Images de page

different is it to the saint and the sinner-very different in its aspects -very different in its issues. In the remarks which follow, we refer only to the death of those who serve their own generation by the will of God, for to such only comes the last great change with the calmness and security of a sleep.

God's view of death does not teach us to regard it as the end of our existence. He who sleeps still lives. There is a suspension of his voluntary activities, but no cessation of the vital functions. It is only the body that sleeps; the soul is ever wakeful. The body sleeps because it is weary, and needs refreshment; the soul knows no fatigue, and demands no repose. We say the mind flags, or the spirit faints; but we speak unphilosophically. The material organism, through which the soul acts upon the external world, may tire and halt; the soul itself, not subject to physical laws, remains always vigorous and active. Sleep, then, is only the state of the outer man; who can say that death is anything more-that it affects the thinking, conscious soul-that it produces any change, except in the mere mode and circumstances of our being?

True, we see not the unbodied soul. What then? There are a thousand other things that we have never seen, though we readily admit their existence. Some of these are the most pervading and the most powerful agencies in nature. What say you of air, caloric, electricity? Do you doubt their existence because you do not see them? And why doubt the continued existence of the soul because, separate from the body, it is invisible? It is invisible now, in connection with the body; and if you infer its future non-existence because it is then invisible, you should infer its present non-existence because it is now invisible. The argument against its future existence bears equally against its present existence. There is as much evidence of the continued being of man, separate from the material organism, as of a thousand other existences that are never questioned.

Say not that what we call the soul is the result of a wondrous organization, and must cease with the dissolution of the body. That organized bodies can possess no powers which are not inherent in the elements of which they are composed, is an important axiom in philosophy; that the elements of the human frame are incapable of intelligence, consciousness, volition, is a proposition of which no proof will be demanded; and that mere organization can never originate mental phenomena, is the obvious and inevitable conclusion. Nay,

"there is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth him understanding." This curious frame is only the tenement of the rational soul, and that soul is doubtless immortal. Destined by its Creator to perish, He would probably have revealed that destiny; but He has given us no such information--has nowhere intimated such an issue.

To establish the proposition that the soul dies with the body, infidelity must furnish proof, and that proof must be clear and ample; but infidelity has no proof to offer-infidelity is nothing better than a negation without a reason--a mere blind conjecture. The doctrine, at best, is only an opinion of my neighbor; why is not my opinion worth as much as his? Nay, is it not more rational and philosophical? I now exist; and, in the absence of any proof to the contrary, the presumption is just, that I shall continue to exist forever. Nature utters no negative to my hope. All analogy is in favor of my perpetual being. Change is constant, and manifold, and universal; annihilation is an event unknown in nature.

The very constitution of man-his interior consciousness, his sense of responsibility, his self-upbraiding for guilty deeds, his apprehension of a righteous retribution, his capability of indefinite improvement, his natural dread of annihilation, and his strong aspirations after a higher destiny-all give evidence of the life to come.

"Say, whence this pleasing hope, this fond desire,

This longing after immortality?

Or whence this secret dread, and inward horror,
Of falling into nought? Why shrinks the soul
Back on herself, and startles at destruction?
'Tis the Divinity that stirs within us;

'Tis Heaven itself, that points out an hereafter,
And intimates eternity to man!"

Nay, is not the soul naturally immortal? Is not immortality an element of its very constitution? The body is composed of parts, and these parts may be divided and dissolved; the soul is a simple substance, indivisible and indissoluble, and can perish only by the fiat of its Creator. The body is constantly changing-constantly increasing or decreasing; the soul remains the same under all the diversified phenomena of its manifestation-maintains an uninterrupted consciousness of its identity, through all the stages of its progress, and amidst all the accidents and vicissitudes of its outer

life. Its conscious identity proves its spirituality, and its spirituality is the basis of its immortality. It can be destroyed only by the Power that made it. And why should He destroy the noblest of His creations? Did He not make it for an important end? And shall He thwart His own purpose, or leave His design unfinished? Who can say that man, like the moth, attains his end in this brief period of existence? And if not-if he is capable of moving in a larger and loftier sphere-if, having learned all that this world can teach him, he still longs and struggles for vaster acquisitions of knowledge -another life is necessary, for the development of his powers, and the completion of the Almighty's plan; and, if there is no future being, man is an abortion-" a monster in the eternal order," and there is no discoverable wisdom or goodness in his Creator's economy.

