« PreviousContinue »
“Our idea of our soul, as an immaterial spirit is of a substance that thinks, &c." He does not say, that thinks always which seems necessary to prove the contradiction here insisted on. It is sufficient that the power cf thinking sometimes should be inherent in the soul, in order to distinguish it from the body which can never think; and here is nothing in this passage, which can lead us to suppose that Mr. L. meant that it must think always. Indeed the whole of his reasoning on this point tends to prove the contrary: for he had hefore said—“ It is not necessary to suppose that the sou should be always thinking; that, perhaps, is the privilege of the Infinite Author and preserver of things who never slumbers nor sleeps, but is not competent to any finite being, at least not to the soul of man." B. 2. Chap. i. Sect. 10.
But Mr Locke is said to be “ inconsistent,” because he has made extension one of the primary qualities of body, and thinking one of the primary qualities of spirit; THEREFORE," says Mr. P. “ it thinking be a quality of the soul answerable to extension, &c, in the body, it must be always in it, WHETHER PERCEIVED OR NOT, and the soul must always think.” To me this appears a very erroneous conclusion, as a little attentiou may easily convince us. To prove the falsity of this conclusion, let it be observed that “a power of communicating motion by impulse" is predicated as one of the primary ideas belonging to body" no less than “ the cohesion of solid extended and separable parts,” but will any one say that because this power, &c. resides in body, that it is always exerted, ur, in other words, that because body may be acted upon by another body by impulse, or by spirit, by will or thought, that it is always so acted
upon, no; we see that the power of being acted on alivays exists in body, but that power is not always called forth. In like manner the power of thinking always resides in spirit, but that power in spirit is not always exerted. And so Mr. Locke's position is proved that, as it is not necessary for body always to move; (that is, to be acted on as abovementioned, for it is perfectly inert of itself, and incapable of selfmotion;) so is it equally unnecessary for spirit always to think.
As to the assertion of Mr. P. that®“ the soul must always think, whether it perceives it or not,” it has been so completely refuted by the great Mr. Locke by what I judge to be unanswerable reasoning, that until that reasoning, as contained in Sect. 11. 12. 13. Chap. i. B. 2. of Mr. L's “ essay," is proved to be wrong, notwithstanding my high respect for Mr. P. I must be excused from receiving his ipse dixit in opposition to the reasoning of Mr. Locke.
Mr. P. says, “ if it be true that the soul does not always think, it may be proper to consider the power of thinking rather than the action of thinking as its primary and distinguishing quality.” To this I most readily assent; and am of opinion it is what Mr. Locke meant. The soul possesses a power of thinking (and if it be possessed of liberty and will, as Mr. Locke says it is, must possess also the power of not thinking) and a power of moving itself or body by means of thought; and therefore it might as well be predicated of it that it was always in notion, as that it always thought.
Upon the whole it appears to me that the conclusion drawn by Mr. P. from Mr. L's definition of the primary qualities of spirit and body cannot be admitted for the reasons given above; and that the position of
Mr. L, that “ the soul thinks not always," is perfectly untouched by any thing advanced in Mr. P's criticism.
-“If it were established,” says Mr. P. “ that the soul always thinks, it would necessarily follow that the intermediate state is a state of consciousness;” and é contra, if it be established that the soul does not always thinks would it not follow that the intermediate state is not a state of consciousness?
I am, Gentlemen,
Yours, &c. November 8, 1803.
APOLOGY TO JONATHAN DRAPIER,
TO THE EDITORS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCẢMAN'S MAGAZINE,
IF I have been guilty of any indecorum in my address to your correo
spondent, who signs bimself Jonathan Drapier, I am sorry for it; and if I have given him offence, I heartily ask his pardon. It was by no means my design to find fault with him for“ venturing into the company of learned men, in the pages of your Magazine;" far from it; I only recommended him to adopt, what I really thought was natural to him, style of writing somewhat more adapted to the manners of the present times, as I thought it would set off his sterling sense, and valuable labours in the cause of orthodoxy to the greatest advantage. For I think you will allow that the dress made use of by our beaus, in the age of WILLIAM III. at the opening of the eighteenth century, would sit rather aukward. ly on the persons of our beaus in the reign of GEORGK III. at the commencement of the nineteenth century. This being my sole view in the liberty I took with Jonathan Drapier, I hope, once more, he will grant me his pardon.
I am truly sensible that it is a difficult thing for an old man to lay aside his habitudes ;” and, as it is a real character in which your correspondent writes, and not an assumed one as I conjectured, I shall readily comply with his desire of " pardoning the mode in which he writes for the sake of the matter," and I shali no more "carp at his phraseology," and never had a design of " trying to subvert his arguments."
