ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL by Dudley Marvin Canright

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 5, 1869

ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

That such a doctrine is now largely believed, is well known. That it is not taught in the Bible, has been fully shown many times; hence it did not originate there. Then where did it originate? All evidence, both ancient and modern, points to Egypt as the mother of this doctrine. Here are a few testimonies. The first is from Herodotus, than whom there could be no higher authority on this question. He was a Greek, born B. C. 484, and is regarded as the father of profane history. He traveled into Egypt, and many countries, and carefully studied the customs and doctrines of those ancient nations; hence he was well qualified to speak the truth on these points. He says, “The Egyptians were also the first who asserted the doctrine that the soul of man is immortal, and that when the body perishes, it enters into some other animal, constantly springing into existence; and when it has passed through the different kinds of terrestrial, marine, and aerial beings, it again enters into the body of a man that is born, and that this revolution is made in 3000 years.”

Here is a direct statement of the origin of this doctrine by an unquestionable author, and he is not alone in this statement. Bunsen, in his learned and elaborate work on Egypt, says, “The Egyptians were the first who taught the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, a fact mentioned by all Greek writers from Herodotus to Aristotle, and one brilliantly confirmed by the monuments.” This declaration from such high authority should be well considered by all lovers of truth. Bishop Warburton confirms these testimonies, thus: “The Egyptians, as we are assured by the concurrent testimony of antiquity, were amongst the first who taught that the soul survived the body and was immortal.” Egypt, then, and not the Bible, is the mother of this doctrine. So says the voice of all antiquity. Balbour bears this testimony: “Mr. Stanley says the Egyptians were the first who asserted that the soul of man was immortal, and cites in proof Eusebius, Diodorus Siculus, and Halicarnassus.”

That most, if not all, the ancient heathen nations borrowed their systems of religion, especially that relating to the soul, from Egypt, is abundantly proved. Enfield, in his well known History of Philosophy, says: “Egypt is unquestionably to be ranked amongst the most ancient civilized countries, and was very early famous for wisdom. Many eminent philosophers among the Greeks, such as Orpheus, Thales, Pythagoras, Democritus, and Plato, visited Egypt in search of knowledge.” St. Hippolytus says that the Egyptians “were the first to proclaim to all the rest of men the rites and orgies of, at the same time, all the gods.” Bishop Warburton, who has studied and written so largely upon this subject, says of the heathen mysteries, that they “all have their common original from Egypt.” Again: “It is very certain, they came first from Egypt.” He declares, and truly too, that “the Magi of Persia, the Druids of Gaul, and the Brahmins of India,” were all “the genuine offspring of the Egyptian priests.” Of the terrors of the infernal regions, Dr. Good says, “Egypt is generally said to have been the inventress of this important and valuable part of the common tradition.” Rollin, the historian, says: “It is to Egypt that Pythagoras owed his favorite doctrine of the metempsychosis, or transmigration of souls.” Mr. Watson also says, that it was from Egypt that the other nations borrowed many of their religious doctrines.

These testimonies might be multiplied indefinitely, but I consider the above sufficient to establish the fact that Egypt was the mother of the religious systems of Greece, Rome, India, &c., but especially was she the mother of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. As in offering proof upon the different subjects which follow, I shall also confirm this point, I leave it for the present.

THE FIRST FORM IN WHICH THE DOCTRINE OF THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL WAS TAUGHT.

Generally no error is born into the world fully grown and perfectly developed at once; but it has a gradual growth, and passes through different stages of development, till it becomes a regular system. Some truth, either natural or revealed, is always taken as the foundation on which to build up a system of error. The counterfeit must at first be very nearly like the genuine, or it would not be received, as all would detect the fraud. So we may expect to find this true of the doctrine under consideration. It is a doctrine relating to future life. So let us look a moment at the doctrine of a future life as revealed in the word of God. The Lord told man in the beginning, that, if he sinned, he should surely die. Gen. ii, 17. When man had sinned, God said to him, “Dust thou art, and

unto dust shalt thou return.” Gen. iii, 19. Christ came into the world, died, went into the grave, and rose again, that man also might have a resurrection from the dead. Rom. xiv, 9; 1 Cor. xv. A future life could only be had by a resurrection from the dead. For this resurrection all the ancient worthies from Abel to Paul, looked with earnest anticipation. Heb. xi, 4-13, 32-40; Phil. iii, 10, 11. This resurrection, the angel in the bush taught Moses. Luke xx, 37. Job, and David, and, in short, all the ancient people of God, rested all their hopes upon it. Job xix, 25-27; Ps. xvii, 15. This was the first and true doctrine of a future life as revealed by God to man.

