I. ARGUMENT FROM
CONSCIOUSNESS.
1. We have seen that in consciousness man
knows his own existence. He knows himself as a spiritual being
inhabiting a material body; that is, he is aware of possessing and
exercising the attributes or powers of a spirit as distinct from
the attributes or qualities of a material body. Consciousness
directly gives his spirituality, and sense gives to consciousness
the intuitive knowledge of our bodies. I think, I feel, I will;
these are not acts or qualities of matter. Matter has extension,
form, solidity, impenetrability, inertia; but these are not
properties or qualities of mind. Spirit has not extension,
solidity, inertia. Spirit is not a space-filling substance. This
we know to be true, for God is a Spirit and is omnipresent; and if
spirit were a space-filling substance, the existence of God would
be incompatible with the existence of anything else.
I am conscious as a spirit of using my body
as its instrument, but I am conscious that my body is not myself,
my thinking, willing substance. I am sure by sense that I have a
body, and by consciousness I am sure that I have a
mind.
2. In consciousness I am aware that I am an
agent, and not a mere instrument. I act from myself, that is, my
mind is self-active; and my body has no power of action only as I
move by the self-activity of my mind. In consciousness I know that
as a mind I am a cause; not merely in the sense of a secondary
cause, or in the sense of transmitting by a law of necessity an
impulse which I receive by the same law. I know that as mind I am
sovereign in my activity, and that I do not belong to the chain of
material causes and effects that comprise the material universe
around me. As a mind I am conscious of being apart from this chain
of material cause and effect, above it, and that I have power in a
great many ways to act upon it and modify the order in which these
causes and effects would otherwise flow.
3. In consciousness I know myself as a free
agent. I not only have the power of self-activity, that is, do not
merely act from myself and of myself; but I act in one direction
or another at my sovereign discretion -- the manner in which I
shall act being determined by myself, and by no agency in the
universe but my own.
4. In consciousness I know myself to be an
intelligent agent. That is, I reason, judge, and act in view of
all considerations which are present to my mind. In other words, I
am aware in consciousness that I assign to myself reasons for my
actions, and act upon the condition of their presence to my
intellect.
5. In consciousness I know myself as a
moral agent. I have a conscience; I am under moral government and
moral law, perform moral actions and have a moral character. All
this I know by direct consciousness. My existence, then, as such a
being, is a fact of consciousness. The question at present is not
how I came to exist; the fact that I do exist is the question
immediately before us. We have seen it to be a first truth of
reason that every event must have a cause, that is, of a cause, an
adequate cause. Now it follows that whatever exists will continue
to exist forever, unless by some adequate cause it is annihilated.
All existences are therefore naturally immortal in the sense that
when existence is once given, they will continue to exist forever
unless they are annihilated.
Some have maintained that nothing exists in
such a sense that it would continue to exist for a moment if not
continued in existence by a divine upholding. But pray what can be
intended by this? Suppose the divine upholding to be withdrawn --
is it intended that all existences except God have in themselves
the law of self-annihilation? That were God to withdraw his
support they would by a law of their own nature annihilate
themselves? Surely this is gratuitous, and even absurd. To say
that anything can annihilate itself is certainly a contradiction.
What then does the assertion mean, that nothing save God continues
to exist except by a divine upholding? Is it intended that if God
withdraws himself from the existences that make up the universe,
they will sink into annihilation of themselves? But how can this
be? If there are real existences in the universe that are not God,
if they are ever annihilated, it must be by some positive
influence adequate to such a result.
I do not see why the philosophy that
everything exists only as it is divinely held up into existence
does not amount to pantheism. It seems to me equivalent to
maintaining that all existences are only forms and modes of divine
existence; and that if you abstract that which is divine from all
existences there is nothing left. To claim, then, for the soul of
man immortality in the sense of endless existence, is to claim for
it no more that [can] justly be claimed for all real
existences, unless they are by divine power
annihilated.
6. If anyone affirms that the soul of man
is not immortal, the burden of proof is upon him. Certainly it is
immortal in its nature, that is, it has a real existence and
cannot pass out of existence without being annihilated by some
power out of and above itself; and so far as we can see, by some
power equivalent to that which gave it being. If then it be
contended that the soul of man is mortal, it must be proven that
an adequate power will be exerted to annihilate it. The burden of
proof upon the question of the soul's immortality does not belong
to Christians but to those who deny its immortality. It does
exist; it must continue to exist unless annihilated.
It will not be contended that any being but
God can annihilate it -- will God annihilate it? Is there any
proof that he ever does annihilate a soul? Of course, in this part
of our inquiry we are not consulting the Scriptures, for the
question of their divine authority has not yet been mooted by us
in this course of study. We inquire, therefore, on principles of
science and in the light of natural reason. What reason is there
for supposing that the soul of man will ever be annihilated?
