Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

our Lord was in heaven. Wherefore the penitent's soul, which was in Paradise, was in the heaven of heavens."

We know not here which most to admire, the Doctor's capital truism, his "matchless logic," or his syllogistical conclusion. The truism, however, would have been admitted, even without capitals. That our Lord said to the penitent thief, "To-day thou shalt be with me in Paradise," no body doubts. But that our Lord was that day in heaven, is the mere assertion of Doct. B. and therefore needs, and always must need, proof. Consequently, his conclusion, that the penitent's soul was that day in the heaven of heavens, is a sheer fallacy. It is, indeed, directly against our Lord's express declaration. He said to Mary Magdalene, after his resurrection, "Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father." And the Scriptures give no intimation of any ascension but that which took place forty days after his resurrection. Preserving therefore the truth of our Lord's declaration, Paradise, into which he ascended with the thief, on the day he was crucified, cannot be heaven. We will only add, on this text, the following from Bp. Horsley.

'Paradise was certainly some place where our Lord was to be on the very day on which he suffered, and where the companion of his sufferings was to be with him. It was not heaven; for to heaven our Lord after his death ascended not till after his resurrection, as appears from his own words to Mary Magdalene. He was not therefore in heaven on the day of his crucifixion and where He was not, the thief could not be with him. It was no place of torment; for to any such place the name of Paradise never was applied. It could be no other than that region of repose and rest where the souls of the righteous abide in joyful hope of the consummation of their bliss.'

On the passage in 2 Cor. XII. chap. and which has led some to suppose that Paradise is heaven, it may be remarked, that the ablest and best writers, both ancient and modern, think, that St. Paul here speaks, not of one, but of two distinct visions, and at different times. And they all maintain that Paradise is a differeut place from Heaven.

Doct. Whitby says, "The opinion of all the ancients seems to have been this, thet St. Pau! was rapt at several times, into several places, and consequently, he speaks of more raptures than one. They say, 'That he was caught up into the third heaven, and was again carried into Paradise'— "That St. Paul intimates he had seen two great visions, being twice assumed, first into the third Heavsn, and then into Paradise'-'that by saying he was rapt up into the third Heaven, and after adding into Paradise, he shows heaven to be one place, and Paradise another.'

But as all this about St. Paul's two captures, into two distinct places, Doct. B. pronounces,*

"Loose and inconclusive logic," adding, "this must be obvious to every scholar,"

*See Chris. Intel. Dec. 28, 1839, No. 4.

Let us hear what, at least, one profound scholar has to say on this subject, The following is a part of the Doctor's gloss. upon this passage:

"We can see no decisive evidence in the sacred narrative, that the Apostle had two distinct visions; or that he makes heaven and paradise two distinct places. He sets down only one date, namely, fourteen years ago. When he mentions his rapture into the third heavens, he details nothing of ought he had seen or heard. He then repeats the wonderful statement, in order to give it a solemn and impressive emphasis; as if he had said, 'Yes, when speaking on the subject of revelations, and visions, I say that I knew a man, fourteen years ago, caught up into the third heaven; which I also call paradise, into which, I say, that man was caught up; and I call it distinctly by the name of paradise, in order to guard Christians against the whimsical fiction of the Jews, who, without any Divine warrant, make paradise to be a place distinct from heaven."

Upon this logical, scholar-like, and masterly commentary, we will not venture to say any thing ourselves. We may, however, be allowed to repeat, in part, what the following small and unlearned men have thought and written on this passage.

And the Doctor's prime favorite, Bp. Bull, shall speak first:He says,*

"The glories of the third Heaven, and Paradise too, seem to be by an extraordinary revelation, opened and discovered to St. Paul, not only for his own support under the heavy pressure of his afflictions, but also that he might be able to speak of them with greater assurance to others. And the order is observable. First, he had represented to him the most perfect joys of the third or highest Heaven, of which we hope to be partakers after the resurrection; and then, lest so long an expectation should discourage us, he saw also the intermediate joys of Paradise, wherewith the souls of the faithful are refreshed until the resurrection."