Now it becomes an interesting inquiry to ascertain what was the first form in which the immortality of the soul was taught. Did it have any semblance to the resurrection of the dead? I think the facts will show that it did. It is a well-known fact that the ancient Egyptians were celebrated for embalming the dead. This they did at a great expense, and so effectually, that many bodies are preserved in quite a perfect condition to the present day. They are called mummies. What was their object in thus preserving their dead? After looking at the question carefully, and obtaining all the evidence I am able, I am fully satisfied that it was done with reference to the resurrection of the body. That I have not drawn this conclusion without evidence, will be seen by the following testimonies, which are from the very best authorities on such a question. The first is from “Calmet’s Great Dictionary of the Holy Bible.” He says: “The ancient Egyptians, and the Hebrews in imitation of them, embalmed the bodies of the dead. . . . The art of physic was by the Egyptians ascribed to Isis, and in particular the remedy which procured immortality, which, in my opinion, was no other than that of embalming bodies, and rendering them incorruptible.” This language is remarkable. Their first idea of immortality was to preserve the body from decay till it should live again, and thus become immortal. “That the custom of embalming was very ancient in Egypt, is shown from the practice of cutting the bodies with an Ethiopian stone. Some mummies also bear the date of the oldest kings.” The next witness on this point shall be from that celebrated work, “Kitto’s Biblical Cyclopedia.” He says, “The feeling which led the Egyptians to embalm the dead, probably sprung from their belief in the future re-union of the soul with the body. Such a re-union is distinctly spoken of in the ‘Book of the Dead,’ and obscure as is the subject, probably on account of the obscurity of the details of the Egyptian belief, the statements are sufficiently positive to make this general conclusion certain. This conviction would naturally make the Egyptians anxious to preserve the bodies of the dead, and occasion the invention of the famous art of embalming, which was applied, not only to men, but also to the sacred animals. While tracing the art to this feeling, we might suppose that it was more readily received by a people which probably shared the mysterious reverence for the dead which characterizes a certain portion of our race.” In a note on this, he says, “We must draw attention to the manner in which the Egyptian belief in this great doctrine confirms the supposition that many nations preserved some remains of a primeval revelation.”

Thus we see that this critical author states that it is certain that embalming was practiced to preserve the body from decay, till the re-union of the soul with it, or till it should live again. What more natural than this? and what could have been the object of embalming the dead bodies if this were not it? “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established;” but as this is an important point in this inquiry, I shall bring forward an abundance of evidence to make it sure. Mr. Chambers says: “This art [embalming] seems to have derived its origin from the idea that the preservation of the body was necessary for the return of the soul to the human form, after it had completed its cycle of the existence of three or ten thousand years.”

I shall now introduce another witness, Mr. Bunsen, whose testimony on this subject should be decisive. No author could be better prepared to judge, than he. “The real meaning,” says he, “of the celebrated passage in Herodotus (ii, 135) about the reasons why the Egyptians bestowed so much care on the preservation of the body, and, as it were, on preventing it from passing away, must have been this: The belief in a resurrection of the body, so far, at least, that the aim of the soul was a new personal life as man, perhaps after having been doomed to undergo transmigration through animal bodies for 3000 years; the same period as was assumed by Plato for the wandering of the soul, and termed by him the Cycle of Necessity, according to Pythagoric usage. The soul, on the death of the body, might pass into some animal form or other, which came into existence at the very moment, before it returned again, into the human body, in a higher or lower state. Man justified is one with God, the eternal Creator, self-created. His bodily organ, therefore, is holy. This doctrine we may now read in every page of the sacred books. Thence the popular notion in Egypt, that unless its old human envelope was preserved, the soul would be subject to disturbances and hindrances in performing its destined course. . . . The Greeks and Romans had an equal faith in burial as necessary to insure the entry of the soul into the invisible world of spirits.” Again: “It is only by considering how very deeply this sense of immortality was engrafted on the Egyptian mind, that we can comprehend the passion for the monstrous and colossal proportions of the pyramids, and, at the same time, the glorious, emblematical, and artistic character of those works of the Old Empire. As animal worship is merely the Egyptianized African form of an early Asiatic conception, so is also the combination of the care for the preservation of the body, and, if possible, its protection from destruction, connected with the doctrine of immortality. The soul was immortal; but its happiness, if not the possibility of its continuing to live, depended on the preservation of the body. The destruction of the body, consequently, involved the destruction of the soul. We assuredly owe the stupendous fabric of the pyramids to a superstitious fear of the destruction of the body, rather than to the mere vanity or love of display on the part of the builders. . . . This inability, combined with the artistic impulses of the Egyptians, led to the colossal preservatories which arose out of a superstitious adherence to the notion of the value of the body, and which clung with a rigid gripe to the immaterialistic principle.”

