{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_30876/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_30876","id":"gutenberg_30876","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30876","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Future life","Immortality"],"text":"Produced by Michael Gray\n\n\n\n\nEternal Life\n\n\n    By Professor\n       Henry\n       Drummond\n\n\nPhiladelphia\nHenry Altemus\n\n\n\nCopyright 1896 by Henry Altemus.\n\n\n\nETERNAL LIFE.\n\n\"This is Life Eternal--that they might know Thee, the True God, and\nJesus Christ whom Thou has sent.\"--_Jesus Christ_.\n\n\"Perfect correspondence would be perfect life. Were there no changes in\nthe environment but such as the organism had adapted changes to meet,\nand were it never to fail in the efficiency with which it met them,\nthere would be eternal existence and eternal knowledge.\"--_Herbert\nSpencer_.\n\nONE of the most startling achievements of recent science is a definition\nof Eternal Life. To the religious mind this is a contribution of immense\nmoment. For eighteen hundred years only one definition of Life Eternal\nwas before the world. Now there are two.\n\nThrough all these centuries revealed religion had this doctrine to\nitself. Ethics had a voice, as well as Christianity, on the question of\nthe _summum bonum_; Philosophy ventured to speculate on the Being of a\nGod. But no source outside Christianity contributed anything to the\ndoctrine of Eternal Life. Apart from Revelation, this great truth was\nunguaranteed. It was the one thing in the Christian system that most\nneeded verification from without, yet none was forthcoming. And never\nhas any further light been thrown upon the question why in its very\nnature the Christian Life should be Eternal. Christianity itself even\nupon this point has been obscure. Its decision upon the bare fact is\nauthoritative and specific. But as to what there is in the Spiritual\nLife necessarily endowing it with the element of Eternity, the maturest\ntheology is all but silent.\n\nIt has been reserved for modern biology at once to defend and illuminate\nthis central truth of the Christian faith. And hence in the interests of\nreligion, practical and evidential, this second and scientific\ndefinition of Eternal Life is to be hailed as an announcement of\ncommanding interest. Why it should not yet have received the recognition\nof religious thinkers--for already it has lain some years unnoticed--is\nnot difficult to understand. The belief in Science as an aid to faith is\nnot yet ripe enough to warrant men in searching there for witnesses to\nthe highest Christian truths. The inspiration of Nature, it is thought,\nextends to the humbler doctrines alone. And yet the reverent inquirer\nwho guides his steps in the right direction may find even now in the\nstill dim twilight of the scientific world much that will illuminate and\nintensify his sublimest faith. Here, at least, comes, and comes\nunbidden, the opportunity of testing the most vital point of the\nChristian system. Hitherto the Christian philosopher has remained\ncontent with the scientific evidence against Annihilation. Or, with\nButler, he has reasoned from the Metamorphoses of Insects to a future\nlife. Or again, with the authors of \"The Unseen Universe,\" the apologist\nhas constructed elaborate, and certainly impressive, arguments upon the\nLaw of Continuity. But now we may draw nearer. For the first time\nScience touches Christianity _positively_ on the doctrine of\nImmortality. It confronts us with an actual definition of an Eternal\nLife, based on a full and rigidly accurate examination of the necessary\nconditions. Science does not pretend that it can fulfil these\nconditions. Its votaries make no claim to possess the Eternal Life. It\nsimply postulates the requisite conditions without concerning itself\nwhether any organism should ever appear, or does now exist, which might\nfulfil them. The claim of religion, on the other hand, is that there are\norganisms which possess Eternal Life. And the problem for us to solve is\nthis: Do those who profess to possess Eternal Life fulfil the conditions\nrequired by Science, or are they different conditions? In a word, Is the\nChristian conception of Eternal Life scientific?\n\nIt may be unnecessary to notice at the outset that the definition of\nEternal Life drawn up by Science was framed without reference to\nreligion. It must indeed have been the last thought with the thinker to\nwhom we chiefly owe it, that in unfolding the conception of a Life in\nits very nature necessarily eternal, he was contributing to Theology.\n\nMr. Herbert Spencer--for it is to him we owe it--would be the first to\nadmit the impartiality of his definition; and from the connection in\nwhich it occurs in his writings, it is obvious that religion was not\neven present to his mind. He is analyzing with minute care the relations\nbetween Environment and Life. He unfolds the principle according to\nwhich Life is high or low, long or short. He shows why organisms live\nand why they die. And finally he defines a condition of things in which\nan organism would never die--in which it would enjoy a perpetual and\nperfect Life. This to him is, of course, but a speculation. Life Eternal\nis a biological conceit. The conditions necessary to an Eternal Life do\nnot exist in the natural world. So that the definition is altogether\nimpartial and independent. A Perfect Life, to Science, is simply a thing\nwhich is theoretically possible--like a Perfect Vacuum.\n\nBefore giving, in so many words, the definition of Mr. Herbert Spencer,\nit will render it fully intelligible if we gradually lead up to it by a\nbrief rehearsal of the few and simple biological facts on which it is\nbased. In considering the subject of Death, we have formerly seen that\nthere are degrees of Life. By this is meant that some lives have more\nand fuller correspondence with Environment than others. The amount of\ncorrespondence, again, is determined by the greater or less complexity\nof the organism. Thus a simple organism like the Amoeba is possessed of\nvery few correspondences. It is a mere sac of transparent structureless\njelly for which organization has done almost nothing, and hence it can\nonly communicate with the smallest possible area of Environment. An\ninsect, in virtue of its more complex structure, corresponds with a\nwider area. Nature has endowed it with special faculties for reaching\nout to the Environment on many sides; it has more life than the Amoeba.\nIn other words, it is a higher animal. Man again, whose body is still\nfurther differentiated, or broken up into different correspondences,\nfinds himself _en rapport_ with his surroundings to a further extent.\nAnd therefore he is higher still, more living still. And this law, that\nthe degree of Life varies with the degree of correspondence, holds to\nthe minutest detail throughout the entire range of living things. Life\nbecomes fuller and fuller, richer and richer, more and more sensitive\nand responsive to an ever-widening Environment as we rise in the chain\nof being.\n\nNow it will speedily appear that a distinct relation exists, and must\nexist, between complexity and longevity. Death being brought about by\nthe failure of an organism to adjust itself to some change in the\nEnvironment, it follows that those organisms which are able to adjust\nthemselves most readily and successfully will live the longest. They\nwill continue time after time to effect the appropriate adjustment, and\ntheir power of doing so will be exactly proportionate to their\ncomplexity--that is, to the amount of Environment they can control with\ntheir correspondences. There are, for example, in the Environment of\nevery animal certain things which are directly or indirectly dangerous\nto Life. If its equipment of correspondences is not complete enough to\nenable it to avoid these dangers in all possible circumstances, it must\nsooner or later succumb. The organism then with the most perfect set of\ncorrespondences, that is, the highest and most complex organism, has an\nobvious advantage over less complex forms. It can adjust itself more\nperfectly and frequently. But this is just the biological way of saying\nthat it can live the longest. And hence the relation between complexity\nand longevity may be expressed thus--the most complex organisms are the\nlongest lived.