Section I.

An Argument Founded on the Immateriality of the Soul.

The immateriality of the soul, which was proved in the preceding chapter, furnishes strong presumptive evidence of its immortality, that it does not die with the body.

Before stating the argument, it is proper to state the precise point to be proved by it. It has been misunderstood, and hence, it has been replied to by a misdirected and insufficient argument. A modern Destructionist replies to it as follows:

"It is said- The soul is spiritual, hence indestructible, and therefore immortal. One single consideration is sufficient to overthrow this argument, and show that it has no force. He who created can destroy. Our Saviour saith-'Fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.'"

It should be remarked on this extract, that as a reply it is defective in two particulars:

1. It assumes that "destruction," means a loss of conscious existence, when applied to the soul. This is not admitted, but as it belongs to another division of our subject;, we will not argue it here, but leave it to be attended to in its proper place.

2. Its capital defect is, it entirely misapprehends the question. The argument does not rest upon the assumption that God cannot destroy or annihilate a spirit after he has created it, but only that the soul is immortal in its nature, having no tendency in itself to annihilation, and must exist forever, unless sent into non-existence by the same Almighty power which gave it being. There is an important distinction between the natural immortality of the soul, and God's power to annihilate it, which the writer entirely overlooked in his attempt to meet the argument. God may be able to destroy what is immortal in its own nature, and what would live forever but for such destruction; hence, could it be proved that God can destroy the human soul; yea, could it be proved that he will annihilate it, it would not follow that it is not ever-living in its own nature. If the soul is not immortal in its own nature, it must cease to exist by the operation of the laws of its being, just as the body does, and can need no destruction from the Almighty, any more than the body, to cause it to cease to exist. To argue that God can destroy the soul, implies that it will not die of itself, without the direct exertion of Almighty Power to destroy it. The body is mortal, is a compound, an organism, and by the operation of the laws of its elemental and organic nature, must wear itself out and cease to exist, without being destroyed by the direct operation of external force, as is implied when affirmed that God can destroy the soul. On the other hand, if the soul is a simple spiritual essence, immaterial, uncompounded, and indivisible, it must be immortal in itself, and must exist forever, unless actually destroyed by the Almighty Power that gave it existence.

This argument then, is not designed to prove that God cannot destroy the human soul, nor even that he will not, but only that the soul, being spirit and not matter, simple and not compound, indivisible and not dissoluble, it must be immortal in its nature, and live after the body is dissolved; yea, live forever, unless destroyed by the Almighty Power that gave it being. To this point we will now direct a few thoughts.

1. The soul being an immaterial, uncompounded spiritual essence, as fully proved in the first chapter, it cannot be affected by such agents as operate upon and destroy compound bodies and organisms. Frost will kill the body, but no one will contend that an immaterial spirit can be frozen to death. The body is divisible, and may be cut to pieces, but it will not be pretended that an immaterial, intangible, indivisible soul can be cut to pieces, with saws, knives and axes. It is admitted that the soul resides in the body during our natural life; now suppose a machine should be constructed, which at one blow would cut the body as fine as the sand upon the sea shore, would the soul be cut to pieces by the operation, admitting it to be in the body at the time It certainly would not, unless that which is immaterial can fill space so as to obstruct matter-unless that which is intangible can be hit by a material engine, and unless that which is indivisible can be divided.

Suppose you cast both soul and body together into a furnace as hot as the one prepared by Nebuchadnezzar, and what will be the result The body will be consumed in a moment; but the soul will not be burned up. An immaterial, uncompounded spirit cannot be affected by material fire, any more than it can by frost; it could dwell alike in the sun or in the polar regions. The reader will now see the importance and force of our long argument on the immateriality of the mind. It is a vital point; if we have proved in the preceding chapter, that the human mind is an immaterial spirit, as we trust we have, the above reasoning shows that it must be immortal in its own nature, and that it will live forever unless it be destroyed by God its Maker. By all the conclusiveness, then, by which we have sustained the immateriality of the soul, does its immortality follow.

