the durational depths of the universe,—into the eternity of the
past,—but for all that we have not got rid of God. In like manner we
have driven the mystery of life into the structural depths of the
universe,—that region of thick darkness which no created eye is able
to pierce,—but we have not got rid of life, nor are we likely to do
so. Before concluding this digression upon the place of life, let us
briefly review the attempts made to account for the origin of life by
those who have yet fallen short of the scientific conception of an
Unseen Universe.
238. Sir W. Thomson has gone further than any one else in such
inquiries. We have already alluded to his attempt to explain the
origin of the material universe by the vortex-ring hypothesis, and
also to his other attempt to explain gravitation by the modification
of the hypothesis of ultra-mundane corpuscles. If we add to these his
attempt to explain the origin of life as consistently as possible
with the principle of Continuity, we think it must be acknowledged
that he is a true pioneer in such inquiries as those of this volume
as well as in the more ordinary branches of Physical Science.
The explanation of the origin of life proposed by Sir W. Thomson
had also occurred independently to Professor Helmholtz. This latter
physicist, in an article on the use and abuse of the deductive method
in Physical Science,[63] tells us very clearly what led himself, and
no doubt Sir W. Thomson likewise, to suggest the meteoric hypothesis
as a possible way of accounting for the origin of terrestrial
life:—‘If failure attends all our efforts to obtain a generation
of organisms from lifeless matter, it seems to me (says Professor
Helmholtz) a thoroughly correct procedure to inquire whether there
has ever been an origination of life, or whether it is not as old as
matter, and whether its germs, borne from one world to another, have
not been developed wherever they have found a favourable soil.’
239. We have already sufficiently pointed out that the man of science
objects to separate creations, and that, in consequence, he tries to
explain the present terrestrial life by means of a single primordial
germ. But the difficulty still remains regarding the original
appearance of this germ.
Now, according to the meteoric hypothesis, this germ may have been
wafted to us from some other world, or its fragments, and thus one
act of creation of life might possibly serve for many worlds. If
therefore this hypothesis were otherwise tenable it would diminish
the difficulty implied by separate creations, but would it entirely
remove it? We doubt this very much.
For, in the first place, as far as we can judge (Art. 163) the
visible universe—the universe of worlds—is not eternal, while however
the invisible universe, or that which we may for illustration at
least associate with the ethereal medium, is necessarily eternal.
The visible universe must have had its origin in time (Art. 116),
no doubt from a nebulous condition. But in this condition it can
hardly have been fit for the reception of life. Life must therefore
have been created afterwards. We have thus at least two separate
creations, both taking place in time—the one of matter and the other
of life. And even if it were possible, which it is not, to get over
one of the difficulties attending this hypothesis, that of creation
in time, by regarding the visible universe as eternal; yet even then
we must regard matter and life as implying two separate creative acts
if we assume the nebulous hypothesis to be true. For if _x_ denote
the date of the advent of life, and _x_ + _a_ that of the advent of
matter, _a_ being a constant quantity, the two operations cannot
be made simultaneous by merely increasing the value of _x_ without
limit. Now this is what we mean by eternity, and therefore we cannot
help thinking that this want of simultaneity implies a defect in this
mode of viewing the origin of things.
240. Yet another hypothesis has been produced, which starts with the
assumption that all matter is in some simple sense alive. Looking
upon the atom as the essential thing in the universe, the various
motions of the atom are by this school supposed to be accompanied
by a species of consciousness inconceivably simple. Under certain
circumstances this eternal and immortal consciousness is supposed to
be consistent with that which we call the life of the individual,
while under other circumstances these two lives are not consistent
with one another. The individual then dies, but nevertheless the
simple immortal lives of the atoms which compose his body remain
attached to them as truly as before.
There is no disappearance of anything from the universe, only the
mode in which the simple immortal life becomes manifested has
undergone a change of expression, just as energy may be supposed to
undergo a change without disappearing. It is thought by the members
of this school that such a hypothesis satisfies the Principle of
Continuity more fully than any other. For, looking at things from
the old point of view, we see that certain atoms are concerned in
the manifestation of consciousness, as for instance the particles of
our brains, while certain other atoms are not so concerned, as for
instance the inorganic matter we see around us.
Here then, it is argued, we have a breach of the Principle
of Continuity, inasmuch as certain things of the universe
(brain-particles) have a function assigned to them in their
association with consciousness, which other things (gold, silver,
etc.) do not possess in any measure, if the distinction between
organic and inorganic be an essential one. To avert this breach, it
is essential that all matter should be considered as in some sense
alive. It is furthermore argued, that by this hypothesis there is no
difficulty in accounting for the introduction of life, inasmuch as
life always accompanies matter, the mode of manifestation of the one
being regulated by the mode of collocation of the other.
241. Now it appears to us that this school of thought is justified
in declining to accept a hypothesis which attributes to certain
substances of the universe a power which is entirely wanting in
others, or that gives to the same substance at one time a fundamental
power or property that is entirely wanting at another. It is not so
much the premiss as the conclusion of this school to which we object.
For let us consider for a moment what is implied in the astounding
inference that the atom is the true abode of immortal life in the
universe, and that its life is of an extremely simple kind.
It implies, in the first place, that the atom is eternal, and to this
we object. It implies, in the next place, that the atom is extremely
simple in its constitution, and to this we object. It implies,
thirdly, that for the antecedents of the motions of the atom it is
unnecessary to resort to anything beyond the atom itself, and to this
we object.
242. We have in other places sufficiently set forth our objection
to regarding the atom either as eternal or as extremely simple in
constitution, let us now state our objection to regarding the motions
of the atom (in this generalisation) apart from the surrounding
universe.
Our objection is, that in order to conceive the nature of the forces
by which atoms act upon each other, we are driven at once, if not to
the very hypothesis of Le Sage, at least to something which implies
the existence and agency of the Unseen Universe.
But when once we have taken this step, we are not permitted to rest,
for another journey is before us, and after that another, and so on.
In fine, there is no end to the process, and no halting-place for the
mind, except in the belief that the universe as a whole participates
in every motion which takes place even in the smallest of atoms.[64]
Undoubtedly as regards certain practical scientific results, it
is allowable to regard the atom as a thing by itself, and to sum
up the _apparent_ actions of the various atoms as if each were
independent of everything else. But when we come to a generalisation
so fundamental as this hypothesis regarding life, we are forced to
ask whether the apparent and visible action of atoms on one another
is really everything which takes place, and then we find, as we have
just shown, that we are driven at once into the Unseen Universe, and
thence into an endless complexity of antecedent.
