The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1896-01-25
What OF 4 FUTURE LlFE?!.
Gladstone Discusses the Prospects
and Probabilities of a
Life Beyond.
The Difference Between Survival
and Immortality Properly
Put Forth.
Power of Death to Destroy Living
Beings Is Taken Into
Consideration.

Consideration.
William E. Gladstone, ex-Premier OF
England, contributes to the current issue
pfthe North American Review a profound
article on "The Future Life and the Con-
dition of Man Therein" This is the first
of a series of articles ON the subject. The
statesman-author says IN substance:
The teaching of Bishop Butler with re-
speot to life beyond the grave divides
itself under two heads. The first of these
embraces the likelihoods which can be
collected ont of the course of nature
with with regard 10 the effect Of death upon
our existence This is "a physical or met
sphysical, and in neither aspect moral,
discussion; it occupies the first chapter
: of the analogy There is, however, a
larger strain of teaching, which pervades
the work, but which for the most part is
scattered piecemeal through it, as the
opening up of the general argument into
3 wider spaces gives occasion for it's intro
duction. This relates not to the question
whether we are barred by death from pass
ing into another world, but to the pros
poets of man in that other world; and
discussion not metaphysical, but moral,
which is also one Of extreme interest.
With these two widely separated
branches of the subject it will be appro-,
pirate to deal separately. And now as re-.
CARDS the first. In the first place, the
chapter "On Future Life" contains a
discussion, not upon Immortality, but
upon survival. The inquiry is simply
whether we can pass the bourn into the
undiscovered land, and has no relation to
our condition or the duration of our exist
ence after we have arrived there. In the
eeoond place, as the chapter is plea not
for Immortality, properly so called, but
for persistence of life as against the spe-
cial occasion of death: so It is a plea not
for the survival of the whole man, but
only Of the spiritual, or immaterial part
of man.
In the third place. the condition Of our
author in this first chapter is that OF a
man who has to fight with one of his
hands tied UP. His general discussion is
upon analogies. Butler has before him
facts of nature admitted to stand in GER
tain relation ito an Author of nature. He
has third term in certain facts of moral
government or of revealed religion, and
from these three he has to infer the
fourth. But in his argument on a. future
life the third term, on which he has to
/. build the fourth, is entirely wanting; for,
being precluded from referring to any
divine authority, he has no experimental
facts to adduce with respect to the condi-
tion Of the soul after death.
There are those who say these two
things, survival and immortality, are but
one, and seem to suppose that the case Of
s,,rmount:ng death is like that of obtain
ing passport which will carry us over
the frontier OF some foreign country;
where, this once done, we have no other
:mpediment to apprehend. But this as
sumption OF the identity of survival with
Immortality is a pure assumption and
nothing more. We have no title to postu-
late in linline that power, which may be
SO adjusted or equipped as to face The
contingency of death, and must therefore
be in all respects such as to be certain
Of facing with a like impunity every other
contingency which, for aught we know,
the dimness of the future may enfold in
Its ample bosom.
There IS a fourth observation to be
borne in mind when we set about the con-
sideration Of Buffers chapter. 1t does not
form a necessary part of his general argu-
ment. He might without this chapter,
put in array all the facts experimentally
ascertained which prove the existence in
this world of a government by rewards
and punishments, and the righteous char
acter Of that government. From the open
ing sentences of the chapter he seems to
enter upon it only because he thinks it
needfnl to clear the subject from certain
metaphysical difficulties as to personal
identity, which, unless removed. might
bar his success to the great moral srgu-
ment he desires to introduce. -
Addressing himself to his task under
these circumstances, his argument is
partly negative and partly affirmative.
The first goes to show the futility or in
sufaciency of the presumptions against
survival, which are drawn from the char
acter of death. The second goes to show
or experience that the, soul may survive
SAOSsA1SALiS SS iAhC1lAOOOo VI avn 4AVAA A<hlVA e
death In the first he is eminently sue
cessful. in the second we become sensible
now scarty is the supply of material at his
command.
Let us begin by taking note of his man
ner OF supporting his first contention
namely: that death and the incidents Of
death afford no presumption that we are
eStinguished by it.
: l. 1t is not proved by the immense
change which death undoubtedly makes
IN us. For we know by experience that
vast amounts OF change in ourselves, and
INFERIOR creatures are compatible with
continuity or identical existence We have
no absolute knowledge that the change
erected by death is greater than these
changes e.
There is no ground, from the rea-
son OF the thing to suppose that death
gan destroy our living powers that lis
E 70 say, disable them from perception and
L act!on. For of death in itself we know
s8noth1ng, but only IN certain effects Of it.
Nor is any such ground furnished
4 py the analogy sof nature 8 For Eill no no
II go We know hat becomes Of these
Il bowers simply pass from
III d ~ I d \ 1|llgs