A correspondent of yours, p. 243, of your last month's Magazine, wishes J. D. not to lay aside either his assumed character, or style, as he thinks " good may be done under that disguise, but no harm." ready to submit my judgment to that of the respectable Author of
Unity the Bond of Peace,” and after thanking J. P. for honouring me with the appellation of “ your valuable correspondent,"to conclude myself,
I am TO THE EDITORS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S MAGAZINE,
obedient servant, Nov. 9, 1803,
LATELY endeavoured to explain the 8th chapter of Daniel as an epi
tome of the 11th and 12th. I shall now offer you my sentiments on the latter chapters. The prophet having touched upon the Roman abominations enlarges upon them in the gih chapter, v. 27. and foretels the exact time of the death of Christ at the distance of seventy weeks of years, from the time of the vision. The death of Christ and the calling of the Gentiles, took place in the beginning of the 70th week, and therefore 70 weeks (according to the Jewish calculation) intervened between the vision, A. 445, B. C. and t've death of Christ. This period is equal to 477 Julian years. The prophet has thus fixed the length of the year which he uses, and instructed us that he uses a day for a year. The one week of which he speaks, v. 27. relates to the Jewish war, and has no necessary connection with the seventy.
Further, as the number seventy may be indefinite, we may and ought to apply this prophecy to all the great persecutions which have lasted three and a halftimes, or half
a week. The vision terminales with the un-ealing of the Scriptures as was first done on the day of Pentecost. The 10th chapter is connected with the ninth, and seems to refer to the end of the time predicted in the ninth, and to describe the resurrection of Christ, and the effusion of the Holy Ghost. Comp ch. s. v.7. and Matth. xxviii. 4.
I now proceed to Antiochus Epiphanes, at chap. xi. v. 21. and shall consider him as the type of Antichrist in all his forms; but shall confine what I have to say to the Latin Antichrist. Mr. Mede has shewn that it is to the Latin Anticlirist that the three and a half times, ch. xii. 7. apply figuratively, and that the 1242 Julian years there mentioned, commenced in the year 455. In the next verse of ch. xii. the prophet enquires, “what should be the end of these things." The Angel points out, at v. 1! and 12, various periods when the papal power should be detected by the light of the Gospel, and invaded by a king of the south and a king of the north. Comp. v. 8.11. 40. If we date the 1290 and 1335 years from the desolation under Antiochus, Tilus, or Hadrian, we shall find that they point at the various thunderings of the first reformers, the Michaels of their times, and at the judgments upon Antichrist by the Saracens and Turks. (See Mede and Whiston on the place.) If we consider the year 455 as the epoch of abomination, these periods will reach to the years 1727 and 1772, when the first partition of a papal kingdom was made by a king of the south and by a king of the north. These two periods are remarkable for the progress of infidelity as well as for judgments upon popery, The Jacobins are a new edition of the Jesuits, from whose ashes more particularly they may be considered as springing. (Sce Barruel and Robison.)
To proceed with verse 21. The connection between Antiochus and the Latin Babylon may be further shewn by observing that the bones of the Martyr Babylas, were found at Antioch, a circumstance which served much to promote Demon worship. Observe, secondly, that as Antiochus, a mean person, usurped the throne of Antioch, so the pope usurped the western empire, and the low-born democrat is now the head of the Wes
tern family, from which community the Anglo-Saxons were separated at the Revolution. (Dan. ii. 34. Rev. xi. 13. Is. vi. 13.) Observe, thirdly, the manner in which Antichrist obtains kingly power without the name; viz. by putting on sheep's cloathing ; by pacific pretensions, and by flattering the persons and prejudices of men.
Verse 22. A further means by which Antichrist should prevail is here said to be by exciting insurrections among the people, and setting them against their governors temporal and spiritual.
Verse 23. It is through the Christian covenant perverted, and by peace-breaking, that this little horn gradually raises itself to eminence.
Verse 24. By forceable mediations and peaceful promises, Antichrist seizes upon and plunders many nations, and by bribery and plots becomes master of many citadels.
Verse 25. Antichrist invades Egypt, and the governor of Egypt is subdued by his treachery. This expedition was accomplished in the crusades, whether we consider Egypt as then subject to the eastern emperor or to the Saracens. It was also accomplished in the late French expedition in 1793, to Rome. (Rev.xi. S.)
Verse 26. Antichrist excites insurrections and seditions amongst his enemies as was done by the Lutins at Constantinople, and by the French at Rome, when many of the Romish communion joined the French, and received them hospitably. Pius vil. was of that number.