In fine, we conclude that inasmuch as the universe in its various
orders participates in every conceivable motion, the consciousness
which accompanies this motion cannot logically be confined to the
apparently moving body or atom, but must in some sense extend to the
Unseen Universe in its various orders. But this is only another
way of expressing the conclusions at which we have already arrived,
for (of course) if we imagine a Divine Agency to be resident in the
universe, we cannot but suppose that every motion of any kind is
accompanied with a consciousness of this Divine Agency.
In fine, we maintain that _what we are driven to is not an under-life
resident in the atom, but rather_, to adopt the words of a recent
writer, _a Divine over-life in which we live and move and have our
being_.
243. Here it is desirable to consider what we gain by this
hypothesis. Our gain is simply in the way in which we regard the
functions of matter, and a little reflection will convince us that
neither form of this hypothesis, whether we hold by an under- or an
over-life, will enable us to explain the introduction of life into
the visible universe by natural laws alone, and without resorting to
some peculiar action of the unseen. As a matter of fact we are led by
science to receive the law of Biogenesis as expressing the present
order of the world. But the introduction of life into the world does
not become more consistent with this law by virtue of an hypothesis
which associates a consciousness of some sort with every motion of
the universe.
It still remains a fact as much as ever, that there is a marked
distinction between the living and the dead—the organic and the
inorganic. And it still remains true that, as a matter of universal
scientific experience, a living thing can only be produced from a
living thing, and that the inorganic forces of the visible universe
can by no means generate life.
In fine, our hypothesis, in which the material as well as the life
of the visible universe are regarded as having been developed from
the Unseen, in which they had existed from Eternity, appears to us to
present the only available method of avoiding a break of continuity,
if at the same time we are to accept loyally the indications given by
observation and experiment. It may be said (just as anything else may
be said) that the visible universe is eternal, and that it has the
power of originating life; but both statements are surely opposed to
the results of observation and experiment. Now we must be content in
such matters as these to be guided by probabilities, and it certainly
appears most probable that the visible universe is _not_ eternal, and
that it has _not_ the power of originating life. In fine, life as
well as matter comes to us from the Unseen Universe.
244. Let us here again pause for a moment and review the position
which we have reached. By taking the universe as we find it, and
regarding each occurrence in it, without exception, as something upon
which it was meant that we should exercise our intellects, we are led
at once to the principle of Continuity, which asserts that we shall
never be carried from the conditioned to the unconditioned, but only
from one order of the fully conditioned to another. Two great laws
come before us: the one of which is the Conservation of Mass and of
Energy; that is to say, conservation of the objective element of
the universe; while the other is the law of Biogenesis, in virtue
of which the appearance of a living Being in the universe denotes
the existence of an antecedent possessing life. We are led from
these two great laws, as well as from the principle of Continuity,
to regard, as at least the most probable solution, that there is an
intelligent Agent operating in the universe, one of whose functions
it is to develop the universe objectively considered; and also that
there is an intelligent Agent, one of whose functions it is to
develop intelligence and life. Perhaps we ought rather to say that,
if we are not driven to this very conclusion, it appears at least to
be that which most simply and naturally satisfies the principle of
Continuity.
But this conclusion hardly differs from the Christian doctrine; or,
to speak properly, the conclusion, so far as it goes, appears to
agree with the Christian doctrine.
In fine, we are led to regard it as one of the great merits of
the Christian system, that its doctrine is pre-eminently one of
intellectual liberty, and that while theologians on the one hand,
and men of science on the other, have each erected their barriers to
inquiry, the early Christian records acknowledge no such barrier, but
on the contrary assert the most perfect freedom for all the powers of
man.
245. We have now reached a stage from which we can very easily
dispose of any scientific difficulty regarding miracles. For if the
invisible was able to produce the present visible universe with all
its energy, it could of course, _a fortiori_, very easily produce
such transmutations of energy from the one universe into the other
as would account for the events which took place in Judea. Those
events are therefore no longer to be regarded as absolute breaks of
continuity, a thing which we have agreed to consider impossible,
but only as the result of a peculiar action of the invisible upon
the visible universe. When we dig up an ant-hill, we perform an
operation which, to the inhabitants of the hill, is mysteriously
perplexing, far transcending their experience, but _we_ know very
well that the whole affair happens without any breach of continuity
of the laws of the universe. In like manner, the scientific
difficulty with regard to miracles will, we think, entirely
disappear, if our view of the invisible universe be accepted, or
indeed if any view be accepted which implies the presence in it of
living beings much more powerful than ourselves. It is of course
assumed that the visible and invisible are and have been constantly
in a state of intimate mutual relation.
246. We have as yet only replied to the scientific objection, but
there are other objections which might be raised. Thus, for instance,
it might be said, What occasion was there for the interference
implied in miracles? And again, Is the historical testimony in favour
of their occurrence conclusive? We must leave the last objection to
be replied to by the historian; but with respect to the former, it
appears to us as almost self-evident that Christ, if He came to us
from the invisible world, could hardly (with reverence be it spoken)
have done so without some peculiar sort of communication being
established between the two worlds. No doubt we may well imagine
that the acts of interference in virtue of this communication were
strictly limited; and in proof of this conclusion we may cite the
fact that what did occur was sufficiently startling to have secured
the ear of humanity ever since, but not sufficiently overwhelming to
preclude the exercise of individual faith. The very fact of there
being sincere sceptics proves, we think, the limited extent of
these interferences.[65] And we must remember, on the other hand,
that it is quite possible to accept fully the truth of a statement
without the slightest influence resulting as regards modification of
our course of action. Perhaps the most terrible portion of the New
Testament is the passage (James ii. 19), ‘the demons also believe,
and tremble.’
247. We have now considered miracles, or those apparent breaks of
continuity which have been furnished by history, but our readers are
already well aware that equally formidable breaks are brought before
us by science. There is, to begin with, that formidable phenomenon,
the production in time of the visible universe. Secondly, there is
a break hardly less formidable, the original production of life;
and there is, thirdly, that break recognised by Wallace and his
school of natural history, which seems to have occurred at the first
production of man. Greatly as we are indebted to Darwin, Huxley, and
those who have prominently advocated the possibility of the present
system of things’ having been developed by forces and operations
such as we see before us, it must be regarded by us, and we think it
is regarded by them, as a defect in their system, that these breaks
remain unaccounted for. Our readers will now, however, if we mistake
not, perceive what is the real source of the perplexity felt by the
school of evolutionists. It is that they have been unable to regard
an interference of the invisible universe in any other light than
as an absolute break of continuity; and holding with justice to the
principle of continuity, they have been unable to do more than
acknowledge these difficulties and allow them to remain.
