Produced by KD Weeks, MFR, Bryan Ness and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)






------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Transcriber’s Note:

This version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects.
Italics are delimited with the ‘_’ character as _italic_.

Footnotes have been moved to follow the paragraphs in which they are
referenced.

Minor errors, attributable to the printer, have been corrected. Please
see the transcriber’s note at the end of this text for details regarding
the handling of any textual issues encountered during its preparation.

                                  THE
                           STATE OF THE DEAD
                                AND THE
                         DESTINY OF THE WICKED.

                               ----------

                            BY URIAH SMITH.

                               ----------




                               ----------




                              STEAM PRESS
          OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION,
                          BATTLE CREEK, MICH.:

                                  ---

                                 1873.

                                PREFACE.

                               ----------


Questions of such absorbing interest to the human race as “The State of
the Dead,” and “The Destiny of the Wicked,” should command the candid
attention of all serious and thoughtful men. The Bible alone can answer
the inquiries of the human mind on these important subjects; and if the
Bible is the full and complete revelation which it claims to be, we must
believe that it has answered them. What that answer is, the following
pages undertake to show.

On the questions here discussed there is at the present time a
daily-increasing agitation in the theological world. The frequency with
which these topics come to the surface in the religious papers of the
land, is evidence of this. Not only in this country, but in England and
Germany, the views of Bible students on these points are in a state of
transition. The doctrine that there is no eternal life out of Christ,
and that consequently the punishment of the wicked is not to be eternal
misery, is now able to present an array of adherents so strong in
numbers, so cultivated in intellect, and so correct at heart, that many
of its opponents are changing their base of operations toward it, and
taking steps looking not only to a toleration of its existence, but to a
compromise with its claims.

In adding another book to the many which have been written on this
subject, the object has been to give in a concise manner a more general
view of the teaching of the word of God, the ultimate source of
authority, on this question, than has heretofore been presented. A
chapter on the Claims of Philosophy is appended to the Biblical
argument, more to answer the queries of those who attach importance to
such considerations, than because they are entitled to any real weight
in the determination of this controversy.

The interest that has of late years arisen on the subject of the state
of the dead, is timely. Spiritualism, with its foul embrace and
pestilential breath, is seeking to spread its pollutions over all the
land; and it appeals to the popular views of the condition of man in
death as a foundation for its claims. The teaching of the Bible on this
point is the most effectual antidote to that unhallowed delusion. Before
the true light on the intermediate state, and the destiny of the wicked,
not only spiritualism with its foul brood flees away, but purgatory,
saint worship, universalism, and a host of other errors all go down.

In this period of agitation and transition, let no man blindly commit
himself to predetermined views, but hold himself ready to follow truth
always and everywhere. Let him hold his sympathies entirely at its
disposal. This is the course of safety; for truth has angels, Christ and
God upon its side; and though it had but one adherent on the earth, it
would triumph all the same. So while truth can receive no detriment from
the combined opposition of all the world, its adherents, few in number
though they may be, will secure in the end an everlasting gain.

                                                                 U. S.

BATTLE CREEK, _May 2, 1873_.

------------------------------------------------------------------------




                       MAN’S NATURE AND DESTINY.

                             --------------




                               CHAPTER I.
                           PRIMARY QUESTIONS.


Gradually the mind awakes to the mystery of life. Excepting only the
first pair, every adult member of the human race has come up through the
helplessness of infancy and the limited acquirements of childhood. All
have reached their full capacity to think and do, only by the slow
development of their mental and physical powers. Without either counsel
or co-operation of our own, we find ourselves on the plane of human
existence, subject to all the conditions of the race, and hastening
forward to its destiny, whatever it may be.

A retinue of mysterious inquiries throng our steps. Whence came this
order of things? Who ordained this arrangement? For what purpose are we
here? What is our nature? What are our obligations? And whither are we
bound? Life, what a mystery! Having commenced, will it ever end? Once we
did not exist; are we destined to that condition again? Death we see
everywhere around us. Its victims are silent, cold, and still. They give
no outward evidence of retaining any of those faculties, mental,
emotional, or physical, which distinguished them when living. Is death
the end of all these? And is death the extinction of the race? These are
questions which have ever excited in the human mind an intensity of
thought, and a strength of feeling, which no other subjects can produce.

To these questions, so well-defined, so definite in their demands, and
of such all-absorbing interest, where shall we look for an answer? Have
we any means within our reach by which to solve these problems? We look
abroad upon the earth and admire its multiplied forms of life and
beauty; we mark the revolving seasons and the uniform and beneficent
operations of nature; we look to the heavenly bodies and behold their
glory, and the regularity of their mighty motions--do these answer our
questions? They tell us something, but not all. They tell us of the
great Creator and upholder of all things; for, as the apostle says, “The
invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen,
being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and
Godhead.” They tell us upon whom our existence depends and to whom we
are amenable.

But this only intensifies our anxiety a thousand fold. For now we want
to know upon what conditions his favor is suspended. What must we do to
meet his requirements? How may we secure his approbation? He surely is a
being who will reward virtue and punish sin. Sometime our deeds must be
compared with his requirements, and sentence be rendered in accordance
therewith. How will this affect our future existence? Deriving it from
him, does he suspend its continuance on our obedience? or has he made us
self-existent beings, so that we must live forever, if not in his favor,
then the conscious recipients of his wrath?

With what intense anxiety the mind turns to the future. What is to be
the issue of this mysterious problem of life? Who can tell? Nature is
silent. We appeal to those who are entering the dark valley. But who can
reveal the mysteries of those hidden regions till he has explored them?
and the “curtain of the tent into which they enter, never outward
swings.” Sternly the grave closes its heavy portals against every
attempt to catch a glimpse of the unknown beyond. Science proves itself
a fool on this momentous question. The imagination breaks down; and the
human mind, unaided, sinks into a melancholy, but well-grounded,
despair.

God must tell us, or we can never know what lies beyond this state of
existence, till we experience it for ourselves. He who has placed us
here, must himself make known to us his purposes and his will, or we are
forever in the dark. Of this, all reverent and thoughtful minds are well
assured.

Professor Stuart, in his “Exegetical Essays on Several Words Relating to
Future Punishment,” says:--

“The light of nature can never scatter the darkness in question. This
light has never yet sufficed to make the question clear to any portion
of our benighted race, whether the soul is immortal. Cicero,
incomparably the most able defender of the soul’s immortality of which
the heathen world can yet boast, very ingenuously confesses that, after
all the arguments which he had adduced in order to confirm the doctrine
in question, it so fell out that his mind was satisfied of it only when
directly employed in contemplating the arguments adduced in its favor.
At all other times he fell unconsciously into a state of doubt and
darkness. It is notorious, also, that Socrates, the next most able
advocate, among the heathen, of the same doctrine, has adduced arguments
to establish the never-ceasing existence of the soul which will not bear
the test of examination. If there be any satisfactory light, then, on
the momentous question of a future state, it must be sought from the
word of God.”

H. H. Dobney, Baptist minister, of England (Future Punishment, p. 107),
says:--

“Reason cannot prove man to be immortal. We may devoutly enter the
temple of nature, we may reverently tread her emerald floor, and gaze on
her blue, ‘star-pictured ceiling,’ but to our anxious inquiry, though
proposed with heart-breaking intensity, the oracle is dumb, or like
those of Delphi and Dodona, mutters only an ambitious reply that leaves
us in utter bewilderment.”

And what information have they been able to give us, who have either
been ignorant of divine revelation, or, having the light, have turned
their backs upon it? Listen to a little of what they have told us, which
sufficiently indicates the character of the knowledge they possessed.

Socrates, when about to drink the fatal hemlock, said:--

“I am going out of the world, and you are to continue in it; but which
of us has the better part, is a secret to every one but God.”

Cicero, after recounting the various opinions of philosophers on this
subject, levels all their systems to the ground by this ingenuous
confession:--

“Which of these is true, God alone knows, and which is the most
probable, is a very great question.”

Seneca, reviewing the arguments of the ancients on this subject, said:--

“Immortality, however desirable, was rather promised than proved by
these great men.”

And the skeptic Hobbs, when death was forcing him from this state of
existence, could only exclaim, with dread uncertainty, “I am taking a
leap in the dark!”--dying words not calculated to inspire any great
degree of comfort and assurance in the hearts of those who are inclined
to follow in his steps.

With a full sense of our need, we turn, then, to the revelation which
God has given us in his word. Will this answer our inquiries? It is not
a revelation if it does not; for this must be the very object of a
revelation. Logicians tell us that there is “an antecedent probability
in favor of a divine revelation, arising from the nature of the Deity
and the moral condition of man.” On the same ground, there must be an
equal probability that, if we are immortal, never-dying beings, that
revelation will plainly tell us so.

To the Bible alone, we look for correct views on the important subjects
of the character of God, the nature of life and death, the resurrection,
Heaven, and hell. But our views upon all these, must be, to a great
extent, governed by our views of the nature and destiny of man. On this
subject, therefore, the teachings of the Bible must, of consistency, be
sufficiently clear and full.

Prominent upon the pages of inspiration, we see pointed out the great
distinction which God has put between right and wrong, the rewards he
has promised to virtue, and the punishment he has threatened against
sin; we find it revealed that but few, comparatively, will be saved,
while the great majority of our race will be lost; and as the means by
which the perdition of ungodly men is accomplished, we find described in
fearfully ominous terms, a lake of fire burning with brimstone, intense
and unquenchable.

How these facts intensify the importance of the question, Are all men
immortal? Are these wicked immortal? Is their portion an eternity of
incomprehensible, conscious torture, and unutterable woe? Have they in
their nature a principle so tenacious of life that the severest
implements of destruction with which the Almighty can assail it, an
eternity of his intensest devouring fire can make no inroads upon its
inviolate vitality? Fearful questions!--questions in reference to which
it cannot be that the word of God will leave us in darkness, or perplex
us with doubt, or deceive us with falsehood.

In commending the reader to the word of God on this great theme, it is
unnecessary to suggest to any candid mind the spirit in which we should
present our inquiries. Prejudice or passion should not come within the
sacred precincts of such an investigation. If God has plainly revealed
that all the finally impenitent of our race are doomed to an eternity of
conscious misery, we must accept that fact, however hard it may be to
find any correspondence between the magnitude of the guilt and the
infinitude of the punishment, and however hard it may be to reconcile
such treatment with the character of a God who has declared himself to
be “LOVE.” If, on the other hand, the record shows that God’s government
can be vindicated, sin meet its just deserts, and at the same time such
disposition be finally made of the lost, as to relieve the universe from
the horrid spectacle of a hell forever burning, filled with sensitive
beings, frenzied with fire and flame, and blaspheming in their
ever-strengthening agony--can any one be the less ready to accept this
fact, or hesitate, on this account, to join in the ascription, “Great
and marvelous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; _just and true_ are thy
ways, thou King of saints”?




                              CHAPTER II.
                       IMMORTAL AND IMMORTALITY.


In turning to the Bible, our only source of information on this
question, to learn whether or not man is immortal, the first and most
natural step in the inquiry is to ascertain what use the Bible makes of
the terms “immortal” and “immortality.” How frequently does it use them?
To whom does it apply them? Of whom does it make immortality an
attribute? Does it affirm it of man or any part of him?

Should we, without opening the Bible, endeavor to form an opinion of its
teachings from the current phraseology of modern theology, we should
conclude it to be full of declarations in the most explicit terms that
man is in possession of an immortal soul and deathless spirit; for the
popular religious literature of to-day, which claims to be a true
reflection of the declarations of God’s word, is full of these
expressions. Glibly they fall from the lips of the religious teacher.
Broadcast they go forth from the religious press. Into orthodox sermons
and prayers they enter as essential elements. They are appealed to as
the all-prolific source of comfort and consolation in case of those who
mourn the loss of friends by death. We are told that they are not dead;
for “there is no death; what seems so is transition;” they have only
changed to another state of being, only gone before; for the soul is
immortal, the spirit never dying; and it cannot for a moment cease its
conscious existence.

This is all right provided the Bible warrants such declarations. But it
is far from safe to conclude without examination that the Bible does
warrant them; for whoever has read church history knows that it is
little more than a record of the unceasing attempts of the great enemy
of all truth to corrupt the practices of the professors of Christianity,
and to pervert and obscure the simple teachings of God’s word with the
absurdities and mysticisms of heathen mythology. It has been only by the
utmost vigilance that any Christian institution has been preserved, or
any Christian doctrine saved, free from some of the corruptions of the
great systems of false religion which have always held by far the
greater portion of our race in their chains of darkness and
superstition. And if we arraign the creeds of the six hundred Protestant
sects, as containing many unscriptural dogmas, it is only what every one
of them does, in reference to the other five hundred and ninety-nine.

To the law, then, and to the testimony. What say the Scriptures on the
subject of immortality?

FACT 1. The terms “immortal” and “immortality” are not found in the Old
Testament, either in our English version or in the original Hebrew.
There is, however, one expression, in Gen. 3:4, which is, perhaps,
equivalent in meaning, and was spoken in reference to the human race;
namely, “Thou shalt not surely die.” But unfortunately for believers in
natural immortality, this declaration came from one whom no person would
like to acknowledge as the author of his creed. It is what the devil
said to Eve, the terrible deception by means of which he accomplished
her fall, and so “brought death into the world and all our woe.” But
does not the New Testament supply this seemingly unpardonable omission
of the Old, by many times affirming that all men have immortality?

Remembering the many times you have heard and read from Biblical
expositors that you were in possession of an immortal soul, how many
times do you think that declaration is made in the New Testament? One
hundred times? Fifty? Thirty? Twenty? Ten? No. Five? No. Twice? _No._
ONCE? NO! Does not the New Testament then apply the term immortal to
anything? Yes; and this brings us to

FACT 2. The term immortal is used but once in the New Testament, in the
English version, and is then applied to God. The following is the
passage: 1 Tim. 1:17: “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible,
the only wise God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.”

The original word, however, αφθαρτος (_aphthartos_) from which immortal
is here translated, occurs in six other instances in the New Testament,
in every one of which it is rendered incorruptible. The word is defined
by Greenfield, “Incorruptible, immortal, imperishable, undying,
enduring.”

It is used, first, to describe God, in Rom. 1:23, “And changed the glory
of the _uncorruptible_ God into an image made like to corruptible man,
and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.”

It is used in 1 Cor. 9:25, to describe the heavenly crown of the
overcomer: “And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in
all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown, but we an
_incorruptible_.”

It is used in 1 Cor. 15:52, to describe the immortal bodies of the
redeemed: “In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump;
for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised
_incorruptible_, and we shall be changed.”

It is used in 1 Tim. 1:17, to describe God as already quoted.

It is used in 1 Pet. 1:4, to describe the inheritance reserved in Heaven
for the overcomer: “To an inheritance _incorruptible_ and undefiled,
that fadeth not away, reserved in Heaven for you.”

It is used in 1 Pet. 1:23, to describe the principle by which
regeneration is wrought in us: “Being born again, not of corruptible
seed, but of _incorruptible_, by the word of God, which liveth and
abideth forever.”

It is used in 1 Pet. 3:4, to describe the heavenly adorning which we are
to labor to secure: “But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that
which is _not corruptible_, even the ornament of a meek and quiet
spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.”

And these are all the instances of its use. In no one of them is it
applied to man or any part of him, as a natural possession. But does not
the last text affirm that man is in possession of a deathless spirit?
The words “incorruptible” and “spirit” both occur, it is true, in the
same verse; but they do not stand together, another noun and its
adjectives coming in between them; they are not in the same case,
incorruptible being in the dative, and spirit, in the genitive; they are
not of the same gender, incorruptible being masculine or feminine, and
spirit, neuter. What is it which is in the sight of God of great price?
The ornament of a meek and quiet spirit. What is the nature of this
ornament? It is not destructible like the laurel wreath, the rich
apparel, the gold and gems with which the unsanctified man seeks to
adorn himself; but it is incorruptible, a disposition molded by the
Spirit of God, some of the fruit of that heavenly tree which God values.
Does man by nature possess this incorruptible ornament, this meek and
quiet spirit? No; for we are exhorted to procure and adopt this instead
of the other. This, and this only, the text affirms. To say that this
text proves that man is in possession of a deathless spirit, is no more
consistent nor logical than it would be to say that Paul declares that
man has an immortal soul, because in his first epistle to Timothy
(1:17), he uses the word immortal, and in his first epistle to the
Thessalonians (5:23), he uses the word soul. The argument would be the
same in both cases.

FACT 3. The word “immortality” occurs but five times in the New
Testament, in our English version. The following are the instances:--

In Rom. 2:7, it is set forth as something for which we are to seek by
patient continuance in well-doing: “To them who by patient continuance
in well-doing seek for glory and honor and _immortality_, [God will
render] eternal life.”

In 1 Cor. 15:53, 54, it is twice used to describe what this mortal must
put on before we can inherit the kingdom of God: “For this corruptible
must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on _immortality_. So
when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal
shall have put on _immortality_, then shall be brought to pass the
saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.”

In 1 Tim. 6:16, it is applied to God, and the sweeping declaration is
made that he alone has it: “Who only hath _immortality_, dwelling in the
light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can
see: to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen.”

In 2 Tim. 1:10, we are told from what source we receive the true light
concerning it, which forever cuts off the claim that reason or science
can demonstrate it, or that the oracles of heathenism can make it known
to us: “But now is made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus
Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and
_immortality_ to light through the gospel.”

How has Christ brought life and immortality to light? Answer: By
abolishing death. There could have been no life nor immortality without
this; for the race were hopelessly doomed to death through sin. Then by
what means and for whom has he abolished death? Answer: By dying for man
and rising again, a victor over death; and he has wrought this work only
for those who will accept of it through him; for all who reject his
proffered aid will meet at last the same fate that would have been the
lot of all, had Christ never undertaken in our behalf. Thus through the
gospel, the good news of salvation through him, he has brought to light
the fact, not that all men are by nature already in possession of
immortality, but that a way is opened whereby we may at last gain
possession of this inestimable boon.

As with the word immortal, so with immortality: the original from which
it comes, occurs a few more times than it is so translated in the
English version. There are two words translated immortality. These are
ἀθανασία (_athanasia_) and ἀφθαρσία (_aphtharsia_). The former is
defined by Greenfield and Robinson simply “immortality,” and is so
translated in every instance. It occurs three times, in 1 Cor. 15:53,
54; 1 Tim. 6:16, as noticed above. The latter is defined, by the same
authorities, “incorruptibility, incorruptness; by implication,
immortality.” In addition to the instances above cited, it occurs in the
following passages; in all eight times:--

1 Cor. 15:42: “So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in
corruption; it is raised in _incorruption_.” In verses 50, 53 and 54, of
the same chapter, it is that _incorruption_ which corruption [our
present mortal condition] does not inherit, and which this corruptible
must put on before we can enter into the kingdom of God. In Eph. 6:24,
it is used to describe the love we should bear to Christ, and in Titus
2:7, the quality of the doctrine we should hold, in both which instances
it is translated “sincerity.”

We now have before us all the testimony of the Bible relative to
immortality. So far from being applied to man, the term is used as in
Rom. 1:23, to point out the contrast between God and man. God is
incorruptible or immortal. Man is corruptible or mortal. But if the real
man, the essential being, consists of an undecaying soul, a deathless
spirit, he, too, is incorruptible, and this contrast could not be drawn.
It is placed before us as an object of hope for which we are to seek:
declarations which would be a fraud and deception if we already have it.
It is used to distinguish between heavenly and eternal objects, and
those that are earthly and decaying. In view of these facts, no candid
mind can dissent from the following

CONCLUSION: So far as its use of the terms “immortal” and “immortality”
is concerned, the Bible contains no proof that man is in possession of
an undying nature.




                              CHAPTER III.
                           THE IMAGE OF GOD.


If man is immortal, we should naturally suppose that the Bible would
make known so weighty a truth in some of the instances where it has had
occasion to use the words immortal and immortality. Where else could it
more properly be revealed? And the fact that its use of those terms
affords no proof that man is in possession of this great attribute, but
rather that it belongs to God alone, should cause a person to receive
with great allowance the positive assertions of popular theology on this
question. Nevertheless it is supposed that there are other sources from
which proof can be drawn that man has a hold on life equal with that of
Jehovah himself; so that he will live as long as God exists.

The first of these is the opening testimony of the Bible concerning man,
which asserts that he was to be made in the image of God. Gen. 1:26, 27:
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let
them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his
own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created
he them.”

The first impulse of a person unacquainted with this controversy would
be to ask in astonishment what this has to do with the immortality of
man; nor would his astonishment be in any wise diminished when he heard
the reply that as God is immortal, man, made in his image, must be
immortal also. Has God, then, no other attribute but immortality, that
we must confine it to this? Is not God omnipotent? Yes. Is man? No. Is
not God omnipresent? Yes. Is man? No. Is not God omniscient? Yes. Is
man? No. Is not God independent and self-existent? Yes. Is man? No. Is
not God infallible? Yes. Is man? No. Then why single out the one
attribute of immortality, and make the likeness of man to God consist
wholly in this? In the form of a syllogism the popular argument stands
thus:--

_Major Premise_: God is immortal. 1 Tim. 1:17.

_Minor Premise_: Man is created in the image of God. Gen. 1:27.

_Conclusion_: Therefore man is immortal.

This is easily quashed by another equally good, thus:--

1. God is omnipotent.

2. Man is made in the image of God.

3. Therefore man is omnipotent.

This conclusion, by being brought within the cognizance of our senses,
becomes more obviously, though it is not more essentially, absurd. It
shows either that the argument for immortality drawn from the image of
God, is unqualified assumption, or that puny and finite man is clothed
with all the attributes of the deity.

In what respect, then, is man in the image of his Maker? A universal
rule of interpretation, applying to Bible language as well as any other,
is to allow every word its most obvious and literal import, unless some
plain reason exists for giving it a mystical or figurative meaning. The
plain and literal definition of image is, as given by Webster, “An
imitation, representation or similitude of any person or thing,
sculptured, drawn, painted, or otherwise made _perceptible to the
sight_; a _visible_ presentation; a copy; a likeness; an effigy.” We
have italicized a portion of this definition as containing an essential
idea. An image must be something that is visible to the eye. How can we
conceive of an image of anything that is not perceptible to the sight,
and which we cannot take cognizance of by any of the senses? Even an
image formed in the mind must be conceived of as having some sort of
outward shape or form. In this sense, of having outward form, the word
is used in each of the thirty-one times of its occurrence elsewhere in
the Old Testament.

The second time the word image is used, it is used to show the relation
existing between son and father, and is a good comment on the relation
which Gen. 1:26, 27, asserts to exist between man and God. Gen. 5:3:
“And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years and begat a son in his own
likeness, after his image.” No one would think of referring this to
anything but physical resemblance. Now put the two passages together.
Moses first asserts that God made man in his own image, after his
likeness, and a few chapters farther on asserts that this same man begat
a son in his own likeness, after his image. And, while all must admit
that this latter refers to bodily form or physical shape, the
theological schools tell us that the former, from the same writer, and
with no intimation that it is used in any other sense, must refer solely
to the attribute of immortality. Is not this taking unwarrantable
liberty with the inspired testimony? There is no room for any other
conclusion than that just as a son is, in outward appearance, the image
of his father, so man possesses, not the nature and attributes of God in
all their perfection, but a likeness or image of him in his physical
form.

It may be said that the word image is used in a different sense in the
New Testament, as, for example, in Col. 3:9, 10: “Lie not one to
another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds, and
have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image
of him that created him.” Let it ever be borne in mind that the point
which popular theology has to prove is that man is immortal because in
the image of God. This text is against that view; for that which is here
said to be in the image of Him that created him, is not the natural man
himself, but the new man which is put on, implying that the image had
been destroyed, and could be restored only in Christ. If, therefore, it
meant immortality as used by Moses, this text would show that that
immortality was not absolute, but contingent, and, having been lost by
the race, can be regained only through Christ.

Eph. 4:24, shows how this new man is created: “And that ye put on the
new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.”
Nothing is said about immortality even in connection with the new man.

Again: The word here translated image (ἐικων) is defined by Greenfield,
as meaning by metonymy, “an exemplar, model, pattern, standard, Col.
3:10.” No such definition as this is given by Gesenius to the word in
Genesis. So, though this Greek word may here have this sense, it affords
no evidence that the Hebrew word in Gen. 1:26, 27, can refer to anything
else but the outward form.

The same reasoning will apply to 1 Cor. 15:49, where the “image of the
heavenly,” which is promised to the righteous, is something which is not
in possession of the natural man, but will be attained through the
resurrection: “we _shall_ bear the image of the heavenly.” It cannot
therefore refer to the image stamped upon man at his creation, unless it
be admitted that that image, with all its included privileges, has been
lost by the human race--an admission fatal to the hypothesis of the
believers in the natural immortality of man.

In 1 Cor. 11:7, we read that man, as contrasted with the woman, is “the
image and glory of God.” To make the expression “image of God” here mean
immortality, is to confine it to man, and rob the better part of the
human race of this high prerogative.

In Gen. 9:6, we read: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his
blood be shed; for in the image of God made he man.” Substituting what
the image is here claimed to mean, we should have this very singular
reading: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed;
for he made him immortal, and his life cannot be taken.” Evidently the
reference in all such passages is, not only to “the human face divine,”
but to the whole physical frame, which, in comparison with all other
forms of animated existence, is upright and godlike.

But here the mystical interpretation of our current theology has thrown
up what is considered an insuperable objection to this view; for how can
man be physically in the image of God, when God is not a person, is
without form, and has neither body nor parts? In reply, we ask, Where
does the Bible say that God is a formless, impersonal being, having
neither body nor parts? Does it not say that he is a spirit? John 4:24.
Yes; and we inquire again, Does it not say that the angels are spirits?
Heb. 1:7, 14. And are not the angels, saying nothing of those instances
in which they have appeared to men in bodily form, and always in human
shape (Gen. 18:1-8, 16-22; 32:24; Hos. 12:4; Num. 22:31; Judges 13:6,
13; Luke 1:11, 13, 28, 29; Acts 12:7-9; &c., &c.), always spoken of as
beings having bodily form? A spirit, or spiritual being, as God is, in
the highest sense, so far from not having a bodily form, must possess
it, as the instrumentality for the manifestation of his powers. 1 Cor.
15:44.

Again, it is urged that God is omnipresent; and how can this be, if he
is a person? Answer: He has a representative, his Holy Spirit, by which
he is ever present and ever felt in all his universe. “Whither shall I
go,” asks David, “from thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy
presence?” Ps. 139:7. And John saw standing before the throne of God
seven Spirits, which are declared to be “the seven Spirits of God,” and
which are “sent forth into all the earth.” Rev. 4:5; 5:6.

We now invite the attention of the reader to a little of the evidence
that may be presented to show that God is a person, and so that man,
though of course in an imperfect and finite degree, may be an image, or
likeness of him, as to his bodily form.

1. God has made visible to mortal eyes parts of his person. Moses saw
the God of Israel. Ex. 33:21-23. An immaterial being, if such a thing
can be conceived of, without body or parts, cannot be seen with mortal
eyes. To say that God assumed a body and shape for this occasion, places
the common view in a worse light still; for it is virtually charging
upon God a double deception: first, giving Moses to understand that he
was a being with body and parts, and, secondly, under the promise of
showing himself, showing him something that was _not_ himself. And he
told Moses that he would put his hand over him as he passed by, and then
take it away, that he might see his back parts, but not his face. Has he
hands? has he back parts? has he a face? If not, why try to convey ideas
by means of language?

Again, Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy of the elders, saw the
God of Israel. Ex. 24:9-11. “And there was under his feet as it were a
paved work of a sapphire stone.” Has he feet? Or is the record that
these persons saw them, a fabrication? No man, to be sure, has seen his
face, nor could he do it and live, as God has declared. Ex. 33:20; John
1:18.

2. Christ, as manifested among men, is declared to be the image of God,
and in his form. Christ showed, after his resurrection, that his
immortal, though not then glorified, body, had flesh and bones. Luke
24:29. Bodily he ascended into Heaven where none can presume to deny him
a local habitation. Acts 1:9-11; Eph. 1:20; Heb. 8:1. But Paul, speaking
of this same Jesus, says, “Who is the image of the invisible God, the
firstborn of every creature.” Col. 1:15. Here the antithesis expressed
is between God who is invisible, and his image in the person of Christ
which was visible. It follows, therefore, that what of Christ the
disciples could see, which was his bodily form, was the image, to give
them an idea of God, whom they could not see.

Again: “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who,
being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.”
Phil. 2:5, 6. It remains to be told how Christ could be in the form of
God, and yet God have no form.

Once more: “God who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in
time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days
spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by
whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and
the _express image of his person_,” &c. Heb. 1:1-3. This testimony is
conclusive. It is an inspired declaration that God has a personal form;
and to give an idea of what that form is, it declares that Christ, just
as we conceive of him as ascended up bodily on high, is the express
image thereof.

The evidence already presented shows that there is no necessity for
making the image of God in which man was created to consist of anything
else but bodily form. But to whatever else persons may be inclined to
apply it, Paul in his testimony to the Romans, forever destroys the
possibility of making it apply to immortality. He says, Rom. 1:22, 23:
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the
glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible
man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.” The word
here rendered uncorruptible is the same word that is translated immortal
and applied to God in 1 Tim. 1:17. Now if God by making man in his image
stamped him with immortality, man is just as incorruptible as God
himself. But Paul says that he is not so; that while God is
uncorruptible or immortal, man is corruptible or mortal. The image of
God does not therefore, confer immortality.




                              CHAPTER IV.
                          THE BREATH OF LIFE.


Gen. 1:27, states, in general terms, the form in which man was created,
as contrasted with other orders of animal life. In Gen. 2:7, the process
is described by which this creation was accomplished. Finding no proof
in the former passage that man was put in possession of immortality (see
preceding chapter) we turn to the latter text to examine the claims
based upon that. The verse reads: “And the Lord God formed man of the
dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life:
and man became a living soul.”

Here the advocates of man’s natural immortality endeavor to make a
strong stand, as it is very proper they should do; for certainly if in
that inspired record which describes the building up of man, the putting
together of the different parts or constituent elements of which he is
composed, there is no testimony that he was clothed with immortality,
and no hook furnished upon which an argument for such an attribute can
be hung, their whole system is shaken to its very foundation.

The claim based upon this passage is that man is composed of two parts:
the body formed of the dust of the ground, and an immortal soul placed
therein by God’s breathing into the nostrils of that dust-formed body
the breath of life. We will let two representative men speak on this
point, and state the popular view. Thomas Scott, D. D., on Gen. 2:7,
says:--

“The Lord not only gave man life in common with the other animals which
had bodies formed of the same materials; but immediately communicated
from himself the _rational soul_, here denoted by the _expression of
breathing into his nostrils the breath of life_.”

Adam Clarke, LL. D., on Gen. 2:7, says:--

“In the most distinct manner God shows us that man is a compound being,
having a body and soul distinctly and separately created, the body out
of the dust of the earth, _the soul immediately breathed from God
himself_.”

Critics speak of this expression in a different manner from theologians;
for whereas the latter make it confer immortality, and raise man in this
respect to the same plane with his Maker, the former speak of it as
suggestive of man’s frail nature, and his precarious tenure of life
itself. Thus Dr. Conant says:--

“In whose nostrils is breath. Only breath, so frail a principle of life,
and so easily extinguished.”

And in a note on Isa. 2:22, where the prophet says, “Cease ye from man
whose breath is in his nostrils; for wherein is he to be accounted of?”
he adds:--

“Not as in the common English version, ‘whose breath is in his
nostrils;’ for where else should it be? The objection is not to its
place in the body, which is the proper one for it, but to its _frail and
perishable nature_.”

To the same intent the psalmist speaks, Ps. 146:3, 4: “Put not your
trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. _His
breath goeth forth_, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his
thoughts perish.”

But let us examine the claim that the “breath of life” which God
breathed into man conferred upon him the attribute of immortality. There
was nothing naturally immortal, certainly, in the dust of which Adam was
composed. Whatever of immortality he had, therefore, after receiving the
breath of life, must have existed in that breath in itself considered.
Hence, it must follow that the “breath of life” confers immortality upon
any creature to which it is given. Will our friends accept this issue?
If not, they abandon the argument; for certainly it can confer no more
upon man than upon any other being. And if they do accept it, we will
introduce to them a class of immortal associates not very flattering to
their vanity nor to their argument; for Moses applies the very same
expression to all the lower orders of the animal creation.

In Gen. 7:15, we read: “And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and
two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.” It must be evident to
every one, at a glance, that the whole animal creation, including man,
is comprehended in the phrase “all flesh.” But verses 21 and 22 contain
stronger expressions still: “And all flesh died that moved upon the
earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping
thing that creepeth upon the face of the earth, and every man. _All in
whose nostrils was the breath of life_, of all that was in the dry land,
died.”

Here the different orders of animals are named, and man is expressly
mentioned with them; and all alike are said to have had in their
nostrils the breath of life. It matters not that we are not told in the
case of the lower animals how this breath was conferred, as in the case
of man; for the immortality, if there is any in this matter, must
reside, as we have seen, in the breath itself, not in the manner of its
bestowal; and here it is affirmed that all creatures possess it; and of
the animals, it is declared, as well as of man, that it resides in their
nostrils.

It is objected that in Gen. 2:7, the “breath of life” as applied to man
is plural, “breath of lives” (see Clarke), meaning both animal life, and
that immortality which is the subject of our investigation. But, we
reply, it is the same form in Gen. 7:22, where it is applied to all
animals; and if the reader will look at the margin of this latter text
he will see that the expression is stronger still, “the breath of the
spirit of life” or of lives.

The language which Solomon uses respecting both men and beasts strongly
expresses their common mortality: “For that which befalleth the sons of
men, befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth,
so dieth the other; yea, _they have all one breath_; so that a man [in
this respect] hath no pre-eminence above a beast; for all is vanity. All
go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.”
Eccl. 3:19, 20.

Thus the advocates of natural immortality by appealing to Moses’ record
respecting the breath of life, are crushed beneath the weight of their
own arguments; for if “the breath of life” proves immortality for man,
it must prove the same for every creature to which it is given. The
Bible affirms that all orders of the animal creation that live upon the
land, possess it. Hence our opponents are bound to concede the
immortality of birds, beasts, bugs, beetles, and every creeping thing.
We are sometimes accused of bringing man down by our argument to a level
with the beast. What better is this argument of our friends which brings
beasts and reptiles up to a level with man? We deny the charge that we
are doing the one, and shall be pardoned for declining to do the other.




                               CHAPTER V.
                            THE LIVING SOUL.


Finding no immortality for man in the breath of life which God breathed
into man’s nostrils at the commencement of his mysterious existence, it
remains to inquire if it resides in the “living soul,” which man, as the
result of that action, immediately became. “And the Lord God formed man
of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of
life, and man became a living soul.” Gen. 2:7.

On this point also it is proper to let the representatives of the
popular view define their position. Prof. H. Mattison, on the verse just
quoted, says:--

“That this act was the infusion of a spiritual nature into the body of
Adam, is evident from the following considerations: The phrase,
‘breath of life,’ is rendered breath of lives by all Hebrew scholars.
Not only did animal life then begin, but another and higher life which
constituted him not only a mere animal, but a ‘living soul.’ He was a
body before,--he is now more than a body, a soul and body united. If
he was a ‘soul’ before, then how could he become such by the last act
of creation? And if he was not a soul before, but now became one, then
the soul must have been superadded to his former material
nature.”--_Discussion with Storrs_, p. 14.

Dr. Clarke, on Gen. 2:7, says:--

“In the most distinct manner God shows us that man is a _compound_
being, having a body and soul distinctly and separately created; the
body out of the dust of the earth, the soul immediately breathed from
God himself.”

To the same end see the reasonings of Landis, Clark (D. W.), and others.
Aware of the importance to their system of maintaining this
interpretation, they very consistently rally to its support the flower
of their strength. It is the redan of their works, and they cannot be
blamed for being unwilling to surrender it without a decisive struggle.
For if there is nothing in the inspired record of the formation of man,
that record which undertakes to give us a correct view of his nature, to
show that he is endowed with immortality, their system is not only
shaken to its foundation, but even the foundation itself is swept
entirely away.

The vital point, to which they bend all their energies, is somehow to
show that a distinct entity, an intelligent part, an immortal soul, was
brought near to that body as it lay there perfect in its organization,
and thrust therein, which immediately began through the eyes of that
body to see, through its ears to hear, through its lips to speak, and
through its nerves to feel. Query: Was this soul capable of performing
all these functions before it entered the body? If it was, why thrust it
within this prison house? If it was not, will it be capable of
performing them after it leaves the body?

Heavy drafts are made on rhetoric in favor of this superadded soul.
Figures of beauty are summoned to lend to the argument their aid. An
avalanche of flowers is thrown upon it, to adorn its strength, or
perchance to hide its weakness. But when we search for the logic, we
find it a chain of sand. Right at the critical point, the argument fails
to connect; and so after all their expenditure of effort, after all
their lofty flights, and sweating toil, their conclusion comes
out--blank assumption. Why? Because they are endeavoring to reach a
result which they are dependent upon the text to establish, but which
the text directly contradicts. The record does not say that God formed a
body, and put therein a superadded soul, to use that body as an
instrument; but he formed _man_ of the dust. That which was formed of
the dust was the man himself, not simply an instrument for the man to
use when he should be put therein. Adam was just as essentially a man
before the breath of life was imparted, as after that event. This was
the difference: before, he was a dead man; afterward, a living one. The
organs were all there ready for their proper action. It only needed the
vitalizing principle of the breath of life to set them in motion. That
came, and the lungs began to expand, the heart to beat, the blood to
flow, and the limbs to move; then was exhibited all the phenomena of
physical action; then, too, the brain began to act, and there was
exhibited all the phenomena of mental action, perception, thought,
memory, will, &c.

The engine is an engine before the motive power is applied. The bolts,
bars, pistons, cranks, shafts, and wheels, are all there. The parts
designed to move are ready for action. But all is silent and still.
Apply the steam, and it springs, as it were, into a thing of life, and
gives forth all its marvelous exhibitions of celerity and power.

So with man. When the breath of life was imparted, which, as we have
seen was given in common to all the animal creation, that simply was
applied which set the machine in motion. No separate and independent
organization was added, but a change took place in the man himself. The
man _became_ something, or reached a condition which before he had not
attained. The verb “became” is defined by Webster, “to pass from one
state to another; to enter into some state or condition, by a change
from another state or condition, or by assuming or receiving new
properties or qualities, additional matter or a new character.” And Gen.
2:7, is then cited as an illustration of this definition. But it will be
seen that none of these will fit the popular idea of the superadded
soul; for that is not held to be simply a change in Adam’s condition, or
a new property or quality of his being, or an addition of matter, or a
new character; but a separate and independent entity, capable, without
the body, of a higher existence than with it. The boy becomes a man; the
acorn, an oak; the egg, an eagle; the chrysalis, a butterfly; but the
capabilities of the change all inhere in the object which experiences
it. A superadded, independent soul could not have been put into man, and
be said to have _become_ that soul. Yet it is said of Adam, that he, on
receiving the breath of life, _became_ a living soul. An engine is put
into a ship, and by its power propels it over the face of the deep; but
the ship, by receiving the engine, does not become the engine, nor the
engine the ship. No sophistry, even from the darkest depths of its
alchemy, can bring up and attach to the word “become” a definition which
will make it mean, as applied to any body, the addition of a distinct
and separate organization to that body.

To the inquiry of Prof. Mattison, “If he was ‘a soul’ before, then how
could he become such by the last act of creation,” it may be replied,
The antithesis is not based upon the word soul, but upon the word
living. This will become evident by trying to read the passage without
this word: “And the Lord God breathed into his nostrils the breath of
life, and man became a soul.” That is not it. He became a _living_ soul.
He was a soul before, but not a living soul. To thus speak of a dead
soul, may provoke from some a sneer; nevertheless, the Hebrews so used
the terms. See Num. 6:6: “He shall come at no dead body,” on which
Cruden says, “in Hebrew, dead soul.”

Kitto, in his Relig. Encyclopedia, under the term Adam, says:--

“And Jehovah God formed the man (Heb., the Adam) dust from the ground,
and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a _living
animal_. Some of our readers may be surprised at our having translated
_nephesh chaiyah_ by living animal. There are good interpreters and
preachers who, confiding in the common translation, living soul, have
maintained that here is intimated a distinctive pre-eminence above the
inferior animals, as possessed of an immaterial and immortal spirit.
But, however true that distinction is, and supported by abundant
argument from both philosophy and the Scriptures, we should be acting
unfaithfully if we were to assume its being _contained_ or _implied_ in
this passage.”

The “abundant argument from both philosophy and the Scriptures” for
man’s immortal spirit, may be more difficult to find than many suppose.
But this admission that nothing of the kind is implied in this passage,
is a gratifying triumph of fair and candid criticism over what has been
almost universally believed and taught.

But we are not left to our own reasoning on this point; for inspiration
itself has given us a comment upon the passage in question; and
certainly it is safe to let one inspired writer explain the words of
another.

Paul, in 1 Cor. 15:44, and onward, is contrasting the first Adam with
the second, and our present state with the future. He says: “There is a
natural body and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The
first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a
quickening spirit.” Here Paul refers directly to the facts recorded in
Gen. 2:7. In verse 47, he tells us the nature of this man that was made
a living soul: “The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is
the Lord from Heaven.” In verse 49, he says, “And as we have borne the
image of the earthy,” have been, like Adam, living souls, “we shall also
bear the image of the heavenly,” when our bodies are fashioned like unto
his glorious body. Phil. 3:21. In verses 50 and 53, he tells us why it
is necessary that this should be done, and how it will be accomplished:
“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. For this
corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on
immortality.”

Putting these declarations all together, what do we have? We have a very
explicit statement that this first man, this living soul which Adam was
made, was of the earth, earthy, did not bear the image of the heavenly
in its freedom from a decaying nature, did not possess that incorruption
without which we cannot inherit the kingdom of God, but was wholly
mortal and corruptible. Would people allow these plain and weighty words
of the apostle their true meaning upon this question, it would not only
summarily arrest all controversy over the particular text under
consideration, but leave small ground, at least from the teachings of
the Scriptures, to argue for the natural immortality of man.

But the terms “living soul” like the breath of life, are applied to all
orders of the animate creation, to beasts and reptiles, as well as to
man. The Hebrew words are _nephesh chaiyah_; and these words are in the
very first chapter of Genesis four times applied to the lower orders of
animals: Gen. 1:20, 21, 24, 30. On Gen. 1:21, Dr. A. Clarke offers this
comment:--

“_Nephesh chaiyah_; a general term to express all creatures endued with
animal life, in any of its infinitely varied gradations, from the
half-reasoning elephant down to the stupid potto, or lower still, to the
polype, which seems equally to share the vegetable and animal life.”

This is a valuable comment on the meaning of these words. He would have
greatly enhanced the utility of that information, if he had told us that
the same words are applied to man in Gen. 2:7.

Prof. Bush, in his notes on this latter text, says:--

“The phrase living soul is in the foregoing narrative repeatedly applied
to the inferior orders of animals which are not considered to be
possessed of a ‘soul’ in the sense in which that term is applied to man.
It would seem to mean the same, therefore, when spoken of man, that it
does when spoken of beasts, viz.: an animated being, a creature
possessed of life and sensation, and capable of performing all the
physical functions by which animals are distinguished, as eating,
drinking, walking, &c.... Indeed it may be remarked that the Scriptures
generally afford much less _explicit_ evidence of the existence of a
sentient immaterial principle in man, capable of living and acting
separate from the body, than is usually supposed.”

And there is nothing in the term “living” to imply that the life with
which Adam was then endowed would continue forever; for these living
souls are said to die. Rev. 16:3: “And every living soul died in the
sea.” Whether this means men navigating its surface or the animals
living in its waters, it is equally to the point as showing that that
which is designated by the terms “living soul,” whatever it is, is
subject to death.

Staggered by the fact (and unable to conceal it) that the terms “living
soul” are applied to all animals, the advocates of man’s immortality
then undertake to make the word “became” the pivot of their argument.
Man “became” a living soul, but it is not said of the beasts that they
became such; hence this must denote the addition of something to man
which the animals did not receive. And in their anxiety to make this
appear, they surreptitiously insert the idea that the animal life of man
is derived from the dust of the ground, and that something of a higher
nature was imparted to man by the breath of life which was breathed into
him, and the living soul which he became. Thus Mr. Landis, in his work,
“The Immortality of the Soul,”[A] p. 141, says: “Hence something was to
be added to the mere animal life derived from the dust of the ground.”
Now Mr. L. ought to know, and knowing, ought to have the candor to
admit, that no life at all is derived from the dust of the ground. All
the life that Adam had was imparted by the breath of life which God
breathed into his nostrils, which breath all breathing animals, no
matter how they obtained it, possessed as well as he.

Footnote A:

  “The Immortality of the Soul and the Final Condition of the Wicked
  Carefully Considered. By Robert W. Landis. New York: Published by
  Carlton and Porter.” This is a work of 518 pages, and being issued
  under the patronage of the great Methodist Book Concern, we take it to
  be a representative work, and shall occasionally refer to its
  positions.

No emphasis can be attached to the word “became:” for everything that is
called a living soul must by some process have become such. “Whatever
was or is first _became_ what it was or is.”

Take the case of Eve. She was formed of a rib of Adam, made of
pre-existent matter. It is not said of her that God breathed into her
nostrils the breath of life, or that she became a living soul; yet no
one claims that her nature was essentially different from that of Adam
with whom she was associated, as a fitting companion.

And it will be further seen that this word “became” can have no value in
the argument, unless the absurd principle be first set up as truth, that
whatever becomes anything must forever remain what it has become.

Defenders of the popular view, by such reasoning reduce their argument
to its last degree of attenuation; but here its assumption becomes so
transparent that it has no longer power to mislead, and needs no further
reply.




                              CHAPTER VI.
                     WHAT IS SOUL? WHAT IS SPIRIT?


The discussion of Gen. 2:7 (as in the preceding chapter), brings
directly before us for solution the question, What is meant by the terms
soul and spirit, as applied to man? Some believers in unconditional
immortality point triumphantly to the fact that the terms soul and
spirit are used in reference to the human race, as though that settled
the question, and placed an insuperable embargo upon all further
discussion. This arises simply from their not looking into this matter
with sufficient thoroughness to see that all we question in the case is
the popular definition that is given to these terms. We do not deny that
man has a soul and spirit; we only say that if our friends will show
that the Bible anywhere attaches to them the meaning with which modern
theology has invested them, they will supply what has thus far been a
perpetual lack, and forever settle this controversy.

What do theologians tell us these terms signify? Buck, in his
Theological Dictionary, says: “Soul, that vital, immaterial, active
substance or principle in man whereby he perceives, remembers, reasons,
and wills.” On spirit, he says: “An incorporeal being or intelligence;
in which sense God is said to be a spirit, as are the angels and the
human soul.” On man, he says: “The constituent and essential parts of
man created by God are two: body and soul. The one was made out of dust;
the other was breathed into him.” This soul, he further says, “is a
spiritual substance;” and then, apparently feeling not exactly safe in
calling that a _substance_ which he claims to be _immaterial_, he
bewilders it by saying “subsistence,” and then adds, “immaterial,
immortal.”

This position strikes us as considerably open to criticism. On this
definition of “soul,” how can we deny it to the lower animals? for they
“perceive, remember, reason, and will.” And, if spirit means the “human
soul,” the question arises, Has man two immortal elements in his nature?
for the Bible applies both terms to him at the same time. Paul, to the
Thessalonians, says: “And I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body
be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Does
Paul here use tautology, by applying to man two terms meaning the same
thing? That would be a serious charge against his inspiration. Then has
man two immortal parts, soul and spirit both? This would evidently be
overdoing the matter; for, where one is enough, two are a burden. And
further, on this hypothesis, would these two immortal parts exist
hereafter as two independent and separate beings?

This idea being preposterous, one question more remains: Which of these
two is the immortal part? Is it the soul or the spirit? It cannot be
both; and it matters not to us which is the one chosen. But we want to
know what the decision is between the two. If they say that what we call
the soul is the immortal part, then they give up such texts as Eccl.
12:7: “The spirit shall return to God who gave it;” and Luke 23:46,
“Into thy hands I commend my spirit,” &c. On the other hand, if they
claim that it is the spirit which is the immortal part, then they give
up such texts as Gen. 35:18: “And it came to pass as her soul was in
departing (for she died);” and 1 Kings 17:21, “Let this child’s soul
come into him again.”

And, further, if the body and soul are both _essential_ parts of man, as
Mr. B. affirms, how can either exist as a distinct, conscious, and
perfect being without the other?

Foreseeing these difficulties, Smith, in his Bible Dictionary,
distinguishes between soul and spirit thus: “Soul (Heb. _nephesh_, Gr.
ψυχὴ). One of three parts of which man was anciently believed to
consist. The term ψυχὴ, is sometimes used to denote the vital principle,
sometimes the sentient principle, or seat of the senses, desires,
affections, appetites, passions. In the latter sense, it is
distinguished from πνευμα [_pneuma_], the higher rational nature. This
distinction appears in the Septuagint, and sometimes in the New
Testament. 1 Thess. 5:23.” Then he quotes Olshausen on 1 Thess. 5:23, as
saying: “For whilst the ψυχὴ [soul] denotes the lower region of the
spiritual man,--comprises, therefore, the powers to which analogous ones
are found in _animal_ life also, as understanding, appetitive faculty,
memory, fancy,--the πνευμα [_pneuma_] includes those capacities which
constitute the true human life.”

So it seems that, according to these expositors, while the Hebrew
_nephesh_, and Greek _psuche_, usually translated soul, denote powers
common to all animal life, the Hebrew _ruach_, and the corresponding
Greek _pneuma_, signify the higher powers, and consequently that part
which is supposed to be immortal.

Now let us inquire what meaning the sacred writers attach to these
terms. As already stated, the original words from which soul and spirit
are translated, are, for soul, _nephesh_ in the Hebrew, and _psuche_ in
the Greek, and for spirit, _ruach_ in the Hebrew, and _pneuma_ in the
Greek. To these no one is at liberty to attach any arbitrary meaning. We
must determine their signification by the sense in which they are used
in the sacred record; and whoever goes beyond that, does violence to the
word of God.

The word _nephesh_ occurs 745 times in the Old Testament, and is
translated by the term soul about 473 times. In every instance in the
Old Testament where the word soul occurs, it is from _nephesh_, with the
exception of Job 30:15, where it comes from _n’dee-vah_, and Isa. 57:16,
where it is from _n’shah-mah_. But the mere use of the word soul
determines nothing; for it cannot be claimed to signify an immortal
part, until we somewhere find immortality affirmed of it.

Besides the word soul, _nephesh_, is translated life and lives, as in
Gen. 1:20, 30, in all 118 times. It is translated person, as in Gen.
14:21, in all 29 times. It is translated mind, as in Gen. 23:8, in all
15 times. It is translated heart, as in Ex. 23:9, in all 15 times. It is
translated body, or dead body, as in Num. 6:6, in all 11 times. It is
translated will, as in Ps. 27:12, in all 4 times. It is translated
appetite, as in Prov. 23:2, twice; lust, as in Ps. 78:18, twice; thing,
as in Lev. 11:10, twice.

Besides the foregoing, it is rendered by the various pronouns, and by
the words, breath, beast, fish, creature, ghost, pleasure, desire, &c.,
in all forty-three different ways. _Nephesh_ is never rendered spirit.

This soul (_nephesh_) is represented as in danger of the grave, Ps.
49:14, 15; 89:88; Job 33:18, 20, 22; Isa. 38:17. It is also spoken of as
liable to be destroyed, killed, &c., Gen. 17:14; Ex. 31:14; Josh. 10:30,
32, 35, 37, 39, &c.

Parkhurst, author of a Greek and a Hebrew Lexicon, says:--

“As a noun, _neh-phesh_ hath been supposed to signify the spiritual part
of man, or what we commonly call his soul. I must for myself confess
that I can find no passage where it hath undoubtedly this meaning. Gen.
35:18; 1 Kings 17:21, 22; Ps. 16:10, seem fairest for this
signification. But may not _neh-phesh_, in the three former passages, be
most properly rendered _breath_, and in the last, a breathing, or animal
frame?”

