or disobedient child that he sins against God! It is certainly right to inculcate respect for relatives, and a desire to enjoy their good opinion; but it is very doubtful if such remarks as the above promote that end any better than they do the other, which the mother has in view, namely, the supplying a sufficient motive for good behavior. Again, parents say, "Study hard, that you may be distinguished." "Be a good boy, that every one may admire and love you." "Correct your temper, or you will be called cross patch." "How can you be so mean as to cheat-no one will respect you." This may be all well; but it would be far better to teach your children that God has given them faculties to be improved, which they are bound to cultivate, and that they are responsible to him for the use they make of them. It would be far better to teach them that the sinfulness of their evil tempers and habits consists, first of all, in their being displeasing to God, and contrary to his revealed will. "Study that you may become useful." Correct your temper, because angry passions are hateful to God," &c.-S. S. Journal. 130 ཉང་་- WHERE SHALL I SPEND ETERNITY? A LADY had written on a card, and placed on the top of an hour-glass in her garden-house, the following simple verse from one of the poems of John Clare. It was the season when the flowers were in their highest glory: "To think of summers yet to come, That I am not to see! To think a weed is yet to bloom From dust that I shall be !" The next morning she found the following lines, in pencil, on the back of the same card: "To think, when heaven and earth are fled, When all that can die shall be dead, That I must die no more! O! where will then my portion be? Original. BAPTISM. BY THE EDITOR. BAPTISM. We have received a letter of objections to the views expressed in our December number on this subject. The author seems at a loss what estimate he shall set upon that brief article. At first he assures us that our "views are nothing new; nor are the arguments-they have been answered often." But, in another section of his letter, he tells us that our "reply is very ingenious." Surely, he must have been exceedingly unsettled in his opinion of the value of our performance. Another paragraph of his epistle reads thus: "If you agree that immersion is valid baptism, it requires the sacrifice of conscience not in the least to unite with the Baptist brethren." To this we reply, first, that, though we admit immersion to be a valid baptism, we do not believe it to be the apostolic usage, nor a convenient form; that is, so far as ceremony is concerned, we do not believe it is either Scriptural or expedient. Secondly, we deny that one class of Christians ought to yield to another class in all matters that are not sinful, for the sake of denominational union. Nor would the immersionists act on this principle in several cases which we may suppose. For instance, if a party amongst them were to introduce "feet washing" as a religious rite, and secede from all those of the sect who should refuse to recognize it as obligatory on modern Christians, would the hundreds of thousands of their brethren join these bigots merely because there is nothing sinful in washing "one another's feet?" These schismatics might turn to their brethren, as this letter writer does to us, and say "it requires the sacrifice of conscience not in the least to unite with us." 57 ladies, with four or five children each, are comfortably afloat in another safe craft. The single men call to the parents in the other boat, and inform them that they have still room for six grown persons, and, as their company would be very agreeable, urge them to forsake their own boat, and come aboard. "Have you room for our children?" the anxious parents all exclaim. "O, no!" say the first, "never mind the children-set them afloat, and God will take care of them." The parents, with one consent, refuse this cruel counsel. The unmarried men begin to "scull" their boat, and the others, with three good oars on each side, begin to row. The first boat goes heavily; yet, with much ado, is carried along toward shore. The other, with her three pairs of oars, sails easily, and shoots ahead. Every little while the bachelors call out to these families, and say, "Ho! theredon't be so bigoted. We have room for you here. Why will you not come aboard?" The response now is, "At first we had only one objection, namely, leaving our little ones behind; but since we have watched your motions, we have another trifling objection, namely, your laborious, inconvenient method of sailing. Why do you 'scull' rather than row?'"' But, further, is the ceremony of baptism the chief point of dissention between the immersionists and other Christians? Certainly not. Suppose we were to consent with them in this matter, what is to be done with infant baptism? Can they expect, for a moment, that we should proceed to the length of shutting our children out of the kingdom of God for their accommodation? Just as likely should we be to turn all Friends, and absolutely give up the sacrament. We would not give a groat for the privilege of electing between the abolition of the sacrament altogether and the refusal of it to our children. The invitation by immersionists, therefore, to join them, because dipping is confessed to be a valid baptism, may be illustrated thus. Two boats are launched from a wrecked vessel, one of which is occupied by half a dozen unmarpassengers, while the boat has a capacity for six or eight more. Three married gentlemen and ried VOL. IV.