Verse 27. Here the treachery of the Latins and Orientals is strikingly described. The Byzantines pretended friendship to the Crusaders, and afforded them provisions which they had first poisoned, and at another time united with them in the Latin communion. So Pius vir joins with Bona parte in communion, “but it shall not prosper.".
Verse 28. Both the plunder of Constantinople by the Latins, and of Rome by the French in 1798 followed by the crusade against the Waldenses by the papists, and against the English by the French, seems to be the subject of this verse.
Verse 29. We now come to the time of the end, and to an expedition common to papal and infidel Antichrist. (Rev. xvi. 13. and Is. xviii.) This is the invasion of Egypt in 1798 by the emissaries of Rome and France. Here the success of Antichrist falls short of what it had been and of what it is to be in his third and last expedition to the south.
Verse 30. By the ships of Chittim are probably meant those of the islanders, Jer. ii, 10, and when we recollect the defeat, indignation, and return of Bonaparte from Egypt, together with his alliance with the pope and the jacobins, we cannot but see how applicable this verse is to that event.
Verse 31. The prophet now proceeds to describe the general persecutions of the church by Antichrist, which account is equally applicable to papists and infidels, and particularly to the present most Catholic Atheist. Bonaparte. By arms is meant either the secular arm, or the army, and by the sanctuary of strength is meant the church, and by the daily sacrifice is denoted the everlasting Gospel, and by the abomination of desolation is designed idolatry and desolation of the church. The desert always denotes a spiritually barren people. (See Rev. xvii. 1. 5.)
Verse 32 to 36. Here is consolation indeed ! Where Antichristian principles prevail not, Antichristian arms cannot succeed. (2 Thess. 2. 10.) Then let us “ hold that fast which we have [our articles of faith,
whole and undefiled, without the smallest addition or diminution) that no man take our crown," Rev. ii. 11. Let no false liberality of ours cause our God to spue us out of his mouth.
Verse 36. Observe Antichrist is here said to have no other law but his will. His own reason is his only god. Moreover he blasphemes the name of the Almighty, and receives to himself the honour due to God alone. He is to prosper till God's indignation against his Church and against the Jews for transgressions is accomplished.
Verse 37. When the anti-social conspiracy shall be accomplished, we shall be better able to understand how infidelity is subversive of marriage, an institution which the philosopher considers as a grievance. The çelibacy of the clergy is still required by Bonaparte.
Verse 38, 39. Here is a plain description of the worship of saints, and more especially of the pretended Peter of Rome, the reputed head of that church and of the western empire. This is the strange or false god who is honoured with golden and silver images by his deputy the pope, and Latin clergy. Amongst the saints the pope divides the world, and then under the pretence that St. Peter is head of the saints, and resident at Rome, he concentres all power in himself as vicar of St. Peter.
This god of forces, proteclors or palladiums, moreover may denote the god Mavors ; or Fortune, the chief of the destinies and genii. To use the words of Gibbon, it was the genius or fortune of the popes which restored Rome to its greatness ; to use the words of Bonaparte, Fortune and the god of war are with him. “ Shades of Cato, of Pompey, of Brutus, of Cicero, of Hortensius, receive the homage of free Frenchmen,” said Ge. peral Berthier when he entered Rome. (Duppa.) In all these cases the prophecy was accomplished. As fortune is the favourite deity of Bonaparte, it may not perhaps appear trifling to express in Greek letters the French for good lot with an Italian termination. The word will be found to contain the number 666—- BoveragTn.
Verse 40 to the end. The time of the end is any time of reformation and deliverance, by a publication of the Gospel, and the detection of Antichrist. To the time of the end all the numbers point. The periods are generally to be understood both figuratively and literally. The Antichristian power moreover may be considered as one, or as many powers from the time of Antiochus, to the day of judgment. The prophecy and the dates also, besides applying wholly to each coming of Antichrist, connect his various comings.
For instance, Mr. Mede computes the 1290 and 1335 years, not from the year 455, but from the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, and concludes the periods in the 12th century. We may compute the periods in the same manner perhaps from the time of Herod, Pontius Pilate, Titus, Hadrian, Julian, and Leo 1. At the end we shall always find a depression of Antichsist such as was the papal captivity at Avignon, the sacking of Rome in 1528, and the desolation of France in queen Anne's wars. If we consider Michael as representing Luther, king William 111. and (as I hope) our present excellent sovereign, I think we shall have a sufficient clue to apply the prophecy in the other cases, especially if we compare it with the loth and iith chapters of the Revelation. I should not how, ever omit to observe that the king of the north is sometimes exclusively the nominative case to the 41st verse. At the time of the Reformation