Taylor, author of a Hebrew Concordance, says that _neh-phesh_ “signifies
the animal life, or that principle by which every animal, according to
its kind, lives. Gen. 1:20, 24, 30; Lev. 11:40. Which animal life, so
far as we know anything of the manner of its existence, or so far as the
Scriptures lead our thoughts, consists in the _breath_, Job. 41:21;
31:39, and in the _blood_. Lev. 17:11, 14.”

Gesenius, the standard Hebrew lexicographer, defines _nephesh_ as
follows:--

“1. Breath. 2. The vital spirit, as the Greek _psuche_, and Latin
_anima_, through which the body lives, _i. e._, the principle of life
manifested in the breath.” To this he also ascribes “whatever has
respect to the sustenance of life by food and drink, and the contrary.”
“3. The rational soul, mind, _animus_, as the seat of feelings,
affections, and emotions. 4. Concr. living thing, animal in which is the
_nephesh_, life.”

The word soul in the New Testament comes invariably from the Greek ψυχή
(_psuche_); which word occurs 105 times. It is translated soul 58 times;
life, 40 times; mind, 3 times; heart, twice; us, once; and you, once.

Spirit in the Old Testament is from two Hebrew words _n’shah-mah_ and
_ruach_.

The former occurs 24 times. It is 17 times rendered breath, 3 times,
blast, twice, spirit, once, soul, and once, inspiration. It is defined
by Gesenius, “Breath, spirit, spoken of the breath of God, _i. e._, _a_)
the wind, _b_) the breath, breathing of his anger. 2. Breath, life of
man and beasts. 3. The mind, the intellect. 4. Concr. living thing,
animals.”

The latter, _ruach_, occurs 442 times. Spirit in every instance in the
Old Testament is from this word, except Job 26:4, and Prov. 20:27; where
it is from _n’shah-mah_. Besides spirit it is translated wind 97 times,
breath, 28 times, smell, 8 times, mind, 6 times, blast, 4 times; also
anger, courage, smell, air, &c., in all sixteen different ways.

Spirit in the New Testament is from the Greek, πνεῦμα (_pneuma_) in
every instance. The original word occurs 385 times, and besides spirit
is rendered ghost 92 times, wind, once, and life, once. Parkhurst in his
Greek Lexicon, says: “It may be worth remarking that the leading sense
of the old English word ghost is breath; ... that ghost is evidently of
the same root with _gust_ of wind; and that both these words are plain
derivatives from the Hebrew, to move with violence; whence also _gush_,
&c.”

_Pneuma_ is defined by Robinson in his Greek Lexicon of the New
Testament, to mean, primarily, “1. A breathing, breath, breath of air,
air in motion. 2. The spirit of man, _i. e._, the vital spirit, life,
soul, the principle of life residing in the breath breathed into men
from God, and again returning to God.”

We now have before us the use and definitions of the words from which
soul and spirit are translated. From the facts presented we learn that a
large variety of meanings attaches to them; and that we are at liberty
wherever they occur to give them that definition which the sense of the
context requires. But when a certain meaning is attached to either of
these words in one place, it is not saying that it has the same meaning
in every other place.

By a dishonorable perversion on this point some have tried to hold up to
ridicule the advocates of the view we here defend. Thus, when we read in
Gen. 2:7, that Adam became a living soul, the sense demands, and the
meaning of the word soul will warrant, that we then apply it to the
whole person; Adam, as a complete being, was a living soul. But when we
read in Gen. 35:18, “And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing,
for she died,” we give the word, according to another of its
definitions, a more limited signification, and apply it, with Parkhurst,
to the breath of life.

But some have met us here in this manner: “Materialists tell us that
soul means the whole man, then let us see how it will read in Gen.
35:18; ‘And it came to pass as the whole man was in departing; for she
died.’” Or they will say, “Materialists tell us that soul means the
breath; then let us try it in Gen. 2:7: ‘And Adam became a living
breath.’”

Such a course, while it is no credit to their mental acumen, is utterly
disastrous to all their claims of candor and honesty in their treatment
of this important subject. While we are not at liberty to go beyond the
latitude of meaning which is attached to the words soul and spirit, we
are at liberty to use whatever definition the circumstances of the case
require, varying of course in different passages. But in the whole list
of definitions, and in the entire use of the words, we find nothing
answering to that immaterial, independent, immortal part, capable of a
conscious, intelligent, active existence out of the body as well as in,
of which the popular religious teachers of the day endeavor to make
these words the vehicle.

And now we would commend to the attention of the reader another
stupendous fact, the bearing of which he cannot fail to appreciate. We
want to know if this soul, or spirit, is immortal. The Hebrew and Greek
words from which they are translated, occur in the Bible, as we have
seen, _seventeen hundred times_. Surely, once at least in that long list
we shall be told that the soul is immortal, if this is its high
prerogative. Seventeen hundred times we inquire if the soul is once said
to be immortal, or the spirit deathless. And the invariable and
overwhelming response we meet is, _Not Once!_ Nowhere, though used so
many hundred times, is the soul said to be undying in its nature, or the
spirit deathless. Strange and unaccountable fact, if immortality is an
inseparable attribute of the soul and spirit!

An attempt is sometimes made to parry the force of this fact by saying
that the immortality of the soul, like that of God, is taken for
granted. We reply, The immortality of God is not taken for granted.
Although this might be taken for granted if anything could be so taken,
yet it is directly asserted that God is immortal. Let now the advocates
of the soul’s natural immortality produce one text where it is said to
have immortality, as God is said to have it, 1 Tim. 6:16, or where it is
said to be immortal, as God is said to be, 1 Tim. 1:17, and the question
is settled. But this cannot be done; and the ignoble shift of the
taken-for-granted argument falls dead to the floor.




                              CHAPTER VII.
                       THE SPIRIT RETURNS TO GOD.


Ecclesiastes 12:7: “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was,
and the spirit shall return to God who gave it.” It is natural for men
to appeal first and most directly to those sources from which they
expect the most efficient help. So the advocates of man’s natural
immortality, when put to the task of showing what scriptures they regard
as containing proof of their position, almost invariably make their
first appeal to the text here quoted.

In the examination of this text, and all others of a like nature, let it
ever be remembered that the question at issue is, Has man in his nature
a constituent element, which is an independent entity, and which, when
the body dies, keeps right on in uninterrupted consciousness, being
capable of exercising in a still higher degree out of the body the
functions of intelligence and activity which it manifested through the
body, and destined, whether a subject of God’s favor, or of his
threatened and merited wrath, to live so long as God himself exists.

Does this text assert anything of this kind? Does it state that from
which even such an inference can be drawn? We invite the reader to go
with us, while we endeavor to consider carefully what the text really
teaches. Our opponents appeal to it as direct testimony. Let us see how
far we can go with them.

1. Solomon, under a series of beautiful figures, speaks in Eccl. 12:1-7,
of the lying down of man in death. Granted.

2. Dust, or the body, and spirit are spoken of as two distinct things.
Granted.

3. At death, the spirit leaves the body. Granted.

4. The spirit is disposed of in a different manner from the body.
Granted.

5. This spirit returns to God, and is therefore conscious, after the
dissolution of the body. Not granted. Where is the proof of this? Here
our paths begin to diverge from each other. But how could it return to
God if it was not conscious? Answer: In the manner Job describes. “If he
[God] set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and
his breath, all flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again to
dust.” Job 34:14, 15. This text speaks of God’s gathering to himself the
“breath” of man; something which no one supposes to be capable of a
separate conscious existence. Over against this proposition we are
compelled to mark, Assumption.

6. This spirit is therefore to exist forever. This conclusion also we
fail to see, either expressed, or even in the remotest manner, implied.
Thus the vital points in the evidence are wholly assumed.

But if the spirit here does not mean what it is popularly supposed to
mean, what is its signification? What is it that returns to God? It will
be noticed that it is something which God “gave” to man. And Solomon
introduces it in a familiar manner, as if alluding to something already
recorded and well understood. He makes evident reference to the creation
of man in the beginning. His body was formed of the dust; and in
addition to this, what did God do for man or give unto him? He breathed
into his nostrils the _breath of life_. This is the only spirit that is
distinctly spoken of as having been given by God to man. No one claims
that this, like the body, was from the dust, or returns to dust; but it
does not therefore follow that it is conscious or immortal.

Landis, p. 133, falls into this wrong method of reasoning. He says:--

“If the soul were mortal, it too would be given up to the dust, it would
return also to the earth. But God affirms that it does not return to the
earth; and therefore it is distinct from the mortal and perishable part
of man.”

The breath of life is distinct from the body, and did not come from the
dust of the ground; but to say that it can exist in a conscious state
independent of the body, and that it must live forever, is groundless
assumption.

If spirit here means “the breath of life,” how, or in what sense, does
it return to God? Landis, p. 150, thus falsely treats this point also:
“How can the air we breathe,” he asks, “return to God?” Between the
breath of life as imparted to man by God, vitalizing the animal frame,
and air considered simply as an element, we apprehend there is a broad
distinction. Solomon is showing the dissolution of man by tracing back
the steps taken in his formation. The breath of life was breathed into
Adam in the beginning; by which he became a living soul. That is
withdrawn from man, and as a consequence he becomes inanimate. Then the
body, deprived of its vitalizing principle, having been formed of the
dust, goes back to dust again.

That the breath of life came from God to man, none will deny. Do they
ask how it returns to him? Tell us how it came from him, and we will
tell how it returns. In the same sense in which God gave it to man, in
that sense it returns to him. That is all there is of it. The
explanation is perfectly simple, because one division of the problem is
comprehended just as easily as the other. It is an easy thing to turn
off with a flippant sneer an explanation which if allowed to stand,
takes the very breath of life out of a cherished theory.

But there is a grave objection lying against the popular exposition of
this text, which must not pass unnoticed. It is involved in the
question, What was the state or condition of this spirit before God gave
it to man? Was it an independent, conscious, and intelligent being,
before it was put into Adam, as it is claimed that it was after Adam got
through with it, and it returned to God? Solomon evidently designs to
state respecting all the elements of which man is composed, as is
expressly stated of the body, that they resume the original condition in
which they were, before they came together to form the component parts
of man. We know it is argued that the expression respecting the body,
that it returns to the dust “as it was,” is good ground for an inference
that the spirit returns not as it was. Every principle of logic requires
the very opposite conclusion. For, having set the mind upon that idea of
sameness of condition, and then referring us to the source from whence
the spirit came, and stating that it goes back to that source, the
language is as good as an affirmation that it goes back to its original
condition also, and must be so understood unless an express affirmation
is made to the contrary. The question is therefore pertinent, Was this
spirit before it came into man, a conscious being, as it is claimed to
be after it leaves him? In other words, have we all had a conscious
pre-existence? Is the mystery of our Lord’s incarnation repeated in
every member of the human race? Yes! if popular theologians rightly
explain this text. And the more daring or reckless spirits among them,
seeing the logical sequence of their reasoning, boldly avow this
position.

Mr. Landis (to whom we make occasional reference as an exponent of the
popular theory) recoils at the idea of pre-existence, and claims (p.
147) that the spirit does not return as it was, but acquires “a moral
character, and so is changed from what it was when first created and
given to man”! Oh! then, when Adam’s body was formed of the dust of the
ground a spirit _was created_ (from what?) and put into it. Where did he
learn this? To what new revelation has he had access to become
acquainted with so remarkable a fact? Or whence derives he his authority
to manufacture statements of this kind? His soul swells with indignation
over some whom he styles materialists, and whom he accuses of
manufacturing scripture. Thou that sayest a man should not, dost thou?
Nothing is said of the “creation of a spirit” in connection with the
formation of Adam’s body. The body having been formed, God, by an
agency, not created for the purpose, but already existing with himself,
endowed it with life, and Adam became a living soul.

Having thus artfully introduced the idea that the spirit was created for
the occasion, Mr. L. takes up this reasoning which shows that if the
spirit is conscious after leaving the body, it must have been before it
entered it, and, applying to it a term doubtless suggested by his own
feelings in view of the assumptions to which he was himself obliged to
resort, calls it silly. Nevertheless here is the rock on which their
exposition of this text inevitably and hopelessly founders.

There is another consideration not without its bearing on this question.
The words, “And the spirit shall return to God who gave it,” are spoken
promiscuously of all mankind. They apply alike to the righteous and
wicked. If the spirit survives the death of the body, the spirits of the
righteous would, as a natural consequence, ascend to God, in whose
presence they are promised fullness of joy. But do the spirits of the
wicked go to God also? For what purpose? The immediate destination
usually assigned to them is the lake of fire. Is it said that they first
go to God to be judged? Then we ask, Where does the Bible once affirm
that a person is judged when he dies? On the contrary, the Scriptures
invariably place the Judgment in the future, and assert in the most
explicit terms that God has appointed a day for that purpose. Acts
17:31.

Thus the Bible doctrine of the Judgment is directly contradicted by this
view. According to the Scriptures no man has yet received his final
judgment; yet, according to the view under examination, the spirits of
all who have ever died, good and bad, righteous and wicked, have gone to
God. For what purpose have the spirits of the wicked gone to him? Are
they there still? Does God so deal with rebels against his
government--give them Heaven from one to six thousand years, more or
less, and hell afterward? Away with a view which introduces such
inconsistencies into God’s dealings with his creatures.

How infinitely preferable that view which alone the record warrants;
that is, that the spirit that returns to God who gave it is the breath
of life, that agency by which God vivifies and sustains these physical
frames; since this, so far as the record goes, is just what God did give
to man in the beginning, since the definition of the term sustains such
an application, since this spirit, without doing violence to either
thought or language, can return to God in the same sense in which it
came from him, and, above all, since this view harmonizes all the
record, and avoids those inconsistencies and contradictions in which we
find ourselves inevitably involved the very moment we undertake to make
the spirit mean a separate entity, conscious in death and immortal in
its nature.




                             CHAPTER VIII.
                      THE FORMATION OF THE SPIRIT.


In a search for testimony relative to the nature of man, with the
purpose of ascertaining whether or not he is immortal, those texts first
demand attention which are claimed as proof that he is above and beyond
the power of death. Zech. 12:1, is introduced as positive testimony on
this side of the question:

“The burden of the word of the Lord for Israel, saith the Lord, which
stretcheth forth the heavens and layeth the foundations of the earth,
and formeth the spirit of man within him.”

With an immense flourish this text is introduced by Mr. Landis, p. 152;
and with an air of triumph he adds that materialists are in the habit of
passing it in silence. We think we can answer for them that they have
seen in it nothing to answer, and hence have declined to spend their
time beating the air. As to the nature of the spirit which God forms in
man, its characteristics and attributes, this text affirms nothing.
Above all, respecting the main inquiry, Is this spirit immortal? the
text is entirely silent. Why then is it introduced? Because it contains
the word spirit. But, as has been shown (chapter vi), nothing is proved
by the mere use of the words soul and spirit, till some affirmation can
be found in the Scriptures that these terms signify an independent
entity, which has the power of uninterrupted consciousness, and the
endowment of immortality. For men to take these terms and give them
definitions and clothe them with attributes which are the offspring of
pagan philosophy, or figments of their own imagination, and then claim
that because the Bible uses these terms it sustains their views, is to
us, at least, a very unsatisfactory method of settling this question.
But, from the persistency with which it is followed by those of the
opposite view, one might conclude that it is the only way they have of
sustaining their position.

God formeth the spirit of man within him. So the text asserts. The word,
form, is in the Septuagint, _plasso_. The definition of this word, as
given by Liddell and Scott, is, “To form, mould, shape, Lat. _fingere_,
strictly used of the artist who works in soft substances, such as earth,
clay, wax.” The word, then, signifies giving shape and form to something
already in existence; for the artist does not create his clay, wax, &c.,
but only changes its form. The second definition seems, however, to be
more applicable to the case in hand. Thus, “II. generally, to bring into
shape or form, πλ. τὴν ψυχὴν τὸ σῶμα, to mould and form the mind or body
by care, diet, and exercise.” Thus God makes man the crown of creation
by forming in him (through a superior organization of the brain) an
intellectual or mental nature, and we can still further form or mold it,
by care and cultivation. There is nothing here to favor the idea of the
creation of a separate immaterial and immortal entity, and its insertion
into the human frame.

This text is illustrated by Job 32:8: “But there is a spirit in man; and
the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding;” not “giveth
it [the spirit] understanding,” as we heard an immaterialist in debate
not long since read it; but “giveth them [the men] understanding.” That
is, men are endowed with a superior mental organization; and by means of
that God gives them understanding.

Since, however, Zech. 12:1, is used by immaterialists, to prove that
souls are specially created, it raises the question, which may as well
be considered in this connection as any other, whence the spirit,
whatever it is, is derived. In the text under consideration, the present
tense is evidently used for the past; and hence it might be read, “The
burden of the word of the Lord ... which stretched forth the heavens,
and laid the foundations of the earth, and _formed_ the spirit of man
within him.” If now this means the creation of an immortal entity to be
added to man, called his spirit, it applies only to the first man, the
man formed at the creation of the world. The question then remains, How
do all succeeding members of the human race, how do we, get an immortal
spirit? Is it by a special act of creation on the part of God, or is it
by generation from father to son? Has God, for every member of the human
race since Adam, by special act created a soul or spirit? They who say
he has, contradict Gen. 2:2, which declares that all God’s work of
creation, so far as it pertains to this world, was finished in the first
week of time. If this testimony is true, it is certain that God has not
been at work ever since creating human souls as fast as bodies were
brought into existence to need them, the greater part of the time
thousands of them every day.

Has God thus made himself the servant of the human race, to wait upon
their will, caprice, and passions? for how many of the inhabitants of
this earth are the offspring of the foulest iniquity and the most
unbridled lust! Does God hold himself in readiness to create souls which
must come from his hand immaculate and pure, to be thrust into such vile
tenements, at the bidding of godless lust? The reader will pardon the
irreverence of the question, for the sake of an exposure of the
absurdity of that theory which prompts it.

But if we say that the soul is transmitted with the body, then what
becomes of its incorruptibility and immortality? for “that which is born
of the flesh is flesh.” John 3:6. And Peter says (1 Pet. 1:23-25):
“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the
word of God which liveth and abideth forever. For all flesh is as grass,
and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth,
and the flower thereof falleth away; but the word of the Lord endureth
forever.”

There could hardly be a plainer testimony that man as a whole is mortal
and perishable. He is born of corruptible seed. But more than this, it
is added, “All flesh is as grass.” Should it be said that this means
simply the body, we reply that the term flesh is frequently used in the
New Testament to signify the whole man. Thus, Rom. 3:20: “By the deeds
of the law there shall no flesh be justified.” Paul does not here talk
about the justification of bones, sinews, nerves and muscles; he refers
to the whole responsible man. In the same sense the term is used in many
other passages. But Peter himself, in the passage just quoted, cuts off
its application exclusively to the body; for after saying that “all
flesh is as grass,” he continues, “and all the glory of man as the
flower of grass.” The glory of man must include all that there is noble
and exalted about his nature. If the soul is the highest and most
godlike part of man, it is included in this glory; but lo! it is all
like the flower of the grass, transitory and perishable.

The word mortal, which means liable to death, occurs five times in our
English version, and in every instance is used to describe the nature of
the real man. Rom. 6:12; 8:11; 1 Cor. 15:53, 54; 2 Cor. 4:11. It occurs
in the original in one other instance (2 Cor. 5:4) where it is rendered
“mortality.”

The texts usually relied on to prove that souls are immediately created
are Eccl. 12:7; Isa. 57:16; Zech. 12:1. The first of these was examined
in the last chapter. The word translated “form” in the last of these
passages, as shown in this present chapter, is not a word that signifies
to create, but only to put into form, mold, and fashion. Isa. 57:16,
speaks of the souls which God has made. But there are numerous other
texts, as Job 10:8-11; Isa. 44:2; 64:8; Jer. 1:5, &c., which speak in
the same manner of the body. But if such expressions can be used with
respect to the body, produced by the natural process of generation, the
same expression with reference to the soul contains no proof that that
is not also transmitted with the body.

God said to our first parents, and the commission was repeated to Noah
after the flood, “Be fruitful and multiply.” Multiply what? Themselves,
of course. Did that mean that they should multiply bodies, and God would
multiply souls to fit them? Nothing of the kind; but they were to
multiply beings having all the characteristics, endowments, and
attributes of themselves. So Adam, Gen. 5:3, “begat a son in his own
likeness, after his image, and called his name Seth.” This son was like
Adam in all respects, having all the natures that Adam possessed; and
that which was begotten by Adam was called Seth. But according to the
doctrine of creationism, Adam begat only a body, and God created a soul,
which is the real man, and called his name Seth, and put it into that
body. Neither this text nor any other gives countenance to any such
absurdity.

Some prominent theologians, both ancient and modern, have adopted the
doctrine of traduction as opposed to that of creationism, believing the
latter to be contrary to philosophy and revelation, but the former to be
in harmony with both. In Wesley’s Journal, Vol. v., p. 10, is found the
following entry:--

“I read and abridged an old work on the origin of the soul. I never
before saw anything on the subject so satisfactory. I think the author
proves to a demonstration that God has enabled man, as all other
creatures, to propagate his whole specie, consisting of soul and body.”

The testimony of Richard Watson (Institutes, pp. 362, 3) is equally
explicit. He says:--

“A question as to the transmission of this corruption of nature from
parents to children has been debated among those who, nevertheless,
admit the fact; some contending that the soul is _ex traduce_; others
that it is by immediate creation. It is certain that, as to the
metaphysical part of this question, we can come to no satisfactory
conclusion. The Scriptures, however, appear to be more in favor of
traduction. ‘Adam begat a son in his own likeness.’ ‘That which is born
of the flesh is flesh,’ which refers certainly to the soul as well as to
the body.... The tenet of the soul’s descent appears to have most
countenance from the language of Scripture, and it is no small
confirmation of it, that when God designed to incarnate his own Son, he
stepped out of the ordinary course, and formed a sinless human nature
immediately by the power of the Holy Ghost.”

The evidence is thus rendered conclusive from both reason and Scripture,
that the soul is transmitted through the process of generation with the
body. What then, we ask again, becomes of its immortality? For “that
which is born of the flesh is flesh,” and mortality cannot generate
itself to a higher plane and beget immortality. This is not saying that
mind is matter; for the results of organization are not to be confounded
with the matter of which the organization is composed.




                              CHAPTER IX.
                              WHO KNOWETH?


With these words Solomon introduces, in Eccl. 3:21, a very important
question respecting the spirit of man. He says: “Who knoweth the spirit
of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth
downward to the earth?” Deeming this a good foundation, the advocates of
natural immortality proceed to build thereon. They take it to be, first,
a positive declaration that the spirit of man does go up, and the spirit
of the beast downward to the earth. Then the superstructure is easily
erected: Thus, Solomon must have believed that man had a spirit capable
of a separate and conscious existence in death; and this spirit, in the
hour of dissolution, ascends up on high, and goes into the presence of
God. It therefore survives the stroke of death, and is consequently
immortal.

Here they rest their argument; but we would like to have them proceed;
for the text speaks of the spirit of the beast, which must also be
disposed of. If the spirit of man, because it separates from him and
goes up, is conscious, is not the spirit of the beast, because it
separates from it and goes down, conscious also? There is nothing in the
man’s spirit going up which can by any means show it to be conscious,
any more than there is in the spirit of the beast going down, to show it
to be conscious. But, if the spirit of the beast survives the stroke of
death, it has just as much immortality as that of man. This line of
argument, therefore, proves too much, and must be abandoned.

But is not the word spirit as applied to the beast a different word in
the original from the one translated spirit and applied to man? No; they
are both from the same original word; and that word is _ruach_, the word
from which spirit is translated in the Old Testament in every instance
with two exceptions. The beast has the same spirit that man has.

Landis (p. 146) feels the weight of the stunning blow which this fact
gives to the popular view, and endeavors to parry its force by the
following desperate resort: He says that Solomon is here describing the
state of doubt and perplexity through which he had formerly passed; and,
to use Mr. L.’s own words, “in this perplexity he attributes to both man
and beast a _ruach_.” But he says that Solomon got over this state of
doubt and uncertainty, and “never again attributed a _ruach_ to beasts.”
What we regard as the Bible view of man’s nature is not unfrequently
denominated infidelity by the popular theologians of the present day;
but it strikes us as rather a bold position to go back and accuse the
sacred writers of laboring under a spirit of infidelity when they penned
these sentiments.

But if we take Solomon’s words to be a declaration that the spirit of
man does go up, his question, even then, would imply a strong
affirmation that we are ignorant of its essential qualities. Who knoweth
this spirit? Who can tell its nature? Who can describe its inherent
characteristics? Who can tell how long it shall continue to exist? On
these vital points, the text is entirely silent, granting all that is
claimed for it.

But, further, if this text asserts that the spirit of man goes up to
God, it will be noticed that it is spoken promiscuously of all mankind.
Then the same queries would arise respecting the spirits of the wicked,
for what purpose they go to God, and the same objections would lie
against that view that were stated in the examination of Eccl. 12:7, in
chapter vii.

To arrive, however, at the correct meaning of Eccl. 3:21, a brief
examination of the context is necessary. In verse 18, Solomon expresses
a desire that the sons of men may see that they themselves are beasts.
Not that he intended to be understood that man is in no respect superior
to a beast; for no one, inspired or not, above the level of an idiot,
would make such an assertion, in view of man’s more perfect
organization, his reasoning faculties, and, above all, his future
prospects, if righteous. He simply means, as plainly expressed in the
next verse, that in one respect, namely, their dissolution in death, man
possesses no superiority over the other orders of animated existence.
“For,” he says, “that which befalleth the sons of men, befalleth beasts;
even one thing befalleth them; as the one dieth [here is the point of
similarity], so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath [_ruach_,
the same word that is rendered spirit in verse 21]; so that a man [in
this respect] hath no pre-eminence above a beast. All go unto one place
[is that place Heaven? and is this a declaration that all, men and
beasts alike, go there?] all are of the dust, and all turn to dust
again.”

Thus definite and positive is the teaching of Solomon that in respect to
their life here upon earth, and their condition in death, men and beasts
are exactly alike; and now can we suppose that, after having thus
clearly expressed his views of this matter, he proceeds in the very next
sentence to contradict it all, and assert that in death there is a
difference between men and beasts, that men do have a pre-eminence, that
all do _not_ go to one place, that the spirit of man goes up conscious
to God, and the spirit of the beast goes down to perish in the earth?
This would be to make the wisest man that ever lived, the most stupid
reasoner that ever put pen to paper.

How, then, is his language in verse 21 to be understood? Answer:
Understand it as a question whether the spirit of man goes up, and the
spirit of the beast down, as some asserted in opposition to the views
which he taught. John Milton, author of Paradise Lost, so translates it:
“Who knoweth the spirit of man [_an sursum ascendat_] _whether_ it goeth
upward?” &c. The Douay Bible renders the passage thus: “Who knoweth _if_
the spirit of the children of Adam ascend upward, and _if_ the spirit of
the beasts descend downward?” The Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Chaldee
Paraphrase, the Syriac, and the German of Luther, give the same reading.

This puts the matter in quite a different light, and saves Solomon from
self-contradiction; but, alas for the immaterialist! it completely
overturns the structure of immortality built thereon.

The notion prevailed in the heathen world that man’s spirit ascended up
to be with the gods, but the spirit of the beast went down to the earth.
It was the old lesson taught by that unreliable character. in Eden, “Ye
shall not surely die,” but “ye shall be as gods.” Solomon contradicts
this by stating the truth in the case, that death reduces man and beast
alike to one common condition. Then he asks, Who knows that the opposite
heathen doctrine is true, that the spirit of man goes up, and that of
the beast down? He had declared that they all went to one place, in
accordance with God’s original sentence, “Thou shalt surely die;” now he
calls for evidence, if there be any, to show that the opposite doctrine
is true. Thus he smites to the ground this pagan notion by putting it to
the proof of its claims, for which no proof exists.

There is another class of expressions respecting the word spirit, which
properly come under consideration at this point. The first is Ps. 31:5,
where David says: “Into thine hand I commit my spirit.” Our Lord used
similar language, perhaps borrowed from this expression of David, when,
expiring on the cross, he said, “Father, into thy hands I commend my
spirit.” Luke 23:46. And Stephen, the martyr, in the same line of
thought, put up this expiring prayer: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”
Acts 7:59. What was it which David and our Lord wished to commit into
the hands of God, and Stephen, into the hands of Christ? A conscious
entity it is claimed, the living and immortal part of man; for nothing
less could properly be committed to God. Thus Mr. Landis (p. 131) asks:
“What was it then? The mere life which passed into nonentity at death?
And can any one suppose they would have commended to God a nonentity?
This would be a shameless trifling with sacred things.” But David, on
one occasion (1 Sam. 26:24), prayed that his life might be much set by,
or be precious, in the eyes of the Lord. That which is precious in his
sight, it seems might very properly be commended to his keeping,
especially when passing, for his sake, out of our immediate control. And
in the very psalm (31) in which he commits his spirit to God, he does it
in view of the fact that his enemies had “devised to take away his
_life_.” Verse 13.

It is a fact that the same or similar acts are spoken of frequently as
done in reference to the life that are said to be done in reference to
the spirit. Can a person commit his spirit to God? So he can commit to
him the preservation of his life. Thus David says, Ps. 64:1: “Preserve
my life.” What! Mr. Landis would exclaim, preserve a nonentity? Jonah
prayed (4:3), “O Lord, take, I beseech thee, my life from me.” Christ
says, John 10:15: “I lay down my life for the sheep;” and in John 13:38,
he asks Peter, “Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake?”

Thus our life is something that we can commit to another for safe
keeping; it can be taken away from us; we can give it up, or lay it
down. Is it, therefore, a distinct entity, conscious in death? If it is
not, then equivalent expressions applied to the spirit do not prove that
to be conscious in death and immortal; for they prove the same in the
one case as in the other; and whatever they fail to prove in the one
case, they fail to prove also in the other.

But if the spirit, as is claimed, lives right along after death, just as
conscious as before, and a hundred-fold more active, capable,
intelligent, and free, where would be the propriety of committing it to
God in the hour of death, any more than at any point during its earthly
existence? There would be none whatever. Entering upon that permanent
higher life, it would be much more capable of caring for itself than in
this earthly condition. The expression bears upon its very face evidence
that those who used it desired to commit something into the care of
their Maker which was about to pass out of their possession; to commit
something into his hands for safe keeping until they should be brought
back from the state of unconsciousness and inactivity into which they
were then falling. And what was that? It was what they were then losing,
namely, their life, their _pneuma_, which Robinson defines as meaning,
among other things, “The principle of life residing in the breath,
breathed into man from God, and again returning to God.” And when the
life is thus given up to God by his people, where is it? “Hid with
Christ in God.” Col. 3:3. And when will the believer receive it again?
“When Christ who is our life shall appear.” Verse 4. Then Stephen will
receive from his Lord that which while dying he besought him to receive.
Then they who for Christ’s sake have lost their life (not merely their
bodies while their life continued right on) will have that life restored
to them again.




                               CHAPTER X.
                 THE SPIRITS OF JUST MEN MADE PERFECT.

“But ye are come,” says Paul, “unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the
living God, the Heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of
angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn which are
written in Heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of
just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant,
and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of
Abel.” Heb. 12:22-24.


With a great show of confidence, either pretended or real, the advocates
of man’s immortality bring forward this text in proof of their position.
That portion of the forgoing quotation upon which they hang their theory
is the expression, “the spirits of just men made perfect,” which they
take to be both a declaration and proof thereof, that the spirits of men
are released by death, and thereupon are made perfect or glorified in
the presence of God in Heaven. A little further examination of the
language will, we think, show that such an assertion is not made in the
text and that even such an inference cannot justly be drawn.

That Paul is here contrasting the blessings and privileges enjoyed by
believers under the gospel dispensation with those possessed by the Jews
under the former dispensation, will probably not be questioned on either
side. Ye are not come to the mount that might be touched [Mount Sinai]
and the sound of a trumpet, &c., that is, to that system of types and
ceremonies instituted through Moses at Sinai, of which an outward
priesthood were the ministers, and Old Jerusalem the representative
city; but ye are come to Mount Zion, to the New Jerusalem, to Jesus, and
to his better sacrifice. These things to which we are come are the
superior blessings of the gospel, over what was enjoyed under the former
dispensation. But where or how does the fact come in, as one of these
blessings, that man has a spirit which is conscious in death, and is
made perfect by the dissolution of the body? It will be seen that if
this be a fact, it is brought in, at best, only incidentally. There is
no proof of it in the expression, “spirits of just men made perfect,” in
itself considered; for they could be made perfect at some future time,
without supposing them conscious from death to the resurrection. The
only proof that can here be found, then, lies in the fact that we are
said to have _come_ to these spirits. This is supposed to prove that
they must be spirits out of the body, and that they must also be
conscious. Then we inquire, How do we come to the spirits of just men
made perfect, and what is meant by the expression?

It is not difficult to determine how we come to all the other objects
mentioned by Paul in the three verses quoted; but how we come to the
spirits of just men made perfect, according to the popular view of that
expression, is not so clear. If we mistake not, the common view will
have to be modified, or the explanation remain ungiven.

Let us see: “Ye are come [or, putting it in the first person, since Paul
brings these to view as present blessings all through the gospel
dispensation, we are come] unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the
living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.” That is, we in this dispensation no
longer look to Old Jerusalem as the center of our worship, but we look
above, to the New Jerusalem, where the sanctuary and Priest of this
dispensation are. In this sense we are come to them.

“And to an innumerable company of angels.” Angels are the assistants of
our Lord in his work, who now mediates for his people individually. Dan.
7:10. They are sent forth to minister to those who shall be heirs of
salvation. Heb. 1:14. They are therefore more intimately concerned in
the believer’s welfare in this dispensation than in the old. We have
thus come to their presence and ministration.

“To the general assembly and church of the firstborn which are written
in Heaven.” That is, we have now come to the time when believers of
whatever nationality, whose names are recorded in the Lamb’s book of
life in Heaven, constitute a general assembly, or compose one church. We
do not now look to Jewish genealogies to find the people of God, but we
look to the record in Heaven. And God now takes his people into covenant
relation with himself as individuals, and not as a nation. Thus we are
come in this dispensation to the general assembly, the church of the
firstborn.

“And to God the Judge of all.” Directly, through the mediation of his
Son, we draw near to God. Passing over for a time the expression under
discussion, the spirits of just men made perfect, we read on:--

“And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant.” We now come to Jesus,
the real mediator, instead of to the typical priesthood of the former
dispensation.

“And to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better things than that of
Abel.” That is, there is now ministered for us the blood of Jesus, the
better sacrifice, which takes away from us sin in fact, instead of the
blood of beasts, which took it away only in figure.

It can readily be seen how we come to all these things under this
dispensation; how these are all privileges and blessings under the
gospel, beyond what was enjoyed in the former dispensation. But now, if
the spirits of just men made perfect mean disembodied spirits in the
popular sense, how do we come to these as a gospel blessing? This is
what we would like to have our friends tell us. In what respect is our
relation to our dead friends, the supposed spirits of the departed,
changed by the gospel? If there is any sense in which we may be said to
have come to these, we would like to know it.

But again, when do we come into closest contact with a man’s spirit? Is
it when that spirit is disembodied, and has gone far away to dwell in
the presence of God, and is to have no more to do forever with anything
that is done under the sun? Eccl. 9:6. Is it not rather when the spirit
of a man through the eyes of that man looks upon us, through his mouth
speaks to us, and through his hands handles us? Outside the hell-doomed
hosts of spiritualists, will any one say that we enjoy more intimate
relations with a spirit when it is out of the body than we do while it
is in the body? A consideration of this point must convince any one that
the idea of _coming_ to the spirits of just men made perfect cannot
possibly be applied to spirits out of the body.

It will be noticed further that the text does not speak of spirits made
perfect, but of men made perfect. The Greek (και πνεύμασι δικαίων
τετελειωμένων) shows that the participle, “made perfect,” agrees with
“the just,” or “just men,” and not with “spirits.” When, then, we
inquire, are men made perfect? There is a certain sense in which they
are made perfect in this life through the justification of the blood of
Christ, and sanctification of his Spirit; and they are made perfect in
an absolute sense, as in Heb. 11:40, when they experience the final
glorification, and their vile bodies are made like unto Christ’s most
glorious body. Phil. 3:21.

If it is said that the text refers to this latter perfection, then it is
placed beyond the resurrection, and affords no proof of a conscious
disembodied spirit. If it refers to the former, then it applies to
persons still in this state, and not in death. To one or the other it
must refer; and apply it which way we may, it does not bring to view a
spirit conscious in death. Therefore it fails entirely to prove the
point in favor of which our friends produce it.

In harmony with the context, we apply it to the present state, to men in
this life, to a blessing peculiar to the gospel, to the justification
and sanctification which the believer now enjoys through Christ. And in
this sense we see how we come to it, as to all the other things
mentioned by Paul. We come to the enjoyment of this blessing ourselves,
and to communion and fellowship with those who are also in possession of
it.

Finally, to show that this not a view devised to meet any exigency of
our position, we will bring to its support a name which with all will
have great weight, and with many will be final authority. Dr. Adam
Clarke, on this passage, says:--

“In several parts of this epistle [to the Hebrews], τελειος, the just
man, signifies one who has a full knowledge of the Christian system, who
is justified and saved by Christ Jesus; and τετελειωμενοι are the _adult
Christians_, who are opposed to the νεπιοι or babes in knowledge and
grace. See chap. 5:12-14; 8:11; Gal. 4:1-3. _The spirits of just men
made perfect_, or the _righteous perfect_, are the full-grown
Christians; those who are justified by the blood and sanctified by the
Spirit of Christ. Being _come_ to such implies that spiritual union
which the disciples of Christ have with each other, and which they
possess how far soever separate; for they are all joined in one Spirit,
Eph. 2:18; they are in the unity of the Spirit, Eph. 4:3, 4; and of one
soul, Acts 4:32. This is a unity which was never possessed even by the
Jews themselves, in their best state; it is peculiar to real
Christianity; as to _nominal_ Christianity, wars and desolations between
man and his fellows are quite consistent with _its_ spirit.”

The reader is also referred to Dr. C.’s note at the end of Heb. 12.




                              CHAPTER XI.
                         THE SPIRITS IN PRISON.

“For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust,
that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but
quickened by the Spirit; by which also he went and preached unto the
spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the
longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a
preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water.” 1
Pet. 3:18-20.


The advocates of natural immortality are not long in finding their way
to this passage. Here, it is claimed, are spirits brought to view, out
of the body; for they were the spirits of the antediluvians: and they
were conscious and intelligent; for they could listen to the preaching
of Christ, who, by his conscious spirit, while his body lay in the
grave, went and preached to them.

Let us see just what conclusions the popular interpretation of this
passage involves, that we may test their claims by the Scriptures. 1.
The spirits were the spirits of wicked men; for they were disobedient in
the days of Noah, and perished in the flood. 2. They were consequently
in their place of punishment, the place to which popular theology
assigns all such spirits immediately on their passing from this state of
existence. 3. The spirit of Christ went into hell to preach to them.
These are the facts that are to be cleared of improbabilities, and
harmonized with the Scriptures, before the passage can be made available
for the popular view.

But the bare suggestion of so singular a transaction as Christ’s going
to preach to these spirits, immediately gives rise to the query for what
purpose Christ should take pains to go down into hell, to preach to
damned spirits there; and what message he could possibly bear to them.
The day of their probation was past; they could not be helped by any
gospel message; then why preach to them? Would Christ go to taunt them
by describing before them blessings which they could never receive, or
raising in their bosoms hopes of a release from damnation, which he
never designed to grant?

These considerations fall like a mighty avalanche across the way of the
common interpretation. The thought is felt to be almost an insuperable
objection, and many are the shifts devised to get around it. One thinks
that the word preached does not necessarily mean to preach the gospel,
notwithstanding almost every instance of the use of the word in the New
Testament describes the preaching of the gospel by Christ or his
apostles; but that Christ went there to announce to them that his
sufferings had been accomplished, and the prophecies concerning him
fulfilled. But what object could there be in that? How would that affect
their condition? Was it to add poignancy to their pain by rendering
their misery doubly sure? And were there not devils enough in hell to
perform that work, without making it necessary that Christ should
perform such a ghostly task, and that, too, right between those points
of time when he laid down his life for our sins and was raised again for
our justification?

Another thinks these were the spirits of such as repented during the
forty days’ rain of the flood; that they were with the saved in
Paradise, a department of the under world where the spirits of the good
are kept (the elysium, in fact, of ancient heathen mythology), but that
they “still felt uneasy on account of having perished [that is, lost
their bodies] under a divine judgment,” and “were now assured by Jesus
that their repentance had been accepted.”

Such resorts show the desperate extremities to which the popular
exposition of this passage is driven.

Others frankly acknowledge that they cannot tell what, nor for what
purpose, Christ preached to the lost in hell. So Landis, p. 236. But he
says it makes no difference if we cannot tell what he preached nor why
he preached, since we have the assurance that he did go there and
preach. Profound conclusion! Would it not be better, since we have the
assurance that he preached, to conclude that he preached at a time when
preaching could benefit them, rather than at a time when we know that it
could not profit them, and there could be no occasion for it whatever?

The whole issue thus turns on the question, When was this work of
preaching performed? Some will say, “While they were in prison, and that
means the state of death, and shows that the dead are conscious and can
be preached to.” Then, we reply, the dead also can be benefited by
preaching, and led to repentance; and the doctrine of purgatory springs
in full blossom into our creed.

But does the text affirm that the preaching was done to these spirits
while they were in prison? May it not be that the preaching was done at
some previous time to persons who were, when Peter wrote, in prison, or,
if you please, in a state of death? So it would be true that the spirits
were in prison when Peter makes mention of them, and yet the preaching
might have been done to them at a former period, while they were still
in the flesh and could be benefited by it. This is the view taken of the
passage by Dr. Clarke. He says:--

“_He went and preached_] By the ministry of Noah one hundred and twenty
years.”

Thus he places Christ’s going and preaching by his Spirit in the days of
Noah, and not during the time his body lay in the grave.

Again, he says:--

“The word πνευμασι, _spirits_, is supposed to render this view of the
subject improbable, because this must mean _disembodied_ spirits; but
this certainly does not follow; for the _spirits of just men made
perfect_, Heb. 12:23, certainly means righteous men, and men _still in
the church militant_; and the Father of _spirits_, Heb. 12:9, means men
_still in the body_; and the God of the _spirits_ of all flesh, Num.
16:22, and 27:16, means _men_, _not_ in a disembodied state.”

The preaching was certainly to the antediluvians. But why should Christ
single out that class to preach to, about twenty-four hundred years
afterward, in hell? The whole idea is forced, unnatural, and absurd. The
preaching that was given to them was through Noah, who, by the power of
the Holy Ghost (1 Pet. 1:12), delivered to them the message of warning.
Let this be the preaching referred to, and all is harmonious and clear;
and this interpretation the construction of the original demands; for
the word rendered in our version, “were disobedient,” is simply the
aorist participle; and the dependent sentence, “when once the
long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah,” limits the verb
“preached” rather than the participle. The whole passage might be
translated thus: “In which also, having gone to the spirits in prison,
he preached to the then disobedient ones, when once [or at the time
when] the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah.”

But how were they in prison? In the same sense in which persons in error
and darkness are said to be in prison. Isa. 42:7: “To open the blind
eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in
darkness out of the prison house.” Also Isa. 61:1: “The Spirit of the
Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good
tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to
proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them
that are bound.” Christ himself declared, Luke 4:18-21, that this
scripture was fulfilled in his mission to those here on earth who sat in
darkness and error, and under the dominion of sin. So the antediluvians
were shut up under the sentence of condemnation. Their days were limited
to a hundred and twenty years; and their only way of escape from
impending destruction was through the preaching of Noah.

So much with reference to the spirits to whom the preaching was given.
Now we affirm further that Christ’s spirit did not go anywhere to preach
to anybody, while he lay in the grave. If Christ’s spirit, the real
being, the divine part, did survive the death of the cross, then

1. We have only a human offering for our sacrifice; and the claim of the
spiritualists is true that the blood of Christ is no more than that of
any man.

2. Then Christ did not pour out his soul unto death and make it an
offering for sin, as the prophet declared that he would, Isa. 53:10, 12;
and his soul was not sorrowful even unto death, as he himself affirmed.
Matt. 26:38.

3. The text says Christ was quickened by the Spirit; and between his
death and quickening no action is affirmed of him; and hence any such
affirmation on the part of man is assumption. There can be no doubt but
the quickening here brought to view was his resurrection. The Greek word
is a very strong one, ζωοποιέω, to impart life, to make alive. He was
put to death in the flesh, but made alive by the Spirit. Landis, p. 232,
labors hard to turn this word from its natural meaning and make it
signify, not giving life, but continuing alive. It is impossible to
regard this as anything less than unmitigated sophistry. The verb is a
regular active verb. In the passive voice it expresses an action
received. Christ did not continue alive, but _was made alive_ by the
Spirit. Then he was for a time dead. How long? From the cross to the
resurrection. Rom. 1:4. So he says himself in Rev. 1:18, I am he that
liveth and was dead. Yet men will stand up, and for the purpose of
sustaining a pet theory, rob the world’s Offering of all its virtue, and
nullify the whole plan of salvation, by declaring that Christ never was
dead.

The word quicken is the same that is used in Rom. 8:11: “But if the
Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead, dwell in you, He that
raised up Christ from the dead, shall also quicken your mortal bodies by
his Spirit that dwelleth in you.” God brought again our Lord from the
dead by the Holy Spirit; and by the same Spirit are his followers to be
raised up at the last day. But that Christ went anywhere in spirit, or
did any action between his death and quickening, is what the Scriptures
nowhere affirm, and no man has a right to claim.

Mr. Landis, p. 235, argues that this preaching could not have been in
the days of Noah, because the events narrated took place this side the
death of Christ. Why did he not say this side the resurrection of
Christ? Oh! that would spoil it all. But the record shows upon its very
face that if it refers to a time subsequent to Christ’s death, it was
also subsequent to his resurrection; for if events are here stated in
chronological order, the resurrection of Christ as well as his death
comes before his preaching. Thus, 1. He was put to death in the flesh.
2. Was quickened by the Spirit, which was his resurrection, as no man
with any show of reason can dispute; and 3. Went and preached to the
spirits in prison. So the preaching does not come in, on this ground,
till after Christ was made alive from the dead.

Some people seem to treat the Scriptures as if they were given to man
that he might exercise his inventive powers in trying to get around
them. But no inventive power that the human mind has yet developed will
enable a man, let him plan, contrive, devise, and arrange, as he may, to
fix this preaching of Christ between his death and resurrection. If he
could fix it there, what would it prove? The man of sin would rise up
and bless him from his papal throne, for proving his darling purgatory.
Such a position may do for Mormons, Mohammedans, Pagans, and Papists;
but let no Protestant try to defend it, and not hang his head for shame.
Mr. Landis says that “Mr. Dobney and the rest of the fraternity
conveniently forget that there is any such passage [as 1 Pet. 3:19] in
the word of God.” But we cannot help thinking that it would have been
well for him, and saved a pitiful display of distorted logic, if he had
been prudent enough to forget it too.

THE WORD SPIRIT IN OTHER TEXTS.

There are a few other texts which contain the word spirit an explanation
of which may be properly introduced at this point:--

Luke 24:39: “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me
and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have.” These
are the words of Christ as on one occasion he met with his disciples
after his resurrection; and as he then possessed a spiritual body which
is given by the resurrection, it is claimed that his words prove the
existence of spirits utterly disembodied in the popular sense. But we
inquire, What did the disciples suppose they saw? Verse 37 states: “They
supposed they had seen a spirit;” and on this verse Greenfield puts in
the margin the word _phantasma_ instead of _pneuma_, and marks it as a
reading adopted by Griesbach. They supposed they had seen a phantom,
apparition, specter. This exactly corresponds with their action when on
another occasion Christ came to them walking on the sea, Matt. 14:26;
Mark 6:49, and they were affrighted and cried out, supposing it was a
spirit, where the Greek uses phantom in both instances. The Bible
nowhere countenances the idea that phantoms or specters have any real
existence; but the imagination and superstition of the human mind have
ever been prolific in such conceptions. The disciples were of course
familiar with the popular notions on this question; and when the Saviour
suddenly appeared in their midst, coming in without lifting the latch,
or making any visible opening, as spiritual bodies are able to do, their
first idea was the superstitious one of an apparition or specter, and
they were affrighted.

Now when Jesus, to allay their fears, told them that a spirit had not
flesh and bones as he had, he evidently used the word spirit in the
sense of the idea which they then had in their minds, namely, that of a
phantom; and though the word _pneuma_ is used, which in its very great
variety of meanings may be employed, perhaps, to express such a
conception, we are not to understand that the word cannot be used to
describe bodies like that which Christ then possessed. He was not such a
spirit as they supposed; for a _pneuma_, such as they then conceived of,
in the sense of a phantom, had not flesh and bones as he had.
Bloomfield, on verse 37, says:--

“It may be added that our Lord meant not to countenance those notions,
but to show his hearers that, according to their _own_ notions of
spirits, he was not one.”

Acts 23:8: “For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither
angel nor spirit, but the Pharisees confess both.” Paul declared himself
in verse 6 to be a Pharisee; and in telling what they believed, in verse
8, it is claimed that Paul plainly ranged himself on the side of those
who believe in the separate conscious existence of the spirit of man.
But does this text say that the Pharisees believed any such thing? Three
terms are used in expressing what the Sadducees did not believe,
“resurrection, angel, and spirit.” But when the faith of the Pharisees
is stated, these three are reduced to _two_: “The Pharisees confess
_both_.” Both means only two, not three. Now what two of the three terms
before employed unite to express one branch of the faith of the
Pharisees? The word angel could not be one; for angels are a distinct
race of beings from the human family. Then we have left, resurrection
and spirit. The Pharisees believed in angels and in the resurrection of
the human race. Then all the spirit they believed in, as pertaining to
man, according to this testimony, is what is connected with the
resurrection; and that, of course, is the spiritual body with which we
are then endowed. “It is sown,” says this same apostle, “a natural body,
it is raised a _spiritual_ body.” 1 Cor. 15:44. That the term spirit is
applied to those beings which possess a spiritual body is evident from
Heb. 1:7, which reads, “Who maketh his angels spirits.” Angels are
personal beings, but their bodies are spiritual bodies, invisible, under
ordinary circumstances, to mortal eyes. Hence they are called spirits.
So of God, John 4:24: “God is a Spirit;” that is, a spiritual being; not
an impersonal one, as much in one place as another.

1 Cor. 5:5: “To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of
the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”
Although this text is quoted to prove the separate conscious existence
of a part of man between death and the resurrection, the reader cannot
fail to notice that the time when the spirit is saved is in the day of
the Lord Jesus, when the resurrection takes place. This text proves
nothing, therefore, respecting the condition of the spirit previous to
that time; and, so far as our present purpose is concerned, we might
dismiss it with this remark; but a word or two more may serve to free
the text still further from difficulty. What is meant by delivering the
person to Satan? and what is the destruction of the flesh? Satan is the
God of this world; and if any man is a friend of the world, he is on the
side of Satan and an enemy of God. The church is the body of Christ, and
belongs to him. A person committing the deeds spoken of in this chapter
must be separated from that body, and given back to the world. He is
thus delivered unto Satan. This is for the destruction of the flesh. The
flesh is often used to mean the carnal mind. Gal. 5:19-21. The
spiritually-minded man has crucified, or destroyed, the flesh. Now, a
person who desires eternal life, when he finds himself set aside from
the church, and placed back in the world, the kingdom of Satan, on
account of his having the carnal mind, understands that to gain eternal
life he must then put away the carnal mind, or crucify and destroy the
flesh. If he does this, he becomes spiritually minded, joined again to
the body of Christ, and the old man, the flesh, being destroyed, he, as
a spiritually-minded man, will be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Spirit we understand to be used in contrast with the flesh, the one
denoting a person in a carnal state, the other, in a spiritual. To deal
with a person as the apostle here directs, set him aside from the church
till he sees, and repents of, his sins, is often the only way to save
him. In the day of the Lord Jesus, a person is saved by having his body
fashioned like unto Christ’s glorious body, not destroyed. Phil. 3:21.
The destruction spoken of in the text cannot therefore be the literal
destruction of the body in contrast with the disembodied spirit.