Certainly the dissolution of the body affords no reason to believe
that the soul is annihilated. The body is not annihilated, but
only changes its form. Indeed we know not that anything that has
had an existence ever has been or ever will be annihilated.
Material bodies we know to be perpetually changing their form,
because they are perpetually changing the particles of which they
are composed. Personal identity cannot strictly, we know, be
affirmed of our bodies for any two moments of our lives. All the
particles of organized being are in a state of perpetual flux.
This is a fact of science. But this is not true of our spiritual
nature. Our spiritual nature is not an organized substance. It is
spirit, not composed of particles, not a space-filling substance;
and the changes in the body we know do not interfere with the
personal identity of the soul.
7. The mortality of the body is admitted,
and adequate causes to change its form are known to exist. But
this is by no means true of the mind. I know it has been affirmed
that the mind is after all material, and that thought, volition,
and feeling, are only results of refined cerebral organization.
But has this ever been proved? It is mere assertion. And do those
who make such assertions expect them to be received? The soul as
known to us possesses none of the qualities of matter; it is
therefore gratuitous and even absurd to affirm its materiality. To
say that when the body is dissolved, the mind disappears, is only
to prove that the body is the organ of the mind's manifestation in
this state of existence; and of this we are conscious. Of course,
when the material body decays, the mind has lost the medium by
which it communicated with other minds inhabiting material bodies;
and this is all that is implied in the fact that the mind ceases
to manifest itself when the body is decayed. It is by means of our
bodies that we reveal ourselves to those that inhabit bodies like
ourselves. When our bodies are dissolved, the medium of this
revelation has ceased to exist, and consequently the mind
inhabiting the body has no longer power to manifest itself to
those that are in bodies. We know of no such medium.
II. MORAL ARGUMENT.
1. We have just said that we are conscious
of a moral nature, or conscience; that we posses the attributes of
moral agents and are subjects of moral government; that moral law
is revealed in our own consciousness, affirmed by our own
conscience as an authoritative rule of action; and that moral
obligation is imposed on us in the name of God. The first truth,
accountability, implies this that conscience legislates for
God.
2. We also know in consciousness that we
irresistibly affirm and assume the goodness of God, that he
possesses every attribute of moral goodness. This renders it
impossible to believe that the present is a state of rewards and
punishments; that is, a state in which moral agents are dealt with
precisely according to their good or ill desert. In other words,
this is not a state in which God manifests his entire justice,
except in our irresistible convictions, certainly not in his
administration. It is easy for us to see that this state of
existence must be a state of trial or probation; and that of
course the manifestation of strict justice on the part of God in
dispensing rewards and punishments for every act as we proceed in
life, would be out of place, this being, from the very nature of a
state of probation, reserved till this state of trial is
ended.
We have seen that conscience points to a
future state of retribution; it enforces obligation in the name of
God. It always assumes that retribution is reserved till the hour
of probation is ended.
3. We are aware in consciousness that our
nature demands a state of moral order under the government of God
as the ultimate condition of his commending himself to the
universe of intelligent creatures. By moral order, I mean a state
of things in which law will either be universally obeyed, or in
which rewards and punishments will be in accordance with
character. This state of things does not exist here. We
irresistibly look forward to a future state in which moral order
will be perfect.
4. If such a state is never to exist, it
cannot be that God is just. Indeed, it is a contradiction to say
that the Ruler of the universe is just and yet that a state of
moral order will never exist under his government. An unjust God
is no God. If then there be not a future state of existence, if
the human soul be not immortal, there can be no God.
But should it be insisted that men are
dealt with in this world according to their characters; I reply,
that those who assert this know better. It is a matter of direct
consciousness that we ourselves are not dealt with in this world
with the severity that we deserve. And who does not know that men
pass out of this world in the very act of committing the greatest
crimes.
5. If the soul does not exist in a future
state, our moral nature or conscience necessarily deceives
us.
6. If the soul is not immortal, our moral
nature is a great curse to us. It forces convictions upon us that
distress and mock us.
7. If the soul is not immortal, our moral
nature compels us to become atheists. For who can believe that
there is a God of infinite moral perfection unless he admits that
there must be a future state in which moral order will
exist.
