VII. Canright-Able Compiler of Scholarly Findings

Canright’s A History of the Doctrine of the Soul was one of the unique American surveys of Conditionalist testimony of the time. Utilizing the historical approach, he traced the conflict over the nature and destiny of man from ancient pagan times down to his own day (1870). Its purpose, as stated in the Preface, was to show “how this doctrine [of innate immortality] came into the church, who has believed it, and who has not.” ^{2626) D. M. Canright, A History of the Doctrine of the Soul (2nd ed.), Preface, p. iii.} As to the first point he succinctly reports the results of his extensive quest: “The facts plainly show that the doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul is purely a heathen dogma.” ^{2727) Ibid., p. iv.})CFF2 680.1

And to this he adds, concerning the earlier Christian writers:
“The mortality of the soul, the sleep of the dead, and the destruction of the wicked, were doctrines held by all the apostolic Fathers, and after them by many of the most eminent of the early Fathers. Since that time it brings to light a host of pious men who have rejected the pagan doctrine of man’s immortality.” ^{2828) Ibid.}CFF2 680.2

This, of course, had been stated hundreds of times before him. But he concurred on the basis of personal investigation.CFF2 681.1

1. GIST OF THE ARGUMENT AT A GLANCE

Canright “studied long, and read extensively” to bring together the multiform evidence published in his first edition (1870). Then he put in several additional years of “reading and gathering material to perfect” his later (1882) edition. His History evidences a commendable search of authorities in his twenty-five-century historical survey. Its scope can perhaps best be seen by noting the chapter headings:
“1. The Bible does not Teach the Immortality of the Soul.”
“2. The Most Ancient Faith Taught that Immortality Was only to be Obtained through the Resurrection of the Body.”
“3. The Immortality of the Soul not Believed by the Ancient Philosophers.”
“4. Modern Nations who do not Believe in the Immortality of the Soul.”
“5. The Earliest Hope of a Future Life Was through a Reliving of the Body.”
“6. The Doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul Originated in Egypt and Was Carried into Greece by Grecian Philosophers.”
“7. The Doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul Received into the Christian Church Through the Alexandrian School.”
“8. Evil Effects of the Platonic Philosophy upon the Christian Church.”
“9. Teaching of the Apostolical Fathers Concerning the Nature of Man.”
“10. The Early Fathers.”
“11. During the Reformation.”
“12. Extent of the Doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul at the Present Time.” ^{2929) Ibid., pp. v-x.}CFF2 681.2

2. TWO POPULAR MISCONCEPTIONS COUNTERED

Ganrlght begins chapter one (on the testimony of Scripture) by citing Professor Olshausen, Bishop Tillotson, Richard Watson, Archbishop Whately, Bishop Lowth, and Edward Beecher, all of whom declare that the doctrine of natural immortality is not only tot found in Scripture but is contradicted by the Bible. ^{3030) Ibid., pp. 11-16.} He then summons scholars like Bullinger, De Wette, Parkhurst, Herder, and Greenfield on the technical “Scriptural Meaning of Hell,” particularly of hades, gehenna, and tartaroo. ^{3131) Ibid., pp. 17-22.}CFF2 681.3

Chapter two exposes the false assumption that majorities are presumably right (usually the reverse is true), and the loose generality that all ancients believed in the immortality of the soul. Examining the views of the ancient Egyptians, Persians, and Arabians, the ancient Peruvians, and Chibchas of South America, and Negro tribes in Central Africa, he contends that a “confused, indistinct idea of a future life” is revealed, but not proving belief in the “immortality of the soul.” ^{3232) Ibid., pp. 30-41.}CFF2 682.1