\n\nTo state and illustrate the proposition conversely may make the point\nstill further clear. The less highly organized an animal is, the less\nwill be its chance of remaining in lengthened correspondence with its\nEnvironment. At some time or other in its career circumstances are sure\nto occur to which the comparatively immobile organism finds itself\nstructurally unable to respond. Thus a _Medusa_ tossed ashore by a wave,\nfinds itself so out of correspondence with its new surroundings that its\nlife must pay the forfeit. Had it been able by internal change to adapt\nitself to external change--to correspond sufficiently with the new\nenvironment, as for example to crawl, as an eel would have done, back\ninto that environment with which it had completer correspondence--its\nlife might have been spared. But had this happened it would continue to\nlive henceforth only so long as it could continue in correspondence with\nall the circumstances in which it might find itself. Even if, however,\nit became complex enough to resist the ordinary and direct dangers of\nits environment, it might still be out of correspondence with others. A\nnaturalist for instance, might take advantage of its want of\ncorrespondence with particular sights and sounds to capture it for his\ncabinet, or the sudden dropping of a yacht's anchor or the turn of a\nscrew might cause its untimely death.\n\nAgain, in the case of a bird in virtue of its more complex organization,\nthere is command over a much larger area of environment. It can take\nprecautions such as the _Medusa_ could not; it has increased facilities\nfor securing food; its adjustments all round are more complex; and\ntherefore it ought to be able to maintain its Life for a longer period.\nThere is still a large area, however, over which it has no control. Its\npower of internal change is not complete enough to afford it perfect\ncorrespondence with all external changes, and its tenure of Life is to\nthat extent insecure. Its correspondence, moreover, is limited even with\nregard to those external conditions with which it has been partially\nestablished. Thus a bird in ordinary circumstances has no difficulty in\nadapting itself to changes of temperature, but if these are varied\nbeyond the point at which its capacity of adjustment begins to fail--for\nexample, during an extreme winter--the organism being unable to meet the\ncondition must perish. The human organism, on the other hand, can\nrespond to this external condition, as well as to countless other\nvicissitudes under which lower forms would inevitably succumb. Man's\nadjustments are to the largest known area of Environment, and hence he\nought to be able furthest to prolong his Life.\n\nIt becomes evident, then, that as we ascend in the scale of Life we rise\nalso in the scale of longevity. The lowest organisms are, as a rule,\nshortlived, and the rate of mortality diminishes more or less regularly\nas we ascend in the animal scale. So extraordinary indeed is the\nmortality among lowly-organized forms that in most cases a compensation\nis actually provided, nature endowing them with a marvellously increased\nfertility in order to guard against absolute extinction. Almost all\nlower forms are furnished not only with great reproductive powers, but\nwith different methods of propagation, by which, in various\ncircumstances, and in an incredibly short time, the species can be\nindefinitely multiplied. Ehrenberg found that by the repeated\nsubdivisions of a single _Paramecium_, no fewer than 268,000,000 similar\norganisms might be produced in one month. This power steadily decreases\nas we rise higher in the scale, until forms are reached in which one,\ntwo, or at most three, come into being at a birth. It decreases, however\nbecause it is no longer needed. These forms have a much longer lease of\nLife. And it may be taken as a rule, although it has exceptions, that\ncomplexity in animal organisms is always associated with longevity.\n\nIt may be objected that these illustrations are taken merely from morbid\nconditions. But whether the Life be cut short by accident or by disease\nthe principle is the same. All dissolution is brought about practically\nin the same way. A certain condition in the Environment fails to be met\nby a corresponding condition in the organism, and this is death. And\nconversely the more an organism in virtue of its complexity can adapt\nitself to all the parts of its Environment, the longer it will live. \"It\nis manifest _a priori_,\" says Mr. Herbert Spencer, \"that since changes\nin the physical state of the environment, as also those mechanical\nactions and those variations of available food which occur in it, are\nliable to stop the processes going on in the organism; and since the\nadaptive changes in the organism have the effects of directly or\nindirectly counterbalancing these changes in the environment, it follows\nthat the life of the organism will be short or long, low or high,\naccording to the extent to which changes in the environment are met by\ncorresponding changes in the organism. Allowing a margin for\nperturbations, the life will continue only while the correspondence\ncontinues; the completeness of the life will be proportionate to the\ncompleteness of the correspondence; and the life will be perfect only\nwhen the correspondence is perfect.\" [1]\n\n[1] \"Principles of Biology,\" p. 82.\n\nWe are now all but in sight of our scientific definition of Eternal\nLife. The desideratum is an organism with a correspondence of a very\nexceptional kind. It must lie beyond the reach of those \"mechanical\nactions\" and those \"variations of available food,\" which are \"liable to\nstop the processes going on in the organism.\" Before we reach an Eternal\nLife we must pass beyond that point at which all ordinary\ncorrespondences inevitably cease. We must find an organism so high and\ncomplex, that at some point in its development it shall have added a\ncorrespondence which organic death is powerless to arrest. We must, in\nshort, pass beyond that finite region where the correspondences depend\non evanescent and material media, and enter a further region where the\nEnvironment corresponded with is itself Eternal. Such an Environment\nexists. The Environment of the Spiritual world is outside the influence\nof these \"mechanical actions,\" which sooner or later interrupt the\nprocesses going on in all finite organisms. If then we can find an\norganism which has established a correspondence with the spiritual\nworld, that correspondence will possess the elements of eternity--\nprovided only one other condition be fulfilled.\n\nThat condition is that the Environment be perfect. If it is not perfect,\nif it is not the highest, if it is endowed with the finite quality of\nchange, there can be no guarantee that the Life of its correspondents\nwill be eternal. Some change might occur in it which the correspondents\nhad no adaptive changes to meet, and Life would cease. But grant a\nspiritual organism in perfect correspondence with a perfect spiritual\nEnvironment, and the conditions necessary to Eternal Life are satisfied.\n\nThe exact terms of Mr. Herbert Spencer's definition of Eternal Life may\nnow be given. And it will be seen that they include essentially the\nconditions here laid down. \"Perfect correspondence would be perfect\nlife. Were there no changes in the environment but such as the organism\nhad adapted changes to meet, and were it never to fail in the efficiency\nwith which it met them, there would be eternal existence and eternal\nknowledge.\" [1] Reserving the question as to the possible fulfilment of\nthese conditions, let us turn for a moment to the definition of Eternal\nLife laid down by Christ. Let us place it alongside the definition of\nScience, and mark the points of contact. Uninterrupted correspondence\nwith a perfect Environment is Eternal Life according to Science. \"This\nis Life Eternal,\" said Christ, \"that they may know Thee, the only true\nGod, and Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent.\" [2] Life Eternal is to know\nGod. To know God is to \"correspond\" with God. To correspond with God is\nto correspond with a Perfect Environment. And the organism which attains\nto this, in the nature of things must live for ever. Here is \"eternal\nexistence and eternal knowledge.\"\n\n[1] \"Principles of Biology,\" p. 88.\n[2] John xvii.\n\nThe main point of agreement between the scientific and the religious\ndefinition is that Life consists in a peculiar and personal relation\ndefined as a \"correspondence.\" This conception, that Life consists in\ncorrespondences, has been so abundantly illustrated already that it is\nnow unnecessary to discuss it further. All Life indeed consists\nessentially in correspondences with various Environments. The artist's\nlife is a correspondence with art; the musician's with music. To cut\nthem off from these Environments is in that relation to cut off their\nLife. To be cut off from all Environment is death. To find a new\nEnvironment again and cultivate relation with it is to find a new Life.\nTo live is to correspond, and to correspond is to live. So much is true\nin Science. But it is also true in Religion. And it is of great\nimportance to observe that to Religion also the conception of Life is a\ncorrespondence. No truth of Christianity has been more ignorantly or\nwilfully travestied than the doctrine of Immortality. The popular idea,\nin spite of a hundred protests, is that Eternal Life is to live forever.\nA single glance at the _locus classicus_, might have made this error\nimpossible. There we are told that Life Eternal is not to live. This is\nLife Eternal--_to know_. And yet--and it is a notorious instance of the\nfact that men who are opposed to Religion will take their conceptions of\nits profoundest truths from mere vuglar perversions--this view still\nrepresents to many cultivated men the Scriptural doctrine of Eternal\nLife. From time to time the taunt is thrown at Religion, not unseldom\nfrom lips which Science ought to have taught more caution, that the\nFuture Life of Christianity is simply a prolonged existence, an eternal\nmonotony, a blind and indefinite continuance of being. The Bible never\ncould commit itself to any such empty platitude; nor could Christianity\never offer to the world a hope so colorless. Not that Eternal Life has\nnothing to do with everlastingness. That is part of the conception. And\nit is this aspect of the question that first arrests us in the field of\nScience. But even Science has more in its definition than longevity. It\nhas a correspondence and an Environment; and although it cannot fill up\nthese terms for Religion, it can indicate at least the nature of the\nrelation, the kind of thing that is meant by Life. Science speaks to us\nindeed of much more than numbers of years. It defines degrees of Life.\nIt explains a widening Environment. It unfolds the relation between a\nwidening Environment and increasing complexity in organisms. And if it\nhas no absolute contribution to the content of Religion, its analogies\nare not limited to a point. It yields to Immortality, and this is the\nmost that Science can do in any case, the broad framework for a\ndoctrine.\n\n\nThe further definition, moreover, of this correspondence as _knowing_ is\nin the highest degree significant. Is not this the precise quality in an\nEternal correspondence which the analogies of Science would prepare us\nto look for? Longevity is associated with complexity. And complexity in\norganisms is manifested by the successive addition of correspondences,\neach richer and larger than those which have gone before. The\ndifferentiation, therefore, of the spiritual organism ought to be\nsignalized by the addition of the highest possible correspondence. It is\nnot essential to the idea that the correspondence should be altogether\nnovel; it is necessary rather that it should not. An altogether new\ncorrespondence appearing suddenly without shadow or prophecy would be a\nviolation of continuity. What we should expect would be something new,\nand yet something that we were already prepared for. We should look for\na further development in harmony with current developments; the\nextension of the last and highest correspondence in a new and higher\ndirection. And this is exactly what we have. In the world with which\nbiology deals, Evolution culminates in Knowledge.\n\nAt whatever point in the zoological scale this correspondence, or set of\ncorrespondences, begins, it is certain there is nothing higher. In its\nstunted infancy merely, when we meet with its rudest beginnings in\nanimal intelligence, it is a thing so wonderful, as to strike every\nthoughtful and reverent observer with awe. Even among the invertebrates\nso marvellously are these or kindred powers displayed, that naturalists\ndo not hesitate now, on the ground of intelligence at least, to classify\nsome of the humblest creatures next to man himself. [1] Nothing in\nnature, indeed, is so unlike the rest of nature, so prophetic of what is\nbeyond it, so supernatural. And as manifested in Man who crowns creation\nwith his all-embracing consciousness, there is but one word to describe\nhis knowledge; it is Divine. If then from this point there is to be any\nfurther Evolution, this surely must be the correspondence in which it\nshall take place? This correspondence is great enough to demand\ndevelopment; and yet it is little enough to need it. The magnificence of\nwhat it has achieved relatively, is the pledge of the possibility of\nmore; the insignificance of its conquest absolutely involves the\nprobability of still richer triumphs. If anything, in short, in humanity\nis to go on it must be this. Other correspondences may continue\nlikewise; others, again, we can well afford to leave behind. But this\ncannot cease. This correspondence--or this set of correspondences, for\nit is very complex--is it not that to which men with one consent would\nattach Eternal Life? Is there anything else to which they would attach\nit? Is anything better conceivable, anything worthier, fuller, nobler,\nanything which would represent a higher form of Evolution or offer a\nmore perfect ideal for an Eternal Life?\n\n[1] _Vide_ Sir John Lubbock's \"Ants, Bees, and Wasps,\" pp. 1, 181.\n\nBut these are questions of quality; and the moment we pass from quantity\nto quality we leave Science behind. In the vocabulary of Science,\nEternity is only the fraction of a word. It means mere everlastingness.\nTo Religion, on the other hand, Eternity has little to do with time. To\ncorrespond with the God of Science, the Eternal Unknowable, would be\neverlasting existence; to correspond with \"the true God and Jesus\nChrist,\" is Eternal Life. The quality of the Eternal Life alone makes\nthe heaven; mere everlastingness might be no boon. Even the brief span\nof the temporal life is too long for those who spend its years in\nsorrow. Time itself, let alone Eternity, is all but excruciating to\nDoubt. And many besides Schopenhauer have secretly regarded\nconsciousness as the hideous mistake and malady of Nature. Therefore we\nmust not only have quantity of years, to speak in the language of the\npresent, but quality of correspondence. When we leave Science behind,\nthis correspondence also receives a higher name. It becomes communion.\nOther names there are for it, religious and theological. It may be\nincluded in a general expression, Faith; or we may call it by a personal\nand specific term, Love. For the knowing of a Whole so great involves\nthe co-operation of many parts.\n\nCommunion with God--can it be demonstrated in terms of Science that this\nis a correspondence which will never break? We do not appeal to Science\nfor such a testimony. We have asked for its conception of an Eternal\nLife; and we have received for answer that Eternal Life would consist in\na correspondence which should never cease, with an Environment which\nshould never pass away. And yet what would Science demand of a perfect\ncorrespondence that is not met by this, _the knowing of God?