But from our point of view these difficulties are by no means
impenetrable barriers, barring for ever the progress of research. On
the contrary, we assert that, if approached with sufficient boldness,
and examined with sufficient care, they will be found to contain
avenues leading up to the invisible universe, and directing our
inquiries thitherwards. There may be possibly other apparent breaks
or barriers, but these appear to be the best established; and, with
these exceptions, we may suppose that the visible universe, in so
far as we are capable of investigating it, has been left to develop
itself in accordance with those laws of energy which we see in
operation at the present day.
In fine, the visible universe was plainly intended to be something
which we are capable of investigating, and the few apparent breaks
are in reality so many partially concealed avenues leading up to the
unseen.
248. Our readers must not however infer from what we have now said,
that we do not recognise any present points of contact between us and
the invisible. There may possibly be (but even of this we are not
quite sure) no points of _apparent interference_ between the two, so
that the man of science cannot say,—Here is a break;—but nevertheless
there may be _a close and vital union_ between the two universes,
in those regions into which investigation cannot penetrate, and
who shall say that the laws of these regions do not admit of the
objective efficacy of prayer? There may be an action of the invisible
world upon the individual mind, and there is no reason why there
should not also be an action upon the visible universe, by means of
those processes of delicacy which, as we have already seen, obtain
in that quarter (Art. 184). Neither the one action nor the other
would be detected by science, unless we except certain providential
occurrences, which are generally, however, better recognised by
the individuals to whom they refer than by the world at large. And
just as reversibility (Art. 113) is the stamp of perfection in the
inanimate engine, so a similar reversibility may be the stamp of
perfection in the living man. He ought to live for the unseen—to
carry into it something which may not be wholly unacceptable. But, in
order to enable him to do this, the unseen must also work upon him,
and its influences must pervade his spiritual nature. Thus a life
_for_ the unseen _through_ the unseen is to be regarded as the only
perfect life.
249. In fine, the unseen may have a very wide field of influence,
but from its very nature its working is not discernible, or at least
easily discernible, by the eye of sense, and we are therefore led to
consult the Christian records for otherwise unattainable information
regarding the reality of a present influence exercised by the
invisible universe upon ours.
In the first place, we have the following words of Christ himself
(Matt. xiii. 41): ‘The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and
they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them
which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there
shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.’ Again (Matt. xxv. 31): ‘When
the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with
him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: and before him
shall be gathered all nations; and he shall separate them one from
another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats.’ Again
(Matt. xxvi. 53), speaking to Peter: ‘Thinkest thou that I cannot now
pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve
legions of angels?’ Furthermore, we read (Heb. i. 14): ‘Are they not
all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be
heirs of salvation?’
These passages (and many more might be quoted) would appear to show
that, according to the Scriptures, the angels take a very prominent
part in the administration of the universe under the direction of
the Son of God. They are his ministers, his messengers, who execute
his decrees and perform his errands, whether of mercy or of justice.
Therefore it is said of Christ, ‘Thou art the King of angels;’ and
of himself in his glorified state, speaking to his disciples, Christ
says (Matt. xxviii. 18): ‘All power is given unto me in heaven and in
earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo,
I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.’
Let us close these quotations by one from the Old Testament—2 Kings
vi. 15-17: ‘And when the servant of the man of God was risen early,
and gone forth, behold, an host encompassed the city both with horses
and chariots: and his servant said unto him, Alas, my master! how
shall we do? And he answered, Fear not; for they that be with us are
more than they that be with them. And Elisha prayed, and said, Lord,
I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the Lord opened the
eyes of the young man: and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full
of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.’
Finally, it is the belief of a large portion of the Christian
Church that the Spirit of God dwells in and acts upon the souls of
believers. This action represents the influence which reaches the
soul of man _from_ the unseen, enabling him to live _for_ the unseen.
250. We have in our opening chapter quoted a very remarkable passage
from Swedenborg upon the particular nature of God’s providence.
Let us now hear what the Scriptures say upon the same subject.
Christ tells us (Luke xii. 6): ‘Are not five sparrows sold for two
farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God? But even the
very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are
of more value than many sparrows.’ Again, St. Paul tells us (Rom.
viii. 28): ‘And we know that all things work together for good to
them that love God, to them who are called according to his purpose.’
Also (Rom. viii. 38): ‘For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor
life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present,
nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature,
shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ
Jesus our Lord.’
251. We think it may be concluded from all these passages that the
doctrine of a particular providence is taught in the Scriptures.
Nevertheless it is one of the hardest things to understand how this
doctrine can be made consistent with the working out of general laws
which, so far as we can study them, appear to have no reference
whatever to individuals. This was a difficulty intensely felt by the
late John Stuart Mill. He says, in a work published after his death:—
‘For how stands the fact? That, next to the greatness of these
cosmic forces, the quality which most forcibly strikes every
one who does not avert his eyes from it is their perfect and
absolute recklessness. They go straight to their end without
regarding what or whom they crush on the road. Optimists, in
their attempts to prove that “whatever is, is right,” are obliged
to maintain, not that Nature ever turns one step from her path
to avoid trampling us into destruction, but that it would be
very unreasonable in us to expect that she should. Pope’s “Shall
gravitation cease when you go by?” may be a just rebuke to any
one who should be so silly as to expect common human morality
from Nature. But if the question were between two men, instead
of between a man and a natural phenomenon, that triumphant
apostrophe would be thought a rare piece of impudence. A man who
should persist in hurling stones or firing cannon when another
man “goes by,” and, having killed him, should urge a similar plea
in exculpation, would very deservedly be found guilty of murder.
In sober truth, nearly all the things which men are hanged or
imprisoned for doing to one another are Nature’s every-day
performances.’
This objection to belief in the reality of the government of God has
been clothed in very eloquent language in a sermon by the Rev. James
Martineau:—‘The battle of existence’ (he tells us, putting himself
for the moment into the position of Mill and his school) ‘rages
through all time and in every field; and its rule is to give no
quarter—to despatch the maimed, to overtake the halt, to trip up the
blind, and drive the fugitive host over the precipice into the sea.’
In very beautiful language the poet Tennyson, after proposing the
same riddle, replies to it thus:—
‘Are God and Nature then at strife
That Nature lends such evil dreams?
So careful of the type she seems,
So careless of the single life;
* * * * *
“So careful of the type”? but no.
From scarped cliff and quarried stone
She cries, A thousand types are gone:
I care for nothing: all shall go.
* * * * *
O life as futile, then, as frail!
O for thy voice to soothe and bless!
What hope of answer or redress?
Behind the veil, behind the veil.’