2. The argument drawn from the immateriality of the soul, not only proves that it is immortal within itself, living forever, if left to the operations of the laws of its own nature, but it proves that God cannot destroy it, in the manner in which destructionists generally suppose. Be particular; we do not say that God cannot annihilate a human soul, or any simple spirit which he has created, but only that he cannot do it in the manner in which destructionists generally contend he will do it. If God should annihilate the human soul, it would require a simple withdrawal of that Almighty Power which he put forth when he created it, and which not only sustains every human soul, but the universe of both matter and mind. This mode of annihilation forms no part of the creed of destructionists; they argue their doctrine from the Scriptures, which threaten and describe the punishment of the wicked, and represent the loss of existence as a part of, and end of this punishment, and as the result of positive infliction of suffering; and hence they rely upon the words, destroy, burned up, consumed, and other like expressions. The argument founded upon the spiritual nature of the soul, proves that God cannot annihilate it in this way. If God himself has made the soul immaterial, he cannot destroy it by bringing material agents to act upon it. God cannot dissolve that which is uncompounded, or divide that which is indivisible. The reader is requested to bear in mind that the question at this point, is not-would the soul fall back into non-existence, should God withdraw his creating and sustaining power but-can the soul be burned up, or annihilated by the exertion of power upon it We will close this argument, with the following extract from Mr. Drew's essay on the immortality of the soul, It may not be conclusive in itself; but taken in connection with our reasoning on the immateriality of the soul, is not without its force.

"It has been already proved, that material bodies can never act but when they bring their surfaces into contact with each other. As an immaterial substance has

no surface, it is a contradiction to suppose that matter an ever be brought into contact with it: to suppose such a contact possible, is to suppose a surface in an immaterial being, which at the same time is excluded by its natural immateriality. Whatever has an exterior must have an interior; and what has both must be extended: and what is thus extended, cannot be immaterial. An immaterial substance therefore, can have no surface, and that which has no surface can never be brought into contact with that which has; it therefore follows that the soul must be inaccessible to all violence from matter, and that it cannot perish through its instrumentality. As matter can only act by contact, it follows that without being extended beyond its physical nature, it never can destroy the soul. And to suppose matter to be thus extended, is to suppose it to be matter and not matter at the same time. Nor can any accession of power overcome the contradiction. No acquisition of power can alter the identity of its nature, nor communicate to it a force of which its nature is incapable.

"We cannot conceive that an accession of power can cause matter to accomplish everything which is placed within the reach of its nature: but to suppose matter to extend its influence beyond the limits of its own existence, or to act where it is not, is to suppose its presence and absence at the same time. And to suppose it to annihilate a nature with which it has no physical connection, is to suppose it to act where it can have no influence, or that it can act and not act at the same time; which every one must see, is not only a moral but an absolute impossibility. It therefore follows, that the soul cannot perish by the instrumentality of matter, whatever influence be attributed to the application of its power; hence in reference to every material weapon:

"'The soul, secure in her existence smiles

At the drawn dagger and defies its point.'

"It is certain that nothing cannot communicate what it does not possess; nor produce what it has not the power of producing. A being which can communicate annihilation, must be one which is in existence, for that which is not in existence can communicate nothing: and for the same reason can produce no effects. And that being which is in existence, cannot from the certainty of its own existence, include the absence of existence within its nature, and consequently, can never communicate to another that absence of existence or annihilation which it does not possess itself. Annihilation therefore can never be communicated, either by a being which is in existence or by one which is not.

"If the soul be annihilated, it must be either by something which is in existence or by something which is not. But that which is in existence, can never produce what is physically contrary to itself; and that which has no existence can never act. The power which is supposed to reduce the soul to a point of annihilation, must either exist in this given point or it must not :-if it exist we have not yet arrived at that point which describes a nonentity: and where nonentity is not, annihilation can never be; and if it exist not in this given point, the soul can never be annihilated by its influence.

"Annihilation must be the result of power or it must not. If it be the result of power, power must continue to operate upon a subject, until the subject itself; through the influence of that power be reduced to a nonentity. But in admitting power to have an active operation, until it produces a nonentity, we admit a palpable contradiction. The admission of a power which is known to exist only because it produces a nonentity furnishes the mind with a chaos of contradictions-because that which produces a nonentity is not power but nothing."

The above extracts from Mr. Drew go to show that the soul cannot be annihilated, as destructionists suppose, by the punishments and pains of hell; and as it (the soul) cannot be annihilated in the way they suppose, and as their arguments all tend to prove that it will take place in this way, so far as they prove anything, their entire theory must fall. But we have yet to consider the main point, which is the Bible doctrine on the subject.