CONTENTS
|
CHAPTER ONETHE INTERMEDIATE STATE
HE subject proposed for our present consideration may be thus stated:
Are the understanding, the passions and the will of man, faculties of a distinct essence, or spiritual subsistence, which is capable of conscious existence independently of and separate from the body; or do these powers pertain to the organized functions of the animated body? Is the human mind, or soul, or spirit, a purely spiritual or ethereal essence or subsistence possessing consciousness and intelligence in itself, independently of the body, developing itself indeed through the material bodily organs, as one mode of its manifestations, but not dependent on such mode: or is it a faculty or power of the material organization itself, imparted to it by the Almighty, and in respect to conscious existence, inseparable from the operations of the material organization? In searching for truth in the word of the Lord, I find that, 1. The account of the creation of man is opposed to the theory that he possesses a distinct spiritual subsistence which is capable of conscious existence independently of the body. Ge 1:26: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:” Ge 2:7: “And the Lord God formed MAN of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” MAN, and not merely the body of man, is said to be formed of the dust of the ground. Man, thus formed, is said to become a living soul, not by the distinct creation and impartation of another subsistence of a conscious and intelligent nature, but simply be breathing into his nostrils the breath of life. Let the plain import of this expression be candidly considered. If that material organization, the wonderful product of infinite wisdom and power, became a living soul, simply in consequence of breathing into it the breath of life, does it not plainly appear that this material structure needed only the principle of vitality, to constitute the living soul or perfect living man? -This material structure is denominated MAN, and not the body of man, before the principle of life was imparted. God, “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” Compare this expression with that in Isa 2:22, “Cease from man whose breath is in his nostrils.” Is this an appropriate expression to define such an immortal independent soul as man is supposed to possess? Read Ge 7:21,22. |
If we can possibly cast off from our minds the bias of preconception, shall we not acknowledge that it is a plain expression of the simple fact of imparting vitality to the perfectly organized structure formed of the dust of the ground? The Almighty “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” Will any one affirm that his breath, antecedent to its connection with the new formed man, was itself a conscious, intelligent and immortal substance? -Was not consciousness and intelligence the result of the connection of this breath with all the material functions?
Was it not destitute of these qualities antecedent to such connection? If it did not possess this consciousness and intelligence anterior to its connection with the material organization, how can it possess it when, at death, it is separated from that organization? If Ge 2:7, proves an immortal soul in man, must not Ge 7:21,22, prove the same in beasts?
Our philosophy may ask, how can breath or air impart vitality to matter? Or how can mental operations, be produced by its connection with mere matter, however perfect its organization? The reply is, by the power of God. This reply must be admitted unless it can be proved that it involves a contradiction. Its incomprehensibility is no adequate ground for its rejection. The power of Him in whom we live and move and have our being, gives efficacy to the means his wisdom has adopted to produce and maintain all the vital, physical, and mental functions of that wondrous organization of the dust which his Almighty hand has formed and denominated man.
“The Spirit of God hath made me and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.” Job 33:4. “There is a spirit of man and the inspiration (breath) of the Almighty giveth them understanding.” Job 32:8.
If it is true that man possesses a conscious spiritual substance so superior to and independent of the material organization, how can we account of the omission of the fact in the inspired record of his original creation? Why is no mention made of a matter of such transcendent importance? Is it not reasonable to expect, according to the popular theory, that Moses would have been inspired to record, first of all, the creation of such an immortal soul as the chief part of the noble creature of such an immortal soul who was to have dominion over the whole earth? Would not the mere outward material tenement have been a secondary matter? Or if it was proper to mention it first, was it proper to denominate it MAN previous to its occupation by that which is considered as essential to the nature of man? Is it reasonable to suppose that in the inspired description of man’s creation, a phraseology would be adopted, which precludes the idea of man’s life and intelligence being derived from such a distinct substance?
Our philosophy may ask, how can breath or air impart vitality to matter? Or how can mental operations, be produced by its connection with mere matter, however perfect its organization? The reply is, by the power of God. This reply must be admitted unless it can be proved that it involves a contradiction. Its incomprehensibility is no adequate ground for its rejection. The power of Him in whom we live and move and have our being, gives efficacy to the means his wisdom has adopted to produce and maintain all the vital, physical, and mental functions of that wondrous organization of the dust which his Almighty hand has formed and denominated man.
“The Spirit of God hath made me and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.” Job 33:4. “There is a spirit of man and the inspiration (breath) of the Almighty giveth them understanding.” Job 32:8.
If it is true that man possesses a conscious spiritual substance so superior to and independent of the material organization, how can we account of the omission of the fact in the inspired record of his original creation? Why is no mention made of a matter of such transcendent importance? Is it not reasonable to expect, according to the popular theory, that Moses would have been inspired to record, first of all, the creation of such an immortal soul as the chief part of the noble creature of such an immortal soul who was to have dominion over the whole earth? Would not the mere outward material tenement have been a secondary matter? Or if it was proper to mention it first, was it proper to denominate it MAN previous to its occupation by that which is considered as essential to the nature of man? Is it reasonable to suppose that in the inspired description of man’s creation, a phraseology would be adopted, which precludes the idea of man’s life and intelligence being derived from such a distinct substance?
