Imágenes de páginas

Christ, which has recently been published, and from which we extract the following passage (page 263):

. But the Saviour was Divine. As man, identified with human nature, He died, and His death became a sin-offering ; as God He could not die. As man He was made “under the law ;" as God He was above the law laid on creatures. . . . He arose, therefore, as the Divine Conqueror of death, “ God over all, blessed for evermore," and was thus “declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by His resurrection from the dead.”— Rom. i. 4. He rose, not "in the likeness of sinful flesh ;" not “under the law," but in the charracter of the “ Lord from heaven,” “our Lord and our God :"not in the image of the “son of Adam,” but as the “Son of the Highest,” having delivered us from wrath by the death of His humanity, to endow us with immortality through the life of His Divinity. He was no longer “the man of sorrows,” but The First and The Last and The Living One; no longer crowned with thorns, and clothed in a peasant's robe, but wearing the diadem of the Lord of the Universe, and shining with the super. eminent splendours of the Godhead.'

[ocr errors]

If then Christ died as man, and was reanimated in virtue of His divinity, the analogy between Christ, who is the head, and believers, who are His body, will be complete if we suppose that each believer dies as a man, but is raised up by virtue of the divinity of Christ, and inasmuch as the Head is not present here in His glorified bodily form, so it cannot be supposed that His members should at present assume that form.

But when Christ appears again upon earth we are told that His members being raised in what is termed the first resurrection will then accompany Him.

And judging from S. Matthew (chap. xxvii. verse 52), something of this kind, but of a partial nature, took place when Christ locally appeared, after His resurrection, in Jerusalem.

In fine, the true analogy between Christ and the believer should prevent us from supposing that while Christ is absent in His glorified body believers should nevertheless assume theirs.

Now this delay implies the corruption of the believer's body, and renders us unable to believe that the very same particles will be raised again as in the case of Christ. But surely no one can suppose, that if moral and spiritual identity is secured, the mere material particles can be of any consequence.]

208. Objection Sixth (Scientific).—If the general principles on which all material organisms are constructed are the same throughout the world, is not this an argument by analogy that all such organisms have a similar relation to the universe ? On what principle then can immortality be assumed to be possible for men while it is denied to brutes ?

Reply.-When we speak of the general principles on which all organisms are constructed being the same, we mean that certain chemical and physical laws apply both to man and the brute creation. Gravitation and chemical affinity are the same for both. There must also be a similarity in tangible substance, inasmuch as both co-exist in the same visible world. In fine, there must be many points in which man is very similar in construction to the lower animals. Thus each possesses nerves-each has what may be termed delicacy of construction—the frame of each possesses materials which will burn in the fire In fine, not only do strong similarities exist between all animals, but there are also strong similarities between animals and vegetables. But what are the points of dissimilarity between man and the lower animals ? Is it not that the latter are utterly incapable of thinking thoughts such as those which form the present subject of discussion? In fine, the greatest difference between man and the lower animals is not so much in bodily structure as in style of thought. But each thought has no doubt (Art. 59) a concomitant in the brain. Inasmuch therefore as the style of thought is very different in man and in the lower animals, the physical concomitants of thought must be very different in the two cases.

But this is the very region into which science has been as yet utterly unable to penetrate. We have, however, strong reason for supposing that in such a region the concomitants of thought would prove to be very different in man and in the brutes. Thus the argument tells quite the other

way ; and we are entitled to say, that inasmuch as there are enormous practical differences in thought and the higher kinds of power between man and the lower animals, so the scientifically perceivable concomitants of these differences would (if we were able to examine them) be found extremely different in the two cases.

209. Objection Seventh (Scientific).-If there be, as you say, this duality in the present human frame, how can the spiritual part remain latent so long as it does ? Even if trammelled by the grosser substance, we might expect that at least on rare occasions it should somehow manifest itself.

Reply.As a matter of fact we know that ordinary consciousness can remain latent or inactive for hours, if not for days, and then return to us again. There would be force in this objection if it were not true that consciousness is capable of entering into the dormant or quiescent state.

Again, it is possible that there have been and that there are occasional manifestations of this spiritual nature.

For, in the Christian records visible manifestations of the spiritual element, even in this life, are asserted to have taken place on rare occasions. But if you have dismissed these manifestations as inconceivable, you cannot now bring their absence forward as an objection.

210. Objection Eighth (Scientific).—Your doctrine of immortality does violence to that great principle, the conservation of energy. For it is manifest that if

. energy is transferred from the visible into the invisible universe, its constancy in the present universe can no longer be maintained.

Reply.—In reply to this objection we may state that when we assert the conservation of energy it

a principle applicable under special limitations. For instance, it is only by assuming the continual passage through ether of a large portion of the energy of the visible universe that the doctrine as at present held can be maintained. Now the only addition that our theory suggests is the gradual carriage into the invisible universe of some part at least of the energy of gross matter which is associated with thought. But is even this necessary? for this supposes thought to originate through the matter of the visible universe, and then to affect the invisible.

is as

But the reverse order of occurrences is quite as tenable, especially if we suppose with Le Sage that the forces which set in motion the molecules of visible matter are derived from the unseen universe. It may safely be said that our hypothesis is not upset, and never can be upset, by any experimental conclusion with regard to energy.

211. Objection Ninth (Scientific).- We cannot understand how individuality is to be preserved in the spiritual world.

Reply.--This is no new difficulty. We are as much puzzled by what takes place in our present body as we can be with respect to the spiritual. Thus, let us allow that impressions are stored up in our brains, which thus form an order connecting us with the past of the visible universe. Now thousands, perhaps even millions, of such impressions pass into the same organ, and yet, by the operation of our will, we can concentrate our recollection upon a certain event, and rummage out its details, along with all its collateral circumstances, to the exclusion of everything else. But if the brain or something else plays such a wonderful part in the present economy, is it impossible to imagine that the universe of the future may have even greater individualising powers? Is it not very hazardous to assert this or that mode of existence to be impossible in such a wonderful whole as we feel sure the universe must be ?

212. Objection Tenth (Scientific).-Even if it be allowed that the invisible universe receives energy from the present, so that the conservation of energy holds true as a principle, yet the dissipation of energy must hold true also, and although the process of

« AnteriorContinuar »