-8 Now, as to the ceremony of baptism, immersionists are in the inconvenient posture of the "scullers." To this we might not object as to a "mortal sin." Yet we prefer to be in the convenient and lawful condition of the "rowers," even on this non-essential point, But if they who labor the boat slowly forward with a mere stern power, should continue to challenge these parents, and say, "You confess that to scull as well as to row is sailing-come, therefore, and get into our boat," one obvious and insuperable obstacle remains, and they reply, "If we were ever so resigned to put up with your slow sailing, we wish you to recollect that in no case shall we consent to leave our dear children behind." So we reiterate-(and we trust immersionists will not overlook it)-"In no case can we consent to spurn an obligation as sacred, in our opinion, as divine authority unequivocally expressed can make it, and reject our children from the Church or kingdom of God." There is one more paragraph in this letter which we shall freely animadvert upon; and as it is the summary objection to our article, in replying to it we consider that we reply to all. It is as follows: But the New Testament decides for us the meaning of baptizo, (Rom. vi, 4, Col. ii, 12.) Whether these were the baptism of the Spirit or water they were a burial; therefore, baptizo cannot, in the opinion of Paul, denote sprinkling or pouring." We rejoice that this correspondent engrosses all his arguments into this one proposition. It makes the issue a unit, which can be more satisfactorily discussed than multiplied or diffused points of va- ' riance. To the general allegation that "the New Testament decides for us the meaning of baptizo," we most cordially assent. Whether that sacred authority decides the question as our correspondent alledges, we shall take the liberty to inquire with some deliberation. And, first, we will consider the proof texts which he seems to suppose must summarily settle the question. The first is Rom. vi, 4: "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." The second is Col. ii, 12: "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also we are risen with him, through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." then, because it resembles the crucifixion of Christ, than for immersion, because it resembles his burial, i. e., his reposing in a spacious sepulchre. You may ask what is the meaning of these texts? We answer, if you insist that baptism represents certain states in which the body of Jesus was at different times, as his crucifixion, death, burial, &c., we should conclude that some of the Romans were immersed, some were sprinkled, some were poured, and some stood in the water while the ceremony was performed. Those who were immersed you may say, if you choose, were buried with Christ, (though that is the most awkward comparison of all.) Those who were sprinkled were crucified with him by water aspersion, resembling the blood from the wounds inflicted by the thorns, and the nails. Those who stood in the stream to be thus sprinkled were planted with him in the likeness of his death, like the roots of a tree planted in the soil. Thus the baptisms in the Church at Rome must have been as various, if this is the meaning of these passages, as they are among the Methodists. But, although we doubt not that their baptisms were various in mode, (though all one in regard to the name into which they were baptized, as it is said one Lord, one faith, one baptism,) yet we do not believe that these passages have any regard to external mode. They teach us simply that in our baptism we profess to be dead and buried to sin and to the world, and to be alive to holiness and to God. This is the foundation of a special claim upon us to "walk in newness of life." The import of the words is much the same as those in Gal. iii, 27: "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ (i. e., by water and the Spirit) have put on Christ;" (i. e., have put on the profession, and have assumed the tempers of love and loyalty to Christ.) They who urge these texts in opposition to pouring, and in favor of immersion, suppose that by descending into the water, and rising out of it again, they copy the blessed Savior's burial and resurrection. How strange it is that they do not pause to look at the history of Christ's burial and resurrection, and thus correct an impression which has no other foundation than their own fruitful fancies. How, I pray you, was our divine Redecmer buried? Have you supposed that the earth overwhelmed him; that the clay, like waters, closed over his sacred person? His burial was much more like our repose in a chamber than it was like the usual interring of the dead. We are told in the history that Joseph wrapped the body in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre. This sepulchre was so spacious that on the morning of the first day of the week it was occupied by two angels, who were sitting the one at the head and the other at the foot where the body of Jesus was laid. What is there in immersion which bears the least resemblance to such a burial? The resemWe will now proceed to inquire as to the signi blance is just as striking as it is between immer-fication of the word baptizo in the New Testament. sion and the crucifixion, or immersion and plant. ing in the next verses. The apostle represents us as buried with, as planted in, and as crucified with Christ by baptism. If immersion resembles Christ's burial, how does it represent the planting or crucifixion? Suppose we should undertake to prove sprinkling from these texts of Scripture, by seizing on that particular passage, "Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him," &c. When our Savior was crucified, his blood, pouring from his wounds, was sprinkled upon his own raiment. The crown of thorns, the nails in his hands, and the soldier's spear, stained his limbs, and countenance, and vesture. This was probably the very baptism to which he referred when he said, "I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened!" &c. Much more plausibly may we plead for sprinkling, If, as immersionists fondly insist, it means, in the New Testament, "to immerse," and nothing