_ There is\nno other correspondence which could satisfy one at least of the\nconditions. Not one could be named which would not bear on the face of\nit the mark and pledge of its mortality. But this, to know God, stands\nalone. To know God, to be linked with God, to be linked with Eternity--\nif this is not the \"eternal existence\" of biology, what can more nearly\napproach it? And yet we are still a great way off--to establish a\ncommunication with the Eternal is not to secure Eternal Life. It must be\nassumed that the communication could be sustained. And to assume this\nwould be to beg the question. So that we have still to prove Eternal\nLife. But let it be again repeated, we are not here seeking proofs. We\nare seeking light. We are merely reconnoitering from the furthest\npromontory of Science if so be that through the haze we may discern the\noutline of a distant coast and come to some conclusion as to the\npossibility of landing.\n\nBut, it may be replied, it is not open to any one handling the question\nof Immortality from the side of Science to remain neutral as to the\nquestion of fact. It is not enough to announce that he has no addition\nto make to the positive argument. This may be permitted with reference\nto other points of contact between Science and Religion, but not with\nthis. We are told this question is settled--that there is no positive\nside. Science meets the entire conception of Immortality with a direct\nnegative. In the face of a powerful consensus against even the\npossibility of a Future Life, to content oneself with saying that\nScience pretended to no argument in favor of it would be at once\nimpertinent and dishonest. We must therefore devote ourselves for a\nmoment to the question of possibility.\n\nThe problem is, with a material body and a mental organization\ninseparably connected with it, to bridge the grave. Emotion, volition,\nthought itself, are functions of the brain. When the brain is impaired,\nthey are impaired. When the brain is not, they are not. Everything\nceases with the dissolution of the material fabric; muscular activity\nand mental activity perish alike. With the pronounced positive\nstatements on this point from many departments of modern Science we are\nall familiar. The fatal verdict is recorded by a hundred hands and with\nscarcely a shadow of qualification. \"Unprejudiced philosophy is\ncompelled to reject the idea of an individual immortality and of a\npersonal continuance after death. With the decay and dissolution of its\nmaterial substratum, through which alone it has acquired a conscious\nexistence and become a person, and upon which it was dependent, the\nspirit must cease to exist.\" [l] To the same effect, Vogt: \"Physiology\ndecides definitely and categorically against individual immortality, as\nagainst any special existence of the soul. The soul does not enter the\nfoetus like the evil spirit into persons possessed, but is a product of\nthe development of the brain, just as muscular activity is a product of\nmuscular development, and secretion a product of glandular development.\"\nAfter a careful review of the position of recent Science with regard to\nthe whole doctrine, Mr. Graham sums up thus: \"Such is the argument of\nScience, seemingly decisive against a future Life. As we listen to her\narray of syllogisms, our hearts die within us. The hopes of men, placed\nin one scale to be weighed, seem to fly up against the massive weight of\nher evidence, placed in the other. It seems as if all our arguments were\nvain and unsubstantial, as if our future expectations were the foolish\ndreams of children, as if there could not be any other possible verdict\narrived at upon the evidence brought forward.\" [2]\n\n[1] Buechner: \"Force and Matter,\" 3d ed., p. 232.\n[2] \"The Creed of Science,\" p. 169.\n\nCan we go on in the teeth of so real an obstruction? Has not our own\nweapon turned against us, Science abolishing with authoritative hand the\nvery truth we are asking it to define?\n\nWhat the philosopher has to throw into the other scale can be easily\nindicated. Generally speaking, he demurs to the dogmatism of the\nconclusion. That mind and brain react, that the mental and the\nphysiological processes are related, and very intimately related, is\nbeyond controversy. But how they are related, he submits, is still\naltogether unknown. The correlation of mind and brain do not involve\ntheir identity. And not a few authorities accordingly have consistently\nhesitated to draw any conclusion at all. Even Buechner's statement turns\nout, on close examination, to be tentative in the extreme. In prefacing\nhis chapter on Personal Continuance, after a single sentence on the\ndependence of the soul and its manifestations upon a material\nsubstratum, he remarks, \"Though we are unable to form a definite idea as\nto the _how_ of this connection, we are still by these facts justified\nin asserting, that the mode of this connection renders it _apparently_\nimpossible that they should continue to exist separately.\" [1] There is,\ntherefore, a flaw at this point in the argument for materialism. It may\nnot help the spiritualist in the least degree positively. He may be as\nfar as ever from a theory of how consciousness could continue without\nthe material tissue. But his contention secures for him the right of\nspeculation. The path beyond may lie in hopeless gloom; but it is not\nbarred. He may bring forward his theory if he will. And this is\nsomething. For a permission to go on is often the most that Science can\ngrant to Religion.\n\n[1] \"Force and Matter,\" p. 231.\n\nMen have taken advantage of this loophole in various ways. And though it\ncannot be said that these speculations offer us more than a probability,\nthis is still enough to combine with the deep-seated expectation in the\nbosom of mankind and give fresh lustre to the hope of a future life.\nWhether we find relief in the theory of a simple dualism; whether with\nUlrici we further define the soul as an invisible enswathement of the\nbody, material yet non-atomic; whether, with the \"Unseen Universe,\" we\nare helped by the spectacle of known forms of matter shading off into an\nevergrowing subtilty, mobility, and immateriality; or whether, with\nWundt, we regard the soul as \"the ordered unity of many elements,\" it is\ncertain  that shapes can be given to the conception of a correspondence\nwhich shall bridge the grave such as to satisfy minds too much\naccustomed to weigh evidence to put themselves off with fancies.\n\nBut whether the possibilities of physiology or the theories of\nphilosophy do or do not substantially assist us in realizing\nImmortality, is to Religion, to Religion at least regarded from the\npresent point of view, of inferior moment. The fact of Immortality rests\nfor us on a different basis. Probably, indeed, after all the Christian\nphilosopher never engaged himself in a more superfluous task than in\nseeking along physiological lines to find room for a soul. The theory of\nChristianity has only to be fairly stated to make manifest its thorough\nindependence of all the usual speculations on immortality. The theory is\nnot that thought, volition, or emotion, as such are to survive the\ngrave. The difficulty of holding a doctrine is this form, in spite of\nwhat has been advanced to the contrary, in spite of the hopes and wishes\nof mankind, in spite of all the scientific and philosophical attempts to\nmake it tenable, is still profound. No secular theory of personal\ncontinuance, as even Butler acknowledged, does not equally demand the\neternity of the brute. No secular theory defines the point in the chain\nof Evolution at which organisms become endowed with Immortality. No\nsecular theory explains the condition of the endowment, nor indicates\nits goal. And if we have nothing more to fan hope than the unexplored\nmystery of the whole region, or the unknown remainders among the\npotencies of Life, then, as those who have \"hope only in this world,\" we\nare \"of all men the most miserable.