METAPHYSICAL REASONS FOR IMMORTALITY
That the light of reason shows man to be immortal, is being given up by all deep thinkers, as an absurdity; but as the mass of ministers are still using the by-gone arguments, and Christians have learned the lesson, and are repeating it, I will glance at the subject.
The great cry against us is materialism!! A few writers of late, such as Rev. L. Lee, of New York, Rev. J. G. Stearns, of Western New York, and a learned Baptist editor of our State, have sounded this alarm, and repeated the old story, that man has a soul or spirit which is a simple substance, indivisible, immaterial, uncompounded, and so indestructible. I ask, why undertake to describe; what they know nothing about? and of which all other men are equally ignorant?
Mr. George Combe, on materialism, says, "The question is a vain and trivial one. Nothing can be more unphilosophical than the clamor about the danger attending it. A manly intellect will dissipate this clamor, by showing the question is altogether an illusion. The solution of the question as to the essence of the soul, appears to be completely beyond our reach. No idea can be moro erroneous than to suppose man is an immortal being on account of the substance of which he is made." Syst. of Phren. pp. 595-7.
Says Dr. Sperzhiem, "Nature has denied to man powers to discover, as a matter of direct perception, either the beginning or end, or essence of any thing under the sun; they are interdicted regions." On these statements a learned writer remarks, "Modern philosophers are aware of this, but fear to confess it, lest they should be branded with the name of materialists.'''
Watson, the great Methodist writer, says, "Some suppose consciousness is an essential attribute of spirit; and the soul is naturally immortal; the former of which cannot be proved, while the latter is contradicted by the Bible, which makes our immortality a gift, dependent on the will of the giver."— Institutes, v. 2, p. 82-3.
Dr. Dwight assumes that the soul is immortal, but was compelled to say, "Whatever has been created, can certainly be annihilated. The continuance of the soul must, therefore, depend absolutely on the will of God."—Vol. 1, p. 163.
Dr. J. Lock, Esq., the great mental philosopher and Christian, who held to destruction, says, "It is as difficult to conceive how any created substance should think and feel, as it is that our brain should think and feel." This is good sense, for God can superadd to any substance, any quality he pleases. But it was easy for weaker heads than Dr. Lock's to put down his theory, because he introduced something new—not found in any old theological creed!! Matter is a substance, and what divines call a soul, must lie a created substance, or it is nothing—a nonentity.
The plea that analogy shows nothing is annihilated, and therefore the wicked cannot be, is a full-grown absurdity; for mark, it is life, or conscious existence, we say is to cease: not matter or substance of any kind. And besides, it denies the Bible and God's power, to say he can "create" but cannot “destroy." James 4:12. When an ox or a man is dead, life is annihilated, but not matter. All men of sense say they know not what life is; and to tell of a “principle of life, which continues when man is dead," is only nonsense.
Some I find, even in our boasted day of knowledge, yet hold the heathen dogma, that our souls are a part of God, "breathed into us." Of course then he is divided, and sinning, and suffering in every polluted child of Adam! Yes, and he means to send a part of himself to eternal flames! But we are told "that which thinks, remembers, etc, cannot be matter, therefore man must have a soul, composed of some other substance." A sufficient answer to this reiterated argument, as to my doctrine, is this —suppose man has a separate part, or soul, which is made of such other substance, cannot God disorganize, or destroy, or annihilate, if you please, that created substance as easily as he can matter? Has he said He cannot, or will not do it?—where ? He has said the "soul shall die, perish," etc.
"When pressed with the argument, that brutes think, remember, feel, etc, and asked if they have souls made of this other peculiar substance?—some now say they have, and are immortal! Thus they have a new assumption, wedged under assumptions to hold up a system they see begins to totter.
It is a pity that all have not the humility and wisdom of Bishop Watson, who says, "I have read volumes on the nature of the soul, but I have no scruple in saying I know nothing about it. Hoping as I do for eternal life through Jesus Christ, I am not disturbed at my inability to clearly convince myself that the soul is, or is not, a substance distinct from the body."— Memoirs L, p. 23.
