, 1874-02-22
CORRESPONDENCE.

REVIEW OF DR. THoVAS ON IMMORTALITY.
10 the Editor Of The Chicago Tribune:
SIZE: AS an exponent OF liberal and advanced
Christianity, DR.. Thomas is public property, and
when his views on questions pertaining to morals
aud religion are made public, 1t is for to crti-
else and call them in question If need be, and II
there is any weakness, any loose thread in his
argument, he muat not take 1t to heart it it is
brought to tho light and made the lever Of his
overthrow, it it is possible to be DONE
The first OF course OF lectures which he is
now delivering at his church WIS on the subject
Of immortality, and my purpose in this COM
munication is to g1anco at few OF the argu-
monts brought forth by him to prove that man
Was immortal and would live after this life was
over.
The first which I wish to notice was, that there
had been placed in man universal desire for
life beyond tho grave, aud that God would not
60 mock any OF His creatures as to give them
this without it WAS Els intention to make it real
by it's fu1fllment.
think have stated his premises fairly and
now let us inquire il the argument is asound ono.
Has not God placed in every man the desire for
happiness Does that sacred boon como to
every ono? Do not al desire competence
Do all obtain it Has God Knocked us? Does
He place this chalice to our lips only to snatch it
away?. All are not happy AL are @ not above the
desires are not gratifed, what reason have nc to
expect that the desire for life hereafter will be
Again, le says that We see rule in the natural
system that, when once anything is set In mo-
ton it never stops; it may change its mode or
argues that. man being created, is not to stop at
death. but 80 on in another sphere.
Let us see: Suppose that T am carpenter
and build house, wonll it be impossible for mo
to burn it down-to destroy til Would the
Doctor tscribe less power to God than he is will
ing to concede to one Of His creatures? But
he may Say tho house is hot annihilatod it is
only changed into something else, ashee, etc.
Granted 3; but it is OF no use any longer as 3
house you would no longer SEQ any resemblance
to q house in fact, it would no longer be o
house. So also when God changes man in death.
II be is no longer mun in any sense Of the
word, or il be may no longer bo d man, what is
the good to him or me whether We are to live or
retain all our identity? Certainly not. Thon,
also, this second Argument is fallacy.
Another reason he ascrlbes Why we may be im-
mortal. Biahop Clark, who he says Tas very mat
ter-of-fact man and not likely to be carried away
by any false theory said to his wife aud daughters
just before his DEATH thnt it seemed to him as il
he should be able to DO near them after death !;
ho might not be able to make them aware Of it,
but stlll he should be near them and take cog
uizance Of all they we're doing.
The Doctor neglected to state whether they
had ever been ablo to recognize his presence
since the death Of the Bishop II the wifo and
daughters had seen audhandlcd and ate With him
since, it would prove that the Bishop was right
in his conclnsions; but no such information is
vouchsafed Us. Ii it possible that our hopes Of
life beyond the grave rest on so slight founda-
ton? Would it not have been better for search
to have been mado in the archives Of revelation
in regard to the mntter2 It seems to me that
stronger reasone, more plausible, more in &C
cord with tho mind and feelings Of the educated
man, could have been found there than any ad-
vauced By tho discourse to which reference has
been made. WNpoRN ADAMS SHAW.