\"\n\nWhen we turn, on the other hand, to the doctrine as it came from the\nlips of Christ, we find ourselves in an entirely different region. He\nmakes no attempt to project the material into the immaterial. The old\nelements, however refined and subtle as to their matter, are not in\nthemselves to inherit the Kingdom of God. That which is flesh is flesh.\nInstead of attaching Immortality to the natural organism, He introduces\na new and original factor which none of the secular, and few even of the\ntheological theories, seem to take sufficiently into account. To\nChristanity, \"he that hath the Son of God hath Life, and he that hath\nnot the Son hath not Life.\" This, as we take it, defines the\ncorrespondence which is to bridge the grave. This is the clue to the\nnature of the Life that lies at the back of the spiritual organism. And\nthis is the true solution of the mystery of Eternal Life.\n\nThere lies a something at the back of the correspondences of the\nspiritual organism--just as there lies a something at the back of the\nnatural correspondence. To say that Life is a correspondence is only to\nexpress the partial truth. There is something behind. Life manifests\nitself in correspondences. But what determines them? The organism\nexhibits a variety of correspondences. What organizes them? As in the\nnatural, so in the spiritual, there is a Principle of Life. We cannot\nget rid of that term. However clumsy, however provisional, however much\na mere cloak for ignorance, Science as yet is unable to dispense with\nthe idea of a Principle of Life. We must work with the word till we get\na better. Now that which determines the correspondence of the spiritual\norganism is a Principle of Spiritual Life. It is a new and Divine\nPossession. He that hath the Son hath Life; conversely, he that hath\nLife hath the Son. And this indicates at once the quality and the\nquantity of the correspondence which is to bridge the grave. He that\nhath Life hath _the Son_. He possesses the Spirit of the Son. That\nSpirit is, so to speak, organized within him by the Son. It is the\nmanifestation of the new nature--of which more anon. The fact to note at\npresent is that this is not an organic correspondence, but a spiritual\ncorrespondence. It comes not from generation, but from regeneration. The\nrelation between the spiritual man and his Environment is, in\ntheological language, a filial relation. With the new Spirit, the filial\ncorrespondence, he knows the Father and this is Life Eternal. This is\nnot only the real relation, but the only possible relation: \"Neither\nknoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son\nwill reveal Him.\" And this on purely natural grounds. It takes the\nDivine to know the Divine--but in no more mysterious sense than it takes\nthe human to understand the human. The analogy, indeed, for the whole\nfield here has been finely expressed already by Paul: \"What man,\" he\nasks, \"knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in\nhim? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.\nNow we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which\nis of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of\nGod.\" [1]\n\n[1] 1 Cor. ii. 11, 12.\n\nIt were idle, such being the quality of the new relation, to add that\nthis also contains the guarantee of its eternity. Here at last is a\ncorrespondence which will never cease. Its powers in bridging the grave\nhave been tried. The correspondence of the spiritual man possesses the\nsupernatural virtues of the Resurrection and the Life. It is known by\nformer experiment to have survived the \"changes in the physical state of\nthe environment,\" and those \"mechanical actions\" and \"variations of\navailable food,\" which Mr. Herbert Spencer tells us are \"liable to stop\nthe processes going on in the organism.\" In short, this is a\ncorrespondence which at once satisfies the demands of Science and\nReligion. In mere quantity it is different from every other\ncorrespondence known. Setting aside everything else in Religion,\neverything adventitious, local, and provisional; dissecting into the\nbone and marrow we find this--a correspondence which can never break\nwith an Environment which can never change. Here is a relation\nestablished with Eternity. The passing years lay no limiting hand on it.\nCorruption injures it not. It survives Death. It, and it only, will\nstretch beyond the grave and be found inviolate--\n\n      \"When the moon is old,\n      And the stars are cold,\n      And the books of the Judgment-day unfold.\"\n\nThe misgiving which will creep sometimes over the brightest faith has\nalready received its expression and its rebuke: \"Who shall separate us\nfrom the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution,\nor famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?\" Shall these \"changes in\nthe physical state of the environment\" which threaten death to the\nnatural man destroy the spiritual? Shall death, or life, or angels, or\nprincipalities, or powers, arrest or tamper with his eternal\ncorrespondences? \"Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors\nthrough Him that loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death, nor\nlife, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present,\nnor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall\nbe able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus\nour Lord.\" [1]\n\n[1] Rom. viii. 35-39.\n\nIt may seem an objection to some that the \"perfect correspondence\"\nshould come to man in so extraordinary a way. The earlier stages in the\ndoctrine are promising enough ; they are entirely in line with Nature.\nAnd if Nature had also furnished the \"perfect correspondence\" demanded\nfor an Eternal Life the position might be unassailable. But this sudden\nreference to a something outside the natural Environment destroys the\ncontinuity, and discovers a permanent weakness in the whole theory?\n\nTo which there is a twofold reply. In the first place, to go outside\nwhat we call Nature is not to go outside Environment. Nature, the\nnatural Environment, is only a part of Environment. There is another\nlarge part which, though some profess to have no correspondence with it,\nis not on that account unreal, or even unnatural. The mental and moral\nworld is unknown to the plant. But it is real. It cannot be affirmed\neither that it is unnatural to the plant; although it might be said that\nfrom the point of view of the Vegetable Kingdom it was _supernatural_.\nThings are natural or supernatural simply according to where one stands.\nMan is supernatural to the mineral; God is supernatural to the man. When\na mineral is seized upon by the living plant and elevated to the organic\nkingdom, no tresspass against Nature is committed. It merely enters a\nlarger Environment, which before was supernatural to it, but which now\nis entirely natural. When the heart of a man, again, is seized upon by\nthe quickening Spirit of God, no further violence is done to natural\nlaw. It is another case of the inorganic, so to speak, passing into the\norganic.\n\nBut, in the second place, it is complained as if it were an enormity in\nitself that the spiritual correspondence should be furnished from the\nspiritual world. And to this the answer lies in the same direction.