Page images
PDF
EPUB

Of the Immortality of the Soul.

444. It is unnecessary to prove to a Christian, that his soul will never die; because he believes that life and immortality have been brought to light by the gospel. But, though not necessary, it may be useful, to lay before him those arguments, whereby the immortality of the soul might be made to appear, even to those who never heard of revelation, probable in the highest degree. Whether the human soul shall die with the body, or survive death and live for ever, is an inquiry which may be said to comprehend the three following questions. 1. Does the light of nature, unaided by revelation, afford any reason to think, that the soul of man may possibly survive the body? 2. Does the light of nature afford any reason to believe, that the soul will actually survive the body? 3. If it does, what may be reasonably conjectured concerning a future state?

445. SECTION I. Does the light of nature, unaided by revelation, afford any reason to think, that the human soul may possibly survive the body? First, death destroys the body by disuniting its parts, or preparing them for being disunited: and we have no reason to think that death can destroy in any other way, as we have never seen any thing die, which did not consist of parts. But the soul consists not of parts; having been proved to be

incorporeal. Therefore, from the nature of death and of the soul, we have no evidence that death can destroy the soul. Consequently, the soul may possibly, and for any thing we know to the contrary, survive the body.

446. Secondly, the soul is a substance of one kind, and the body of another; they are united; and death dissolves the union. We may conceive them to exist after this union is dissolved; for we see that the body does exist for some time after; and may, by human art, be made to exist for a long time. And as most men have, in all ages, entertained some notion of a future state, it must be agreeable to the laws of the human understanding to believe, that the soul may live when separated from the body. Now the dissolution of the union of two distinct substances, each of which is conceived to be capable of existing separate, can no more be supposed necessarily to imply the destruction of both the united substances, than the dissolution of the marriage union by death, can be supposed to imply, of necessity, the destruction of both husband and wife. Therefore the union of the soul and body is not necessary to the existence of the soul after death. Consequently, the soul may possibly survive the body.

447. Thirdly, naturalists observe, that the particles whereof our bodies consist are continually changing; some going off, and others coming in their room so that in a few years a human body

becomes, not indeed different in appearance, but wholly different in substance. But the soul continues always the same. Therefore, even in this life, the soul survives, or may survive, several dissolutions of the body. And if so, it may possibly survive that other dissolution which happens at death. It is true, these dissolutions are gradual and imperceptible; whereas that is violent and sudden. But if the union of the soul and body be necessary to the existence of the soul, the dissolution of this union, whether sudden or gradual, whether violent or imperceptible, must destroy the soul. But the soul survives the gradual dissolution. Therefore, for any thing we know to the contrary, it possibly may, and probably will, survive that which is instantaneous.

448. Some object, that it is only additional matter joined to our original body, which is gradually dissolved by the attrition of the parts; whereas death dissolves the original body itself. Though this were granted, it must, at any rate, be allowed, that the soul has as much command over this additional matter as over the original body. For a full-grown man has, at least, as much command of his limbs, as an infant has of his; and yet, in the limbs of the former there must be a great deal of additional matter, which is not in the limbs of the latter. And the soul and body of a full-grown man do mutually affect each other, as much, at least, as the soul and body of an infant. Conse

sup

quently, the union between our soul and this posed additional matter, is as strict and intimate as that between the soul and its supposed original body. But, we find, that the former union may be dissolved without injury to the soul: therefore, the union of the soul, with its supposed original body, may also be dissolved, without endangering the soul's existence.

449. Further admitting the same doctrine of an original body, we must, however, observe, that living men may lose several of their limbs by amputation. Those limbs must contain parts of this original body, if there be any such thing. There is, then, a dissolution of the union between the soul and part of the original body; and a violent one too; which, however, affects not the existence of the soul and, therefore, for any thing that appears to the contrary, the soul may possibly survive the total dissolution at death.

450. But it is now time to reject this unintelligible doctrine of an original body. From a small beginning, man advances gradually to his full stature. At what period of his growth is it, that the original body is completed, and the accession of additional matter commences? What is the original body? Is it the body of an embryo, of an infant, or of a man? Does the additional matter begin to adhere before the birth, or after it, in infancy, in childhood, in youth, or at maturity? These questions cannot be answered; and, there

fore, we cannot admit the notion of an original body, as distinguishable from the additional matter whereby our bulk is increased. Consequently, the third argument remains in full force; and is not weakened by this objection.

451. Fourthly, if the soul perish at death, it must be by annihilation; for death destroys nothing, so far as we know, but what consists of parts. Now we have no evidence of annihilation taking place in any part of the universe. Our bodies, though resolved into dust, are not annihilated; not a particle of matter has perished since the creation, so far as we know. The destruction of old, and the growth of new, bodies, imply no creation of new matter, nor annihilation of the old, but only a new arrangement of the elementary parts. What reason then can we have to think, that our better part, our soul, will be annihilated at death, when even our bodies are not then annihilated; and when we have no evidence of such a thing as annihilation ever taking place? Such an opinion would be a mere hypothesis, unsupported by, nay, contrary to, experience; and, therefore, cannot be reasonable. We have, then, from reason and the light of nature, sufficient evidence, that the soul may possibly survive the body, and, conse quently, be immortal; there being no event before us, so far as we know, except death, which would seem likely to endanger its existence.

452. SECTION II. Does the light of nature af

« PreviousContinue »