Scriptural Meaning of the Word Soul.
THERE is no point in connection with the doctrine of the immortality of the soul upon which more dust has been cast in the eyes of the common reader than that of the Since the days of Plato this has been a fruitful source of argument on that side of the question. Yet the arguments consist mainly of illustrations, and these are defective in their application, because the reasoning is invariably from unlike to unlike. The known properties of inorganic or lifeless matter are taken to illustrate the properties of organic or living matter. A musical instrument has been a favorite subject with which to illustrate the powers, or lack of power, of the human frame. The instrument in itself is as destitute of music as a tree or a stone. But a skillful performer can bring music out of it, or produce music with it. And so the human frame: It is material, powerless, possessing only the properties of matter, subject to all the conditions of matter. But the soul takes possession of it, and uses it as an instrument, and thus accomplishes wonderful results. The life, the energy and power, are all in the soul—not at all in the body. But the proof and the conclusion are both assumed. The likeness supposed in the illustration cannot be proved. To the contrary, the proof is all against it. Take, for instance, the very lowest form of animal life, the “stupid potto,” as Dr. Clarke has it. Has the body of the potto, or of any other animal low in the scale, an immortal, intelligent soul, by which it is animated and caused to move and act? If it has, then wherein is man superior to the lowest brutes, as far as the possession of a soul is concerned? If it be replied that it is too low in the scale to be possessed of immortality, then two difficulties to the argument result. 1. It must be determined how high in the scale of animal power any being must be in order to be possessed of immortality. Some animals, as the elephant, are higher in the scale of intellect or reasoning power than some men. Some men are deprived of reasoning power; they are descendants of Adam—they are of the human race. For lack of reasoning power are they deprived of man’s supposed heritage of immortality? And shall we say that the elephant is possessed of immortality, because of his wonderful sagacity? No answer can be given to these queries which will save the assumptions in favor of natural immortality. 2. Another difficulty is presented in the fact that the very lowest forms of animal life, to which no philosopher or theologian ascribes the attribute of immortality, is actually possessed of those properties which, it is assumed, matter does not and cannot possess. They have the power of self-motion and of choice; the power to will. But philosophers or philosophizing theologians tell us that those powers in man do not belong to the matter of which his frame is composed—they belong only to the soul—and that which possesses these powers must be above the nature of matter; it must be spiritual, and therefore immortal. Then the tadpole, the sloth, and the “stupid potto,” must certainly have immortal souls. This conclusion is unavoidable if the premise be correct. But we believe that neither premise nor conclusion is correct. Matter may be so organized and possessed of life as to manifest those powers which, in man, have been supposed to contain evidence of the immortality of his nature. A religious teacher stands before a class of pupils. He is going to teach them the great truth, so often heard declared in funeral sermons, that that which you see is not the real man,—the thinking, acting man,—but only the casket, or case, in which the real man dwells. He has an old-fashioned watch in his hand, which he displays to his pupils. He then, unobserved by them, removes the works from the case, and again holds up the case to view. They suppose it is the watch that they see. But he opens it and shows that it is empty, while in the other hand he displays the works, which are moving and marking time as before. This, he tells them, is the relation of body and soul. The body is only an outer case for the soul; when the soul leaves the body, the body is empty, lifeless, powerless; but the soul keeps on in its volitions and actions, just as the works of a watch keep on marking time when taken out of their case. He has two reasons for pursuing such a line of argument: (1) Little children can understand the illustration; and (2) he can do no better! Thus are children trained to believe that which has never been proved—which cannot be proved. And those older than children continue to accept the illustration in lieu of proof. In the case of the removal of the works of the watch, no power is lost; there is no cessation of action in any part which ever acted. But that is not true in the death of man. “The living know that they shall die; but the dead know not anything.” Eccl. 9:5. Here is a loss of mental power; for that which knows something in life, knows nothing in death. There is a cessation of vital activity. It is not so in the case of the watch as given above, nor in the case of any instrument upon which an illustration is based. And see Ps. 146:4. Speaking of the death of man, the scripture