\nCorrespondence in any case is the gift of Environment. The natural\nEnvironment gives men their natural faculties; the spiritual affords\nthem their spiritual faculties. It is natural for the spiritual\nEnvironment to supply the spiritual faculties; it would be quite\nunnatural for the natural Environment to do it. The natural law of\nBiogenesis forbids it; the moral fact that the finite cannot comprehend\nthe Infinite is against it; the spiritual principle that flesh and blood\ncannot inherit the kingdom of God renders it absurd. Not, however, that\nthe spiritual faculties are, as it were, manufactured in the spiritual\nworld and supplied ready-made to the spiritual organism--forced upon it\nas an external equipment. This certainly is not involved in saying that\nthe spiritual faculties are furnished by the spiritual world. Organisms\nare not added to by accretion, as in the case of minerals, but by\ngrowth. And the spiritual faculties are organized in the spiritual\nprotoplasm of the soul, just as other faculties are organized in the\nprotoplasm of the body. The plant is made of materials which have once\nbeen inorganic. An organizing principle not belonging to their kingdom\nlays hold of them and elaborates them until they have correspondences\nwith the kingdom to which the organizing principle belonged. Their\noriginal organizing principle, if it can be called by this name, was\nCrystallization; so that we have now a distinctly foreign power\norganizing in totally new and higher directions. In the spiritual world,\nsimilarly, we find an organizing principle at work among the materials\nof the organic kingdom, per forming a further miracle, but not a\ndifferent kind of miracle, producing organizations of a novel kind, but\nnot by a novel method. The second process, in fact, is simply what an\nenlightened evolutionist would have expected from the first. It marks\nthe natural and legitimate progress of the development. And this in the\nline of the true Evolution--not the _linear_ Evolution, which would look\nfor the development of the natural man through powers already inherent,\nas if one were to look to Crystallization to accomplish the development\nof the mineral into the plant,--but that larger form of Evolution which\nincludes among its factors the double Law of Biogenesis and the immense\nfurther truth that this involves.\n\nWhat is further included in this complex correspondence we shall have\nopportunity to illustrate afterwards. [1] Meantime let it be noted on\nwhat the Christian argument for Immortality really rests. It stands upon\nthe pedestal on which the theologian rests the whole of historical\nChristianity--the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.\n\n[1] _Vide_ \"Conformity to Type,\" page 287.\n\nIt ought to be placed in the forefront of all Christian teaching that\nChrist's mission on earth was to give men Life. \"I am come,\" He said,\n\"that ye might have Life, and that ye might have it more abundantly.\"\nAnd that He meant literal Life, literal spiritual and Eternal Life, is\nclear from the whole course of His teaching and acting. To impose a\nmetaphorical meaning on the commonest word of the New Testament is to\nviolate every canon of interpretation, and at the same time to charge\nthe greatest of teachers with persistently mystifying His hearers by an\nunusual use of so exact a vehicle for expressing definite thought as the\nGreek language, and that on the most momentous subject of which He ever\nspoke to men. It is a canon of interpretation, according to Alford, that\n\"a figurative sense of words is never admissible except when required by\nthe context.\" The context, in most cases, is not only directly\nunfavorable to a figurative meaning, but in innumerable instances in\nChrist's teaching Life is broadly contrasted with Death. In the teaching\nof the apostles, again, we find that, without exception, they accepted\nthe term in its simple literal sense. Reuss defines the apostolic belief\nwith his usual impartiality when--and the quotation is doubly pertinent\nhere--he discovers in the apostle's conception of Life, first, \"the idea\nof a real existence, an existence such as is proper to God and to the\nWord; an imperishable existence--that is to say, not subject to the\nvicissitudes and imperfections of the finite world. This primary idea is\nrepeatedly expressed, at least in a negative form; it leads to a\ndoctrine of immortality, or, to speak more correctly, of life, far\nsurpassing any that had been expressed in the formulas of the current\nphilosophy or theology, and resting upon premises and conceptions\naltogether different. In fact, it can dispense both with the\nphilosophical thesis of the immateriality or indestructibility of the\nhuman soul, and with the theologicial thesis of a miraculous corporeal\nreconstruction of our person; theses, the first of which is altogether\nforeign to the religion of the Bible, and the second absolutely opposed\nto reason.\" Second, \"the idea of life, as it is conceived in this\nsystem, implies the idea of a power, an operation, a communication,\nsince this life no longer remains, so to speak, latent or passive in God\nand in the Word, but through them reaches the believer. It is not a\nmental somnolent thing; it is not a plant without fruit; it is a germ\nwhich is to find fullest development.\" [1]\n\n[1] \"History of Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age,\" vol. ii. p.\n496.\n\nIf we are asked to define more clearly what is meant by this mysterious\nendowment of Life, we again hand over the difficulty to Science. When\nScience can define the Natural Life and the Physical Force we may hope\nfor further clearness on the nature and action of the Spiritual Powers.\nThe effort to detect the living Spirit must be at least as idle as the\nattempt to subject protoplasm to microscopic examination in the hope of\ndiscovering Life. We are warned, also, not to expect too much. \"Thou\ncanst not tell whence it cometh or whither it goeth.\" This being its\nquality, when the Spiritual Life is discovered in the laboratory it will\npossibly be time to give it up altogether. It may say, as Socrates of\nhis soul, \"You may bury me--if you can catch me.\"\n\nScience never corroborates a spiritual truth without illuminating it.\nThe threshold of Eternity is a place where many shadows meet. And the\nlight of Science here, where everything is so dark, is welcome a\nthousand times. Many men would be religious if they knew where to begin;\nmany would be more religious if they were sure where it would end. It is\nnot indifference that keeps some men from God, but ignorance. \"Good\nMaster, what must I do to inherit Eternal Life?\" is still the deepest\nquestion of the age. What is Religion? What am I to believe? What seek\nwith all my heart and soul and mind?--this is the imperious question\nsent up to consciousness from the depths of being in all earnest hours;\nsent down again, alas, with many of us, time after time, unanswered.\nInto all our thought and work and reading this question pursues us. But\nthe theories are rejected one by one; the great books are returned sadly\nto their shelves, the years pass, and the problem remains unsolved. The\nconfusion of tongues here is terrible. Every day a new authority\nannounces himself. Poets, philosophers, preachers, try their hand on us\nin turn. New prophets arise, and beseech us for our soul's sake to give\near to them--at last in an hour of inspiration they have discovered the\nfinal truth. Yet the doctrine of yesterday is challenged by a fresh\nphilosophy to-day; and the creed of to-day will fall in turn before the\ncriticism of to-morrow. Increase of knowledge increaseth sorrow. And at\nlength the conflicting truths, like the beams of light in the laboratory\nexperiment, combine in the mind to make total darkness.\n\nBut here are two outstanding authorities agreed--not men, not\nphilosophers, not creeds. Here is the voice of God and the voice of\nNature. I cannot be wrong if I listen to them. Sometimes when uncertain\nof a voice from its very loudness, we catch the missing syllable in the\necho. In God and Nature we have Voice and Echo. When I hear both, I am\nassured. My sense of hearing does not betray me twice. I recognize the\nVoice in the Echo, the Echo makes me certain of the Voice; I listen and\nI know. The question of a Future Life is a biological question. Nature\nmay be silent on other problems of Religion; but here she has a right to\nspeak. The whole confusion around the doctrine of Eternal Life has\narisen from making it a question of Philosophy. We shall do ill to\nrefuse a hearing to any speculation of Philosophy; the ethical relations\nhere especially are intimate and real. But in the first instance Eternal\nLife, as a question of _Life_, is a problem for Biology. The soul is a\nliving organism. And for any question as to the soul's Life we must\nappeal to Life-science. And what does the Life-science teach? That if I\nam to inherit Eternal Life, I must cultivate a correspondence with the\nEternal. This is a simple proposition, for Nature is always simple. I\ntake this proposition, and, leaving Nature, proceed to fill it in. I\nsearch everywhere for a clue to the Eternal. I ransack literature for a\ndefinition of a correspondence between man and God. Obviously that can\nonly come from one source. And the analogies of Science permit us to\napply to it. All knowledge lies in Environment. When I want to know\nabout minerals I go to minerals. When I want to know about flowers I go\nto flowers. And they tell me. In their own way they speak to me, each in\nits own way, and each for itself--not the mineral for the flower, which\nis impossible, nor the flower for the mineral, which is also impossible.