That the foul must exist, when the union with the body is diffolved, is evident from this, that in its most perfect operations it is independent on the body, that is, in reafoning on univerfal principles, which though eternal and immutable cannot affect any one of its fenfes, hence it follows that a feparation from the body only ferves to perfect the foul, and as perfection and corruption are essentially oppofite, what perfects cannot corrupt, or deftroy, the foul therefore muft exift when the union with the body is diffolved, if not reduced to non-existence by annihilation. To pretend that the foul, immortal of its own nature, capable of greater perfections in its highest operations in a state of feparation, than when united with the body, fhould be deftroyed by almighty power is rafh and extravagant. No reafon can be affigned for this pretended annihilation, whilft reafons not fimply plaufible but conclufive and incontrovertible fhew the contrary. In the first place the defire of immortality is natural to man. It is univerfal, and has been fo from the commencement; in vain does the Atheist, or the Materialist, pretend that this may be the effect of prejudice or edu cation he might as well pretend that the defire of life or the means to fupport it, is the effect of prejudice or education. Prejudices are variable, fo is education, and the opinions depending on them as variable as the prin ciples, on which they depend; the defire of immortali ty is invariable, as univerfal as the defire of meat and drink; it is therefore founded in our nature, impreffed on the foul by its author, confequently it cannot be vain, if the author of nature, in whom veracity, wisdom and power are infinite, be not fuppofed to fport with his creatures, and amufe himself with deceiving them, which furpaffes abfurdity. There There are many who do not defire immortality Perhaps there may be fome impious, profligate, and unprincipled characters, who have nothing to expect but the punishment due to their crimes, to whom of course immortality is not defirable. There are men without nofes, and fome without eyes, does it follow that an eye or a nofe is not natural to man? No! but that, through the interpofition of fome fecondary causes, there are monsters in the physical world; in like manner if there be an Atheist, or a Materialist, who does not desire immortality, it only proves that there are monfters in the moral world, fo abforbed in fenfu. ality as to be deprived of the light of reafon. The qualities natural to any fpecies are not to be fought for in monsters, in which there must be either an excref cence, or a defect, but they are found in the more perfect individuals of the fpecies. That this defire of immortality is deeply implanted in the minds of all good men was never denied even by the Atheist. In the next place, the mind of man is unlimited in its defires, the more it knows, the more it defires to know, the greater its poffeffions the more it extends its views. One object attained is but an incentive to pursue another; it is therefore manifeft that nothing fhort of infinitude can fill the capacity of the mind, and equally evident that infinitude is not attainable but by im mortality, where truth is feen in its fource, and fills the capacity of the understanding, and infinite excellence fixes the defires of the will, there being no other object which it can defire. This unlimited capacity, in the mind of man, fhews that he has been intended for the poffeffion of infinite excellence, Whence thefe terrors in the mind of the vicious or rather flagitious man? Whilft with impunity and horror he oppreffes innocence, and increases his poffeffions with the spoils of the defenceless And whence this fecret fatisfaction In the foul of the juft man, when he relieves the dif tress of his moft inveterate enemy, forgetting in the day of his diftrefs that he is an enemy, and remem bering that he cannot ceafe to be his brother? Does not that sense of rectitude implanted in the mind of man, point out an immortality, in which the juft man expects the reward of his virtue, and the oppreffor of innocence and weakness fears the punishment of his crimes? But virtue fays the Materialift is its own reward, the fenfe of having done a virtuous act rewards the action. It is true the fenfe of virtue foothes in affiction, and pleafes in profperity; but it is from the profpect of futurity, in which that reward, which is here denied, will be obtained. Virtue without a réward either here or hereafter, either in fact, or in hope, though good in itself, is not the fource of any thing that is good. Vice rewarded here, and having nothing to fear hereafter, is preferable; hence it follows that the Atheift, and Materialist must be a flagitious man or a fool; that any appearance of virtue in fuch a character is mere hypocrify, a mask affumed to impofe on the unwary. ་ 1 Now let us fuppofe that virtue from its innate beauty, and the fatisfaction which attends virtuous actions may, without any profpect of immortality, be an inducement to practice virtue in fome inftances, will it in all poffible conjunctures? And fuppofing it a teward in fome inftances will it in all? What is the reward of the virtuous man whofe innocence is oppreffed by power, his reputation ruined by calumny, his family degraded and reduced to beggary, and he himfelf dragged as a criminal to a gibbet? In this life. he can have no reward, because he is deprived of life, in a future he can have none, if we believe the Materialist.. And what is the punishment of a mercilefs Tyrant, who who facrifices thoufands to his amufement? Who, in fenfible to the cries of defenceless women and children. buries them in the ruins of the cities which his ambiti on levels with the ground? An immortality is indif penfably neceffary to reward the unmerited and unre! warded fufferings of the former, and to punish the ferocious cruelty of the latter. It is therefore manifeft that the foul, immortal of its own nature, will not be annihilated by the power of its Creator. Add to this that a creature does not at. tain its ultimate end until its natural defires are fatisfi ed, the foul of man naturally, and invincibly, defires happiness, and a perpetual continuation of happiness. The author of human nature does not withdraw that, which perfects nature, that without which it cannot attain its ultimate end. The poffibility of annihilation is indifputable the power which creates can annihilate; nothing lefs than infinite power can do either. The diftance between non-existence and existence whether infinite or not, is manifeftly infuperable to any limited power, but that it is inconfiftent with the prefent order of things to exercise this power is manifeft from the reasons already affigned and will appear more clearly in the courfe of the work. If it be asked why the foul being independent on the body in its higheft operations, and more capable of ex ercifing its intellectual faculties in a state of feparation, has been united to the body? The reply is fimple and fatisfactory. In all that depends on the abfolute and fovereign will of the Creator he acts according to the dictates of his wifdom. Conjecture aligns two plaufible reafons. The first that the foul united to the body, in its firuggles with Beings of an inferior order, may be prepared for a more noble end as gold is tried in the fire; and through this appears the goodness of its author, in not only giving man a being, but also enabling 1 enabling him by his own efforts and the exercife of his faculties to attain a more exalted end, than that for which human nature feems intended. And the fecond, that the body itself elevated by its union with the foul, and purified by the practice of these virtues, of which it is the inftrumental caufe, may be placed in a more fublime fituation, fo that the foul may be to the body, what God is to the foul. As it is impoffible that a Being which is itself deftitute of intelligence could give exiftence to intelligent Beings, from the existence of so many fpirits in the intellectual world, that man must be ignorant indeed who does not fee that there must be a primary caufe fovereignly intelligent, a pure intellectual Being eminently poffeffed of all the powers and perfections, which it fo bountifully, and abundantly beftows on its crea→ tures. This primary caufe is what in common language we call God, the first object of his will is his own infinite goodness: in this he fees all that is pleafing in his creatures, as it is natural for goodness to communicate itself to thefe he gave exiftence at the commencement of time, yet to fhew his fovereign independence from eternity he was equally happy and glorious without them, their existence, or non exiftence, argues no change in him, who is eternal, and immutable, but in them, who are from the neceffity of their being imper fect, fubject to change. According to our limited mode of conception a fort of progress may be remarked in the love of God, his own excellence the first and principal object, the excellence and beauty of the univerfe as reduced to it, and the goodness of each particu lar object in reference to the whole, hence it is clear that what may appear to us a defect may be a perfection confidered with refpect to the whole, of which it is a part.. The excellence of God, to which nothing can be com |