Dr. McCulloh, of Baltimore, says, "There is no word in the Hebrew language that signifies either soul or spirit in the technical sense in which we use the terms as implying something distinct from the body." He adds, " A soul was first inferred from seeing that the body turned to dust, and not seeing how it could be raised and its identity restored or continued, men concluded there must be a part of man that lived on."—V. 2, p. 466-8. The mass of ministers are " inferring" and erring in the same way. I only need to remark, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." Matt. 22 : 29.
The Sadducees saw that their Scriptures said nothing of a soul which “lived on,” and they had too much sense to infer a doctrine; but, like divines now, they vainly denied the “power of God" to restore a man when wholly turned to dust, and so unavoidably denied a resurrection. Their error, and that of modern semi-Sadducees, lies in denying God's power.
Let us illustrate and make this metaphysical argument be fully seen if possible. Suppose an astronomer says there are men in the moon, and they are ten feet high, and made of electricity, therefore they will live forever. In such a case, we would ask for his telescope to prove men were there: next, we would ask how he proved by their size and substance, they would live forever? We would naturally enquire too, by what chemical process he ascertained what they were made of, seeing he had not come in contact with them? Surely we have not come in contact with the substance of a so-called soul, any more than with men in the moon. It seems to me that the crucible by which men try the quality or essence of the soul, must be something like what they say the soul itself is, immaterial—not tangible to the five senses, nor yet to our mental vision: I have never seen the thing. But perhaps my vision is obscure since I emerged from the cell of tradition.
Let any one read Dwight, Edwards, and other old writers on the immortality of man, and then notice the preaching and talk of the present day, and he will be reminded of these lines,
“The parrot prates, it knows not what,
For all it says it learned by rote.”
I will try and not be more light, when on a serious subject, than was Elijah when he said to the prophets of Baal—"Cry aloud, for he is God; peradventure he sleepeth."
The New York Recorder, of May 11, 1853, which I have just seen, charges destructionists with being modern Sadducees. Among other absurd inferences, and false charges, (and they are all such,) I have only time to notice two. “If man has no immortal spirit of which the body is the dwelling-place, there can be no preservation of personal identity at the resurrection; and if God reanimates the dust, it will be completely a new creation.”
I take the liberty to affirm that it is rank Sadduceeism to assert that God cannot raise the dead—the whole man —from unconscious "dust," to which he has “returned," as God said he should, and continue his identity. It plainly contradicts the Bible to say, that such a resurrection would be a “new creation.'' See this proved in 1 Cor. 15.
The chemist, in his retort, or jar of oxygen gass, burns iron wire to invisible gas, and then by acids brings that gas back to iron; and I ask if this is a new creation? —This speck of earth is God Almighty's retort or jar, and he can decompose any organized substance or thing he has made and placed in this jar, and then bring the same simple elements back to their former organized state; and do it with more ease than the chemist does his work.
And further—to restore consciousness and continue identity in our reorganized systems, will be no more a miracle of power and wisdom, than it was to bestow them at first. How came our food to digest and change the simple elements of inert and unconscious matter into a conscious body or brain?
The common or general creed theory is, that some other substance, called the soul, is some how infused into these particles of matter and makes them conscious, or is itself the conscious thing. This brings up Dr. John Lock's question, viz., how came that other created substance called a soul, to possess consciousness and identity? The answer must unavoidably be, God's power and wisdom effected it and this brings us back to the starting point, namely, that God's power has made us conscious beings in a way we cannot possibly comprehend.
"Aspiring to be Gods, if angels fell,
Aspiring to be angels, men rebel."
If we cannot conceive how we became conscious beings and possessed identity, nor how any other created substance possesses these qualities, neither can we conceive how we shall become beings with these qualities by a resurrection. But to deny God's power and wisdom to effect it, is just what the Sadducees denied as to a resurrection. Their denying that angels, or any other created spiritual beings existed, was vainly inferred; and was just such an inference as the Recorder has made; for he says, " that minds sufficiently intelligent to form a coherent system, see that this new Sadduceeism (destructionism,) is a denial of all spiritual existence whatever."
Paul in 1 Cor. 15:44, says, “It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." This we believe, and this is our hope, and how then does our theory deny spiritual existence?
Mark 12:25, says, "When we rise" we are to be "as the angels." If our "spiritual body" is to be "as the angels,'' how do we deny their existence? The inference is an absurd one, and yet upon it the editor founds a column of dismal consequences and outrageous slander.