In another passage of equal beauty the same poet expresses his
conviction
‘That nothing walks with aimless feet:
That not one life shall be destroy’d
Or cast as rubbish to the void,
When God hath made the pile complete.
That not a worm is cloven in vain;
That not a moth with vain desire
Is shrivel’d in a fruitless fire,
Or but subserves another’s gain.’
Professor Jevons, again, in his _Principles of Science_ (vol. ii.
p. 468) alludes in the following terms to this difficulty:—‘The
hypothesis, that there is a Creator, at once all-powerful and
all-benevolent, is surrounded, as it must seem to every candid
investigator, with difficulties verging closely upon logical
contradiction. The existence of the smallest amount of pain and evil
would seem to show that He is either not perfectly benevolent, or
not all-powerful. No one can have lived long without experiencing
sorrowful events of which the significance is inexplicable. But
if we cannot succeed in avoiding contradiction in our notions of
elementary geometry, can we expect that the ultimate purposes of
existence shall present themselves to us with perfect clearness?
I can see nothing to forbid the notion that in a higher state
of intelligence much that is now obscure may become clear. We
perpetually find ourselves in the position of finite minds attempting
infinite problems, and can we be sure that where we see contradiction
an infinite intelligence might not discover perfect logical harmony?’
252. Before we leave this subject there is one consideration which
ought not to be forgotten. It is evident that the development of the
visible universe is of such a nature that we can understand it, and
to a great extent explain it by means of laws and processes with
which we are familiar: nay, the order of the universe is something
which it is our very duty to investigate. But the result of our
inquiry is, and can only be, the appretiation of general laws of
action. The working out of these laws can have, from this point of
view, no possible reference to individual interests. If gravity acted
sometimes, and at other times refrained from acting, we could derive
no certain information from our experience; we could not advance
in art or science, and should infallibly be plunged into speedy
confusion. Nevertheless, it is not impossible that the occurrences
which take place through the action of gravity may, after all, be so
arranged as to have reference to the real welfare of individuals,
although this reference may not be apparent because we are not in
a position to recognise it, and it is not intended that we should
do so, at least in this life. The ability to do so would be a very
dangerous gift, and would go far to upset the present economy.
We know very little about the bearings of events on our own best
interests, and nothing at all about their bearings on those of our
neighbour. We may, however, believe with Jevons, that in a future
state the adaptation between the two may become apparent to us, even
if we do not ourselves become instruments in bringing this adaptation
about.
253. The outcome of all these speculations would thus lead us to
regard the Christian system as affording a full scope for development
in all respects, whether of the universe or of the individual. Its
law is pre-eminently that of liberty, and it has conducted us to the
conclusion that the doctrine of the Trinity, or something analogous
to it, forms, as it were, the avenue through which the universe
itself leads us up to the conception of the infinite and eternal One.
Nevertheless, not a few of our readers may be disinclined to
entertain any precise conception of the Divine nature. Neither
atheists nor theists, they simply dismiss the Deity as being quite
above their comprehension, and all doctrines founded upon definite
conceptions of the Deity, as superstructures without foundation.
Now, the results regarding a future state at which we have arrived
are, as we think, and as we have said in our introduction, capable of
being very nearly, if not altogether, detached from all conceptions
regarding the Divine essence.
We have merely to take the universe as it is, and, adopting the
principle of Continuity, insist upon an endless chain of events, all
fully conditioned, however far we go either backwards or forwards.
This process leads us at once to the conception of an invisible
universe, and to see that immortality is possible without a break of
continuity.
We have, however, no physical proof in favour of it, unless we allow
that Christ rose from the dead. But it will be admitted that, if
Christ rose from the dead, a future state becomes more than possible;
it becomes probable; and we do not see that this conclusion is, in
itself, greatly modified by differences in our mode of regarding the
exact nature of Christ.
Again, the production of the visible universe in time leads us,
by the principle of Continuity, to the conception of a fully
conditioned intelligent universe, existing prior to the production
of the visible. And furthermore, we are induced by our argument
(Art. 218) to regard the production of the visible universe as
the work of an intelligent agency residing in the invisible. If,
then, such an agency could produce the visible universe, it could
certainly accomplish the resurrection of Christ, without any break of
continuity, so far as the whole universe is concerned.
254. The joys of the Christian Heaven are celebrated in Hymns which
are frequently very beautiful, even if they do not mount to the
sublimity of the ancient Hebrew ode. One of the finest of these is
the free translation by Pope of the Latin (not originally Christian)
ode standing at the commencement of this volume. It runs thus:—
‘Vital spark of heavenly flame!
Quit, oh, quit this mortal frame!
Trembling, hoping, ling’ring, flying!
Oh, the pain, the bliss of dying!
Cease, fond Nature, cease thy strife,
And let me languish into life!
Hark! they whisper—angels say,
“Sister spirit, come away!”
What is this absorbs me quite;
Steals my senses, shuts my sight;
Drowns my spirits, draws my breath?
Tell me, my soul, can this be—death?
The world recedes! it disappears!
Heaven opens to my eyes!—my ears
With sounds seraphic ring:
Lend, lend your wings! I mount! I fly!
O Grave! where is thy victory?
O Death! where is thy sting?’
Many specimens might be given if our object were to collect together
the Christian Hymns relating to Heaven. Sometimes, too, we have
beautiful descriptions not in verse, and Bunyan’s account of the
reception of Christian and Hopeful at the Celestial City will at once
occur to the reader as not inferior in the claims of true poetry to
anything that we have in verse.
255. Now, if we analyse such hymns of joy, we find in them two
prominent chords, one or other of which is always struck. The first
expresses the Christian’s sense of relief from sorrow and death, and
the second his joy in the anticipated presence of Christ—his intense
desire to behold the King in his beauty.
These chords are struck together by St. John, when he says (Rev.
xxi. 3, 4), ‘And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold,
the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and
they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be
their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and
there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither
shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.’
In other respects the descriptions of the Christian heaven are no
doubt figurative. They are intended for Christians of all ages of the
world, and have hardly any reference to the material conditions of
life in a future state. These could not be apprehended by believers
1800 years ago, inasmuch as we can hardly be said to grasp them now.
Nevertheless there is one direction in which _we do think_ we are
able to obtain a glimpse into the conditions of this future life.
256. One of the most prominent characteristics of even the
well-directed human mind is its insatiable curiosity. How intensely
anxious we all are to realise the conditions of the life of our
forefathers in the ruder and earlier times; how interested in every
scrap of intelligence which reaches us from the dead old world!