                              CHAPTER XII.
                   DEPARTURE AND RETURN OF THE SOUL.


We have now examined all those passages in which the word spirit is used
in such a manner as to furnish what is claimed to be evidence of its
uninterrupted consciousness after the death of the body. We have found
them all easily explainable in harmony with other positive and literal
declarations of the Scriptures that the dead know not any thing, that
when a man’s breath goeth forth and he returneth to his earth, his very
thoughts perish, and that there is no wisdom nor knowledge nor device in
the grave to which we go. And so far the unity of the Bible system of
truth on this point is unimpaired, and the harmony of the testimony of
the Scriptures is maintained.

We will now examine those scriptures in which the term soul is supposed
to be used in a manner to favor the popular view. The first of these is
Gen. 35:18: “And it came to pass as her soul was in departing (for she
died), that she called his name Benoni.” This is adduced as evidence
that the soul departs when the body dies, and lives on in an active,
conscious condition.

Luther Lee remarks on this passage:--

“Her body did not depart. Her brains did not depart. There was nothing
which departed which could consistently be called her soul, only on the
supposition that there is in man an immaterial spirit which leaves the
body at death.”

We may offset this assertion of Luther Lee’s with the following
criticism from Prof. Bush:--

“_As her soul was in departing._ Heb. _betzeth naphshah, in the going
out of her soul_, or _life_. Gr., ἐν τω ἀφιεναι ἀυτην την ψυχην, _in her
sending out her life_. The language legitimately implies no more than
the departing or ceasing of the vital principle, whatever that be. In
like manner when the prophet Elijah stretched himself upon the dead
child, 1 Kings 17:21, and cried three times, saying, ‘O Lord my God, let
this child’s soul come into him again,’ he merely prays for the return
of his physical vitality.”--_Note on Gen. 35:18._

The Hebrew word here translated soul is _nephesh_, rendered in the
Septuagint by _psuche_; and it is unnecessary to remind those who have
read the chapter on Soul and Spirit that these words mean something
besides body and brains. They often signify that which can be said to
leave the body, as we shall presently see, rendering entirely uncalled
for the supposition of an immaterial spirit which Mr. Lee makes such
haste to adopt.

What then did depart, and what is the plain, simple import of the
declaration? We call the reader’s attention again to the criticism of
Parkhurst, the lexicographer, on this passage:--

“As a noun, _nephesh_ hath been supposed to signify the spiritual part
of man, or what we commonly call his soul. I must for myself confess
that I can find no passage where it hath undoubtedly this meaning. Gen.
35:18; 1 Kings 17:21, 22; Ps. 16:10, seem fairest for this
signification. But may not _nephesh_, in the three former passages, be
most properly rendered _breath_, and in the last, a breathing or animal
frame?”

Thus, while Mr. Parkhurst admits that Gen. 35:18, is the fairest
instance that can be found where _nephesh_ could be supposed to mean the
spiritual part of man, yet he will not so far hazard his reputation, as
a scholar and critic as to give it that meaning in this or any other
instance, declaring that here it may most properly be rendered “breath.”
And this is in harmony with the account of man’s creation, where it is
seen that the imparting of the breath of life is what made Adam a living
soul; and the loss of that breath, of course, reduces man again to a
state of death.

1 Kings 17:21, 22: “And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah, and the soul
of the child came into him again, and he revived.” In the light of the
foregoing criticism on Gen. 35:18, this text scarcely needs a passing
remark. The same principle of interpretation applies to this as to the
former. But one can hardly read such passages as this without noticing
how at variance they read with the popular view. The child, as a whole,
is the object with which the text deals. The child was dead. Something
called the soul, which the child is spoken of as having in possession,
had gone from him, which caused his death. This element, not the child
itself, but what belonged to the child, as a living being, came into him
again, and _the child_ revived.

But according to the immaterialist view, this passage should not so read
at all. For that makes the soul to be the child proper; and the passage
should read something like this: “And the Lord heard the voice of
Elijah, and the child came and took possession of his body again, and
the body revived.” This is the popular view. Mark the chasm between it
and the Scripture record.

Verse 17 tells what had left the child, and what it was therefore
necessary for the child to recover before he could live again. “His
sickness was so sore,” says the record, “that there was no _breath_ left
in him.” That was the trouble: the breath of life was gone from the
child. And when Elijah comes to pray for his restoration, he asks, in
the most natural manner possible, that the very thing that had left the
child, and thereby caused his death, might come into him again, and
cause him to live; and that was simply what verse 17 states, the breath
of life.

Thus in neither of these passages do we find any evidence of the
existence of an immaterial, immortal soul, which so confidently claims
the throne of honor in the temple of modern orthodoxy.




                             CHAPTER XIII.
                        CAN THE SOUL BE KILLED?

Matt. 10:28: “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to
kill the soul; but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and
body in hell.”


Luke records the same sentiment in these words:--

“And I say unto you, my friends. Be not afraid of them that kill the
body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I forewarn you
whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which, after he hath killed, hath power to
cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.” Luke 12:4, 5.

The estimate which immaterialists put upon these texts is thus expressed
by Mr. Landis, p. 181: “This text [Matt, 10:28] therefore must continue
to stand as the testimony of the Son of God in favor of the soul’s
immortality, and his solemn condemnation of the soul-ruining errors of
the annihilation and Sadducean doctrine.”

We reply: Mr. L. evidently applies the argument to a wrong issue; for
whatever it may teach concerning the intermediate state, it is most
positively against the doctrine of eternal misery, and the consequent
immortality of the soul. It teaches that God can destroy the soul in
hell; and there is no force in our Lord’s warning unless we understand
it to affirm that he will thus destroy the souls of the wicked. We never
could with any propriety be warned to fear a person because he could do
that which he never designed to do, and never would do. We are to fear
the civil magistrate to such a degree, at least, as not to offend
against the laws, because he has power to put those laws into execution,
and visit upon us merited punishment; but our fear is to rest not simply
upon the fact that he has power to do this, but upon the certainty that
he will do it if we are guilty of crime. Otherwise there could be no
cause of fear, and no ground for any exhortation to fear.

Now we are to fear God, that is, fear to disobey him, because he is able
to destroy body and soul in hell; and what is necessarily implied in
this? It is implied that he certainly _will_ do this in the cases of all
those who do not fear him enough to comply with his requirements. So the
text is a direct affirmation that the wicked will be destroyed, both
soul and body in hell.

The next inquiry is, What is the meaning of the word, destroy? We answer
that, take the word, soul, to mean what we will, the word, destroy, here
has the same meaning and the same force as applied to the soul, that the
word kill has as applied to the body in the sentence before. Whatever
killing does to the body, destroying does to the soul. Don’t fear men
because they cannot kill the soul as they kill the body; but fear God
because he can and will kill the soul (if wicked) just as men kill the
body. This is the only consistent interpretation of the language. But
all well understand what it does to the body to kill it. It deprives it
of all its functions and powers of life and activity. It does the same
to the soul to destroy it, supposing the soul to be what is popularly
supposed. The word here rendered destroy is ἀπολλύω (_appolluo_), and is
defined by Greenfield, “to destroy, to kill, to put to death,” &c.

Having seen that the text affirms in the most positive manner the
destruction of soul and body, or the complete cessation of existence,
for all the wicked, in hell, we now inquire whether it teaches a
conscious existence for the soul in the intermediate state? This must
be, it is claimed, because man cannot kill it. But the killing which God
inflicts, according to the popular view, is torment in the flames of
hell, and that commences immediately upon the death of the body. Let us
then see what the Scriptures testify concerning the receptacle of the
dead and the place of punishment.

The word, hell, in our English version is from three different Greek
words. These words are ἅδης (_hades_), γεέννα (_ge-enna_), and ταρταρόω
(_tartaro-o_, a verb signifying to thrust down to tartarus). These all
designate different places; and the following full list of the instances
of their occurrence in the New Testament, will show their use.

_Hades_ occurs in the following passages:--

  Matt.     11:23. Shalt be brought down to _hell_.

            16:18. The gates of _hell_ shall not prevail.

  Luke      10:15. Shalt be thrust down to _hell_.

            16:23. In _hell_ he lifted up his eyes.

  Acts       2:27. Wilt not leave my soul in _hell_.

             2:31. His soul was not left in _hell_.

  1 Cor.    15:55. O _Grave_, where is thy victory?

  Rev.       1:18. Have the keys of _hell_ and death.

              6:8. Was death, and _hell_ followed.

  Rev.      20:13. Death and _hell_ delivered up the dead which were
                   in them.

            20:14. Death and _hell_ were cast into the lake of fire.

_Ge-enna_ signifies Gehenna, the valley of Hinnom, near Jerusalem, in
which fires were kept constantly burning to consume the bodies of
malefactors and the rubbish which was brought from the city and cast
therein. It is found in the following places:--

  Matt.      5:22. Shall be in danger of _hell_ fire.
             5:29. Whole body should be cast into _hell_.
             5:30. Whole body should be cast into _hell_.
            10:28. Destroy both soul and body in _hell_.
             18:9. Having two eyes to be cast into _hell_ fire.
            23:15. More the child of _hell_ than yourselves.
            23:33. How can ye escape the damnation of _hell_?
  Mark       9:43. Having two hands to go into _hell_.
             9:45. Having two feet to be cast into _hell_.
             9:47. Having two eyes to be cast into _hell_.
  Luke       12:5. Hath power to cast into _hell_.
  James       3:6. It is set on fire of _hell_.

_Tartaro-o_ is used only in the following text:

“God spared not the angels that sinned, but _cast them down to hell_.” 2
Pet. 2:4.

From these references it will be seen that _hades_ is the place of the
dead whether righteous or wicked, from which they are brought only by a
resurrection. Rev. 20:13. On the contrary, Gehenna is the place into
which the wicked are to be cast alive with all their members, to be
destroyed soul and body. These places, therefore, are not to be
confounded together.

Now the punishment against which the text warns us, is not a punishment
in _hades_, the state or place of the dead, but in _Gehenna_, which is
not inflicted till after the resurrection. Therefore we affirm that the
text contains no evidence whatever of the condition of man in death, but
passes over the entire period from the death of the body to the
resurrection. And this is further evident from the record in Luke: “Be
not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that, have no more that
they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which
after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell.”

Luke does not use the term, soul, at all; yet he expresses the same
sentiment as Matthew. Man can kill the body or destroy this present
life; but he can accomplish no destruction beyond that. But God can not
only kill the body, or destroy the present life, but he can cast into
Gehenna, or destroy the life that we have beyond the resurrection. These
two things alone the text has in view. And now when we remember that
_psuche_, the word here rendered, soul, often means life, either the
present or future, and is forty times in the New Testament so rendered,
the text is freed from all difficulty. The word, kill, to be sure is not
such as would naturally be used in connection with life; but the word,
destroy, which is among the definitions of the original word,
_apokteino_, can be appropriately used with life. Thus, fear not them
which kill the body, but are not able to destroy the future life; but
rather fear him who is able to destroy the body and put an end to all
future life in hell. And it is worthy of notice that the destruction in
hell here threatened is not inflicted upon a person without his body.
Nothing is said about God’s destroying the soul alone; but it is at some
point beyond this life, when the person again has a body: which is not
till after the resurrection.

Another declaration from the lips of our Lord, found in Matt. 16:25, 26,
will throw some light on our present subject: “For whosoever will save
his life shall lose it; and whosoever will lose his life for my sake
shall find it. For what is a man profited if he shall gain the whole
world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for
his soul?” The word soul should here be rendered life. Dr. Clarke, on
verse 26, says: “On what authority many here translate the word _psuche_
in the 25th verse, _life_, and in this verse, _soul_, I know not, but am
certain it means life in both places.”

But let us take the expressions, “soul” and “to lose the soul,” in the
popular sense, and what should we have? Whosoever will save his soul (to
save the soul meaning to save it from hell) shall lose it (that is shall
go into hell torments): but whosoever will lose his soul (suffer eternal
misery) for my sake, shall find it (shall be saved in Heaven). This
makes utter nonsense of the passage, and so is a sufficient condemnation
of the view which makes such an interpretation necessary.

The passage simply refers to the present and future life. Thus,
whosoever will save his life, that is, will deny Christ and his gospel
for the sake of avoiding persecution, or of preserving his present life,
he shall lose it in the world to come, when God shall destroy both soul
and body in Gehenna; but he who shall lose his present life if need be,
for the sake of Christ and his cause, shall find it in the world to
come, when eternal life is given to all the overcomers.

Here the life is spoken of as something which can be lost and found
again. Between the losing and finding no one can claim that it maintains
a conscious existence. And what is meant by finding it? Simply that God
will bestow it upon us in the future beyond the resurrection. So what is
meant by the expression that man cannot kill it? Simply the same thing,
that God will, in the resurrection, endow us with life again, a life
which is beyond the power of man.

The life of all men is in the hands of God. The body was formed of the
dust, but the life was imparted by God. Man, by sin, has made this
present life a temporary one. But through the plan of salvation, by
which the human race was placed upon a second probation, after Adam’s
fall, with the privilege of still gaining eternal life, a future life is
decreed for all; for there shall be a resurrection of the just and
unjust. With the righteous, this life will be eternal; for they have
secured the forgiveness of all their sins through Jesus Christ; but with
the wicked, it will soon end in the second death; for they have thrown
away their golden privilege, and clung to their sins, the wages of which
is death. Man may hasten the close of this present temporary life, may
cut it short by killing the body, for some years before it would close
in the natural course of events; but that future life, which in the
purpose of God is as sure as his own throne, they cannot touch.

The exhortation is to those who are striving to serve God, and who
thereby are liable to lose their present lives at the hands of wicked
men for the truth’s sake. Fear them not, though with the bloody arm of
persecution they may deprive you of the present life; for the life which
is to come they cannot reach.

And the warning is to the wicked that unless they fear God more than
men, and are governed by his glory more than by worldly considerations,
he will bring their existence to an utter end in the fire Gehenna.

The text, therefore, so far from proving the existence in man of an
independent, death-surviving, conscious entity called the immortal soul,
speaks only of the present and future life, and, passing over the entire
period between death and the resurrection, then promises the righteous a
life which man cannot destroy, and affirms that the wicked shall utterly
cease to be in the second death.




                              CHAPTER XIV.
                       THE SOULS UNDER THE ALTAR.


In Rev. 6:9-11, is another instance where the word, soul, is used in a
manner which many take to be proof that there is in man a separate
entity, conscious in death, and capable in a disembodied state of
performing all the acts, and exercising all the emotions, which pertain
to this life. The verses referred to read:--

“And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls
of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which
they held. And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord,
holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that
dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them;
and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little
season, until their fellow-servants also and their brethren, that should
be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.”

On the hypothesis of the popular view, what conclusions must we draw
from this testimony?

1. It is assumed that these souls were in Heaven; then the altar under
which John saw them must have been the altar of incense, as that is the
only altar brought to view in Heaven. Rev. 8:3. But the altar spoken of
in the text is evidently the altar of sacrifice upon which they were
slain. Therefore to represent them as under the altar of incense, which
was never used for sacrifice, is both incongruous and unscriptural.

2. We must conclude that they were in a state of confinement, shut up
under the altar--not a condition we would naturally associate with the
perfection of heavenly bliss.

3. Solomon says of the dead, that their love, their hatred, and their
envy, is now perished. Eccl. 9:6. But that makes no difference; for here
are the souls of the holy martyrs still smarting with resentment against
their persecutors, and calling for vengeance upon their devoted heads.
Is this altogether consistent? Would not the superlative bliss of Heaven
swallow up all resentment against those who had done them this good
though they meant them harm, and lead them to bless rather than curse
the hand that had hastened them thither?

But further, the same view which puts these souls into Heaven, puts the
souls of the wicked, at the termination of this mortal life, into the
lake of fire, where they are racked with unutterable and unceasing
anguish, in full view of all the heavenly host. In proof of this, the
parable of the rich man and Lazarus is strenuously urged. But is it so?
If it is not, then the popular exposition of that parable must be
abandoned. But that supposed stronghold will not readily be surrendered,
so it is proper to look at the bearing it has upon the case before us.

According, then, to the orthodox view, the persecutors of these souls
were even then, or certainly soon would be, enveloped in the flames of
hell, right before their eyes, every fiber of their being quivering with
a keenness of torture which no language can express, and of which no
mind can adequately conceive.

Here they were, their agony full in view of these souls of the martyrs,
and their piercing shrieks of infinite and hopeless woe ringing in their
ears; for the rich man and Abraham, you know, could converse together
across the gulf. And was not the sight of all this woe enough to glut
the most insatiate vengeance? Is there a fiend in hell who could
manifest the malevolence of planning and praying for greater vengeance
than this? Yet these souls are represented, even under these
circumstances, as calling upon God to avenge their blood on their
persecutors, and saying “How long?” as if chiding the tardy movements of
Providence, in commencing, or intensifying, their torments. Such is the
character which the common view attributes to these holy martyrs, and
such the spirit with which it clothes a system of religion the chief
injunction of which is to forgive, and the chief law of which is mercy.
Does it find indorsement in any breast in which there remains a drop of
even the milk of human kindness?

4. These souls pray that their _blood_ may be avenged--an article which
the uncompounded, invisible, and immaterial soul, as generally
understood, is not supposed to possess.

These are some of the difficulties we meet, some of the camels we have
to swallow, in taking down the popular view.

But it is urged that these souls must be conscious; for they cry to God.
How easily our expositors forget that language has any literal use, when
they wish it to be figurative, or that it is ever used as a figure, when
they wish it to be literal. There is supposed to be such a figure of
speech as personification, in which, under certain conditions, life,
action, and intelligence, are attributed to inanimate objects. Thus the
blood of Abel is said to have cried to God from the ground. Gen. 4:9,
10. The stone cried out of the wall, and the beam out of the timber
answered it. Hab. 2:11. The hire of the laborers, kept back by fraud,
cried; and the cry entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. James
5:4. So these souls could cry, in the same sense, and yet be no more
conscious than Abel’s blood, the stone, the beam, or the laborer’s hire.

So incongruous is the popular view that Albert Barnes makes haste to set
himself right on the record as follows:--

“We are not to suppose that this _literally_ occurred, and that John
actually saw the souls of the martyrs beneath the altar--for the whole
representation is symbolical; nor are we to suppose that the injured and
the wronged in Heaven actually pray for vengeance on those who wronged
them, or that the redeemed in Heaven will continue to pray with
reference to things on the earth; but it may be fairly inferred from
this that there will be _as real_ a remembrance of the wrongs of the
persecuted, the injured, and the oppressed, _as if_ such a prayer was
offered there; and that the oppressor has as much to dread from the
divine vengeance, _as if_ those whom he has injured should cry in Heaven
to the God who hears prayer, and who takes vengeance.”--_Notes on Rev.
6._

But it is said that white robes were given them; hence it is further
urged that they must be conscious. But this no more follows than it does
from the fact that they cried. How was it? They had gone down to the
grave in the most ignominious manner. Their lives had been
misrepresented, their reputations tarnished, their names defamed, their
motives maligned, and their graves covered with shame and reproach, as
containing the dishonored dust of the most vile and despicable
characters. Thus the church of Rome, which then molded the sentiments of
the principal nations of the earth, spared no pains to make her victims
an abhorring unto all flesh.

But the Reformation commences its work. It soon begins to be seen that
the Romish church is the corrupt and disreputable party, and those
against whom it vents its rage are the good, the pure, and the true. The
work goes on among the most enlightened nations, the reputation of the
church going down, and that of the martyrs coming up, until the
corruptions of the papal abomination are fully exposed, and that huge
system of iniquity stands before the world in all its naked deformity,
while the martyrs are vindicated from all the aspersions under which
that Antichristian church had sought to bury them. Then it was seen that
they had suffered, not for being vile and criminal, but “for the word of
God and for the testimony which they held.” Then their praises were
sung, their virtues admired, their fortitude applauded, their names
honored, and their memory cherished. And thus it is even to this day.
White robes have thus been given unto every one of them.

The whole trouble on such passages as this we conceive to arise from the
theological definition of the word soul: From that definition, one is
led to suppose that this text speaks of an immaterial, invisible,
immortal essence in man, which soars into its coveted freedom on the
death of its hindrance and clog, the mortal body. No instance of the
occurrence of the word in the original Hebrew or Greek will sustain such
a definition. It oftenest means life; and is not unfrequently rendered,
person. It applies to the dead as well as to the living, as may be seen
by reference to Gen. 2:7, where the word, “living,” need not have been
expressed were life an inseparable attribute of the soul; and to Num.
19:13, where the Hebrew Concordance reads, “dead soul.”

The reader is also referred to the previous chapter on Soul and Spirit.
From the definitions there given, it is evident that the word soul may
mean, and the context requires that it here should mean, simply the
martyrs, those who had been slain; the expression, “the souls of them,”
being used to designate the whole person. They were represented to John
as having been slain upon the altar of papal sacrifice on this earth,
and lying dead beneath it. So Dr. Clarke, on this passage, says, “The
altar is upon earth, not in Heaven.” They certainly were not alive when
John saw them under the fifth seal; for he again brings to view the same
company in almost the same language, and assures us that the first time
they live after their martyrdom is at the resurrection of the just. Rev.
20:4-6. Lying there, victims of papal blood-thirstiness and oppression,
the great wrong, of which their sacrifice was the evidence, called upon
God for vengeance. They cried, or their blood cried, even as Abel’s
blood cried to God from the ground.

Thus another stronghold of the immortality of the soul must be
surrendered to a harmonious interpretation, and the plain teaching, of
the word of God.




                              CHAPTER XV.
                        GATHERED TO HIS PEOPLE.


The pleasing doctrine that man can never die, though unfortunate in its
parentage, is very tenacious of its life. In treating this subject in
previous chapters, we have found that the record of man’s creation
brings to view no immortal element as entering into his being; that the
Bible, in its use of the terms immortal and immortality, never employs
them to express an attribute inherent in man’s nature; that no
description of soul and spirit, and no signification of the original
words, will sustain the present popular definition of these terms; that
the soul and spirit, though spoken of in the Bible, in the aggregate,
seventeen hundred times, are never once said to be immortal or
never-dying; and that no text in which these words are supposed to be
employed in such a manner as to show that they signify an
ever-conscious, immortal principle, can possibly be interpreted to
sustain such a doctrine.

Yet the dogma of natural immortality, very reluctantly yields the
ground. To a twentieth proof text it will cling even the more
tenaciously, if the preceding nineteen are all swept away. Besides the
texts already noticed, there are a few other passages behind which it
seeks refuge; and with alacrity we follow it into all its hiding-places,
confident that in no passage in all the Bible can it find a shelter, but
that into every one which it claims as its own, it has entered, not by
right of possession, but as an intruder and a usurper.

Behind the obituaries of the patriarchs it seeks to shield itself. It is
claimed, for instance, that the death of Abraham is recorded in such a
manner as to show that his conscious existence did not cease with his
earthly life. We might justly insist on their going farther back and
taking the recorded close of the lives of the antediluvian patriarchs as
the basis of their argument. One of these, Enoch, was translated to
Heaven without seeing death; and all the others, according to popular
belief, went to Heaven just as effectually, through death. But how
different is their record. Of Enoch it is said that he “was not; for God
took him;” while of the others it is said, And they “died.” Surely these
two records do not mean the same thing, and Enoch, whom God took, and
who is consequently alive in Heaven, must be, judging from the record,
in a different condition from those who died.

But to return to the case of Abraham. The record of his death reads:
“Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man
and full of years, and was gathered to his people.” On this verse,
Landis, p. 130, thus remarks:--

“What then is this _gathering_to the body or the soul? It cannot refer
to the body, for while his body was buried in the cave of Macpelah, in
Canaan, his fathers were buried afar off; Terah, in Haran, in
Mesopotamia, and the rest of his ancestors far off in Chaldea. Of
course, then, this gathering relates not to the body, but to the soul;
he was gathered to the assembly of the blessed, and thus entered his
habitation.”

To show how gratuitous, not to say preposterous, is this conclusion, we
raise a query on two points: 1. Does the expression, “gathered to his
people,” denote that he went to dwell in conscious intercourse with
them? 2. Were his ancestors such righteous persons that they went to
Heaven when they died? In answering these queries, the last shall be the
first. It is a significant fact that Abraham had to be _separated_ from
his kindred and his _father’s house_, in order that God might make him a
special subject of his providence. And in Josh. 24:2, we are plainly
told that his ancestors were idolaters; for they served other gods. Such
being their character, death would send them, according to the popular
view, to the regions of the damned. At the time, then, of Abraham’s
death, they were writhing amid the lurid waves of the lake of fire. And
when Abraham was gathered to them, if it was in the sense which the
theology of our day teaches, he, too, was consigned to the flames of
hell! Oh! to what absurdities will men suffer themselves to be led
blindfold by a petted theory. God had said to Abram, Gen. 15:15: “And
thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good
old age.” Was this the consoling promise that he should go to hell in
peace in a good old age? And is the record of his death an assertion
that he has his place among the damned!? Yes! if the immaterialist
theory be correct. Children of Abraham, arise! and with one mouth
vindicate your “righteous father” from the foul aspersion. Renounce a
theory as far from Heaven-born which compels you thus to look upon the
“father of the faithful.”

Does, then, the expression, “gathered to his people,” mean his personal,
conscious intercourse with them? If man has an immortal soul which lives
in death, it does; and if it does, Abraham is in hell. There is no way
of avoiding this conclusion, except by repudiating the idea that man has
such a soul, and denying his conscious happiness or misery while in a
state of death.

But how, then, could he be gathered to his people? Answer: He could go
into the grave into which they had gone, into the state of death, in
which they were held. Jacob said, when mourning for Joseph whom he
supposed dead: “I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning.” Not
that he expected to go into the same locality, or the same grave; for he
did not suppose that his son, being, as he then thought, devoured by
wild beasts, was in the grave literally at all; but by the grave he
evidently meant a state of death; and as his son had been violently
deprived of life, he too would go down mourning into the state of death;
and this he calls going unto his son. In Acts 13:36, Paul, speaking of
David, says that he “was _laid unto his fathers_.” This all must
acknowledge to be the exact equivalent of being “gathered to his
people;” then the apostle goes on and adds, “_and saw corruption_.” That
which was laid unto his fathers, or was gathered to his people, saw
corruption. Men may labor, if they choose, to refer it to the immortal
soul; but in that way they do it a very doubtful favor; for the success
of their argument is the destruction of their theory; and the soul is
shown to be something which is perishable and corruptible in its nature.

The peaceful death of our father Abraham furnishes no proof of an
immortal soul in man, and from his hallowed resting-place no arguments
for such a dogma can be drawn.

Another text may properly be considered in this connection:--

Ps. 90:10: “The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if
by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength
labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off and we fly away.”

On the authority of this text it is claimed that something flies away
when our strength is cut off in death; that that something is the
immortal soul, and that if it flies away, it is therefore conscious; and
if it thus survives the stroke of death, it is therefore immortal:
rather a numerous array of conclusions, and rather weighty ones, to be
drawn from the three words, “we fly away.” Let us look at David’s
argument. The reason given why our strength is labor and sorrow, is
because it is soon cut off and we fly away. If, now, our flying away
means the going away of a conscious soul, into Heaven, for instance, if
we are righteous, his argument stands thus: “Yet is their strength labor
and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and _we go to Heaven_.” Singular
reasoning, this! But his argument is all consistent if by flying away he
means that we go into the grave, where Solomon assures us that there is
no work, wisdom, knowledge, nor device. Let us not abuse the psalmist’s
reasoning.

The text plainly tells us what flies away; namely, _we_ fly away. We is
a personal pronoun and includes the whole person. According to Buck’s
assertion that man is composed of two _essential_ elements, soul and
body, the man is not complete without them both; and the pronoun, we,
could not be used to express either of them separately. The text does
not intimate any separation; it does not say that the soul flies away,
or the spirit flies away; but _we_, in our undivided personality, fly
away. To what place does the body, an essential part of the we, fly? To
the grave, and there only.

This is confirmed by Eccl. 9:3: “The heart of the sons of men is full of
evil; and madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that
they go to the dead.” Had this text read, “And after that they go away,”
it would have been exactly parallel to Ps. 90:10; for no essential
difference can be claimed between going and flying. But here it is
expressly told where we go: we go to the _grave_. What is omitted in Ps.
90:10, is here supplied.

We may also add that the Hebrew word _gooph_, rendered “fly away,”
signifies, according to Gesenius, “First, to cover, spec. with wings,
feathers, as birds cover their young. Second, to fly, properly of birds.
Third, to cover over, wrap in darkness. Fourth, to overcome with
darkness, to faint, to faint away.”

The idea is plainly this: Though our days be fourscore years, yet is
their strength labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we sink
away, go to the grave, and are wrapped in the darkness of death. Viewed
thus, David’s language is consistent, and his reasoning harmonious; but
his language we pervert and his logic we destroy, the moment we try to
make his words prove the separation from the body, of a conscious soul
at death.




                              CHAPTER XVI.
                     SAMUEL AND THE WOMAN OF ENDOR.


In all arguments for the continued life and consciousness of the dead, 1
Sam. 28:3-20, usually holds a conspicuous place. In examining this
scripture, we will look at (1) the narrative, (2) the claim that is
based upon it, (3) the character of the actors in the incident, (4) the
facts to be considered, and (5) the conclusions to be drawn.

1. _The narrative._ Samuel was a prophet of God in Israel from 1112 to
1058 before Christ. Saul was king of Israel from 1096 to 1056 before
Christ. Samuel anointed Saul to his office as king, and from time to
time communicated instruction to him from the Lord as his counselor and
adviser. At the time when the incident recorded in 1 Sam. 28:3-20,
occurred, Samuel was dead. There was war between the Israelites and the
Philistines. The Philistines pressed hard upon Israel. They gathered
their forces together in Shunem, and Saul, assembling all Israel to
oppose them, pitched in Gilboa. Dismayed at the mighty array of the
Philistine host, Saul’s heart sunk within him, and he was sore afraid.
In anxiety and trembling, he cast about him for help. He sought the
Lord, but the Lord answered him not. No dream was given, no token by
Urim appeared, no prophet had a word from the mouth of the Lord to meet
the circumstances of his deep distress. He thought of his old-time
friend, the prophet Samuel, to whom he had so often gone, and who had so
often directed his steps in times of doubt and danger. But Samuel was
dead, and how could he consult him?

There was in the land a class of people who claimed to have power to
communicate with the dead. This work, called necromancy (a “_pretended_
communication with the dead”--_Webster_), had been strictly forbidden by
the Lord, Lev. 19:31; 20:27; Deut. 18:9-12, &c. And Saul in obedience to
the command of the Lord, Ex. 22:18, had cut off, so far as they could be
found, all persons of that class out of the land. Yet a few, controlled
wholly by the devil, still practiced, with caution and secrecy, their
hellish orgies.

Whether Saul had ever believed in the reality of this work, or not, we
are not informed. But it is certain that in his present extremity, his
belief gave way to the pretensions of these necromancers, and the evil
thought took possession of him that he could consult in this way with
the prophet Samuel. So he inquired for a woman that had a familiar
spirit, and was told of one at Endor.

Disguising himself, in order that the woman, knowing Saul’s decree
against witchcraft, might not fear to communicate for him, and going
secretly by night, he sought the woman. The woman being assured that no
evil was intended and no punishment should happen to her, asked whom she
should bring up. Saul answered, Bring me up Samuel. And when she saw the
object which her conjuration had evoked, she cried out with fear, and
said to her royal guest, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul.
He told her to fear not, but tell what she saw. She answered, An old
man, covered with a mantle. “And Saul perceived,” says the narrative,
“that it was Samuel.”

Samuel asked Saul why he had disquieted him to bring him up; and Saul
answered, that he might make known what he should do; for the
Philistines made war upon him, and God was departed from him, and he was
sore distressed. Samuel then asked him why he came to him since God had
departed from him, and had become his enemy. Then he proceeded to tell
him that the kingdom was rent out of his hand because he had failed to
obey the Lord; that the Philistines should triumph in the battle, and
that on the morrow he and his sons should die. This was the finishing
stroke to the already breaking heart of Saul, and, utterly overwhelmed
with his calamities, he fell senseless to the earth.

Such are the essential facts brought to view in the narrative. Let us
now look at what is claimed from them.

2. _The claim._ This can be expressed in few words. It is claimed that
Samuel actually appeared on this occasion, and that therefore the dead
are conscious, or that there is a spirit in man that lives on in
consciousness when the body dies; and, therefore again, the soul is
immortal.

The validity of this claim rests very much on the question whether the
transaction here recorded was wrought by the power of God or by the
devil. If by God, then the representation was a true one; if by the
devil, we may look for deception; for he commenced his work by becoming
the father of all the lies in the world, and continues it by assiduously
circulating them. We will therefore consider,

3. _The character of the actors._ These actors were, first, the woman
that had a familiar spirit; and familiar spirits are spirits of devils.
Compare together Num. 25:1-3; Ps. 106:28; and 1 Cor. 10:20. This work of
dealing with familiar spirits, God had declared to be an abomination to
him, he had expressly forbidden it, and sentenced to death all who
practiced it.

The other chief actor in this scene was Saul. And what was his condition
at this time? He had so long lived in violation of divine instruction
that God had departed from him, and answered him no more by dreams, nor
by Urim, nor by prophets, which were the ways he had himself appointed
to communicate with his people. Query: Would the Lord refuse to
communicate with him in ways of his own appointing, and then come to him
by means the use of which he had expressly forbidden? We see then that
neither of the actors in this scene were persons through whom, or for
whom, we should expect the Lord to work. We will therefore notice
further,

4. _The facts to be considered._

_a._ The wonders wrought on this occasion were all accomplished by the
familiar spirit with whom this woman consorted. There were two things
for this spirit to do: (1) Either to bring up in reality the dead person
that was called for, or (2) to counterfeit the dead man so perfectly
that those who were conversing with the familiar spirit would believe
that they were conversing with their dead friend.

_b._ That it was not Samuel, but the familiar spirit personating Samuel,
that appeared, is evident from the fact that this supposed Samuel,
before holding any communication with Saul, put the woman on her guard,
telling her that her guest was none other than Saul himself. This is
shown by the fact that the woman, as soon as she saw him, cried out with
fear, not because Samuel really appeared contrary to her expectations,
as some have supposed; for she did not cry out, “Samuel has come,
indeed!” but because of what the appearance told her, for she
immediately turned to Saul and said, “Why hast thou deceived me? for
thou art Saul.” This would not be the work of the real Samuel, to put
the woman on her guard, to aid her in her unholy work of incantation.

_c._ According to the claim based on this transaction, it was Samuel’s
immortal soul that appeared on this occasion, but its appearance was,
according to the description of the woman, an old man covered with a
mantle. Do immortal souls go about in this way, in the form of old men
covered with mantles? This renders it still more evident that it was the
familiar spirit, imitating Samuel as he appeared while here upon earth.

_d._ Saul did not see Samuel at all. But does it not read that “Saul
perceived that it was Samuel”? Yes; but perceived how? Not by the sight
of his eyes, but from the woman’s description. The words “saw,” as
applied to the woman, verse 12, and “perceive,” as applied to Saul,
verse 14, are in the Septuagint different words. The woman actually saw
the appearance before her; and here the word (_eido_) εἴδω is used,
which signifies, according to Liddell and Scott, “to see, behold, look
at;” but when it is said that Saul perceived, the word is (_gignosco_)
γιγνώσκω, which signifies, according to the same authority, “to know,
perceive, gain knowledge of, observe, mark, be aware of, see into,
understand,” by an operation of the mind. In harmony with this view, is
Saul’s language to the woman, “What sawest _thou_?” and “What form is he
of?” If any should say that Saul might have seen all that the woman saw
if he had not been prostrate upon the ground, it is sufficient to reply
that it was not till after he asked these questions that he “stooped
with his face to the ground, and bowed himself.” Verse 14. If Samuel had
actually been present, Saul could have seen him as well as the woman.

_e._ The appearance which the woman saw came up out of the earth. Was
that Samuel’s immortal soul? Are these souls in the earth? We supposed
they were in the heavenly glories of the world above.

_f._ Is it said that, as the form came up out of the earth, Samuel had a
resurrection. Then the conscious-soul theory is abandoned. But if this
was a resurrection of Samuel, how could he come up out of the ground
here at Endor, near the sea of Galilee, when he was buried in distant
Ramah, verse 3, near Jerusalem? And if the old man was raised from the
dead, what became of him? Did he go through the pains of a second
dissolution, and enter the grave again? If so, well might he complain to
Saul for disquieting him to bring him up.

_g._ This pretended Samuel told Saul that he and his sons would be with
him the following day. Verse 19. If he was an immortal spirit in glory,
how could Saul, whom God had rejected for his sins, go to be with him
there?

_h._ Another sacred writer mentions this event in Saul’s life, and
assigns it as one of the two reasons why he was given up by the Lord to
die. 1 Chron. 10:13.

5. _Conclusions._ What conclusions are inevitable from the foregoing
facts? It is first of all evident that Samuel was not present on that
occasion either as an immortal spirit from the third Heaven, or as one
resurrected from the dead. For

_a._ It is not consistent to suppose that God, having refused to answer
Saul’s petitions in any legitimate way, would have respect to them when
presented through this forbidden channel.

_b._ It is inconsistent to suppose that an immortal soul from glory
would come up out of the earth, as did the form which the woman evoked
with her hellish incantations.

_c._ It is inconsistent to suppose that Samuel was resurrected bodily
here in Endor, when he was buried in Ramah.

_d._ If he was raised, it must have been by God or the devil. But the
devil cannot raise the dead, and it is evident that God would not, at
least in answer to these agencies, the use of which he had forbidden
under pain of death. God would not thus raise up his servant to talk
with Saul on the devil’s own ground.

_e._ It is incredible that such a man as Samuel, who held witchcraft as
such a heinous sin, 1 Sam. 15:23, should first hold friendly converse
with this abandoned woman in the midst of her incantations, and put her
on her guard, before delivering his message to Saul.

_f._ It is the boldest assumption to suppose that any one, through this
agency of the devil, would have power to summon at will any immortal
soul from glory, or to raise any one from the dead, or that this woman,
through her hellish incantations, would have power to behold the holy
Samuel, while Saul could see nothing.

But is it not said that the woman saw Samuel? Yes; and here is the only
seeming difficulty in all the narrative. We find these four expressions:
“The woman saw Samuel;” verse 12; “And Samuel said to Saul;” verse 15;
“Then said Samuel;” verse 16; and, “because of the words of Samuel.”
Verse 20. And how could it be so written, it is asked, if Samuel was not
there, and the woman did not see him, and he did not say the things here
recorded?

Answer. This is easily explained by a very common law of language.
Consider the circumstances. The woman stood ready to bring up any one
that might be called for. She believed, of course, that they actually
came, just as mediums now-a-days believe the forms they see are those of
their departed friends. Samuel was called for, and this mantled old man
appeared. She supposed it was Samuel; and Saul supposed it was Samuel;
and then, according to the general law of the _language of appearance_,
the narrative proceeds _according to their supposition_. When it says
Samuel, it only means that form that appeared, which they _supposed_ to
be Samuel.

Secondly, the conclusion is apparent that this was only a manifestation
of ancient necromancy, sorcery, witchcraft, or spiritualism; a wholesale
deception palmed off upon his dupes by the devil in disguise. Between
the ancient and modern there is this difference: Then he had to pretend
to bring up the dead from the ground; for the people then believed that
the dead were in the lower regions of the earth: now he brings them down
from the upper spheres; for the prevailing belief now is that those
regions are populous with the conscious spirits of the departed.

Let no one then appeal to the workings of the witch of Endor to prove
the immortality of the soul, unless he is prepared to claim openly that
the Bible is a fiction, that ancient necromancy was a divine practice,
and that modern spiritualism with all its godless blasphemies and its
reeking corruptions is the only reliable oracle of truth and purity.




                             CHAPTER XVII.
                   THE TRANSFIGURATION. MATT. 17:1-9.


When our Lord was transfigured, on a high mountain of Galilee, before
Peter and James and John, there appeared with him two other glorified
personages, talking with him. These, the inspired narrator says, were
Moses and Elias, as the disciples understood them to be. Luke 9:30-33.

With what pleasure does the immaterialist meet with an account of any
manifestation or action on the part of those who have long been dead; it
has so specious an appearance of sustaining his views, or at least of
furnishing him ground for an argument; for, says he, the person was
dead, and this manifestation was by his conscious spirit or immortal
soul.

So far as the case of Elias is concerned, as he appeared at the
transfiguration, it affords that theory no benefit; for he, being
translated, never saw death, and so could appear in the body with which
he ascended. This is conceded by all; and for this reason his case is
never put in as a witness on this question, except by those who are so
unfamiliar with the record as to suppose that he, too, once died, and
here appeared as a disembodied spirit.

But with Moses the case is different; for we have in the Bible a plain
account of his death and burial; yet here he appeared on the mount,
alive, active, and conscious; for he talked with Christ. And so with an
air of triumph, perhaps sincere, Landis asks (p. 181), “What then have
our opponents to say to this argument? for they must meet it or renounce
their theory.”

Were we Sadducees, denying the resurrection, and any future life beyond
the grave, this case would lie as an insuperable barrier across our
pathway; but so long as the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is
taught in the Bible, the incident is not necessarily against those who
deny the existence of any such thing as a conscious, disembodied human
spirit, since the presence of Moses on the mount can be accounted for
otherwise than through such a medium.

This scene was either a representation, made to pass before the minds of
the disciples, or it was a reality as it appeared. The view that it was
merely a representation receives some countenance from the fact that it
is called a vision. “Tell the vision to no man,” said Christ; and, while
the word, vision, is sometimes applied to real appearances, as in Luke
24:43, it also is taken to represent things that do not yet exist, as in
John’s vision of the new heavens and new earth. Again, Luke says that
they (Moses and Elias) “appeared in glory.” Our Lord himself has not yet
attained unto the full measure of glory that is to result to him from
his work of redemption, 1 Pet. 1:11; Isa. 53:11; and it may well be
doubted likewise if any of his followers have reached their full state
of glory. If, then, the expression quoted from Luke refers to the future
perfected glory of the redeemed, we have another evidence that this was
only a representation, like John’s visions of future scenes of bliss,
and not then a reality. But, if this was only a vision, no argument can
be drawn from it for the intermediate existence of the soul; for, in
that case, Moses and Elias need not have been even immaterially present.

But let us consider it a reality. Then the presence of Moses can be
accounted for by supposing his resurrection from the dead. Against this
hypothesis our opponents have nothing to offer but their own assertions;
and they seem determined to make up in the amount of this commodity what
it lacks in conclusiveness. Thus Landis says, “Moses had died and was
buried, and as his body had never been raised from the dead, he of
course appeared as a disembodied spirit.” And Luther Lee says, “So far
as Moses is concerned, the argument is conclusive.” But against these
authorities, we bring forth another on the other side, as weighty, at
least, as both of them together. Dr. Adam Clarke says, on the same
passage, “The body of Moses was probably raised again, as a pledge of
the resurrection.”

Before presenting an argument to show that Moses was raised, let us look
at one consideration which proves beyond a peradventure that what
appeared on the mount was not Moses’ disembodied spirit. It will be
admitted by all that the transfiguration was for the purpose of
presenting in miniature the future kingdom of God, the kingdom of glory.
Andrews (Life of our Lord, p. 321) says: “The Lord was pleased to show
certain of the apostles, by a momentary transfiguration of his person,
the supernatural character of his kingdom, and into what new and higher
conditions of being both he and they must be brought ere it could
come.... They saw in the ineffable glory of his person, and the
brightness around them, a foreshadowing of the kingdom of God as it
should come with power; and were for a moment ’eye-witnesses of his
majesty.’ 2 Pet. 1:16.”

Who are to be the subjects in this heavenly kingdom? Ans. Those who are
translated at Christ’s coming, and the righteous dead who are raised
from their graves at that time. Will there be any disembodied spirits
there? None; for the theory is that at the resurrection, which precedes
the setting up of this kingdom, the disembodied spirits again take
possession of their reanimated bodies. Of this kingdom, the
transfiguration was a representation. There was Christ, the glorified
king; there was Elias, the representative of those who are to be
translated; and there was Moses; but, if it was simply his disembodied
soul, then there was a representation of something that will not exist
in the kingdom of God at all; and the representation was an imperfect
one, and so an utter failure. But if Moses was there in a body raised
from the dead, then the scene was harmonious and consistent, he
representing, as Dr. Clarke supposes, the righteous dead who are to be
raised, and Elias, the living who are to be translated.

The question now turns upon the resurrection of Moses from the dead; and
if scriptural evidence can be shown that Moses was thus raised, this
passage immediately changes sides in this controversy. That Moses was
raised, we think is to be necessarily inferred from Jude 9: “Yet Michael
the archangel, when contending with the devil, he disputed about the
body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but
said, The Lord rebuke thee.” It will be noticed that this dispute was
about the _body_ of Moses. Michael (Christ, John 5:27-29; 1 Thess. 4:16)
and the devil, each claimed, it appears, the right to do something with
his body.

Some have endeavored to reconcile Jude’s testimony with the
non-resurrection of Moses, by claiming that the devil wished to make
known to the children of Israel the place of Moses’ burial, in order to
lead them into idolatry; and that the contention between him and Michael
had reference to this. But such a conjecture cannot be entertained, as
in this case the contention would have been about the _grave_ of Moses,
rather than about his _body_.

But this dispute did have reference solely to the body of Moses. Then we
inquire further what the devil has to do with the bodies of men. He is
said to have the power of death; hence the grave is his dominion, and
whoever enters there he claims as his lawful prey. On the other hand,
Christ is the Life-giver, whose prerogative it is to bring men out from
under the power of death. The most natural conclusion, therefore, is,
that the dispute took place on this very point; that it had reference to
the bringing back to life of that dead body, which the devil would
naturally wish to keep, and claim the right to keep, in his own power.
But Christ rebuked the adversary, and rescued his victim from his grasp.
This is the _necessary_ inference from this passage, and, as such, is
entitled to weight in this argument.

The chief objection to this view, is this: If Moses was raised so many
years before the resurrection of Christ, how can Christ be called the
first-fruits of them that slept, as in 1 Cor. 15:20, 23? how can he be
said to be the first that should rise from the dead, as in Acts 26:23?
or be called the first-begotten, and first-begotten of the dead, as in
Heb. 1:6, and Rev. 1:5? or the first-born among many brethren, the
first-born of every creature, and the first-born from the dead, as in
Rom. 8:29, and Col. 1:15, 18?

In answering these queries, we first call attention to an important
fact: Several individuals, of whom we have explicit account, were raised
to life before the resurrection of Christ. The following cases may be
cited: (1) The widow’s son, 1 Kings 17, (2) the son of the Shunammite, 2
Kings 4, (3) the son of the widow of Nain, Luke 7:14, (4) the ruler’s
daughter, Luke 8:40, 55, and (5) the resurrection of Lazarus.

These instances cannot be disposed of by making a distinction between a
resurrection to mortality and one to immortality; for where does the
Bible make any such distinction? or where does it give even an
intimation of anything of the kind? Christ, in sending word to John of
the results of his work, told the disciples to tell him, among other
things, that _the dead_ were _raised up_. And when the wicked are
restored to life, it is called a _resurrection_, no less so than the
restoration of the righteous. See John 5:29; Acts 24:15; Rev. 20:5. But
the wicked are not raised to immortality; therefore in the matter of
being raised from the dead, the Bible recognizes no distinction on
account of the different conditions to which the different classes are
raised. Hence the cases referred to above were resurrections from the
dead just as really as though they had been raised to immortality; and
the distinction which some attempt to make is thus shown to be wholly
gratuitous, and is excluded from the controversy.

The objection now lies just as much against the cases of those of whose
resurrection we have the most explicit account, as against that of
Moses; and the question next to be met is, Can those passages which
declare that a number of the dead were raised before the resurrection of
Christ, and those which speak of Christ as the first to be raised, be
shown to be free from contradiction?

It will be noticed that the objection, so far as the words,
first-fruits, first-begotten, and first-born, are concerned, rests
wholly upon the supposition that these words denote exclusively priority
in time. It instantly vanishes before the fact that these words are not
confined to this meaning.

Christ is called the first-fruits in 1 Cor. 15, solely in reference to
his being the antitype of the wave-sheaf, and in contrast with the great
harvest that will take place at his second coming. This word is used in
different senses, as we learn from Jas. 1:18, and Rev. 14:4, where it
cannot have reference to antecedence in time. This is all that need be
said on this word.

The word rendered first-begotten and first-born is πρωτοτοκος
(_prototokos_). This word is defined by Robinson thus: “Properly the
first-born of father or mother;” and, as the first-born was entitled to
certain prerogatives and privileges over the rest of the family, the
word takes another meaning, namely, “first-born, the same as _the
first_, _the chief_, one highly distinguished and pre-eminent. So of
Christ, the beloved Son of God. Col. 1:15.” Greenfield’s definition is
similar. This word is used in the same sense in the Septuagint. In Ex.
4:22, Israel is called the first-born; and in Jer. 31:9, Ephraim is
called the first-born; but, in point of time, Esau was before Israel,
and Manasseh before Ephraim. Their being called the first-born must
therefore be owing to the rank, dignity, and station, to which they had
attained.

And hence the conclusion is not without foundation that these words,
when applied to Christ, denote the pre-eminent rank and station which he
holds in the great work, rather than the order of time in which his
resurrection occurred, a point to which no importance whatever can be
attached. All hinges upon Christ, and all is accomplished by his power,
and by virtue of his resurrection. He stands out foremost and
pre-eminent in all these displays, whether they take place before or
after his advent to this world.

The expression in Acts 27:23, presents apparently the greatest
difficulty of any. The verse reads: “That Christ should suffer, and that
he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show
light unto the people and to the Gentiles.” As it stands in our common
version it is difficult to reconcile this statement with the fact that a
number were raised from the dead previous to the resurrection of Christ
as already noticed, and we are led to wonder why Paul, knowing of all
these cases, should make such a statement. But, if we mistake not, the
original presents a different idea. In Greenfield’s Testament, the text
stands thus:--

  Εἰ παθητὸς ὁ Χριστὸς, εἰ πρῶτος ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν φῶς μέλλει
καταγγέλλειν τω λαῷ καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσι.

We call the attention of those familiar with the Greek to this passage,
and submit that it can be properly rendered as follows: “That Christ was
to suffer, [and] that first from the resurrection of the dead he was to
show light to the people and to the Gentiles.”

Bloomfield, in his note on this verse, says that the words “may be
rendered, either ‘after the resurrection from the dead,’ or ‘by the
resurrection;’ but the latter is preferable.” And Wakefield translates
it thus: “That the Christ would suffer death, and would be the first to
proclaim salvation to this people and to the Gentiles by a resurrection
from the dead.”

This is in accordance with what the same apostle declared to Timothy (1
Tim. 1:10), that Christ brought life and immortality to light through
the gospel. And viewed in this light, the text is freed from all
difficulty. It simply teaches that Christ would be the first to
demonstrate before the people, by a resurrection from the dead, future
life and immortality for the redeemed.

The resurrection of Lazarus, and other similar cases, though they might
show that the power of death could be so far broken as to give us a new
lease of mortal life, shed no light on our existence beyond this mortal
state. And the resurrection of Moses, supposing him to have been raised,
was not a public demonstration designed to show the people the path to a
future life. So far as we have any account, no one knew that he had been
raised till he appeared upon the mount of transfiguration. Christ was
the first one to show to the world, by his rising from the dead, the
great light of life and immortality beyond the grave.

Thus the last seeming objection against the idea that Moses had a
resurrection is taken away; while in its favor we have his appearance on
the mount, and the language of Jude, which can be explained on no other
ground.