Alas, poor Bp. Bull, not only "wanting unanimous consent with himself, in his own writings," but no scholar! The same is true of the Doctor's "best fathers," for they all inculcate the sentiments of Bp. Bull, and like him, were all blind to this 'loose and inconclusive logic, so obvious to every scholar."

66

Perhaps, however, the Doctor's compeers had better heads, and were more learned men:-Let us see.

Doct. Doddridge supposes St. Paul had two visions, and holds Paradise to be a place distinct from Heaven. In his paraphrase on this passage, he says,

"Such an one, I say, I did most intimately know, who was snatched up into the third heaven, the seat of divine glory, and place where Christ dwelleth at the Father's right hand. And I know that, having

been thus entertained with these visions of the third heaven, on which good men are to enter after the resurrection, lest he should be impatient under the delay of his part of the glory there, he was also caught up into Paradise, that Garden of God, which is the seat of happy spirits in the intermediate state, and during their separation from the body."

*Ser. on the Middle State.

Verily, Doct. Doddridge must have studied logic in the school of Bp. Bull. He reasons in precisely the same way, and arrives at the same conclusion.

Doct. Watts also, seems to have been equally unfortunate in his education. He says,

"It is certain that by the word Paradise, St. Paul, in this passage, means the place of happy spirits, into which he was transported. And this sense is very accommodate, and proper to the expression of our Saviour, and to the prayer of the penitent thief, and it is as suitable to the design of Christ in his Epistle to the Church in Ephesus; Rev. II. 7-'The tree of life in the midst of the Paradise of God,' which are the only three places where the New Testament uses the word."

One compeer more, and that is Doct. Campbell, who must surely, "so far as he is consistent with himself," be a better reaHe says,*

soner.

"It is evident, that if, in these verses the Apostle speak of one vision or revelation only, paradise and heaven are the same; not so, if in these he speak of two different revelations. My opinion is, there are two, and I shall assign my reasons. First, he speaks of them as more than one, and that not only in introducing them, I will come to visions and revelations;— for sometimes, it must be owned, the plural is used in expressing a subject indefinitely; but afterwards, in referring to what he had related, he says, lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations. Secondly, they are related precisely as two distinct events, and coupled together by the connexive particle, Thirdly, there is a repetition of his doubts, in regard to the reality of his translation, which, if the whole relate to a single event, was not only superfluous, but improper. This repetition, however, was necessary, if what is related in the third and fourth verses be a different fact from what is told in the second, and if he was equally uncertain, whether it passed in vision or in reality. Fourthly, if all the three verses regard only one revelation, there is a tautology in the manner of relating it, unexampled in the Apostle's writings. I might urge, as a fifth reason, the opinion of all Christian antiquity, Origen only excepted. And this in a question of philology, is not without its weight."

Now we must confess, that this, Doct. Campbell, a scholar or not, seems to us to be almost as sound an argument, as that given us by the learned Doctor Brownlee.

With the text in Rev. II. 7. "To him that overcometh, will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God," and the only other passage wherein the word paradise is found, the Doctor closes his elaborate review, and in the following strikingly characteristic manner-a manner in all respects worthy of his distinguished self—†

"This, the one, only Tree of Life, is in the midst of heaven; and in the midst of the Paradise of God. Therefore, HEAVEN IS PARADISE; and PARADISE IS HEAVEN. And, hence, there is no intermediate Place of departed souls, except what exists in the field of fiction and romance."

*Pre. Dis. VI. Part II. Sec. 21.

+Chris. Intel. Dec. 28, 1838, No. 4.

Now all this, we suppose, must be profoundly logical,-we mean, in the opinion of Doct. Brownlee, who, with his skill in manufacturing premises, and jumping at conclusions, seldom fails, with the aid of a few capitals and italics, in proving to his own entire satisfaction whatever he pleases. But let us look, a moment, at what the Doctor considers such conclusive reasoning. He wishes to prove that Paradise is Heaven. What is his argument? Why, failing to wrest to his purpose the plain, obvious language of our Lord, and of St. Paul, he resorts to the strongly figurative language of the visions of St. John. And finding a text, Rev. XXII. 2. where the tree of life is spoken of, and where it may be represented as in heaven, though the word heaven is not found in the passage, he at once concludes, that Paradise, mentioned in this second chapter, must also be heaven, because it is said, there is in it the tree of life. He says, This, one, only Tree of Life, is in the midst of heaven; and in the midst of the paradise of God. Therefore HEAVEN IS

[ocr errors]

PARADISE; and PARADISE IS HEAVEN."