8. The moral nature of man has forced the
race to assume the immortality of the soul; and this assumption
has existed in despite of the fear of future punishment
necessarily consequent upon this conviction. All men have known
themselves to be sinners; all men have regarded God as just; all
men have feared punishment; all men have dreaded to meet God; they
have feared to die, because they have assumed that "after death is
the judgment." Now the fact that men have assumed and everywhere
believed in the immortality of the soul, and in the justice of
God, while they have known themselves to be sinners, is proof
conclusive that the immortality of the soul is a dictate of our
nature, and a conviction so irresistible that it cannot be
disbelieved, although mankind are so interested to disbelieve it.
We find in consciousness that as a general thing men disbelieve
what they greatly dread; but here is a truth or fact of universal
belief that exists inspite of the terror inspired by the
admission.
Now what is implied in the supposition that
the doctrine of immortality is not true? Why that human nature in
itself is a delusion; that it forces delusions upon the whole
race; and that that peculiarity of our nature that distinguishes
us from the animal creation, to wit, our reason and conscience, is
the greatest curse to us, inspiring us with anticipations, with
hopes and fears, and pressing us with the most exciting
considerations conceivable, in which, after all, there is no
truth. It is plain that the assumption of immortality is natural
to man and irresistible.
III. THE BIBLE ARGUMENT.
In this place it is impertinent to quote
the Bible upon this subject in a course of scientific instruction,
because its divine authority has not been established by us.
Nevertheless, it is not out of place to notice some instances in
which it is evident that the writers of the Bible assume the
immortality of the soul. It has been denied that the writers
especially of the Old Testament, held any such doctrine. Observe,
the question now directly before us is not whether these writers
were inspired; but did they believe in the immortality of the
soul? Or, in other words, did they believe that the soul exists in
a future state, or in a state separate from the body? Let us
attend to some intimations that we find in the Old
Testament.
In Deut. 18:9-12, we have a law against
necromancy, that is against consulting the dead, that is departed
spirits. Now from this law it is evident that the idea was at that
time universal among the Jews that the soul existed after the body
was dead.
Again, before the New Testament times the
Jews became divided into two great sects, the Pharisees and
Sadducees. This however was in their later history, that is, it
was a division that existed among them at the time of the
appearance of our Savior. Now it is well known that the Pharisees
held the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and that Jesus
held it also. I mention not this in this place as authority, but
as a fact.
Again, the doctrine of Hades, or the fact
that spirits existed after the death of the body and went to a
place called Hades, is as evident on the face of the Old Testament
Scriptures as almost any other truth found there. For example, the
following texts imply it: Gen. 5:22-24, respecting the translation
of Enoch. Enoch was removed from this world, it is true, in his
body; but was represented as immortal, that is, as existing in a
future state. Whether he continued to inhabit his fleshly body
after his translation we are not informed; but from things in the
New Testament we infer that his body became spiritual and immortal
after his translation.
Again, in Gen. 37:35, Jacob speaks of going
to his son Joseph whom he supposed to be dead; from which it is
evident that he assumed that his son existed though separated from
the body. See also the following passages: Gen. 15:15; 25:8;
35:29; Num. 20:24; Exod. 3:6 (compare with Mt. 22:23); Ps. 17:15;
49:15,16,26; Is. 26:19; Dan. 12:2; Eccl. 12:7. The phrase so often
used, "gathered to his fathers," and like expressions, show that
the Jewish mind was in possession of the idea of a future state of
existence.
Indeed, the Old Testament in a great
multitude of places, in a great variety of forms, indicates the
existence of this idea in their minds; and that the immortality of
the soul was assumed both by the inspired writers and by those for
whose benefit they wrote. The New Testament completes the
revelation. I think that no one will doubt that the New Testament
writers expressly teach the immortality of the human soul,
especially the immortality of the righteous.
IV. OBJECTIONS.
1. It has been objected that the soul is
not naturally immortal. To this a sufficient answer has been
given.
2. It has been objected that the Bible
speaks of God as alone having immortality. Answer: This is meant
only to assert that God is exempt from death as no man
is.
3. It has been objected that the Bible
declares that the wicked will be annihilated. Answer: Its language
does not imply annihilation, but only ruin.
4. It has been objected, that it would be
cruel to let the wicked exist and suffer eternally. Answer: This
objection assumes that they do not deserve it, for admitting that
they deserve it, it is certainly not cruel to treat them according
to their deserts. Again, this objection assumes that there is no
benevolent reason for permitting the wicked to suffer forever.
Both these assumptions can be shown to be false.
Thus much for the question of immortality
in this place. Again I say, I have only introduced some hints from
the Bible, not as authority, but because it has been affirmed that
the Jews as a nation had not anciently the idea of the immortality
of the soul. An examination of the question historically will
show, that the doctrine of the soul's immortality has been the
doctrine of the race. It has been believed as far back as history
goes, and as far as tradition throws any light upon the
convictions of men.