There are several facts stated in the above, worthy of attention.

“The belief in a resurrection of the body” was what led the Egyptians to embalm the dead.
They believed that the soul would return to the body, and thus begin a new life as man. This shows that they connected the idea of a future life inseparably with the life of the body.
It was “a popular notion in Egypt, that unless the old human envelope was preserved,” the soul would not be happy. Here, again, the soul depends upon the body.
The preservation of the body from destruction was connected with the doctrine of immortality—no immortality without a preservation and re-living of the body. “The soul was immortal; but its happiness, if not the possibility of its continuing to live, depended on the preservation of the body. The destruction of the body, consequently, involved the destruction of the soul.” The

soul was immortal only as connected with an immortal body! This is so near the scriptural idea of immortality that we may easily recognize its origin. We have reason to thank God that in those early ages we can find so clear an idea still retained of the divine doctrine of a future life only by a resurrection of the body. 5. This writer thinks that the pyramids looked to the same object—a preservation of the dead. Other authors corroborate this statement. The “Encyclopædia Americana” has an article on the pyramids, in which it gives various opinions concerning their object; then it remarks: “Finally,—and this, is the most common opinion of the ancients,—for sepulchers, structures in burial places, symbolical representations of the world of shades, or as chambers for mummies.” Calmet gives his opinion thus: “It is thought they were intended for tombs for the ancient kings of Egypt.” When we remember, (1) Their great hight, (2) That they were built soon after the flood, and (3) That tombs were found in their extreme summits, this conclusion will appear probable, at least. 6. The old Egyptians in those early times were materialists.

Mr. Mitchell, in his “Ancient Geography,” confirms the above testimonies, and says that the common people believed that the soul would only endure as long as the body did; and hence their great care in embalming it. He also shows that the priests adopted the doctrine of the transmigration of souls, while as yet, the common people believed only as above. He uses this language: “The priests adopted the doctrine of the transmigration of the soul, while the belief that it will continue as long as the body endures, obtained with the people; whence the care displayed in the preservation of embalmed bodies, or mummies, and the vast expense of excavating tombs in the solid rocks.”

Here, then, we have the object of embalming, the object of the pyramids, and the first idea of the immortality of the soul as taught by the Egyptians,—quite different from the present doctrine of the soul’s immortality! To corroborate these facts a few more testimonies will be offered. Says Mr. Gibbon: “The doctrine of the resurrection was first entertained by the Egyptians, and their mummies were embalmed, their pyramids were constructed, to preserve the ancient mansion of the soul, during a period of three thousand years.” Gibbon agrees well with Bunsen. The “Union Bible Dictionary,” on embalming, says, “Others tell us it was to preserve the body for the dwelling place of the soul, after it had completed its various transmigrations.”

An article to the same effect is found in the “Bibliotheca Sacra,” by J. Richards, D. D. Showing how extensively the doctrine of the resurrection has been believed among all nations, he remarks, “The study of the Egyptians in the art of embalming, and in the time-defying character of their sepulchers, evinces an anxiety for the body, which we think it will be difficult to explain short of the hypothesis of a resurrection.” Again: “A deeper conviction of the same comes from the mummies of Egypt, whose date reaches back three thousand, and, perhaps, four thousand, years ago, and especially when we connect them with their complicated infoldings, their sarcophagi, and the colossal structures of catacombs and pyramids, built for their reception. Desire to perpetuate a name might be a sufficient motive among the great ones of the earth, the Pharaohs and their prime ministers; but we can hardly think so of the multitude. Again; respect and affection for friends, we should think, would be satisfied with obsequies which did not forecast for thousands of years. But here we see a whole nation, from the prince to the peasant, preserving with most careful solicitude the mortal part, and successfully too, as if in expectation of its living again. From the whole history of funeral rites that come to us from every source, we cannot avoid the conviction that the doctrine of a resurrection was entertained in the earliest ages, and has permeated the religious notions of every tribe.”

Embalming, then, was to preserve the body for a re-living—a resurrection. This was their first conception of immortality. How well this ancient notion corresponds with the Bible doctrine of a future life! But we shall soon see this greatly changed and perverted. D. M. CANRIGHT.