"... There is reason to believe that many who enter upon this controversy, have not a mutual understanding with respect to the point in debate; and that there would be more unanimity of opinion if care were taken to describe accurately the precise nature of the controversy. On this subject we are in special danger of mixing up human traditions with the verities of revelation; and it is, therefore, of the first importance that we distinguish warily the unequivocal utterances of inspired truth from the speculative deductions of purely human science. Here the caveat of Paul may be urged with special propriety,--"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."* Here Philosophy has, for many ages, usurped the chair of the Great Teacher; and her voice has prevailed above the voice of Him that speaketh from heaven. Here the authority of Plato transcends the authority of Christ,--and the dogmas of the Academy, the doctrines of the Bible. We must reverse the Protestant boast in describing the real authority with the Church on this portion of its faith and doctrine, and say, "not Scripture, but tradition." + I am aware that these are grave charges, ...
[page 5-6] and I would not be understood to insinuate that the defenders of the doctrines which I have ventured to impugn, knowingly and designedly displace the highest and only authority. I believe that they revere the supremacy of Christ in his Church quite as much as myself, and would be as ready as I am to abandon whatever shall be proved to be contrary to his doctrine. But while I am anxious not to question the sincerity of those who differ from me, I am equally anxious not to be found abetting, but a culpable withholdment of personal conviction, a system of instruction which my conscience dictates to be radically erroneous. The separate existence of the human soul,--its immateriality, immortality, and conscious personality, are, I believe, the laboured cogitations of human reason, unblest with, and, alas! despite of the teachings of revelation. They are, in my humble opinion, neither more nor less than the perpetuations of Platonic theories in the Christian Church, which found their way hither in the polemic age of ancient Christianity, and which have been borne down the turbid stream of controversial and scholastic theology to out own day.* In proof of this I have only to appeal to the candour of every student of
[page 6-7] Church history, especially of that important part of Church history which embraces the history and development of the doctrines. That the doctrines concerning the human soul as popularly held, are not the doctrines of the Scriptures will be best seen by a careful examination of those passages upon which depends this branch of religious teaching, and to which we propose to advert. Allow me, however, to impress my preliminary caution on the great importance of distinguishing between the teaching of human philosophy, and that of Divine revelation. The question, let it be particularly noted, is not, "What is the human soul,--is it capable of separate existence,--and what is its separate state after death?"* This is a purely philosophical, not a religious inquiry, nor has it anything whatever to do with religion, unless the decisions of philosophy shall be accepted as the affirmations of revealed religion, and be acknowledged as part and parcel of it. To this question Philosophy has given a categorical reply;--the Bible nowhere supposes, nor sug-
[page 7-8] gests such a question as this, and hence it has given no answer. Let this be especially observed.
Every dogmatic assertion touching the human soul as a separate existence,--every predication of its nature, capabilities, and mode of being, is necessarily of no higher value than a human opinion. I say necessarily, because the Bible neither directly nor indirectly, neither by affirmation nor implication, contains the remotest allusion to any of these ideas.
I repeat then, the question is not, "What is the separate state of the soul after deal?" but, "What is the state of man after death?" The former question, if it be a proper question at all, properly belongs to the circle of human science, and must be regarded as partaking of the dubious and unsatisfactory character which pertains to psychological investigation. The soul or spirit of man in the popular sense of a disembodied personality, is an idea nowhere recognised, and is evidently unknown to inspired theology.*
The Bible nowhere regards the soul of man any more than his body as attaching to itself the human personality. When it speaks of man's destiny, and predicates anything concerning it, it has respect to the composite being,--the unique creature, man. Neither the body nor the soul is separately contemplated; but the one intellectual, sensational and corporeal being called man. I have endeavored in another place + to show that whatever may be the qualities and characteristics of [page 8-9] the constituents of man's composite nature, his personality is not involved in either of these constituents separately considered, but in their union; and that in the disunion of the constituents of his being is involved the dissolution of the personality, or the man. Man is an organized being, and like all other organic natures, must owe his existence, we should presume, to his organization. We are not acquainted with any species of organized being, whose individuality survives disorganization; why, therefore, should we suppose, in the absence of any authoritative information, that the case is otherwise with man,--that man retains his individuality after his disorganization? Have we not reason to repudiate an opinion which is contrary to analogy, and without the least shadow of support from Scripture? The Patriarch puts the question in the true theological form, and furnishes a categorical reply at direct variance with the popular creed. "Man giveth up the ghost, and where is he?" Not where is his soul, or spirit, but where is he,--man? To which it is replied, "As the waters fail from the dead, and the flood decayeth and drieth up: so MAN lieth down and riseth not; till the heavens be no more they shal not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep." Can imagery and literal assertion more emphatically declare the complete decease of the being man? and give a more unequivocal reply to the interesting question,--"Where is he,--man, between death and resurrection? The cessation of man's conscious being is yet further implied in the succeeding question, "If a man die, shall he live [page 9-10] again?" To which the Patriarch replies, "All the days of my appointed time will I wait till my change come. Thou shalt call and I will answer thee: thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands."* ..."
- The Generations Gathered and Gathering; or the Scripture Doctrine Concerning Man in Death. by J. Panton Ham (the Elder), Minister of Cooper's Hall Congregational Church, Bristol. London: Longman, Brown, Green, & Co. 1850 - pages 5-10 - The Generations Gathered and Gathering, Or the Scripture Doctrine Concerning Man in Death