Let us now try the Doctor's logic on another passage. Gen. II. 9. "The tree of life also in the midst of the garden."

This, one, only Tree of Life, is in the midst of heaven; and in the midst of the garden of Eden. Therefore heaven is the garden of Eden; and the garden of Eden is heaven! O Doctor, Doctor, when wilt thou come out of the "fields of fiction and romance," learn to respect the realities of truth, and cease to quack logic? We need only add, in reference to this text, Rev, II. 7, the enlightened and reasonable remarks of that distinguished compeer, Doct. Campbell, who says,"

"Here our Lord no doubt speaks of heaven, but as he plainly alludes to the state of matters in the garden of Eden, where our first parents were placed, and where the tree of life grew, it can only be understood as a figurative expression of the promise of eternal life, forfeited by Adam, but recovered by our Lord Jesus Christ."

We have now done with the Doctor's review. And although we have noticed not a moiety of its errors, misrepresentations, and falsities, we have said enough, it is thought, to exhibit its character, and to show, that its author, as such,—for let it be remembered, we speak of Doctor B. only as an author, is not a man that can be safely trusted;-have said more, many will doubtless think, than the character of the performance, or the weight of its author, merited, and, we are free to confess, more, much more, than was intended when we began. Knowing, however, that place-not intermediate, sometimes gives to the writings of a man an importance, which their intrinsic' worth could never gain for them, the cause of truth seemed to demand that this review should receive some notice. Having com

*Pre. Dis. VI. Part II. Sec. 21.

menced, justice to this cause required us to go on. And finding, as we advanced, the evidences of rudeness, of vanity, of shallowness, of unfairness, of misrepresentation, and of utter disregard of the truth, so rapidly multiplying upon us, that we thought it our duty to hold it up to view, with these,

"Its blushing honors thick upon it."

We therefore resolved, not unaware of the foul treatment to which we thereby exposed ourselves, to summon to the task patience to follow the Doctor through this marvellous production, and from it, to trace an outline of the "SMALL WHOLE LENGTH" of this redoubtable theological combatant. This, skillfully filled up, would present, according to our fancy, a picture, that would be vastly amusing, but for the sad deformity of some of its prominent and leading features, and which, in the light we contemplate it, casts a melancholy shade over the whole figure, giving it a painful and confirmed wryness of expression. It seems unable to look in a right direction, and it expresses a sort of aversion to the plain, honest truth. It is not however in our thoughts to fill up the sketch. We can but exppress our deep degret at the fearful prominence of this most unfortunate blemish. It bespeaks such a determined anti-truth propensity, that it destroys all the pleasure, we otherwise might have, in anticipating the completion of the picture.

And here, a word for the Doctor. This is the one grand point, to which, if possible we would fix his attention. For, not to mention again his expositions of Scripture, or his respect for the "primitive Christian Fathers," and to say nothing more of his regard for the Catholic Church, and especially that branch of it which is "of the good old way," we have seen that, in a list of twelve or fifteen of the ablest and most distinguished theological writers of the last three hnndred years, whom he has pretended to quote, there is not one, whom he has quoted fairly, or of whose sentiments he has given a correct account, but has, on the contrary, deliberately falsified them all. Now we know not what Doct. B. may think of this matter; but, as for ourselves, we consider such treatment of writers, whose works are not supposed to be in the hands of the great mass of the people, as a high misdemeanor-a gross outrage upon a christian community. The Doctor may himself believe as he pleases, and bring to the defence of his faith all the weight of his assertions, and the whole force of his logic, and from us he will hear no complaint. But when, to support his fancies, he goes systematically, perseveringly aud publicly to work to misrepresent the sentiments of authors, and with bold effrontery, to make them say what they have not said, and deny what they have said, his conduct then becomes a matter of public concern ;and it is time that his claims to confidence should be tested, and

« PoprzedniaDalej »