age, at the present day, probably knows more of mathematical, physical, and moral science than Cicero knew on the day of his death; and the time may come when the lisping infant will laugh to scorn the wisdom of the wisest of our cotemporaries. The past, when viewed with philosophic eye, exhibits an uninterrupted progress of the human mind; and we have therefore good reason to anticipate a similar progress for all future time, so that all man's intellectual powers may one day be called into exercise even here. Man's high intellectual capacities do not then incontrovertibly prove a future state. 5. The unequal distribution of happiness and misery in this life is farther urged by those who would prove a future life independently of revelation. It is asserted that there is no such thing as a righteous retribution here, and that, in order to maintain the divine impartiality, we must suppose a future state where the inequalities of the present life will be rectified, and where virtue will be rewarded, and the sinner will eat of the fruit of his doings. But is retribution thus imperfect in the present state? I admit that the external favours of Providence are indiscriminately conferred. But is their conferment of itself a blessing? How often are they the sources of splendid misery, the means of sin, the snares of the soul! Is the loss or want of them a curse? How often is it a means of moral culture, a source of moral power, a fountain of spiritual happiness! The body is not the seat of joy or of sorrow. Its every craving may be satiated, while the soul that tenants it suffers most intensely. Its whole frame may be convulsed or marred, while the mind is not only calm, but joyous. Vice is misery, virtue happiness, wherever found. Would you see the real sufferer? Seek for him whom the estate of the widow or the fatherless has arrayed in scarlet, who fares sumptuously on the spoils of the needy, whose abode is the paradise of sin. Seek for him who has mounted by an unholy path to the summit of ambition. Seek for him who enjoys the respect of every one but himself. And would you see the truly happy man? Behold him who lives in poverty, because he would not enrich himself with the wages of sin. Behold the wounded patriot on the field of victory. Behold Socrates giving lessons of virtue while the poison discharges its deadly office. Behold the martyr in the midst of the flames, his parched lips raising the song of triumph. But if the friends of virtue are in this life happy in proportion to their virtue, and the votaries of vice miserable in proportion to their sinfulness, justice is in fact administered here, a righteous retribution takes place here, and the divine impartiality is vindicated without supposing a future state of being. But let us suppose for a moment that a perfect retribution does not take place in this world, what proof then have we of the divine impartiality? Observation furnishes none. Analogy furnishes none, it even furnishes a presumption to the contrary; for in our fellow-men we see benevolence much more frequently than justice, and often see lavish generosity united with extreme capriciousness in the bestowal of favours. And if in the government of God we discern an arbitrariness in the bestowal of favours, and a neglect of strict justice in the distribution of rewards and punishments, the inference of unenlightened reason would be that he, like too many of his creatures is essentially capricious and partial. Unless God manifests himself as a just as well as a good being, it is impossible to demonstrate his justice, and we therefore have no right to assume it in order to prove man's immortality. The alledged imperfection of the present state furnishes then no adequate proof of a future state, in which the inequalities of the present will be rectified. 6. The last argument in favour of man's immortality drawn from considerations independent of divine revelation which I shall at this time notice, is that derived from the immateriality of the soul. It is said that material agents have no power over spirit, that the causes which lead to the dissolution of the body cannot suspend the operations of the mind,—that there is no reason why the soul, simple, etherial, spiritual as it is in its essence, should cease to exist at death. This reasoning of course supposes the immateriality of the soul to be a doctrine of natural religion or of metaphysical science. I confess that I cannot regard in it that light. I cannot but regard the immateriality of the thinking principle as altogether a doctrine of revelation,-as a corollary from the Christian doctrine of immortality. A very superficial observation of the phenomena of body and mind might indeed lead us to suppose that the mind existed independently of material organization. We find that the body may be mutilated, may be in a state of entire prostration or of rapid decay, while the mind retains its full vigour. At the approach of dissolution the intellectual powers are often intensely active, triumphing over decay, putting forth at the moment of emancipation an energy to which in seasons of health they had been strangers. And one might naturally argue from these things that the principle which mutilation, pain, infirmity, and decay affect not, would survive them all, would survive death of which they are the harbingers and causes. But carry the inquiry a little farther. Recur to the recent disclosures of anatomical research. See how exactly the degree of intellect is apportioned in each instance to the quantity and advantageous location of the brain. Touch that brain. Let external force compress it, let a fever inflame it, let an aqueous secretion relax its texture; and where is the man?