Section VII.

The Immateriality of Mind Concluded.-The Bible Argument

The material question in this section is, Does the Bible teach that the mind is material or immaterial that it is the body, or some part of the body, or that the mind is a spirit or a soul which forms no part of the body We say that the Bible teaches that man is composed of a body and a soul; that the body is of the earth and material, and that the soul is an immaterial spirit. We will adduce a few proof texts.

The Bible usually assumes the doctrine of the distinction between soul and body, and speaks in a manner which takes it for granted that this distinction is understood and believed. Gen. xxxv. 18: "And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died,) that she called his name Ben-oni." This text clearly takes it for granted, that man is composed of a body and a soul, and that what is called death, or dying, is their separation, or the departure of the soul. Dr. Clarke renders the Hebrew of this text, "in the going away of her soul." If man has no immaterial soul, if materialism be true, what went away, or what departed Her body did not depart. Her brains did not depart. There was nothing which departed, which could consistently be called "her soul," only upon the supposition that there is in man an immaterial spirit, which leaves the body at death. The language is just such as a believer in the common doctrine of the soul would be likely to use, and just such, as none but such a believer would employ. Put the words into the mouth of one who holds the doctrine for which we contend, and they are clear and forcible; but put them into the mouth of a materialist, and they either express a falsehood or mean nothing. It is then pretty clear, that whoever wrote the book of Genesis, was not a materialist.

Numbers xvi. 22: "And they fell upon their faces, and said, O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh." This text clearly takes for granted, that man is a compound of flesh and spirit. "All flesh," clearly means all mankind, or all human flesh, and "the spirits of all flesh," clearly implies that to each body of flesh there is a spirit. It must appear clear, that no rational person would ever employ such language, who did not believe in the common doctrine of the human soul. It is then clear that these praying Jews, together with their inspired historian, were not materialists. They believed that in man is united a body and a spirit, and that God is especially the God of the spirit. No other meaning can be given to the word spirits, in this text, which will even weaken the argument. The word sometimes signifies wind or breath, but give it either of these significations here, and you will destroy a clear sense, and turn their solemn prayer into mockery. How would it sound to pray, "O God, the God of the winds of all flesh;" or, "the God of the breaths of all flesh" It would spoil both the beauty and the sense, and turn that which is truly sublime, into that which would approach very nearly to the ridiculous.

Num. xxvii. 15, 16: "And Moses spake unto the Lord, saying, Let the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh, set a man over the congregation." What has been remarked upon the preceding text is equally true of this, and need not be repeated. Moses must have believed in the common doctrine of man's compound nature consisting of flesh and spirit.

Job xiv. 22: "But his flesh upon him shall have pain and his soul within him shall mourn." This text, like the former, does not assert the fact that man is composed of a body and soul, but like them, clearly takes it for granted, that this is a doctrine believed and understood. It clearly distinguishes between the flesh and soul, and affirms that his soul shall mourn within him. Upon the supposition of the materialist, what. does Job mean by the soul It is not the flesh, for he names that as something different from the soul; his flesh is on him, and his soul is in him. Does he mean that his brains shall mourn within him Does he mean that his wind or breath shall mourn within him Certainly none of these can be his meaning. Surely Job talked as though he believed the human mind to be something different from the body.

Chap. xxxi. 30: "Neither have I suffered my mouth to sin, by wishing a curse to his soul."

Job is here speaking of his enemy, and by the expression, "his soul," he clearly distinguished between his soul and body. The body, the visible, tangible man, he represented as the person, and the soul as belonging to it. The language clearly implies a distinction between body and soul.

Eccie. xii. 7: "Then shall the dust return unto the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." This is an important text, but we will not enlarge upon it in this place, as we shall have occasion to quote it again in proof of another point. We quote it here to prove the immateriality of the soul in contradistinction from the body. It clearly distinguishes between the material and immaterial parts of man; it separates them at death, and assigns the material part to the earth, and the immaterial part back to God, whence it came.

