Page images
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Who hath-brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel.

THE person, to whom the aspired writer ascribes this acchievement, is Jesus Christ.

No person, acting agreeably to his rational nature, can habitually fix his attention exclusively on the present time. As the present is connected with the past; and as various portions of the past were connected with each other; it is scarcely possible to believe, that future events should have no connexion with those which are now passing. Hence there is no question, in the solution of which mortals can be more deeply interested, than this, "If a man die, shall he live again."

On this subject no doubts can remain to those who are initiated in the school of Christ. Among the numerous sects, into which the professed friends of christianity are divided, I recollect none, which denies the soul's immortality :-none, which doubts, that eternal life is offered to men, and will by all the truly penitent be obtained and enjoyed. All uncertainty on this point is precluded, not only by the general constitution of the gospel, but by express declara

tions conceived in language, strong and unequivocal. "The hour cometh when they, who are in their graves, shall hear hear│ the voice of the Son of God, and come forth: they who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and they, who have done evil, to the resurrection of damnation."

Thus hath our Saviour, in his gospel, illuminated, or, to use the translation of Dr. MacKnight, rendered clear the doctrine of immortality. By the doctrine of immortality, I do not mean merely the existence of the soul after the death of the body; but a state, in which happiness or misery will correspond with previous character.

That we may duly appreciate the christian religion, considered in this point of view, it will be necessary to show, by a plain statement of facts, how much this doctrine of immortality needed illumination. To this subject I respectfully solicit your attention.

For the sake of perspicuity it may be convenient to inquire, I. What might, without revelation, be rationally concluded as to the doctrine of a moral retribution, and

II. What was actually believed on this subject.

I. What might without revelation, be rationally considered as to the doctrine of a moral retribution.

Bishop Butler has shown, that a strong presumption in favour of a future state, arises from the present existence of

man.

Whether it is an original principle of our nature, or not, we can scarcely avoid expecting a repetition of those events, which have been uniformly witnessed, and the permanence of those objects, which are known, to exist. Having observed, that there is always rapid vegetation, when the air is warm and the ground moist, we confidently believe, that these facts will be connected in future. If a particular kind of air has been known to destroy animal life in a thousand instances, it is inferred, that the next animal, that inhales it, will die.

This kind of reasoning is thought to be equally strong, perhaps even more so, when applied to the permanence of

J

objects. If there has been, for a long time, a river, or cavern, or mountain, in such a place, we have no more to doubt of its present existence there, than if our eyes were now fixed upon it. There is always a very strong presumption, that objects and effects will remain as they have been, unless there is evidence to prove the contrary. On this principle is transacted almost all the business of life. The husband man puts his seed into the ground, not because he knows it will germinate; but because he presumes it from the uniformity, with which the latter event has succeeded the former. The merchant sends his property to the West Indies, not because he knows, that those islands now exist, but hecause he knows, that they have existed, and he has no evidence of their submersion.

On similar ground, our present existence as intelligent agents affords a presumption, that we shall exist hereafter; and this presumption will be strong until we have some evidence to the contrary. Death does not afford this evidence; for though we have witnessed the destruction of human bodies, no one has witnessed the dissolution of the soul. Nor can such dissolution be inferred from the ruins, to which the body is reduced. For the limbs may be amputated, and the flesh wasted by sickness, while the living agent, the rational being remains in full vigor. Immediately before a death, produced by sickness, persons have sometimes as quick a perception, as clear discernment, and as strong a memory, as in the season of perfect health. Yet is it very probable, that the alteration to be effected by the remaining efforts of death, is not greater, perhaps not nearly as great, as that which has already been effected. And, if all, which the body has already endured, has not injured the soul, or the rational being, it can neither be concluded, nor fairly presumed, that this same rational being will be annihilated by the short sufferings, which still remain.

There arises, therefore, from our present existence, no inconsiderable presumption, that we shall exist hereafter. And further, as there is in the nature of virtue a superior

ity over vice;-as it imparts to its possessor a self approba tion and tranquility, which vice cannot impart;-as it procures, in a greater or less degree, esteem and respect from men, which vice, as such, cannot procure; and as in consequence of this esteem, the virtuous man, other things being equal, is more readily assisted, and in general better treated, than the vicious-a probability hence arises, that such will be the state of things, through whatever stages of existence we may pass hereafter.-Nay, further, as those circumstances, which, at present, prevent virtue from obtaining a complete triumph, and vice from being put to confusion, are not necessary, but wholly adventitious,-and as the tendencies of virtue and vice are opposite, and eternally must be, there is reason to hope, that in a future state the supe riority of the one to the other, will be more decided and ob

vious.

In proceeding thus far, the divine moral attributes have not been taken into view. When these are satisfactorily proved, the argument in favor of a future state becomes more powerful. As God is morally pure, whenever he sees virtue, he must approve it; and vice, for the same reason, must excite his displeasure and disgust. It cannot be conceived, that any good being, whether human or divine, should view with indifference, opposite moral qualities, Now, if God looks on virtue with approbation, and on vice with hatred and disgust, can it be doubted, that this hatred or approbation will, in some way, be rendered manifest? Were a parent to make no discrimination between his obedient and disobedient children; bestowing the same favors, praise, and caresses, on the one, as on the other, his own moral character could not be maintained. No person, I am persuaded, can entertain honorable views of God, with out believing, that in some period of human existence, a dif ference will be made between the precious and the vile. As there is, in the present state, no perfect discrimination of this kind; and as, notwithstanding the opposite tendencies of virtue and vice, there are ten thousand instances, in which

« PreviousContinue »