Let us then take that view which a consistent regard for scriptural
harmony demands, though another supposed strong column on which rests
the dogma of the immortality of the soul, goes down before it with a
crash to the very dust.




                             CHAPTER XVIII.
               DID CHRIST TEACH THAT THE DEAD ARE ALIVE?


Yes, says the immaterialist, for he taught that God, who declares
himself to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is not the God of
the dead, but of the living; therefore, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are
living; but they are living as immaterial, disembodied immortal spirits;
for their bodies are in the grave.

The occasion on which these words were spoken is described in Matt.
22:23-32. To understand the words of Christ, we must understand fully
the point at issue, and what his words were designed to prove; and to do
this, we must look carefully at the narrative:--

“The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no
resurrection, and asked him, saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die,
having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed
unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren; and the first,
when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his
wife unto his brother: likewise the second also, and the third, unto the
seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the
resurrection, whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had
her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the
Scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither
marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in
Heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read
that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham,
and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the
dead, but of the living.”

What, then, was the point at issue between Christ and the Sadducees? See
verse 23: “The same day, came to him the Sadducees, which _say there is
no resurrection_, and asked him,” &c. The Sadducees professed to believe
the writings of Moses, but denied the resurrection. Christ also believed
the writings of Moses, but _taught_ the resurrection. Here, then, was a
fair issue between them. They hear him teaching the resurrection; and to
object their faith to his, they refer to the law of Moses concerning
marriage, and then state a familiar fact; viz., that seven brothers, one
after another, all had one woman, and all died. Now arises a problem
very difficult to their minds, no doubt. How will this matter be
arranged in the resurrection which you teach? Whose wife shall she be in
the resurrection? Let it be noticed that the controversy between Christ
and the Sadducees had no respect whatever to an intermediate state, nor
does their query or Christ’s answer have any reference to such a state.
They do not inquire whose wife she is now, or which of the men’s
immortal souls claims her immortal soul in the spirit world; but, Whose
wife _shall she be_ in the resurrection (a future event)? Christ tells
them that they err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.
And then, to defend himself and condemn them out of their own mouth, he
proceeds to prove--what? a conscious intermediate state? No; but _the
resurrection_, from the writings of Moses. “But as touching the
resurrection from the dead,” says he [as touching the dead that they
rise, says Mark; and that the dead are raised, says Luke], “have ye not
read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of
Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God
of the dead, but of the living.”

Let us now show that this quotation did prove the resurrection, and our
argument on this passage is closed. That, Moses by this language, did
teach the resurrection of the dead, we think is easily evident. Thus,
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were dead; but God is not the God of the dead
(or those who are irrecoverably and eternally dead, as the Sadducees
believed them to be), but he _is_ the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
What, therefore, shall we logically and scripturally conclude from this
fact? Why, simply that they shall live again, or have a resurrection
from the dead. In this view of the subject, Christ reasoned well, proved
the point he aimed to prove, confounded the Sadducees, and gained the
applause of the Pharisees, who believed in the resurrection.

But grant for a moment that the language means what is popularly claimed
for it, and what becomes of Christ’s reputation as a reasoner, and a
teacher of wisdom sent from God? He set out to prove the resurrection;
but when he closes his argument, lo, wonderful to tell! he has proved
that all men are alive, and, therefore, there is no _need_ of a
resurrection! He neither meets the query of the Sadducees, nor defends
himself, but quite the reverse. Believe that our Lord would reason thus,
ye who can!

If any should admit that a resurrection is proved by the language, but
claim from it that such resurrection takes place at death, a theory not
uncommon at the present time, we reply that they thereby abandon the
conscious-state theory, and affirm the existence of those who have died,
on another ground, viz., a resurrection. But, further, this is equally
foreign from what Christ set out to prove; for he had reference to an
event which was then future to the seven brethren and the woman that
died. They asked him, saying, “In the resurrection, therefore, when they
_shall rise_, whose wife _shall she be_ of them,” &c. And Jesus answered
and said, “When they _shall rise_ from the dead, they neither marry nor
are given in marriage, but are as the angels in Heaven.” Mark 12:23-25.
Again, in Luke’s account, Jesus says, “But they which _shall be_
accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the
dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage.” Luke 20:35. Thus we see
that a future event is everywhere referred to, and if he in reality
proved that an event had already taken place, which he designed to show
would take place in the future, it speaks no better for his reasoning or
his wisdom than the former supposition.

Why God calls himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, though they
are yet dead, we learn from Heb. 11:16. It is not because they are now
alive, but because in God’s purpose who speaks of things that are not,
as though they were, they are to live, and “he _hath prepared_ for them
a city.” “Wherefore, God is not ashamed to be called their God; for he
hath prepared for them a city,” into possession of which they will of
course come in the future.

In view of these facts, our friends should be careful lest they expose
themselves to the rebuke Christ gave to the Sadducees: “Ye do err, not
knowing the Scriptures;” for this instance, like all others, when
properly understood, so far from sustaining their position, becomes an
irrefragable evidence of the resurrection of the dead, and a future
life, but affirms nothing whatever for consciousness in death.




                              CHAPTER XIX.
     MOSES AND THE PROPHETS ON THE PLACE AND CONDITION OF THE DEAD.


The hoary fable that every man has in his own nature an immaterial,
ever-conscious, never-dying principle, vaulting from the gloomy regions
of heathen mythology over into the precincts of Christianity, and
claiming the positive authority of Christ and his apostles, instead of
the uncertain speculations of Socrates and Plato, conceives that it
finds a secure intrenchment in Luke 16:19-31, or the record concerning
the rich man and Lazarus.

Into this record, as into the strongest of strongholds, it enters with
every demonstration of confidence; and from its supposed impregnable
walls, it hurls mockery and defiance against all opposing views, as the
infatuated subjects of Belshazzar defied the soldiers of Cyrus from the
walls of Babylon.

We venture to approach, at least to reconnoiter. We venture further,
from the record itself, even to lay siege to it, and dig a trench about
it, which, if we mistake not, will soon effectually reduce it, and all
the arguments for immortality it is supposed to contain.

The first fact to which we call the attention of the reader is that
Christ, as the result of this narrative or parable, or whatever it may
be, refers us to Moses and the prophets for light and information
respecting the place and condition of the dead. In the record, the rich
man is represented as requesting that Lazarus might be sent to his
brethren on earth, lest they should come into the same place of torment.
How would he prevent them? By carrying back to them information
respecting the state that follows this life; by telling how it fared
with the covetous rich man who had enjoyed his good things in this life,
and inducing them to live such a life here as to avoid the condition
into which he had fallen.

And what was Abraham’s answer? “They have Moses and the prophets.... If
they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded
though one rose from the dead.” That is to say, Moses and the prophets
had given them just as positive information respecting the condition
into which man passes from this life, as could be given them by one who
should repass the portals of the grave and rise from the dead.

The significance of this declaration should not be overlooked. It throws
us right back upon the records of Moses and the prophets for information
upon that subject respecting which the incident here related is claimed
to be full and sufficient testimony.

We therefore inquire what Moses and the prophets have taught us
respecting the place where the scene here depicted is represented to
have taken place. What place was this? Answer, _Hades_; for this is the
word from which hell is translated in verse 23. In hell, _hades_, the
rich man lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham and Lazarus afar off,
though still within sight and speaking distance. The New Testament was
written in Greek, while Moses and the prophets wrote in Hebrew. What is
the Hebrew word answering to the Greek _hades_? Answer, _Sheol_. These
are the equivalent terms in the two languages. All that a Hebrew writer
meant by _sheol_, a Greek writer meant by _hades_, and _vice versa_. The
question, then, is simply this: What have Moses and the prophets taught
us respecting _sheol_, and the condition of those who enter therein?

_Meaning of hades and sheol._ These words denote the common receptacle
of the dead, both righteous and wicked. The righteous dead are there;
for at the resurrection they raise the victorious shout, “O Death, where
is thy sting? O Grave [Gr. _hades_], where is thy victory?” 1 Cor.
15:55. And the wicked dead are there; for at the resurrection to
damnation it is said that death and hell [Gr. _hades_] deliver them up.
Rev. 20:13. That the _hades_ of the New Testament is the _sheol_ of the
Old, Ps. 16, and Acts 2:27, bear testimony. Thus Ps. 16:10, says, “Thou
wilt not leave my soul in hell [Heb. _sheol_];” and the New Testament,
as above, makes a direct quotation of this passage by saying, “Thou wilt
not leave my soul in _hades_.”

_Use of the word sheol._ This word occurs in the Old Testament
sixty-five times. It is rendered hell and grave each thirty-one times,
and pit three times. With our Lord’s special indorsement of what is
there written concerning it, we may look with interest at the facts
brought out by the testimony of Moses and the prophets.

_All alike go there._ Thus Jacob says, “I will go down into _sheol_ [to
use the original word in place of the English rendering], unto my son
mourning.” Gen. 37:35. Korah and his company went down into _sheol_.
Num. 16:30, 33. All mankind go there. Ps. 89:48.

_What goes into sheol._ _Sheol_ receives the whole man bodily at death.
Jacob expected to go down with his gray hairs to _sheol_. Korah, Dathan,
and Abiram, went into _sheol_ bodily. The soul of the Saviour left
_sheol_ at his resurrection. Ps. 16:10; Acts 2:27, 31. David, when
restored from dangerous sickness, testified that his soul was saved from
going into _sheol_. Ps. 30:2, 3.

_The duration of its dominion._ Those who go down into _sheol_ must
remain there till their resurrection. At the second coming of Christ,
all the righteous are delivered from _sheol_. All the living wicked are
then turned into _sheol_, and for one thousand years it holds them in
its dread embrace. Then it gives them up, and judgment is executed upon
them. Rev. 20:11-15.

_Location of sheol._ It is in the earth beneath. It embraces the
interior of the earth as the region of the dead, and the place of every
grave. Eze. 32:18-32. It is always spoken of as beneath, in the interior
of the earth, or in the nether parts of the earth. See Num. 16:30, 33;
Isa. 5:14; 14:9-20; Eze. 31:15-18; 32:18-32. Referring to the fires now
preying upon the interior parts of the earth, and which shall at last
cause the earth to melt with fervent heat, the Lord, through Moses,
says: “For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the
lowest _sheol_, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set
on fire the foundation of the mountains.” Deut. 32:22. Jonah went down
into _sheol_ when he descended into the depths of the waters, where none
but dead men had ever been. Jonah 1:2.

_Condition of the righteous in sheol._ They do not praise the Lord
there. David so testifies: “In death there is no remembrance of thee; in
_sheol_ who shall give thee thanks?” Ps. 6:5. Hezekiah uttered the same
great truth, when he was delivered from death in answer to prayer: “I
said in the cutting off of my days, I shall go to the gates of _sheol_;
I am deprived of the residue of my years.... Behold, for peace I had
great bitterness; but thou hast in love to my soul delivered it from the
_pit of corruption_; for thou hast cast all my sins behind my back. For
_sheol cannot praise_ thee, death cannot celebrate thee: they that go
down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth. The living, the living, he
shall praise thee, as I do this day: the father to the children shall
make known thy truth.” Isa. 38:10-19; Ps. 115:17; 146:1-4.

_Condition of the wicked in sheol._ They are still and silent there.
David, in a prayer indited by the Spirit of God, says: “Let the wicked
be ashamed, and let them be silent in _sheol_.” Ps. 31:17. In 1 Sam.
2:9, we read that the wicked shall be silent in darkness.

_General character of sheol._ It is a place of silence, secresy, sleep,
rest, darkness, corruption, and worms. Job says: “So man lieth down, and
riseth not: till the heavens be no more they shall not awake nor be
raised out of their sleep. Oh! that thou wouldst hide me in _sheol_,
that thou wouldst keep me secret till thy wrath be past, that thou
wouldst appoint me a set time and remember me. If a man die, shall he
live again? All the days of my appointed time will I wait till my change
come. Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee; thou wilt have a desire
to the work of thine hands.” Job 14:12-15. Again he says: “If I wait,
_sheol_ is mine house: I have made my bed in the darkness. I have said
to corruption, Thou art my father: to the worm, Thou art my mother and
my sister. And where is now my hope? As for my hope, who shall see it?
They shall go down to the bars of _sheol_, when our rest together is in
the dust.” Job. 17:13-16; 4:11-19; Ps. 88:10-12.

_There is no knowledge in sheol._ This fact is plainly stated by Solomon
through the Spirit of inspiration: “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do,
do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge,
nor wisdom in _sheol_ whither thou goest.” Eccl. 9:4-6, 10. When man
goes in there his very thoughts perish. Ps. 146:4.

Such are the great facts concerning _sheol_, or hades, revealed to us in
the books of “Moses and the prophets.” Their statements are literal,
plain, explicit, and unequivocal. In opposition to all these, can it be
maintained that in _sheol_ and _hades_ there _is_ consciousness, wisdom,
device, knowledge, happiness, and misery, as is popularly claimed on the
authority of this record about the rich man and Lazarus? If not, and if
_sheol_ is such a place of silence, darkness, inactivity, and
unconsciousness, as they declare, can the use of such language as is
employed respecting the rich man and Lazarus in this very place be
accounted for?




                              CHAPTER XX.
                       THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS.


The previous chapter left us with the problem on our hands whether it
were better to try to overthrow all that Moses and the prophets have
written respecting _sheol_ and the condition of those who enter therein,
for the purpose of sustaining the common view of the rich man and
Lazarus, or to try to account for the use of the language used in that
narrative, in harmony with what Moses and the prophets have said
respecting that place.

In the first place, we cannot set aside what Moses and the prophets have
written; for Christ, in the very case under consideration, indorses them
and refers us to them for instruction. How, then, can we account for the
fact that the rich man is represented as conscious, intelligent, and
active, in _hades_, when Moses and the prophets have taught us that
_hades_ is a place of darkness and silence, without knowledge, wisdom,
or device? If the record of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable, the
use of such language is at once accounted for; for if it is a parable,
the language is allegorical; and in allegory, life and action are often
attributed to inanimate objects, for the sake of enforcing or
illustrating some particular truth.

Some notable instances of this style of writing are furnished us in the
Old Testament. In Judges 9:7-15, the trees are represented as going
forth to anoint a king over them; and they appealed to the olive tree
and the fig tree and the vine, and received answers from them in which
they declined to leave their stations of usefulness to be promoted over
them. Finally, they appealed to the bramble; and the bramble accepted
the trust. Now this representation was not designed to teach that trees
ordain civil government, walk about, and converse together; but it was
to illustrate the folly of the men of Shechem in electing Abimelech
king. Again, in 2 Kings 14:9, we read that the king of Israel sent to
the king of Judah, saying, “The thistle in Lebanon sent to the cedar
that was in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my son to wife.” This
is not to teach that thistles and cedars have sons and daughters who
unite in marriage, but to illustrate the contempt which the king of
Israel felt for the proposition which the king of Judah made to him.

Landis, p. 188, claims that it makes no difference whether the case of
the rich man and Lazarus is a parable or not, since a parable should not
be so worded as to convey a wrong impression to the mind, which this
would do, if the soul is not conscious in death. We reply, It makes all
the difference in the world; for if it is a parable, the life and action
attributed to the inanimate inhabitants of hades, is not to teach
anything respecting their real condition, any more than the life and
action attributed to the trees and brambles in the cases referred to, is
designed to teach what their condition is; but this intelligence and
action are attributed to these inanimate objects, to illustrate some
great truth which the speaker wished to enforce.

In the case of the rich man and Lazarus, what was the object in view?
Answer: To rebuke the Pharisees for their covetousness (“And the
Pharisees also, who were _covetous_, heard all these things; and they
derided him.” Verse 14); to show to them, since they thought that riches
in this life was a mark of the divine favor and would secure God’s
blessing in the next, that if they gave themselves up to the sensual
enjoyment of their riches, neglecting and oppressing the poor, they
would, in the future, meet God’s wrath instead of his favor; and that
the poor, whom they despised and oppressed, might attain to that very
state of felicity, set forth under the figure of Abraham’s bosom, of
which they thought themselves so sure.

That this is a parable seems abundantly evident: 1. It stands in
connection with a long list of parables. The preceding chapter, Luke 15,
contains three. This chapter opens with the parable of the unjust
steward; and there is no intimation of a change from parable to literal
narration in this case. 2. It is said that this cannot be a parable,
because it is introduced by a direct assertion. “There was a certain
rich man,” &c. But others which are parables are introduced in exactly
the same manner. Thus verse 1, “There _was_ a certain rich man which had
a steward,” &c. And chapter 15:11: “A certain man _had_ two sons,” &c.
3. The prophets, to whom we are referred, speak of the dead in _sheol_,
in the nether parts of the earth, as conversing together, taunting each
other, weeping bitterly, refusing to be comforted, &c., representations
exactly similar to those made in the case of the rich man and Lazarus,
and full as striking, but which no one can regard as setting forth the
actual condition of the dead.

Thus in Isa. 14:9-20, it is represented that when the king of Babylon is
overthrown, he goes down into _sheol_, and the DEAD (for there are no
others in its dark domain) are stirred up to meet him. The kings that
had been destroyed by the king of Babylon, are represented as having
thrones in _sheol_ beneath, and when the king of Babylon joins them in
their dark abode, they rise up from their thrones, and mock him with
feigned obeisance, as in life they had rendered him real homage. And
they say, “Art thou become weak as we? Art thou become like unto us? Is
this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms?”
No one can suppose that they literally act or speak thus. But all this
is a striking figure to represent that death would reduce the king of
Babylon to the same level with his subjects and prisoners.

Again in Eze. 31:15-18, and 32:17-32, Pharaoh and his host, slain in
battle with the king of Babylon, are set forth in the same manner. The
strong among the mighty are represented as speaking to him out of the
midst of _sheol_, as he enters therein. And this _sheol_, in “the nether
parts of the earth,” full of graves and of the dead, is contrasted with
the land of the living. These victims of slaughter went down to _sheol_
with their weapons of war; and their swords they “laid under their
heads;” and when Pharaoh, lying among them, saw the multitude of his
enemies that were slain also, he was comforted at the sight.

Another case, perhaps still more remarkable, is that of Rachel. Jer.
31:15-17; Matt. 2:17, 18; Gen. 25:17-20. Long ages after Rachel had
died, and entered into _sheol_, a dreadful slaughter took place among
her posterity. Thereupon she is represented as breaking forth into
lamentation and bitter weeping, and refusing to be comforted because her
children were not. And the Lord says to her, “Refrain thy voice from
weeping, and thine eyes from tears; for thy work shall be rewarded,
saith the Lord.”

No one can suppose that Rachel literally wept at the murder of her
children nearly 2000 years after her death, nor that the slaughtered
Egyptians put their swords under their heads as they were lying in
_sheol_, and conversed together in the nether parts of the earth, some
being comforted, and others ashamed; nor that the kings overthrown by
the king of Babylon rose up from their sepulchral thrones in mock
solemnity, and taunted him with becoming weak as they.

But these were all figures to set forth great and salutary truths. May
not our Lord then, for once, be permitted for a like purpose to use a
like figure, so largely employed by the prophets, and so well known to
his hearers, by personifying persons in _hades_ to perform actions which
were not there literally to occur? We have certainly as good reason to
suppose that Rachel, the Egyptians, and the king of Babylon, were real
personages, and their descent into _sheol_ and the accompanying
circumstance as related by the prophets, veritable history, as to
suppose that Dives was a real character, and his torment in _hades_, and
his conversation with Abraham, a real transaction.

Those who held in their hands the Old-Testament scriptures were
perfectly familiar with such figures. There the “trees of the field”
converse and “clap their hands,” the “floods” lift up their “voice,” the
hills and mountains “sing,” stones from the wall “cry out,” and beams
“answer,” the blood of Abel finds a “voice,” and “cries out from the
ground,” and dead men rejoice over the fall of their rivals, slain by
the sword. In a volume abounding with such figures, cannot for once a
rich man, representing a class of living persons, be endowed in _hades_
with life and speech? must this one figure of personification be singled
out from all others, as a rigidly literal narrative, and be made to
sustain the weight of the most terrific doctrine of which the mind of
man can conceive?

Sufficient evidence has been produced to show that this is a parable.
And now we invite the attention of the reader to the testimony of two
eminent authors respecting the use which should be made of parables.

Dr. Clarke (note on Matt. 5:26) says:--

“Let it be remembered that by the consent of all (except the basely
interested), no _metaphor_ is ever to be produced in _proof_ of a
doctrine. In the things that concern our eternal salvation, we need the
most pointed and _express evidence_ on which to establish the faith of
our souls.”

And Trench, in his work on parables, lays down this very important
rule:--

“The parables may not be made first sources of doctrine. Doctrines
otherwise and already grounded, may be illustrated, or indeed further
confirmed by them, but it is not allowable to constitute doctrine first
by their aid. They may be the outer ornamental fringe, but not the main
texture of the proof. For from the literal to the figurative, from the
clearer to the more obscure, has ever been recognized as the law of
Scripture interpretation. This rule, however, has been _often
forgotten_, and controversialists, looking round for arguments with
which to sustain some _weak position_, one for which they can find no
other support in Scripture, often invent for themselves supports in
these.”

But some persist that this is not a parable, but a literal narrative;
and not to seem captious, we will consider it in this light. If this is
veritable history, all the particulars must be taken literally. Then the
wicked, tormented in the flames of hell, are within sight and speaking
distance of the saved in Heaven. In other words, Heaven is but the shore
of hell, and on that shore the redeemed can sit and watch the damned in
their fearful contortions of agony for which there is no name, and
listen to their entreaties for relief and their shrieks of fathomless
despair, to an extent, it would seem, sufficient to satisfy the fiercest
vengeance and the most implacable revenge. If this be so, our friends
must certainly abandon the argument they build on Rev. 6:9, 10, where
they have it that the souls of the martyrs, disembodied and conscious,
cry to God to visit vengeance upon their persecutors. If they were where
they could look over into the fiery gulf, and behold their persecutors
vainly battling with its flaming billows, or if not already there,
destined in a few short years to be plunged therein, let no one say of
the holy martyrs that they would, under such circumstances, cry
impatiently to God to hasten or intensify his vengeance. The arguments
based on the narrative of the rich man and Lazarus, and Rev. 6:9, 10,
must, one or the other of them, be given up; for they devour each other.
Let the advocates of the popular theory look to this.

The beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. The
rich man also died, and was buried. Let it be noted that the persons
themselves, as a whole, are spoken of, not any of their essential
elements, or immaterial appendages. Nothing is said of the soul of
either the rich man or Lazarus. As we are now considering this as a
literal transaction, a question vital to the argument is, _When_ do the
angels bear those who have died, as persons (for there is nothing
anywhere said about the angels’ carrying their souls), into Abraham’s
bosom, or the state of the blessed? Such scriptures as Matt. 24:30, 31;
1 Thess. 4:16, 17, answer this question very explicitly: “And he shall
send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather
together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the
other.” When? At the second advent of the Son of man in majesty and
glory; for then it is that the voice of the archangel, ringing through
the long galleries of _hades_, shall wake the righteous dead from their
silent slumbers, and angels bear them upward on wings of light, to be
forever with the Lord.

The rich man dies, and is buried; and his next experience is the
suffering of torment in consuming flame. How long after his burial he
finds himself in this torment, we are not directly informed. But he has
bodily organs; for he has eyes to see, and a tongue to be cooled; but
these the dead are not usually considered to possess till the
resurrection. This drives Landis, p. 191, to the unusual admission that
the soul retains the human form, with its corresponding organs, hands,
feet, eyes, tongue, &c. Again, the rich man sees Lazarus in Abraham’s
bosom; but, as we have already seen, Lazarus is not literally borne
there by the angels till the resurrection.

As a literal transaction, the scene is inevitably located, by the
concurrent testimony of all Scripture, beyond the resurrection. How,
then, it can be said to transpire in _hades_, we leave those to decide
who believe that it is a literal transaction. Certain it is that no such
scenes can really occur in _hades_, if the representations of that place
given us by Moses and the prophets are correct; while analogous scenes
will really take place beyond the resurrection: there the righteous are
rewarded, and the wicked punished in devouring fire; there the Lord told
the impenitent Jews that they should see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in
the kingdom of God, and they themselves thrust out, and that then there
would be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Luke 13:28.

One view, only, maintains harmony between this and other portions of the
sacred writings; and that is the one which is here, imperfectly it may
be, but yet sincerely, advocated: that Christ, following the example of
the prophets, uses the figure of personification, and anticipates, as
transpiring in the grave, scenes which substantially occur beyond the
resurrection; and that the object of the parable was to rebuke the
Pharisees for their covetousness by indicating the fate that awaited a
life of avarice and oppression here, however sumptuous that life might
be.

That it does not teach the existence of conscious souls between death
and the resurrection, is forever settled by the fact that Lazarus could
return only by a resurrection from the dead. When the rich man requested
that Lazarus might be sent to warn his brethren, Abraham replied that
they had Moses and the prophets, and if they would not hear them, they
would not “be persuaded _though one rose from the dead_.” The
conversation did not therefore relate to the coming back of the immortal
soul of Lazarus; and indeed no mention is made of any such thing in the
whole transaction.

Therefore, interpret it as we may, it cannot be reasonably or
scripturally used to prove the entrance of man’s naked, unclothed spirit
into bliss or woe at the hour of death.




                              CHAPTER XXI.
                          WITH ME IN PARADISE.


According to Luke’s account of the crucifixion of our Saviour, Luke
23:27-46, one of the two malefactors who were crucified with him, said
to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And
Jesus said unto him, Verily, I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with
me in Paradise.” Verses 42, 43. This, says the immaterialist, “must ever
stand as a clear announcement of the uninterrupted immortality of the
soul.” (_Landis_, p. 211.) The “clear announcement” is made out in this
manner: Christ and the thief, it is claimed, both died that day; they
both went to paradise that day; and their condition while there was, of
course, one of consciousness and intelligence.

There is one fact which stands somewhat in the way of this clear
announcement; and that is, that _Christ did not go to paradise that
day_. In answer to the popular view, we first set forth this unqualified
proposition, and undertake its proof; and if this shall prove to be well
grounded, the doctrine of annihilation will be found in a degree true;
for the claims usually built on the scripture above quoted are utterly
and forever annihilated by this fact.

In entering upon the argument to show that Christ did not go to paradise
that day, we first inquire what paradise is and where it is. The word
occurs but three times in the English version of the Scriptures, all in
the New Testament; two besides the verse under consideration; but these
are amply sufficient to define and locate it.

First, Paul in 2 Cor. 12:2, says: “I knew a man in Christ above fourteen
years ago (whether in the body I cannot tell; or whether out of the
body, I cannot tell; God knoweth), such an one caught up to the third
Heaven.” In verse 4, he affirms that the place to which this man was
caught up was paradise. This establishes the fact that paradise is in
the third Heaven.

Again, in Rev. 2:7, we read the promise which the Saviour gives to the
overcomers; and he says: “To him that overcometh will I give to eat of
the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.” This
establishes another equally important fact, that paradise is where the
tree of life now is. Now, if the Scriptures anywhere give us any further
information respecting the place where the tree of life is to be found,
we have still further testimony respecting paradise.

In Rev. 21 and 22, we have a description of the New Jerusalem, the holy
city which is above. In chap. 22:1, 2, we read: “And he showed me a pure
river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne
of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it [the city], and
on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare
twelve manner of fruit, and yielded her fruit every month.” By this
testimony, we learn that the tree of life, which grows in the midst of
the paradise of God, is in the holy city, fast by the river of life,
which proceeds from the throne of God. Nothing could be more explicit
than this. We have now found the paradise of the New Testament. It is in
the third Heaven, where the tree of life is, and where God maintains his
residence and his throne. Whoever, therefore, goes into paradise, goes
into the presence of God. If the Saviour went there on the day of his
crucifixion, with the impenitent thief, he went into the presence of his
Father.

Now let us reverently listen to the words of the Lord and believe what
he says, while he himself testifies whether he went to paradise on the
day of his crucifixion, or not. On the morning of his resurrection, the
_third day_ after his crucifixion, he said to Mary, who was about to
embrace his feet, in accordance with the ancient custom of deference or
worship, “Touch me not; FOR I AM NOT YET ASCENDED TO MY FATHER.” The
third day, remember, from the crucifixion, and not ascended into
paradise yet!

Struck into a state of bewilderment by this stunning fact, Landis, pp.
209, 211, clutches wildly for some supports by which to rear again his
prostrate structure. He feigns to find evidence in John 16:16, that
Jesus told his disciples that at death he would go to his Father: a
scripture which very evidently has reference, not to his death, but to
his bodily ascension, forty days after his resurrection. Then, referring
to the fact that the word “ascend” is from _anabaino_, he says: “Now
every tyro knows that in composition _ana_ has very frequently [?] the
force of _again_. _Baino_ alone means simply _to ascend_; _ana_ adds a
shade of meaning.”

It is frequently the case that writers try to drive others into an
admission of their statements by representing that they will appear very
ignorant and stupid to deny them. But Mr. L., not being a tyro,
doubtless understands that nearly every statement in this criticism is
false in itself considered, and every one of them wholly so, as applied
to the case in hand. _Ana_, in composition with _baino_, does not have
the force of again. In neither Liddell and Scott, Robinson, Greenfield,
nor Parkhurst, is there any such definition as “ascended again” given to
_anabaino_. _Baino_ alone does not mean “to ascend.” No such definition
is given to it in the standard authorities here named. It means simply
to go, without any reference to the direction; other words, either in
composition with it, or in the context, signifying whether this motion
is up or down, forward or backward, over or under, &c. In no one of the
eighty-one instances of the use of the word in the New Testament, is it
translated “ascend again.” And finally, those texts which Mr. L. quotes
as containing the word again, as Matt. 3:16, which he quotes, “Christ
_went up again_, or returned,” and Matt. 5:1, which he quotes, “He went
up _again_ into a mountain,” the word, again, is not expressed in the
English nor implied in the Greek. In only one instance is the word again
used with _anabaino_; that is Gal. 2:1, where Paul says, “I went up
_again_ to Jerusalem;” but here the word again is from another word
(_palin_), and _anabaino_ is translated simply “went up.”

Rarely do we meet with an instance of more reckless desperation in the
line of criticism. And what is the object of it? It is to have us
understand that when Christ says, “I am not yet ascended to my Father,”
he means to say, I am not yet ascended _again_ to my Father. And from
this he would have us further draw the lucid inference that Christ had
ascended once, that is, in his disembodied spirit, between his death and
resurrection, and now tells Mary not to touch him because he has not
ascended again! It would be difficult to conceive of a more unnecessary
and far-fetched inference. And that men will seriously contend for such
a view, shows the orbless obstinacy with which they will cling to
preconceived notions, though they have only the most groundless trifles
to sustain them, rather than surrender them for more consistent views.
Nothing can be more evident than that Christ, when he said, “I am not
yet ascended to my Father,” affirmed in the most direct manner that
since his advent into this world, he had not, up to that time, ascended
to his Father.

Rather than thus summarily lose the argument that the thief was still
conscious in death, and that the soul is therefore (?) immortal, another
attempt is made to adjust the matter thus: Although Christ did not go to
his Father, he nevertheless went to paradise, which is not where the
Father dwells, but the intermediate resting place of departed souls. Do
we then understand them? We found them, a little while ago, arguing from
Eccl. 12:7, that the disembodied spirit _did_ return to God; which they
claimed to be proof positive that the soul is immortal; and thought it
would puzzle the annihilationists not a little. Do they now give this
up, and admit that the soul or spirit does not go to God, but only into
some intermediate place, called paradise? It matters not to us which
position they take, only we wish to know which one it is. We cannot hold
our peace and allow them to take one position on one text and another on
another, to avoid the embarrassments into which their theory plunges at
every turn.

That paradise is no intermediate state, a halfway house between the
grave and the resurrection, we have fully shown; for we have the
positive statements of the Scriptures to show that paradise is in the
third Heaven, where God sits upon his throne; and Christ told Mary, the
third day after his crucifixion, in so many words, that he had not yet
ascended there.

The popular interpretation of Christ’s language to the thief thus
utterly failing, we are thrown back upon the text for some other
explanation of the phraseology there used: “Verily I say unto thee,
To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise.”

There are but two probable ways in which this language can be
interpreted: One is, to let the phrase, “to-day,” refer to the time to
which the thief had reference in his request. He said, “Lord, remember
me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” He looked forward to the day when
Christ should come into his kingdom. And if the “to-day” in Christ’s
answer refers to this time, then the sense would be, “Verily I say unto
thee, To-day, or this day, the day to which you refer, when I come into
my kingdom, thou shalt be with me in paradise.” The word, to-day, is
from the Greek, σήμερον (_semeron_); and all the definitions we find of
it would seem to confine it to present time, excluding an application of
it to the future. This interpretation, therefore, we think cannot be
urged.

The other, and only remaining method of interpreting the passage, is to
place the comma after “to-day,” making to-day an adverb qualifying say.
The sense would then be, Verily I say unto thee to-day, thou shalt be
with me in paradise, at that period in the future when I shall come in
my kingdom.

This method of punctuation, if it is allowable, clears the subject of
all difficulty. Let us then candidly consider what objections can be
urged against it.

As to the punctuation itself, we all know that that is not the work of
inspiration, and withal that it is of recent origin, the comma in its
present form not having been invented till the year A. D. 1790. It is
therefore allowable to change this in any manner that the sense of the
passage, the context, or even other portions of the Scriptures may
demand. And in support of this punctuation, we have the example of some
Greek manuscripts, which, according to Griesbach, place the comma after
“to-day” in this declaration.

But the objector accuses us of making sad nonsense of the text by this
change; and he asks, in bitter irony, “Didn’t the thief know it was that
day, without Christ’s telling him?” Very true, as a matter of fact; but
let the objector beware lest his sarcasm fall upon the Scriptures
themselves; for such very expressions do occur therein. See Zech. 9:12:
“Turn you to the stronghold, ye prisoners of hope: even _to-day_ do I
declare that I will render double unto thee.” Transposing this sentence,
without altering the sense, we have phraseology similar to that of Luke
23:43; namely, “I declare unto you even to-day, I will render double
unto thee.” The events threatened here were to take place in the future,
when the Lord should bend Judah, &c. See context. So the phrase,
“to-day,” could not qualify the “rendering double,” &c., but only the
declaration.

Here, then, is an expression exactly parallel with that in Luke, and the
same irony is applicable; thus, “Did not the prisoners of hope know it
was that day when the declaration was made to them?” But let our
opponents now discard their unworthy weapon; for here it is leveled
against the words of Inspiration itself.

But when we take into consideration the circumstances of the case, we
see a force and propriety in the Saviour’s making his declaration
emphatically upon that day. He had been preaching the advent of the
kingdom of Heaven to listening multitudes. A kingdom, he had promised to
his followers. But the powers of death and darkness had apparently
triumphed, and were crushing into the very grave both his prospects and
his promises. He who was expected to be the king of the coming kingdom,
stretched upon the shameful cross, was expiring in ignominy and
reproach; his disciples were scattered; and where now was the prospect
of that kingdom which had been preached and promised? But amid the
supernatural influences at work upon that memorable day, a ray of divine
illumination may have flashed in upon the soul of the poor thief,
traveling the same road of death beside his Lord. A conviction of the
truthfulness of his claims as the Messiah, the Son of God, may have
entered into his mind, and a desire have sprung up in his heart to trust
his lot in his hands, leading him to put up a humble and sincere
petition, Lord, in mercy remember me when the days of thy triumph and
glory shall come. Yes, says the suffering Saviour, in the hearing of the
mocking multitude, I say unto thee, _to-day_--to-day, in this hour of my
darkness and agony--to-day, when the fatal cross is apparently giving
the lie to all my pretensions--to-day, a day of forlorn prospects and
withered hopes, so far as human eyes can see--verily, _to-day_, I say
unto thee, thou shalt be with me in paradise, when my kingdom shall be
established in triumph and glory.

Thus, there is a divine force and beauty in these words of our Lord, as
uttered on that occasion. How like a sun at midnight would they have
broken in upon the gloom that enshrouded the sorrowing hearts of the
disciples, had they fathomed their import. For who had occasion to sink
in despair, if not He upon whom all depended, and that, too, when
expiring under the agonies of the cross. But lo! no cloud of gloom is
sufficient to fix its shadows upon his serene brow. His divine
foresight, riding calmly over the events of the present, fixes itself
upon that coming period of glory, when he shall see of the travail of
his soul and be satisfied. There, in the hour of his deepest humility,
he points them to the joys of paradise.

Thus, by a simple removal of the comma one word forward, the stone of
stumbling is taken out of this text, by making it harmonize with other
Scriptures; and thus, the promise, by having reference to something in
the future, and not to anything to be performed on that day, contains no
affirmation of consciousness in death.




                             CHAPTER XXII.
                         ABSENT FROM THE BODY.


Another passage, supposed to teach the separate conscious existence of
the soul, is found in 2 Cor. 5:8: “We are confident, I say, and willing
rather, to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.” On
the acknowledged principle that it is illogical to endeavor to build any
great doctrine upon an isolated passage, without taking into
consideration the general tenor of the context, if not also other
writings from the same author, let us look at some of the statements
which Paul has made in this connection.

In verse 1 of this chapter, Paul introduces an earthly house and a
heavenly house, and says, “For we know that if our earthly house of this
tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made
with hands, eternal in the heavens.” He states our condition while in
the earthly house. Verse 2: “In this we groan,” verse 4, “being
burdened.” He tells what we desire in this state. Verse 2. “Earnestly
desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from Heaven [verse
3]: if so be that being clothed, we shall not be found naked.” In verse
4, Paul repeats all these facts in order to state the result of the work
which he desired: “For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being
burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon.” Now he
states the result of being clothed upon with the house from Heaven which
he so earnestly desired: “But clothed upon, that mortality might be
swallowed up of life.” Then he states that the condition he had in view
is that for which God in the beginning designed the human race: “Now he
that has wrought us for the self-same thing is God.” That is, God
designed that we should ultimately reach that condition which he here
designates as being clothed upon with our house from Heaven. Then he
states what assurance we have in this life that we shall eventually
attain to this condition: “who also hath given unto us the earnest
[assurance, pledge, token] of the Spirit.” That is, the Spirit dwelling
in our hearts, is the assurance or pledge we have that we shall finally
receive the desire of our hearts, and be clothed upon with our house
from Heaven. In verse 6, he states this to be the ground of his
confidence, although while “we are at home in the body, we are absent
from the Lord.” And then after incidentally stating the secret of the
Christian’s course in this life, “we walk by faith, not by sight,” he
penned the text quoted at the commencement of this chapter, stating that
he was willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present with
the Lord.

We now have before us quite fully, the subject upon which Paul is here
treating. A thought now as to the meaning of the terms he employs. What
does he mean by the earthly house and the heavenly house? by being
clothed and unclothed? by mortality being swallowed up of life? and by
being absent from the body and present with the Lord?

What he calls in verse 1, “our earthly house,” he designates in verse 6,
as being “at home in the body.” The chief characteristic of this house
is that it may be dissolved, or is mortal. This earthly house is
therefore our mortal body, or what is essentially the same thing, this
present mortal condition. The house from Heaven is eternal or immortal.
This, therefore, by parity of reasoning, is the immortal body or the
state of immortality which awaits the redeemed beyond the resurrection.

Paul, in Rom. 8:22, 23, speaks very plainly of these two conditions:
“For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain
together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have
the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within
ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our
body.” None can fail to see the parallel between this passage in Romans,
and that portion of 2 Cor. 5, now under consideration. To the
Corinthians, Paul says, that in our earthly house we groan, being
burdened; to the Romans, that we groan within ourselves, or in this
mortal body; to the Corinthians, that while in this state we have the
earnest of the Spirit; to the Romans, that we have the first-fruits of
the Spirit, which is the same thing, the pledge, assurance, or earnest;
to the Corinthians, that we desire to be clothed upon with our house
from Heaven; to the Romans, that we wait for the adoption, to wit, the
redemption of our body. The ultimate object in view in both cases, as a
matter of hope and desire, is the redeemed or eternal state; but in the
one case it is being “clothed upon with our house from Heaven,” and in
the other, it is “the redemption of our body.” These two expressions,
therefore, denote one and the same thing.

Returning to a consideration of the meaning of the terms which Paul
uses, we inquire what is meant by being unclothed. And the evident
answer is, The dissolution of our earthly house, or the falling of our
mortal body in death. The state of death, then, is that condition in
which we are unclothed. And the being clothed upon, is being released
from this state, when mortality is swallowed up of life, and we are
taken into the presence of the Lord. Then Paul states a conclusion very
apparent from his premises, that while we are at home in the body we are
absent from the Lord, and adds that he is willing rather to be absent
from the body and present with the Lord.

The only verse in which consciousness in death can even be supposed to
be intimated, is the 8th verse, which speaks of our being absent from
the body and present with the Lord. But even here it will be seen that
the whole question turns on the time when we enter the presence of the
Lord. Is it immediately on the dissolution of our earthly house? This
the text does not inform us; but on this the preceding verses are very
explicit, as we shall presently see.

Let us now look at a few considerations which show that it is impossible
to harmonize the popular view of consciousness in death, with the
statements which the apostle here makes. It is claimed that the house
which we have eternal in the Heavens is the immortal soul with which we
immediately enter into Heaven when the earthly house is dissolved.
Granting that this is so, let us go forward a little and mark the
difficulty in which this view is involved. The time comes when the
mortal body is raised from the dead and made immortal. In these redeemed
bodies we are to live in the kingdom of God to all eternity. This is
finally our eternal house. But when we take possession of this, what
becomes of our house that we occupied between death and the
resurrection? If we pass from our mortal bodies at death immediately
into a spiritual body prepared for us, which is the house we have in
Heaven, and in which we live till the resurrection, when our natural
bodies are redeemed, and we take possession of them, it necessarily
follows that we vacate that second house which we had occupied in
Heaven. Then what becomes of that house? Moreover this view introduces
something before us of which Paul has made no mention; for here we have
three houses, but Paul’s language allows of only two; and one of these
three houses, on the view before us, has to be abandoned, to go to ruin,
when we take possession of our redeemed bodies. All this is unscriptural
and absurd. Such a view is an impossibility.

Again, Paul affirms in verse 5 that God hath wrought us for this
self-same thing, that is, created man for such a state of being as we
shall enjoy, when clothed upon with our house from Heaven. Is this
condition the separate existence of an immortal soul? No; for if man had
never sinned, he would have reached that state without seeing death, and
the idea of an immortal soul would never have had an existence. The
whole doctrine is the offspring of sin, for it is the result of the
fall. It is the second falsehood which the devil found necessary to
sustain his first one, “Ye shall not surely die.” For when all that is
outward, tangible, and visible of man does fall in death, his untruth
would be very apparent unless he could make them believe that there is
an invisible medium through which they still continue to live. Paul,
therefore, in the scripture under notice, does not have any reference to
an intermediate state.

He further says that we have through the Spirit an earnest, or pledge,
that this condition, which is set forth as the chief object of desire,
will finally be reached, and we shall be clothed with our house from
Heaven. But what is the Holy Spirit in our hearts an earnest or pledge
of? What does it signify that we have a measure of the Holy Spirit here?
Is it a proof or assurance that we have immortal souls that will live
when the body is dead? No, but that we shall be redeemed and made
immortal. See Eph. 1:13, 14: “In whom also, after that ye believed, ye
were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of
our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto
the praise of his glory.” And in Rom. 8:11, Paul again says: “But if the
Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that
raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by
his Spirit that dwelleth in you.”

These are the glorious promises of which the Holy Spirit in our hearts
is a pledge and assurance: that these mortal bodies shall be quickened
from the dead, even as Christ was raised up, and that we shall share in
the inheritance, when the purchased possession shall be redeemed. It
looks not to any intermediate state, but to the ultimate reward.

And finally, Paul forever bars his teaching against the entrance of the
conscious state dogma, by saying that when we are clothed upon with our
house from Heaven, mortality is swallowed up of life. How can mortality
be swallowed up of life? It can be only by having a principle of life
come upon it which shall overpower and absorb it. Mortality can be
swallowed up only by immortality or eternal life. Is this the passing of
the soul from the mortal body at the hour of death? Let us look at it.
What is there about man, according to the common view, which is mortal?
The body. And what is immortal? The soul. At death, the body, that part
which is mortal, does not become immortal, but loses all its life, and
goes into the grave to crumble back to dust. And the soul, which was
immortal before, is no more than immortal afterward. Is there any
swallowing up of mortality by life here? Just the reverse. Mortality, or
the mortal part, is swallowed up by death. There is not so much life
afterward as before; for after death, the soul only lives, while the
body, which was alive before, is now dead.

But Paul, before penning this language in 2 Cor. 5, had already told the
Corinthians when mortality would be swallowed up of life, and how it
would be accomplished; so he knew when he penned this portion of his
second epistle that they would understand it perfectly. See the 15th
chapter of his first epistle, verses 51-55: “Behold I show you a
mystery: we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a
moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet
shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be
changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal
must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on
incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall
be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in
victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?”

In verse 50, he says: “Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit
incorruption.” Corruption does not inherit, or possess, incorruption.
Mortality does not possess immortality. The mortal body does not inclose
an immortal principle, which it has power to hold within its grasp, till
that grasp is rendered nerveless by the stroke of death, and the soul
flies away in glad release. But this mortal, all that there is about man
that is mortal, must put on, must be itself invested with, immortality,
and this corruptible, all about us that is perishable, must itself
become incorruptible; then it will not be this corruptible flesh and
blood, and then it can inherit the kingdom of God, and start off bold
and vigorous on its race of endless life; and outside of this change,
and independent of this grand investiture of our mortal nature with
immortality, there is no eternal life for any of the race. And when this
is accomplished, then death is swallowed up in victory; then we are
clothed upon with our house from Heaven; then mortality is swallowed up
of life. But this is not at death, but at the last trump, when the Lord
appears in glory, and the dead are raised, and the righteous living are
changed in the twinkling of an eye. How can the religious world stumble
in a path so plain!

But if the heavenly house is our future immortal body, it may be asked
how Paul can say, as he does in 2 Cor. 5:1, “We have [present tense] a
building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.”
We have this in the same sense that we have, at the present time,
eternal life. And John tells us how this is: It is by faith, or by
promise, not by actual possession. 1 John 5:11: “And this is the record,
that God hath given to us eternal life.” God hath given it to us; and on
the strength of this promise we have it. But where is it now? “And this
life is”--in us? No, but--“in his Son.” And when he, the Son, who is our
life, shall appear, we shall be clothed upon with our heavenly house,
and appear with him in glory. Col. 3:4.

Again, it may be asked how Paul can speak of two houses, as though we
moved from one into the other, if it is only a change of condition from
mortal to immortality. He illustrates this in the figure he takes to
represent conversion. Eph. 4:22-24: “That ye put off concerning the
former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the
deceitful lusts; and be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye
put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true
holiness.” Here the simple change of heart, the change of the
disposition, from sin to holiness, is spoken of as putting off one man
and putting on another. With even greater propriety, may the change from
mortal to immortality be spoken of as removing from an earthly,
perishable house, to an immortal, heavenly one.

The terms Paul uses to describe the two states, are clearly defined. On
the one side it is an earthly house, groaning with burdens, mortality,
absent from the Lord. On the other, it is clothed upon with our house
from Heaven, mortality swallowed up of life, present with the Lord. He
did not desire to be unclothed, which, as already noticed, signifies the
condition of death; but he did desire to be present with the Lord;
therefore in death he would have us understand that the Christian is not
present with the Lord.

From all this, we can only conclude that when he says he is willing to
be absent from the body and present with the Lord, he means to be
understood that he is willing that this burdened, groaning, mortal state
should end, and the promised glorious and eternal day begin. And being
confident, through the presence of the Spirit of God in his heart, that
when this change should be wrought, he would have a glorious part
therein, he was more than willing it should come. It was but the
breathing again of that prayer which has arisen like a continual sigh
from the heart of the church through all her weary pilgrimage, “Thy
kingdom come; yea, come, Lord Jesus, come quickly;” not, “Let our
immortal souls,” which they did not suppose they possessed, “enter a
conscious state in death” in which they did not believe.




                             CHAPTER XXIII.
                          IN THE BODY AND OUT.


It is confidently asserted that Paul believed a man could exist
independently of the body from certain expressions which he uses in 2
Cor. 12: 2-4:--

“I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body,
I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)
such an one caught up to the third Heaven. And I knew such a man,
whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)
how that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words,
which it is not lawful for a man to utter.”

By the man whom he knew, it is generally supposed that the apostle means
himself, and the language he uses is a record of his own experience.
Paul was taken to the third Heaven, to paradise, and heard words which
it is not possible for a man to utter; but whether it was in his body,
or out, he did not know.

This instance, then, furnishes no example of a spirit actually existing
in a conscious condition outside of the body, even if this is what is
meant by the expression, “out of the body;” for Paul assures us that he
did not know that he was in that condition. Yet it is claimed that it
has all the force of an actual example; for such a condition is
recognized as possible. It is very readily admitted that such a
condition is recognized, as is expressed by the terms, “out of the
body;” but that this means an immaterial spirit, an immortal soul, the
real, intelligent man, speeding away through the universe even to the
third Heaven, there to hear unspeakable words, and gather up heavenly
information, and return at will to resume its abode in the, for a time,
deserted body, should not be too hastily inferred from this passage.

Of what is the apostle speaking? He says, in verse 1: “It is not
expedient for me, doubtless, to glory. I will come to visions and
revelations of the Lord. I knew a man in Christ, above fourteen years
ago,” &c., as previously quoted. His subject, then, is the visions and
revelations he had received from the Lord; and the language from verse 2
to verse 4 is the record of one such remarkable revelation, perhaps the
most remarkable one he had ever experienced. He was given a view of
paradise, and heard unspeakable words. And so real and clear and vivid
was the view, that he did not know but that he was transported bodily
into that place. If not in this manner, the view was given in the
ordinary course of vision, that is, by having the scene presented before
the mind by the power of the Holy Ghost.

All must concede that only these two conditions are brought to view,
either his transportation bodily to paradise, or the ordinary condition
of being in vision. If he went bodily to paradise, the instance has no
bearing of course on the question of consciousness in death. And if it
was an ordinary vision, how does this prove consciousness in death? The
question is reduced to this one point; and the answer turns on the
definition given to the expression, “out of the body.” Did Paul mean by
it, what modern expositors wish us to understand by it? Paul meant by
it, simply being in vision; the expositors aforesaid mean by it, the
going out of the immortal spirit from the body, and its existence for a
time in a separate conscious intelligent condition independent of the
body. But let us look a little further, and see what this condition is.
According to the common view, the separation of the soul from the body
is death. This is what death is defined to mean. There can be no such
thing as the separation of soul and body, and death not result. And the
return of the soul to again inhabit the body, is a resurrection from the
dead. This is what is claimed in the case of Rachel, whose soul
departed, and she died, Gen. 35:18, and the widow’s son whom Elijah
raised, whose soul came into him again, and he revived. 1 Kings 17:22.

But does any one suppose that Paul meant to say that he did not know but
that he died and had a resurrection? That is what he did say, if the
words, “out of the body,” mean what some would have us understand by
them. His soul went off to paradise, and his body lay here, we know not
how long, a corpse upon the earth! And when his soul returned, he had a
resurrection from the dead! A necessary conclusion so preposterous, must
be sufficient to convince any one that Paul, by the expression, “out of
the body,” does not mean a state of death. He simply means that he was
in vision, a state in which the mind, controlled for the time by the
Holy Ghost, is made to take cognizance of distant or future scenes, and
the person seems to himself to be really and bodily present, viewing the
scenes, and listening to the words that are spoken, before him. Dreams,
which all have experienced, are doubtless good illustrations of how this
can be, and the case of John, in the Revelation, furnishes a notable
example; for he was carried forward far into the future, and seemed to
be present and taking part in scenes that did not then exist, and at
which he could not really have been present, even in his supposed
immaterial immortal soul.