How interested too in any light thrown upon the civilisation which
preceded these old times! What would not any man give for half an
hour with Socrates or Plato? what would he not give, be he Christian
or unbeliever, to have pictured out vividly and truly before him some
episode in the life of Christ? In a tedious, toilsome, tantalising,
roundabout way we do indeed get some passing glimpses into these
ancient historical ages.
The earth is not unlike the human brain, in that it contains in
itself certain memories of the past: and, just as we rummage out
and hunt up in our brains old memories, so do the historian and the
antiquary search about in the earth for that memory which it retains
of those distant but glorious ages. But the universe, no less than
the individual, has another memory besides the material one, and we
have endeavoured (Art. 196) to convince our readers that nothing is
really lost, the past being always present in the universe. If this
be the case, it may readily be conceived that this universal memory
may by some process of exaltation and intensification, or as it were
by some relay battery of the universe, be occasionally quickened into
such a life that the individual in the future and glorified state may
be enabled (through the power of the Lord) to realise scenes that
happened in the far distant past. For if so much can be accomplished
with a thing so little plastic as the material memory of the earth,
what may not be done with that infinitely more plastic form of
existence which we term the world to come?
257. Again, if in this present world we have great difficulty in
realising our own past, we have even greater difficulty in realising
what is at this very moment taking place in remote parts of the
present visible universe. Astronomers and Physicists agree that
life is possible in the planet Mars, and it is quite likely that
intelligent beings analogous to ourselves exist at the present moment
on the surface of that planet, but we shall never in this life know
for certain anything about them. There is an insurmountable barrier
to physical inquiry as great as if Mars belonged to the unseen
universe, instead of being, what he is in reality, our next-door
neighbour in the present.
Now, may not this barrier be removed in the future state? This has
been a favourite topic with scientific theologians, and we believe
that all who have speculated on the conditions of a future life have
unanimously agreed that we shall have much greater freedom of motion
in the world to come. There can be no doubt that our relations to
time and space will then be greatly altered and enlarged. Men shall
run to and fro in the universe, and knowledge shall be increased.
258. But yet the picture is not altogether one of intellectual
brightness and beauty. It wears also a moral aspect, and upon this
almost exclusively the Christian records dwell. We are told in these
records that nothing is forgotten. Christ tells us (St. Luke viii.
17), ‘Nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither
anything hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.’ And again St.
John tells us (Rev. xx. 12), ‘I saw the dead, small and great, stand
before God: and the books were opened; and another book was opened,
which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those
things which were written in the books, according to their works.’
This thought has been developed by the Rev. Alexander Macleod, D.D.,
in a work entitled _Our own Lives the Books of Judgment_. This author
points out that in many cases it may not be even necessary to appeal
to the universe for the record which is therein written, for this is
sufficiently stamped upon the body itself, and he then draws a vivid
and lurid picture of the sensual man in whom the mortal body is like
a parchment written within and without—a truly mournful and terrible
record of the deeds done in the body.
But if all this is possible with an organism possessing so little
plasticity as the natural body, and where the wish of the individual
is to preserve a respectable exterior, what must be the case in the
soul[66] of such a man?—‘If they do these things in a green tree,
what shall be done in the dry?’ What a hideous and horrible likeness
must not that foul thing have that issues forth from the ‘grave and
gate of Death’ into the presence of the Unseen and Eternal?
259. It is extremely striking to read in this connection the
following extract from Plato’s _Gorgias_. We quote from Jowett’s
translation. Socrates is the speaker:—
‘This is a tale, Callicles, which I have heard and believe, and
from which I draw the following inferences: Death, if I am right,
is in the first place the separation from one another of two
things, soul and body;—this, and nothing else. And after they
are separated they retain their several characteristics, which
are much the same as in life; the body has the same nature and
ways and affections, all clearly discernible; for example, he
who by nature or training, or both, was a tall man while he was
alive, will remain as he was after he is dead; and the fat man
will remain fat; and so on: and the dead man, who in life had a
fancy to have flowing hair, will have flowing hair. And if he
was marked with the whip and had the prints of the scourge, or
of wounds in him while he was alive, you might see the same in
the dead body; and if his limbs were broken or misshapen while
he was alive, the same appearance would be visible in the dead.
And, in a word, whatever was the habit of the body during life
would be distinguishable after death, either perfectly or in a
great measure and for a time. And I should infer that this is
equally true of the soul, Callicles; when the man is stripped of
the body all the natural or acquired affections of the soul are
laid open to view. And when they come to the judge, as those from
Asia came to Rhadamanthus, he places them near him and inspects
them quite impartially, not knowing whose the soul is: perhaps
he may lay hands on the soul of the great king, or of some other
king or potentate, who has no soundness in him, but his soul is
marked with the whip, and is full of the prints and scars of
perjuries, and of wrongs which have been plastered into him by
each action, and he is all crooked with falsehood and imposture,
because he has lived without truth. Him Rhadamanthus beholds,
full of all deformity and disproportion, which is caused by
licence and luxury and insolence and incontinence, and despatches
him ignominiously to his prison, and there he undergoes the
punishment which he deserves.’
260. As, in Eastern monarchies, a veil was sometimes cast over the
face of the guilty;[67] so in the New Testament the veil of darkness
is drawn over the fate of the lost soul who falls into the hands of
the living God. ‘And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw
there a man which had not on a wedding-garment: and he saith unto
him, Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having a wedding-garment?
And he was speechless. Then said the king to the servants, Bind him
hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness;
there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’[68]
We greatly question whether any school of theologians have succeeded
in throwing a single ray of real light into this mysterious
region.[69] Our readers are well aware that there are three such
schools. One of these contemplates the eternity of punishment
physical, mental, or both; another the final salvation of all men;
while a third expects the annihilation of the wicked in Gehenna.
Now while it is entirely without our province to enter into these
discussions, we may yet be permitted to point out that, as it appears
to us, the principle of Continuity demands not merely one state, but
rather an eternal and infinite succession of states, in order to
constitute true immortality.
The precise conditions of such an immortality it is not for us
to discuss. Under any school of theological thought a glorious
immortality implies the ultimate union, morally and spiritually,
of the individual with the Divine over-life, while the fate of the
impenitent must surely be something so awful that language fails to
bring it fully before the mind.
261. But this graphic and powerful picture of the fate of the lost
fared as badly as other New Testament conceptions when it fell
into the hands of the materialists of the middle ages. Its meaning
was entirely altered, and the Christian Hell, instead of being the
Gehenna of the Universe, where all its garbage and filth is consumed,
was changed into a region shut in by adamantine walls and full of
impossible physical fires—the Devil being the chief stoker.
