According to this view the anima, or soul of animals, is spirit, yet unborn, — in embryo in the womb of nature in deep sleep, unconscious of self, incapable of life separated from nature. man, spirit came to birth, became capable of separate independent life, that is, of immortality. Nature is still, indeed, nursing mother, but no longer gestating mother of spirit. Self-consciousness, the turning in of thought upon itself, the inside view of phenomena, is the sign and seal of completed spirit-individuality, of the birth of spirit into a new and higher world. Is not this an infinite difference - a difference not so much in degree, but in kind. The difference in degree, that is, in grade of organization, between the mature embryo and the new-born child, is small indeed; but the difference in kind of life and its potentialities is immense. It is now a life on a new and higher plane a life self-breathing, self-nourishing, in a word, self-determined, as compared with the previous embryonic life. So, also, if man be derived by evolution from animals, and the spirit of man from the anima, then, however gradual the process may have been; at the moment of self-consciousness, although there may have been, in other respects, but small change in the mental structure; yet the change in the plane of mental life was immense. There was an entirely new kind of life, with new powers and potentialities, a new world with entirely new phenomena, come into being then and there. It was a literal birth into a new and higher world, the beginning of a life on a higher plane. The inner world of self-consciousness, which is the world of free spirit, was then born for the first time.

According to this view the process of evolution through all geological history was naught else than a gestation process for the birth of spirit. In the evolution of man spirit finally breaks away from physical, umbilical connection with nature, but only in order to enter into higher moral relations of filial love and obedience with the God of nature, the Father of Spirits. Can there be a grander and more ennobling view of nature and of man than this?

But it will be objected that this comparison with physical birth is only an analogy, and, like all reasonings from analogy, is very untrustworthy. I answer: True, it is an analogy, but there are analogies and analogies. Analogy is based on the unity of nature and is, therefore, certainly a legitimate mode of reasoning, although, like other modes of reasoning, of various degrees of reliability. From time immemorial analogies of immortality have

been sought for and found in nature. Such, for example, as the germination of the seed used by St. Paul, or the metamorphoses of insects used by many religious writers. The somewhat fanciful nature of these have cast discredit on all analogies of immortality. But the analogy above presented is something more than a mere analogy. This sudden appearance of a new force, producing new phenomena on a higher plane, may be shown to be in accordance with a general law of nature. It is not, then, a poetic analogy. It is a scientific law.

There was a time in the history of the Cosmos when only the lowest form of force, namely, physical force, prevailed. Even chemical affinity did not then exist, being held in abeyance by an intensity of heat sufficient to dissociate the elements. In the gradual cooling of the earth, suddenly, at a certain temperature, chemical force was born into the world, a new force producing new and peculiar phenomena, non-existent until that time. Suddenly, I said, but not, therefore, underived from previous forces; on the contrary, when conditions were favorable physical became chemical force. Ages upon ages passed away, until the time was ripe and conditions were favorable, and Life suddenly appeared on the stage. Again a new force, with new capacities and powers, producing new and higher phenomena wholly unimaginable before they appeared. Suddenly, again I say, but not on that account underived from preëxisting forces, for chemical force became vital. Ages upon ages again passed away, during which life-force took on higher and higher forms, simulating even reason itself, until the time was fully ripe; and self-conscious, rational spirit was suddenly born. Again a new and higher force, with new and higher capacities, and producing new and higher phenomena. Again I say suddenly, but not on that account necessarily underived, the animal soul became self-conscious spirit. Now in this, as in the other cases, was it not to be expected, was it not inevitable, that the new phenomena would be peculiar and, in fact, unimaginable from the lower or animal point of view. Such a phenomenon is immortality.

Perhaps I can best bring out the reasonableness of this view by comparing it with other alternative views.

There are three possible views of the nature, the origin, and the destiny of the human spirit: (1) That it always existed, is uncreated, underived, and eternal both ways, backward as well as forward. Therefore, as it never began, so it will never end. This is substantially the view of Plato, of Leibnitz, and, perhaps, some

other philosophers. (2) That it is derived from God directly, created, but not by natural process; that at the moment of creation of the first man, and at some unknown time in the development of each individual, and in some inscrutable way, it was injected ready made into the body from the outside, and at the same time endowed with immortality. This, as near as I can describe it, is the usual or orthodox view. (3) That it was indeed derived from God, but not directly; created, indeed, but only by natural process of evolution. It preexisted, indeed, but only as embryo in the womb of nature, gradually developing, and finally coming to birth as living soul in man. Thus, it does not possess immortality of its own right from the beginning, nor is it endowed supernaturally and at once, but it attains immortality by law at a certain stage of its development. This is the view I have striven to enforce.