But to avoid being called Sadducees, the Recorder Co., have invented an “eighth wonder of the world,” viz., that a dead man being raised up from the grave, means a live man coming down from heaven, or up from tartarus to be judged! This essentially denies a resurrection. It is not even intimated in the Bible.
Let me hint an illustration. Suppose God should reveal that he would give a resurrection to all dead butterflies; and a commentator should say this means that he will send all live butterflies back to their old caterpillar shells, and make those shells better than they were originally, or were before they turned to dust! Should we not say with Paul, "thou fool,” this would not be a resurrection!'—the primary meaning of a resurrection is “to stand up again,” but this would be having the butterfly ‘”stand down again.”
But the Recorder and brotherhood say our doctrine leads to infidelity and atheism. I can only give a short answer to this charge.
We subscribe to God's power to make any substance possess consciousness and identity—to suspend, and then restore these qualities in that substance; or, to- decompose man's organized body, and reorganize it with its former qualities—to end, for ever, the life of a man as well as of an ox—in short, that "he can do all his will and pleasure." The power and wisdom of God to do these things, these men deny. (I am aware that some begin to back out of this denial, but most yet continue it.)
Again, Peter says, in Acts 2:29, 34, “David is both dead and buried," and “David is not ascended into the heavens." These men say, “David is not dead, and has ascended into heaven.” And our editor says, “if God reanimates his dust, it will be completely a new creation””; so of course David is to have no resurrection !—and of course no other saints!
Once more—some heathen philosophers could not conceive how any substance come to exist, and think, and feel, etc, and this led some to deny their own existence, and others to say there was nothing but thoughts in existence. These men are on the same track, and where will they land, if they think deeply enough to pursue it?
Now I ask which of our systems of belief, looks the most like infidelity and atheism? and also which has the nearest brotherhood to Sadduceeism ?
But I must hasten to a close of this chapter.
The plain common sense of all reasoning on this subject is this—it is a direct insult to the Almighty to say he has made any living being he cannot put an end to; no matter how many parts it possesses, nor of what substance it is made.
The Bible tells us plainly that men and beasts are made of the same material,—"dust"—and that both have the "same breath"—that they " both die alike";—but mark, a resurrection is not told for both. Ecc. 3:18-21. See many other positive texts.
But as this point is not the object of this work, I leave it, hoping I have said enough to show the popular folly in reasoning on immortality. All the Bible and metaphysical objections to the doctrine that dead men are dead, have been fully removed by Rev. P. Ham, Rev. Geo. Storrs, Rev. Thos. Reed, and others, and to their works I refer the reader.
I should not have said thus much on this heathen—this pitiable prop of immortality, had I not learned that it is now a great theme with ministers and dependent thinkers; and found they were seizing hold of it as if it was a mighty dagger with which to butcher destructionists. It is the only weapon of the New York Recorder. As yet it falls harmlessly at our feet: but it frightens many pupils or dazzles their eyes by its glittering appearance.
I am aware that those who use these arguments appear to many sincere Christians like a peculiar character Milton tells of “who could make the worse appear the better reason,”
A certain D.D. in B________, lately found some of his flock inclined "to grow in knowledge,” and he preached a sermon, by a notice, to sustain immortality; and one of his most intelligent members told me he quoted but one text of Scripture. “Philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men," was his theme. Col. 2 : 8, "Beware lest any man spoil you,*' etc.! Since "those who turn the world upside down" came to this B_________ , other ministers have taken a similar course.
Why this appeal to reason, it the Bible, as they say, is full of immortality? "Why prophecy false dreams, and cause the people to err?” “What is the chaff to the wheat?" Jer. 23:28-32.
But I must notice a new, and the last refuge of our opponents—it is this—"The Bible assumes that man is immortal!” Three learned ministers, one an editor in New York, lately made this their main refuge in conversation with me. I was glad to find that destructionists had so far opened their eyes that they saw their old weapons were "broken reeds."
How does this look ? A weighty doctrine proved by the silence of the Bible!! I would kindly say to such brethren, the time has come when many want, and all need, a "thus saith the Lord," for their belief; and many will not, and none should be satisfied with what he saith not.