\nSo if I want to know about Man, I go to his part of the Environment. And\nhe tells me about himself, not as the plant or the mineral, for he is\nneither, but in his own way. And if I want to know about God, I go to\nHis part of the Environment. And he tells me about Himself, not as a\nMan, for He is not Man, but in His own way. And just as naturally as the\nflower and the mineral and the Man, each in their own way, tell me about\nthemselves, He tells me about Himself. He very strangely condescends\nindeed in making things plain to me, actually assuming for a time the\nForm of a Man that I at my poor level may better see Him. This is my\nopportunity to know Him. This incarnation is God making Himself\naccessible to human thought--God opening to man the possibility of\ncorrespondence through Jesus Christ. And this correspondence and this\nEnvironment are those I seek. He Himself assures me, \"This is Life\nEternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ\nwhom Thou has sent.\" Do I not now discern the deeper meaning in \"_Jesus\nChrist whom Thou has sent?_\" Do I not better understand with what vision\nand rapture the profoundest of the disciples exclaims, \"The Son of God\nis come, and hath given us an understanding that we might know Him that\nis True?\" [1]\n\n[1] 1 John v. 20.\n\nHaving opened correspondence with the Eternal Environment, the\nsubsequent stages are in the line of all other normal development. We\nhave but to continue, to deepen, to extend, and to enrich the\ncorrespondence that has been begun. And we shall soon find to our\nsurprise that this is accompanied by another and parallel process. The\naction is not all upon our side. The Environment also will be found to\ncorrespond. The influence of Environment is one of the greatest and most\nsubstantial of modern biological doctrines. Of the power of Environment\nto form or transform organisms, of its ability to develop or suppress\nfunction, of its potency in determining growth, and generally of its\nimmense influence in Evolution, there is no need now to speak. But\nEnvironment is now acknowledged to be one of the most potent factors in\nthe Evolution of Life. The influence of Environment, too, seems to\nincrease rather than diminish as we approach the higher forms of being.\nThe highest forms are the most mobile; their capacity of change is the\ngreatest; they are, in short, most easily acted on by Environment. And\nnot only are the highest organisms the most mobile, but the highest\nparts of the highest organisms are more mobile than the lower.\nEnvironment can do little, comparatively, in the direction of inducing\nvariation in the body of a child; but how plastic is its mind! How\ninfinitely sensitive is its soul! How infallibly can it be tuned to\nmusic or to dissonance by the moral harmony or discord of its outward\nlot! How decisively indeed are we not all formed and moulded, made or\nunmade, by external circumstance! Might we not all confess with\nUlysses,--\n\n      \"I am a part of all that I have met?\"\n\nMuch more, then, shall we look for the influence of Environment on the\nspiritual nature of him who has opened correspondence with God. Reaching\nout his eager and quickened faculties to the spiritual world around him,\nshall he not become spiritual? In vital contact with Holiness, shall he\nnot become holy? Breathing now an atmosphere of ineffable Purity, shall\nhe miss becoming pure? Walking with God from day to day, shall he fail\nto be taught of God?\n\nGrowth in grace is sometimes described as a strange, mystical, and\nunintelligible process. It is mystical, but neither strange nor\nunintelligible. It proceeds according to Natural Law, and the leading\nfactor in sanctification is Influence of Environment. The possibility of\nit depends upon the mobility of the organism; the result, on the extent\nand frequency of certain correspondences. These facts insensibly lead on\nto further suggestion. Is it not possible that these biological truths\nmay carry with them the clue to a still profounder philosophy--even that\nof Regeneration?\n\nEvolutionists tell us that by the influence of environment certain\naquatic animals have become adapted to a terrestrial mode of life.\nBreathing normally by gills, as the result and reward of a continued\neffort carried on from generation to generation to inspire the air of\nheaven direct, they have slowly acquired the lung-function. In the young\norganism, true to the ancestral type, the gill still persists--as in the\ntadpole of the common frog. But as maturity approaches, the true lung\nappears; the gill gradually transfers its task to the higher organ. It\nthen becomes atrophied and disappears, and finally respiration in the\nadult is conducted by lungs alone. [1] We may be far, in the meantime,\nfrom saying that this is proved. It is for those who accept it to deny\nthe justice of the spiritual analogy. Is religion to them unscientific\nin its doctrine of Regeneration? Will the evolutionist who admits the\nregeneration of the frog under the modifying influence of a continued\ncorrespondence with a new environment, care to question the possibility\nof the soul acquiring such a faculty as that of Prayer, the marvellous\nbreathing-function of the new creature, when in contact with the\natmosphere of a besetting God? Is the change from the earthly to the\nheavenly more mysterious than the change from the aquatic to the\nterrestrial mode of life? Is Evolution to stop with the organic? If it\nbe objected that it has taken ages to perfect the function in the\nbatrachian, the reply is, that it will take ages to perfect the function\nin the Christian. For every thousand years the natural evolution will\nallow for the development of its organism, the Higher Biology will grant\nits product millions. We have indeed spoken of the spiritual\ncorrespondence as already perfect--but it is perfect only as the bud is\nperfect. \"It doth not yet appear what it shall be,\" any more than it\nappeared a million years ago what the evolving batrachian would be.\n\n[1] _Vide_ also the remarkable experiments of Fraeulein v. Chauvin on the\nTransformation of the Mexican Axoloti into Amblystoma.--Weismann's\n\"Studies in the Theory of Descent,\" vol. ii. pt. iii.\n\nBut to return. We have been dealing with the scientific aspects of\ncommunion with God. Insensibly, from quantity we have been led to speak\nof quality. And enough has now been advanced to indicate generally the\nnature of that correspondence with which is necessarily associated\nEternal Life. There remain but one or two details to which we must\nlastly, and very briefly, address ourselves.