Preliminary Remarks.
Our argument on the question of human immortality rests mainly, as it must, on the teaching of Scripture. This we have completed. It does not seem important for us to devote much space to the consideration of the reasons and suggestions that are drawn from other sources; for they are of no positive or certain value in themselves, as we have shown in our First Chapter, and their soundness or falsity can only be known by bringing them to the test of God's Word, which was given expressly to teach us all we need to know, and, indeed, all we can know in our present state, of the future.
Science, looking at such facts as nature presents, declares that there is no evidence of any life hereafter for man ; and from her standpoint, she is able to give quite an array of reasons for her conclusion. Philosophy, on the other hand, reasoning from sentiment, and instinct, and hope and fear, and from the intellectual nature of man, concludes that he is naturally and necessarily immortal. This discrepancy is only to be reconciled by the teaching of Scripture. That shows us that there is truth, but only a partial truth, in each of these two extremes.
It agrees with science in teaching that man's natural life ends at death, and furthermore, it teaches that there can be no hope of an after life for any man, but in a Divine interposition, to raise him up again, and then, going beyond the reach of all scientific research, it shows us God's method of restoring the dead to life, and of bestow ing upon mortals the gift of Everlasting Life.
It agrees with philosophy in teaching that God did design man to be immortal; but it furthermore teaches, that it was for an immortality in holiness, and not in sin; and that it was expressly conditioned on his continuance in perfect obedience to his Maker; and that the forfeited boon can be assured to him only as he shall be made fit to enjoy it, and, what is beyond all the power of philosophy to discover, it teaches that it is only by the "washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost," that he can be made fit for immortal life, or have any good hope of enjoying it.
We find no fault with Scientists or Philosophers as such. Without a Divine revelation, they could not reach the ultimate truth, which is only brought to light in the Gospel. But we do find fault with those scientific and philosophic theologians, who, having this Gospel, so completely ignore its teachings as to rest their conclusions on the findings of Science and Philosophy alone; and because, on the one hand, their analysis of matter gives no evidence of a future life, conclude there is none, in spite of the teachings of God's Word; or, on the other hand, because they find within man the sentiments and instincts of a future life, conclude not only that there is such a life, but also, that it is an endless life, and not only this, but that it is the assured portion of every man, whatever may be his moral character; while the Gospel expressly declares that it is the portion only of those who are born again.
It seems to us strange, passing strange, that Christian men, who profess to honor the authority of this Divine Word in spiritual things, should refuse the light which it throws upon Science and Philosophy, and instead of using it to correct and modify the partial and imperfect views they suggest, should subordinate its higher and additional teachings to them, as though they were supreme and ultimate.
We cheerfully and gladly accept of all the findings of Nature and Reason, for just what they teach; but for no more, and we cannot allow them to control in the domain of spiritual truth, into which they cannot enter. In their own province, they are in beautiful accord with the teachings of God's Word; but in all that is supernatural and spiritual, we must take His Divine Revelation, as our supreme and ultimate authority, and we must insist that it be so taken by others, who, as professedly Christian men, undertake to argue with us this question of the Life Ever lasting.
It is then, rather because it is customary in discussing this question, and for the sake of giving completeness to our view, than because we deem it important, that we proceed to consider, somewhat briefly, as we must, what Nature and Reason may have to say with respect to the immortality of man.
It is said that if the soul be " a simple, pure, uncompounded, unorganized entity or substance," then it must be indestructible and necessarily immortal. But who knows that such is the nature of the soul? It is a sheer assumption, without one particle of evidence to sustain it. The argument that is founded on it amounts simply to this: If the soul be indestructible, it is indestructible. If it be immortal, it is immortal. But the assumption leads to a broader conclusion than this. The logical mind of Plato saw it, and therefore he concluded that the soul, if such be its nature, could have had no beginning, as well as, will have no end. That man, so far as his soul is concerned, is an uncreated being ; that when a child is born, a soul enters his body, and when he dies, it goes out again, either to enter some other body, or to exist in a ghostly, state for ever ; and that the number of such souls, is eternally the same, neither being increased by new births, nor diminished by death. But Christian men, who cannot but admit that God created man, and that he has a definite beginning, by rejecting the former part of this conclusion, vitiate the latter part ; because both parts must go together. For it is evident, that what had a beginning, may have an end ; what has been created, may be uncreated. If the soul of man is not of such a nature as to exclude the idea of its creation, it certainly is not of such a nature as to save it from destruction.
But granting the assumption, that the soul is " a simple, pure, uncompounded, unorganized substance or entity," and that it has a beginning, the question arises : When is that beginning? Are souls made beforehand and kept in readiness to meet human demand ? or are they made to order, and put into the child's body at birth, or at some period before or after its birth ? We press this question upon those, who hold that the soul is an entity separate and separable from the body, and independent of it. It is not an idle question, but one that it is important for them to consider. If they are unable to answer it, let them tell us, at least, if they can, whether it be a full grown, mature, responsible soul, at the outset, or does it grow in strength and maturity and, responsibility with the body. The former supposition would be fatuous, and lead to the absurd conclusion that new-born infants are equally responsible for their moral exercises and acts with adults. If they take the latter supposition, then, we would ask them, why the soul may not fall, as well as rise with the body ? How can they show that the soul»does not follow the fortunes of the body, but is independent of it ?