The one idea is awful, while the other is simply grotesque. An
antient Jew who had occasion to pass by the valley of Hinnom, and
whose senses were invaded by the sights and smells of that doleful
region, must have entertained a conception of the Hell described
by Christ as different as possible from that which has reached us
from the middle ages, and to which some even of the readers of this
book may have been accustomed in their earlier years. The reader who
desires to know something of the more than fiendish malignity with
which human beings (mainly Christian ministers) have _improved upon_
the solemn but markedly reserved language of Scripture on such points
has only to refer to the _Inferno_. Perhaps the hideous realism of
Doré’s illustrations will of itself be enough for him. If not, a very
few lines of the original cannot fail to suffice.
Perch’ io dissi:—Maestro, esti tormenti
Cresceranno ei dopo la gran sentenza,
O fien minori, o saran si cocenti?
Ed egli a me:—Ritorna a tua scienza,
Che vuol, quanto la cosa è più perfetta,
Più senta ’l bene, e così la doglienza.
Tutto che questa gente maledetta
In vera perfezion giammai non vada,
Di là, più che di qua, essere aspetta.[70]
Since the time of Dante many attempts have been made, unsuccessfully,
by men without his genius, to import additional horror.
To some extent no doubt Christ’s description of the Universal
Gehenna must be regarded as figurative, but yet we do not think that
the sayings of Christ with regard to the unseen world ought to be
looked upon as nothing more than pure figures of speech. We feel
assured that the principle of Continuity cries out against such an
interpretation—may they not rather be descriptions of what takes
place in the unseen universe brought home to our minds by means of
perfectly true comparisons with the processes and things of this
present universe which they most resemble? And just as, in the
visible universe, there is apparently an enormous and inexplicable
_waste_ of germs, seeds, and eggs of all kinds, which die simply
because they are useless—analogy would lead us to conclude that
something similar, and to at least as enormous an extent, happens
in the Unseen with the germs of spiritual frames. The caterpillar
which has not chosen a secure place of refuge in which to assume the
chrysalis form does not live to become a perfect insect. The seeds
that fell by the wayside, though scattered by an intelligent sower,
were devoured by the birds of the air. ‘Let every one of them pass
away, like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the
sun.’ ‘For many are called, but few chosen.’[71]
262. Thus the Christian Gehenna bears to the Unseen Universe
precisely the same relation as the Gehenna of the Jews did to the
city of Jerusalem; and just as the fire was always kept up and the
worm ever active in the one, so are we forced to contemplate an
enduring process in the other.
For we cannot easily agree with those who would limit the existence
of evil to the present world. We know now that the matter of the
whole of the visible universe is of a piece with that which we
recognise here, and the beings of other worlds must apparently be
subject to accidental occurrences from their relation with the outer
universe in the same way as we are. But if there be accident, must
there not be pain and death? Now these are naturally associated in
our minds with the presence of moral evil.
We are thus drawn, if not forced, to surmise that the dark thread
known as evil is one which is very deeply woven into that garment of
God which is called the Universe.
In fine, just as the arguments of this chapter lead us to regard
the whole Universe[72] as eternal, so in like manner are we led
to surmise that evil is eternal, and therefore we cannot easily
imagine the Universe without its Gehenna, where the worm dieth not,
and the fire is not quenched. The _process_ at all events would
seem to us to be most probably an enduring one. [Many passages of
the New Testament, however, seem to point to a continuity of moral
development in the unseen universe, a development whose climax is to
be reached when the last enemy, death, is destroyed in Gehenna.]
263. But it is fruitless to expect that Science should throw any
light upon that greatest of all mysteries—the origin of evil. We
have now come to a region where we must suffer ourselves to be led
solely by the light which is given us in the Christian Records. And
while here we would quote from a very remarkable work on the Lord’s
Prayer[73] by the Rev. Charles Parsons Reichel, B.D., which exhibits
in a singularly clear light the testimony given by Scripture, as well
as the fruitlessness of all attempts to obtain information from any
other quarter. Our first extract relates to the personality of ‘The
Evil One:’—
‘In refutation’ (says the writer) ‘of the objections that have
been urged against the personal existence of the Adversary, this
one observation is quite enough: that of the world of spirits we
cannot possibly know anything save by direct revelation. It is
beyond the domain of the senses; it is beyond the cognisance of
reason. A man born blind might therefore as rationally attempt
to disprove by a process of reasoning the existence of a sense
of which he can know nothing except by testimony, as we attempt
by a process of reasoning to disprove the existence of a spirit
of whose existence we can know nothing save by testimony. The
only point to be ascertained in either case is whether the
testimony be sufficient. If the testimony of Scripture be deemed
sufficient, then I cannot see that it is possible to deny the
Personal existence of Satan any more than that of God. _How_
Satan exists, or _where_ at the present time, or how his power
_avails_, as we are told it does, to contrive and suggest
temptations to the mind of man; and to what extent he is aware of
what is passing in men’s minds, so as to adapt his suggestions
to their weakness, we are not told, and do not therefore know.
But our not being told the manner in which his power is exercised
and brought to bear, is no proof of the unreality of that fearful
Being who is everywhere in the New Testament exhibited as the
adversary of God and goodness, whether in the individual, or in
the development of the human race.’
The next passage is one which all of us may study with much
advantage. It refers to temptation:—
‘Every risk incurred unnecessarily for the sake of exhibiting
our trust in God, every unusual or unnecessary act done merely
or chiefly for the purpose of displaying our privileges or our
conviction, or of attracting attention and admiration, every
stepping out of the plain, unadorned, and _unadmired_ path of
simple duty, is a phase of it.’
* * * * *
‘Why God should permit any of his creatures to be tempted is
a question we can no more answer than we can that question of
which indeed it is but a case, why God should permit evil to
exist at all. But we know that evil does exist; and we know too
that temptation does exist. That evil was first introduced into
the world by a Being who goes under the name of Satan or the
Adversary (2 Cor. xi. 3) we are told: that this Being endeavoured
first to seduce, and afterwards to menace our Saviour into evil;
and that he is constantly engaged in tempting us as he tempted
Christ, we are also told.’
* * * * *
‘And the true rendering of the last clause in Christ’s own prayer
would seem to intimate that the same Being is also busy in
suggesting temptations to every follower of Christ—“Lead us not
into temptation, but deliver us from the Evil One.”’
264. But we must now draw to a close; first of all, however, let us
briefly sum up the results of our discussion.
The great scientific principle which we have made use of has been the
Law of Continuity. This simply means that the whole universe is of a
piece; that it is something which an intelligent being is capable of
understanding, not completely nor all at once, but better and better
the more he studies it.
