On this page
- Text (3)
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.
distinct from the body , and can exist without it or not ? This , I presume , will , to many persons , be in general an interesting topic of inquiry ; and is , perhaps , at the present time more peculiarly interesting , on account of
the expected approaching trial of Mr . John Wright , on the charge of blasphemy , in consequence of having , in a discourse , idvanced sentiments upon this subject contrary to the popular notions . Sentiments similar to those
espoused by Mr . J . W . were many years ago publicly professed by some persons of high rank in the Church of England , as well as by men of research and learning amongst the Dissenters . Your Correspondent V . F . ( p . 276 ) , has made some just remarks upon the speech of the Bishop of Chester , in
the House of Lords , as given in some of the public prints , in reference to the case of Mr . J , Wright , The father of this prelate , the late Dr . Edmund Law , Bishop of Carlisle , was a man whose soul could not be confined by the shackles of an established system , but would avail itself of its natural
liberty . Those who wish to make themselves well acquainted with matters , which have a connexion with the topic discussed in your learned Correspondent . N . ' essays , and with the subject , which is the ground of offence in Mr . J . Wright ' s Sermon , would do well to consult Dr . E . Law ' s "
Discourse on the Nature and End of Death under the Christian Covenant , with the Appendix and Postscript , " subjoined to his ** Considerations on the Theory of Religion . " This judicious and learned writer , in this Discourse , considers 1 , " In what sense
we are delivered from death by the sufferings and death of Christ . " 2 , " Why so much of the power of death is still permitted to continue in the world . 3 , ** What notions of it nre now proper and agreeable to the Christian state . ' Under the first
head he endeavours to ascertain the meaning of the word death , as it is strictly raid properly applied in Scripture j and to do this , he refers to that " remarkable passage , where it u *
first used in that denunciation wliich brought Adam and his posterity under it , and where , we must suppose it used in all the plainness and propriety of speech imaginable . " ( Gen . ii . 17 . ) Our author asserts , that the original
Szshop Law on the Mortality of the Soul . 605
Sir , Stockport , July 9 , 1817 . AS a friend to free inquiry , and an impartial examination of subjects connected with religion and morals , I rejoice that so convenient and valuble a medium for discussion is presented to the public through your Repository .
1 he topic of vitality has , in some late Numbers , been considered by your Correspondent N . ( pp . 210 and 342 ) . In his two Letters or Essays he has , doubtless , discovered much knowledge of natural science ; yet it appears to me , that the points which
he aims to prove are not so clearly established , as I apprehend he imagines , and that there is much justice and force in the remarks of your Correspondent E- ( p . 341 ) , upon his first essay . The subject , if I rightly understand the author of the two essays , is the same as that which has often been discussed by metaphysicians and divines , whether the soul is a principle
* [ As another Correspondent has , for many years , used the signature of N . attached to this and the former communications ou Vitality , we ought to have requested some addition or alteration in the subscription , which perhaps our present correspondent will hereafter make . Ed . ]
VOL . XII . 4 I
terial it cannot have extension , and , therefore , all belonging to it must be simple and indivisible ; but our ideas , the archetype of our minds , are facts retained : these ideas are divisible or they could not be reasoned on , and such reasoning is an extension and
divisibility of the mind , and by it proves its materiality . If I have , as I intended to do , rightly stated the learned Doctor ' s objections , I think they can have no force against facts and Scripture , and that the reasoning of them confounds the distinct principles of mind and body , and are no more conclusive than the Doctor ' s
argument would be to prove that himself and his pneumatic trough were one person , because the one never did , or could act without the other j but my paper being- filled , I have only
room to say , that I mean not to be disrespectful to his memory , by observing , that the premises and conclusion appear to me unphilosophical and unworthy so great a man . N *
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Oct. 2, 1817, page 605, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2469/page/33/