Let them show us how it is possible for such a "simple, pure, uncompounded, unorganized entity" as they suppose the soul to be, to carry on all the varied and complex operation of thought, feeling, and action within the body and independent of it ; or, at least, let them show us that this is possible.
If they shall admit that the soul is, or may be an organism, then it may be disorganized, and, like all other organisms, its functional action ceases when this organism shall be broken up.
But if they still insist that the soul is a " simple, unorganized entity," they must admit that a bodily organism is necessary to the exercise of its functions. If the soul had no conscious life or activity until it was united with the body ; what evidence is there to show that it can maintain its individual life, and fulfill its functions, after the bodily organization is destroyed ? There is every evidence possible in the nature of the case, to show that the body is as necessary to the soul, as the soul is to the body ; and that they are mutually dependent on each other. An injury to the brain, through which the soul is supposed to act, affects the soul, in the same degree ; it may cause insanity ; it may cause insensibilty for a time ; it may cause death. Is it reasonable to suppose that while any injury to the brain that is not fatal, injuriously affects the soul, a fatal injury does not injuriously affect its consciousness and activity at all, but only gives it greater freedom of action and of feeling ?
The fact is, the whole argument for immortality founded on the nature of the soul, rests upon a pure assumption, and this constitutes the only difficulty there is in meeting it. Indeed, it can only be a waste of words between us and those who hold it, until they shall establish their postulate by some show of reason.
It is said that Franklin proposed to the Savants of France this question, Why the weight of a vessel of water should not be increased by putting a fish into it? After arguing the question for a long time and giving many weighty reasons for their various views, some one proposed to try the experiment, and see if such were the fact. It was then " discovered that their arguments were all worthless ; for the supposition itself was false. And so is it with arguments in regard to the immortality of the soul founded on the supposition that it is " a pure, simple, uncompounded, unorganized entity." Let them show that such is the nature of the soul, or, at any rate, tell us what the nature of the soul is, before they challenge us to show that the conclusion, or rather the half of the conclusion, they are willing themselves to adopt is false.
The late President Dwight, of Yale College, in his Sermons, Vol. 1, p. 163, says :
"Among Christians I know of but one who has regarded the immortality of the soul as susceptible of demonstration. Should we believe with this ingenious writer, that the soul, metaphysically considered, is so formed, as naturally to be immortal, we must still acknowledge, because it cannot be denied tbat its existence may terminate at death or at any other supposable period. Whatever has been created can certainly be annihilated by the power which created it. The continuance of the soul must therefore depend absolutely on the will of God. But that will can never be known, by creatures, unless He is pleased to disclose it. Without Revelation, therefore, the immortality of the soul must be entirely uncertain."
We may add to what has been so truly said, we never knew one man even, who was able to demonstrate the immortality of the soul from the Scriptures, or to point to one text in all the Bible that asserted or even hinted at any such doctrine. But there are hundreds of texts, as we have shown, that assert the contrary, and as many more, that expressly declare that immortality is the special gift of God and only received by a new birth.
But it should be remembered, that our inquiry is concerning man himself, and not concerning any one or more of the various parts of which he is supposed to be made up. The physical, or material elements that enter into his composition, when they shall be separated by death, may continue to exist in their elemental state, or may enter into other combinations, and so continue, under one form or another, to exist forever. Indeed, we have no evidence that any elemental substance is ever annihilated. The Bame may be said of the spiritual elements, or living forces
that enter into his composition, they may well be supposed to exist forever under some form or condition or other, we know not what ; nor need we stop to inquire, for our inquiry does not relate to these elements, however many or few they may be ; but to the composite creature man. Is he immortal — the sensitive, thinking, conscious, active, responsible creature that he is — is he immortal?
The fact is, this Platonic philosophy has thrown this whole subject into confusion. It has led us off, into inquiries concerning one part of man and has taught us to ignore the main question concerning the destiny of man himself. We have come to speak of the soul of man, and to reason about it, as though it were something distinct from the man himself; and ministers preach about it, as though it had a character and destiny of its own, and that this is all that is worth considering. But this is neither consistent with the teachings of Science, nor of Reason, nor of Revelation. Scien ce regards man as an integer ; though he is a complex and composite creature, yet he is one creature and not two or more. So does law, both human and divine; and so does the Gospel. It was upon the whole man that God laid His original prohibition — "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou must surely die." It was the whole man that sinned and fell. It was the whole man that came under the sentence of death — "Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return." It is the whole man that was redeemed, and is to be raised, and judged and saved or destroyed. This is the question which we most need to have answered; the question that Job asked, "If man die shall he live again," and shall he live forevermore? And no answer can be given to it, either by Reason or in Nature. It is only answered in the Word of God, and it is for this very purpose that a Divine Revelation has been given to us — to tell us of the Life Everlasting and the way of attaining to it. Why, then, should we betake ourselves blindly to heathen oracles, or to the oracles of the wisest of men, whose wisdom God has declared to be foolishness, when "we have a more sure word of prophecy? "Unto this "we do well to take heed as unto a light that shineth in a dark place."
Comments