The Immortality of the Soul—History of the Doctrine

THE reason why that heathen doctrine spread so widely and so rapidly in the church, is shown by the following from an eminent historian: "Many from the different sects of philosophers, especially from the Platonists, and also from among the rhetoricians, embraced Christianity; and they were honored for their erudition and talents by being made bishops and presbyters." (Mosheim's Commentaries, vol. ii. cent. iii. sec. 26, p. 140.) The learned Platonic Christians, being now made teachers and ministers in the various churches, soon disseminated their Platonic doctrine of the soul everywhere throughout the Christian church.

And the same author says: "In fact, there are but few points of Christian theology which the teachers who were inflamed with this eager desire to produce a union between Christianity and Philosophy left untouched." (Ibid., vol. i. cent. ii. sec. 34, p. 373.) Another historian bears this testimony: "Very soon after the rise of Christianity, many persons who had been educated in the schools of the philosophers becoming converts to the Christian faith, the doctrines of the Grecian sects, and especially of Platonism, were interwoven with the simple truths of pure religion. As the Eclectic philosophy spread, heathen and Christian doctrines were still more intimately blended, till at last both were almost entirely lost in the thick clouds of ignorance and barbarism which covered the earth." (Enfield's Hist. of Phil., p. 8.) Of the Eclectic school he says: "The muddy waters sent forth from this polluted spring were spread through the most celebrated seats of learning, and were even permitted, as we shall afterward see, to mingle with the pure stream of Christian doctrine." (Ibid., book 3. chap. ii. sec. 4. p. 331.) Once more of the teachers of the church, he says: "Through several centuries they partook of the spirit of the Alexandrian school, and the Eclectic method of philosophizing Platonized Christianity." (Ibid., book vi. chap. ii. p. 453.)

Though this is astonishing beyond measure, yet we readily see how it was accomplished. All the sects of heathen philosophers except the Platonic denied any future life to man; but Plato strongly contended for a future state of rewards and punishments. This naturally led the Christians to regard the Platonists as friends and allies upon this great question of the fact of a future life, though they differed as to how it was to be obtained. Christians rested their hope upon the resurection of the dead as promised in the Bible. At this the heathen philosophers mocked as being unreasonable and unphilosophical, as they cared nothing for what the Bible said. See their answer to Paul at Athens in Acts 17. Now the Platonists came in with their philosophical argument to meet their antagonists, and prove a future life by means of the soul's immortality. In this way reason and philosophy could be made to support the hope of the simple-minded Christians, which before rested solely upon the promise of the Scriptures. The promise of relief and help, and of having a more philosophical faith, was a very flattering one. As Eve listened to, and was beguiled by, the serpent, so they listened to these philosophers, were flattered with their praises, accepted their help, adopted theit notions, and finally united with them.

Reader, here is the origin of the present orthodox doctrine of immortal souls, disembodied spirits, ghosts, eternal hell, etc. Thus the learned commentator on Cudworth's Intellectual System says: "The Platonic philosophy, indeed, which was approved by the ancient Christians, has been abandoned, and another substituted in its place; but the dogmas and conclusions derived from it have been retained by most men in all their pristine integrity; and any one conversant with the ancient philosophy, might write a long and copious commentary upon the relics of the Platonic philosophy among Christians. Thus happens it with mortals. The primary and fundamental doctrines of a sect are very often repudiated by those who preside over communities; while they either are unwilling to interfere with the consequences and institutions that proceed from them, owing to their ignorance of their origin, or are unable to do so, because the people are not easily prevailed upon to abandon inveterate customs. In the course of time, many opinions and rites are held sacred, which those who are addicted to them would hold in far different estimation if they were thoroughly aware of their origin." (Cudworth's Intel. Syst., vol. iii. p. 265, note.)

Yes; the immortal-soul theory is a relic of Platonic philosophy which thousands would quickly drop did they know its origin.

PLATONISM OPPOSED.

But was all this heathen philosophy and pagan doctrine received into the church without opposition? No, indeed. Many, nay, all, of the more pious men warmly opposed it, for they foresaw its effects. Mosheim thus records the controversy: "The rise, however, of this taste for philosophical speculation, and the ascendency which they perceived it gradually acquiring in the minds of so many of their teachers, became a source of the most poignant regret to all such as continued steadfastly attached to that ancient and simple species of piety which had been delivered down by the apostles and their disciples, inasmuch as they saw reason to fear that the cause of celestial truth might be thereby materially injured, as in reality proved to be the case, and that divine wisdom would not long retain either its proper value or dignity in the estimation of mankind. In consequence of this, the Christian church became divided into two parties, which opposed each other with the utmost warmth. . . . The issue of this dispute, which lasted for a considerable while, at length was, that victory declared itself in favor of the patrons of philosophy, and that those teachers came to be most respected, who, in unfolding the doctrines of religion, called in the aid of philosophical principles and precepts." (Commentaries, vol. i. cent. ii. sec. 21, pp. 343, 344.) This was the very thing against which Paul had warned the church: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy." Col. 2:8. The better class of Christians remembered this, and were opposed to receiving this heathen philosophy into the church.

