Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

the less does he recognise the fact that the carnal nature, however sinless, is not therefore virtuousthat to be carnally-minded is death whether the possession of that character be the result of nature or the result of degeneration. Death was the nature of the original creation, because the original creation was material. Death was the nature of the plant, because the plant was simply (vegetal. Death was the nature of the beast of the field, because the beast of the field was merely aniinal. In none of these cases was death a source of blame. But in the view of St Paul, and in the view of the writer of Genesis, the liability to death became a source of blame in the man. Man had in him a material nature-a vegetal nature and an animal nature ; but these were subordinate parts of his being, and over and above these there was breathed a higher nature—a breath of the life of God. That man should any longer be merely material, merely vegetal, merely animal, was henceforth a degradation; it was to sink into that death which had been the common portion of all his predecessors. Death was no degradation to his predecessors, because it was their portion. Man's double creation had given him a nature additional to theirs, which, because it was a nature higher than theirs, was thenceforth to be the law of his actions. When he violated the higher to gratify the lower law, when he preferred the dust of the ground to the inbreathing of the Divine Spirit, he sank back into a state of death; and in his case the state was inherited not merely as the result of an animal nature, but as the legitimate penalty of a deliberate choice of inferiority-as the wages of sin. No man, we venture to think, will affirm that such a view of the question is either unphilosophical or unscientific.

Let us now inquire what were the grounds on which man might have hoped for exemption from the common lot of his predecessors if he had continued in his original condition. We are inquiring, of course, purely into the interpretation of the narrative of Genesis, and are avoiding all extraneous speculation. We want to see whether that narrative is or is not compatible with the modern theory of evolution. Now it is the distinct doctrine of the modern evolutionist that there can be no leaps in the order of creation, that no new element can intervene in the progress of the universe to add to the original sum of universal being. The addition of such a new element would be the death of the evolution principle, for it would be equivalent to the introduction of a miracle. But if we suppose the fact that into the midst of a world of death there has come a being naturally gifted with immortal life—if we imagine that on a region where everything has hitherto been perishable there has risen the light of an imperishable soul,-have we not thereby introduced that very new element which must destroy the principle of evolution? Can any two things be more unlike one another, more at variance in their nature with one another, than an object which is perishable and a being that is imperishable? If at a certain stage of the world's development the imperishable has been grafted on the perishable, have not the stages of its normal development been thereby themselves superseded by a miraculous leap or paroxysm which has accomplished in a moment what ages of evolution could not achieve ?

A deeper reflection, however, will entirely alter our view of this subject. For let it be observed that, according to the Book of Genesis, the introduction of an immortal soul was not an addition to the original sum of the universe. Whence did man derive his immortality? Not from the addition of a new force, but from the impartation of an immortal Principle already existing in the universe: “God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and he became a living soul.” The immortality which constituted the higher life of man was the immortality of God, and therefore, so far from being new, was simply an appropriation of the oldest thing in the universe. Let us remember

i We have already pointed out this fact in a paper read to the Pan-Presbyterian Council of 1884, and printed in its Transactions.

that in the view of Mr Spencer himself there is in the order of nature one existence that is immortal; it is that primal and basal Force which constitutes the being of all other things. Amidst all the perishableness of individual forms, and amidst all the transmutations of individual energies, Mr Spencer perceives that there is one Power which is everywhere persistent-that is to say, immortal. Now this is precisely the doctrine of the Book of Genesis—nay, the doctrine of the whole Old and New Testaments. The Bible recognises only one immortality—the immortality of God. No creature in the universe is in itself immortal; every creature in the universe is in itself liable to death. To make a creature immortal, it must be filled with the life of God; man himself could only receive immortality by having breathed into his nostrils the breath of the imperishable Divine Life. That is the reason why Judaism speaks so little of the immortality of the soul, so much of the life of God. God is Himself its immortality, and it knows of no immortality outside of Him. In His presence is fulness of joy, at His right hand are pleasures for evermore. Therefore the sole question with the Jew is, Who shall abide in His tabernacle? To be driven out from the presence of the Lord is his symbol for annihilation ; to be beset by that presence behind and before is his synonym for life eternal. It may be thought that the doctrines of eschatology are at variance with this view, but in reality it is not so. Three opinions have been entertained as to the ultimate fate of humanity at large. Some hold it to be the teaching of the Scriptures that all men shall be saved ; in this case they shall all live by the life of God. Some hold it to be the teaching of the Scriptures that a portion of the human race shall be annihilated and a portion perpetuated; in this case also, all who live shall live by the life of God. A third class hold it to be the teaching of the Scriptures that a part of humanity shall exist in a state of blessedness and a part in a state of penalty ; even in this case it must be affirmed that, in so far as mere vitality is concerned, collective humanity shall live by the life of God,—“As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”

The bearing of all this on the doctrine of evolution will be manifest. Here, let us say, are placed side by side two forms of life—the one animal, the other human. Between these forms of life there is much in common; but in one respect they are contrasted: the animal is by its nature perishable, the man has in him a germ of immortality. One naturally asks if this transition from the mortal to the immortal does not involve a leap. The answer from the standpoint of Genesis is: It is a leap as regards the animal, but it is not a leap in the order of nature ; it has added nothing to the original sum

« AnteriorContinuar »