The Immortality Question.

Southland Times, Issue 11362, 21 January 1890, Page 2

The Immortality Question.

TO THE I DITOR, Sir, — I am sure that yon, wi-Ji your usual fairness, will allow m<i to make a few remarks on the article in your issue of the 14th instant under the heading "Causes of belief in immortality." If we start with the supposition that man is naturally imciorUi ; that in virtue of his being of the human species he must needs live for ever and never cease to be, then we lay the foundation of a monstrous growth <;f human opinion, about (rods purposes and actions which will utterly subvert and destroy the truth which God has revealed. Notwithstanding this iit a : biblical inquiry, we mrst notice Jariefiy the chief things which re-nson can nee to tind in support of man's natural and inherent immortality. The bibheal evidence is of Very various character relative to the nature of man in life and in death. We have the account of man's creat.on, and comparisons drawn between him and other living beings, we have the constituent elements of his being spoken of in a precise and explicit manner, we have scriptural reflections upon human life, after the style of the moralist, and wo have also a number of statements made concerning man in death. From these various sources we 1 hink we ought to becble to learn whether man ia that essentially mid naturally immortal l«ing which current teaching and beliei : atfirm him to be, or whether he is a mortal, d-sath-stricken, perishing creature, destined to pass away aud be no more, milet-s he become grafted into "the Christ' who has become "the Resurrection and tne Life." Let no one of your numerous readers suppose that we are disbelievers of immortality a;id of immortality for men. We understand and believe that it is the gift ot <iod to ill tin *c who fulfil the terms of future e>istence, iz., belief of and obedieno: to the Gospel — chat it is a physical " ilu.nge '' from a natural " body ' to a " spiritu.il body ' which takes place after resurmti on and judgment — that it will only be entered upon by suchaa " seeJb for it by patient continuance ui well-doing." (Rom. 2-7.) Qvej; against tbi£ very ifctiwi^

view which is sustained by the uniform testimcnyof "thebookofbo' ks'Vhatisthepopular dogma, when closelj' examined? Why, that every meml>er of the genus homo, whether polished and refined in the ages and areas of civilisation, or brute-like and savage as prehistoric man — every Australian aborigine or degraded Hottentot, every beastly cannibal and naked denizen of cave and wood, every animal in human form ever propagated, that being born, has breathed once, and died — that all and every one of these, the vast majority of whom have lived and died in past centuries of heathen darkness, and died, too, as mere infant*-, that all these were born possessing a particle of the divine nature, and that they were all immortal beings, destined to live (somewhere) as long as God himself will live. But facts are facts, and everyone can test it for himself , whether on this fundamental matter of human immortality there has been anything like searching analysis of the whole Jxxly of Scripture evidence, even on the part of professional interpreters. Two or three things must be borne in mind. One is, that this doctrine is a very ancient one, taking its rise when exact interpretation was hardly thought of, and another is that being the foundation-stone of the popular theology, most minds shrink from calling that in question which might possibly lead to the necessity of entirely reconstructing the fabric of faith. Even in regard to physical science, nothing can get a hearing that seems to call in question what is regarded as fundamental to the received ideas of physicists. It is not, therefore, strange that this should be true in other regions of inquiry. It is often said that the universal instincts and desires that mankind feel towards a life beyond the grave count for something in the argument for his survival in death ; that every known faith of the world embraces this doctrine, and that the common instincts of humanity may be regarded as a natural revelation. There is a serious error here, both in regard to the facts and the reasonings upon them. In the first place it cannot be proved that the masses of degraded humanity that live in the present, and have lived in the past ages, have any longing for a future life, or have anything more than a mere fleshly recoil from death, while millions of pagans, such as the Buddhists; have it as their highest hope that they will hereafter lose individual existence by attaining to the Nirvana. Then supposing the longing were as universal as many seem to think, what does it prove? The desire for happiness is surely as universal as any desire within us, but does this prove a future provision of happiness for every individual of our species ? We grant that such a desire certainly proves that happiness is a fact, but while the desire for happiness may be universal, the attainment and possession of it are not so. These are limited by certain conditions which attach to the thing and which prevent many from adequately getting it at all. We are not denying that immortality m a fact (which is all that instinct for it could be urged to prove) but the Scriptures show that it is limited to such as funl the conditions of its bestowment, and that it is not the natural birthright and inheritance of human nature. Perhaps the most plausible argument that can be urged for human immortality may be expressed in words something like the following. The constitution and the history of man show him to be a creature of progress — a progress that knows nothing of finality, but seems capable of going on for ever. In this respect he differs essentially from every other living thing, for all else is held within certain limits, beyond which progress is impossible. Now it seems that an illimitable nature, such as man possesses, demands an illimitable life or sphere in which to expatiate. It is from Btudying the plan of man's being that we get to know something of its boundless prospects. The proper answer to this is to point out that it is a mixture of truth and fiction, which leads to a false conclusion. The "illimitable progress" spoken of certainly cannot be affirmed of the individual, for concerning man, regarded individually the facts point the other way ; this progress only seems true of the race, the laws of which allow of one generation succeeding to the discoveries and attainments of the last. It is not the plan of human nature but of human society rather, that discovers the possibility of an endless progression, but for the argument to be available for "immortality" the " plan " ought to be f-mnd in every human constitution. But we say the facts point the other way. It is only a very small fraction of the human species that reaches even its prime, and, when that point is reached, decay of the faculties sets in, and the helplessness of age. The vast proportion of the race dies before the age of intellect has begun. Like the trees laden with appleblossom which is shed by the rude wind, so the sharp gust of death carries away the bulk of life's beautiful and promising blooms. The beauty fades away, the promise is unfulfilled. If it is contended that this creates a reason for another life, where the promise shall be made good, we ask, why not apply the reason to the entire realm of life and demand a future for everything else which has not fulfilled itself in its early attempts to live ? The reason which explains the nonfulfilment of promise in one order of creation should explain it in another. "The wages of ain is death but the gift of Ood is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom. i 6-23).— 1 am, &c., W. G. Mackay. January 16th, 1890.