The Support of the Doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul.
By Alonzo T. Jones
In commending Joseph Cook's lecture, "Does Death End All?" Dr. Gibson, of San Francisco, said: "I have been so convinced of the truth under that lecture that it made me feel a great deal larger than I am;" and also that he had heard others express themselves in the same way. We have not the least doubt of it. As the whole aim of that lecture is to support the immortality of the soul, the natural result is to make men think themselves a great deal larger than they are. Vanity, pride, and self-conceit, are both the root and the fruit of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. This was the incentive presented in the first mention of the subject that was ever made to human beings. Gen. 3:4: "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die; . . . ye shall be as gods." In other words, they should be made to think themselves a good deal larger than they really were. It was this same idea that led the Greek philosophers in their search into the nature of man. This is well expressed by Gibbon: "It must be confessed, that, in the sublime inquiry [with regard to the immortality of the soul], their reason had been often guided by their imagination, and that their imagination had been prompted by their vanity. When they viewed with complacency the extent of their own mental powers, when they exercised the various faculties of memory, of fancy, and of judgment, in the most profound speculations, or the most important labors, and when they reflected on the desire of fame, which transported them into future ages, far beyond the bounds of death and of the grave; they were unwilling to confound themselves with the beasts of the field, or to suppose, that a being, for whose dignity they entertained the most sincere admiration, could be limited to a spot of earth, and to a few years of duration. With this favorable prepossession they summoned to their aid the science, or rather the language of metaphysics." In looking at themselves they became filled so full of admiration of themselves that they could only decide that they were immortal, and then, having rendered that important decision, they admired themselves more than ever, and this again more thoroughly convinced them of their essential immortality; which again increased their vanity, and so on ad infinitum. And those of modern times who make much of this doctrine are in this in no way different from the ancients. They cannot be, and believe the doctrine, for this is a property which is inherent in the doctrine itself. A property not simply retroactive, but doubly so; a kind of double-back-action property, as it were. And by it thousands have built themselves up so high in their own estimation that they can see no possible use, much less any need, of a Saviour. Other thousands do not deny that men will be saved, yet admit it only on the ground that they are so great that the Lord is obliged to save them or else lose his credit as being God. While there are yet others who will allow that they must be saved, yet it appears to be a great condescension on their part to consent to it. The most artless confession that we remember ever to have seen on the subject of the immortality of the soul we find in McClintock and Strong's encyclopedia; it is extracted from an article in the Bibliotheca Sacra, and is as follows: "It is said that much of the reasoning employed by pagan writers to prove the immortality of the soul is unsound. This is a fact, and yet by no means invalidates their right to believe in the conclusion which they deduced illogically. Believing a proposition firmly, we are satisfied with the mere pretense of an argument for its support; and searching in the distance for proofs which can only be found in immediate contact with us, we discover reasons for the belief which, long before we had discovered them, was yet fully established in our own minds; and yet we deem these reasons sufficient to uphold the doctrine, although, in point of fact, the doctrine does not make trial of their strength by resting upon them. If they were the props on which our belief was in reality founded, their weakness would be obvious at once; but as they have nothing to sustain, their insufficiency is the less apparent; our belief continues, notwithstanding the frailness of the arguments which make a show of upholding it, and thus the very defects of the proof illustrate the strength of the conclusion, which remains firm in spite of them." Let us look this over again. 1. It is a fact that the reasoning employed by the pagan writers to prove the immortality of the soul, is unsound, is illogical. Yet this "by no means invalidates their right to believe the conclusion." That is, a conclusion is sound which is reached by unsound reasoning! A logical conclusion can be reached by illogical arguments! 2. "Believing a proposition firmly, we are satisfied with the mere pretense of an argument for its support." It is said that "an open confession is good for the soul." We believe this to be an open confession, and we believe it is excellent for the immortality of the soul; and we are glad to be able to publish the confession of its most earnest advocates that those who believe the immortality of the soul, are satisfied with the "mere pretense of an argument" for its support. 3. "Yet we deem these reasons sufficient to uphold the doctrine. Although in point of fact the doctrine does not make trial of their strength by resting upon them." That is, reasons that are "a mere pretense" are sufficient to uphold the doctrine; while it is a "fact" that it does not rest upon them. In other words the doctrine is held up by something that does not hold it up at all! A wonderful structure that. 4. "If they [these pretenses that don't hold it up] were the props on which our belief was in reality founded, their weakness would be obvious at once; but as they have nothing to sustain, their insufficiency is the less apparent." That is, these pretenses are sufficient to uphold the doctrine, but it does not rest upon them, and if it did they would not uphold it. Yet we are satisfied with their strength, because, as they have nothing to sustain, we do not know how weak they are. And then he presents this astonishing deduction: "The very defects of the proof illustrate the strength of the conclusion." Now let us get at the gist of the whole argument as contained in the above quotation. We will let him state the premises and we will draw the conclusions. Major premise: The "mere pretense of an argument" sustains the immortality of the soul. Minor premise: "This pretense sustains nothing." Conclusion: Therefore the immortality of the soul is nothing. Major premise: The immortality of the soul is "supported by mere pretense of an argument." Minor premise: Pretense, is "unreal," is nothing. Conclusion: Therefore the immortality of the soul is supported by nothing. Out of these two conclusions we form a Major premise: The immortality of the soul is supported by nothing. Minor premise: The immortality of the soul is nothing. Conclusion: Therefore the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is that wherein nothing supports nothing, and nothing is supported by nothing, and that is NOTHING. And this is what we have for a long while believed on the subject. ALONZO T. JONES.