else, then argument is good for nothing. This is a point which involves philological criticism; but if the writer were prepared for this, his readers are not prepared to go along with him. There is a more instructive and a surer method. It is an appeal to Christ and to the inspired philologists. They used Greek words and phrases in a sense in which they were never used before. Instance-"being born" Nicodemus did not understand. The question for the Christian and the Christian minister is not what is the classical import of words, but what is their evangelical import. The question is not how Homer, and Plutarch, and Sophocles used them, but how did our Savior and his amanuenses use them. If there is no note of change in the meaning of BAPTISM. words, they are to be understood in their usual and classic sense. But if there be undoubted tokens that the inspired penmen, or the Divine Redeemer, used a word in an eccentric or unclassic sense, to array proofs to the contrary from the ancient usages of speech, is skeptical, indocile and profane. The only question for us then is, what do Christ and his disciples mean by the word baptize? Three baptisms are spoken of by John. These are distinguished by the elements with which they are performed. The first is by water, the second by the power of the Holy Ghost, the third by fire. Now we can determine the meaning of the word baptizo, in the Scriptural sense, if we can ascertain how either of these baptisms was performed. In each case, an element is applied to the person of the baptized. We say, to the person, for the soul and body both belong to the person. How, then, is the element used? Water is one element. The Scriptures are examined to ascertain how it was used, and a controversy arises. Some say it was used in one form, some say in another. Nine tenths of the Christian world insist it was applied in any convenient form and quantity; one tenth, more or less, say it was applied only by immersion. Who shall settle the question? and how? Any one may settle it by traveling on through the New Testament and ascertaining how the other baptisms were performed. What was the mode of baptism by the Spirit? To ascertain this you must go to Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost. After the company of the apostles have been baptized by the Spirit and are filled with the Holy Ghost, Peter stands up and says to the wondering multitudes who accused them of wine-bibbing, "These are not drunken as ye suppose; but this is that spoken by the Prophet Joel, And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy. And on my servants and on my hand-maidens, I will pour out in those days of my Spirit and they shall prophesy," (Acts ii, 17, 18.) And this is repeated in another form, verse 22, "Therefore (Jesus) being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear." There are two other portions of Scripture which we wish you to connect with these passages, and we are sure that you can scarcely again, without great weakness, not to say irreverence, doubt whether pouring is valid baptism. The first is in Matt. iii, 11: "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." This is an early announcement of Christ's future office when he should ascend up on high to give 59 gifts unto men. The other is in Acts i, 5: "For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence." This is the language of Christ himself, uttered after his resurrection. And just as he was about to ascend into heaven, he said as his last words, "It is not for you to know the times and the seasons which the Father hath put in his own power; but ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you. Thus, three years before our Savior's crucifixion John says that Jesus shall baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire. Then, only ten days before Pentecost, Christ says, "Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." And then again in the 8th verse, Christ signifies the form of that baptism which was so ncar: "Ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you"-not when it has immersed Ten days after, Pentecost arrives, the promised baptism comes, and Peter, in the language of the Prophet Joel, says that this baptism is the pouring out of the Spirit-that "Christ having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, has shed forth this which you now see and hear." you. In these passages we have the testimony of John, of Peter, and of Jesus Christ, to say nothing of the prophecy of Joel. Jesus was to baptize. His baptism was to be spiritual. He never did baptize with water in any one instance. If he did not baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire, he never baptized at all. But unless pouring is baptizing, he never did baptize with the Holy Ghost. Every prophecy and every narrative in all God's holy book that speaks of any manner or mode of giving the Holy Spirit, uses language which signifies the descent of the Spirit upon the subject. Now did Christ or did he not baptize? If he did, his only mode of baptizing was by pouring. And as he thus baptizes we follow his example. The efforts of our opponents to escape the force of this argument, are enough to relax the muscles of grave logic into a smile. We will notice two of them. First, they say that the disciples were really immersed in the Holy Ghost, for the narrative states that the Spirit filled all the house where they were sitting. This is a mistake. "The sound as of a mighty rushing wind filled all the house where they were sitting;" but there is not the least hint in regard to the Holy Ghost being present at all till the second verse after. The other evasion is, that this is a mere figurative baptism. A figurative baptism! And who drew the figure? The Lord Jesus Christ. And he pictures himself as shedding down, and pouring out the Holy Ghost on the people to baptize them! |