Paul, then, had no reference whatever to a state of death in 2 Cor.
12:2-4. To suppose him to refer to that, according to the immaterialist
view, runs us into the greatest absurdity. Hence his language affords no
proof that there is a soul in man which can live on in a conscious
intelligent state, while the mortal body crumbles back to dust.




                             CHAPTER XXIV.
                    DEPARTING AND BEING WITH CHRIST.


When will all men come to agree respecting the state of the dead? When
will the question whether the dead are alive, conscious, active, and
intelligent, or whether they rest in the grave in unconsciousness and
inactivity, cease to be a vexed question? When shall it be decided
whether the shout of triumph which the ransomed are to raise, “O death,
where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?” is the celebration
of a real victory, or only an unnecessary and useless transaction, as it
must be if the grave holds not the real man, but only the shell, the
mortal body, which is generally considered an incumbrance and a clog?
Never will this question be decided till men shall be willing to follow
the Scriptures, instead of trying to compel the Scriptures to follow
them; never, while they put the figurative for the literal, and the
literal for the figurative, mistake sound for sense, and rest on the
possible construction of an isolated text, instead of, and in opposition
to, the general tenor of the teaching of the inspired writers.

Paul has told us often enough, and it would seem explicitly enough, when
the Christian goes to be with his Lord. It is at the redemption of the
body. Rom. 8:23. It is in the day of the Lord Jesus. 1 Cor. 5:5. It is
at the last trump. 1 Cor. 15:51-55. It is when we are clothed upon with
our house from Heaven. 2 Cor. 5:4. It is when Christ our life shall
appear. Col. 3:4. It is when the Lord descends from Heaven with a shout,
and the dead are raised. 1 Thess. 4:16, 17. It is at the coming of the
Lord. 2 Thess. 2:1. It is to be at “that day,” an expression by which
Paul frequently designates the day of Christ’s appearing. 2 Tim. 4:7, 8.

Yet Paul, in one instance, without stopping to explain, uses the
expression, “to depart and to be with Christ;” whereupon his words are
seized by religious teachers as unanswerable evidence that at death the
spirit enters at once into the presence of its Redeemer. The passage is
found in Phil. 1:21-24, and reads as follows:--

“For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the
flesh, this is the fruit of my labor: yet what I shall choose I wot not.
For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart and to be
with Christ; which is far better. Nevertheless, to abide in the flesh is
more needful for you.”

Willing to go with our friends as far as we can in their interpretation
of any passage, we raise no issue here on the word depart. Paul probably
means by it the same as in 2 Tim. 4:6, where he says, “The time of my
departure is at hand,” referring to his approaching death. Then Paul,
immediately on dying, was to be with Christ. Not so fast. The very point
intended to be proved has, in such a conclusion, to be assumed. Paul had
in view two conditions: this present state, and the future state.
Between these two he was in a strait. The cause of God on earth, the
interests of the church, stirring to its very depths his large and
sympathetic heart, drew him here; his own desires drew him to the future
state of victory and rest. And so evenly balanced were the influences
drawing him in either direction, that he hardly knew upon which course
he would decide, were it left to him as a matter of choice.
Nevertheless, he said that it was more needful for the church that he
remain here, to give them still the benefit of his counsel and his
labors.

The state or condition to which he looked forward was one which he
greatly desired. About four years before he wrote these words to the
Philippians, he had written to the Corinthians, telling them what he did
desire, and what he did not desire, in reference to the future. Said he,
“Not that we would be unclothed.” 2 Cor. 5:4. By being unclothed, he
meant the state of death, from the cessation of mortal life to the
resurrection. This he did not desire; but he immediately adds what he
did desire, namely, to be “clothed upon, that mortality might be
swallowed up of life;” and when this is done, all that is mortal of us
is made immortal, the dead are raised, and the body is redeemed. Rom.
8:23; 1 Cor. 15:52, 53.

In writing to the Corinthians, he thus stated that the object of his
desire was to be clothed upon, and have mortality swallowed up of life;
to the Philippians he stated that the object of his desire was to be
with Christ. These expressions, then, mean the same thing. Therefore, in
Phil. 1:23, Paul passes over the state of death, the unclothed state,
just as he had done to the Corinthians; for he would not tell the
Corinthians that he did not desire a certain state, and four years after
write to the Philippians that he did desire it. Paul did not thus
contradict himself.

But this intermediate state is the disputed territory in this
controversy; the condition of the dead therein is the very point in
question: and on this the text before us is entirely silent.

This is the vulnerable point in the popular argument on this text. It is
assumed that the being with Christ takes place immediately on the
departure. But, while the text asserts nothing of this kind, multitudes
of other texts affirm that the point when we gain immortality and the
presence of Christ, is a point in the future beyond the resurrection.
And, unless some necessary connection can be shown between the departing
and the being with Christ, and the hosts of texts which make our
entrance into Christ’s presence a future event can be harmonized
therewith, any attempt to prove consciousness in death from this text is
an utter failure.

Landis seems to feel the weakness of his side in this respect, and
spends the strength of his argument, pp. 224-229, in trying to make the
inference appear necessary that the being with Christ must be immediate
on the departure. He would have us think it utterly absurd and
nonsensical to suppose a moment to elapse between the two events.

Let us then see if there is anything in Paul’s language which
contradicts the idea that a period of utter unconsciousness, of greater
or less length, intervenes between death and our entrance into the
future life. In the first place, if the unconsciousness is absolute, as
we suppose, the space passed over in the individual’s experience is an
utter blank. There is not the least perception, with such person, of the
lapse of a moment of time. When consciousness returns, the line of
thought is taken up at the very point where it ceased, without the
consciousness of a moment’s interruption. This fact is often proved by
actual experience. Persons have been known to become utterly unconscious
by a fracture of the skull, and a portion of it being depressed upon the
brain, suspending its action. Perhaps when the accident happened they
were in the act of issuing an order, or giving directions to those about
them. They have lain unconscious for months, and then been relieved by a
surgical operation; and when the brain began again to act, and
consciousness returned, they have immediately spoken and completed the
sentence they were in the act of uttering when they were struck down,
months before. This shows that to these persons there was no
consciousness of any time intervening, more than what passes between the
words of a sentence which we are speaking. It was all the same to them
as if they had at once completed the sentence they commenced to utter,
instead of having weeks and months of unconsciousness thrown in between
the words of which that sentence was composed.

So with the dead. They are not aware of the lapse of a moment of time
between their death and the resurrection. A wink of the eye shuts out
for an instant the sight of all objects, but it is so instantaneous that
we do not perceive any interruption of the rays of vision. Six thousand
years in the grave to a dead man is no more than a wink of the eye to
the living. To them, consciousness, our only means of measuring time, is
gone; and it will seem to them when they awake that absolutely none has
elapsed. When Abel awakes from the dead, it will seem to him, until his
attention is attracted by the new scenes of immortality to which he will
be raised, that he is rising up from the murderous blows of Cain, under
which he had seemingly just fallen. And to Stephen, who died beholding
the exaltation of Christ in Heaven, it will be the same as if he had,
without a moment’s interruption, entered into his glorious presence. And
when Paul himself shall be raised, it will seem to him that the stroke
of the executioner was his translation to glory.

Such being the indisputable evidence of facts upon this point, we ask
how a person, understanding this matter, would speak of the future life,
if he expected to obtain it in the kingdom of God? Would he speak of
passing long ages in the grave before he reached it? He might, if he
designed to state, for any one’s instruction, the actual facts in the
case; but if he was speaking simply of his own experience, it would not
be proper for him to mention the intervening time, because he would not
be conscious of any such time, and it would not seem to him on awaking
to life again that any such period had elapsed.

Accordingly, Bishop Law lays down this general principle on this
question:--

“The Scriptures, in speaking of the connection between our present and
future being, do not take into the account our _intermediate state in
death_; no more than we, in describing the course of any man’s actions,
take into account the time _he sleeps_. Therefore, the Scriptures (to be
consistent with themselves) _must affirm_ an immediate connection
between death and the Judgment. Heb. 9:27; 2 Cor. 5:6, 8.”

John Crellius says:--

“Because the time between death and the resurrection is not to be
reckoned, therefore the apostle might speak thus, though the soul has no
sense of anything after death.”

Dr. Priestly says:--

“The apostle, considering his own situation, would naturally connect the
end of this life with the commencement of another and a better, as he
would have no perception of any interval between them. That the apostle
had no view short of the coming of Christ to Judgment, is evident from
the phrase he makes use of, namely, _being with Christ_, which can only
take place at his second coming. For Christ himself has said that he
would come again, and that he would take his disciples to himself, which
clearly implies that they were not to be with him before that time.”

So in harmony with this reference to our Lord’s teaching is the language
used by Paul in 1 Thess. 4:16, 17, that we here refer to it again: “For
the Lord himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice
of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ
shall rise first. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up
together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and so
shall we ever be with the Lord.”

As Christ taught that the time when his people were to be with him again
was at his second coming, so Paul here teaches. We call attention to the
word _so_, in the last sentence of the quotation. So means in this way,
in this manner, by this means. “_So_,” in this manner, by this means,
“shall we ever be with the Lord.” When Paul, as he does here, describes
without any limitations, the way and means by which we go to be with the
Lord, he precludes every other means. He the same as says there is no
other means by which we can be with the Lord, and if there is any other
means of gaining this end, this language is not true. If we go to be
with the Lord, by means of our immortal spirit, when we die, we do not
go to be with him by means of the visible coming of Christ, the
resurrection of the dead, and the change of the living, and Paul’s
language is a stupendous falsehood. There is no possible way of avoiding
this conclusion, except by claiming that the descent of the Lord from
Heaven, the mighty shout, the voice of the archangel, the sounding of
the great trump of God, the resurrection of the dead, and the change of
the living, all take place when a person dies--a position too absurd to
be seriously refuted, and almost too ridiculous to be even stated.

Shall we then take the position that Paul taught the Philippians that a
person went by his immortal spirit immediately at death to be with the
Lord, when he had plainly told the Thessalonians that this was to be
brought about in altogether a different manner, and by altogether
different means? No one who would have venerated that holy apostle when
alive, or who has any decent regard for his memory now that he is dead,
will accuse him of so teaching.

Why, then, does he say that he has a desire to depart, that is, to die?
Because he well understood that his life of suffering, of toil, and
trial here was to terminate by death; and if the church could spare him,
he would gladly have it come, not only to release him from his almost
unbearable burdens, but because he knew further that all the intervening
space between his death and the return of his Lord would seem to him to
be instantly annihilated, and the glories of the eternal world, through
his resurrection from the dead, would instantly open upon his view.

It is objected again that Paul was very foolish to express such a desire
if he was not to be with his Lord till the resurrection; for, in that
case, he would be with him no sooner if he died than he would if he did
not die. Those who make this objection, either cannot have fully
considered this subject, or they utterly fail to comprehend it. They
have no difficulty in seeing how Paul would be with Christ sooner by
dying, provided his spirit, when he died, immediately entered into his
presence; but they cannot see how it would be so when the time between
his death and the coming of Christ is to him an utter blank, and then
without the consciousness on his part, that a single instant has
elapsed, he is ushered into the presence of his Redeemer. Remember that
Paul’s consciousness was his only means of measuring time; and if he had
died just as he wrote these words to the Philippians, it would have been
_to him_ an entrance into Christ’s presence just as much sooner as what
time elapsed between the penning of that sentence and the day of his
death. None can fail to see this point, if they will consider it in the
light of the fact we have here tried so fully to set forth, that the
dead have no perceptions of passing time.

In the light of the foregoing reasoning, let us read and paraphrase this
famous passage to the Philippians:--

“For to me to live is for the furtherance of the cause of Christ, and
for me to die is still gain to that cause (because ‘Christ shall be
magnified in my body, whether it be by life or death,’ verse 20). But if
I live in the flesh, this, the furtherance of Christ’s cause, is the
fruit of my labor; but what course I should take were it left for me to
decide, I know not; for I am in a straight betwixt two: I know that the
church still needs my labors, but I have a desire to end my mortal
pilgrimage, and be the next instant, so far as my experience goes (for
the dead perceive no passing of time), in the presence of my Lord.
Consulting my own feelings, this I should esteem far better; but I know
that it is more needful for you that I abide still in a condition to
labor on for your good in this mortal state.”

Who can say, bearing in mind the language Paul frequently uses in his
other epistles, that this is not a just paraphrase of his language here.
The only objection against it is, that, so rendered, it does not support
the conscious-state dogma. But it makes a harmony in all that Paul has
taught on the subject; and is it not far more desirable to maintain the
harmony of the sacred writings, than to try to make them defend a dogma
which involves them in a fatal contradiction?

REMAINING TEXTS CONSIDERED.

We have now examined all the principal texts of the Scriptures which are
supposed to have a bearing on the question of the intermediate state. A
few others of minor importance are occasionally urged in favor of the
popular view, and as such are entitled to a passing notice. We give them
in consecutive order as follows:--

Rom. 8:38, 39. “For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, ...
shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ
Jesus our Lord.”

It is claimed that death cannot separate us from the love of God; but,
as God cannot exercise his love toward any but a rational and conscious
creature, therefore the soul must be alive after death. (_Immortality of
the Soul, by Luther Lee_, p. 111.) To what far-fetched and abortive
reasoning will wrong theories lead intelligent men. We owe the reader an
apology for noticing this passage at all. We should not here introduce
it, were it not used as an objection to the view we advocate; and we
should not believe it could ever be urged as an objection, had we not
actually seen it. The reasoning of the apostle has to be completely
inverted before any argument (may we be pardoned the misnomer) can be
manufactured out of it for the conscious-state theory. For it is of our
love to God, through Christ, and not of his to us, that the apostle
speaks. It has reference, also, wholly to this life. Thus he says, verse
35, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation,
or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or
sword?” That is, shall these things which we have to endure in this life
on account of our profession of the gospel and our love for Christ,
quench that love in any wise? Shall we compromise the gospel, and
alienate ourselves from the love of Christ, who has done so much for us,
and through whom we hope for so much (see the whole chapter), to avoid a
little persecution, peril, and distress? The separation from the love of
Christ by death, of which he speaks, is the same as the separation by
persecution, &c.; but tribulation, distress, persecution, famine,
nakedness, peril, and sword, do not necessarily kill us; they have
respect to this life; the separation, therefore, is something which
takes place here--simply an alienation of our hearts from him. And shall
all these things, he asks--nay, more, shall even the prospect of death
on account of our profession of Christ, prevent our loving and following
him? No! is the implied and emphatic answer.

Such we believe to be the view which any one must take of this passage,
who does not find himself under the unfortunate necessity of making out
a case.

But looking at this scripture from the objector’s stand-point, the
singular inquiry at once forces itself upon us, Can the immortal soul in
its disembodied state suffer tribulation, distress, persecution, famine,
nakedness, peril, and sword!?

2 Cor. 4:16. “For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man
perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.”

Is this inward man the immortal soul? We answer, No; but the new man
which we put on, Christ formed within _the hope_ of glory. See Col. 3:9,
10; Eph. 4:22, 24; 3:16, 17; Col. 1:27.

1 Thess. 4:14. “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even
so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.”

Yes, says the objector, bring them from Heaven; so they must now be with
him there in a conscious state. Not quite so fast. The text speaks of
those who sleep in Jesus. Do you believe those who have gone to Heaven
are asleep? We always supposed that Heaven was a place of unceasing
activity, and of uninterrupted joy. And, again, are all these persons
going to be brought from Heaven asleep! What a theological incongruity!
But, from what place are they brought, if not from Heaven? The same
place, we answer, from which God brought our Lord Jesus Christ. And what
place was that? See Heb. 13:20: “Now the God of peace, that brought
again _from the dead_ our Lord Jesus,” &c. We may then read the text in
Thessalonians, as follows: “For if we believe that Jesus died and God
brought him from the dead, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will
God bring with him from the dead.” Simply this the text affirms, and
nothing more. It is a glorious pledge of the resurrection, and so far
diametrically opposed to the conscious-state theory.

2 Tim. 4:6. “For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my
departure is at hand.”

It is claimed that the departure here referred to is death, with which
we agree. We take no exceptions to the remark so often made, “Departed
this life,” &c. But as Paul does not here intimate that his departure
was to be to Heaven, or even to any conscious intermediate state, we
have no right to infer this.

2 Pet. 1:14. “Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle,
even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath showed me.”

It is here claimed that the “I” that speaks, and the “my” that is in
possession of a tabernacle, is Peter’s soul, the man proper, and the
tabernacle, is the body which he was going to lay off. That Peter here
has reference to death, we doubt not; but it was to be as the Lord Jesus
Christ had showed him. How had he shown him it would be? See John 21:18,
19: “But when _thou_ shalt be old, _thou_ shalt stretch forth thy hands,
and another shall gird _thee_, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.
This spake he, signifying by what death _he_ should glorify God.” Here
we are shown that the “thou” and the “he,” claimed on 1 Pet. 1:14, to be
Peter’s soul, the man proper, was going to die, and by death, glorify
God. And Peter himself says in the next verse, “Moreover, I will
endeavor that ye may be able after _my_ decease to have these things
always in remembrance.” Here, then, the same “my,” Peter’s soul, the man
proper, recollect, which in the verse before is in the possessive case,
and governed by tabernacle, is again in the possessive case, and
governed by decease, or _death_! Yes, Peter _himself_ was going to die.
We find no proof of a double entity here.

This phraseology is well illustrated by Job 7:21, which shows that the
man proper, the “I,” sleeps in the dust: “And why dost Thou not pardon
my transgression, and take away mine iniquity? for now shall I sleep in
the dust; and thou shalt seek me in the morning, but I shall not be.”

2 Pet 2:9. “The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of
temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of Judgment to be
punished.”

This testimony shows that the unjust do not enter into a place of
punishment at death, but are _reserved_ to the day of Judgment. Where
are they reserved? Answer. In the general receptacle of the dead, the
grave. See Job 21:30.

Rev. 20:5. “But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand
years were finished. This is the first resurrection.”

By this first resurrection a portion of the dead are restored to life,
consciousness, and activity, while it is said of those whose condition
is not affected by this resurrection, that they _lived not_ for a
thousand years. This proves that up to the time of this resurrection,
_all_ the dead were in a condition just the opposite of life--a
condition in which it might be said of them that they “lived not.” And
this, mark, is spoken of the whole conscious being, not of the body
merely. No language could more positively show that in death the whole
person is in a state just the opposite of life.

Rev. 22:8, 9. “And I John ... fell down to worship before the feet of
the angel which showed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou
do it not; for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the
prophets.”

This text is supposed to prove that one of the old prophets came to John
as an angel, showing that the dead exist in a conscious state. But it
does not so teach. The angel simply stated that he was John’s
fellow-servant, and the fellow-servant of John’s brethren, the prophets,
and the fellow-servant of them which keep the sayings of this book. The
being of whom they were all worshipers together was the great God.
Therefore, says the angel, do not worship me, since I am only a
worshiper with you at the throne of God; but worship God. This angel had
doubtless been sent to the ancient prophets to reveal things to them, as
he had now come to John. Such we believe to be the legitimate teaching
of this scripture, the last that is found in the book of God supposed to
teach a conscious state.




                              CHAPTER XXV.
                           THE DEATH OF ADAM.


The inquirer into the nature of man, and his condition in death, must
ever turn with the deepest interest to the record left us concerning the
father of our race. In Adam we have an account of the origin of the
human family, at once so simple and consistent that the jeers of
skepticism fall harmless at its feet, and science, in comparison, only
makes itself ridiculous, in trying to account for it in any other
manner. And in the sentence pronounced upon him when he fell under the
fearful guilt of transgression, we are shown to what condition death was
designed to reduce the human family. In the creation and death of Adam,
we have the account of the building up and the unbuilding of a human
being; and this case, being the first and most illustrious, must furnish
the precedent and establish the rule for the whole race.

Of the creation of Adam and the elements of which he was composed, we
have already spoken. The record brings to view a formation made wholly
of the dust of the ground. “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of
the ground.” This body was endowed with a high and perfect organization,
and was quickened into life by the breath which the Lord breathed into
its nostrils. The body, before it was made alive, had no power to act;
the breath which was breathed into it could not of itself act; but the
body being quickened, the machinery set in motion by this vital
principle, all the phenomena of physical life and mental action at once
resulted.

The Author of this noblest of creative works, who must of necessity, as
the ruler over all, require the creatures of his hand to obey him, and
toward whom an exercise of love, and a voluntary and willing submission,
can alone constitute obedience, placed the man whom he had formed, as
was meet, upon a state of probation, to test his loyalty to his Maker.
The scene of his trial was the beautiful garden in which was everything
that was pleasant to the sight and good for food; and over all that
adorned or enriched his Eden home, with one exception, he had unlimited
control. The condition upon which he was to be tested is thus definitely
expressed:--

“And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden
thou mayest freely eat. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof
thou shalt surely die.”

Adam and Eve could not mistake the requirement of this law, nor fail to
understand the intent of the penalty. And before Satan could cause his
temptation to make any impression on the mind of Eve, he had to
contradict this threatening, assuring her that they should not surely
die. A question of veracity was thus raised between God and Satan; and
strange to say, the theological world, in interpreting the penalty, have
virtually, with the exception of a small minority, sided with Satan.
This is seen in the interpretation which is commonly put on this
penalty, making it consist of three divisions: 1. Alienation of the soul
from God, the love of sin, and the hatred of holiness, called spiritual
death. 2. The separation of soul and body, called temporal death. 3.
Immediately after temporal death, the conscious torment of the soul in
hell, which is to have no end, and is called eternal death. The Baptist
Confession of Faith, Art. 5, says:--

“We believe that God made man upright; but he, sinning, involved himself
and posterity in death spiritual, temporal, and eternal; from all which
there is no deliverance but by Christ.”

Let us look at the different installments of this penalty, and see if
they will harmonize with the language in which the original threatening
is expressed: “Thou shalt surely die.” Adam incurred the penalty by
sinning. After he had sinned, he was a sinner. But a state of sin is
that state of alienation from God which the orthodox school make to be a
part of the penalty of his transgression. In this they take as the
_punishment_ of sin that which was simply its _result_; and they make
the sentence read, virtually, in this profoundly sensible manner: “In
the day that thou sinnest, thou shalt surely be a sinner!”

Because he wickedly became a sinner, and brought himself into a state of
alienation from God, the doom was pronounced upon him, “Thou shalt
surely die.” Could this mean eternal death? If so, Adam never could have
been released therefrom. But he is to be released from it; for “in
Christ shall all be made alive.”

These two installments, then, spiritual and eternal death, utterly fail
us, when brought to the test of the language in which the sentence is
expressed: one is nonsense, and the other an impossibility.

Temporal death alone remains to be considered; but the interpretation
which is given to this, completely nullifies the penalty, and makes
Satan to have been correct when he said, “Thou shalt not surely die.”
Temporal death is interpreted to mean the separation of the soul from
the body, the body alone to die, but the soul, which is called the real,
responsible man, to enter upon an enlarged and higher life. In this
case, there is no death; and the sentence should have read, In the day
thou eatest thereof, thou shalt be freed from the clog of this mortal
body, and enter upon a new and eternal life. So said Satan, “Ye shall be
as gods;” and true to this assertion from the father of lies, the
heathen have all along deified their dead men, and worshiped their
departed heroes; and modern poets have sung, “There is no death; what
seems so is transition.” If ever the skill of a deceiver and the
gullibility of a victim were manifested in an unaccountable degree, it
is in this fact, that right in the face and eyes of the pale throng that
daily passes down through the gate of death, the devil can make men
believe that after all his first lie was true, and there is no such
thing as death.

From these considerations, it is evident that nothing will meet the
demands of the sentence but the cessation of the life of the whole man.
But that, says one, cannot be, for he was to die in the very day he ate
of the forbidden fruit; but he did not literally die for nine hundred
and thirty years. If this is an objection against the view we advocate,
it is equally such against every other. Take the threefold penalty above
noticed. If death spiritual, death temporal, and death eternal, was the
penalty, how much was fulfilled on the day he sinned? Not death eternal,
surely, and not death temporal, which did not take place for nine
hundred and thirty years, but only death spiritual. But this was only
the first installment of the penalty, and far less important than the
other two. The most that the friends of this interpretation can say,
therefore, is that the penalty begun on that very day to be fulfilled.
But we can say as much with our view. “Dying, thou shalt die,” reads the
margin; which some understand to mean, thou shalt inherit a mortal
nature, and the process of decay shall commence. As soon as he sinned,
he came under the sentence of death, and the work commenced. He bore up
against the encroachments of dissolution for nine hundred and thirty
years, and then the work was fully accomplished.

When God proceeded to pronounce sentence upon Adam, he gave us an
authoritative interpretation of the penalty from which there is no
appeal. Gen. 3:19: “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till
thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: _for dust
thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return_.”

The return to dust is here made a subsequent event, to be preceded by a
period of wearing toil. And being finally overcome by the labors and
ills of life, the person addressed was to return again to the dust from
which he was taken. With Adam, this process commenced on the very day he
transgressed, and the penalty threatened, which covered all this work
from beginning to end, was executed in full when this process was fully
completed in Adam’s death, nine hundred and thirty years thereafter.

Two things are connected together in the penalty affixed to Adam’s
disobedience. These are the words, day and die: In the _day_ thou
eatest, thou shalt _die_. The dying, whatever view we take of it, must
include temporal or literal death. But this was not accomplished on that
very day. Therefore, to find a death which was inflicted on that literal
day, a figurative sense is given to the word die, and it is claimed that
a spiritual death was that day wrought upon Adam. But we inquire, If
either of these terms, day or die, are to be taken figuratively, why not
let the dying be literal, and the day be figurative, especially since
the sentence which God pronounced upon Adam, when he came up for trial,
shows that literal death, and that only, was intended in the penalty?

The use of the word day in such a sense, meaning an indefinite period of
time, is of frequent occurrence in the Scriptures. An instance in point
occurs in 1 Kings 2:36-46. King Solomon bound Shimei by an oath to
remain in Jerusalem, under the sentence that on the day he went out in
any direction, he should be slain. After three years, two of his
servants ran away to Gath, and he went after them. It was then told
Solomon that Shimei had been to Gath and returned. Solomon sent for him,
reminded him of the conditions on which his life was suspended, and the
oath he had broken, and then commanded the executioner to put him to
death.

Gath was some twenty-five miles from Jerusalem. That Shimei could go
there and get his servants, return, be sent for by Solomon, and be tried
and executed, all on the same day, is a supposition by no means
probable, even if it is possible. Yet in his death the sentence was
fulfilled, that on the day he went out he should be slain. Because on
the very day he passed out of the city, the only condition that held
back the execution of the sentence was removed, and he was virtually a
dead man.

So with Adam. He was immediately cut off from the tree of life, his
source of physical vitality. So much was executed on that very day.
Death was then his inevitable portion, to be accomplished within the
limits of that period covered by the word, day.

We are very well aware of the method adopted to evade the conclusion
which naturally follows from the language of the sentence in Gen. 3:19.
This, it is claimed, was spoken only of the body, not of the soul. The
poetry of Longfellow,

                   “Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
                     Was not spoken of the soul,”

takes much better with most people than the plain language of
inspiration itself.

To whom, then, or to what, was this sentence addressed, “Dust thou art,
and unto dust shalt thou return”? Admitting that there is such a
creature of the imagination as the popular, independent, immortal soul,
was the language addressed to that or to the body? If there is such a
soul as this, what does it constitute, on the authority of the friends
of that theory, themselves? It is the real, responsible, intelligent
man. Watson says, “It is the soul _only_ which perceives pain or
pleasure, which suffers or enjoys;” and D. D. Whedon says, “It is the
soul that hears, feels, tastes, and smells, through its sensorial
organs.” The sentence, then, would be addressed to that which could
hear; the penalty would be pronounced upon that which could feel. The
body, in the common view, is only an irresponsible instrument, the means
by which the soul acts. It can, of itself, neither see, hear, feel,
will, or act. Who then will have the hardihood to assert that God
addressed his sentence to the irresponsible instrument, the body merely?
This would be the same as for the judge in a criminal court to proceed
deliberately to address the knife with which the murderer had taken the
life of his victim, and pronounce sentence upon that, instead of the
murderer himself. Away with a view which offers to the Majesty of Heaven
the insult of representing that he acts in this way!

In the sentence, the personal pronoun, _thy_, is once, and the personal
pronoun, _thou_, is five times, applied to the Adam whom God addressed.
“In the sweat of _thy_ face, shalt _thou_ eat bread, till _thou_ return
unto the ground; for out of it wast _thou_ taken: for dust _thou_ art,
and unto dust shalt _thou_ return.” When we address our fellowmen by the
different personal pronouns of our language, what do we address? The
conscious, intelligent, responsible man, that which sees, feels, hears,
thinks, acts, and is morally accountable. But this, in popular parlance,
is the soul; these pronouns must every time stand for the soul. The
pronouns thy and thou, in Gen. 3:19, must then mean Adam’s soul. If they
do not mean it here, how does the same pronoun, thou, in Luke 23:43,
mean the thief’s soul, when Christ said to him, “This day shalt _thou_
be with me in paradise”? or the _I_ and _my_ in 2 Pet. 1:14, refer to
Peter’s soul, as we are told they do, when he says, “Knowing that
shortly I must put off this my tabernacle.” Our friends must be
consistent and uniform in their interpretations. If in these instances
the pronouns do not refer to the soul, then these strong proof-texts, to
which the immaterialist always appeals, are abandoned: if they do here
refer to the soul, they must likewise in Gen. 3:19, refer to the soul.
In that language, then, God addresses Adam’s soul; and we have the
authority of Jehovah himself, the Creator of man, against whose
sentence, and the sunlight of whose word, it does not become puny
mortals to oppose their shallow dictums, and the rushlight of human
reason, that man’s soul is wholly mortal, and that in the dissolution of
death it goes back to dust again! There is no avoiding this conclusion;
and it forever settles the question of man’s condition in death. It
shows that the intermediate state must be one in which the conscious man
has lost his consciousness, the intelligent man his intelligence, the
responsible man his responsibility, and in which all the powers of his
being, mental, emotional, and physical, have ceased to act.

No further argument need be introduced to show that the Adamic penalty
was literal death, and that it reduced the whole man to a condition of
unconsciousness and decay. But a few additional considerations will show
that the popular view is cumbered with absurdities on every hand so
plain that they should have proved their own antidote, and saved the
doctors of theology from the preposterous definitions they have attached
to death.

We have the authority of Paul for stating that through Christ we are
released from all the penalty which the race has incurred through Adam’s
transgression. “As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made
alive.” If the death in which we are involved through Adam is death
spiritual, temporal, and eternal, then all the race is redeemed from
these through Christ, and Universalism is the result.

Again, Christ tasted death for every man. He hath redeemed us from the
curse of the law, being made a curse for us. That is, Christ died the
same death for us which was introduced into the world by Adam’s sin. Was
this death eternal? If so, the Saviour is gone, and the plan of
salvation can never be carried into effect.

In Rom. 5:12-14, occurs this remarkable passage:--

“Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and _death_ by sin;
and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until
the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no
law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that
had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the
figure of Him that was to come.)”

In the first part of the verse Paul speaks of the death that came in by
Adam’s sin, and then says that it reigned from Adam to Moses over them
that had not sinned. From this language, accepting the popular
interpretation of the Adamic penalty, we must come to the intolerable
conclusion that personally sinless beings from Adam to Moses were
consigned to eternal misery! From such a sentiment, every fiber of our
humanity recoils with horror. We cannot stifle the feeling that it is an
outrage upon the character of God, and therefore cannot be true. The
death threatened Adam was literal death, not eternal life in misery.

To the view that the Adamic penalty was simply literal death, many
eminent men have given their unqualified adhesion.

John Locke (_Reasonableness of Christianity_, s. 1,) says:--

“By reason of Adam’s transgression all men are mortal and come to
die.... It seems a strange way of understanding a law which requires the
plainest and directest words, that by death should be meant eternal life
in misery.... I confess that by death, here, I can understand nothing
but a ceasing to be, the losing of all actions of life and sense. Such a
death came upon Adam and all his posterity, by his first disobedience in
paradise, under which death they should have lain forever had it not
been for the redemption by Jesus Christ.”

Isaac Watts (_Ruin and Recovery of Mankind_, s. 3), though he was a
believer in the immortality of the soul, has the candor to say:--

“There is not one place of Scripture that occurs to me, where the word
death as it was threatened in the law of innocency, necessarily
signifies a certain miserable immortality of the soul, either to Adam,
the actual sinner, or to his posterity.”

Dr. Taylor says:--

“Death was to be the consequence of his [Adam’s] disobedience, and the
death here threatened can be opposed only to that life God gave Adam
when he created him.”

With two more considerations we close this chapter:--

1. Adam was on probation. Life and death were set before him. “In the
day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die,” said God. The only
promise of life he had in case of disobedience came from one whom it is
not very flattering to the advocates of a natural immortality to call
the first propounder and natural ally of their system. But had Adam been
endowed with a natural immortality, it could not have been suspended on
his obedience. But it was so suspended, as we learn from the first pages
of revelation. It was, therefore, not absolute, but contingent. Immortal
he might become by obedience to God; disobeying, he was to die. He did
disobey, and was driven from the garden. “And now,” said God, “lest he
put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and
_live forever_;”--therefore, the cherubim and flaming sword were placed
to exclude forever his approach to the life-giving tree. Quite the
reverse of an uncontingent immortality is certainly brought to view
here. Adam could bequeath to his posterity no higher nature than he
himself possessed. The stream, that commencing just outside the garden
of Eden, has flowed down through the lapse of six thousand years, has
certainly never risen higher than the fountain head; and we may be sure
we possess no superior endowments in this respect to those of Adam.

2. The second consideration under this head is, the exhortations we have
in the word of God to _seek_ for immortality, if we would obtain it.
“Seek the Lord, and ye shall live,” is his declaration to the house of
Israel. Amos 5:4, 6. “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is
eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom. 6:23. Gift to whom?
To every man, irrespective of character? By no means; but gift _through_
Christ, to them only who are his. Again, “To them who by patient
continuance in well-doing _seek_ for glory, honor, and immortality [God
will render], eternal life.” Rom. 2:7. Varying the language of the
apostle a little, we may here inquire, What a man _hath_, why doth he
yet seek for? The propriety of seeking for that which we already have,
is something in regard to which it yet remains that we be enlightened by
the advocates of the dominant theology.




                             CHAPTER XXVI.
                           THE RESURRECTION.


As clearly as the human race have been taught by the experience of six
thousand years that death is their common lot, so clearly are we taught
by the word of God, and by some notable exhibitions of divine power,
that all who have gone into their graves shall come forth again to life.

The words in the New Testament which express this fact are _anastasis_,
_egersis_, and _exanastasis_. The two latter occur but once each, the
first in reference to the resurrection of Christ, in Matt. 27:53, the
last in Phil. 3:11, where Paul expresses a desire to attain to a
resurrection out from among the dead. _Anastasis_ occurs forty-two
times, being the word which is invariably used in the New Testament,
with the exceptions just named, to express the resurrection. This word
is defined by Robinson to mean, literally, _a rising up_, as of walls,
of a suppliant, or from a seat. Specially in the New Testament, the
resurrection of the body from death, the return of the dead body to
life, as, first of individuals who have returned to life on earth, Heb.
11:35; secondly, of the future and general resurrection at the end of
all things, John 11:24. It is often joined to the word, dead; as in the
expression, the resurrection of the dead.

From these well-established meanings of the word it is evident that that
which goes down will rise again. That which goes into the grave will
come up again out of the grave. The rising again of the body is
certainly assured by this word, and the manner in which it is used. This
resurrection is a future event: “The hour is coming, in the which all
that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth.” John
5:28, 29. Paul said, when disputing with Tertullus before the governor,
I “have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there
shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust.”
Acts 24:15. And he tells us in chapter 26:7, that unto that promise the
twelve tribes hope to come.

If, then, this is a firmly-established fact, that God is to make such a
mighty manifestation of his power as to re-animate the scattered dust of
those whom the grave has consumed from time’s earliest morn, there must
be some cause for such an action. This great event has a tremendous
bearing on the question of the intermediate state, and all views of that
state must be adjusted to harmonize therewith. If any view is
entertained which virtually renders such an event unnecessary, it must
be shown that the resurrection as here defined is not taught in the word
of God, or it must be admitted that the doctrine which nullifies it, is
unscriptural.

The important inquiry now arises respecting the popular view, If the
real being, the intelligent, responsible entity, ceases not its life and
consciousness at death, but continues on in a more enlarged and perfect
sphere of existence and activity, what need is there of the resurrection
of the body? If the body is but a trammel, a clog to the operations of
the soul, what need that it should come back and gather up its scattered
particles from the silent tomb, and re-fetter itself with this material
robe?

Wm. Tyndale, defending the doctrine of Martin Luther, that the dead
sleep, addressed to his opponent the same pungent inquiry. He said:--

“And ye, in putting them [departed souls] in Heaven, hell, and
purgatory, destroy the argument wherewith Christ and Paul prove the
resurrection.... If the souls be in Heaven, tell me why they be not in
as good case as the angels be? and then what cause is there of the
resurrection?”

Andrew Carmichael (_Theology of Scripture_, vol. ii., p. 315) says:--

“It cannot be too often repeated: _If there be an immortal soul there is
no resurrection; and if there be any resurrection there is no immortal
soul_.”

Dr. Muller (_Ch. Doc. of Sin_, p. 318) says:--

“The Christian faith in immortality is indissolubly connected with a
promise of a future resurrection of the dead.”

We now propose to show that the resurrection is a prominent doctrine of
the Bible; and if this can be established, it follows, upon the judgment
of these eminent men, that the immortality of the soul cannot be true.
We need not stop to notice that impalpable and groundless theory which
makes the resurrection take place immediately at death, by supposing it
to be the rising of the soul from the earthly house of this tabernacle,
and its entering at once into its spiritual house, this to be inhabited,
and the former, abandoned, forever. For in this case there is no
resurrection; since the soul lives right on, and does not die at all.
The resurrection which the Bible brings to view is a resurrection of
_the dead_. It cannot be applied to anything that continuously lives,
however many changes it may pass through. A person must go down into a
state of death before he can be raised from the dead. Hence this theory
is no resurrection at all, and so is at war with all the Bible says
about the resurrection of the dead. Moreover, it is utterly impossible
to harmonize this with the many references to the general resurrection
at the end of the world.

We return to the Bible doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, the
literal resurrection and resuscitation of our natural bodies, and affirm
that the Bible makes this resurrection necessary, by representing the
dead to be in such a condition that without this event they can have no
future existence.

1. Death is compared to sleep. There must, then, be some analogy between
a state of sleep and a state of death, and this analogy must pertain to
that which renders sleep a peculiar condition. Our condition in sleep
differs from our condition when awake, simply in this, that when we are
soundly asleep we are entirely _unconscious_. In this respect, then,
death is like sleep; that is, the dead are unconscious. This figure is
frequently used to represent the condition of the dead. Dan. 12:2: “Many
of them that _sleep_ in the dust of the earth shall awake.” Matt. 27:52:
“Many bodies of the saints which _slept_ arose.” Acts 7:60: After
Stephen had beheld the vision of Christ and was stoned to death, the
record says, he “fell _asleep_.” In 1 Cor. 15:20, Christ is called the
first-fruits of them that _slept_; and in verse 57, Paul says, “We shall
not all _sleep_.” Again Paul writes to the Thessalonians, 1 Thess. 4:13,
14, that he would not have them ignorant concerning them which are
_asleep_. In verse 14, he speaks of them as _asleep_ in Jesus, and
explains what he means, in verse 16, by calling them “dead in Christ.”
And the advocates of the conscious state cannot dispose of these
expressions by saying that they apply to the body merely; for they do
not hold that the consciousness which we have in life (which is what we
lose in death) pertains to the body merely. Job plainly declares that
they will not awake till the resurrection, at the last day. “Man dieth
and wasteth away; yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he? As the
waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up, so man
lieth down and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not
awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.” If, therefore, there is no
resurrection, these dead are destined to sleep in unconsciousness
forever.

2. The dead are in a condition as though they had not been. So Job
testifies; for he affirms that if he could have died in earliest
infancy, like a hidden, untimely birth, he would not have been; and in
this respect he declared he would have been like kings, counsellors, and
princes of the earth who built costly tombs in which to enshrine their
bodies when dead. To that condition he applies the expression which has
since been so often quoted, “There the wicked cease from troubling, and
there the weary be at rest.” Job 3:11-18. If, then, a person when dead
is as though he had not been, without a resurrection to release him from
this state, he will never be, or exist, again.

3. The dead have no knowledge. Speaking of the dead man, Job says
(14:21), “His sons come to honor, and he knoweth it not; and they are
brought low, and he perceiveth it not of them.” Ps. 146:4. “His breath
goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts
perish.” Solomon was inspired to speak to the same effect as his father
David: Eccl. 9:5, 6: “For the living know that they shall die, but the
dead know not anything.... Also their love, and their hatred, and their
envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion forever in
anything that is done under the sun.” Verse 10: “There is no work, nor
device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave whither thou goest.”
Evidence like this can neither be mistaken nor evaded. It is vain for
the immaterialist to claim that it applies to the body in distinction
from an immortal soul; for they do not hold that the thoughts
(διαλογισμός, _thought, reasoning_,) which David says perish in death,
belong to the body, but to the soul. And according to Solomon, that
which knows when the man is living, does not know when he is dead.
Without a resurrection, therefore, the dead will forever remain without
knowledge.

4. The dead are not in Heaven nor in hell, but in the dust of the earth.
Job 17:13-16: “If I wait, the grave is mine house.” In chap. 14:14, he
said, “All the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change
come.” The change referred to, must therefore be the resurrection, and
he describes his condition till that time, in the following language: “I
have made my bed in the darkness. I have said to corruption, Thou art my
father; to the worm, Thou art my mother and my sister, ... when _our
rest together is in the dust_.” Isa. 26:19: “Thy dead men shall live;
together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that
dwell in dust; for thy dew is as the dew of herbs; and the earth shall
cast out the dead.” Is it possible that the phraseology of this text can
be misunderstood? It speaks of the living again of dead men, of the
arising of dead bodies, and of the earth’s casting out the dead. And the
command is addressed to them thus: “Awake and sing.” Who? Ye who are
still conscious, basking in the bliss of Heaven and chanting the high
praises of God? No; but, “Ye who dwell _in dust_;” ye who are in your
graves. If the dead are conscious, Isaiah talked nonsense. If we believe
his testimony we must look into the graves for the dead; and if there is
no resurrection, there they will forever lie mingled with the clods of
the valley.

5. The dead, even the most holy and righteous, have no remembrance of
God, and cannot, while in that condition, render him any praise and
thanksgiving. Ps. 6:5: “For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in
the grave who shall give thee thanks?” Ps. 115:17: “The dead praise not
the Lord, neither any that go down into silence.” Good King Hezekiah,
when praising the Lord for adding to his days fifteen years, gives this
as the reason why he thus rejoiced: Isa. 38:18, 19: “For the grave
cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee; they that go down into
the pit cannot hope for thy truth. The _living_, the _living_, he shall
praise thee, as I do this day; the father to the children shall make
known thy truth.” Modern doctors of divinity have Hezekiah in Heaven
praising God. He declared that when he was dead he could not do this.
Whose testimony is the more worthy of credit, that of the inspired king
of Israel, or that of the theologians of subsequent ages of error and
confusion? If we can believe Hezekiah, unless there is to be a
resurrection, the righteous dead are never more to praise their Maker.

6. The dead, even the righteous, are not ascended to the Heavens. So
Peter testifies respecting the patriarch David: Acts 2:29, 34, 35: “Men
and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that
he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day.
For David is not ascended into the Heavens: but he saith himself, The
Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes
thy footstool.” We call the especial attention of the reader to the
whole argument presented by Peter, beginning with verse 24. Peter
undertakes to prove from a prophecy recorded in the Psalms, the
resurrection of Christ. He says, verse 31, “He, seeing this before,
spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell
[_hades_, the grave], neither did his flesh see corruption.” And how
does he prove that David speaks of Christ, and not of himself? He proves
it from the fact that David’s soul _was_ left in _hades_ and his flesh
did see corruption; and his sepulcher was with them to that day. For
David, he says, has not ascended into the Heavens. Now if David’s soul
did live right on in consciousness; if it was not left in _hades_, no
man can show that David, in that psalm, did not speak of himself instead
of Christ; and then Peter’s argument for the resurrection of Christ
would be entirely destroyed. But Peter, especially when speaking as he
was on this occasion under the influence of the Holy Ghost, knew how to
reason; and his argument entirely destroys the dogma of the immortality
of the soul. But if David has not yet ascended into the Heavens, how is
he ever to get there? There is no other way but by a resurrection of the
dead. So he himself says, Ps. 17:15: “I shall be satisfied when I awake
[from the sleep of death], with Thy likeness.”

7. And finally, Paul, in his masterly argument in 1 Cor. 15, states
explicitly the conclusion which is necessary from every one of the texts
which we have quoted, that if there is no resurrection, then all the
dead, even those who have fallen asleep in Christ, are perished. Verses
16-18. “For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised. And if
Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. _Then
they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are_ PERISHED.”

As we read this testimony, we pause in utter amazement that any who
profess to believe the Bible should cling with tenacity to the doctrine
of the immortality of the soul which so directly contradicts it. If the
souls of the dead live right on, are they perished? What! perished? and
yet living in a larger sphere? Perished? and yet enjoying the attendant
blessings of everlasting life in Heaven? Perished? and yet at God’s
right hand where there is fullness of joy, and pleasures forevermore?
Perish, amid the ruins of the heathen mythology from which it springs,
that theory which thus lifts its dead men on high, contrary to the
teachings of the word of God!

Paul speaks of the whole being. As in Adam we die, so in Christ shall we
be made alive. Is it conceivable that Paul drops out of sight the real
man, the soul which soars away to realms of light, and frames all this
argument, and talks thus seriously about the cast-off shell, the body,
merely? The idea is preposterous to the last degree.

After stating that if there is no resurrection we perish, he assures us
that Christ is risen and that there is a resurrection for all; then he
takes up the resurrection of those who sleep in Christ, and tells us
when that resurrection shall be. It is to take place, not by the rising
from this mortal coil of an ethereal, immaterial essence when we die,
but it is to be at the great day when the last trump shall shatter this
decrepid earth from center to circumference.

The testimony on this point is well summed up by Bishop Law, who speaks
as follows:--

“I proceed to consider what account the Scriptures give of that state to
which death reduces us. And this we find represented by _sleep_; by a
negation of all _life_, _thought_, or _action_; by _rest_,
_resting-place_, or _home_, _silence_, _oblivion_, _darkness_,
_destruction_, or _corruption_.”

This representation is abundantly sustained by the Scriptures referred
to; and by all these the great fact is inscribed in indelible characters
over the portals of the dark valley, that our existence is not
perpetuated by means of an immortal soul, but that without a
resurrection from the dead, there is no future life.

But it is objected that, from our standpoint of the unconsciousness of
the dead, a resurrection is impossible; for if a person ever ceases to
exist as a conscious being, the re-organization of the matter of which
he was composed would be a new creation, but not a resurrection. It is
sufficient to say in reply that continued consciousness is not necessary
to preserve identity of being. This is proved by nearly every member of
the human family every day. Did the reader ever enjoy a period of sound,
unconscious sleep? If so, when he awoke, how did he know that he was the
same individual he was before? How does any one know, after a good
night’s sleep, that he is the same person that retired to rest the night
before? Simply because his organization is the same on awaking that it
was when he became unconscious in sleep. Now suppose that during this
period of unconsciousness, while the soul itself, if there is in man
such a distinct entity as is claimed, is also unconscious, the body of a
person could be cut up into innumerable fragments, the bones ground to
powder, the flesh dissolved in acids, and the entire being, soul and
all, destroyed. After remaining in this condition a little time, suppose
all those particles could be put back again substantially as they were
before, the general arrangement of the matter, especially of the brain,
the organ of the mind being identically what it was; and then suppose
that life could be imparted to it again, and the person be allowed to
sleep on till morning; when he woke, would he be conscious of any break
in the line of his existence? Any one must see that he would not. Being
organized just as before, his mind would resume its consciousness just
as if nothing had happened.

So with the dissolution of death. After its period of unconsciousness is
passed over, in the resurrection the particles of the body are reunited,
re-organized, and re-arranged, essentially as they were at the moment of
death, and reanimated; then the line of life is taken up, and the
current of thought resumed just where it was laid down in death, it
matters not how many thousands of years before. This, the power of God
can do; and to deny this is to “err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the
power of God.” In this way, we can have a true and proper resurrection,
a living again of the whole person, as the Bible affirms. On the
supposition of continued consciousness, this is impossible; for in this
case the real man lives right on, the body, which the Bible makes of so
much importance, being only the garment with which it was temporarily
clothed; and in this case the resuscitation of the body would not and
could not be the resurrection of the man. The popular view makes the
Bible as inconsistent on the subject of man, as it would be for a
historian to give the history of some celebrated man’s coat, and call it
the history of the man himself.

Then it is further objected that if persons come up in the resurrection
as they went down in death, we should have a motley group, bloated with
dropsy, emaciated with consumption, scabbed, scarred, ulcered, maimed
and deformed; which would be both unreasonable and disgusting. And this,
it is claimed, is a necessary consequence from the view that the same
matter is raised that went into the grave, and so far re-organized
according to its previous arrangement as to constitute identity of
being. But when we speak of the re-arrangement of the particles of the
body, is it not evident to all that there are fortuitous and abnormal
conditions which are not to be taken at all into the account? and that
the essential and elemental parts are only to be understood? Who would
imagine that the body might not differ in the resurrection from what it
was before, as much at least as it differs at one period in its earthly
history from its condition at another, and yet its identity be
preserved? But we are sometimes in health, sometimes in sickness,
sometimes in flesh, and sometimes wasted away, sometimes with diseased
members, and sometimes entirely free from disease; and in all these
changes we are conscious that we have the same body. Why? Because its
essential elements remain, and its organization is continued. Whatever
change can take place in our bodies during our earth life, and our
identity be continued, changed to the same degree may be the body when
raised from the dead, and yet it be the same body. But a missing member
might be instantly replaced, a diseased limb healed, the consumptive
restored to the bloom of health, or the body, swollen with dropsy,
reduced to its natural size, and the individual still be conscious that
he was the same person.

It is said still further by way of objection, that the matter of one
body, after being decomposed by death, is absorbed and taken into other
bodies, and becomes constituent parts of them; so that at the
resurrection the same matter may have belonged to several different
bodies, and cannot be restored to them all; therefore the doctrine of
the resurrection of the body is unphilosophical.

If the reader will take the trouble to submit this objection to a little
intelligent scrutiny, he will find it to grow rapidly and beautifully
less, until finally it vanishes entirely away. Let us take the extremest
case supposable: that of the cannibal who might possibly (though this
would not naturally be the case), make an entire meal of human flesh. We
cannot admit the statement of a certain minister who, in his zeal to
make this objection appear very strong, claimed that a cannibal might
have the whole body of his victim within his own at the same time. For
this supposes that he would eat a whole man at one meal, and, further,
that he would consume the viscera, skull, bones, brains, and all. But it
is hardly supposable that, cannibals though they are, they have such an
enormous capacity, or are such unpardonable eaters.

Nevertheless, let us suppose that a cannibal would, in process of time,
consume an entire victim; what proportion could he use in this way? Not
one-half, by weight. And what proportion of this would be taken up by
the body and become incorporated with it? But a small fraction. And to
what parts would this naturally go? To those grosser and unessential
parts which most rapidly change, and demand the most constant supply.
But while a few pounds of matter are supplied to the body, if that body
maintains a uniform condition, an equal amount of matter has been thrown
off. Thus it will be seen that at no one time is it possible for any
material amount of one body to be a part of another. But if there was
danger, in these rare cases, that an essential element of one body would
become a constituent part of another, and so remain, could not the
providence of God easily interpose to prevent this, by giving these
particles another direction? Most assuredly it could. And this is not
beneath His care who numbers all the hairs of our heads, and without
whose notice not a sparrow falls to the ground. This objection not only
betrays an utter lack of faith in God’s power and care in such matters,
but philosophically considered, it amounts simply to a cavil.

