The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1896-01-25
OF A FUTURE LlREll?!
Continued from first page:)

| Continued from first page:)
death is, however, Of itself a great results,
and its greatness grows upon. US IL pre-
portion az that living being is ricnly
equipped with faculty. Every attentive
reader, in considering Buffers manage
ment of this subject, must remark how
slightly, in presenting to us his living
agent he puts forward the moral and
affect:onal sides of our nature. Here We
have an army Of faculties, which greatly
enhance the force OF his reasonings from
the nature of the living agent
1 Let us now turn to the argument from
natural Immortality, which includes FOR
tori the question of survival, and with
regard to which we may be naturally led
| to inquire how it is that Butler, having
said so much, has not said still more. He
speaks of natural immortality Of brutes,
and observes that It does not imply their
being endowed with amy capacities of
rational or moral description. He pro-
pounds to us that there may, In the future
| world, be a state Of existence for -us new
and yet natural; and he conceiyes in
general that this cannot reasonably be
denied
With regard to the first of these pass
ages. touching the Immortality OF brrMes,
Butler does not admit It to be a conse-
Queqlce of his teaching with respect to the
living powers, or living being, as existing
in man. With regard to the second it is to
be observed that when he has occasion
! to refer to immortality as it, stands under
the Christian dispensation, he says that
'slife and Immortality are eIninently
brought to light by the gospel" and that
''the great doctrine OF q future state" Is
confirmed by the gospel. The whole argu-
ment of the chapter, is an argument for
the survival of the soul, in which no dis
tnction is drawn between simple sur
have meant to serve as an argument for
Immortality. And yat, la the passage
which l have quoted, his Language as it
| stands is ambiguous. Il. may mean the
denial cannot take place compatible with
the dogma of natural immortality. Or it
| may mean to take tor granted a natural
immortality, and to nrge that as this is
an established. principle, his proposition
cannot possibly be contested @ :.
Which of the two is his meaning? I
have arrived at the conclusion that it is
the first. If this is SO, he makes no asser-
tion of natural Immortality. | have ar
rived at the conclusion that he does not
intend to make any positive assertion
either for or against it, but to hold his
Judgment in reserve. But it is plain that
he has stopped short of an absolute cat
egorical assertion. He argues for future
life as hope, as credibility, as likelihood;
but he does not venture to PROFOUND it as
thing Of dogma or as a certainty. ~
Now, if Butler has not bound himself
hand and foot to the metaphysical princi-
pie OF the souls essential Immortality, of
an immortality for the soul inherent in
it's nature as soul, it was not because he
lived in world to which that doctrine
was in any manner new or strange. On
the contrary, it was, and it had been for
many ages, a standing doctrine OF popu-
ar theology. Nor was recognized phll-
osophy in disaccord with theology.
At a period when there was q DISPOSE
ton in philosophy to exalt time and space
almost to the dignity of the uncreated, it
was little ikely that the natural imn0r-
tality if the soul, supported as to wide
extent it was by the authority of tradi-
mind 1t had indeed received in Eng
land, at the epoch of Buffers activity,
new and weighty conservation. First,
this had come from the Cambridge Pla-
tonists, who set the argument very high.
Before proceeding to adduce proofs OF the
doctrine John Smith writes as follows:
"'Fhe Immortality of the soul doth not
absolutely need any demonstration to
clear it, but might be assumed rather as
principle or postulatiOn, seeing the no
ton of it is apt naturally to insinuare it.
self into the being of the most vulgar
sort of men, All nations have con-
sented in this belief which hath almost
been as vulgarly received as the belief of
a Deity"
The doctrine of indivisibility, as pre-
Guiding death and entailing immortality,
was commended to Butler for acceptance
by an authority nearer to him alike in
time and in association than Smith
namely: DR.. Samuel Clarke. The ac-
ceptance is, however, qualified, not abso-
lutte. The claim for Immortality from
indivisibility, he says, has been argued,
"and for anything appearing to the con-
trary, justly" His own ultimate judg-
ment on the question seems to be held in
reserve. This may warrant an attempt
to map out the position Of the question,
as it would present itself to Buffers eye.
i. A vitality surmounting the particu-
lar crisis of death is one thing; an exist
ence without end is another.
e. We may speak Of an immortality
Of the disembodied spirit, and may com
hine it with or disjoin it from a survival
or resurrection OF the body. In the Sec
ond case it is of the entire man; in the
first it is of part only of the man, al
though Of the chief part.
3. The new life to which death is to
Introduce, the human being may be act
i've, Intelligent, moral, spiritual and may
be placed in an environment accordant
with all these. Or it may be Invested of
any one Of these characteristics, OF OF
all
4. The life Of the unseen world may
be conceived as projected into the furture
only: as it is presented to us by divine
revelation; or it may be projected also
into the past and viewed there in associa-
tien with past eternity:
S. It was when Butler saw personal
identity, as he thought, in danger that he
undertook to deal with the question of
our existence in the unseen word. This
identity is in truth the very core of the
whole subject.
s.. We have to distinguish between a
condition Of deathlessness into which we;
grow by degrees and an Immortality
which grained ESQ to speak, from birth
is already our absolute possession. This
distinction is vital one for those who
do not accept any dogma of Immortality