says, “His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.” Does any power or activity perish by the removal of a watch from its case? The truth is, that no man can use such illustrations unless he is ignorant of the Scriptures, or indifferent to their teachings. We actually heard a well-educated minister carry the illustration to the following extent. He said: “Some people say that the brain has power to think. But, imagine that we test the question. Let us take out a man’s brain and lay it on the table before us; will it think? it cannot; the power of thought is not in the brain, but in the soul, which inhabits the brain.” Let us apply this method of reasoning to other parts of the body, and see the result. Some people, and all physiologists—all scientists—among them, suppose that the stomach has power to digest food. But that is an error, as we can easily prove. Take out a man’s stomach and lay it upon the table; now put a piece of bread in it; will it digest the piece of bread? It cannot; the power to digest food is not in the stomach; it is the soul that digests the food. And so, of course, of all the other organs. The soul, not the heart, propels the blood; the soul, not the liver, secretes the bile; and thus of all the secretions of the system, of every nature. Very well, says the soul-theorist, we accept that as a fact. All the powers of the system inhere in the soul. Matter is inert; it cannot act; the soul can act, and it uses matter as its instrument. But then we ask again, Can the matter act of which a turtle or a serpent is composed? Has the turtle an immortal principle within it which causes it to move and act? And we might well retort upon the illustration: If all the power of thought is in the soul, and none in the brain, why is it that the soul cannot use the brain to think when the brain is taken out and laid upon the table? If the power never was in the brain, why cannot the soul use it when it is on the table as well as when it was in the skull? We have never supposed that a dead brain could evolve thought, or a dead stomach digest food. The power is in the living organism, as is proved by the action of all animals, even of those of the lowest grade. Allowing all that can possibly be allowed in favor of the assumptions under consideration, it must of necessity be conceded that the soul can never properly digest food if the stomach is impaired, nor can the soul manifest thought by means of white brain matter. And we might go on to any extent and hedge up the supposed “immortal soul” with conditions, until we find that it has no power at all. All the power is in the living organism. A man once said to us: “I am not dependent on what are called my senses for my knowledge. If you put out my eyes, I shall retain the conception of colors; destroy my organs of hearing, and I shall still have a clearly-defined idea of sounds; and so of all my senses.” We replied that his expression was correct; he would retain the ideas by the power of his memory; but the ideas had been furnished to him at first by the means of the senses. Then we questioned him: If you had never possessed the sense of hearing, you would have no idea of sounds; if you had never possessed the sense of seeing you would have no idea of colors. Now suppose you never had possessed any of the five senses, what would be your condition? After a little reflection he frankly and smilingly replied: “I should be a natural fool.” And thus he admitted, as all must admit, that he would possess no knowledge were it not for the proper condition of the organism. Thus it is with all animals, man included. To show the crudity, or, more properly, the absence, of ideas of things of which the senses cannot take cognizance, we relate the following incident: A certain young man could hear distinctly, but he was totally blind. Having heard the different colors spoken of, he was asked what was his idea of red. He replied that, from what he had heard of it, he thought that red color resembled the sound of a trumpet. Although he called this his idea of red, it was, in fact, no idea or conception of color at all. Had he never heard sounds, he would have been still further at a loss. And had he never possessed any of the natural senses, he never would have had any ideas at all. Philosophy teaches us that inertia is a property of matter. So it is of inert or dead matter. But some matter is not inert; it is living matter. Growth is a property of a tree; and in growth it changes. Can anything, strictly speaking, be said to be inert which changes its form and size? Or if this be considered too nice a point of philosophy, we will state a fact which cannot be disputed: Inertia is not a property of a living tadpole, or a mosquito, or a flea. Are they, therefore, spirit, and not matter? Will some philosopher who believes in natural immortality arise and correctly draw the line for us? All past attempts to draw such a line have been notable failures. Philosophy has furnished us with some of the properties of inert or lifeless matter. We accept the facts which they have given. But from these some unwarrantable inferences have been drawn to serve the cause of a popular fallacy. Why it became popular we may notice hereafter.