I will just say a little on the reasoning to make this assumption appear plausible. First they say, "Christ came to save us from endless misery." This is a new assumption, for the Bible nowhere says so—that says plainly he came to save from sin and death, and to give "eternal life."
Secondly—It is said, Christ would not have suffered and died if the threatening “‘thou shalt surely die,’ meant no more than what it says." Or, in other words, "it was a little work for Christ to only save from blank oblivion." This is another and an insulting assumption. To bring up from the gloomy grave "an innumerable company," and give them eternal life, and crowns of glory—make them "kings and priests unto God"—this a little work!— a work not worthy of a loving Saviour!!
Read Eph. 2:7, and 3:10, and we see the "redeemed church" is “to make known the riches of God's grace and wisdom, to principalities and powers- in heavenly places," —thus glorify God, and make happier the whole universe through eternity—and yet this is a little work for Christ to effect by suffering for a death-doomed race!! "Ye are a chosen generation.... that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness"—of death and sin, not out of a modern hell. Heb. 2: 9.
Further—this reasoning is an insult to the feelings of Christians, who are sustained m trials by the hope of eternal life and glory, and not by the thought of escaping woe, nor yet oblivion. But I cannot enlarge, and only add —away with such sophistry—blot it from the records of theology.
CONCLUDING REMARKS.
I have now noticed the principal texts of Scripture except those claimed as proof of endless woe; and also the main reasons, relied on as proof, that all men were made, or are immortal, and as a consequence, have tested the authority, for changing from their literal sense, the -200 or 210 declarations for the proof of destruction. And I ask if the foundation for immortality, thus far examined, does not utterly fail? For myself I answer, it is built on assumptions, piled on baseless assumptions.
Where does the book of nature, or the book of God tell what soul, or man, is made of, except in the earth-wide and heaven broad declaration, “dust thou art"? Echo answers, WHERE!!
Where in these two books do we learn, by plain testimony, that any man has, or ever will have, immortality, only as we learn it from the positive, and soul cheering promises— “I give unto them [believers'] eternal life" " nd I will raise them up at the last day"—"this mortal must put on immortality'''— "neither can they die any more"? Again echo answers, where!
*The idea of matter is an extended, solid substance; wherever there is such a substance there is matter, and the essence of matter, whatever other qualities, not contained in that essence, it shall please God to superadd to it. For example, God creates an extended, solid substance, without the superadding anything else to it, and so we may consider it at rest : to some parts of it he superadds motion, hut it has still the essence of matter : other parts of it he frames into plants with all the excellence of vegetation, life, and beauty, which is to be found in a rose, or a peach-tree, etc. above the essence of matter, in general, but it still is but matter: to other parts he adds sense and spontaneous motion, and those other properties that are to be found in an elephant. Hitherto it is not doubted, but the power of God may go, and that the properties of a rose, a peach, or an elephant, superadded to matter, change not the properties of matter ; but matter is. in these things, matter still. But if one venture to go one step further, and say, God
may give to matter, thought, reason, and volition, as well as sense and spontaneous motion, there are men ready presently to limit the power of the Omnipotent Creator, and tell us ' ; he cannot doit, because it destroys the essence, or changes the essential properties of matter." To make good which assertion, they have no more to say but that thought and reason arc not included in the essence of matter. I grant it; but whatever excellency, not contained in its essence, be superadded to matter, it does not destroy the essence of matter, if it leaves it an extended, solid substance; wherever that is, there is the essence of matter; and if everything of greater perfection, superadded to such a substance, destroys the essence of matter, what will become of the essence of matter in a plant or an animal, whose properties far exceed those of a mere extended, solid, substance?
But it is farther urged, that we cannot conceive how matter can think. I grant it; but to argue from thence, that God, therefore, cannot give to matter a faculty of thinking, is to say, God's Omnipotency is limited to a narrow compass, because man's understanding is so ; and brings down God's infinite power to the size of our capacities I cannot conceive how matter should think. What is the consequence ? ergo, (therefore,) God cannot give it a power to think. Let this stand for a good reason, and then proceed with other cases by the same. You cannot conceive how matter can attract matter, at any distance, much less at the distance of 1.000.000 miles ; ergo. God cannot jrive it such a power!" etc. — Locke to the Bishop of Worcester ; Works /b/. Ed, 1740, Vol I, pp. 588, 589, 500-592,
Comments