LECTURE X.

SOUL'S IMMORTALITY.

In the last lecture, your attention was called to the evidence, arising from present objects and events, in favor of a future state and retribution. The general presumption which there is, that objects will continue as they are, was mentioned in proof of a future life, or rather the continuance of man's existence. The inequalities of the present state, that is the want of agreement between the present circumstances and the moral qualities of men, when viewed in connexion with the perfect character of God, were mentioned as proofs, that human existence will extend beyond the grave.-The argument may be expressed more briefly. The moral rectitude of God requires, that he should treat his creatures agreeably to their respective characters. This appears not to be done in the present life; therefore there will be another.

But though there is nothing like a perfect retribution at present, it may well deserve inquiry, whether there is not even now, a tendency towards a retribution, and even some degree of it actually begun. By attending to this inquiry, we shall ascertain whether analogy is in favor of the doctrine, or against it. If there is any connexion between human happiness and human virtue in the present life, it is analogous, that there should be such a connexion hereafter, supposing the reality of a future If the conduct and character of man, at the age of twenty, has any influence on his condition thirty years after, it would be analogous, that the condition of human beings an hundred, or a thousand years hence, on supposition of their existing for

state.

so long a time, should be influenced by their present lives and habits.

It is a fact, perfectly obvious, that some connexion at present subsists between the character and happiness of human beings. Some actions and some habits are very generally attended with competency, health, a fair reputation, and the good wishes of men; while poverty, a broken constitution, contempt, and general dislike, do, in ninety-nine instances out of a hundred, attend those habits, which are of an opposite description. We well know, that part of mankind choose one of these courses, and part, the other. We are daily called to witness the distribution of these rewards and punishments. We see some persons in the enjoyment of cheerfulness and health in consequence of their temperance and prudence. We see others, whom the opposite mode of living enfeebles, emaciates, or absolutely brings to the grave.

It is evident, then, that a retribution is, by no means, abhorrent from what we now behold. For though there is nothing here, like a perfect distribution of rewards and punishments, they are, to a certain degree, distributed. So that, if hereafter they should be dealt out with precision, it would seem only the perfection of a system, which is now incipient. If, according to the common and natural course of events, certain modes of conduct produce suffering, and opposite modes of conduct produce enjoyment, there is, so far, a retribution, and this retribution is from God; because God is the Author of that course of nature, agreeably to which it is produced. It is he, that gives health and vigor to the temperate man, and sends imbecility and pain to the licentious.

That God does, to a certain degree, reward and punish human beings in this life proves indeed that he maintains a government over them; but does not of itself prove, that his government is moral. The distinction is this; a parent might reward those actions only in his children, which contributed to his interest, and punish those only, which are injurious to it,

without taking into consideration the morality of either. In this case, his government would not be moral.

But as it is obvious, that God in his present government of the world favors a certain course of conduct among his creatures, and brings inconveniences and trouble on those, who proceed in an opposite direction, it is no less certain, that the distinction between these courses is a moral distinction. It is not questionable, whether a life of sobriety, kindness, and probity is, on the whole, and other things being equal, more conducive to present happiness, than the contrary vices.

A man would evince as clearly his want of judgment as of morals, who should tell a young inquirer, that in order to obtain the greatest sum of enjoyment, it would be advisable to violate truth, to take all possible advantage of the ignorance of others, to cultivate no kind and generous feelings, to remove all restraints from his appetites, and to manifest a total disregard to those obligations which are usually thought to result from morality and religion. That the way to prevent happiness lies in a direction contrary to this is too evident to need proof. I well know, that many liars prosper, that many fraudulent men prosper; but these are only exceptions to a general rule, and do nothing towards the subversion of it. It is yet true, in a general sense, that he, who walketh uprightly, walketh surely. They, who suitably regard the present state of things, must see that the constitution, under which we are placed, is designed to favor virtue, rather than vice, and that the Infinite Being, who is the Author of this constitution, has shown himself to be on the side of the upright ;-not barely on the side of those who perform actions which are suitable and fit, but who do them with good intentions. For the good intentions, with which a man does an action, constitute no inconsiderable reward; and the ill intention, with which the same action is done by another, either destroys the inward pleasure, or produces remorse.

Notwithstanding the wealth and greatness of many profligates, attentive observation of the present course of events would, it is believed, fully justify Peter's doctrine: He, that will love VOL. I.

22

life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips from speaking guile; let him eschew evil and do good; let him seek peace and ensue it. For the eyes of the Lord are open to the righteous; but the face of the Lord is against thein that do evil.

We may now, I think, without taking any thing for granted, which has not been proved, assert the following things, viz.

1. As we are at present under a moral government, if we should exist after death, analogy requires, that we should then be under a moral government.

2. As the Creator of the universe now shows himself to be on the side of virtue, he will after death, should we then exist, make a distinction between the friends of virtue, and its enemies.

3. If this distinction should be perfect, i. e. exactly corresponding with the respective characters of men; in other words, if a retribution should be perfect, it would be only the completion of a system, many traces of which are now discernible. 4. The moral character of God requires, that a perfect retribution should take place, and consequently a future state.

I do not say, that these arguments are sufficient to remove every shadow of doubt; nor do I believe, that without revelation, the minds of the most inquisitive part of mankind could be perfectly at rest on this subject: But that the preponderance of evidence is in favor of a future state, has, it is conceived, been made to appear.

I will now consider some of those circumstances, which are often mentioned by way of objection to that part of future retribution, which consists in punishment. The object will be, to ascertain whether these circumstances do not prove as strongly against present, as against future punishment. If they do, they will have no force. For an objection, which lies against a proposition, known to be true, can never prove, that another proposition is false.

1. You suppose, that if there were to be a punishment of vice after death, it would be rendered more certain, than it is

from the light of nature;—that each individual would be clearly and distinctly informed, as to the consequences of his crimes.

It is replied, that the punishments, which wicked men receive in this life, are by no means universally foreseen with that clearness here mentioned. When a man is guilty of forgery, or any other species of fraud, has he perfect assurance of being punished? So far from this, that he supposes the probability to be strong against detection. When murder is committed, is the gibbet or the gallows distinctly in the culprit's view? He not only expects to evade discovery, but circumstances may be such, as to render his expectations very reasonable. Yet, when he is detected, the law is not executed, on that account, with less certainty or with less rigor. Does the young man of intemperance or general dissipation certainly know the extent of the temporal evils, which he is preparing for himself? Perhaps he believes that a firm constitution will not be impaired by a disorderly life. Yet, when he finds his health injured, his vigor wasted, his spirits sunk, and his credit lost, it avails nothing to say, that this was not anticipated, and that had he distinctly foreseen such an issue, he would have cultivated sobriety.

2. You say, that at present, many immoral persons exhibit not the least evidence of being objects of the divine displeasure. They live in prosperity, and are much at their ease. You suppose, that if Deity viewed them with so much indignation, as to be resolved to punish them hereafter, their lives would not now glide on with so smooth a current.

This reasoning, it is evident, does not hold good in application to the present state. Men do, in some instances, for many years carry on a system of fraud, without loss of reputation, and with a rapid increase of wealth. At length their detection, disgrace, and punishment occur suddenly and almost at the same moment. To use the strong language of Scripture, their destruction cometh as a whirlwind. Some persons guilty of murder, have lived many years without suspicion. But eventually their crimes being brought to light, received merited punishment. Others have indulged their appetites with the