A FUNERAL SERMON OCCASIONED BY THE DEATH OF THE REV. JAMES MANNING, D. D. PRESIDENT OF RHODE ISLAND COLLEGE. DELIVERED IN THE BAPTIST MEETING-HOUSE, IN PROVIDENCE, JULY 31, 1791. PREFACE. CONCERNING the death with which Adam was threatened, theologians have entertained various and opposite opinions. These, so far as I can recollect from the course of my reading, may be comprehended in the following summary. The first maintains, that the threatened death, implied, temporal (or natural,) spiritual and eternal death. The second, that it implied natural death only. The second of these opinions has, on the whole, appeard to me the most rational and consistent. I am not, however, disposed to be so rigidly tenacious of my own sentiments, as to imagine I may not be in an error. All men have full liberty of opinion, and ought to enjoy it without subjecting themselves to the imputation of heresy. For my own part, I can safely say, that I have never been disposed to confine myself to the peculiar tenets of any sect of religionists whatever. Great and good men have appeared among all denominations of christians, and I see not why all do not deserve an equal share of attention and regard. My object has been to examine with candor the sentiments of all, and to receive whatever appeard to be consistent with truth. In that part of the following Sermon to which objections have been made, my sole design was to investigate the scripture doctrine of the origin and destruction of natural death. As my own conviction obliged me to dissent from most of my brethren on the subject, I was unfortunate enough to incur no small degree of displeasure, and to subject myself to the suspicion of adopting opinions which never held a residence in my heart, and of discarding others which I fully believed. Many consequences were drawn, which by no means followed from the arguments advanced in the Sermon. I know not by what kind of argumentation it can be proved, that he who believes God annexed natural death only, to the breach of a positive command must be supposed to believe, that sin deserves no other punishment, or that man is not in a state of total depravity, and that he is not wholly dependent on the favor of God for salvation. Every moral being, as soon as he begins to exist in a state of consciousness and intelligence, is bound by moral law, and cannot deviate from it without involving himself in guilt and spiritual death. This death, which is alienation of affection from God, exposes the subject of it not only to everlasting ruin by a necessary consequence, but to whatever positive punishments the good of the universe may render it proper to inflict. Spiritual death was introduced by violation of the moral law written in the heart of Adam, and took place before he had eaten the forbidden fruit. The moment he consented to violate a positive command, he exposed himself to the true, proper and necessary punishment of sin. Mortality did not, like spiritual death, necessarily result from the violation of a moral law, nor from any previous fitness and connexion of things, but from the arbitrary though wise appointment of Jehovah. The angels who sinned, were not subjected to mortality. Let us suppose that the threatening of natural death had been previously denounced, as their punishment for violating a positive law, would it not be reasonable to infer that, that threatening included all their present misery and spiritual death? The term death appears to me to have but one original plain meaning, "the loss of life." rious parts of the scriptures, it is used by a figure of speech in a sense different from what is proper to it. It is sometimes used to point out the state of men wholly under the dominion In va of sin, and sometimes, the misery to be endured as the punishment of sin. But is it right to infer, that a word when used in a sense different from that which is proper to it, comprehends not only its proper meaning, but one or two figurative meanings? Proceeding in this way, we violate the laws of propriety, and leave no standard by which we can ascertain the meaning intended by the author. Some have supposed that I viewed the Atonement as of little consequence, because I considered Christ's sufferings no farther than they respected natural death. To this I would reply, that the subject I was discussing required me to show the manner in which Christ had abolished death, and not the manner in which he had rendered the pardon of sin consistent. These observations are suggested with no other view than to make it appear, that nothing in the following Discourse is so inconsistent with orthodox divinity as some have supposed. I may be in an error. If I be, possibly, I may not be destitute of companions, even from among those, who determine never to deviate from opinions they have once adopted. The only thing really essential to christian union is love, or benevolent affection. It is therefore, with me a fixed principle to censure no man, except for immorality. A diversity of religious opinions, in a state so imperfect, obscure and sinful as the present, is to be expected. An entire coincidence in sentiment, even in important doctrines, is by no means essential to christian society, or the attainment of eternal felicity. How many are there who appear to have been subjects of regeneration, who have scarcely an entire, comprehensive view of one doctrine in the Bible? Will the gates of Paradise be barred against these, because they did not possess the penetrating sagacity of an Edwards, or Hopkins? Or shall these great theological champions engross heaven, and shout hallelujahs from its walls, while a Priestly, a Price, and a Winchester, merely for difference in opinion, though pre-eminent in virtue, must sink into the regions of darkness and pain? I cannot induce myself to repose so small a share of confidence in the mercy of God, as to imagine, he will not pardon all the sincere errors of his creatures. All men are capable of the same moral temper, but not |