In his "Eclesiastical History," Mosheim, after naming the class who were in favor of introducing Platonism into the church, adds: "But a great majority thought otherwise." (Vol. i. book i. part ii. chap. i. p. 115.) "But gradually the friends of philosophy and literature acquired the ascendency. To this issue Origen contributed very much; for, having early imbibed the principles of the new Platonism, he inauspiciously applied them to theology, and earnestly recommended them to the numerous youth who attended on his instructions. And the greater the influence of this man, which quickly spread over the whole Christian world, the more readily was his method of explaining the sacred doctrine propagated." (Ibid., p. 162.) Hence, in a short time, Bible truth and those who advocated it were put down and held in contempt. Says our author: "There were various persons of this sort in the fourth century, who were disgusted with the progress of superstition and of errors respecting the true nature of religion, and who opposed the general current; but the only fruit of their labor was, that they were branded with infamy." (Ibid., p. 274.) Rome came in and condemned them as heretics, and thus silenced all opposition.

ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE SCRIPTURES ADOPTED.

How could these Platonic doctrines be harmonized with the Bible? How could the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, conscious state of the dead, etc., be reconciled with the opposite doctrine everywhere taught in the Scriptures? This was, indeed, a serious difficulty; but the genius of these Platonizing teachers devised a mode of harmonizing the two. It was this: They assumed that all the Bible was to be understood, not literally, or according to its plain, obvious meaning, but allegorically, or as metaphors under which the truth was concealed. By this method, of course, they could make it teach any doctrine they pleased! Clement and Origen, especially the latter, were the chief movers in this work.

So plainly and fully has the learned Mosheim, in his Ecclesiastical History, treated this part of my subject, that I have only to quote him. He says: "One of the earliest evils that flowed from this immoderate attachment to philosophy, was the violence to which it gave rise in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. For, whereas the Christians had, from a very early period, imbibed the notion that under the words, laws, and facts recorded in the Sacred Volume, there is a latent sense concealed—an opinion which they appear to have derived from the Jews—no sooner did this passion for philosophizing take possession of their minds, than they began, with wonderful subtilty, to press the Scriptures into their service in support of all such principles and maxims as appeared to them consonant to reason; and at the same time most wretchedly to pervert and twist every part of those divine Oracles which opposed itself to their philosophical tenets or notions." Of Clement he says: "Whatever, therefore, appears to him just and consonant to reason in the maxims or tenets of the philosophers, he is sure to discover laid down somewhere in the books of the Old Testament; and this leads him, not unfrequently, to strain and distort, in a most extraordinary manner, the words of Moses and the other sacred writers, in order to make them, apparently, speak one and the same language with Plato and the rest of the philosophers of Greece." (Eccl. Hist., vol. i. cent. ii. sec. 33, p. 368, and note 2.)

He also says they tried to make the Bible doctrine of the resurrection fit their immortal-soul theory. "The restoration, or resurrection of the dead, was so interpreted as to accommodate it to the tenets of the Grecian sages." (Commentaries, vol. i. cent. ii. sec. 34, note 1, p. 373.)

Origen, who lived in the close of the second and the first half of the third century, was a disciple of Clement, and also for a long time sat under the teaching of Ammonius. These teachers he followed, and carried their Platonic doctrines still further, especially with respect to the immortality of the soul.

The following quotations from Mosheim will clearly show all this: "Origen's new method of explaining and illustrating religious truths by means of philosophy, required also a new method of expounding the Sacred Scriptures; for, meeting with many things in the Scriptures repugnant to the decisions of his philosophy, he deemed it necessary to devise some method of removing this disagreement. And, as it would add confirmation to his opinions if he could make it appear that they were supported by the authority of Scripture, some plausible way was to be devised which should make his speculations appear to be taught in the holy Oracles." (Ibid., vol. ii. p. 165) Hence, perceiving that many of the facts and declarations of the Bible conflicted with the principles of his philosophy, he felt the necessity of resorting to some means of escaping their force; and he could find none more easy and effectual than this assumption: Whatever in the sacred books conflicts with my philosophy must not be taken literally, but must be converted into allegory. Safely posted behind this rule, he could easily resist whatever the Scriptures might oppose to his opinions." (Ibid. p. 170.) "I have," says Mosheim, "already touched upon the causes which led him to adopt this very dangerous rule for interpreting sacred history. They are obvious to every attentive reader. The statements of the Bible respecting the creation of the world, the origin of man, etc., were contrary to the precepts of his philosophy, and, therefore, he would sooner deny the truth of a portion of sacred history than give up his philosophy." (Ibid., p. 184.)

Was the Platonic, or Ammonian, doctrine of the soul among those errors which he wished to make the Bible uphold? Yes; hear our historian on this point: "The foundation of all his faults was, that he fully believed nothing to be more true and certain than what the philosophy he received from Ammonitas taught him respecting God, the world, SOULS, demons, etc.; and therefore he, in a measure, recast and remodeled the doctrines of Christ after the pattern of that philosophy." (Ibid., p. 159, note 8.) Here we have the doctrine of Christ recast and remodeled, and the Bible distorted, to make them fit the heathen doctrine of the soul, and other errors. Our author continues: "He could not discover in the sacred books all that he considered true, so long as he adhered to the literal sense; but allow him to abandon the literal sense, and to search for recondite meanings, and those books would contain Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, and the whole tribe of philosophers. And thus nearly all those who would model Christianity according to their own fancy, or their favorite system of philosophy, have run into this mode of interpreting Scripture." (Eccl. Hist., vol. i. cent. iii. part ii. p. 181.) Behold here the origin of the figurative interpretation of the Bible. It was invented expressly to harmonize that book with Plato's doctrine of the soul.