It is the resurrection of the body of which the Bible treats. It knows
no other. In 1 Cor. 15:35, 36, Paul asserts an obvious fact, that
nothing can be quickened (revived or resuscitated, as from death, or an
inanimate state--_Webster_,) except it first die. To talk of a
quickening or making alive of that which does not die, or of a
resurrection from the dead of that which does not go down into death, is
richly deserving of the epithet which Paul there applies to it.

And what is it that shall be quickened in the resurrection? The holy and
infallible word of God replies, _This mortal body_. Rom. 8:11: “But if
the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead dwell in
you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also _quicken your
mortal bodies_ by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.” Again, in verse 23,
Paul says: “Even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the
adoption, to wit, the _redemption of our body_.” And in 1 Cor. 15, Paul
is as explicit as he well can be on this subject. Verse 44: “It is sown
a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.” What does he mean by the
natural body, and by its being sown? He means the burial of our present
bodies in the grave. So he says in verses 42, 43: “So also is the
resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in
incorruption: it is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown
in weakness; it is raised in power: it is sown a natural body; it is
raised a spiritual body.” What is sown? The natural body. Then what is
raised? The very same thing. IT is sown; IT is raised; raised in
incorruption, in glory, in power, a spiritual body. Raised in this
manner, the natural body becomes a spiritual body. Why? Because the
Spirit of Him that raised up Christ quickens, resuscitates, or makes it
alive again, as Paul wrote to the Romans. Should it be said that there
is a natural body and a spiritual body in existence at the same time, we
answer that according to Paul, that is not so. He says, verse 46:
“Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is
natural; and _afterward_ that which is spiritual.” In verse 49, he says
we have borne the image of the earthly, and we shall bear, future, the
image of the heavenly; and this will be when this mortal and
corruptible, which is this mortal body, puts on incorruption, verses 52,
53, or is clothed upon with the house from Heaven. 2 Cor. 5.

To the Philippians, Paul testifies again on this point: “For our
conversation is in Heaven, from whence also we look for the Saviour, the
Lord Jesus Christ, who shall _change our vile body_, that it may be
fashioned like unto his glorious body.” This language is explicit. A
change is to be wrought in the vile, mortal or corruptible body of this
present state, not a spiritual body released from it, which never sees
death and needs no change; and the change that is promised is, that this
body taken as it now is, is to be fashioned, changed over, into the
likeness of Christ’s glorious, immortal body.

Having thus shown that a future resurrection is an event of the most
absolute necessity, inasmuch as without it there is no future existence
for the human race (a fact which entirely destroys at one blow the
doctrine of the immortality of the soul), we now propose to notice the
prominence given to this event in the sacred writings, and some of the
plain declarations that it will surely take place.

1. The resurrection is the great event to which the sacred writers
looked forward as the object of their hope. In the far distant ages a
day rose to their view in which the dead came forth from their graves,
and stood before God; and before the coming of that day, they did not
expect eternal life.

So Job testifies: “I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he will
stand at the latter day upon the earth. And though after my skin worms
destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God.” Job 19:25, 26.

David entertained the same satisfactory hope. “As for me,” he says, “I
shall be satisfied when I awake with Thy likeness.” Ps. 17:15.

Isaiah struck some thrilling notes on the same theme: “Thy dead men
shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing,
ye that dwell in dust; for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth
shall cast out the dead.” Isa. 26:19.

It was the hope of Paul, that eminent apostle, through all his
sufferings and toils. For this he could sacrifice any temporal good, and
take up any cross. He assures us that he considered his afflictions, his
troubles on every side, his perplexities, persecutions, stripes,
imprisonments, and perils, but light afflictions; yea, he could utterly
lose sight of them; and then he tells us why he could do it: it was in
view of “the glory which shall be revealed in us,” “knowing,” says he,
“that He which raised up the Lord Jesus, _shall raise us up also by
Jesus_, and shall present us with you.” 2 Cor. 4:14. The assurance that
he should be raised up at the last day, and be presented with the rest
of the saints, when the Lord shall present to his Father a church
without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, Eph. 5:27, sustained him
under all his burdens. The resurrection was the staff of his hope. Again
he says that he could count all things loss, if by any means he might
attain to a resurrection (_exanastasis_) out from among the dead. Phil.
3:8-11.

We refer to one more passage which expresses as clearly as language can
do it, the apostle’s hope. 2 Cor. 1:8, 9: “For we would not, brethren,
have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were
pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even
of life. But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should
not trust in ourselves, but in God _which raiseth the dead_.” Paul here
gives us to understand that he could not trust in himself because he was
mortal. He must therefore put his trust in God; and he tells us why he
does this: not because God had promised him any happiness as a
disembodied soul; but because he was able and willing _to raise him from
the dead_. Paul “kept back nothing that was profitable,” and did not
shun “to declare all the counsel of God,” yet he never once endeavored
to console himself or his brethren by any allusion to a disembodied
state of existence, but passed over this as if it were not at all to be
taken into the account, and fixed all his hope on the resurrection. Why
this, if going to Heaven or hell at death, be a gospel doctrine?

2. The resurrection is the time to which prophets and apostles looked
forward as the day of their reward. Should any one carefully search the
Bible to ascertain the time which it designates as the time of reward to
the righteous, and punishment to the wicked, he would find it to be not
at death, but at the resurrection. Our Saviour clearly sets forth this
fact in Luke 14:13, 14: “But when thou makest a feast, call the poor,
the maimed, the lame, the blind; and thou shalt be blessed; for they
cannot recompense thee; for thou shalt be recompensed,” not at death,
but, “_at the resurrection of the just_.”

Mark also the language by which the Lord would restrain that voice of
weeping which was heard in Ramah. When Herod sent forth and slew all the
children in Bethlehem from two years old and under, in hopes thereby to
put to death the infant Saviour, then was fulfilled, says Matthew, what
was spoken by the prophet, “In Ramah was there a voice heard,
lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her
children, and would not be comforted, because they were not.” But what
said the Lord to Rachel? See the original prophecy, Jer. 31:15-17: “Thus
saith the Lord, Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from
tears; for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord; and they shall
come again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope in thine end,
saith the Lord, that thy children shall come again to their own border.”
Not thus would the mourning Rachels of the 19th century be comforted by
the professed shepherds of the flock of Christ. They would tell them,
Refrain thy voice from weeping; for thy sons are now angel cherubs
chanting their joyful anthems in their Heavenly Father’s home. But the
Lord points the mourners in Ramah forward to the resurrection for their
hope; and though till that time their children “were not,” or were out
of existence, in the land of death, the great enemy of our race, yet,
says the Lord, they shall come again from the land of the enemy, they
shall return again to their own border, and thy work shall be rewarded;
and he bids them refrain their voices from weeping, their eyes from
tears, and their hearts from sorrow, in view of that glorious event.

The apostles represent the day of Christ’s coming and the resurrection
as the time when the saints will receive their crowns of glory. Says
Peter, “And when the Chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a
crown of glory that fadeth not away.” 1 Pet. 5:4. And Paul says that
there is laid up for him a crown of righteousness, and not for him only,
but for all those also that love his appearing, and which shall be given
him in that day (the day of Christ’s appearing). These holy apostles
were not expecting their crowns of reward sooner than this.

All this is utterly inconsistent with the idea of a conscious
intermediate state, and rewards or punishments at death. But the word of
God must stand, and the theories of men must bow to its authority.

In 1 Cor. 15:32, Paul further tells us when he expected to reap
advantage or reward for all the dangers he incurred here in behalf of
the truth: “If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at
Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and
drink; for to-morrow we die.” If without a resurrection he would receive
no reward, it is evident that he expected his reward at that time, but
not before. His language here is moreover a re-iteration of verse 18,
that if there is no resurrection, they which are fallen asleep in Christ
are perished.

Our Lord testified that of all which the Father had given him he should
lose nothing, but would raise it up at the last day. This language is
also at once a positive declaration that the resurrection shall take
place, and that without this event, all is lost. To the same effect is 1
Cor. 15:52, 53, “The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised
incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible _must_ put
on incorruption, and this mortal _must_ put on immortality.” Here is a
plain announcement that the resurrection will take place; that the
change mentioned will be wrought at that time; and that this change must
take place or we cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Verse 50. Therefore,
without a resurrection, none who have fallen in death will ever behold
the kingdom of God.

3. The resurrection is made the basis of many of the comforting promises
of Scripture. 1 Thess. 4:16, 17: “For the Lord himself shall descend
from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the
trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we which are
alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to
meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” We
have already referred to this passage in this chapter on the
Resurrection. We quote it again to show that God designed that from
these promises we should comfort ourselves and one another in that
keenest of all our afflictions, and the darkest of all our hours, the
hour of bereavement. For the apostle immediately adds, “Wherefore
comfort one another with these words.” Is it to such facts as these, the
second coming of Christ, and the resurrection of the dead, that the
theology of our day appeals to alleviate the sorrow which the human
heart will feel for the loss of departed loved ones? Here, if anywhere,
and on this subject, if on any that the apostle has anywhere taken up,
should come in the modern doctrine of uninterrupted consciousness in the
intermediate state. But Paul was evidently against any such doctrine,
and so denies it a place on the page of truth, but passes right over to
the resurrection as the place where comfort is to be found for the
mourners.

As the resurrection is inseparably connected with the second coming of
Christ, the words of Christ in John 14:1-3, are equally in point on this
question. When he was about to leave his sorrowing disciples, he told
them that he was going to prepare a place for them; he informed them
moreover of his design that they should ultimately be with himself. But
how was this to be accomplished? Was it through death, by which a
deathless spirit would be released to soar away to meet its Saviour? No;
but, says he, I will _come again_ and receive you to myself, that where
I am, there ye may be also. Should any say that this coming of the
Saviour is at death, we reply that the disciples of our Lord did not so
understand it. See John 21:22, 23. Jesus incidentally remarked
concerning one of his followers, “If I will that he tarry _till I come_,
what is that to thee? follow thou me;” and the saying went immediately
abroad among the disciples, on the strength of these words, that that
disciple should _not die_.

The eminent and pious Joseph Alleine also testifies:--

“But we shall lift up our heads because the day of our redemption
draweth nigh. This is the day I look for, and wait for, and have laid up
all my hopes in. If the Lord return not, I profess myself undone; my
preaching is vain, and my suffering is vain. The thing, you see, is
established, and every circumstance is determined. How sweet are the
words that dropped from the precious lips of our departing Lord! What
generous cordials hath he left us in his parting sermon and his last
prayer! And yet of all the rest these are the sweetest: ‘I will come
again and receive you unto myself, that where I am there ye may be
also.’ What need you any further witness?”

Dr. Clarke, in his general remarks on 1 Cor. 15, says:--

“The doctrine of the resurrection appears to have been thought of much
more consequence among the primitive Christians than it is _now_. How is
this? The apostles were continually insisting on it, and exciting the
followers of God to diligence, obedience, and cheerfulness through it.
And their successors in the present day seldom mention it.... There is
not a doctrine in the gospel on which more stress is laid; and there is
not a doctrine in the present system of preaching, which is treated with
more neglect.”




                             CHAPTER XXVII.
                             THE JUDGMENT.


We have seen how the grand doctrine of the future resurrection of the
dead, demolishes with its ponderous weight the gossamer fabric of the
immortality of the soul. There is another doctrine as scriptural and as
prominent as the resurrection which opposes its impregnable battlements
to the same anti-scriptural fable--a fable, weak, though encased in the
coat of mail with which heathendom furnishes it, and not very imposing
in appearance, though adorned with the gorgeous trappings of the mother
of harlots. We refer to the doctrine of the future general Judgment.

This doctrine, and the theory of the conscious state of the dead, cannot
exist together. There is an antagonism between them, irreconcilable, and
irrepressible. If every man is judged at death, as he indeed must be, if
an immortal soul survives the dissolution of the body, and enters at
once into the happiness or misery of the eternal state, accordingly as
its character has been good or bad, there is no occasion and no room for
a general Judgment in the future; and if, on the other hand, there is to
be such a future Judgment, it is proof positive that the other doctrine
is not true.

We affirm, then, that the Scriptures clearly teach that there is to be a
general Judgment in the future, at which time such awards shall be
rendered to every one as shall accord with the record of his deeds. A
passage in Hebrews may seem to some minds to afford proof that the
Judgment follows immediately after death, and which may, consequently,
demand a brief notice at this point. Heb. 9:27: “And as it is appointed
unto men once to die, but after this the Judgment.” The sentence does
not end here, but is continued into the next verse: “_So_ Christ was
once offered to bear the sins of many.” From this it is evident that the
death to which Paul refers is some death which illustrates the death of
Christ as an offering for sin: As men die, and after this the Judgment,
_so_ (in like manner) Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.
It is not then the common death of human beings to which the apostle
refers; for there is nothing in this death to show how Christ died as an
offering for sin.

This language occurs at the conclusion of an argument on the priesthood
of Christ, as illustrated by the priesthood connected with the Jewish
service. Under that dispensation there was a yearly round of service
connected with the worldly sanctuary. On the day of atonement, when the
sanctuary was to be cleansed, a goat was slain for all the people. Their
life was imputed to it, and in it they in figure died. The blood of this
goat, representing the forfeited lives of the people, was then
ministered in the most holy place, which was a work of determination and
decision in their cases, which the word here rendered judgment
signifies. So Christ, the antitype, was once offered, and, if we avail
ourselves of his intercession, his blood is accepted instead of our
forfeited lives, and we shall stand acquitted in the real Judgment work
in the sanctuary above, as Israel were acquitted when the same work was
performed in figure in the worldly sanctuary of the former dispensation.
This text, therefore, not referring to the end of individual mortal
life, and its relation to future retribution, has no relevancy to the
question under discussion.

We return to the proposition that a future general Judgment is
appointed. Paul reasoned before Felix of a Judgment to come. Acts 24:25.
But as it may be said that this was to be experienced when Felix died,
we will introduce another text which not only speaks of this Judgment as
future, but shows that it will pass simultaneously on the human race:
Acts 17:31: “Because he hath appointed a day in the which he will judge
the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he
hath given assurance unto all men in that he hath raised him from the
dead.” Here it is announced in plain terms that the Judgment of this
world is future, that it is to take place at the time appointed, and
that a day, or period, is set apart for this purpose.

Peter refers to the same day and says that the angels that sinned, and
the unjust of our own race, are reserved unto it. 2 Pet. 2:4, 9. Again
he says that this present earth is reserved unto fire, with which it
shall be destroyed in that day. 2 Pet. 3:7-12. Jude says that the angels
that kept not their first estate are reserved in everlasting chains
under darkness unto the Judgment of the great day. Jude 6. This is the
day when Christ is represented as separating the good from the bad, as a
shepherd divideth the sheep from the goats, Matt. 25:31-34, and the time
to which John looked forward when he said that he saw the dead, small
and great, stand before God, and the books were opened, and they were
judged out of those things written in the books.

The Judgment also stands in many lines of prophecy, not as something
which has been going forward from the beginning, not as taking place as
each member of the human family passes from the stage of mortal
existence, but as the great event with which the probation of the human
race is to end. Testimony on this point need not be multiplied. It
cannot be denied that a day is coming in which sentence will be rendered
at once upon all who have lived a life of probation in this world, a
sentence which shall decide their condition for the eternity that lies
beyond.

This fact being established, its bearing upon the question of
consciousness in death, cannot be overlooked. For, if every human being
at death passes at once into a state of reward or punishment, what
occasion is there for a future general Judgment that a second decision
may be rendered in their cases? Is it possible that a mistake was made
in the former decision? possible that some are now writhing in the
flames of hell, who should be basking in the bliss of Heaven? possible
that some are taking their fill of happiness in the bowers of paradise,
whose corrupt hearts and criminal life demand that they should have
their place with fiends in the lowest hell? And if mistakes have once
been made in the sentence rendered, may they not be made again? What
assurance can we have that, though we may be entitled by thorough
repentance to the happiness of Heaven, we may not be sentenced for all
eternity to the damnation of hell? Is it possible that such foul blots
of injustice stand upon the record of the government of Heaven? Yes, if
the conscious-state theory be true! We arraign that theory face to face
with this stupendous fact, and bid it behold its work. It destroys God’s
omniscience! It charges him with imperfection! It accuses his government
of mistakes which are worse than crimes! Is any theory, which is subject
to such overwhelming imputations, worthy of a moment’s credence?

To avoid the foregoing fatal conclusions, is it said that sentence is
not passed at death, but that the dead are held somewhere in a state of
suspense, without being either rewarded or punished till the Judgment?
Then we inquire how this can be harmonized with the invariable arguments
which immaterialists use on this question? For is it not claimed that
the spirit goes immediately to God to receive sentence from the hand of
its Creator? Is it not claimed that the rich man was immediately after
death in hell, in torment? Is it not claimed that the repentant thief
was that very day with Christ in the joys of paradise? If these
instances and arguments are abandoned, let it be so understood. If not,
then no such after thought can be resorted to, to shield the
conscious-state dogma from the charges above mentioned.

We close this argument with a paragraph from the candid pen of H. H.
Dobney, Baptist minister of England. In Future Punishment, pp. 139, 140,
he says:--

“There is something of awkwardness, which the Scriptures seem to avoid,
in making beings who have already entered, and many ages since, on a
state of happiness or misery, come from those abodes to be judged, and
to receive a formal award to the very condition which has long been
familiar to them. To have been in Heaven with Christ for glorious ages,
and then to stand at his bar for Judgment, and be invited to enter
Heaven as their eternal home, as though they had not been there already,
scarcely seems to look exactly like the Scripture account, while it
would almost appear to be wanting in congruity. Nor is this all. There
is another difficulty, namely: That the idea of a saint already ‘with
Christ,’ ‘present with the Lord’ (who is in Heaven, be it remembered, in
his resurrection and glorified body, wherewith he ascended from the brow
of Olivet), coming from Heaven to earth to glide into a body raised
simultaneously from the ground, he being in reality already possessed of
a spiritual body, would seem _an invention which has not one syllable in
Scripture to give it countenance_.”




                            CHAPTER XXVIII.
                           THE WAGES OF SIN.

             “One question more than others all,
               From thoughtful minds implores reply;
             It is as breathed from star and pall,
               What fate awaits us when we die?”--_Alger._


We have now examined the teaching of the Bible relative to man, in his
creation, in his life, in his death, and in the intermediate state to
his resurrection; and we have found its uniform and explicit testimony
to be that he has no inherent, inalienable principle in his nature which
is exempt from death; but that the only avenue to life beyond the grave
is through the resurrection. We have found also that such a resurrection
to a second life is decreed for all the race; and now the more momentous
question, what the issue of that existence is to be, presents itself for
solution.

Natural, or temporal, death, we die in Adam. This death visits all alike
irrespective of character. The sincerest saint falls under its power, as
inevitably as the most reckless sinner. This cannot be our final end;
for it would not be in accordance with justice that our ultimate fate
should hinge on a transaction, like the sin of Adam, for which we are
not responsible. Every person must be the arbiter of his own destiny. To
secure this, the redemption which intervenes through Christ, provides
for all a release from the death entailed upon us by the Adamic
transgression, in order that every person’s individual acts may
constitute the record which shall determine his destiny beyond the
grave. What is that destiny to be?

Our inquiry respects, not the future of the righteous, concerning which
there is no material controversy, but that of the sinner. Is his fate an
eternity of life in a devouring fire which is forever unable to devour
him? an eternal approach of death which never really arrives?

Blinded by the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, two opposite
conclusions are reached by those who connect this doctrine with two
different classes of Scripture declarations. For one class, reading that
the punishment of the sinner is to be eternal, and holding that man has
an inherent immortality which can never be alienated, at once come to
the terrible conclusion of an eternity of conscious suffering, an
eternal hell as taught by Augustine. Another, connecting it with the
declarations that God’s anger shall not always burn against the wicked,
but that a time comes when every intelligence in the universe, in the
plenitude of joy, is heard ascribing honor, and blessing, and praise to
God, speedily reaches the conclusion of universal restoration as taught
by Origen. And if the doctrine of the immortality of the soul be a
scriptural doctrine, then the Scriptures are found supporting these two
diametrically opposite conclusions.

We have seen that the Scriptures do not teach any such inherent
immortality as is claimed for man; this, therefore, cannot fetter us in
our investigation of this question. God can continue the existence of
the wicked to all eternity after the resurrection, if he so chooses; but
if so, the doctrine must rest on explicit statements of the Scriptures
to that effect. Paul says plainly that the wages of sin is death; Rom.
6:23; and as we do not receive wages for the work of another, this must
be a declaration of what will result to every individual for a course of
sin; and before this can be made to mean eternal life in misery, the
present constitution of language must be destroyed, and new definitions
be given to established terms. We hold this declaration of Paul’s, on
which we take our stand, to be the true ground between the errors above
mentioned, and one which not only harmonizes all the Bible on this
question, but which has abundance of positive testimony in its favor.

1. The future punishment, threatened to the wicked, is to be eternal in
its duration. The establishment of this proposition, of course
overthrows the universal restoration of Origen; and the nature of this
punishment, involving a state of death, overthrows alike the restoration
view of Origen, and the eternal hell of Augustine.

One “Thus saith the Lord,” is sufficient for the establishment of any
doctrine. One such we offer in support of the proposition now before us.
Speaking of the reprobate, Christ says, “And these shall go away into
everlasting punishment,” and immediately adds concerning the righteous,
“but the righteous, into life eternal.” Here the same Greek word,
_aionios_, is used to express the duration of these opposite states. If,
as must be admitted, the word expresses unending duration in the case of
the righteous, it must mean the same in that of the wicked.

To the same end we might refer to the words of Christ on two other
occasions: John 3:36; Matt. 26:24. In the first of these passages he
says: “He that believeth not the Son shall not see life;” that is,
eternal life. But if, after a certain period of suffering, such persons
are released from that state by a restoration to God’s favor, this
declaration could not be true. In the second, he speaks of some of whom
he says that it would be good for them if they had not been born. And
this utterly precludes the idea that they should ever be released to
enter the bliss of Heaven; for the first moment of such release would
make amends for all past suffering; and throughout eternity they would
praise God that they had been born.

The punishment of the wicked, alike with the reward of the righteous, is
therefore to be eternal. Two unending conditions are held out to men,
and between the two, they have the privilege in this life of choosing.

2. In what will the eternal state of the wicked consist? Before
presenting an argument to show that it is death in the literal sense, it
may be necessary to notice the few passages of Scripture which are put
forth as evidence that it is eternal misery.

1. Daniel 12:2: “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth
shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting
contempt.” The shame spoken of in this text is coupled by the objector
with the contempt, and claimed to be like that, everlasting; and if the
shame, which is an emotion to be exercised by the individuals
themselves, is to be eternal, they must be awakened to everlasting life
and consciousness.

The fact that they are raised to shame proves indeed that they have a
veritable resurrection to life and consciousness, and that this is no
figure of speech which is applied to them. But the reader will notice
that the shame is not said, like the contempt, to be everlasting.
Contempt is not an emotion which they feel; they are not raised to the
contempt of themselves; but it is an emotion felt by others toward them;
and this does not imply the consciousness of those against whom it is
directed; inasmuch as contempt may be felt for them as well after they
have passed from the stage of consciousness as before. The Syriac
sustains this idea. It reads, “Some to shame and the eternal contempt of
their companions.” And thus it will be. Shame for their wickedness and
corruption will burn into their very souls, so long as they have
conscious being. And when they pass away, consumed for their iniquities,
their loathsome characters and their guilty deeds, excite only contempt
on the part of the righteous, unmodified and unabated, so long as they
hold them in remembrance at all. The text, therefore, furnishes no proof
of the eternal suffering of the wicked.

2. Matt. 25:41: “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire,
prepared for the devil and his angels.” What is here said to be
everlasting? Wicked men? No. The devil? No. His angels? No. But only the
fire. And how can the application of this term to the fire prove the
indestructibility and eternal life of those who are cast therein? It may
be answered, What propriety could there be in keeping up the fire
everlastingly, if its victims were not to be eternally the objects of
its power? And we reply, This word is sometimes used to denote the
results and not the continuance of the process. Everlasting fire may not
be fire which is everlastingly burning, but fire which produces results
which are everlasting in their nature. The victims cast therein will be
consumed, and if from that destruction they are never to be released, if
that fiery work is never to be undone, it is to them an everlasting
fire. This will appear more fully when we come to speak of the “eternal
fire” through which God’s vengeance was visited on the wicked cities of
Sodom and Gomorrah.

There are several passages of scripture in which the same word,
_aionios_, is unquestionably used in this sense. In Heb. 5:9, we read of
“eternal salvation;” that is, a salvation which is eternal or
everlasting in its results, not one which is forever going on, but never
accomplished. In Heb. 6:2, Paul speaks of “eternal judgment;” not
judgment which is eternally going forward, but one which, having once
passed upon all men, Acts 17:31, is irreversible in its decisions, and
eternal in its effects. In Heb. 9:12, he speaks in the same way of
“eternal redemption,” not a redemption through which we are eternally
approaching a redeemed state which we never reach, but a redemption
which releases us for all eternity from the power of sin and death. It
would be just as proper to speak of the saints as always redeeming, but
never redeemed, as to to speak of the sinner as always consuming but
never consumed, or always dying but never dead. This fire is prepared
for the devil and his angels, and will be shared by all of the human
race who choose to follow the devil in his accursed rebellion against
the government of Heaven. It will be to them an everlasting fire; for
once having plunged into its fiery vortex, there is no life, beyond.
Other texts noticed in succeeding chapters.




                             CHAPTER XXIX.
                        EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT.

Matt. 25:46: “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but
the righteous into life eternal.”


This text is very commonly urged as an objection against the view that
the destiny of the reprobate is an utter and eternal extinction of
being; and it is one which has great apparent force. But the secret of
this apparent strength lies in the fact that the term punishment is
almost invariably supposed to be confined to conscious suffering, and
that when any affliction is no longer taken cognizance of by the senses,
it ceases to be a punishment at all. But if it can be shown from sound
reason, and from the analogy of human penalties, that punishment is
estimated by the loss involved, and not merely by the amount of pain
inflicted, the objection vanishes at once, and will cease to hold back
many devout and holy minds from adopting the view we here advocate.

On the duration of the punishment brought to view in the text, we take
no issue. It is to be eternal; but what is to be its nature? The text
says, Everlasting punishment; popular orthodoxy says, Unending misery;
the Bible, we believe, says, Eternal death.

Is death punishment? If so, when a death is inflicted from which there
is to be no release, that punishment is eternal or everlasting. Then the
application of this scripture to the view we hold is very apparent. The
heathen, to reconcile themselves to what they supposed to be their
inevitable fate, used to argue that death was no evil. But when they
looked forward into the endless future of which that death deprived
them, they were obliged to reverse their former decision and acknowledge
that death was an _endless injury_.--_Cicero, Tusc. Disp._ i., 47.

Why is the sentence of death in our courts of justice reckoned as the
most severe and greatest punishment? It is not because the pain involved
is greater; for the scourge, the rack, the pillory, and many kinds of
minor punishment, inflict more pain upon the petty offender than
decapitation or hanging inflicts upon the murderer. But it is reckoned
the greatest because it is the most lasting; and its length is estimated
by the life the person would have enjoyed, if it had not been inflicted.
It has deprived him of every hour of that life he would have had but for
this punishment; and hence the punishment is considered as co-existent
with the period of his natural life.

Augustine says:--

“The laws do not estimate the punishment of a criminal by the brief
period during which he is being put to death, but by their removing him
forever from the company of living men.”--_De. civ. Dei, xxi._, 11.

The same reasoning applies to the future life as readily as to the
present. By the terrible infliction of the second death, the sinner is
deprived of all the bright and ceaseless years of everlasting life. The
loss of every moment, hour, and year, of this life, is a punishment;
and, as the life is eternal, the loss, or the punishment, is eternal
also. “There is here no straining of argument to make out a case. The
argument is one which man’s judgment has in every age approved as just.”

The original sustains the same idea. The word for punishment is
_kolasis_; and this is defined, “a curtailing, a pruning.” The idea of
cutting off is here prominent. The righteous go into everlasting life,
but the wicked, into an everlasting state in which they are curtailed or
cut off. Cut off from what? Not from happiness; for that is not the
subject of discourse; but from life, as expressly stated in reference to
the righteous. “The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is
eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” And since the life given to
man through Christ, is eternal life, it follows that the loss of it
inflicted as a punishment, is eternal punishment.

The same objection is again stated in a little different form. As in the
ages before our existence we suffered no punishment, so, it is claimed
it will be no punishment to be reduced to that state again. To this, we
reply, that those who never had an existence cannot, of course, be
conceived of in relation to rewards and punishments at all. But when a
person has once seen the light of life, when he has lived long enough to
taste its sweets and appreciate its blessings, is it then no punishment
to be deprived of it? Says Luther Lee (Immortality of the Soul, p. 128),
“We maintain that the simple loss of existence cannot be a penalty or
punishment in the circumstances of the sinner after the general
resurrection.” And what are these circumstances? He comes up to the
beloved city, and sees the people of God in the everlasting kingdom. He
sees before them an eternity, not of life only, but of bliss and glory
indescribable, while before himself is only the blackness of darkness
forever. Then, says the Saviour, addressing a class of sinners, there
shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of God. What is the cause of this
wailing? It is not that they have to choose between annihilation or
eternal torture. Had they this privilege, some might perhaps choose the
former; others would not. But the cause of their woe is not that they
are to receive a certain kind of punishment when they would prefer
another, but because they have lost the life and blessedness which they
now behold in possession of the righteous. The only conditions between
which they can draw their cheerless comparisons are, the blessed and
happy state of the righteous within the city of God, and their own
hapless lot outside of its walls. And we may well infer from the nature
of the case, as well as the Saviour’s language, that it is _because_
they find themselves thus thrust out, that they lift up their voices in
lamentation and woe. “There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when
ye shall see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of God, _and ye
yourselves thrust out_!”

The sinner then begins to see what he has lost; the sense of it, like a
barbed arrow, pierces his soul; and the thought that the glorious
inheritance before him might have been his but for his own self-willed
and perverse career, sets the keenest edge upon every pang of remorse.
And as he looks far away into eternity, to the utmost limit which the
mind’s eye can reach, and gets a glimpse of the inconceivable
blessedness and glory which he might have enjoyed but for his idol sin,
the hopeless thought that all is lost will be sufficient to rend the
hardest and most obdurate heart with unutterable agony. Say not then
that loss of existence under such circumstances is no penalty or
punishment.

But again: The Bible plainly teaches degrees of punishment; and how is
this compatible, it is asked, with the idea of a mere state of death to
which all alike will be reduced? Let us ask believers in eternal misery
how they will maintain degrees in _their_ system? They tell us the
intensity of the pain endured will be in each case proportioned to the
guilt of the sufferer. But how can this be? Are not the flames of hell
equally severe in all parts? and will they not equally affect _all_ the
immaterial souls cast therein? But God can interpose, it is answered, to
produce the effect desired. Very well, then, we reply, cannot he also
interpose, if necessary, according to our view, and graduate the pain
attendant upon the sinner’s being reduced to a state of death as the
climax of his penalty? So, then, our view is equal with the common one
in this respect, while it possesses a great advantage over it in
another; for, while that has to find its degrees of punishment in
intensity of pain alone, the duration in all cases being equal, ours may
have not only degrees in pain, but in duration also; for, while some may
perish in a short space of time, the weary sufferings of others may be
long drawn out. But yet we apprehend that the bodily suffering will be
but an unnoticed trifle compared with the mental agony, that keen
anguish which will rack their souls as they get a view of their
incomparable loss, each according to his capacity of appreciation. The
youth who had but little more than reached the years of accountability
and died, perhaps with just enough guilt upon him to debar him from
Heaven, being less able to comprehend his situation and his loss, will
of course feel it less. To him of older years, more capacity, and
consequently a deeper experience in sin, the burden of his fate will be
proportionately greater. While the man of giant intellect, and almost
boundless comprehension, who thereby possessed greater influence for
evil, and hence was the more guilty for devoting those powers to that
evil, being able to understand his situation fully, comprehend his fate
and realize his loss, will feel it most keenly of all. Into _his_ soul
indeed the iron will enter most intolerably deep. And thus, by an
established law of mind, the sufferings of each may be most accurately
adjusted to the magnitude of his guilt.

Then, says one, the sinner will long for death as a release from his
evils, and experience a sense of relief when all is over. No, friend,
not even this pitiful semblance of consolation is granted; for no such
sense of relief will ever come. The words of another will best
illustrate this point:--

“‘But the sense of relief when death comes at last.’ We hardly need to
reply: There can be no sense of relief. The light of life gone out, the
expired soul can never know that it has escaped from pain. The bold
transgressor may fix his thoughts upon it now, heedless of all that
intervenes; but he will forget to think of it then. To waken from a
troubled dream, and to know that it was only a dream, is an exceeding
joy; and with transport do the friends of one dying in delirium, note a
gleam of returning reason, ere he breathes his last. But the soul’s
death knows no waking; its maddening fever ends in no sweet moment of
rest. It can never feel that its woe is ended. The agony ends, not in a
happy consciousness that all is past, but in eternal night--in the
blackness of darkness forever!”--_Debt and Grace_, p. 424.




                              CHAPTER XXX.
                 THE UNDYING WORM AND QUENCHLESS FIRE.

Mark 9:43, 44: “And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better
for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into
hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: where their worm dieth
not, and the fire is not quenched.”


Twice our Lord repeats this solemn sentence against the wicked, “Where
their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” Verses 46, 48.
These passages are relied on with as much assurance, perhaps, as any, to
prove the eternal misery of the reprobate. If this language had never
been used by any of the inspired writers of the Scriptures, till it was
thus used in the New Testament, it might be urged with some degree of
plausibility, as an expressive imagery of eternal torment. But, even in
this case, it might be replied that fire, so far as we have any
experience with it, or knowledge of its nature, invariably consumes that
upon which it preys, and hence must be a symbol of complete destruction;
and that the expression, as it occurs in Mark 9:44, can denote nothing
less than the utter consumption of those who are cast into that fire.

But this expression was one which was well known and understood by those
whom Christ was addressing. Isaiah and Jeremiah frequently use the
figure of the undying worm and quenchless fire. In their familiar
scriptures the people daily read these expressions. Let us see what idea
they would derive from them. We turn to Jeremiah 17:27, and read:--

“But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the Sabbath day, and not
bear a burden, even entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath
day; then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour
the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched.”

From this text we certainly can learn the meaning that was attached to
the expression, “unquenchable fire,” by the Hebrew people. This fire was
not to be quenched, therefore it was unquenchable. But it was to be
kindled in the gates of Jerusalem, and devour the palaces thereof. It
was therefore literal, natural, fire. But how could a fire of this kind,
thus kindled, be supposed to be a fire that would burn eternally? They
certainly would not so understand it. No more should we. Moreover, this
threatening of the Lord by Jeremiah was fulfilled. 2 Chron. 36:19: “And
they burnt the house of God, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem, and
burnt all the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed all the goodly
vessels thereof.” Verse 21. “To fulfill the word of the Lord by
Jeremiah.” Thus Jerusalem was burned according to Jeremiah’s prediction
that it should be consumed in unquenchable fire. But how long did that
fire burn? Only till it had reduced to ashes the gates and palaces on
which it preyed. Unquenchable fire is therefore simply a fire that is
not quenched, or does not cease, till it has entirely consumed that
which causes or supports it. Then it dies out of itself, because there
is nothing more to burn. The expression does not mean a fire that must
absolutely eternally burn, and that consequently all that is cast
therein to feed the flame must forever be preserved by having the
portion consumed immediately renewed.

To the wicked the threatened fire is unquenchable because it will not be
quenched, or caused to cease, till it has entirely devoured them.

Ps. 37: 20: “But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord
shall be as the fat of lambs; they shall consume; into smoke shall they
consume away.” Mal. 4: 3: “And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they
shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do
this saith the Lord of hosts.”

Ezekiel speaks of unquenchable fire in a similar manner.

Eze. 20: 47, 48: “Thus saith the Lord God: Behold I will kindle a fire
in thee, and it shall devour every green tree in thee, and every dry
tree; the flaming flame shall not be quenched, and all faces from the
south to the north shall be burned therein. And all flesh shall see that
I the Lord have kindled it: it shall not be quenched.”

Though this is doubtless figurative language, denoting sore calamities
upon a certain land called the forest of the south field, it
nevertheless furnishes an instance of how the expression, unquenchable
fire, was then used and understood; for that generation many ages ago
perished, and those judgments long since ceased to exist.

Isaiah not only speaks of the unquenchable fire, but he couples with it
the undying worm, the same as the language in Mark:

Isa. 66: 24: “And they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the
men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die,
neither shall their fire be quenched, and they shall be an abhorring
unto all flesh.”

This is undoubtedly the language from which the expression in Mark is
borrowed; but a moment’s examination of it will show that the worm is
not the remorse of a guilty conscience, but that, like the fire, it is
something external to, and distinct from, the objects upon which it
preys; and moreover that those upon whom it feeds are not the living,
but the dead: it is the “carcasses” of the men that have transgressed
against the Lord. In Isa. 14: 11, and 51: 8, the prophet again speaks of
the worm as an agent of destruction, but it is always in connection with
death. It is thus evident that the terms employed by our Lord in
describing the doom of the wicked would convey to the minds of his
hearers the very opposite of the idea of eternal life in misery.

There is other evidence, though no other is necessary, to show that the
idea which would be conveyed, and which the language was designed to
convey, to their minds, was that of complete extinction of being, an
utter consumption by external elements of destruction. The word
translated hell in the passage under consideration is _ge-enna_. It is
better to enter into life maimed, than to go in full possession of all
our members and faculties into _ge-enna_. Did those to whom Christ spoke
know anything about this place, and what kind of a fate awaited those
who were cast therein? A vivid picture of the place of torment to which
our Lord refers was in constant operation before their eyes, near by
Jerusalem.

Greenfield defines the word thus:--

“Gehenna, the valley of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, once celebrated for
the horrid worship of Moloch and afterward polluted with every species
of filth, as well as the carcasses of animals and dead bodies of
malefactors; to _consume which_, in order to avert the pestilence which
such a mass of corruption would occasion, constant fires were kept
burning.”

Such was the fire of Gehenna; not a fire into which people were cast to
be kept alive and tortured, but one into which they were cast to be
consumed; not one which was designed to prey upon living beings, but
upon the carcasses of animals and the dead bodies of malefactors. Hence
we can see the consistency of associating the fire and the worm
together. Whatever portion of the dead body the fire failed to consume,
the worm would soon seize upon and devour. If a person had been
condemned to be cast alive into this place, as the wicked will be cast
into their Gehenna, what would have been his hope of escape? If the fire
could have been speedily quenched before it had taken his life, and the
worms which consumed what the fire left, could have been destroyed, he
might have had some hope of coming out alive; but if this could not be
done, he would know of a surety that his life would soon become extinct,
and then even his lifeless remains would be utterly consumed by these
agents of destruction.

This was the scene to which Christ pointed his hearers to represent the
doom that awaits the wicked; that, as they gazed upon the work of
complete destruction going on in the valley of Hinnom, the worms
devouring what the flames spared, they might learn that in the future
Gehenna which awaited them, no part of their being would be exempt from
utter and complete destruction, one agent of death completing what
another failed to accomplish.

As the definition of the word _ge-enna_ throws great light on the
meaning of this text, so the definition of another term used is equally
to the point. The words for unquenchable fire are _pur_ (long u)
_asbeston_, and this word _asbeston_, primarily means simply unquenched,
that is, not caused to cease by any external means: the idea of eternal
is a theological definition which has been attached to it. Ancient
writers used it in this sense. Homer, in the Illiad, xvi., 123, 294,
speaks of the Trojans’ hurling “unquenchable fire” upon the Grecian
ships, though but one of them was burnt by it. And Eusebius, who was a
learned Greek, employs the same expression in two instances in
recounting the martyrdom of Christians. Cronion and Julian, after being
tortured in various ways, were consumed in an “unquenchable fire,” _puri
asbesto_. The same is also said of Epimachus and Alexander. “The _pur
asbeston_,” says Wetstein, “denotes such a fire as cannot be
extinguished before it has consumed and destroyed all.”

Such is the evident meaning of this passage, and the sense in which it
must have been understood at that time. Yet commentators, eighteen
hundred years this side of that time, presume to turn this whole
representation upside down, and give to the terms a meaning exactly
opposite from that which they were intended to convey. That sense alone
can be the correct one in which they were first spoken; and concerning
that there can be no question.

There is another text often urged to prove the eternal conscious misery
of the wicked. It is one in which fire is mentioned as the instrument
used for the punishment of the wicked; and this fire being called
eternal, is understood in the same sense as the unquenchable fire of
Mark 9:43. It may therefore properly be examined in this connection.

Jude 7: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like
manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange
flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal
fire.”

This text, when rightly understood, will, we think, like that in Mark 9,
be found to convey just the opposite meaning from that popularly given
to it. The first great error in the interpretation of this text, lies,
as we view it, in a wrong application of the tense employed. It is
claimed that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, having been
destroyed, were committed to the flames of hell, where they are now
(present tense) suffering the vengeance of that eternal fire. But a
moment’s glance at the text will show that it is the example set forth,
and not the suffering, that is in the present tense. There are other
facts mentioned in the same tense with the suffering; thus, “giving
themselves over to fornication,” “going after strange flesh,” “suffering
the vengeance of eternal fire.” If one of these expressions denotes
something that is now going on, the others also denote the same. If they
are now suffering the fire, they are now giving themselves over to
fornication, and going after strange flesh; for all these declarations
are in the same construction. But no one will claim that the Sodomites
are now taking the course here described; neither, then, can it be
claimed that they are now suffering the pain of fire.

The sense of the passage appears to be very evidently this: That the
Sodomites, giving themselves up to their wicked practices, and, as a
consequence, suffering an eternal overthrow by fire rained down upon
them from heaven, are thus set forth as an example to the ungodly of all
coming ages, of the overthrow they will also experience if they follow
the same course.

Peter speaks of the same event, as an example to the wicked, and tells
what effect that fire had upon the cities of the plain. It did not
preserve them in the midst of the fire in unceasing torture, but turned
them into ashes. He says, 2 Pet. 2:6: “And turning the cities of Sodom
and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them with an overthrow, making them
an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly.” This language is
too plain to need comment. How are the Sodomites made an example? By
being overthrown and turned into ashes for their open and presumptuous
sins. It is God saying to the wicked of all coming time, Behold, how
your sins shall be visited unless you repent.

But those fires are not now burning. Seek out the site of those ancient
and abandoned cities, and the brackish waters of the Dead Sea will be
found rolling their sluggish waves over the spot where once they stood.
Those fires are therefore called eternal, because their effects are
eternal, or age-lasting. They never have recovered, nor will they ever
recover while the world stands, from that terrible overthrow.

And thus this text is very much to the purpose on the question before
us; for it declares that the punishment of Sodom is an exact pattern of
the future punishment of the wicked; hence that punishment will not be
eternal life in the fiery flame, but an utter consumption, even as Sodom
was consumed, by its resistless vengeance.




                             CHAPTER XXXI.
                      TORMENTED FOREVER AND EVER.


The only remaining texts to be urged in favor of the eternal torment of
the wicked, are two passages which are found in the book of Revelation.
The first is Rev. 14:11: “And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up
forever and ever; and they have no rest day nor night who worship the
beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.”

It is proper first to inquire of whom this is spoken. The question
before us relates to the destiny of all the wicked. No text is therefore
conclusive on this question, which speaks of only a certain class, or a
limited number, of the wicked; for a particular class might for good
reasons be set apart to a certain punishment, and that punishment be
exceptional in their cases, and not such as awaits the whole race of the
guilty. The passage just quoted speaks not of all the wicked, but only
of a limited class--the worshipers of the beast and his image. The
beast, according to evidence which no Protestant will be disposed to
question, means the papal power; Rev. 13:1-10; and the image is to be
formed, near the close of the career of that power. Rev. 13:14-18;
14:1-5. The text, therefore, embraces only comparatively a small portion
of the wicked of the human race. The ancient world, with its teeming
millions, and the present heathen world, knowing nothing of this power,
are alike exempted from the punishment here brought to view. This text
might therefore be set aside as inconclusive, since, even if it should
be admitted to prove eternal torture for some, it does not for all.

But we claim that no text affirms eternal torment for a single conscious
intelligence in all the universe, and hence undertake to show that this
passage does not prove it in reference to even the limited class brought
to view. The expression, “The smoke of their torment ascendeth up
forever and ever,” is the one upon which the doctrine of eternity of
suffering is in this case suspended. But the same may be said of this
expression that was said in last chapter in reference to the undying
worm and the quenchless fire. It was not new in John’s day, but was
borrowed from the Old Testament, and was one which was well understood
at that time.

In Isa. 34:9, 10, the prophet, speaking of the land of Idumea, says:
“And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust
thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch.
It shall not be quenched night nor day: the smoke thereof shall go up
forever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall
pass through it forever and ever.” But two applications can be made of
this language. Either it refers to the literal land of Edom east and
south of Judea, or it is a figure to represent the whole world in the
day of final conflagration. In either case it is equally to the point.
If the literal land of Idumea is meant, and the language has reference
to the desolations which have fallen upon it, then certainly no eternity
of duration is implied in the declaration that the smoke thereof shall
go up forever. For all the predictions against the land of Idumea have
long since been fulfilled, and the judgments have ceased. If it refers
to the fires of the last day, when the elements melt with fervent heat,
no eternity of duration is even then implied in the expression; for the
earth is not to be forever destroyed by the purifying fires of the last
day. It is to rise from its ashes, and a new earth come forth purified
from all the stains of sin, and free from all the deformity of the
curse, to be the everlasting abode of the righteous.

Here is an instance in which the word, forever, apply it in either of
the only two ways possible, must denote a limited period. And here the
Septuagint uses αἰων (_aion_) the same as is used in Rev. 14:11; and
from this passage in Isaiah, the language in Revelation was probably
borrowed. That the words αἰων and αἰωνιος sometimes denote a limited
period, and not invariably one of eternal duration, will appear in the
examination of the only remaining text that calls for consideration,
namely, Rev. 20:10: “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the
lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are,
and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever.”

The same limitation is apparent in this text that was observed in the
preceding. It does not refer to all the wicked, but speaks only of the
devil, the beast, and the false prophet. The lake of fire, the place and
means of their torment, is again mentioned in verse 14; but there it is
the symbol of complete and utter destruction. Death and Hades, it says,
were cast into the lake of fire, and after this it is said, “There shall
be no more death.” Rev. 21:4. Whatever, then, is cast into the lake of
fire, after it has wrought its work of destruction upon them, no longer
exists. This is the plain inference from what is here asserted
respecting death. Then follows the testimony of verse 15, that
“whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the
lake of fire.” And this makes a final disposition of all who are not
saved in the kingdom of Heaven.

There is nothing in the way of this application, unless the words
“forever and ever” denote absolutely an eternity of duration. These
words are translated in the New Testament from _aion_, and _aionios_,
respecting which the following facts may be stated.

_Aion_ is defined by different lexicographers as follows:--

Greenfield: “Duration, finite or infinite, unlimited duration, eternity;
a period of duration past or future, time, age, lifetime; the world,
universe.”

Schrevelius: “An age, a long period of time; indefinite duration; time,
whether longer or shorter.”

Liddell and Scott: “A space or period of time, especially a lifetime,
life, _ævum_; an age, a generation; long space of time, eternity; in
plural, _eis tous aionas ton aionon_, unto ages of ages, forever and
ever, N. T., Gal. 1:5.-3. later, a space of time clearly defined and
marked out, an era, age, period of a dispensation: _ho aion houtos_,
this present life, this world.”

Parkhurst: “Always being. It denotes duration or continuance of time,
but with great variety. I. Both in the singular and the plural it
signifies eternity, whether past or to come. II. The duration of this
world. III. The ages of the world. IV. This present life. V. The world
to come. VI. An age, period, or periodical dispensation of divine
providence. VII. _Aiones_ seems, in Heb. 11:3, to denote the various
revolutions and grand occurrences which have happened in this created
system, including also the world itself. Comp. Heb. 1:2, and Macknight
on both texts. _Aion_, in the LXX. generally answers to the Hebrew
_holam_, which denotes _time hidden_ from man, whether indefinite or
definite, whether past or future.”

Robinson: “Duration, the course or flow of time in various relations as
determined by the context, viz: (A) For human life, existence. (B) For
time indefinite, a period of the world, the world, in Gr. writers, and
also in Sept. and N. Testament. (C) For endless duration, perpetuity,
eternity.... Sept. mostly for Heb. _holam_, ‘hidden time,’ duration,
eternity.--Hence, in N. T. of long-continued time, indefinite duration,
in accordance with Greek usage, but modified as to construction and
extent by the example of the LXX., and the Rabbinic views.”

Schleusner gives as the first meaning of _aion_, “a definite and
long-continued time,” _i. e._, a long-continued but still a definite
period of time.

Wahl has arranged the definitions of _aion_ thus: “(1) Time, unlimited
duration, _ævum_. (2) The universe, _mundus_. (3) An age, period of the
world,” as the Jewish age, Christian age, &c. This reference to
Schleusner and Wahl we find in Stuart on Future Punishment, pp. 91, 93.

_Holam_, the Hebrew word which corresponds to the Greek _aion_, is
applied according to Gesenius to things which endure for a long time,
for an indefinite period. It is applied to the Jewish priesthood, to the
Mosaic ordinances, to the possession of the land of Canaan, to the hills
and mountains, to the earth, to the time of service to be rendered by a
slave, and to some other things of a like nature. Stuart, p. 72.

Cruden, in his Unabridged Concordance, under the word eternal, says:--

“The words, eternal, everlasting, and forever, are sometimes taken for a
long time, and are not always to be understood strictly. Thus, ‘Thou
shalt be our guide from this time forth even forever,’ that is, during
our whole life. And in many other places of Scripture, and in particular
when the word forever is applied to the Jewish rites and privileges, it
commonly signifies no more than during the standing of that
commonwealth, until the coming of the Messiah.”

Dr. Clarke places in our hands a key to the interpretation of the words,
“forever” and “forever and ever,” which is adapted to every instance of
their use. According to his rule they are to be taken to mean as long as
a thing, considering the surrounding circumstances, can exist. And he
illustrates this in his closing remarks on 2 Kings 5, where, speaking of
the curse of the leprosy pronounced upon Gehazi forever, he says:--

“Some have thought, because of the prophet’s curse, ‘The leprosy of
Naaman shall cleave unto thee and to thy seed forever,’ that there are
persons still alive who are this man’s descendants, and afflicted with
this horrible disease. Mr. Maundrell, when he was in Judea, made
diligent inquiry concerning this, but could not ascertain the truth of
the supposition. To me it appears absurd; the denunciation took place in
the posterity of Gehazi till it should become extinct; and under the
influence of this disorder, this must _soon_ have taken place. The
_forever_ implies as long as any of his posterity should remain. This is
the import of the word, _leolam_. _It takes in the whole extent or
duration of the thing to which it is applied._ The _forever_ of Gehazi
was till his posterity became extinct.”

The word _aionios_ is derived from _aion_, and its general meaning may
be determined from the definitions given above to the latter word.

That these words are frequently applied to the existence of divine
beings, and the future happiness of the saints, is true; and that in
these cases they denote eternal duration is equally evident; yet,
according to the definition of the words and the rule laid down by Dr.
Clarke, that eternal duration could not be made out by the use of these
words alone. They denote duration or continuance of time, the length of
that duration being determined by the nature of the objects to which
they are applied. When applied to things which we know from other
declarations of the Scriptures are to have no end, they signify an
eternity of being; but when applied to things which are to end, they are
correspondingly limited in their meaning. That the existence of God and
the future happiness of the righteous are to be absolutely eternal, we
are abundantly assured by scriptures which make no use of the words in
question. When applied to these they therefore signify a period of
duration which is never to end. Just as plainly are we assured that the
existence of the wicked is at last to cease in the second death; and
when applied to this, the words _aion_ and _aionios_ must be limited
accordingly in their signification. Overlooking this plain principle of
interpretation, Prof. Stuart, p. 89, comes to this erroneous conclusion
respecting these words, because they are applied alike to the sufferings
of the lost and the happiness of the saved, that “we must either admit
the endless misery of hell, or give up the endless happiness of Heaven.”
We are under no such necessity. The words, _aion_ and _aionios_,
according to Dr. Clarke, cover the whole of the existence of the two
classes in their respective spheres, and that only. The one is, after a
season of suffering and anguish, to come to an end; the other is to go
on in bliss to all eternity.

