solidity, figure, and mobility, are always in it, whether they are perceived or not. If, therefore, thinking be a quality of the soul answerable to these qualities of body, it must always be in it, whether perceived or not, and the soul must always think. For, as it is impossible to conceive, that body can exist without extension, &c. so, according to this analogy, it is impossible to conceive, that the soul can exist without thinking. I wish you to consider, whether this inconsistency be real or apparent? whether, if real, it may not be removed by changing the word thinking into the power of thinking? and whether the analogy, which Mr. Locke seems so desirous of supporting, between the primary and distinguishing qualities of spirit and body, may not still be supported? If it be true, that the soul does not always think, it seems proper to consider the power of thinking, rather than the action of thinking, as its primary and distinguishing quality. Some, I know, will be inclined to take the other side of the alternative; i. e. to dispute Mr. Locke's opinion, that the soul does not always think, and to agree in his statement, that thinking is as essential to the soul, as extension is to the body. If it were established that the soul always thinks, it would necessarily follow, that the intermediate state is a state of consciousness; unless, indeed, we were to suppose, what seems plainly absurd, that the soul is annihilated by death. If it be admitted that the power of thinking, rather than the action of thinking, is essential to the scul, it still remains to be considered, with respect to the question of the intermediate state, whether the connection between the soul and the body be of such a nature, as to render the soul incapable of exerting this power inde pendently of the organs of the body. On this subject, see the first chapter of Bishop Futler's Analogy; in which, if there is not enough to satisfy curiosity, there is more than is to be found in Plato's famous book on the Immortality of the Soul. Oct. 12, 1803. E. P. APPENDIX APPENDIX TO THE REMARKS ON THE WORD MYSTERY. TO THE EDITORS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S MAGAZINE, GENTLEMEN, THE HE following is an extract of a letter, which I received from my much-esteemed friend, the Rev. T. Ludlam. Considering it as a valuable Appendix to my "Remarks on the Word Mystery," I will thank you to insert it in your Miscellany. I am, Gentlemen, Rempstone, Det. 13, 1803, EXTRACT, Yours, &c. E. PEARSON. "Knowledge may be communicated to intelligent beings-by "All these methods have been made use of by God, in his intercourse with men; sometimes singly, as in the case of the prophets and apostles; sometimes in conjunction, as in the delivery of the law from mount Sinai. Now then, by revelation, we mean a miraculous discovery of truth; that is, a communication of such knowledge from the Deity, as the human faculties are unable to attain; and it is this inability which makes the discovery miraculous, and which also constitutes the difference between a mystery and a secret, Truth thus purposely concealed, is called a mystery. A mystery, therefore, must necessarily be a secret ; but it does not follow, that what is a secret must therefore be a mystery. The art of printing, the composition and application of gunpowder, the use of the mariner's compass, were secrets for many ages; but we are not indebted for the discovery of them to supernatural information, but to human ingenuity.” TO THE EDITORS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S MAGAZINE, ENTLEMEN, HAVING been at a great distance from the metropolis during the summer months, where I have not my magazines so regularly as I could wish, it was not till this week that I received my two numbers for the months of August and September: in the former of which I find an apology from your correspondent, Jonathan Drapier, for not having fulfilled his intention to prosecute his remarks upon the Christian Observer, and a wish expressed that the author himself would take the business into his own hands, If this zealous friend to the cause (would we had thousands such in our ranks!) will give himself the trouble to look back to my letter in the preceding month, he will see how painful it was to my own feelings to go so far as I have there done, and how inconsistent I consider it to be with the delicacy of an author to have any thing to say upon his own performance, even in reviewing the reviewers of it, however partial, insidious and unjust their criticisms may be. My friend Jonathan (for such he is, though I have not the knowledge of his person) will do it with more propriety and success: and he has given good proof of his power in the following number; where, to speak in his own language, he has trimmed the jackets of the Christian Observers, and given a specimen of the cloth which it was not to be expected that they would shew to their customers. Your facetious correspondent seems to wish for my opinion of what he has written. Do tell him, Mr. Editors, that I think very highly of his zeal, his abilities, his attachment to the cause, his honest frankness, and even the character he has assumed; though one of your correspondents wishes him to lay it aside, and with his assumed character the quaintness of his style. I wish no such thing. I see good that may be done under that disguise, but no possible harm; and I dare say his satirical strokes will amuse others of your readers as well as Oct. 13, 1803. Your sincere good wisher, THE AUTHOR OF UNITY THE BOND OF PEACE REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS. REVIEW of OVERTON and DAUBENEY, CHAP. II. SECT. I. IN this chapter, which is divided into two sections, it is the professed design of Mr. O. to investigate, with a view to the question in debate, the real sense of the articles of the Church of England, 1st, from our different forms, as they illustrate and explain each other, and from the public and approved writings of our reformers; 2d, from the known private sentiments of the reformers. At the beginning of the chapter, Mr. O. makes an observation respecting the royal declaration, prefixed to the Articles, which, in our opinion, completely oversets the great design of his book, and proves to a demonstration, that, if the Articles are to be interpreted in either a Calvinistic'or Arminian sense exclusively, it must necessarily be, not in a Calvinistic, but an Arminian sense, The observation is this: "Our argument," (i. e. the argument for a strictly literal interpreta tion of the articles) receives a still further confirmation from the royal DECLARATION, which is prefixed to the articles. This, which, like preambles preambles in general, was made for the express purpose of teaching us the right method of interpretation, has determined the matter in the fullest manner in which words can possibly