In this great whole which we call the Universe there is no
impenetrable barrier to the intellectual development of the
individual. Death is not such a barrier, whether we contemplate
it in others, or whether we experience it ourselves. And the
same continuity which has been insisted on with reference to our
intellectual conceptions of the universe applies, we have little
doubt, to the other faculties of man, and to other regions of thought.
When we regard the universe from this point of view we are led to
a scientific conception of it which is, we have seen, strikingly
analogous to the system which is presented to us in the Christian
religion. For not only are the nebulous beginning and fiery
termination of the present visible universe indicated in the
Christian records, but a constitution and power are therein assigned
to the Unseen Universe strikingly analogous to those at which we
arrive by a legitimate scientific process.
265. Our readers are now in a position to perceive the result of
questioning science in this manner, and of abandoning ourselves
without mistrust or hesitation to the guidance of legitimate
principles. It is that science so developed, instead of appearing
antagonistic to the claims of Christianity, is in reality its most
efficient supporter; and that the burden of showing how the early
Christians got hold of a constitution of the unseen universe,
altogether different from any other cosmogony, but similar to that
which modern science proclaims, is transferred to the shoulders of
the opponents of Christianity.
266. For the present we would only add that the principle, of the aid
of which we have availed ourselves, is not a mere theological weapon,
but will, we believe, ultimately prove a most powerful scientific
auxiliary. Already we have used it in our endeavour to modify the
most probable hypothesis which has been formed concerning the
ultimate constitution of matter.
The truth is, that science and religion neither are nor can be two
fields of knowledge with no possible communication between them. Such
a hypothesis is simply absurd.
There is undoubtedly an avenue leading from the one to the other, but
this avenue is through the unseen universe, and unfortunately it has
been walled up and ticketed with ‘_No road this way_,’ professedly
alike in the name of science at the one end, and in the name of
religion at the other.
We are in hopes that when this region of thought comes to be further
examined it may lead to some common ground on which followers of
science on the one hand, and of revealed religion on the other, may
meet together and recognise each other’s claims without any sacrifice
of the spirit of independence, or any diminution of self-respect.
Entertaining these views we shall welcome with sincere pleasure any
remarks or criticism on these speculations of ours, whether by the
leaders of scientific thought or by those of religious inquiry.
It must never be forgotten that, whether we take the scientific
or the religious point of view, one great object of our life in
the visible universe is obviously to _learn_; and that (as human
beings are constituted) advance in learning necessarily implies a
high purpose kept steadily before us, and a continuous and arduous
pursuit. For, as we are told in the First Epistle of John, ‘This is
the victory which overcometh the world, even our faith.’
Τῷ νικῶντι δώσω αὐτῷ φαγεῖν ἐκ τοῦ
ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς ...
Edinburgh University Press:
THOMAS AND ARCHIBALD CONSTABLE, PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY
FOOTNOTES:
[1] It will be seen from our last chapter that we have used by
preference the word _Soul_ to represent that which survives death
both in the righteous and the wicked.
[2] See also Job xxi. 14, 15.
[3] See _Westminster Sermons_, by the Rev. Charles Kingsley.
[4] Wilkinson.
[5] Wilkinson.
[6] Exod. vi. 2.
[7] Gen. xix. 12.
[8] _Lectures on the Jewish Church._
[9] Dan. xii. 2.
[10] Dan. xii. 13.
[11] 2 Macc. vii. 14.
[12] _Wars of the Jews_, II. viii. 14.
[13] _Essays on some of the Peculiarities of the Christian Religion._
[14] _Phædrus_, quoted by Wilkinson.
[15] _Chips from a German Workshop._
[16] 1 Cor. xv. 35.
[17] Ps. cii. 25.
[18] 2 Cor. iv. 18.
[19] 2 Pet. iii. 10.
[20] Rev. xx. 11.
[21] See footnote to Art. 224.
[22] John v. 30.
[23] Gal. iv. 4.
[24] John viii. 28.
[25] See Professor Huxley’s Birmingham Lecture.
[26] _Life and Writings of Swedenborg_ by William White.
[27] We are aware that a certain class of thinkers regard all matter
and combinations of matter as in some unexplained sense alive. We
will discuss this doctrine in another place; meanwhile it must be
understood that we do not here allude to this peculiar life, which
from its very conception must exist as truly in a dead body as
in a living one; what we are discussing at present is individual
consciousness of the ordinary recognised type.
[28] As will be seen in Chap. III., the more important half of the
realities of the physical world are forms of Energy, _which cannot
exist_ except when associated with Matter. We mention this merely in
a footnote now, as we do not wish to diverge too far from our present
line of argument.
[29] A very striking analogy to this will be found in Chapter III.,
where it is shown that energy of visible motion often disappears by
transformation into the dormant or latent energy of position.
[30] See Essay on this subject by the Hon. Sir W. R. Grove, in his
book on _The Correlation of Physical Forces_.
[31] See _Contributions to Solar Physics_, by De la Rue, Stewart, and
Loewy.
[32] In Chap. IV. the reader will see that the only attempt to
explain the mechanism of gravitation, which can be called even
_hopeful_, does not give _rigorously_ the law of the inverse square
of the distance.
[33] ‘I hope all will be well. And, as for the gate you talk of, all
the world knows that it is a great way off our country. I cannot
think that any man in all our parts doth so much as know the way to
it; nor need they matter whether they do or no, since we have, as you
see, a fine, pleasant, green lane, that comes down from our country,
the next way into the way.’
[34] This is discussed in Chapter IV. below.
[35] It is hardly needful to inform our readers that the word
_substance_ is used in this chapter in the ordinary sense.
[36] See Thomson and Tait’s _Natural Philosophy_, § 269; or Tait’s
_Thermodynamics_, § 91.
[37] Thus paraphrased for us:—
Nature, bewildering in diversity,
Of marvels Marvel most inscrutable,
Like Proteus, altereth her shape and mould;
But Fate remaineth ever immovable,
And, changeless in persistency, outwears
The Time of men, the gods’ Eternity.
[38] For a more complete statement of Carnot’s work see Tait, _Recent
Advances in Physical Science_, 1876.
[39] They virtually showed that in a perfect steam-engine with
pressure equal to ‘one atmosphere’ in its boiler, and with its
condenser at the temperature of melting ice, the ratio of the heat
taken in to the heat given out is 1·365 to 1. Hence if the difference
between the numbers is to be 100, these must be 374, 274.—_Phil.
Trans._, 1854.
[40] See Tait, _Phil. Mag._, 1872, I. 338, 516; II. 240.
[41] Thomson and Tait’s _Natural Philosophy_, § 300; or Tait and
Steele’s _Dynamics of a Particle_, 3d ed. § 299.
