many respects, to live like a beast, should desire to die like a beast; or in other words-that an atheist in practice, should be an atheist in creed.

1. As for the doctrine which maintains that the soul of man is a being in its qualities as distinct from and superior to the body in which it resides, as the inhabitant to the house in which he dwells-and that it is in its immortality like the word of God 'which liveth and abideth for ever.' This doctrine we think, derives support in no small degree, by comparing it with the doctrine by which it is sought to be supplanted. He who denies the immortality of the soul and the accountability of man does not, it is true, literally reduce him to a level with the brute; but his sentiment clearly involves this affirmation, viz.: that the superiority man possesses over the rest of the animate creation, is merely of the same nature as the superiority that one animal possesses over another-or, as we said, that man is only a superior animal, terminating his existence at death, as all irrational animals do-and if so, what is he else but a superior animal? Does not such a view of man carry absurdity on its very front? Does it at all comport with those remarkable indications of superiority over other creatures, especially that of speech, which we meet with in man's corporeal nature? Is it countenanced by the consideration of the distinguished character of man's intellectual endowments? Agrees it with that constant bias of the human mind in all ages, and in nearly all countries, to some kind of religion ?-Or to that con

stant clinging to life, as the mariner to a piece of the wreck—and aspiration after some higher state and degree of happiness than he already possesses, which we constantly find in man?-Or with the facts, that (like the idea of a Supreme Being,) the notion of a future state of existence gains such a ready admission into the minds of men--that those who take most pains to become firm believers in their own creed-that I mean, which denies a futuere state -but ill succeed? The state of the mind, in respect of vigour in death, is opposed to the atheistical idea, that body and soul die together. For if so, how is it they do not invariably grow weak together? How is it that the powers of the soul are often in a state of surprising energy and operation, when only a few grains in the hour-glass of life remain? With these facts and qualities of human beings, the sentiment we are combating, is so perfectly at variance, that it appears superlatively absurd; and the fact of men's believing, or pretending to believe it, absurd as it is, without any thing like proof, evidences that what is above hinted, respecting man's moral character as the cause of scepticism, is no libel. On the other hand, the generally received doctrine, (would that its importance were as generally felt) which represents man as a-kin both to angels and to the inferior creatures in this lower world; and that his soul is imperishable, is in harmony with all these representations: and therefore bids the fairer to be true.

2. And this will likewise appear by comparing

these opposite sentiments in respect of their moral tendency. Here we have no difficult task to per

form. Most people are aware, that in every class of society, improvement is needed in relative duties -in the duties man owes to his God, his neighbour, and himself. It would seem from the aspect of things, as if even our national weal-not to use a stronger term-not only called for, but depended upon a speedy, a radical, and general reform, in these important respects: a reform this, much more closely connected with our national tranquility, than political reform. For let the duties which we owe to our fellow creatures, and fellow subjects—to the slaves, for instance, in our colonies, and others, continue to be as criminally disregarded as they have been for so many years past-and then, who that is acquainted either with the state of things, or the character of that God who is the moral governor of the universe, dares to anticipate either national peace or prosperity? But, would it tend to promote the reform for which we bere plead to teach men that they have nothing to fear in the next world from their actions in this? And that the creature whose cause we advocate, that he may have liberty, and have exercised towards him justice and mercy, is only an animal of superior quality? A sentiment which, as it degrades man, so it would lay him open to all kinds of insult and oppression. Whereas, that view of man, viz. his immortality, which tends to make him both respect himself and be respected by others, likewise tends to make men act both to

D

wards themselves and others in a proper manner. Nor would it be possible for men to behave as they do towards themselves or their fellow creatures, were it duly impressed upon their souls, that this being however sinful, or poor, or ignorant he may be, is nevertheless, as immortal as an angel. Finally-we consider the influence of the sentiments we are exposing, in respect of national and individual moral manners to stand much upon a par with the effect which a total repeal of the criminal code would produce to make a man act like a beast in respect of himself, and like a demon in respect of others. If we could suppose, that God would permit a nation to exist, formed of persons denying the Holy Scriptures, the immortality of the soul, and a future state they would presently, acting like the atheists in the first French revolution, and like the giants before the deluge, fill the nation with anarchy, oppression, and lust, and blood. Such at all events, is the moral tendency of such sentiments.

3. There are hints above mentioned merely in a general way, which may be thought deserving of greater prominence in this great argument. I would therefore ask, whether the extraordinary intellectualendowments of man do not deserve consideration on this momentous question-What is the nature of the soul-and is it inmortal? It would seem as if the soul possessed the capacity of an everlasting growth in its attributes, providing the animal powers were not subject to decay: because, especially in those who have a thirst for mental cultivation we always find the mind progressively advancing

in intellectual attainments, as long as ever the senses and bodily organs are unimpaired. It seems therefore, that if these organs were to remain in perpetual vigour, the soul would be perpetually growing in knowledge. Now does it seem credible, that the being in which so wonderful a perfection resides, is only intended to be as it were, like Jonah's gourd, which 'grew up in a night, and perished in a night?' To suppose this, is contrary to that Divine wisdom which so resplendently shines in all God's works; and in nothing more than this, viz: suiting the capacities and qualities of creatures to that end, for which they were created. Reasoning therefore from the wisdom of God as thus displayed, it seems highly improbable, that beings endued with such wonderful capacities—so incomparably superior to the most sagacious of animals, are nevertheless destined like them, to live a short, a precarious and toilsome existence and then by death, to end it for ever. And so we are to think, advise those sages, that the souls of our mighty dead'-of our Newtons for instance, were notwithstanding their splendid talents, only souls of an ignoble and perishable nature! Should it be said, there have been but few such men as our great philosopher-I answer; few or many affects not the argument; that all possess not firstrate talent argues nothing against that dignity of man for which we plead; but it should remind us of God's wisdom in furnishing men with such predilections and talent as are suitable to the stations of life he designs them to fill.