On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    Power of Conscience illustrated in the Case of Herod . Both fcbese iafteresfc ing subjects are treated with great simplicity , and we regret that we hare not room for an analysis of the discourses . Dr . Rees assumes that

    Herod was a Sadducee , We confess that we are not acquainted with the authority for this statement . It gives , we allow , more of dramatic effect to his exclamation on the appearance of Christ , and has consequently been oratorically introduced by preceding

    preachers , Atterbury , * Conybeare , f and others ; but we prefer history to eloquence , and Dr . Craig , one of the most judicious and useful of divines , has shewn that a salutary and striking moral may be drawn from the fact of the Tetrarch ' s having been at least a

    partial disciple of the very prophet whom , at the instigation of passion and pride , he afterwards murdered . J - > in Sermon XX . of the last volume , Dr . Rees treats on a favourite subject and with a master ' s hand . He argues * ' the distinction between the soul and

    the body , " from our Lord's words , Matt . x . 28 , which we put down at length , to make the following extract more easily intelligible to the reader : And fear not them which kill the

    body , but are not able to kill the soul : but rathe ? ' fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in helL These words , says our author , seem evidently to intimate ,

    ** That there is a real and important distinction between the body and the soul . Our Saviour represents the one and the other as equally constituent parts of the human frame . He ascribes a real subsistence to one as much as the other ; and , adverting merely to the literal sense of the language which he used , it is no

    ? Sermons , IV . 98 . + Sermons , I . 262 . \ Twenty Discourses , &c , Vol . II , p . 49 , &c . We take this opportunity of recommending these three little volumes to the reader . The same author ' s "

    Essay on the Life and Character of Jesus Christ , " a thin 8 vo . volume , of which a third edition was printed at Edinburgh , ia 1811 , is highly extolled by two of our most competent judges , Mr . Wakeneld , in Ms Evidences of Christianity , ( 2 nd . ed . p » 29 , ) and by Archbishop Newcome , in his Observations on our Lord ' s Conduct ( 2 nd ed . 8 vo . Pref . p . viiU .

    Untitled Article

    less reasonable to infer from it the proper existence of the aoul than that of tiL body . What conclusion would his atuKtors naturally deduce from his mode of expression ? What meaning would the ? annex to his worxis ? Would they not justly suppose , that their frame was composed of two substances , equally reaf

    and yet essentially distinct from each other ? When he says , that men might kill the body , but could not kill the soxit could he use any language that more inl telligibly and unequivocally expresses the difference between the one and the other and the superiority of the soul , in its ual ture and the manner of its subsistence to the

    body ? If the soul were equally material with the body , and as much liable to dissolution , how could they con * ceive that men might kill the body and not kill the soul ? They would need a Comment on this expression to preveot their misinterpreting it ; nor would the apostles derive that encouragement from it which it was intended to afford them

    It waa consistent neither with our Saviviour ' s design , nor with his usual fidelity , to flatter his followers with a groundless imagination , and with vain hopes , that there was a part of their frame which the violence of their enemies could not

    injure , if he knew that the soul and body were oim * uniform substance ; that the existence of the one depended upon the organization and permanence pf the other ; and that both would be equally dissolved by death .

    " This argument acquires further confirmation from considering , that the persons to whom our Saviour ' s discourse was immediately addressed believed that there was an essential difference between

    the soul and the body . This opinion was prevalent , both among Jews and Heathens , before and at the time of our Lord ' s public ministry . If the opinion had not been just , can we imagine that our Lord would have availed himself of an error ; that he

    would have encouraged the continuance of it ; and that he would ; have practised deceit on the unsuspecting" confidence of his friends ? To give just views of the doctrine of a future state , to correct the mistakes that were entertained concerning it , and to place its evidence on a proper foundation , were the great objects of our Saviour ' s mission and ministry . If

    the doctrine of a eoul , as a substance essentially different from the material body , was the source of so many corruptions and superstitions as have been ascribed to it , there could not have been a more favourable opportunity than that which now occurred of explaining this doctrine , and guarding against the pernickwa influence that fe supposed to have

    Untitled Article

    68 © Reviewj ~ + rD s + Rees ' j Practiced Sermons

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Nov. 2, 1821, page 680, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2506/page/48/