—the reasoning, reflecting man? Where is the master mind? Its once gifted possessor is a maniac or an ideot; and remains so for life, or until the cause which made him so is removed. Are not emotion, thought, and volition then material phenomena? That they are so the mere physiologist must confess. That they are so, did not my Bible teach me differently, I should be constrained to admit. But, when I read there that man is not the creature of a day, but the sharer of his Maker's immortality,-when I see Christ, the herald of eternal life, attesting, by mighty works, the divinity of his mission,-when the chief of his apostles informs me that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,when I consider that the cannibal often dies with the flesh of his fellow-man incorporated in his own,-when I reflect that, were the archangel's trumpet at this moment to sound the signal for a material resurrection, every particle of dust in my body, would find hundreds of revivified claimants,-then, and not till then, am I convinced that there is a spirit in man,spirit which emanated from the Father of Spirits, and which, when it leaves the world, must return to Him for judgment. In fine, I believe the thinking principle to be immaterial, simply because the Bible assures me that it is immortal, and I know from its very nature that no modification of matter can be immortal. -a But, admitting the immateriality of the soul to be established by considerations independent of revelation, still it is far from proving man's immortality. If the soul be immaterial, it cannot indeed be changed or destroyed by material agents. But it may be put out of existence by Him who brought it into existence. God cannot light up a fire which it is out of his own power to extinguish. The soul, no less than the body, must depend entirely upon his will and the constant effort of his power for every moment of its existence. And therefore, in order to assure us that it will exist for ever, we need his word, his express promise that he will preserve it in existence. The immateriality of the soul then, even if it could be proved independently of revelation, does not of itself prove man's immortality. Thus have we seen that the doctrine of immortality, as an article of natural religion, rests on but a slender foundation. Thus it must be from the very nature of the case. For how can a system of things liable to constant change, decay, and dissolution give us unwavering assurance respecting an eternity which will be but begun, when the heavens shall pass away and the earth shall be no more? Truths pertaining to eternity must from their very nature be subjects only for testimony. God's existence, power, providence, wisdom, and mercy may be and are manifested. Nature, though she has no audible voice, bears speechless testimony to them day and night without ceasing. But we needed words of eternal life. And, thanks be to God, Christ has uttered those words upon earth; and God has borne testimony to him and with him by a voice from the most excellent glory, by such works as no man could do unless God were with him, by raising up from the dead the herald of immortal life. We are then to look to Christ primarily for the doctrine of eternal life. Let not however the design of the foregoing discussion be mistaken. In attempting to show that the natural arguments in favour of man's immortality are not of themselves conclusive, I do not mean to undervalue them, on the other hand I prize them highly, as collateral and accessory arguments. When the light of immortality from the gospel beams upon the expanse of nature, it shines with new lustre ; and we see throughout the visible universe the image of things invisible and eternal. A thousand analogies present themselves to confirm the teachings of revelation. Nature, which, till Christ spake the words of eternal life, spake them not, now utters them forth full, loud, and clear. The heavens are clothed in purer lustre, the earth in richer beauty, as the dawning rays of eternity rest upon them. Bright is the golden sun above, And beautiful the flowers that bloom, Reflected from the world to come. The reader may perhaps ask, if we believe in man's immortality, what matters it whether we regard it as a doctrine of natural religion confirmed by Christ, or a doctrine of revelation confirmed by nature? To this question the general answer might be made, that, in order to defend a doctrine, it But is necessary to know on what ground it properly rests. there are two important practical uses which may be made of the view of this subject presented in the foregoing article. 1. If we depend upon Christ mainly for the doctrine of immortality, we shall cherish the deeper reverence for the Christian revelation and its records. If the New Testament only passed a sentence of confirmation on doctrines previously established, if it were only a codification of the laws or principles of natural religion, it would be precious indeed, but not inestimable. It would barely simplify and accelerate the work which our own experience and observation might perform without it. But if the most momentous, the most interesting, the most glorious truth that relates to our nature and our destiny, be strictly and exclusively a doctrine of the New Testament, then that volume is indeed our richest treasure, and Christ, next to God, the most worthy object of our gratitude and love. 2. Deists are fond of holding out the idea that a Christian, by renouncing Christianity, need not give up the doctrine of eternal life. They maintain that it is a doctrine of natural religion, which the impostors who promulgated Christianity borrowed thence to gain the popular favour. Now he, who believes nature adequate to teach this all-important truth, will yield himself more readily to the influence of those who would lead him to deny the gospel and the Saviour. If the reasoning of the foregoing pages have been in the main just, it behoves us to cherish eternal life as the gift of God through Jesus Christ. Let us contemplate nature with wonder, love, and adoration. But let us not think to guide our steps, and to gain support, consolation, and joy by her dictates alone. Her light was indeed precious, when its dim, moon-like lustre gleamed upon a world sunk in superstition and sin. But upon us the Sun of Righteousness has dawned. Lord to whom else then should we go? Thou alone hast the words of eternal life. Letter addressed to Rev. L. W. [Concluded from page 483.] We pass now to the practical use of the doctrine of the Trinity. You represented that it is of great importance, to understand the grounds and consistency of the work of re |