Ezek. xviii. 4: "Behold all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine" In this text it is certainly taken for granted that man has a soul, which forms no part of his body. What else can soul mean but the spirit that is in man, in contradistinction from his body It cannot mean the breath, or wind, in this text, as it sometimes does. God does not mean to say that the air which the father breathes, and which the son breathes, is alike his. It cannot mean the person or whole man. To mean that, it should read: "all souls are mine; as the father is mine so also the son is mine." The expressions "soul of the father," and "soul of the son," proves that the whole man is not meant. The preposition "of," is equivalent to the possessive case, and whether we say "soul of the father," or, father's soul, the sense is the same. The language is then in perfect accordance with the common belief that man is composed of a body and a soul, but deny this doctrine and the sense of the text is destroyed.

Job xxxii. 8: "But there is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding." This text appears to he an allusion to God's breathing into man the breath of life, after he had formed him of the dust of the ground, by which he " became a living soul." The only use we make of it now, is to prove that the mind is spirit and not matter. "There is a spirit in man." Man here denotes the visible, tangible frame, the body; in this there is a spirit. This spirit is doubtless the intelligent part, as it is said, "the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding." The spirit is not only what God infused at first, but upon this same spirit God operates, when, by inspiration, he giveth them understanding.

Prov. xix. 2: "That the soul be without knowledge is not good." This text clearly implies the existence of an intelligent soul, distinct from the body. What does the inspired writer mean by soul, in this text The word soul is sometimes used to denote man as a whole, or personal being, but the definite article "the" attached to it will not allow it to have this meaning. No particular person is spoken of hence, soul cannot mean man as an entire personal being. We cannot say, "that the man he without knowledge is not good," when no particular man is intended. Soul cannot here mean wind or breath. There is no sense in saying, "That the wind or breath be without knowledge is not good." It will not better it to substitute brains, for soul. Nothing then can be meant by soul unless it be the rational spirit in man, according to the common doctrine.

Zech. xii. 1: "The Lord, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him." This text is clearly founded upon the belief that man consists of a body with a spirit in it, nor can it be made to express good sense, without admitting this doctrine, as a truth understood and believed at the time it was uttered. The spirit of man is the subject of remark, and this spirit, God is representing as forming within him. The mind, or immaterial soul, according to the common belief, is the only spirit that God can be supposed to form within man.

Rom. viii. 16: "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." Here are two spirits named. The first, called "the Spirit," is no doubt, the Holy Ghost; the second, called "our spirit," the intelligent mind or soul of man. This proves the mind to be an immaterial spirit, for the word spirit can mean nothing else in this text. What is it with which the Holy Spirit bears witness It is not our body, or any part of it; it is not even our brains. It is not wind or our breath. It is not our life. Indeed there is nothing which can be understood by "our spirit," in this text, but the immaterial, intelligent nature of man, according to the common belief of christians.

1 Cor. ii. 11: "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him: even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. The design of this text is to affirm that, as the spirit of man searches the things of man, so the Spirit of God searches the things of God, and it proves as clearly that the intelligent principle in man is spirit, as it does that what is called the Spirit of God, is spirit, that is, an immaterial essence.

Chap. vi. 20: "For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify in your body, and your spirit, which are God's." This text, as clearly as it possibly could, takes it for granted that man is composed of a body and a spirit, and that the body is not the spirit, and that the spirit is not the body, and that they both constitute the man. It is not possible to conceive that any well informed man, not believing in the common doctrine of body and soul, would employ such language. Paul, then, clearly believed the common doctrine. It was undoubtedly this belief that suggested the mode of expression adopted in the text.

2 Cor. iv. 16: "But though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day." In this text there is a clear distinction made between the body and soul. The body is called the outward man; the soul the inward man.

Chap. vii. 1: "Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit." Here again the distinction is made between the material and spiritual part of man, and the apostle takes it for granted that this distinction is understood.

James ii. 26: "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." This text is sufficient of itself to settle the question, if there was not another to be quoted. The apostle not only assumes that man is composed of a body and a spirit, but supposes the fact to be plainer and better understood than the connection between faith and works. He is laboring to prove that faith is not vital and saving unless it produces good works, and to make it plainer he introduces as an illustration, the better understood fact of the union of a spirit and body in man, and that the body is dead without the spirit. The remark is founded upon the common belief that the body lives only while the soul remains in it, and that death is a separation between them. The above texts, gathered from the whole face of the Bible, as they have been, are sufficient to establish the truth of the existence of the human mind as an in. tell igent, immaterial spirit, distinct from matter.