So when it is said that the beast and the false prophet, and they who
worship the beast and his image, are to be tormented day and night
forever and ever, we must understand this expression to cover only the
duration of their future existence beyond the grave. If we are anywhere
given to understand by other scriptures and by other terms which are
more rigid in their meaning, that this is to be eternal, the terms must
here be so understood; if not, we have no warrant for so defining them
here.

That the forever and ever, _eis tous aionas ton aionon_, of the
suffering of the wicked, denotes a period of long duration, there is no
question; and it may be much longer than any have been disposed to
conceive who deny its eternity; yet it is to come to an end, not by
their restoration to God’s favor, but by the extinction of that life
which has in it no immortality, and because they have refused to accept
of the life freely offered to them, which is to continue through ages
without end.

We have now examined all the more prominent passages which are urged in
favor of the eternal suffering of the lost. Though others may by some be
brought forward to prove this doctrine, we may safely take the position
that if it is not proved by those we have examined, it cannot be proved
by any in all the Bible; for these use the strongest terms and are most
explicit in their nature. And of these how many are there? Five in all.
Those who have never before examined this subject, will perhaps be
surprised to learn how small is the number of such texts. And should
they take into the account every text which is thought to have even the
slightest semblance of proving the immortality of the lost, it would not
be calculated to abate that surprise to any great degree.

It now remains that we examine those texts, more in number, and more
explicit in statement, which prove that the wicked shall be at last as
though they had not been.




                             CHAPTER XXXII.
               THE END OF THEM THAT OBEY NOT THE GOSPEL.

“What shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?” 1 Pet.
4:17.


By this direct interrogation inspiration calls us face to face to the
great question of the final destiny of the lost, not to leave us at last
in perplexity and doubt, but to give us full information in reference
thereto.

By the foregoing examination of themes which have a bearing upon this
question, we have been brought to a place where the way is all clear to
listen unbiased to the direct testimony of the Bible on the point now
before us. No immortality is anywhere affirmed of the soul, no eternal
misery is anywhere threatened against the lost. What then is to be their
fate? It is abundantly affirmed that they shall die.

The inquiry into the nature of the death threatened Adam, in chapter
xxv., brought very clearly to view the fact that the penalty pronounced
upon his sin reduced back to the dust the entire being, leaving no part
conscious and active in the intermediate state. And the same penalty
stands against sin now as at the beginning. For our personal sins, death
is now threatened against us, as it was against him. This is the second
death; and those who fall under this will be reduced to the same
condition as that into which Adam was brought by death, with no promise
nor possibility of ever being released therefrom.

Eze. 18:26: “When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness,
and committeth iniquity, and dieth _in_ them; _for_ his iniquity that he
hath done shall he die.”

Two deaths are here brought to view: First, the death common to this
state of being, which all share alike, good and bad, which is called the
first, or temporal, death; secondly, if a person dies this death in a
state of sin, that is, with sins upon him of which he does not repent
before he dies, _for_ those sins that he has committed he shall die.
Another death awaits him. The first death was not for his personal
transgressions; for this is entailed upon all alike through Adam, both
good and bad. But every one is to die for his own sins unless he
repents. How is this to be brought about? He is to be raised from the
first death and judged; and, if sins are then found upon him, for those
sins he suffers the same penalty, death; and being thus reduced to death
again, he will forever remain dead; for from this death there is no
release nor redemption provided. This is the second death, and is the
everlasting punishment in store for all the workers of iniquity.

Paul says, Rom. 6:23, “The wages of sin is death;” and James (1:15)
corroborates this testimony, by saying, “Sin, when it is finished,
bringeth forth death.” In Rom. 2, Paul tells us of certain characters
which are certainly deserving, if any can be, of eternal torture; but,
in passing sentence upon them, he does not draw out before us a picture
of unending conscious misery, a course for which he has the most
appropriate occasion, if it be true, but only tells us, in accordance
with reason as well as revelation, that they are worthy of _death_. But
death is a state which can be reached only on a complete extinction of
life. As long as there is any life about a man, he is not dead. “The
death that never dies,” is a contradiction of terms. Nor can a person
properly be said to be dying, unless he is tending to a state of death,
which he will by and by reach. And yet the popular view of this subject
is well expressed in the following language of Thomas Vincent:--

“The torments of hell will not be in one part only, but in every part,
not in a weaker degree, but in the greatest extremity; not for a day, or
a month, or a year, but forever: the wicked will be always dying, never
dead; the pangs of death will ever be upon them, and yet they shall
never give up the ghost; if they could die they would think themselves
happy; they will always be roaring, and never breathe out their last;
always sinking, and never come to the bottom; always burning in those
flames, and never consumed; the eternity of hell will be the hell of
hell.”

Again, the Lord says, speaking of a certain class of his enemies, “For
yet a little while and the indignation shall cease, and mine anger in
their destruction.” Isa. 10:25. This is conclusive testimony that all
those with whom the Lord has occasion to be angry, as he is with all the
wicked, Ps. 7:11, will be finally destroyed, and in that destruction his
anger toward them will cease. Yet the majority of divines tell us that
God’s “fiery indignation and incensed fury” toward them will never
cease; that he will never literally destroy them, but will forever
torment them, and keep them alive expressly that he may torment them.
Says Benson:--

“He will exert _all_ his divine attributes to make them as wretched as
the capacity of their nature will admit.” And he continues, “They must
be perpetually swelling their enormous sums of guilt, and still running
deeper, immensely deeper, in debt to divine and infinite justice. Hence
after the longest imaginable period, they will be so far from having
discharged their debt that they will find more due than when they first
began to suffer.”

Thus the sinner is represented as being able to distance in sin the
power of Omnipotence to punish. They go on accumulating loads of guilt
in their rebellion against the divine government, while God, exerting
_all_ his divine attributes, follows tardily after, in fruitless efforts
to make the terrors of his punishment adequate to the infinitude of
their guilt. Oh, horrid picture of perverted imagination! Did we not
believe its authors labored under the sincere conviction that they were
doing God service, and did we not know that many good and estimable
persons still defend the doctrine under an earnest, though mistaken,
zeal for God, it would deserve to be styled the most arrant blasphemy.

This condition of the finally reprobate, so often and so distinctly
defined as a state of death, is also set forth by very many other
expressions, by every variety of phrase, in fact, which expresses, in
the most complete and absolute manner, an utter loss of existence.

Henry Constable, A. M., in his work on “The Duration and Nature of
Future Punishment,” p. 12, says:--

“But it is not only by this phrase, ‘death,’ that the Old Testament
describes the punishment of the ungodly. By every expression in the
Hebrew language, significant of loss of life, loss of existence, the
resolution of organized substance into its original parts, its reduction
to that condition in which it is as though it had never been called into
being--by every such expression does the Old Testament describe the end
of the ungodly. ‘The destruction of the transgressors and the sinners
shall be together:’ ‘prepare them for the _day of slaughter_:’ ‘_the
slain_ of the Lord shall be many:’ ‘they shall go forth and look upon
_the carcasses_ of the men that have sinned:’ ‘God shall _destroy_
them:’ ‘they shall be _consumed_:’ ‘they shall be _cut off_:’ ‘they
shall be rooted _out of the land of the living_:’ ‘_blotted out of the
book of life_:’‘_they are not_.’ The Hebrew scholar will see from the
above passages that there is no phrase of the Hebrew language
significant of all destruction short of that philosophical annihilation
of elements which we do not assert, which is not used to denote the end
of the ungodly.”

_The wicked shall be destroyed._ “The Lord preserveth all them that love
him; but all the wicked will he destroy.” Ps. 145:20. Here preservation
is promised only to those who love God, and in opposition to this,
_destruction_ is threatened to the wicked. But human wisdom teaches us
that God will preserve the wicked in hell--preserve them for the mere
sake of torturing them. Mr. Benson again says:--

“God is therefore present in hell to see the punishment of these rebels.
His fiery indignation kindles, and his incensed fury feeds the flame of
their torment, while his powerful presence and operation _maintains
their being_, and renders their powers most acutely sensible, thus
setting the keenest edge upon their pain, and making it cut most
intolerably deep.”

_The wicked shall perish._ “For God so loved the world, that he gave his
only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not _perish_,
but have everlasting life.” John 3:16. A double enunciation of the truth
is couched in this short text. It is that eternal life is to be obtained
only through Christ, and that all who do not thus obtain it will
eventually perish. John testifies further on the same point in his 1st
epistle, 5:11: “And this is the record: that God hath given to us
eternal life, and this life is in his Son.” From which it follows, as a
most natural consequence, that “he that hath not the Son of God _hath
not life_.” Verse 12.

_The wicked shall go to perdition._ “We are not of them who draw back
unto perdition, but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.”
Heb. 10:39. We either gain the salvation of our souls by a perseverance
in faith, and obtain eternal life by a patient continuance in
well-doing, Rom. 2:7, or we sink back into perdition, which, is defined
to be utter ruin, or _destruction_.

“_The wicked shall come to an end and be as though they had not been._”
“For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be; yea, thou shalt
diligently consider his place, and _it_ shall not be.” Ps. 37:10. If
this testimony be true, there will be neither a sinner nor any _place_
for a sinner, after God has executed upon them his just judgments. “They
shall be as though they had not been.” Obad. 16.

The reader is requested to mark the significance of these texts. They
are not figures, but plain enunciations of truth, demanding to be
understood in the plainest and most literal manner. And though they are
so abundant, and can be so easily produced, they are not to be passed
over any more lightly on this account.

_The wicked are compared to the most inflammable and perishable
substances._ Had the wicked been compared to the most durable substances
with which we are acquainted in nature; had they been likened to the
“everlasting hills,” the during rock, or the precious metals, gold and
gems, the most incorruptible of all substances; such comparisons would
not have been without their weight in giving us an idea of an eternity
of existence; nor can we think they would have been overlooked by the
other side. We therefore claim an equal significance on our side of the
question for the fact that they are everywhere compared to just the
opposite of the above-named substances--substances the most perishable
and corruptible of any that exist. For no idea can be drawn from such
comparisons at all compatible with the idea of eternal preservation in
the midst of glowing and devouring fire.

Thus it is said of the wicked that they shall be dashed in pieces like a
potter’s vessel, Ps. 2:9, they shall be like the beasts that perish, Ps.
49:20, like the untimely fruit of a woman, Ps. 58:8, like a whirlwind
that passeth away, Ps. 68:2; Prov. 10:25, like a waterless garden
scorched by an eastern sun, Isa. 1:30, like garments consumed by the
moth, Isa. 51:8, like the thistle down scattered by the whirlwind, Isa.
17:13, margin. They shall consume like the fat of lambs in the fire, Ps.
37:20, consume into smoke (_ibid._), and ashes, Mal. 4:3, melt like wax,
Ps. 68:2, burn like tow, Isa. 1:31, consume like thorns, Isa. 34:12,
vanish away like exhausted waters, Ps. 58:7.

The illustrations which the New Testament uses to represent the destiny
of the wicked are of exactly the same nature. They are likened to chaff,
which is to be burned entirely up, Matt. 3:12, tares to be consumed,
Matt. 13:40, withered branches to be burned, John 15:6, bad fish cast
away to corruption, Matt. 13:47, 48, a house thrown down to its
foundations, Luke 6:49, to the destruction of the old world by water,
Luke 17:27, to the destruction of the Sodomites by fire, verse 29, 2
Pet. 2:5, 6, and to natural brute beasts, that perish in their own
corruption. Verse 12.

Such are the illustrations of the Scriptures on this subject. If the
wicked are to be tormented forever, all these illustrations are not only
unnatural, but false; for in that case they are not like the perishing
beasts, the passing whirlwind, the moth-consumed garment, the burning
fat, the vanishing smoke, or the melting wax; nor like chaff, tares, and
withered branches, consumed and reduced to ashes. These all lose their
form and substance, and become as though they had not been; but this the
wicked never do, according to the popular view. There is an enormous
contradiction somewhere. Is it between the writers of the Bible? or
between uninspired men and the word of God? The trouble is not with the
Bible; all is harmony there. The discrepancy arises from the creeds and
theories of men.

The language of Moses and of Paul shows that an eternal existence of
moral corruption and fiery torture is not the doom of the wicked. When
Moses besought the Lord to forgive the sin of Israel, he said, “Yet now,
if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out
of thy book which thou hast written.” Ex. 32:32. This book must be the
book of life, in which the names of the righteous are written. By being
blotted out of this book, Moses evidently meant being devoted to the
doom of sinners. If Israel could not be forgiven, he would himself
perish with that unfaithful people. But no one can for a moment suppose
that he wished throughout eternity for a life of sin, pain, and
blasphemy, in hell. He only wished for an utter cessation of that life
which, if his prayer could not be granted, would be an intolerable
burden. And if this is what he meant by being blotted out of God’s book,
it follows that this will be the doom of the ungodly; for the Lord
answered, “Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my
book.”

In a similar manner, Paul speaks concerning the same people: “For I
could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my
kinsmen according to the flesh.” Rom. 9:3. We cannot suppose that Paul
would desire a life of sin and moral corruption, such as that of the
sinner in hell is said to be, even for the sake of his people. But he
was willing to give up his life for them, and cease to exist, if thereby
they might be saved.

To notice more particularly some of the scriptures in which a portion of
the foregoing figures are found, their testimony may be summed up in the
following final proposition:--

_The wicked shall be consumed and devoured by fire._ “Woe unto them that
call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light
for darkness,” &c. “Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the
flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and
their blossom shall go up as dust”! Isa. 5:20-24. Reader, have you ever
seen fire devour stubble, or flame consume chaff? Then you have seen a
figure of the destruction of the wicked. And let the advocate of eternal
misery tell us, if such language does not denote the utter consumption
of the wicked, what language would do it, if the doctrine were true. Let
us know what language Inspiration should have used, had it wished to
convey such an idea. Is it such as this? “But the wicked shall perish,
and the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs; they shall
consume; into smoke shall they consume away.” Ps. 37:20. “And they went
up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints
about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven,
and _devoured_ them.” The word here rendered devour, κατέφαγεν, says
Stuart, is “intensive, to _eat up, devour_, so that it denotes utter
excision.” In the light of this scripture, we can readily understand how
it is that the wicked are to be recompensed in the earth. Prov. 11:31.
Coming up in the second resurrection, at the end of the 1000 years of
Rev. 20:5, they come up around the New Jerusalem, the beloved city, the
abode of the saints, then descended from Heaven to earth, chap. 21:5,
and then their fearful retribution overtakes them. It is then that they
have their portion in those purifying fires that sweep over the earth,
in which, according to Peter’s testimony, the elements of this great
globe itself shall melt with fervent heat. 2 Pet. 3:10, 12. For it is at
the day of Judgment (by which of course we must understand the execution
of the Judgment) and perdition of ungodly men that this takes place. See
verse 7. So, too, the righteous, as they go forth upon the new earth,
verse 13, destined to be their eternal and glorious abode, will receive
their recompense in the earth. Then will be fulfilled the word of the
Lord by the prophet Malachi, which says, “For behold, the day cometh,
that shall burn as an oven: and all the proud, yea, and all that do
wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up,
saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor
branch. But unto you that fear my name, shall the Sun of righteousness
arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as
calves of the stall. And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall
be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this,
saith the Lord of hosts.” Mark the distinctness of this language. It
does not say that the wicked shall be _as_ ashes, nor does it introduce
any comparison here whatever, but plainly states a plain fact, that they
_shall be ashes_, under the soles of the saints’ feet. Not that the
saints will literally walk on ashes, but the wicked, having been reduced
to ashes, like all other sin-and-curse-polluted things, are incorporated
into the substance of the new earth, which the saints are evermore to
inhabit, as it emerges from the renovating fires of the last day.

Then will the universe be clean and pure. Then the stain of sin will all
be wiped away forever; sinners, and the great enemy that deceived them
(for he, too, shall be destroyed, Heb. 2:14), being rooted out of the
land of the living. Its every scar now impressed upon the handiwork of
God shall be effaced; and this unfortunate earth shall be re-adorned, as
only God, omnipotent in power and omniscient in wisdom, is able to adorn
it. And then will arise that glad anthem of universal Jubilee, in which
shall join _every creature_ which is in Heaven, and on the earth, and
under the earth, and such as are in the sea, ascribing blessing, and
honor, and glory, and power, unto him that sitteth on the throne, and
unto the Lamb forever and ever. Rev. 5:13. There is no room here for a
great receptacle of fiery torment, where an innumerable company of human
beings shall burn and blaspheme and sin and suffer forever and ever.
There is no room in this great song of joy for the discordant and
hopeless wailing of the damned. There is no provision made for an
eternal rebellion against the government of God, and eternal blasphemy
against his holy name! No! only the loyal subjects of the great Captain
of our salvation, only such as love immortal life, and seek for it, and
prepare themselves for its inestimable blessings, shall ever enjoy the
glorious boon; while those who put from themselves the word of God, and
“judge themselves unworthy of everlasting life,” Acts 13:46, will be
remanded back to the original elements from which they sprung; and
strict Justice will write upon their unhonored and unlamented graves
that they themselves were the arbiters of their own fate.




                            CHAPTER XXXIII.
                   GOD’S DEALINGS WITH HIS CREATURES.


“Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” asked an eminent
servant of God in the opening pages of revelation, Gen. 18:25; and when
all is finished, the redeemed, looking over all God’s dealings with man,
exclaim with fervent lips, “Just and true are thy ways, thou King of
saints.” Rev. 15:3. It is objected that we should raise no question
regarding the justness of the doom to which God may devote any portion
of our race; because we are not able to judge of his ways. Of things
with which we are imperfectly acquainted, or which are above our
comprehension, this is undoubtedly true; but respecting our relation to
God, the light in which he looks upon sin, and the disposition he will
finally make of it, he says to us, “Come, let us reason.” We are never
called upon to form an opinion or a decision in regard to things
respecting which we are incapable of judging; but we are called upon to
reverence God, as a God of love, wisdom, justice, and mercy. We must,
therefore, be capable of judging of his character, his mercy, his love,
his wisdom, and his justice. Are these characteristics displayed in his
future dealings with the wicked, according to the view generally
promulgated by the churches of the present day? The question to be
decided is this: Is an eternity of torture so intense that the severest
pain a person can suffer on earth is but a faint shadow of it, any _just
punishment_ for any conceivable amount of sin committed by the worst of
men, during the brief period of our mortal life? What is our present
life? Something for which we did not ask; something given us without our
knowledge or consent; and, in the forcible language of another, “Can any
abuse of this unasked-for gift justify the recompense of an existence
spent in unending agony?”

Between the sins committed in this finite life, and the fiery torment of
hell continued through numberless millions of ages, and then no nearer
its end than when the first groan was uttered, there is a disproportion
so infinite, that few attempt to rest that eternal misery on merely the
sins of the present life; and they endeavor to vindicate God’s justice
in the matter, or at least to apologize for his course, by saying that
the sinner continues to sin, and that is the reason why he continues to
suffer. The guilt of all the sins done in the body is soon expiated in
the fiery flame; but then they must suffer for the sins committed after
they left this mortal state, and commenced their life of agony in hell.
And here they are represented as sinning faster than the inconceivable
woe of hell can punish. It is affirmed of them, as quoted from Benson in
the previous chapter, that “they must be perpetually swelling their
enormous sums of guilt, and still running deeper, immensely deeper, in
debt to divine and infinite justice. Hence, after the longest imaginable
period, they will be so far from having discharged their debt that they
will find more due than when they first began to suffer.”

In like manner Wm. Archer Butler, in his sermon on Future Punishment,
says:--

“The punishments of hell are but the perpetual vengeance that
accompanies the sins of hell. An eternity of wickedness brings with it
an eternity of woe. The sinner is to suffer for everlasting, but it is
because the sin itself is as everlasting as the suffering.”

Do the Scriptures anywhere thus speak? Do they not affirm, not once or
twice, but over and over again, that the punishment of the future is for
the sins of the present time? It is for the sins in which the sinner
dies, not for what he commits after death, that he is to suffer future
retribution. Eze. 18:26. The works for which we are to be brought into
judgment (and for no others can we be punished) are the works of this
present life. Eccl. 12:14. And Paul testifies, “For we must all appear
before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the
things _done in his body_, according to that he hath done, whether it be
good or bad.” 2 Cor. 5:10. It is for the sins done by human beings in
the body, in this present life, not for what they will commit as lost
spirits in hell, that they are to answer at the judgment seat of Christ,
and for which they are to receive a just retribution. And if everlasting
misery is thought to be too much for this, we are not at liberty to
throw in _post-mortem_ sins to balance the excessive punishment. If
eternal torment cannot be defended as a just punishment for the sins of
this present life, it cannot be defended at all.

To illustrate: Suppose in an earthly tribunal the judge should sentence
a criminal to a punishment altogether too severe for the crime of which
he had been guilty, and then should endeavor to justify his course by
saying that he gave the sentence because he knew that the criminal would
deserve it by the sins he would commit after he went to jail! How long
would such a judge be tolerated? Yet this is the very course attributed
by learned doctors of divinity, to the Judge of all the earth, who has
declared that he will do right.

On the supposition that eternal torture is to be inflicted as the
penalty for a life of sin in this world, were man asked if God’s conduct
in this respect was just, his own innate sense of justice, not yet
wholly obliterated by the fall, would prompt him to a universal and
determined, No! The framers of different religious systems have felt
this, and seem to have searched sharply for some avenue of escape from
the fearful wrong of this horrid theory. So Plato had his Acherusian
lake from which at least some of the wretched sufferers in Tartarus,
after a purgative process might issue forth again to the upper air.
Augustine following Plato in his notion of an abode of unending pain for
some, had also his purgatory from whence others might find a road to
Heaven. Rome has only a purgatory, the fires of a finite period, for the
millions within her communion. Origen conceived of a purgatory wider
than Plato’s, Augustine’s, or Rome’s, from which all should at length be
restored to the favor of God.

The churches of the Reformation have generally accepted of Augustine’s
hell, but denied his purgatory. In the Protestant denominations,
therefore, we have this doctrine in its most horrid aspects. And it is
no marvel that many who have felt compelled by their creed to accept it,
have shrunk from its advocacy, and have tacitly, if not openly,
confessed that they could heartily wish it were a lie.

Saurin at the close of one of his sermons thus speaks:--

“I sink, I sink, under the awful weight of my subject; and I declare,
when I see my friends, my relations, the people of my charge,--this
whole congregation, when I think that I, that you, that we are all
exposed to these torments; when I see in the lukewarmness of my
devosions, in the langour of my love, in the levity of my resolutions
and designs, the least evidence, though it be only possible or
presumptive, of my future misery, I find in the thought a mortal poison,
that diffuseth itself through every period of my existence, rendering
society tiresome, nourishment insipid, pleasure disgustful, _and life
itself a cruel bitter_. I cease to wonder that the fear of hell hath
made some _melancholy_, others _mad_; that it hath disposed some to
expose themselves to a living martyrdom, by fleeing from all commerce
with the rest of mankind, and others, to suffer the most terrible,
violent torments.”

Albert Barnes, the well-known preacher and commentator, speaks on the
same point as follows:--

“I confess when I look upon a world of sinners and of sufferers; upon
death-beds and grave-yards, upon the world of woe filled with hosts to
suffer forever; when I see my friends, my parents, my family, my people,
my fellow-citizens; when I look upon a whole race all involved in this
sin and danger, and when I see the great mass of them wholly
unconcerned, and when I feel that God only can save them, and yet he
does not do it--I am struck dumb. It is all dark, dark, dark to my soul,
and I cannot disguise it.”--_Sermons_, pp. 124, 125.

Such is the effect of the doctrine of eternal misery with some,
according to the confession of its own advocates. No one can say that
such effects are either good or desirable. And why does it not have this
effect upon more? We answer, it is because the lips only mechanically
assent to what the heart and reason either will not try to realize, or
else do not seriously believe. Says Bishop Newton:--

“Imagine a creature, nay, imagine numberless creatures produced out of
nothing ... delivered over to torments of endless ages, without the
least hope or possibility of relaxation or redemption. Imagine it you
may, but you can never seriously believe it, nor reconcile it to God and
goodness.”--_Dissertation_, No. 60.

But the majority are affected by it far differently. Every better
emotion of their nature revolts at the idea, and they will not accept
it. They cannot believe that God is thus cruel, tyrannical, revengeful,
implacable; the personification, in short, of every trait of character
which, when seen in men here, we consider unmistakable marks of
debasement and degradation; and believing the Bible and Christianity to
be identified with such teaching as this, with equal promptness they too
are rejected and cast away. But here we need not enlarge. Probably no
one will read these lines under whose observation some case has not come
of persons driven into skepticism, yes, driven and held there, by the
popular doctrine of eternal misery--a doctrine which has been well
described by a Christian writer, as “a theology that is confused,
entangled, imperfect, and gloomy; a theology which, while it abundantly
breeds infidelity among the educated classes, fails to spread through
the body of the population, and but dimly, or only as a flickering
candle enlightens the world.”--_I. Taylor._

But how is it with the view we have tried to present? Quite the reverse,
as our own observation proves. Instances have come under our immediate
knowledge of persons who, when they saw the divine harmony of God’s
system of government, as brought to view in his word, when they saw the
just and reasonable disposition which the Bible declares that he will
make of all those who will persist in rebellion against him,--a
disposition in which justice and mercy so beautifully blend, have been
able to take that Bible and say for the first time in their life they
could believe it to be the book of God. And believing this, they have
been led to turn their feet into its testimonies, and strive by
obedience to its plain requirements to escape a doom which they could
see to be just, and therefore knew to be certain. This has been the
experience of many. Let, then, the impression no longer exist, and the
assertion no more be made, that these views tend to irreligion and
infidelity. Their fruits everywhere show just the reverse.

Can it then be wondered at that we should be solicitous to disabuse the
minds of the people in this respect? Shall we not have a zeal for the
Lord, and be untiring in our efforts to wipe off from the book and
character of God the aspersions which are by this doctrine cast upon
them? God represents himself to his creatures by the endearing name of
Love; he declares that he is very pitiful and of tender mercy,
long-suffering and slow to anger, not hasty to execute sentence against
an evil work, not gratified in any manner by the death of the wicked,
and not willing that any should perish; he declares that he delighteth
in mercy, that he will not contend forever, neither be always wroth. And
can it be that while thus representing himself to the inhabitants of
earth, he was kindling fiery torture on multitudes of wretched beings in
the dreary regions of hell, feeding their flame with his incensed fury,
preserving and tormenting them in infinite indignation, exerting all his
divine attributes to make them as wretched as the capacity of their
nature would admit, and maintaining a fixed purpose to do this through
the endless ages of eternity! If not, “what a portentous error must it
be!” How fearfully is his character misrepresented! What a bold and
audacious libel is uttered against his holy name!

The root and trunk of all this, is the “taken-for-granted” position that
the soul is immortal. But search through your Bible and see if you find
it so. See if you will not rather be prepared to exclaim with the
eminent commentator, Olshausen, that “the doctrine of the ‘immortality
of the soul,’ and the name, are _alike unknown to the entire Bible_.”
(Comment on 1 Cor. 15:19, 20.) See if you can find the death that never
dies, and never-dying soul. If not, we ask you to reject the idea at
once as a most dangerous and destructive error. Men are thus rejecting
it. The leaven is working in the public mind. Men are growing suspicious
of the truth of a declaration, first uttered by a not over-truthful
character in Eden, perpetuated thence through heathenism, and at last
through the medium of the mother of harlots, disseminated through all
the veins and channels of Orthodoxy. But truth will work its way up,
however deeply the rubbish may have been heaped upon it; and before the
bright rising of its light, all antiquated superstitions and
traditionary dogmas, will lie exposed in their native deformity.




                             CHAPTER XXXIV.
                       THE CLAIMS OF PHILOSOPHY.


After the Bible, what? When once the word of God pronounces upon a
question, what further evidence is needed to sustain the position, or
what evidence is strong enough to break its decision? What can human
reason, science, and philosophy, do for a theory upon which the
Scriptures have written “Ichabod”?

We have, in previous chapters, examined the teaching of the Bible on the
whole subject of man’s creation, nature, death, intermediate state, and
final doom. We have found that man was not created absolutely mortal or
immortal, but relatively both: immortality was within his reach, and
mortality lay as a danger in his path. He sinned and became absolutely
mortal. Then death becomes an unconscious sleep in the grave, and his
destiny beyond the tomb, if he does not secure through Christ, eternal
life, is an utter loss of existence. But there are some who think that
reason, science, and philosophy, are sufficient to disprove these
conclusions; or, at least, that they are so strong that the Bible record
must be made to harmonize with the claims drawn from these sources. But
they forget that much that we call reason is in the sight of God
“foolishness,” that there is a philosophy which the Bible pronounces
“vain,” and some kinds of science which it says are “falsely so called.”

We are willing to grant philosophy the privilege of trying to
substantiate its claims. It may boast like Goliah, but it will be found
weaker than Belshazzar before the handwriting on the wall.

_The soul immortal._ It is claimed that the soul is immaterial, and
cannot therefore be destroyed, and hence must be immortal. Luther Lee
says:--

“If God himself has made the soul immaterial, he cannot destroy it by
bringing material agents to act upon it.”

This claim is good if whatever is indestructible is immortal. But this
is a manifest error. The elements of the human body are indestructible,
but the body is not therefore immortal. It is subject to change, death,
and decay. But if it is claimed that the soul, being immaterial, is
without elements, then perhaps it might follow that it is
indestructible; for that which is nothing can never be made less than
nothing.

But if the soul of man, being immaterial, is thus proved to be immortal,
what shall we say of the souls of the lower orders of animals? for they
manifest the phenomena of mind as well as men. They remember, fear,
imagine, compare, manifest gratitude, anger, sorrow, desire, &c. Bishop
Warburton says:--

“I think it may be strictly demonstrated that man has an immaterial
soul; _but then_, the same arguments which prove _that_, prove,
likewise, that the souls of all living animals are immaterial.”

Whoever, therefore, affirms the immortality of man from the
immateriality of his soul, is bound to affirm the same, not only of the
nobler animals, but also of all the lower orders of the brute creation.
Here, believers in natural immortality are crushed beneath the weight of
their own arguments. If it be said that God can, if he choose, blot from
existence the immaterial soul of the beetle and the titmouse, we reply,
so can he that of man; and then its immortality is at an end, and the
whole argument is abandoned.

“_Matter cannot think._” This is the fundamental proposition on which
the airy phantom of the immortality of the soul relies for its support.
Since man does think, and matter cannot think, the mind or soul must be
immaterial and immortal. It is one thing to make such an assertion; it
is quite another thing to prove it; and the proof lies not within the
power of man. That mind, like electricity, may be a property of matter,
or result from material causes, Sidney Smith, in his Principles of
Phrenology, 1838, very clearly states as follows:--

“The existence of matter must be conceded, in an argument which has for
its object the proof that _there is something besides_; and when that is
admitted, the proof rests with the skeptic, who conceives that the
intervention of some other principle is necessary to account for the
phenomena presented to our experience. The hidden qualities of this
substance must be detected, and its whole attributes known, before we
can be warranted in _assuming the existence of something else_ as
necessary to the production of what is presented to our consciousness.
And when such a principle as that of galvanism or electricity,
confessedly a property of matter, can be present in or absent from a
body, attract, repel, and move, without adding to or subtracting from
the weight, heat, size, color, or any other quality of a corpuscle, it
will require some better species of logic than any hitherto presented to
establish the impossibility of mind being a certain form, quality, or
accessory of matter, inherent in and never separated from it. We do not
argue thus because we are confident that there exists nothing but
matter; for, in truth our feeling is that the question is involved in
too much mystery to entitle us to speak with the boldness of settled
conviction on either side. But we assume this position, because we think
the burden of proof falls on the spiritualists, and that they have not
established the necessity of inferring the existence of another entity
besides matter to account for all the phenomena of mind, by having
failed to exhaust all the possible qualities or probable capacities of
that substance which they labor so assiduously to degrade and despise.

“But while they have altogether failed to establish this necessity,
whereon depends their entire proposition, they have recourse to the
usual expedients of unsuccessful logicians, by exciting the ignorant
prejudices of bigotry and intolerance, against all that is dignified
with the name of dispassionate philosophy.

“The truth is, it is time that all this fudge and cant about the
doctrine of materialism, which affects the theory of immortality in no
shape whatever--as the God who appointed the end could as easily ordain
that the means might be either through the medium of matter or
spirit--should be fairly put down by men of common sense and
metaphysical discrimination.”

On the same point, Mr. W. G. Moncrieff says:--

“Often do we hear the words, ‘Matter cannot think,’ and the trumpet of
orthodoxy summons us to attend.

“In our simplicity we have been led to reason thus: Matter cannot
think--God made man of the dust of the ground--then of course man cannot
think! He may grow like a palm tree, but can reason no more than it. Now
this argumentation seems really valid, and yet every human being in his
senses laughs it to scorn. _I do think_, is the protest of each child of
humanity. Then if you do, we respond, in your case, matter must perform
the function of reflection and kindred operations. More than living
organization you are not, and if you declare living, organized matter
incapable of thought, we are bound to infer that you have no thought at
all. Accepting your premises, we must hand you the conclusion. The logic
is good, but we are generous enough to allow that we cannot subscribe to
it. It has often occurred to us as a fair procedure, just for the sake
of bringing orthodoxy to a stand, to assert that spirit cannot think; of
course, we are only referring to created beings, on this occasion. We
have often tried to understand the popular idea of a spirit; and we must
confess that it defies our apprehension. It is something, nothing; a
substance, an essence; everything by turns, and nothing long. To believe
that such a production could evolve thought, is an inordinate demand on
human credulity. How the expedient was resorted to we cannot tell: was
it because thought is invisible, that this invisible parent was sought
for it? Then why not trace heat beyond the fire, perfume beyond the
rose, attraction beyond the sun, and vitality beyond the branchy oak? Of
all insane fancies, this popular idea of the human spirit is the most
complete; we have no wish to give offense, but the truth must be
spoken.”

We arraign this theory also before the majesty of the brute creation.
What about the immaterial minds of the lower animals? Does matter think
in their cases? or have they also immortal souls? Dogs, horses, monkeys,
elephants, &c., have been taught to perform different acts, imitate
various movements, and even to dance the same tune over and over again,
to accompanying strains of music: acts which involve the exercise of
memory, will, reason, and judgment.

The exercise of high mental powers is shown in the intelligence and
sagacity of the horse and elephant, in the manifold cunning of the fox,
in the beaver and bee, which construct their houses with such mechanical
ingenuity, in the mules of the Andes, which thread with so sure a foot
the gloomy gorges and craggy heights of the mountains, and in the dogs
of St. Bernard, as they rescue benighted and half-frozen travelers in
the passes of the Alps. Hogg, the Ettrick Shepherd, speaking of the
sagacity of one of his dogs, says:--

“He had never turned sheep in his life; but as soon as he discovered
that it was his duty to do so, and that it obliged me, I can never
forget with what anxiety and eagerness he _learned_ his different
evolutions; he would try every way, deliberately, till he found out what
I wanted him to do; and when once I made him _understand_ a direction,
he never mistook or forgot it. Well as I knew him, he often astonished
me, for when hard pressed, in accomplishing the task which was set him,
he had expedients of the moment that bespoke _a great share of the
reasoning faculty_.”

John Locke, the distinguished writer on metaphysical questions, says:--

“Birds’ learning of tunes, and the endeavors one may observe in them to
hit the notes right, put it past doubt with me that they have
perception, and retain ideas in their _memories_, and use them for
patterns.... It seems as evident to me that they [brutes] _do reason as
that they have sense_.”

Pritchard, On the Vital Principle, says:--

“Sensation is an attribute of the mind, and the possession of mind
certainly extends as far as its phenomena. Whatever beings have
conscious feeling, have, unless the preceding arguments amount to
nothing, souls, or immaterial minds, distinct from the substance of
which they appear to us to be composed. _If all animals feel, all
animals have souls._”

H. H. Dobney, Future Punishment, p. 101, says:--

“While consciousness, reason, and the sense of right and wrong, are
among the highest attributes of man, these in a degree are allowed to be
possessed by some at least of the brute creation. Dr. Brown, according
to his biographer, Dr. Welsh, ‘believed that many of the lower animals
have the sense of right and wrong; and that the metaphysical argument
which proves the immortality of man, extends with equal force to the
other orders of earthly existence.’”

Similar views are attributed to Coleridge and Cudworth.

Dalton, in his treatise on Human Physiology, p. 428, says:--

“The possession of this kind of intelligence and reasoning power, is not
confined to the human species. We have already seen that there are many
instinctive actions in man as well as in animals. It is no less true
that, in the higher animals, there is often _the same exercise of
reasoning power as in man_. The degree of this power is much less in
them than in him, _but its nature is the same_. Whenever, in an animal,
we see any action performed, with the evident intention of accomplishing
a particular object, such an act is plainly the result of reasoning
power, not essentially different from our own.

“The establishment of sentinels by gregarious animals to warn the herd
of the approach of danger; the recollection of punishment inflicted, for
a particular action, and the subsequent avoidance or concealment of that
action; the teachability of many animals, and their capacity of forming
new habits, or improving the old ones, are instances of the same kind of
intellectual power, and _are quite different from instinct_, strictly
speaking. It is this faculty which especially predominates over the
other in the higher classes of animals, and which finally attains its
maximum of development in the human species.”

With these testimonies from such eminent witnesses, we leave the friends
of the rational argument inextricably mixed up with the brute creation.
The legitimate result of their theory is to confer immortality upon all
orders of animated existence. We are sometimes accused of degrading man
to the level of the brute. But if our friends of the other side elevate
all brutes up to the level of man, how does that practically differ from
what they accuse us of doing? The result is the same. If all come at
last upon the same level, it matters not whether brutes come up or man
goes down.

But our view is not open to this objection. While we deny that
immortality is proved for either man or beast by any vital or mental
powers which they may exhibit, our theory finds a superior position for
man in his more refined mental and physical organization, whereby he
becomes possessed of a higher mental and moral nature, and is the proper
recipient of the hope of immortality.

Another fact on which it is supposed that an argument for immortality
can be founded is,

_The capacities of the soul._ The mind of man, it is argued, by its
wonderful achievements, and its lofty aspirations, shows itself capable
of some higher and better state of being than we at present enjoy. And
from this the conclusion is easy (if people will not stop to scan very
critically the connection) that such a state of being inevitably awaits
mankind, in which they are destined to live forever.

But this argument, which, stripped of its disguise, is simply an
egotistical assertion, I am fit to be a god, and therefore I am a god,
will be found to collapse under very slight pressure. Mr. J. Panton Ham
describes it in fitting terms, when he speaks of it as follows:--

“Because a man has skill and ability, is he therefore immortal? We, in
our ignorance and imperfection, would exalt the intellectual above the
moral. The former has greater attractions for imperfect man than the
latter. Had we the peopling of paradise, we should fill it with the
world’s heroes in literature, science, and the arts. The skillful are
the world’s saints, and the proper candidates for Heaven’s ‘many
mansions.’ This argument, dispassionately considered apart from the
imposing parade of human achievements, is just this: Man is _clever_,
therefore he is _immortal_. Here is neither logic nor religion. The
cleverness of man is surely no title to immortality, much less is it the
proof of its possession. It is a silly logic which asserts human
immortality from such strange premises as balloons and pyramids,
electro-telegraphs and railways.”

But all men cannot engineer the construction of a pyramid, nor construct
a balloon, nor build an engine, much less accomplish the greater feat
involved in their first invention. All men are not learned and skillful,
and of such eminent capabilities. Is it not, in fact, almost an
infinitely small proportion of the human race that has manifested those
great powers on which this argument is based! And can the capacities of
a few leading minds determine the destiny of the great mass of men who
possess no such powers?

And if an argument may be based on the capacities of some, may not an
equal and opposite argument be based on the incapacity of others? and in
this case on which side would the weight of evidence lie? And as there
is almost every conceivable gradation of intelligence, who will tell us
whereabouts in this scale the infinite endowment of immortality is first
perceptible? Looking at the human race, and the races immediately below,
we behold a point where they seem to blend indistinguishably into each
other. Will an utter lack of capacity be affirmed of the higher orders
of the brute creation? And descending in the scale, where shall we stop?
Where is the transition from immortality to mortality?

We have given, in the preceding portion of this chapter, extracts from
eminent authors showing that brutes reason, that they exercise, to a
degree, all the powers of the human mind, that they have a sense, to
some extent, of right and wrong, and give evidence, of the same nature
as man is able to give in reference to himself, that they possess just
as immaterial a soul as he. And have we not all seen horses and dogs
that gave evidence of possessing more good sense than some men? And in
this graduated scale of animated existence, where is the dividing line
between the mortal and the immortal? Will some one locate it? What
degree of mental capacity is necessary to constitute an evidence of
immortality? And here we leave this argument. It demands no further
notice till its friends who base immortality on mental capacity will
determine which class of their less fortunate brothers is so low as to
be beyond its reach.

_Universal belief and inborn desire._ Men have universally believed in
the immortality of the soul, it is claimed, and all men desire it;
therefore, all men have it. Strange conclusion from strange premises. As
to the first part of this argument, the universal belief, that appears
not to be true, in fact. On this, a glance at a quotation or two must
suffice. Whately (Essay 1 on a Future State) says:--

“We find Socrates and his disciples, represented by Plato, as fully
admitting in their discussions of the subject, that ‘men in general were
highly incredulous as to the soul’s future existence.’ The Epicurean
school openly contended against it. Aristotle passes it by as not worth
considering, and takes for granted the contrary supposition, as not
needing proof.”

Leland, on the Advantages of Revelation, says:--

When Cicero “sets himself to prove the immortality of the soul, he
represents the contrary as the prevailing opinion,” there being “crowds
of opponents, not the Epicureans only; but, which he could not account
for, those that were the most learned persons, had that doctrine in
contempt.”

Touching the other portion of the argument, the universal and inborn
desire, those who make use of it, to make it of any avail, are bound to
supply and prove the suppressed premise, which is that all men have what
they desire. The syllogism would then stand thus: 1. All men have what
they desire. 2. All men desire immortality. Conclusion. Therefore, all
men are immortal. This is a fair statement of the question; but are any
presumptuous enough to take the ground that all men have what they
desire? Is it true, in fact? Do not our every-day’s observations give it
the unqualified lie? Men desire riches, but do all possess them? they
desire health, but do all have it? they desire happiness here, but what
an infinitely small portion of the race are really happy. To try to get
over the matter by saying that these desires that men have _may_ be
gratified by their taking a right course, is an abandonment of the whole
argument; for thus much we readily grant concerning immortality: all men
may gratify their desires here by taking a right course; immortality
also is suspended upon conditions, and those only will have it in whom
those conditions are found to be scrupulously complied with.

But there is another fatal flaw in this argument in another respect; for
it is not immortality in the abstract that is the object of this great
desire among men, but _happiness_. And the very persons who contend for
immortality because men desire it, hold that a great portion of the race
will be forever miserable. But this is not what men desire; and not
being what they desire, it follows that all will not obtain what they
desire, and hence the argument built on desire is good for nothing on
their own showing. It simply proves universal salvation, or that men
will be forever happy because all men desire it, or it proves nothing.

_The analogies of nature._ The day shuts down in darkness, but is not
forever lost; the morn returns again, and the bright sun comes forth
rejoicing as a strong man to run a race. Nature is bound, cold and
lifeless, in the icy chains of winter; but it is not lost in absolute
death. Anon the spring approaches, and at its animating voice and warm
breath, the pulse of life beats again through all her works; her cold
cheek kindles with the glow of fresh vitality; and she comes forth
adorned with new beauty, waking new songs of praise in every grove. The
chrysalis, too, that lay apparently a dead worm, motionless and dry,
soon wakes up to a higher life, and comes forth gloriously arrayed, like
a “living blossom of the air,” sipping nectar from the choicest sweets
of earth, and nestling in the bosom of its fairest flowers. And so, too,
it is claimed of man, “that when the body shall drop as a withered
calyx, the soul shall go forth like a winged seed.”--_Horticultural
Address, by E. H. Chapin._

Let us take care that here our judgments are not led captive by the
fascinations of poetry, or the rhetorical beauties of which this
argument is so eminently susceptible. Among the many instances of
nature, we find only a few that furnish the analogies here presented.
The chrysalis, so often referred to, after it has spent its brief day as
a living butterfly, perishes and is heard of no more forever. So with
all the higher order of brutes: they fall in death and make no more
their appearance upon our path. The most, then, that can be drawn from
this argument, is a faint foreshadowing, perhaps, of a future life. But
here, let it be understood, there is no issue. We all agree that the
race shall be called again to life. “As in Adam all die, so in Christ
shall all be made alive.” 1 Cor. 15:22. But the point at issue is, Are
our souls immortal, and must this life be, to all our race, necessarily
eternal? To prove that man will live again is one thing; to prove that
that life will be eternal, is quite another.

_The anomalies of the present state._ How often do we here see the
wicked spreading himself like a green bay tree, having more than heart
could wish, while the righteous grope their way along, in trouble and
want. The wicked are exalted, and the good are oppressed. This does not
look like the arrangement of a God who is the patron of virtue and the
enemy of vice. It is therefore argued that there will be another state
in which all these wrongs shall be righted, virtue rewarded, and
wickedness punished. Yes, we reply, there will. But, certainly, a space
of time infinitely short of eternity would suffice to correct all the
anomalies of this brief life, which so puzzle men here. This argument,
like the former, may be a fair inference for a future state; it may
portend to the ungodly a scene of retribution, but can prove nothing as
to its duration.

_Immortality assumed._ We are told that the Bible assumes the
immortality of the soul as a truth so evident that it is not necessary
to expressly affirm it. This is why the doctrine has come to be so
generally received against so explicit evidence against it. _It has been
taken for granted!_ Says Bishop Tillotson:--

“The immortality of the soul is rather supposed, or taken for granted,
than expressly revealed in the Bible.”

“It is taken for granted” that immortality is an essential attribute of
the soul, and that therefore for the Bible to affirm it would be mere
tautology. But we reply, Is not immortality an essential attribute also
of Jehovah? Yet the Bible has been tautological enough to plainly state
this fact. And it would seem that it might have carried its “tautology”
a little further, and told us as much, at least _once_, about the soul,
if that too is immortal; for surely its immortality cannot be _more_
essential than that of Jehovah.

_Annihilation impossible._ Nature everywhere revolts, we are told,
against our doctrine of annihilation, and everywhere proves it false;
for nothing ever has been, nor ever can be, annihilated. To which we
reply, Very true; and here we would correct the impression which some
seem to entertain, that we believe in any such annihilation of the
wicked; or the annihilation of anything as matter. In reference to the
wicked, we simply affirm that they will be annihilated as living beings,
the matter of which they are composed passing into other forms. The
second definition of annihilate, according to Webster, is, “To destroy
the form or the peculiar distinctive properties, so that the specific
thing no longer exists; as, to _annihilate_ a forest by cutting and
carrying away the trees, though the timber may still exist; to
_annihilate_ a house by demolishing the structure.” Just so of the
wicked: as conscious intelligent beings they are annihilated, being
resolved into their original elements.

_Evil tendency._ Why promulgate the doctrine of the destruction of the
wicked, it is asked, even if it be true? Will not evil rather than good
result from it? Some, honestly no doubt, deprecate any agitation of this
question; and we have even heard some, impelled either by their fears or
their prejudices, go so far as to declare that “it will make more
infidels than Tom Paine’s Age of Reason,” and that “no conversions to
God will ever follow in the track of its blighting and soul-destroying
influence.”

It might be necessary first to inquire what idea these persons have of
infidelity. Perhaps they apply that term to everything that is not in
agreement with their own views. And if this is the standard by which
they judge of this matter, their assertion may possibly be in part
correct; for converts to this doctrine are multiplying at a rapid rate.
But giving to infidelity its legitimate definition, we call upon all
those who claim that this doctrine makes infidels, to give some proof of
their assertion before they again repeat it. This matter can be easily
tested. The friends and advocates of this doctrine are neither few nor
obscure. Men from all the walks of life, public and private, are daily
swelling the ranks; and if this doctrine makes infidels, the infidels of
our day should be found among those who receive it. But do we find them
there? If one solitary individual can be found who repudiates the
Scriptures as the revealed will of God, because he has been made to
believe that they do not teach eternal misery for the lost, we would be
glad to see him, or even to learn of him. This is not what causes
infidelity, it is what cures it. What do we find in the ranks of the
friends of this doctrine? Not the criminal and vicious classes, not
those who have thrown off all restraint, not rejecters of divine
revelation; but we find those who were formerly skeptics rescued from
their skepticism, and infidels recovered from their infidelity. We find
multitudes who can now rest down with sweet assurance on the word of
God, the perplexities with which they had been troubled respecting God’s
dealings with his creatures all cleared from the mind, and whose
feelings may be well expressed in the following language from Henry
Constable, A. M.:--

“For myself, I cannot express my sense of the value I place on the view
I now seek to impress on others. It has for me thrown a light on God’s
character, and God’s word, and the future of his world, which I once
thought I should never have seen on this side of the grave. It has not
removed the wholesome and necessary terrors of the Lord from the mind,
but it has clothed God with a loveliness which makes him, and the
eternal Son who represents him to man, incalculably more attractive. I
am no longer looking for shifts to excuse his conduct in my own eyes and
those of others, and forced to feel that here at least I could never
find one to answer my object. I can look at all he has done, and all he
tells me he will hereafter do, and, scanning it closely, and examining
it even where it has most of awe and severity, exclaim with all my heart
and with all my understanding--‘Just and true are thy ways, thou King of
saints.’”

These are among its general good effects. But there exists a special
reason at the present time why men should be made acquainted with the
true teachings of the Bible on this question. It is the only antidote
against modern spiritualism, that master-piece of Satanic cunning and
deception, and the climax of his corrupting work in the earth. In what
horrid blasphemies has this delusion arrayed itself! To what corruption
does it lead its votaries! How utterly it debauches the moral natures of
all those who suffer themselves to receive its polluting touch! And
notwithstanding it carries in its train all these terrible evils, how
rapidly is it spreading through the land, and at what a fearful rate is
it swelling the catalogue of its victims!

Why is this? It is because the way has long and thoroughly been prepared
for it in the doctrine of the conscious state of the dead, and the
immortality of the soul. This is its foundation, its life and spirit.
Take away this, and it is robbed of its vitality. For if it be true, as
the Bible declares, that when a man goes into the grave, his thoughts
perish, his love and hatred and envy are no longer exercised, and he
knows not anything, then whatever spirit comes to us from the unseen
world, professing to be the spirit of a dead man, it comes with a lie in
its mouth, and thus shows itself to be of the synagogue of Satan. This
is the Ithuriel spear that transforms this lying system, which at its
best showing is as low and ugly as the blotchiest toad that ever lived,
into the real devil that it is. Then let this truth be spread abroad on
all the wings of the wind, that in the hands of the people may be placed
some safeguard against this ghastly embodiment of falsehood, pollution,
and death.

With the truth clearly stated as to how God will deal with the sinner
and finally dispose of sin, we can appeal with confidence to the calm
reason and the better nature of every child of Adam. We can second the
tender entreaty which God extends to every wayward soul, “Turn ye, turn
ye, for why will ye die?” “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no
pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that he turn from his way and
live.” Life and death are set before you. The Saviour bids you look unto
him and live. Mercy entreats you to destroy not yourself. The spirit and
the bride bid you come and partake of the water of life freely.