3. MAJORITY NEVER ACCEPTED PLATONISM CONTEMPORARILY

Chapter three is devoted to the beliefs of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and shows that most of the older Greek philosophers did not hold the Platonic-Socratic concept of Innate Immortality. ^{3333) Ibid.: pp. 42-44.} Tracing the evidence to, and through, the times of the Caesars, he finds the same rejection by the contemporary masses. ^{3434) Ibid. p. 47.} And the same is true of Aristotle and the Peripatetics, and more especially of the Epicureans, the Academics, the Pyrrhonians, the Stoics, and the Heracliteans. ^{3636) Ibid., pp. 51-53.} Canright then discusses the doctrine of “emanation” and “absorption”—and thus the loss of “all personality and conscious existence,” which view “virtually amounts to annihilation of the personal soul.” And there was also the ancient belief in the “periodical destruction of all things,” including the soul. Canright closes the chapter with the testimony of Vergil, Horace, and Seneca, who all disbelieved in the immortality of man. All of this he documents from authorities, and shows a good grasp of the facts.CFF2 682.2

4. A SUMMING UP OF THE EVIDENCE

Chapter four deals with modern pagan nations who do not hold to the universal immortality of the soul. Canright cites certain peoples in India, China, Polynesia, Africa, Central and South America, and certain Eskimos and Indian groups, as well as many Christian scholars, who do not hold such a belief. And for each he gives documentation from authorities. His summary is so important that we quote it entirely, lengthy though it is:CFF2 682.3

“We confidently (sic) believe that the facts we have presented fully explode the oft-repeated argument that the immortality of the soul has been universally believed. Facts are against it. We have shown that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul was first taught by the Egyptians; that there is no trace of it in the early history of ancient nations; that it was denied by most men in the time of Socrates; that the masses did not believe it in the time of Polybius; that the contrary of the soul’s immortality was the prevailing opinion in the time of Cicero;CFF2 683.1

“That this disbelief was full (fully) as extensive in the first century; that nearly all the great (Greek) schools of philosophy openly denied it; that even those who professed to believe it held it only on the principle of emanation and re-absorption, which virtually annihilates all individuality; that none of the ancients could possibly believe it, as they all held to a great periodical destruction of all things; that the Arabs were ignorant of the doctrine; that the (ancient) Jews did not believe it;CFF2 683.2

“That the Hindoos and Buddhists, comprising fully one-third of the human race, implicitly hold to the annihilation of all men; that the Chinese do not believe it; that many of the Mohammedans believe in the sleep of the dead; that many of the natives of Asia, of Polynesia, of Africa, and of the Western Continent have no such doctrine among them.” ^{3939) Ibid., p. 66.}CFF2 683.3

It is a comprehensive coverage.CFF2 683.4

5. EARLIEST HOPE THROUGH RELIVING OF BODY

In chapter five Canright shows thatCFF2 683.5

“the idea that after the body dies, the soul, as an immortal, immaterial, conscious, and active personality, goes immediately to Heaven or hell, was not arrived at immediately, but grew up gradually out of the imagination, the poetry, and the speculations of many ages.” ^{4040) Ibid., p. 67.}CFF2 683.6

He traces this, for example, among the heathen poets, like Homer. ^{4141) Ibid., pp. 69-72.} Then comes this important conclusion: “All evidence, both ancient and modern, points to Egypt as the mother of this doctrine.” ^{4242) Ibid., p. 75.}CFF2 683.7

Canright shows how even there it was believed that the life of the soul was “dependent upon the preservation of the body,” ^{4343) Ibid., p. 79.} which doctrine is “quite different from the present doctrine of the soul’s immortality.” ^{4444) Ibid.}CFF2 684.1

6. PLATO FIRST DISTINCTLY TAUGHT IMMORTAL-SOULISM

Chapter six shows that Immortal-Soulism, originating in Egypt, was brought into Greece by returning Grecian philosophers, as Pherecydes, Pythagoras, and Anaxagoras attest. ^{4545) Ibid., pp. 80-84.} It was Plato, one of the greatest philosophers of antiquity, who, Canright insists, first “distinctly taught the doctrine of the immortality of the soul,” ^{4646) Ibid., pp. 84-86.} having adopted it in his travels in Egypt. Plato made “matter” the “source and origin of all evil,” and placed “his doctrine of the human soul at the head of his philosophy.” ^{4848) Ibid.: p. 90.} And from Platonism as the fountain, this doctrine found its way into the Christian Church, particularly the Roman Church.CFF2 684.2