It was remarked in a preceding section, that the Scriptures furnish the same evidence of the spiritual nature of the human soul, that they do that God is a Spirit. This point we promised to make plain in its proper plane, and will now attempt to redeem the pledge.

The same words which are applied to man, to describe his spiritual nature, are applied to God. It is admitted that these words are indefinite in the original Hebrew and Greek, insomuch that no argument, can be based up on any supposed necessary meaning, but must depend for its force upon the connection and other circumstances; and any criticism which will invalidate the evidence in proof that the human soul is spirit and not matter, will equally weaken the argument in support of the idea that God is a spirit. A few illustrations will make this plain. We will place a few texts in juxtaposition that the eye of the reader may rest upon both classes at the same moment.

In the above texts, the word soul, in the left hand column, is applied to God, to denote his Spirit, or the Holy Ghost; and in the right hand column the same word is used to denote the mind, or intellectual and moral nature of man. If then the one is not spirit, there is no proof that the other is. Any criticism upon the word, where it is applied to man in the right hand column, by which it may be rendered life, disposition, temper of mind, breath, wind or air, must be equally applicable to the word in the left hand column, where it is applied to God; as effectually overturning the proof that God is a spirit, as that the soul of man is a spirit.

We will now consider the word spirit, which is more clearly employed to denote the nature or essence of God, and will show that its use proves that man has a spiritual nature, as clearly as it does that God is a spirit.

We have quoted above the principal texts which affirm that God is a spirit, and directly opposite to them in the right hand column, are other texts which just as clearly prove that the intellectual part of man is a spirit. Any criticism which will make the one class of texts harmonize with the materiality of the human mind or soul, will no less make the other class harmonize with the materiality of God.

But the connection in which the sacred writers use the word spirit, applying it to God and to man in the same sentence, proves that by it they mean the same thing in the one case as in the other. We will give a few examples.

John iv. 24: "God is a spirit; and they that worship him must worship in spirit and in truth." Here the word spirit is applied to God and man, in a manner which proves beyond a doubt, that the word means the same thing in both instances. If any text in the Bible proves that God is a spirit, this is the very text, and if this text proves that God is a spirit and not matter, it must follow that man has a spiritual nature which is not matter. The text affirms that God is a spirit, and then announces as a consequence, that is, because God is a spirit, "they that worship him must worship in spirit," using the same term, spirit, to denote the spirit in which man must worship, that is used to express the divine essence which is to be worshipped. God is a spirit, but man is matter and spirit, having a body and soul. The material body may be made to perform certain acts, and assume certain attitudes of worship, in which the mind, the spirit is not engaged; this is not acceptable. As God is spirit, no worship can be acceptable to him, which is not performed by the spirit, the soul as well as the body. Indeed, as God is a spirit, we may regard the text as affirming that it requires a being of like nature to worship him; that he can be worshipped by spirits only. If the mind of man is not spirit, but matter, how he can worship God in spirit, or with spirit, as the Greek participle signifies, is not possible for ordinary minds to comprehend. Adopt the common theory of the spiritual nature of the human soul, and the text becomes plain; and the doctrine is that a spirit God can be worshipped only by spirit worshippers, and hence man, to worship acceptably, must worship with his spiritual nature-with his soul and not merely with his body.

Rom. viii. 16: "The spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." In this text there is no doubt that we are to understand, by "the Spirit," the Holy Ghost, and by "our spirit," the intellectual nature of man. The same word is used to denote spirit in both cases in the original, and must be intended to describe a similar essence. If "our spirit," means our body, our matter, or anything about us that is material, then "the Spirit," may mean the material substance of divinity, and the criticism which will make the one conclusion plain, will remove all the difficulties out of the way of the other. We trust we have now shown that the Scriptures furnish the same proof of the immateriality of the human soul, that they do that God is an immaterial spirit; and here we close this part of our investigation.