\n\nThe quality of everlastingness belongs, as we have seen, to a single\ncorrespondence, or rather to a single set of correspondences. But it is\napparent that before this correspondence can take full and final effect\na further process is necessary. By some means it must be separated from\nall the other correspondences of the organism which do not share its\npeculiar quality. In this life it is restrained by these other\ncorrespondences. They may contribute to it, or hinder it; but they are\nessentially of a different order. They belong not to Eternity but to\nTime, and to this present world; and, unless some provision is made for\ndealing with them, they will detain the aspiring organism in this\npresent world till Time is ended. Of course, in a sense, all that\nbelongs to Time belongs also to Eternity; but these lower\ncorrespondences are in their nature unfitted for an Eternal Life. Even\nif they were perfect in their relation to their Environment, they would\nstill not be Eternal. However opposed, apparently, to the scientific\ndefinition of Eternal Life, it is yet true that perfect correspondence\nwith Environment is not Eternal Life. A very important word in the\ncomplete definition is, in this sentence, omitted. On that word it has\nnot been necessary hitherto, and for obvious reasons, to place any\nemphasis, but when we come to deal with false pretenders to Immortality\nwe must return to it. Were the definition complete as it stands, it\nmight, with the permission of the psycho-physiologist, guarantee the\nImmortality of every living thing. In the dog, for instance, the\nmaterial framework giving way at death might leave the released canine\nspirit still free to inhabit the old Environment. And so with every\ncreature which had ever established a conscious relation with\nsurrounding things. Now the difficulty in framing a theory of Eternal\nLife has been to construct one which will exclude the brute creation,\ndrawing the line rigidly at man, or at least somewhere within the human\nrace. Not that we need object to the Immortality of the dog, or of the\nwhole inferior creation. Nor that we need refuse a place to any\nintelligible speculation which would people the earth to-day with the\ninvisible forms of all things that have ever lived. Only we still insist\nthat this is not Eternal Life. And why? Because their Environment is not\nEternal. Their correspondence, however firmly established, is\nestablished with that which shall pass away. An Eternal Life demands an\nEternal Environment.\n\nThe demand for a perfect Environment as well as for a perfect\ncorrespondence is less clear in Mr. Herbert Spencer's definition than it\nmight be. But it is an essential factor. An organism might remain true\nto its Environment, but what if the Environment played it false? If the\norganism possessed the power to change, it could adapt itself to\nsuccessive changes in the Environment. And if this were guaranteed we\nshould also have the conditions for Eternal Life fulfilled. But what if\nthe Environment passed away altogether? What if the earth swept suddenly\ninto the sun? This is a change of Environment against which there could\nbe no precaution and for which there could be as little provision. With\na changing Environment even, there must always remain the dread and\npossibility of a falling out of correspondence. At the best, Life would\nbe uncertain. But with a changeless Environment--such as that possessed\nby the spiritual organism--the perpetuity of the correspondence, so far\nas the external relation is concerned, is guaranteed. This quality of\npermanence in the Environment distinguishes the religious relation from\nevery other. Why should not the musician's life be an Eternal Life?\nBecause, for one thing, the musical world, the Environment with which he\ncorresponds, is not eternal. Even if his correspondence in itself could\nlast eternally, the environing material things with which he corresponds\nmust pass away. His soul might last forever--but not his violin. So the\nman of the world might last forever--but not the world. His Environment\nis not eternal; nor are even his correspondences--the world passeth away\n_and the lust thereof_.\n\nWe find, then, that man, or the spiritual man, is equipped with two sets\nof correspondences. One set possesses the quality of everlastingness,\nthe other is temporal. But unless these are separated by some means the\ntemporal will continue to impair and hinder the eternal. The final\npreparation, therefore, for the inheriting of Eternal Life must consist\nin the abandonment of the non-eternal elements. These must be unloosed\nand dissociated from the higher elements. And this is effected by a\nclosing catastrophe--Death.\n\nDeath ensues because certain relations in the organism are not adjusted\nto certain relations in the Environment. There will come a time in each\nhistory when the imperfect correspondences of the organism will betray\nthemselves by a failure to compass some necessary adjustment. This is\nwhy Death is associated with Imperfection. Death is the necessary result\nof Imperfection, and the necessary end of it. Imperfect correspondence\ngives imperfect and uncertain Life. \"Perfect correspondence,\" on the\nother hand, according to Mr. Herbert Spencer, would be \"perfect Life.\"\nTo abolish Death, therefore, all that would be necessary would be to\nabolish Imperfection. But it is the claim of Christianity that it can\nabolish Death. And it is significant to notice that it does so by\nmeeting this very demand of Science--it abolishes Imperfection.\n\nThe part of the organism which begins to get out of correspondence with\nthe Organic Environment is the only part which is in vital\ncorrespondence with it. Though a fatal disadvantage to the natural man\nto be thrown out of correspondence with this Environment, it is of\ninestimable importance to the spiritual man. For so long as it is\nmaintained the way is barred for a further Evolution. And hence the\ncondition necessary for the further Evolution is that the spiritual be\nreleased from the natural. That is to say, the condition of the further\nEvolution is Death. _Mora janua Vitae_, therefore, becomes a scientific\nformula. Death, being the final sifting of all the correspondences, is\nthe indispensable factor of the higher Life. In the language of Science,\nnot less than of Scripture, \"To die is gain.\"\n\nThe sifting of the correspondences is done by Nature. This is its last\nand greatest contribution to mankind. Over the mouth of the grave the\nperfect and the imperfect submit to their final separation. Each goes to\nits own--earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust, Spirit to Spirit.\nThe dust shall return to the earth as it was; and the Spirit shall\nreturn unto God who gave it\"\n\n\n\nAltemus' Illustrated Holly-Tree Series\n---\nALTEMUS' ILLUSTRATED HOLLY-TREE SERIES\n---\nA series of good, clean books for young people, by authors whose fame\nfor delightful stories is world-wide. They are well printed on fine\npaper, handsomely illustrated, have colored frontispieces, and are bound\nin cloth decorated in gold and colors. 50 cents.\n\n.. 1 THE HOLLY-TREE. _By Charles Dickens._\n.. 2 THEN MARCHED THE BRAVE. _By Harriet T. Comstock._\n.. 3 A MODERN CINDERELLA. _By Louisa M. Alcott._\n.. 4 THE LITTLE MISSIONARY. _By Amanda M. Douglas._\n.. 5 THE RULE OF THREE. _By Susan Coolidge._\n.. 6 CHUGGINS. _By H. Irving Hancock._\n.. 7 WHEN THE BRITISH CAME. _By Harriet T. Comstock._\n.. 8 LITTLE FOXES. _By Rose Terry Cooke._\n.. 9 AN UNRECORDED MIRACLE. _By Florence Morse Kingsley._\n.. 10 THE STORY WITHOUT AN END. _By Sarah Austin._\n.. 11 CLOVER'S PRINCESS. _By Amanda M. Douglas._\n.. 12 THE SWEET STORY OF OLD. _By L. Haskeli._\n\n\nAltemus' Illustrated One-Syllable Series\n---\nALTEMUS' ILLUSTRATED ONE-SYLLABLE SERIES FOR YOUNG READERS\n---\nEmbracing popular works arranged for the young folks in words of one\nsyllable. Printed from extra-large, clear type on fine paper, and fully\nillustrated by the best artists. The handsomest line of books for young\nchildren before the public.\n\nHandsomely bound in cloth and gold, with illuminated sides, 50 cents.\n\n.. 1 AEsop's FABLES. 62 illustrations.\n.. 2 A CHILD'S LIFE OF CHRIST. 49 illustrations.\n.. 4 THE ADVENTURES OF ROBINSON CRUSOE. 70 illustrations.\n.. 5 BUNYAN'S PILGRIM'S PROGRESS. 46 illustrations.\n.. 6 SWISS FAMILY ROBINSON. 50 illustrations.\n.. 7 GULLIVER'S TRAVELS. 50 illustrations.\n.. 9 A CHILD'S STORY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 33 illustrations.\n.. 10 A CHILD'S STORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 40 illustrations.\n.. 11 BIBLE STORIES FOR LITTLE CHILDREN. 41 illustrations.\n.. 12 THE STORY OF JESUS. 40 illustrations\n\n\n\n\n[Transcriber's note: misspellings have been left as they are in the\nsource material.]","title":"Eternal Life","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":10779}