[42] Stewart and Tait _on the Heating of a Disk by Rotation_ in vacuo
(_Proceedings of the Royal Society_). See also Stewart’s _Elementary
Treatise on Heat_, 3d edition, Art. 387 (Clarendon Press Series).
[43] If the visible universe be imagined to be infinite, we should
have (following out our line of thought) infinitely large masses
separated from each other by infinite distances, appearing for
infinite ages in the liquid and solid states, and thence transformed
by means of infinite collisions into the gaseous condition in which
they will remain for another infinite series of ages. Is there much
gained by this conception?
[44] i. 641. Thus rendered by Munro:—‘For fools admire and like all
things the more which they perceive to be concealed under involved
language, and determine things to be true which can prettily tickle
the ears and are varnished over with finely sounding phrase.’
[45] This has been spoken of as an exaggeration. We hope it may be
so; but when it was written (in the winter of 1874) the newspapers
were full of the sickening details of the gouging of an old man by
a gang of miners, who afterwards filled the sockets with quicklime!
These human fiends are probably already at liberty, having had their
few months of simple imprisonment!
[46] Tait, _Proc. R.S.E._, 1874-5.
[47] See also the extremely interesting article _Atom_, by
Clerk-Maxwell, in the 9th ed. of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_.
[48] Here it is important to observe that the speculations of Sir
W. Thomson with regard to the density of the Ether assign only the
inferior limit of that density. The _real_ density may possibly be
very much greater.
[49] _Études d’Astronomie Stellaire_, 1847.
[50] In Art. 148 we made a suggestion that gravitation might be the
visible result of a tendency to a minimum of some affection of the
fluid in which atoms are immersed. The exertion of gravitating force
might thus be associated with a change in the constitution of visible
things, and might perhaps point to an ultimate dying out, just as the
radiation from the sun, which obeys the same formal law as that of
gravity, points to a dying out of our luminary.
If this be conceivable, the really trivial nature of gravitating
force (Art. 139) might come to be associated with the extraordinary
persistence of the present state of things.
[51] The words ‘left to its own laws’ must not be taken too
literally. We ought perhaps rather to say, the procedure of the
Governor of the visible universe is at present such as to indicate
uniformity of physical laws, while, on the other hand, His procedure
when producing the universe indicated an intelligent agent designing
uniformity of product.
[52] _Lay Sermons, Essays, and Reviews._
[53] Stewart on the _Conservation of Energy_.
[54] Stewart on the _Conservation of Energy_.
[55] Stewart on the _Conservation of Energy_.
[56] See Meldrum on the _Periodicity of Rainfall_.
[57] _Principles of Science_, vol. ii. p. 455.
[58] So-called Ninth Bridgewater Treatise.
[59] It is surely unnecessary to inform our readers that we adopt
this hypothesis, not because we imagine it to have any inherent
probability, but simply as a concrete mode of bringing development
before the understanding.
[60] We are not here opposing the theological doctrine that _the
Universe is in the Son of God_. In fact, when we contemplate any past
phase of the Universe, we are driven to look upon this as having been
previously developed by the Son of God, who doubtless also sustains
it. This therefore represents the theological doctrine, nevertheless
it will at once be acknowledged that we may speak of Christ as being
in the Universe.
[61] Heb. x. 7.
[62] See a specially interesting and exhaustive paper by Lister
(_Trans. R. S. E._, 1874-5). A very clear analysis of it is given by
Crum Brown (_Proc. R. S. E._, 1875).
[63] _Nature_, January 14, 1875.
[64] The Rev. James Martineau has, we perceive, taken up a similar
line of argument. (See Art. on ‘Modern Materialism,’ _Contemporary
Review_, February 1876.)
[65] See Sermon preached at Belfast by Dr. Reichel, August 23, 1874.
[66] [Those who believe that the New Testament asserts the
annihilation of the wicked in _Gehenna_, of course hold that only the
just obtain the spiritual body. But we have no definite term for the
body as it shall be (in the _Hades_ of the New Testament) between
death and the resurrection. It is probable that the want of such a
term is due to the fact that the authors of our recognised version
have unfortunately rendered both Hades and Gehenna indifferently by
the word Hell, itself a term from Scandinavian mythology.]
[67] ‘As the word went out of the king’s mouth, they covered Haman’s
face.’—Esther vii. 8.
[68] St. Matthew xxii. 11-13. [See, however, also Luke xiii. 28,
where the true meaning obviously is ‘_while ye are being cast out_.’
There are other obvious mistranslations in our version; such as for
instance that of Mark ix. 43, where for ‘the fire that cannot be
put out’ we have ‘the fire that never shall be quenched.’ It is to
be hoped that the revised version will be such as to give readers
ignorant of Greek a thoroughly correct idea of the meaning of the
original, most especially on points of such awful importance as this.]
[69] The extent of our knowledge, or rather of our ignorance, on this
subject has been happily rendered by the Rev. Dr. Irons, when he
states that all we are authorised to infer is that retribution will
be morally complete.
[70] The sense is as follows:—Master, said I, will these torments
increase after the great judgment, will they be less, or equally
severe? He replied—Go back to your scholastic learning, which tells
you that the more perfect the being the more he feels both pleasure
and pain. And, although these accursed ones can never reach full
perfection, they expect to be more perfect after than before (the
judgment).
[71] [We ought perhaps to inform our readers that what we have here
said refers to that particular state after the present—the dying out
of which, in consequence of voluntary separation from its centre of
life and energy, has been called the second death. Whether this dying
out is equivalent to absolute annihilation is a point which we do not
pretend to discuss.]
[72] Including in it _a state of things_ like the present physical
universe; not, however, _the very things_ that now exist, these being
evanescent in energy at least, if not also in material.
[73] _Cambridge_, Macmillan, 1855.
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been
corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within
the text and consultation of external sources.
Some hyphens in words have been silently removed, some added,
when a predominant preference was found in the original book.
Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text,
and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.
Pg 78: ‘tell us’ replaced by ‘tells us’.
Pg 115: ‘τρισμυριόις’ replaced by ‘τρισμυρίοις’.
Pg 118: ‘first to recal’ replaced by ‘first to recall’.
Pg 150: ‘The griding sword’ replaced by ‘The grinding sword’.
Pg 205: ‘in the charracter’ replaced by ‘in the character’.
Pg 213: ‘its continous energy’ replaced by ‘its continuous energy’.
Pg 227: ‘John iii. 16’ replaced by ‘John iii. 13’.
Pg 243: ‘school of thought are’ replaced by ‘school of thought is’.
Footnote 44, Pg 131: ‘tickle the the ears’ replaced by
‘tickle the ears’.