Thus, we establish a very strong presumption of human immortality. This presumption is corroborated by the general sense of mankind. Whence the prevalent opinion, in all nations, in all ages--an opinion to which all worships, all poesies, all traditions, bear witness -that the soul lives when the body dies? Either it is an original impression, or it is a deduction of reason, or it is a revelation from God. There is no other assignable source of the idea. In either case the argument is conclusive. If it is an original impression, God himself must have given that impression, inweaving the sentiment of immortality with our very constitution, and that sentiment cannot be false. If it is a deduction of reason, there must be sufficient evidence to warrant that deduction by the great mass of mankind, and, in the face of such evidence, it must be highly irrational to reject the doctrine. If it is a revelation from God, that revelation has been sufficient to satisfy the world for nearly six thousand years, and there is now no room for controversy, nor excuse for unbelief. So that, whichever hypothesis you adopt, this always and everywhere prevalent opinion of mankind constitutes an irrefutable argument for the immortality of the soul; and in connection with the present manifest incompleteness of the Divine retribution, the unequal distribution of good and ill, and the decisive testimony of Scripture, forbids our regarding death as the terminus of our being.

Neither does God's account of death represent it as a state of unconsciousness. Consciousness continues in sleep, and sleep often but intensifies consciousness. The doctrine that death is a suspension or a cessation of consciousness was invented to accommodate the material

istic philosophy, which attributes all mental phenomena to organization. It has no warrant in scripture, but is contrary to the express declarations of the Word of God. "This day shalt thou be with me in paradise." "For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." "I have a desire to depart, and to be with Christ, which is far better." "We are willing, rather, to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." How do these, and similar passages, comport with the view in question? Is paradise a state of unconsciousness? Is being with Christ-being with the Lord—a state of unconsciousness? Is Christ, then-is the Lord, then-in a state of unconsciousness? Is a state of unconsciousness either desirable or gainful to the good-better than to remain in the flesh, serving so good a Master, sharing so rich a bounty, expectant of so vast a reward? The doctrine is wholly unscriptural.

Is it not equally unphilosophical? The intelligence of the soul proves its immateriality; but if the soul is immaterial, it is independent of its connection with matter, and its severance from matter cannot affect its consciousness. Consciousness, indeed, is the necessary condition of its being. An unconscious soul were an impossible conception. It were better to speak of an immaterial body. It were more rational to suppose an utter extinction of being. If the soul exists at all, it must exist in a state of consciousness. Unconsciousness were inanition. The present dullness of our consciousness-its frequent partial interruptions-result from the encumbrance of the soul's physical environments-the infirmities of the outer man. When "this mortal coil" is "shuffled off," consciousness will be vivid and perfect far beyond all present experience. The last long sleep attaches only to the body; the soul must continue to think and feel, rejoice or suffer, when these now so active forms are cold and decaying in their tombs.

Nor is death to be regarded as the final condition of the material organism. Sleep is nature's method of recuperation. He that sleeps shall awake with renewed vigor. The body is not to lie forever in the dust. The fallen and shattered tabernacle is to be reconstructed, glorious as the forms of angels, and imperishable as the tenant that has forsaken it for a season, to return to it forever. Must I argue this point? "Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead? Does nature furnish no analogies? Heaven and earth are full of them.

"All bloom is fruit of death;
All being, effort for a future germ.
Creation's soul is thrivance from decay ;
And nature feeds on ruin. The big earth.
Summers in rot, and harvests through the frost,
To fructify the world. The mortal Now

Is pregnant with the spring-flowers of To-come,
And death is seed-time for eternity."

Is the final recovery of the body from the wreck and ruin of the grave a greater achievement thau the constant reproduction from decay of animal and vegetable life around us? Is it a more wonderful thing than the creation of the worlds-than its own original construction? Whatever the difficulty to human apprehension, nothing is difficult to Infinite Wisdom and Power. Who is it that saith-" I will redeem them from death, I will ransom them from the power of the grave ?" It is he at whose word the teeming spheres rolled forth from the inane, and order arose singing out of chaos. Nay, it is he who promised to raise his own body, and did so, demonstrating his power to raise the bodies of his people. "The captain of our salvation," he has conquered the king of terrors, and led our captivity captive. He has "abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel." The sleepers of a long night shall awake to an eternal day.

The proper view of death-the death of God's servants, for we speak of no other—is that of retirement from labor, and of sweet and secure repose. David, having finished his work, "fell on sleep ;" and all the faithful departed are spoken of as "sleeping in Jesus ;" and the angel of the Apocalypse saith to the beloved John-" Write, from henceforth, blessed are the dead that die in the Lord; even so, saith the Spirit, for they rest from their labors, and their works do follow them." There is nothing here to be deprecated or dreaded. We lie down unfearing at night, expecting to rise refreshed in the morning. How welcome is rest to the weary husbandman, to the toilworn traveller, to the mariner after the storm, to the warrior after the battle. And what is there to fear in death? Guilt, indeed, may fear; for there is a dread hereafter of retribution. pardoned sinner to fear? What has the sanctified believer to fear? To him, dying is only falling asleep, and the grave is the bed in which he reposes after the toils of the day.

But what has the

« PrécédentContinuer »