determine any thing. It speaks of the literal meaning of the said articles, as "the true and usual" meaning. It prohibits us from "varying or departing from them in the least degree," or from "affixing any NEW SENSE to any article.". -And what is not a little remarkable, in regard to that article, with which divines now take the greatest liberties, and which they most labour 10 evade, extenuate, and annihilate, this preamble is the most express in prohibiting such a procedure. The injunction in respect to this is, That no man shall either print or preach to draw the article* aside any way, but shall submit to it in the plain, and FULL MEANING THEREOF; and shall not put his OWN SENSE or comment to be the meaning of the article, but shall take it in the LITERAL AND GRAMMATICAL SENSE." If therefore common language is any longer to be made the vehicle of common sense, whatever is the plain, literal, grammatical, and full sense of the words of the articles, that is the sense in which they are to be understood. "This declaration, it is true, was not provided either at the time when these articles were first compiled, or imposed, and is therefore only evidence of their intention then, as it teaches that this literal and grammatical sense, was "always" the "true and usual" sense of them. But, admitting its validity, which is generally done by our divines, this circumstance of its posteriority renders it of more importance as a directory to It shows, what well deserves our attention, that it was not, as some would insinuate, only on the first moment of her emerging from Popery, that our church adopted this mode of interpretation; but, that more than half a century afterward § she adhered to it; or, to speak more correctly, did not descend below it.". us. Now, it is well known, that this declaration was prefixed to the articles by the influence of Archbishop Laud, and other Arminian divines of that day, and that the sense, in which they wished the articles to be understood, was the Arminian sense. If, then, Mr. O. acknowledging the authority of this declaration, will maintain, that the articles are to be so strictly interpreted, as not to admit both of an Arminian and a Calvinistic sense, he must, in order to be consistent with himself, give up the Calvinistic sense ofthem as of no authority. This argument was pressed on Mr. O. by Mr. Pearson, in his "second letter to him," and we have not heard, that it has ever been repelled. We do not think, that it is possible to repel it satisfactorily; nor, indeed, do we recollect ever to have met with an instance, in which a combatant more fairly furnished a weapon for his own defeat. *The 17th, no doubt, is meant. See the preamble to Arts. Bishop Burnet's Expo. of Arts. Intro. p. 8; Dr. Bennet's Essay on 39 Arts p. 423; Dr. Ridley's 2d Letter, p. 145, &c. and Postscript; &c. § See Ibid. "If, as you say, and as is undoubtedly true, this declaration was obtained by the influence of Bp. Laud and his associates, as expressive of the doctrines then taught in the Church, nothing is more certain, than that it is expressive of Arminianism, and that Arminianism was then taught in the Church; for nothing is more certain, than that Bp. Laud and his associates were Arminians.”—p. 57. M Mr. Daubeny begins his reply to this chapter with a definition of what is to be understood by Calvinism.— "Under the term Calvinism," says he, "must be understood to be comprehended, not those evangelical doctrines, which 7. Calvin held in common with our Reformers, but those peculiar tenets which may be considered as originating in a great measure with himself, and derived their chief authority from his writings. It has been, I am inclined to think, for want of a proper discrimination having been made between the doctrines of Grace and Calvinistic doctrines, properly so called, that so much confusion has from time to time crept into this subject, that it is become impossible at all times, to ascertain the precise ideas meant to be conveyed by the parties engaged in this controversy; a circumstance which tends to render all accommodation between them hopeless." "The tenets which peculiarly distinguish the religious system of J. CALVIN, as they are to be found in his writings, are these following:The absolute and unconditional election, or predestination, of certain particular individuals, to eternal salvation; and the equally absolute and unconditional reprobation of all the remaining part of mankind, without respect of persons. As preparatory to this divine act of predestination, taken in this absolute and unconditional sense, it is maintained, that GOD fore-ordained the fall of man*. That in consequence of his fall, the whole human race, becoming a mass of corruption, it was decreed by Gop, before the foundation of the world, to choose some out of this mass to be saved, and to leave the others to everlasting misery †. This is what CALVIN calls that eternal decree of GOD, by which the final condition of every individual was determined before he was born into the world. For all, (says he) are not created under the same circumstances; but to some eternal life is pre-ordained, to others eternal damnation §. And the occasion of this difference between the elect and the reprobate is resolved solely into the arbitrary will of GOD." "To these fundamental principles," on which the Calvinistic system rests, "must be added some tenets, which appear to be inseparably connected with them, respecting the irresistibility of divine Grace, the absolute impossibility of the elect falling from Grace; and a third, respecting GoD being the sole operator in the work of man's salvation; man being only a machine or instrument in his hand; which, together with one additional tenet, compleats the horrid picture, which Calvin has given of that Being, whose mércy, we are told, is over all his works; namely, that part of the divine plan of redemption consists, in actually fitting and preparing the reprobate for the doom to which they have been consigned, by rendering them absolutely incapable of being profited by any means of Grace whatever: so that whilst the elect are prepared by GOD for glory, by his working all in them; so in like manner, the reprobates are prepared by GOD for damnation, by his rendering them * “ Arcanum Dei consilium, quo præordinatus fuerat hominis lapsus." Calv. de Præd. p. 607. 66 + Deum ex perdita massa eligere et reprobare, &c." Ib. p. 613. + "Eternum Dei decretum, quo apud se constitutum habuit, quid de unoquoque homine fieri vellet." Calv. Instit. 1. iii. c. 21. 5. + "Non enim pari conditione creantur omnes; sed aliis vita eterna, aliis damnatio æterna præordinatur." # "Nec absurdum videri debet, Deum non modo primi hominis casum, et in co posterorum ruinam prævidisse sed arbitrio quoque suo dispensasse." Instit. 1. iii. c. 23. 7. Vol. V. Churchm. Mag. Oct. 1803. |