I hold up these three views before you. As rational beings which will you accept? The view of Plato, namely, that of selfexistent, uncreated, eternal spirit, I think few will accept at this time of the world's day. The usual view is surrounded with insuperable difficulties, as I have already partly shown, and it is, moreover, wholly unscientific and irrational. It is, in fact, a practical surrender of reason. What is there left but the view presented above? The other two views are, in a certain sense, both right, but also both wrong. Plato is right in asserting preexistence, but wrong in denying origin by creation. The usual view is right in asserting creation, but wrong in denying natural process. The view I have presented maintains preexistence in embryo and creation by natural process. It combines and reconciles the two other extreme and partial views, and is, therefore, more philosophical than either.

Thus far I am supposed to have been engaged in removing objections; but those who have followed me closely will perceive that I have turned my answers into important arguments, perhaps the most important that I shall be able to bring forward at all. Thus far I have ostensibly been engaged in clearing the ground, but I think you will agree with me that I have also been laying a good foundation. I wish now to continue to build on that foundation.

1. To me the most convincing proof of immortality is an indirect one"a reductio ad absurdum," that is, the absurdity or unthinkableness of the opposite. It may be presented in a

few words. I would put it thus: Without immortality there would be no conceivable meaning in human life, nor, indeed, in the complex structure and elaborate evolution of the Cosmos itself. Every evolution must, by definition, have an end. Every cycle of material changes must finally close. Now suppose the human race, or, indeed, the Cosmos itself, to have run its course, as it inevitably must finally. When all is done and the cycle closed — What then? Evidently without immortality it would be exactly as if it had never been at all! The whole elaborate history of the Cosmos and of the organic kingdom, occupying inconceivable time and culminating in man, would be but an idle dream, an idiot tale, signifying-nothing! Can we by reason accept a conclusion which is a stultification of reason?

2. But again: The belief in immortality is closely, though, perhaps, not necessarily, connected with a belief in God as a selfconscious, personal, but infinite Spirit. Now, it may be objected that the view above presented in regard to the origin of man's spirit tends strongly toward impersonal Pantheism. It seems to assume that God is naught else than a sort of vital principle of Nature, a pervasive energy developing Nature unconsciously and by necessary law. Only that we apotheosize and personate it, and call it God. It seems to assume, farther, that a portion of this universal energy individuates itself by necessary law, more and more, until it finally reaches self-conscious personality for the first time in man. And thus it seems to imply that man is the only self-conscious being in existence, and therefore the only being worthy of worship. Humanity-worship, or in its lower forms, self-worship, is the necessary outcome of both materialism and Pantheism. I wish now to remove this Pantheistic implication, and in doing so, to make another argument for immortality.

I grant that following out this line of thought alone we are most naturally, though not necessarily, led in the direction of Pantheism. But there are other lines of thought which followed out lead not only naturally, but necessarily to a different conclusion, namely, to that of self-conscious personality behind the phenomena of Nature.

We have seen that the human brain, viewed with infinitely perfect senses, from the outside shows nothing but motions, etc., but from the inside, by reflection, only consciousness, thought, etc.; from the one side only physical phenomena, from the other side only psychical phenomena. Now must not the same be true of Nature also. Viewed from the outside, even by an absolutely perfect sci

ence, there is nothing, there can be nothing, but motions, molar and molecular, that is, physical phenomena. But, on the other side, which science cannot reach, must there not be here also psychical phenomena — consciousness, thought, will — in a word, Personality? In the only place, mark this, in the only place in the world where we by observation get behind on the other side of some physical phenomena, namely, in the human brain, we find there psychical phenomena. May we not rationally conclude that the psychical always underlies the physical, that if we could see behind, on the other side of Cosmic phenomena, we would find there also conscious Personality? If we cannot do this by observation, as we do in the brain, we can by reason. If we cannot by scientific “searching find out God," we can by highest philosophic reason get some glimpses of Him.

So much for the removal of Pantheistic implication. Now for the argument for immortality, based on the above.

In the operations of our own brain we do get behind, on the inside of some physical, and we find there a new world, entirely different from the physical—a psychical, a spiritual world. Now if there be a God in the sense of self-conscious spirit behind the phenomena of nature, is it not evident that by getting behind some physical phenomena in our own self-consciousness we become, thereby and in so far, partakers of the divine nature? And is not immortality an essential attribute of that nature? But again: If partakers of the divine nature, then are we not only his creatures, but also his children. He is our spiritual Father. Will a father make laws of nature which eventuate necessarily in delusive hopes of immortality? When we ask for bread will He give us stones?

3. There is still another argument which seems to me very convincing. There is a necessary and indissoluble connection between the True and the Good. The reason is obvious. The Good, or useful, is only the embodiment of the laws of nature, that is, of the True. We adapt ourselves to the known laws of nature, and these thereby become to us beneficent or good. I suppose all recognize this necessary connection in one direction. All recognize that the True must at some time become useful. It may not be now, nor in this century, nor even in this millennium; but at some time, sooner or later, it will vindicate its character as truth by useful application. All admit this. But not all admit the necessary connection the other way. Not all are ready to admit that whatever is good in the long run and in the final outcome