7. RECEIVED INTO CHURCH THROUGH ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL

Chapter seven shows that Immortal-Soulism was “Received into the Christian Church Through the Alexandrian School,” over the opposition of the other schools of philosophy. ^{4949) Ibid., pp. 91, 92.} Canright then elaborates on the Alexandrian School, and shows how Plato’s doctrine was perpetuated by the Neo-Platonic School, as it forged to the fore and Platonized one great wing of early Christianity ^{5050) Ibid., pp. 92-100.} though opposed by many. ^{5252) Ibid., p. 104.} Then he shows that through “Allegorical Interpretation of the Scriptures” the resurrection was so interpreted as to “fit their immortal-soul theory.” For this Origen was chiefly responsible. Thus it was that “the doctrine of the immortality of the soul came in to replace that of the resurrection.CFF2 684.3

8. IMMORTAL-SOULISM NOT HELD BY “APOSTOLIC FATHERS.”

Chapter eight deals with the “baleful fruits” of the Platonic philosophy in the developing Roman Church—celibacy of priests, worship of saints and relics, Purgatory, and Restorationism or Universalism, the Origenic scheme, along with the magnifying of the “Heathen Hell” by the other wing. ^{5454) Ibid., pp. 111-119.} Chapter nine then deals with the “Testimony of the Apostolic Fathers”—Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp—and shows that up to that time “the doctrine of the immortality of the soul and eternal torment, had not found its way into the church of Christ.” The dead were regarded as asleep, and the wicked would be destroyed. ^{5555) Ibid., pp. 120-128.}CFF2 684.4

9. LINE OF ANTE-NICENE FATHERS HELD “SLEEP” OF DEAD

Chapter ten concerns the early Ante-Nicene Fathers-Justin Martyr, Tatian, Irenaeus, and Polycrates-showing that they did not believe that the soul alone is the man, or that it could live “separate from the body,” or went to heaven at death. Justin taught the “utter extinction of the wicked.” ^{5656) Ibid., pp. 128-132.} And Tatian plainly taught the “sleep of the dead.” ^{5757) Ibid., p. 134.} Even Athanagoras still seemed to hold to the “sleep of the dead.” ^{5959) Ibid., pp. 135, 136.} And Theophilus maintained that man is a candidate for immortality, capable of receiving it.CFF2 685.1

Irenaeus taught the mortality of man and the ultimate cessation of the wicked. ^{6060) Ibid., pp. 136-138.} Polycrates taught the “sleep of the dead.” ^{6161) Ibid., pp. 138, 139.} And Arnobius also taught the ultimate and “perpetual extinction” of the wicked. ^{6363) Ibid., pp 143, 144.} Hence, many noted Fathers in the first three centuries taught the mortality of man, the sleep of the dead, and the destruction of the wicked. On the contrary, historians say that Tertullian, along with Cyprian and others, “expressly asserted the unending torments of the damned.” And Augustine held the same, maintaining that aionios signifies endless.CFF2 685.2

Thus we are brought to the Middle Ages, when dissentient voices like Maimonides, and particularly Averroes, are heard rejecting the doctrine of “individual immortality.” Maimonides held the final excision of being for the wicked. ^{6666) Ibid., pp. 147, 148.} The Canright outline accords with the facts.CFF2 685.3

10. CONDITIONALISTS FROM LUTHER TO 1800

Chapter eleven deals with the Reformation, following the ImmortalSoul declaration of Leo X in 1513. ^{6767) Ibid., p. 149.} Luther, Tyndale, the early Baptists, and the Socinians are then presented. ^{6868) Ibid., pp. 149.152.} Luther believed in the profound unconscious sleep of the soul in death, and insisted that the theory of inherent immortality is the “child” of the Papacy. Canright cites authorities who believed that it was the opposition and power of Calvin that prevented the greater spread of Luther’s doctrine. ^{7070) Ibid., pp. 152-154.} Canright indicates that by 1534 “thousands” had embraced and defended the doctrine of the sleep of the dead, and denied Innate Immortality. Tyndale held with Luther that all men sleep until the resurrection. But the Helvetic Confession maintained that there is an “immortal soul” in this “mortal body.” On the contrary, the “General Baptists,” scattered over England, believed in the “sleep of the soul,” and the Socinians similarly taught the “sleep of the dead and the annihilation of the wicked.” Many denied the “separate existence of the soul.”CFF2 686.1

Coming to the seventeenth century, Canright cites Richard Overton, John Locke, John Milton, Bishop Jeremy Taylor, and Archbishop Tillotson as all denying the Innate Immortality of the soul, and rejecting the Eternal Torment dogma. ^{7676) Ibid., pp. 160-164.} And in the eighteenth century Dr. Coward, Lawyer Layton, John Pitts, the learned Dodwell, Dr. Isaac Watts, Bishops Warburton and Law, Archdeacon Blackburne, Joseph Priestley, and others, are presented as all denying natural immortality and Eternal Torment. Many maintained the sleep of the dead. ^{7777) Ibid., pp. 164-170.} These and numerous other witnesses are all documented. ^{7878) Canright’s statements are buttressed by 390 footnotes, scattered over all chapters. These attest that, apart from sources, he leaned heavily on such recognized authorities as Blackburne Hudson, Abbot, Alger, and Beecher.}CFF2 686.2

11. MODERN REVOLT AGAINST THE TRADITIONAL POSITIONS

Canright’s final chapter twelve impressively portrays the breaking forth on both sides of the Atlantic of advocates of Life Only in Christ and deniers of Eternal Torment—Bishop Kendrick, Dr. Whately, H. H. Dobney, Edward White, and Henry Constable—and the great outburst of Conditionalism in the latter half of the nineteenth century in the Old World and in the New, now with scores of new names, such as Drs. Richard Weymouth and Theodore Parker, J. B. Heard, Dr. R. W. Dale, Prof. George Stokes, Henry Dunn. And specifically, in the United States he names a constant succession of men—including Elias Smith, Henry Grew, George Storrs, Jacob Blain, Charles Hudson, Horace L. Hastings—from 1800 on to his day. ^{7979) Ibid., pp. 171-184.} These included C. L. Ives and J. H. Pettingell. And he concludes with an impressive roster of Conditionalists of all lands and persuasions, particularly in Britain and America, but reaching out to France, Switzerland, Belgium, Africa, China, Ceylon, and Australia ^{8080)Ibid.,pp 182-185}—evidently drawn from Edward White. He concludes with the statement: “With all the foregoing facts before us, it is evident that a great theological revolution upon this doctrine has already begun.” ^{8181 Ibid., p. 186.}CFF2 687.1

12. CANRIGHT NEVER REPUDIATED SCHOLARLY POSITIONS OF CENTURIES

This must be said in closing: As noted, Canright, in his investigations, had become acquainted with, and drafted upon, the great scholars of the centuries. And he knew of such British Conditionalist periodicals as The Rainbow, The Bible Echo, and the Glasgow Messenger, and Storrs’s Bible Examiner in New York. ^{8282) Ibid., pp. 173, 176.} Canright was an able compiler of the findings of research scholars, and his ac quaintance with Conditionalist literature was remarkable. This testimony of the Conditionalist stalwarts of the centuries Canright never abandoned or repudiated. His was basically a record of the inexorable facts of history, not a personal Biblical exposition. It is a valuable documentary record.CFF2 687.2

In fact, the Seventh-day Adventist scholar, Uriah Smith, in 1884, calls Canright’s History of the Doctrine of the Soul “an admirable and comprehensible little work,” ^{8383) Uriah Smith, Here and Hereafter, or Man.’s Nature and Destiny (4th ed.), p. 420.} so much so that Smith’s own “Historical View” chapter (36), in his book Here and Hereafter, is almost entirely condensed from Canright’s historical tracement. He cites 110 Conditionalists by name who were covered by Canright, and Smith declared himself in fullest sympathy with its witness to Conditionalism.CFF2 688.1