You can no longer take refuge from an awakened conscience under the idea
that the threatenings of the Lord are not understood, and may not
therefore be so terrific as supposed. The sinner’s doom is unmistakably
declared; and in the justness of that sentence, however slightly you may
now realize the heinousness and just desert of sin, your own reason can
but heartily concur. Will you then plunge headlong to ruin? or will you
turn and accept the immense gratuity of eternal life? Of course you do
not _mean_ to perish. We accuse you not of this. The shining form of
Hope is dancing on before you in the path of life--hope that ere it is
too late, ere the silver cord be loosed or ever the golden bowl be
broken, you will make sure a treasure and inheritance in Heaven.

We would impress upon your mind that this hope _may_ deceive you. Ere
you reach the delusive phantom, the earth may suddenly open beneath your
feet, and Hades receive you to its fixed embrace. Ere you overtake the
beckoning form, ere the good intention be carried out, ere you grasp the
prize now held only by the uncertain tenure of good resolve, the glory
of the coming Judge, descending through the parting and dissolving
heavens, may suddenly burst upon your unprepared soul. Yes! the great
voice from the temple of Heaven, crying, “It is finished!” may suddenly
arrest you in the midst of your delaying and dallying career! The
heavenly court of mercy may cease its sitting, ere you have made a
friend of the great Advocate who alone can plead your cause!

“Procrastination is the thief of time.” It may be the thief of your
eternal bliss. Its every moment is high-handed and insane presumption.
Its path is a path of unseen and innumerable dangers. You have no lease
of your life. The present state is one of exposure and peril. The shafts
of death are flying thickly about you. Time is short and its sands are
swiftly falling. The bliss of Heaven, or the blackness of darkness
forever, will soon be yours. With the saved or lost you must soon take
your position. There is no intermediate ground. Choose, then, we beseech
you, the enduring portion. Choose for eternity, choose wisely, choose
_now_. And may it be ours to join the great song of salvation at last,
ascribing blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, unto Him who
sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb who poured out his soul an
offering for sin, that whosoever would believe on him might not perish
but have everlasting life.

           Worthy the Lamb once slain! So shall at last
             All beings sing in Heaven and earth and sea,
           The direful reign of sin forever past,
             Before them, bliss whose end shall never be.

           Worthy the Lamb! his life has saved from death,
             Through him alone the immortal boon is given,
           So shall each bounding pulse, each joyful breath,
             Ascribe to him the bliss and power of Heaven.

           Welcome, life-giving hour, expected long!
             Dawn on these regions peopled with the dead.
           Our hearts leap forward to begin the song
             Of a glad universe whence sin has fled.

[Illustration]




                               APPENDIX.
               MORALITY OF THE DOCTRINE OF A FUTURE LIFE.


The following is from “The Doctrine of a Future Life,” by W. R. Alger.
He here discusses the “morality of the doctrine of a future life” on the
strong hypothesis that there is to be no existence hereafter, and
utterly disproves the conclusions which some would make the inevitable
consequence of such a doctrine. The same objections are urged against
the view we entertain that after the Judgment the sinner is to endure a
punishment which reaches its climax in the loss of existence. With a
hundred-fold more force the reasoning of Mr. Alger lies against these
objections when urged in opposition to our view. We have in this life
the great incentive to goodness and virtue, that is involved in the hope
of immortality, seconded by the wonderful intervention of Christ in our
behalf, which is calculated to arouse all the nobler sentiments of our
being. If this will not win men from sin to a holy life, they would not
be driven to it by threats of eternal torture. Mr. Alger says:--

“The morality of the doctrine of a future life having thus been defended
from the attacks of those who have sought to destroy it in the fancied
interests either of the enjoyments of the earth, or of the purity of
virtue and religion, it now remains to free it from the still more fatal
supports which false or superficial religionists have sought to give it
by wrenching out of it meanings it never held, by various perverse
abuses of it, by monstrous exaggerations of its moral importance to the
present. We have seen that the supposition of another life, correctly
interpreted, lays no new duty upon man, takes away from him no old duty
or privilege, but simply gives to the previously-existing facts of the
case the intensifying glory and strength of fresh light, motive, and
consolation. But many public teachers, not content to treat the subject
with this sobriety of reason, instead of presenting the careful
conclusions of a conscientious analysis, have sought to strengthen their
argument to the feelings by help of prodigious assumptions, assumptions
hastily adopted, highly colored, and authoritatively urged. Upon the
hypothesis that annihilation is the fate of man, they are not satisfied
merely to take away from the present all the additional light,
incentive, and comfort, imparted by the faith in a future existence, but
they arbitrarily remove all the alleviations and glories intrinsically
belonging to the scene, and paint it in the most horrible hues, and set
it in a frame of midnight. Thus, instead of calmly seeking to elicit and
recommend truth, they strive, by terrifying the fancy and shocking the
prejudices, to make people accept their dogma because frightened at the
seeming consequences of rejecting it. It is necessary to expose the
fearful fallacies which have been employed in this way, and which are
yet extensively used for the same purpose.

“Even a Christian writer usually so judicious as Andrews Norton has
said: ‘Without the belief in personal immortality there can be no
religion; for what can any truths of religion concern the feelings and
the conduct of beings whose existence is limited to a few years in this
world?’ Such a statement from such a quarter is astonishing. Surely the
sentiments natural to a person or incumbent upon him do not depend on
the _duration_ of his being, but on the character, endowments, and
relations of his being. The hypothetical fact that man perishes with his
body does not destroy God, does not destroy man’s dependence on God for
all his privileges, does not annihilate the overwhelming magnificence of
the universe, does not alter the native sovereignty of holiness, does
not quench our living reason, imagination, or sensibility, while they
last. The soul’s gratitude, wonder, love, and worship, are just as right
and instinctive as before. If our experience on earth, before the
phenomena of the visible creation and in conscious communion with the
emblemed attributes of God, does not cause us to kneel in humility and
to adore in awe, then it may be doubted if Heaven or hell will ever
persuade us to any sincerity in such acts. The simple prolongation of
our being does not add to its qualitative contents, cannot increase the
kinds of our capacity or the number of our duties. Chalmers utters an
injurious error in saying as he does, ‘If there be no future life, the
moral constitution of man is stripped of its significancy, and the
Author of that constitution is stripped of his wisdom, and authority and
honor.’ The creative Sovereign of fifty million firmaments of worlds,
‘stripped of his wisdom and authority and honor,’ because a few insects
on a little speck are not eternal! Can egotistic folly any further go?
The affirmation or denial of immortality neither adds to nor diminishes
the numerical relations and ingredients of our nature and experience. If
religion is fitted for us on the former supposition, it is also on the
latter. To any dependent intelligence blessed with our human
susceptibilities, reverential love and submission are as obligatory,
natural and becoming on the brink of annihilation as on the verge of
immortality. Rebellious egotism makes all the difference. Truth is
truth, whatever it be. Religion is the meek submission of self-will to
God’s will. That is a duty not to be escaped, no matter what the future
reserves or excludes for us.

“Another sophism almost universally accepted needs to be shown. Man, it
is said, has no interest in a future life if not conscious in it of the
past. If, on exchange of worlds, man loses his memory, he virtually
ceases to exist, and might just as well be annihilated. A future life
with perfect oblivion of the present is no life at all for us. Is not
this style of thought the most provincial egotism, the utter absence of
all generous thought and sympathy unselfishly grasping the absolute
boons of being? It is a shallow error, too, even on the grounds of
selfishness itself. In any point of view the difference is diametric and
immense between a happy being in an eternal present, unconscious of the
past, and no being at all. Suppose a man thirty years of age were
offered his choice to die this moment, or to live fifty years longer of
unalloyed success and happiness, only with a complete forgetfulness of
all that has happened up to this moment. He would not hesitate to grasp
the gift, however much he regretted the condition.

“It has often been argued that with the denial of a retributive life
beyond the grave all restraints are taken off from the passions, free
course given to every impulse. Chateaubriand says bluntly, ‘There can be
no morality if there be no future state.’ With displeasing coarseness,
and with most reprehensible recklessness of reasoning, Luther says, in
contradiction to the essential nobleness of his loving, heroic nature,
‘If you believe in no future life, I would not give a mushroom for your
God. Do, then, as you like. For if no God, so no devil, no hell: as with
a fallen tree, all is over when you die. Then plunge into lechery,
rascality, robbery, and murder.’ What bible of Moloch had he been
studying to form, for the time, so horrid a theory of the happiest life,
and to put so degrading an estimate upon human nature? Is man’s will a
starved wolf, only held back by the triple chain of fear of death,
Satan, and hell, from tearing forth with ravenous bounds to flesh the
fangs of his desires in bleeding virtue and innocence? Does the greatest
satisfaction man is capable of here, the highest blessedness he can
attain to, consist in drunkenness, gluttony, dishonesty, violence, and
impiety? If he had the appetite of a tiger or a vulture,--then, thus to
wallow in the offal of vice, dive into the carrion of sensuality,
abandon himself to reveling in carnivorous crime, might be his instinct
and his happiness. But by virtue of his humanity man loves his fellows,
enjoys the scenery of nature, takes delight in thought and art, dilates
with grand presentiments of glory and eternity, mysteriously yearns
after the hidden God. To a reasonable man--and no other is to be
reasoned with on matters of truth and interest--the assumption of this
brief season as all, will be a double motive not to hasten and imbitter
its brevity by folly, excess, and sin. If you are to be dead to-morrow,
for that very reason, in God’s name, do not, by gormandizing and
guzzling, anticipate death to-day! The true restraint from wrong and
degradation is not a crouching conscience of superstition and
selfishness, fancying a chasm of fire, but a high-toned conscience of
reason and honor, perceiving that they _are_ wrong and degradation, and
spontaneously loathing them.

“Still worse, many esteemed authors have not hesitated to assert that
unless there be a future life there is not only no check on passion
within, but no moral law without: every man is free to do what he
pleases, without blame or fault. Sir Kenelm Digby says, in his ‘Treatise
on Man’s Soule,’ that ‘to predicate mortality in the soule taketh away
all morality, and changeth men into beastes, by removing the ground of
all difference in those thinges which are to governe our actions.’ This
style of teaching is a very mischievous absurdity. Admit, for a moment,
that Jocko in the woods of Brazil, and Schiller in the brilliant circles
of Weimar, will at last meet the same fate in the dusty grasp of death;
yet, while they live, one is an ape, the other is a man. And the
differences of capacity and of duty are numberless and immense. The
statement is enough: argument would be ridiculous. The words of an
audacious French preacher are yet more shocking than those of the
English nobleman. It is hard to believe they could be uttered in good
faith. Says Massillon, in his famous declamation on immortality, ‘If we
wholly perish with the body, the maxims of charity, patience, justice,
honor, gratitude, and friendship, are but empty words. Our own passions
shall decide our duty. If retribution terminate with the grave, morality
is a mere chimera, a bugbear of human invention.’ What debauched
unbeliever ever inculcated a viler or a more fatal doctrine? Its utter
baselessness, as a single illustration may show, is obvious at a glance.
As the sciences of algebra and geometry, the relations of numbers and
bodies, are true for the material world although they may be lost sight
of when time and space are transcended in some higher state, so the
science of ethics, the relations of nobler and baser, of right and
wrong, the manifold grades and qualities of actions and motives, are
true for human nature and experience in this life even if men perish in
the grave. However soon certain facts are to end, while they endure they
are as they are. In a moment of carelessness, by some strange slip of
the mind,--showing, perhaps, how tenaciously rooted are the common
prejudice and falsehood on this subject,--even so bold and fresh a
thinker as Theodore Parker has contradicted his own philosophy by
declaring, ‘If to-morrow I perish utterly, then my fathers will be to me
only as the ground out of which my bread-corn is grown. I shall care
nothing for the generations of mankind. I shall know no higher law than
passion. Morality will vanish.’ Ah, man reveres his fathers, and loves
to act nobly, not because he is to live forever, but because he is a
man. And, though all the summer hopes of escaping the grave were taken
from human life, choicest and tenderest virtues might still flourish, as
it is said the German cross-bill pairs and broods in the dead of winter.
The martyr’s sacrifice and the voluptuary’s indulgence are very
different things to-day, if they do both cease to-morrow. No speed of
advancing destruction can equalize Agamemnon and Thersites, Mansfield
and Jeffries, or hustle together justice and fraud, cowardice and valor,
purity and corruption, so that they will interchange qualities. There is
an eternal and immutable morality, as whiteness is white, and blackness
is black, and triangularity is triangular. And no severance of temporal
ties or compression of spatial limits can ever cut the condign bonds of
duty and annihilate the essential distinctions of good and evil,
magnanimity and meanness, faithfulness and treachery.

“Reducing our destiny from endless to definite cannot alter the inherent
rightfulness and superiority of the claims of virtue. The most it can do
is to lessen the strength of the motive, to give the great motor-nerve
of our moral life a perceptible stroke of palsy. In reference to the
question, Can ephemera have a moral law? Richter reasons as follows:
‘Suppose a statue besouled for two days. If on the first day you should
shatter it, and thus rob it of one day’s life, would you be guilty of
murder? One can injure only an immortal.’ The sophistry appears when we
rectify the conclusion thus: one can inflict an _immortal_ injury only
on an immortal being. In fact, it would appear to be a greater wrong and
injury, for the time, to destroy one day’s life of a man whose entire
existence was confined to two days, than it would be to take away the
same period from the bodily existence of one who immediately thereupon
passes into a more exalted and eternal life. To the sufferer, the former
would seem an immitigable calamity, the latter a benign furtherance;
while, in the agent, the overt act is the same. This general moral
problem has been more accurately answered by Isaac Taylor, whose lucid
statement is as follows: ‘The creatures of a summer’s day might be
imagined, when they stand upon the threshold of their term of existence,
to make inquiry concerning the attributes of the Creator and the rules
of his government; for these are to be the law of their season of life
and the measure of their enjoyments. The sons of immortality would put
the same questions with an intensity the greater from the greater
stake.’

“Practically, the acknowledged authority of the moral law in human
society cannot be destroyed. Its influence may be unlimitedly weakened,
its basis variously altered, but as a confessed sovereign principle it
cannot be expelled. The denial of the freedom of the will theoretically
explodes it; but social custom, law, and opinion will enforce it still.
Make man a mere dissoluble mixture of carbon and magnetism, yet so long
as he can distinguish right and wrong, good and evil, love and hate,
and, unsophisticated by dialectics, can follow either of opposite
courses of action, the moral law exists and exerts its sway. It has been
asked, ‘If the incendiary be, like the fire he kindles, a result of
material combinations, shall he not be treated in the same way?’ We
should reply thus: No matter what man springs from or consists of, if he
has moral ideas, performs moral actions, and is susceptible of moral
motives, then he is morally responsible; for all practical and
disciplinary purposes he is wholly removed from the categories of
physical science.

“Another pernicious misrepresentation of the fair consequences of the
denial of a life hereafter is shown in the frequent declaration that
then there would be no motive to any thing good and great. The
incentives which animate men to strenuous services, perilous virtues,
disinterested enterprises, spiritual culture, would cease to operate.
The essential life of all moral motives would be killed. This view is to
be met by a broad and indignant denial based on an appeal to human
consciousness and to the reason of the thing. Every man knows by
experience that there are a multitude of powerful motives, entirely
disconnected with future reward or punishment, causing him to resist
evil and to do good even with self-sacrificing toil and danger. When the
fireman risks his life to save a child from the flames of a tumbling
house, is the hope of Heaven his motive? When the soldier spurns an
offered bribe and will not betray his comrades nor desert his post, is
the fear of hell all that animates him? A million such decisive
specifications might be made. The renowned sentence of Cicero, “_Nemo
unquam sine magna spe immortalitatis se pro patria offerret ad mortem_,”
is effective eloquence; but it is a baseless libel against humanity and
the truth. In every moment of supreme nobleness and sacrifice,
personality vanishes. Thousands of patriots, philosophers, saints, have
been glad to die for the freedom of native land, the cause of truth, the
welfare of fellow-men, without a taint of selfish reward touching their
wills. Are there not souls

             ‘To whom dishonor’s shadow is a substance
             More terrible than death here and hereafter.’

He must be the basest of men who would decline to do any sublime act of
virtue because he did not expect to enjoy the consequences of it
eternally. Is there no motive for the preservation of health because it
cannot be an everlasting possession? Since we cannot eat sweet and
wholesome food forever, shall we therefore at once saturate our stomachs
with nauseating poisons?

“If all experienced good and evil wholly terminate for us when we die,
still, every intrinsic reason which, on the supposition of immortality,
makes wisdom better than folly, industry better than sloth,
righteousness better than iniquity, benevolence and purity better than
hatred and corruption, also makes them equally preferable while they
last. Even if the philosopher and the idiot, the religious
philanthropist and the brutal pirate, did die alike, who would not
rather live like the sage and the saint than like the fool and the
felon? Shall Heaven be held before man simply as a piece of meat before
a hungry dog to make him jump well? It is a shocking perversion of the
grandest doctrine of faith. Let the theory of annihilation assume its
direst phase, still, our perception of principles, our consciousness of
sentiments, our sense of moral loyalty, are not dissolved, but will hold
us firmly to every noble duty until we ourselves flow into the
dissolving abyss. But some one may say, ‘If I have fought with beasts at
Ephesus, what advantageth it me if the dead rise not?’ It advantageth
you everything _until you are dead_, although there be nothing
afterwards. As long as you live is it not glory and reward enough _to
have conquered_ the beasts at Ephesus? This is sufficient reply to the
unbelieving flouters at the moral law. And, as an unanswerable
refutation of the feeble whine of sentimentality that without immortal
endurance nothing is worthy our affection, let great Shakespeare
advance, with his matchless depth of bold insight reversing the
conclusion, and pronouncing, in tones of cordial solidity,--

        ‘This, thou perceivest, will make thy love more strong,
        To love that well which thou must leave ere long.’

“What though Decay’s shapeless hand extinguish us? Its foreflung and
enervating shadow shall neither transform us into devils nor degrade us
into beasts.

“The future life, outside of the realm of faith, to an earnest and
independent inquirer, and considered as a scientific question, lies in a
painted mist of uncertainty. There is room for hope, and there is room
for doubt. The wavering evidences in some moods preponderate on that
side, in other moods, on this side. Meanwhile it is clear that, while he
lives here, the best thing he can do is to cherish a devout spirit,
cultivate a noble character, lead a pure and useful life in the service
of wisdom, humanity, and God, and finally, when the appointed time
arrives, meet the issue with reverential and affectionate conformity,
without dictating terms. Let the vanishing man say, like Ruckert’s dying
flower, ‘Thanks to-day for all the favors I have received from sun and
stream and earth and sky,--for all the gifts from men and God which have
made my little life an ornament and a bliss. Heaven, stretch out thine
azure tent while my faded one is sinking here. Joyous spring-tide, roll
on through ages yet to come, in which fresh generations shall rise and
be glad. Farewell all! Content to have had my turn, I now fall asleep,
without a murmur or a sigh.’ Surely the mournful nobility of such a
strain of sentiment is preferable by much to the selfish terror of that
unquestioning belief which in the Middle Age depicted the chase of the
soul by Satan, on the columns and doors of the churches, under the
symbol of a deer pursued by a hunter and hounds; and which has in later
times produced in thousands the feeling thus terribly expressed by
Bunyan, ‘I blessed the condition of the dog and toad because they had no
soul to perish under the everlasting weight of hell!’

“Sight of truth, with devout and loving submission to it, is an
achievement whose nobleness outweighs its sorrow, even if the gazer
foresee his own destruction.

“It is not our intention in these words to cast doubt on the immortality
of the soul, or to depreciate the value of a belief in it. We desire to
vindicate morality and religion from the unwitting attacks made on them
by many self-styled Christian writers in their exaggeration of the
practical importance of such a faith. The qualitative contents of human
nature have nothing to do with its quantitative contents: our duties
rest not on the length, but on the faculties and relations, of our
existence. Make the life of a dog endless, he has only the capacity of a
dog; make the life of a man finite, still, within its limits, he has the
psychological functions of humanity. Faith in immortality may enlarge
and intensify the motives to prudent and noble conduct; it does not
create new ones. The denial of immortality may pale and contract those
motives; it does not take them away.

“Knowing the burden and sorrow of earth, brooding in dim solicitude over
the far times and men yet to be, we cannot recklessly utter a word
calculated to lessen the hopes of man, pathetic creature, who weeps into
the world and faints out of it. It is our faith--not knowledge--that the
spirit is without terminus or rest. The faithful truth-hunter, in dying,
finds not a covert, but a better trail. Yet the saintliness of the
intellect is to be purged from prejudice and self-will. With God we are
not to prescribe conditions. The thought that all high virtue and piety
must die with the abandonment of belief in immortality is as pernicious
and dangerous as it is shallow, vulgar, and unchristian. The view is
obviously gaining prevalence among scientific and philosophical
thinkers, that life is the specialization of the universal in the
individual, death the restoration of the individual to the whole. This
doubt as to a personal future life will unquestionably increase. Let
traditional teachers beware how they venture to shift the moral law from
its immutable basis in the will of God to a precarious poise on the
selfish hope and fear of man. The sole safety, the ultimate desideratum,
is perception of law with disinterested conformity.”--_Doctrine of a
Future Life_, pp. 652-661.




                        INDEX OF AUTHORS QUOTED.

 Alger, W. R., 264, 345
 Alleine, Jos., 257
 Andrews, S. J., 140
 Augustine, 273

 Baptist Confession, 219
 Barnes, A., 117, 317
 Benson, 302, 303
 Bloomfield, 97, 147
 Buck, Chas., 47
 Bush, Geo., 43, 101
 Butler, Wm. A., 314

 Carmichael, A., 233
 Chaldee Paraphrase, 76
 Chapin, E. H., 335
 Cicero, 9, 273
 Clarke, A., 32, 36, 43, 86, 90, 140, 167, 257, 295
 Conant, T. J., 32
 Constable, H., 303, 340
 Crellius, J., 206
 Cruden, 294

 Dalton, 328
 Dobney, H. H., 8, 263, 328
 Douay Bible, 76

 Eusebius, 285

 Gesenius, 51
 Greenfield, 283, 292

 Ham, J. P., 331
 Hobbs, 9
 Hogg, James, 327
 Homer, 285
 Hudson, C. F., 278

 Kitto, 41

 Landis, R. W., 45, 58, 59, 61, 64, 73, 77, 89, 94, 105, 122, 162, 170,
    172, 175, 203
 Law, Bishop, 205, 242
 Lee, Luther, 101, 140, 210, 274, 323
 Leeland, 333
 Liddell & Scott, 292
 Locke, John, 228, 328
 Longfellow, 224
 Luther, 76

 Mattison, H., 36
 Moncrieff, W. G., 326
 Muller, Dr., 233

 Newton, Bp., 318

 Olshausen, 49, 321

 Parkhurst, 51, 53, 102, 293
 Priestly, Dr., 206
 Pritchard, 328

 Robinson, 53, 293

 Saurin, 317
 Scott, Thos., 32
 Schrevelius, 292
 Schleusner, 293
 Seneca, 9
 Septuagint, 76
 Socrates, 9
 Smith, Sidney, 324
 Smith, Wm., 49
 Stuart, Moses, 8, 296
 Syriac Version, 76

 Taylor, I., 319
 Taylor, Dr. J., 51, 229
 Tillotson, Bp., 337
 Trench, 167
 Tyndale, Wm., 233

 Vincent, Thos., 301

 Wahl, 294
 Wakefield, 147
 Warburton, Bp., 324
 Watson, 70
 Watts, Isaac, 228
 Wesley, 70
 Wetstein, 285
 Whately, R., 333
 Whedon, D. D., 224




                                 INDEX
                                 --OF--
                    THE PRINCIPAL TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE
                       ILLUSTRATED OR EXPLAINED.

                               GENESIS.
                                                      PAGE.
               1: 20, 21, 24, 30,                        43
               1: 26, 27,                                21
               2: 2,                                     67
               2: 7,                             31, 36, 54
               2: 16, 17,                               218
               3: 4,                                     14
               3: 19,                                   221
               4: 9, 10,                                117
               5: 3,                                 24, 70
               7: 15, 21, 22,                        33, 34
               9: 6,                                     26
              14: 21,                                    50
              15: 15,                                   123
              16: 22,                                    27
              17: 14,                                    51
              18: 1-8,                                   27
              18: 25,                                   312
              23: 8,                                     50
              25: 8,                                    122
              25: 17-20,                                165
              32: 24,                                    27
              35: 18,                           48, 54, 101
              37: 35,                                   157

                                EXODUS.
               4: 32,                                   145
              22: 18,                                   129
              23: 9,                                     50
              24: 9-11,                                  28
              31: 14,                                    51
              32: 32,                                   307
              33: 20,                                    29
              33: 21-23,                                 28

                              LEVITICUS.
              11: 10,                                    51
              19: 31; 20: 27,                           129

                               NUMBERS.
               6: 6,                                 41, 50
              16: 22,                                    91
              16: 30, 33,                               157
              19: 13,                                   119
              22: 31,                                    27
              25: 1-3,                                  131
              27: 16,                                    91

                             DEUTERONOMY.
              18: 9-12,                                 129
              32: 22,                                   158

                                JOSHUA.
              10: 30,                                    51
              24: 2,                                    123

                                JUDGES.
               9: 7-15,                                 162
              13: 6, 13,                                 27

                               1 SAMUEL.
               2: 9,                                    159
              15: 23,                                   135
              26: 24,                                    77
              28: 3-20,                                 127

                               1 KINGS.
               2: 36-46,                                223
              17: 21,                               48, 103
              17: 22,                              103, 143

                               2 KINGS.
               4: 34,                                   143
              14: 9,                                    162

                             1 CHRONICLES.
              10: 13,                                   134

                             2 CHRONICLES.
              36: 19: 21,                               280

                                 JOB.
               3: 11-18,                                236
               4: 11-19,                                160
               7: 21,                                   214
              10: 8-11,                                  69
              14: 12-15,                           159, 237
              14: 21,                                   236
              17: 13-16,                           160, 237
              19: 25, 26,                               250
              26: 4,                                     52
              30: 15,                                    50
              32: 8,                                     66
              33: 18, 20, 22,                            51
              34: 14, 15,                                57

                                PSALMS.
               2: 9,                                    306
               6: 5,                               158, 238
               7: 11,                                   301
              16: 10,                                   156
              17: 15,                              240, 250
              27: 12,                                    50
              30: 2, 3,                                 157
              31: 5,                                     77
              31: 17,                                   159
              37: 10,                                   305
              37: 20,                         281, 306, 309
              49: 14, 15,                                51
              49: 20,                                   306
              58: 7, 8,                                 306
              64: 1,                                     78
              68: 2,                                    306
              78: 18,                                    51
              88: 10-12,                                160
              89: 48,                                   157
              89: 88,                                    51
              90: 10,                                   125
             106: 28,                                   131
             115: 17,                              159, 238
             139: 7,                                     27
             145: 20,                                   303
             146: 3, 4,                        33, 159, 236

                               PROVERBS.
              10: 25,                                   306
              11: 31,                                   309
              20: 7,                                     52
              23: 2,                                     50

                             ECCLESIASTES.
               3: 19, 20,                                35
               3: 21,                                    72
               9: 3,                                    126
               9: 5, 6, 10,                    84, 114, 237
              12: 7,                                 48, 56
              12: 14,                                   315

                                ISAIAH.
               1: 30, 31,                               306
               5: 14,                                   158
               5: 20-24,                                309
              10: 25,                                   301
              14: 9-20,                            158, 164
              14: 11,                                   282
              17: 13,                                   306
              26: 19,                              238, 250
              34: 9, 10,                                290
              34: 12,                                   306
              38: 10-19,                                159
              38: 17,                                    51
              38: 18, 19,                               238
              42: 7,                                     92
              44: 2,                                     69
              51: 8,                               282, 306
              53: 10-12,                            93, 139
              57: 16,                                50, 69
              61: 1,                                     92
              66: 24,                                   282

                               JEREMIAH.
               1: 5,                                     69
               17 27,                                   280
              31: 9,                                    146
              31: 15-17,                           165, 253

                               EZEKIEL.
              18: 26,                              299, 315
              20: 47, 48,                               281
              31: 15-18,                           158, 165
              32: 18-32,                                158

                                DANIEL.
               7: 10,                                    82
              12: 2,                               235, 268

                                HOSEA.
              12: 4,                                     27

                                 AMOS.
               5: 4, 6,                                 230

                               OBADIAH.
               1: 16,                                   305

                                JONAH.
               1: 2,                                    158
               4: 3,                                     78

                               HABAKKUK.
               1: 7,                                     98
               2: 11,                                   117

                              ZECHARIAH.
               9: 12,                                   180
              12: 1,                                 64, 66

                               MALACHI.
               4: 1-3,                             306, 310

                               MATTHEW.
               2: 17, 18,                               165
               3: 12,                                   306
               5: 22, 29, 30,                           108
              10: 28,                              105, 108
              11: 23,                                   108
              13: 40, 47, 49,                           306
              16: 18,                                   108
              16: 25, 26,                               110
              17: 1-9,                                  137
              18: 9,                                    108
              22: 23-32,                                149
              23: 15, 33,                               108
              24: 26,                                    96
              24: 30, 31,                               169
              25: 31, 34,                               261
              25: 41, 46,                          269, 271
              26: 24,                                   267
              26: 38,                                    93
              27: 52, 53,                          231, 285

                                 MARK.
               6: 9,                                     96
               9: 43, 45, 47,                           108
               9: 43, 44,                               279
              12: 23-25,                                152

                                 LUKE.
               1: 11, 13, 28, 29,                        27
               4: 18-21,                                 92
               6: 49,                                   306
               7: 14,                                   144
               8: 40, 45,                               144
              10: 15,                                   108
              12: 4, 5,                            105, 108
              13: 28,                                   171
              14: 13, 14,                               252
              15: 11,                                   164
              16: 19, 31,                     108, 154, 161
              17: 27, 29,                               306
              20: 35,                                   153
              23: 39-43,                                172
              23: 46,                                48, 77
              24: 29,                                    29
              24: 39,                                    95
              24: 43,                                   139

                                 JOHN.
               1: 18,                                    29
               3: 6,                                     68
               3: 16,                                   304
               3: 36,                                   267
               4: 24,                                27, 98
               5: 27, 29,                          142, 144
               5: 28, 29,                               232
              10: 15,                                    78
              11: 24,                                   231
              13: 38,                                    78
              14: 1-3,                                  256
              15: 6,                                    306
              21: 18, 19,                               214
              21: 22, 23,                               257

                                 ACTS.
               1: 9-11,                                  29
               2: 27, 31,                          108, 156
               2: 29, 34, 35,                           239
               7: 15,                                    77
               7: 60,                                   235
              12: 7-9,                                   27
              13: 36,                                   124
              13: 46,                                   312
              17: 31,                          63, 260, 271
              23: 8,                                     97
              21: 15,                              144, 232
              24: 25,                                   260
              26: 7,                                    232
              26: 23,                                   146

                                ROMANS.
               1: 4,                                     93
               1: 23,                            15, 20, 30
               2: 7,                           17, 230, 304
               3: 20,                                    68
               5: 12-14,                                227
               6: 12,                                    69
               6: 23,                              230, 300
               8: 11,                           69, 94, 248
               8: 22, 23,                          185, 200
               8: 29,                                   143
               8: 38, 39,                               210
               9: 3,                                    308

                            1 CORINTHIANS.
               5: 5,                                98, 200
               9: 25,                                    15
              10: 20,                                   131
              11: 7,                                     26
              15: 18,                                   240
              15: 20, 23,                          143, 235
              15: 32,                                   254
              15: 35, 36,                               247
              15: 42-44,                        19, 42, 248
              15: 46, 47, 49,                   25, 42, 249
              15: 50,                                    19
              15: 51-55,               15, 17, 19, 108, 200

                            2 CORINTHIANS.
               1: 8, 9,                                 251
               4: 11,                                    69
               4: 14,                                   251
               4: 16,                                   212
               5: 4,                                69, 200
               5: 8,                                    183
               5: 10,                                   315
              12: 2,                                    173
              12: 2-4,                                  195

                              GALATIANS.
               1: 5,                                    291
               5: 19, 21,                                99

                              EPHESIANS.
               1: 20,                                    29
               4: 22, 24,                           25, 193
               5: 27,                                   251
               6: 24,                                    20

                             PHILIPPIANS.
               1: 21-24,                                200
               2: 5, 6,                                  29
               3: 20,                                   100
               3: 21,                           42, 85, 249
               3: 11,                                   231
               3: 8-11,                                 251

                              COLOSSIANS.
               1: 15, 18,                           29, 143
               1: 27,                                   212
               3: 3,                                     97
               3: 4,                               103, 200
               3: 9, 10,                            24, 212

                           1 THESSALONIANS.
               4: 13, 14, 16, 17,       142, 169, 200, 212,
                                                        235

                              1 TIMOTHY.
               1: 10,                                   147
               1: 17,                            15, 30, 36
               2: 1,                                    200
               6: 16,                                18, 56

                              2 TIMOTHY.
               1: 10,                                    18
               4: 6,                                    213
               4: 7, 8,                                 200

                                TITUS.
               2: 7,                                     20

                               HEBREWS.
               1: 1-3,                                   30
               1: 6,                                    143
               1: 7, 14,                                 27
               2: 14,                                   311
               5: 9,                                    270
               6: 2,                                    270
               8: 1,                                     29
               9: 12,                                   271
               9: 27,                                   259
              10: 39,                                   304
              11: 3,                                    293
              11: 16,                                   153
              11: 35,                                   231
              12: 9, 23,                                 91

                                JAMES.
               1: 15,                                   300
               1: 18,                                   145
               3: 6,                                    108

                               1 PETER.
               1: 11,                                   139
               1: 12,                                    91
               1: 4, 23,                                 16
               1: 23-25,                                 68
               3: 4,                                     16
               3: 18-20,                                 87
               4: 17,                                   298
               5: 4,                                    254

                               2 PETER.
               1: 16,                                   141
               2: 4, 9,                       109, 215, 261
               2: 6,                                    287
               2: 5, 6, 12,                             306
               3: 7-12                             261, 310

                                1 JOHN.
               5: 11, 12,                          192, 304

                                 JUDE.
               1: 6,                                    261
               1: 7,                                    286

                              REVELATION.
               1: 5,                                    143
               1: 18,                               93, 108
               2: 7,                                    173
               4: 5,                                     27
               5: 6,                                     27
               6: 8,                                    108
               6: 9-11,                            113, 169
              13: 1-10,                                 289
              13: 14-18,                                289
              14: 4,                                    145
              14: 1-5,                                  289
              14: 11,                                   288
              15: 3,                                    312
              16: 3,                                     44
              20: 5,                               144, 215
              20: 10,                                   291
              20: 11-15,                      108, 109, 158
              21: 4, 15,                                291
              21: 5,                                    309
              22: 1, 2,                                 174
              22: 8, 9,                                 215




                             GENERAL INDEX.


 Abraham’s ancestors idolaters, 123

 Abel’s blood cried from the ground to God, 117

 Absent from the body, meaning of, 183

 Adam threatened with literal death, 228,
   testimony of Locke, Watts, and Taylor, 228,
   his condition in his creation, 229

 A dishonorable perversion, 53, 54

 _Aion_, meaning of, according to Greenfield, Schrevelius, Liddell and
    Scott, Parkhurst, Robinson, Schleusner, and Wahl, 292, 293

 _Aionios_, meaning of, 295

 Analogies of nature, 335

 Analogy between sleep and death, 235

 Anecdote of the reasoning powers of brutes, 327

 Annihilation impossible, 337

 Angels not the ancient prophets, 215

 An ancient case of modern spiritualism, 136

 _Anastasis_, meaning of, 231

 A clean universe at last, 311

 An illustration on future punishment, 315

 Anomalies of the present state, 336

 A spirit, or spiritual being, what, 27

 A spirit hath not flesh and bones, 95,
   note by Bloomfield, 97

 A threefold death disproved, 219

 Attempt to understand the popular idea of a spirit, 326

 _Athanasia_, _aphthartos_, and _aphtharsia_, use and meaning of, 15, 19

 Bible views of future punishment produce the best effect, 319

 Can the soul be killed? 105

 Capacities of the soul, 330

 Christ the express image of God, 29, 30

 Christ, the first-fruits, first-begotten, and first-born, how, 143-145

 Christ first raised from the dead, exposition of Acts 26:23, 146

 Christ and the Sadducees 149

 Clarke on Gen. 2:7, 32,
   on Heb. 12:22, 86,
   his key to the words forever and ever, 295

 Comma, in its present form, when invented, 179

 Conant on Gen. 2:7; Isa. 2:22, 32

 Connection between our present and future being, testimony of Bishop
    Law, 205,
   Crellius and Priestly, 206

 Criticism, a desperate case of, 176

 Cruden on the words eternal, everlasting, and forever, 294

 Day in Gen. 2:17, meaning of, 223

 Date of Samuel’s ministry, 128

 Date of Saul’s reign, 128

 Death a punishment, 272,
   Augustine’s testimony, 273,
   no relief to the sinner, 278

 Deeds done in the body only to be judged, 315

 David not ascended to Heaven, 239

 Departing and being with Christ, 199

 Death of Adam, the same that is threatened against the sinner, 299

 Departure and return of the soul, 100,
   note by Luther Lee, 101,
   by Prof. Bush, 101,
   by Parkhurst, 102

 Destiny of the wicked: they shall be destroyed, 303,
   shall perish, go to perdition, and be as though they had not been,
      304,
   their doom set forth in language that is not figurative, 305,
   they are compared to the most inflammable substances, 305,
   they shall be consumed and devoured by fire, 308

 Earthly house, what, 185

 Eternal torment threatened to no one, 289

 Eternal suffering not proportioned to the sins of a finite life, 313

 Eternal fire, Jude 7,
   illustrated and explained, 286

 Everlasting fire, 270

 Everlasting punishment, 271

 Evil tendency of the doctrine of the destruction of the wicked, 338

 Expressions used to describe the final condition of the wicked, 303

 Future punishment eternal, 267,
   it consists in death, 299

 Gathered to his people, meaning of, 120,
   sees corruption, 124

 _Ge-enna_, the hell of Mark 9:43, 44,
   meaning of, 283

 God not a God of the dead but of the living, meaning of, 153

 God’s dealings with his creatures, 312

 God a person, 28

 _Hades_ and _sheol_, meaning of, 156,
   use of the word _sheol_, 157,
   who go there, and the duration of its dominion, 157,
   its location, 158,
   condition of the righteous there, 158,
   general character of, 159,
   no knowledge there, 160

 Hell, words so translated, 107

 Hinnom, valley of, a figure of the place of future punishment, 283

 _Holam_, Hebrew, corresponding to aion, defined by Gesenius, 294

 House from Heaven, what, 185

 Idumea, threatenings against, 290,
   the language illustrates Rev. 14:11, 290

 Immortal and immortality, how often used in the Bible, 13-20

 Immortality assumed, 337

 Immaterial souls of brutes, 323,
   the testimony of Bishop Warburton, 324

 Instinct not the only reasoning power possessed by brutes, 329

 In the body and out, 195

 Is Abraham in hell? 123

 Judgment, doctrine of, contradicted by the popular view, 63

 _Katephagen_, Rev. 20:9, defined by Stuart, 309

 _Kolasis_, Matt. 25:46, meaning of, 274

 Language of appearance, 136

 Lazarus carried to Abraham’s bosom, when? 169

 Matter cannot think, 324,
   the proof rests with the skeptic, Sidney Smith’s testimony, 325,
   W. G. Moncrieff’s testimony, 326

 Milton’s translation of Eccl. 3:21, 76

 Mind determined by sensation to belong to the lower animals, 328

 Moses and the prophets on the place and condition of the dead, 154

 Moses was raised from the dead, 142

 Nature sheds no light on the future state, 8

 Necromancy defined by Webster, 128

 _Nephesh_ defined by Parkhurst, Taylor, and Gesenius, 51

 Origen’s restorationism, an enlarged purgatory, 316

 Parable, case of the rich man and Lazarus, a, 163,
   how to be used, testimony of Clarke and Trench, 167

 Paradise, where situated, 173

 Paraphrase of Phil. 1:21-24, 209

 Paul’s departure, 213

 Personification used in the Bible, 117, 162

 Peter’s tabernacle, its putting off, 213

 Pharisees confess spirit, 97

 _Plasso_, definition of, 65

 Punctuation of Luke 23:43, 179

 Punishment for sins in hell not threatened, 314

 Punishment, degrees of, 276

 Purgatory, an invention to relieve the great wrong of conscious eternal
    misery, 316,
   borrowed from Plato by Augustine, adopted by Rome, 316

 Reasons why the doctrine of future punishment should be agitated, 320

 Reformers adopted Augustine’s hell without his purgatory, 316

 Rebellion against God, not eternal, 311

 Resurrection proved by Christ, 151,
   from what words translated, 231,
   a prominent doctrine of the Bible, 234,
   Clarke’s testimony, 257,
   not impossible, 262,
   objections against answered, 244-247,
   object of the Christian’s hope, 250,
   time of reward to the righteous, 252,
   comfort of mourners, _id._,
   time when crowns of glory are to be given, 254,
   basis of Scripture promises, 255,
   inseparably connected with the coming of Christ, 256

 Samuel and the woman of Endor, 127

 Scott’s note on Gen. 2:7, 32

 _Semeron_, meaning of, 179

 Sense of right and wrong possessed to a degree by the lower animals,
    328

 Separation from the love of God, 210

 Shame and everlasting contempt, Dan. 12:2, 268

 Sins in hell committed faster than God can punish, Benson, 302

 Sodom and Gomorrah turned into ashes by eternal fire, 287

 Soul and spirit, meaning of, 46,
   times of their use in the Bible, 50-55

 Souls under the altar, 113,
   note by Barnes, 117

 Spirit, how formed, 64,
   returns to God, 56,
   for what purpose? 62,
   not conscious, 61,
   committed to God, 77,
   saved in the day of the Lord, 1 Cor. 5:5, 98

 Spirits of just men made perfect, 80,
   spirits in prison, 87,
   note by Clarke, 91

 State to which death reduces us, Law’s testimony, 242

 Tendency of the doctrine of eternal misery, testimony of Saurin and A.
    Barnes, 317,
   it cannot be believed, testimony of Bp. Newton, 318

 The image of God, 21

 The breath of life, 31,
   possessed by all animals, 33, 34

 The living soul, 36,
   dead soul, 41,
   applied to all orders of animals, 43

 The transfiguration, 137,
   a miniature of the kingdom of God, 140,
   no disembodied souls there, 141

 The rich man and Lazarus, 161

 The dead rise up to meet the king of Babylon and Pharaoh in _sheol_,
    164, 165

 Thief on the cross, 172

 The inward man, what? 212

 The unjust reserved to Judgment, 215

 The death of Adam, 216,
   his sentence, 218

 The dead as though they had not been, 236,
   have no knowledge, _id._,
   not in Heaven nor hell, 237,
   without a resurrection are perished, 240

 The Judgment a future event, 258,
   objections answered, 259,
   destroys the idea of the conscious-state theory, 262,
   testimony of Dobney, 263

 The doctrine of the immortality of the soul leads to erroneous
    conclusions on future punishment, 266

 The wages of sin, 264

 The undying worm and quenchless fire, 279,
   a figure borrowed from the Old Testament, 280,
   testimony of Jeremiah, 280,
   of David and Ezekiel, 281,
   of Isaiah, 282

 The two deaths mentioned in Eze. 18:26, 299

 The wicked, how recompensed in the earth, 309

 The claims of philosophy, 322

 The soul immaterial, 323

 Them that sleep in Jesus brought with him, 212

 “Thou” and “thy,” meaning of in Gen. 3:19, 225

 Tormented forever and ever, Rev. 14:11, 288,
   of whom spoken, 289

 Traduction _vs._ creationism, 69-71

 Trees represented as appointing a king over themselves, 162

 True spirit of inquiry, 11

 Tunes learned by birds, 328

 Tyndale’s pungent inquiry, 233

 Universal belief and inborn desire, 333

 Unquenchable fire, meaning of the word _asbestos_, 284

 Vincent’s description of hell, 301

 We fly away, Ps. 90:10, meaning of, 125-127

 White robes of Rev. 6:11, meaning of, 119

 Who knoweth? Eccl. 3:21, 72

 Word translated perceive, in 1 Sam. 28:14, 133

------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               CATALOGUE

      Of Books, Pamphlets, Tracts, &c., Issued by the Seventh-Day
                   Adventist Publishing Association,
                          Battle Creek, Mich.

                         ---------------------

HYMNS AND TUNES; 320 pages of hymns, 96 pages of music; in plain
morocco, $1.00.

A COMPLETE HISTORY OF THE SABBATH AND FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK. By J. N.
Andrews, $1.00.

THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY, Vols. 1 & 2. By Ellen G. White. Each $1.00.

THOUGHTS ON THE REVELATION, critical and practical. By U. Smith. 328
pp., $1.00.

THOUGHTS ON THE BOOK OF DANIEL critical and practical. By U. Smith.
Bound, $1.00; condensed edition, paper, 35 cts.

THE NATURE AND DESTINY OF MAN. By U. Smith. 384 pp., bound, $1.00,
paper, 40 cts.

LIFE INCIDENTS, in connection with the great Advent movement. By Eld.
James White. 373 pp., $1.00.

AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF ELD. JOSEPH BATES, with portrait of the author. 318
pp., $1.00,

HOW TO LIVE; comprising a series of articles on Health, and how to
preserve it, with various recipes for cooking healthful food, &c. 400
pp., $1.00.

SABBATH READINGS; or Moral and Religious Reading for Youth and Children.
400 pp., 60 cts; in five pamphlets, 50 cts.

APPEAL TO YOUTH; Address at the Funeral of Henry N. White; also a brief
narrative of his life, &c. 96 pp., muslin, 40 cts.; paper covers, 10
cts.

THE GAME OF LIFE, with notes. Three illustrations 5x6 inches each,
representing Satan playing with man for his soul. In board, 50 cts., in
paper, 30 cts.

THE UNITED STATES IN PROPHECY. By U. Smith. Bound, 40 cts.; paper, 20
cts.

HYMNS AND SPIRITUAL SONGS for Camp-meetings and other Religious
Gatherings. Compiled by Eld. James White. 196 pp. Bound, 50 cts., paper,
25 cts.

REFUTATION OF THE AGE TO COME.] By J. H. Waggoner. Price 20 cts.

PROGRESSIVE BIBLE LESSONS FOR CHILDREN; for Sabbath Schools and
Families. G. H. Bell. Bound, 35 cts., paper, 25 cts.

THE ADVENT KEEPSAKE; comprising a text of Scripture for each day of the
year, on the subjects of the Second Advent, the Resurrection, &c. Plain
muslin, 25 cts; gilt, 40 cts.

A SOLEMN APPEAL relative to Solitary Vice, and the Abuses and Excesses
of the Marriage Relation. Edited by Eld. James White. Muslin, 50 cts.;
paper, 30 cts.

AN APPEAL to the Working Men and Women, in the Ranks of Seventh-day
Adventists. By James White. 172 pp., bound, 40 cts; paper covers, 25
cts.

SERMONS ON THE SABBATH AND LAW; embracing an outline of the Biblical and
Secular History of the Sabbath for 6000 years. By J. N. Andrews. 25 cts.

THE STATE OF THE DEAD. By U. Smith. 224 pp., 25 cts.

HISTORY of the Doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul. By D. M.
Canright. 25 cts.

DISCUSSION ON THE SABBATH QUESTION, between Elds. Lane and Barnaby. 25
cts.

THE ATONEMENT; an Examination of a Remedial System in the light of
Nature and Revelation. By J. H. Waggoner. 20 cts.

OUR FAITH AND HOPE, Nos. 1 & 2.--Sermons on the Advent, &c. By James
White, Each 20 cts.

THE NATURE AND TENDENCY OF MODERN SPIRITUALISM. By J. H. Waggoner. 20
cts.

THE BIBLE FROM HEAVEN; or, a dissertation on the Evidences of
Christianity. 20 cts.

DISCUSSION ON THE SABBATH QUESTION, between Elds. Grant and Cornell. 20
cts.

REVIEW OF OBJECTIONS TO THE VISIONS. U. Smith, 20 cts.

COMPLETE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS, concerning the Sabbath and First Day
of the Week. By J. N. Andrews. 15 cts.

THE DESTINY OF THE WICKED. By U. Smith. 15 cts.

THE MINISTRATION OF ANGELS; and the Origin, History, and Destiny of
Satan. By D. M. Canright, 15 cts.

THE MESSAGES OF REV. 14, particularly the Third Angel’s Message and
Two-Horned Beast. By J. N. Andrews. 15 cts.

THE RESURRECTION OF THE UNJUST; a Vindication of the Doctrine. By J. H.
Waggoner. 15 cts.

THE SANCTUARY AND TWENTY-THREE HUNDRED DAYS. By J. N. Andrews. 10 cts.

THE SAINTS’ INHERITANCE, or, The Earth made New. By J. N. Loughborough.
10 cts.

THE SEVENTH PART OF TIME; a sermon on the Sabbath Question. By W. H.
Littlejohn. 10 cts.

REVIEW OF GILFILLAN, and other authors, on the Sabbath By T. B. Brown.
10 cts.

THE SEVEN TRUMPETS; an Exposition of Rev. 8 and 9. 10 cts.

THE DATE OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS OF DAN. 9 established. By J. N. Andrews.
10 cts.

THE TRUTH FOUND; the Nature and Obligation of the Sabbath of the Fourth
Commandment. By J. H. Waggoner. 10 cts.

VINDICATION OF THE TRUE SABBATH. By J. W. Morton. 10 cts.

SUNDAY SEVENTH-DAY EXAMINED. A Refutation of the Teachings of Medem,
Jennings, Akers, and Fuller. By J. N. Andrews. 10 cts.

MATTHEW TWENTY-FOUR; a full Exposition of the chapter. By James White.
10 cts.

KEY TO PROPHETIC CHART; the symbols of Daniel and John explained, and
the prophetic periods determined. 10 cts.

THE POSITION AND WORK OF THE TRUE PEOPLE OF GOD under the Third Angel’s
Message. By W. H. Littlejohn. 10 cts.

AN APPEAL TO THE BAPTISTS, from the Seventh-day Baptists, for the
Restoration of the Bible Sabbath. 10 cts.

MILTON ON THE STATE OF THE DEAD. 5 cts.

FOUR-CENT TRACTS: The Two Covenants--The Law and the Gospel--The Seventh
Part of Time--Who Changed the Sabbath?--Celestial Railroad--Samuel and
the Witch of Endor--The Ten Commandments not Abolished--Address to the
Baptists.

THREE-CENT TRACTS: The Kingdom--Scripture References--Much in
Little--The End of the Wicked--Infidel Cavils Considered--Spiritualism a
Satanic Delusion--The Lost Time Question.

TWO-CENT TRACTS: The Sufferings of Christ--Seven Reasons for
Sunday-Keeping Examined--Sabbath by Elihu--The Rich Man and Lazarus--The
Second Advent--Definite Seventh Day--Argument on Sabbaton--Clerical
Slander--Departing and Being with Christ--Fundamental Principles of S.
D. Adventists--The Millennium.

ONE-CENT TRACTS: Appeal on Immortality--Brief Thoughts on
Immortality--Thoughts for the Candid--Sign of the Doy of God--The Two
Laws--Geology and the Bible--The Perfection of the Ten Commandments--The
Coming of the Lord--Without Excuse.

CHARTS: THE PROPHETIC, AND LAW OF GOD CHARTS, painted and mounted, such
as are used by our preachers, each $1.50. The two charts, on cloth,
unpainted, by mail, with key, without rollers. $2.50.

THE WAY OF LIFE. This is an Allegorical Picture, showing the way of Life
and Salvation through Jesus Christ from Paradise Lost to Paradise
Restored. By Eld. M. G. Kellogg. The size of this instructive and
beautiful picture is 19x24 inches. Price, post-paid, $1.00.


                      =Works in Other Languages.=

The Association also publishes the _Advent Tidende_, Danish, monthly, at
$1.00 per year, and works on some of the above-named subjects in the
German, French, Danish, and Holland languages.

☛ Any of the foregoing works will be sent by mail to any part of the
United States, post-paid, on receipt of the prices above stated.

               ⁂ Address                   REVIEW & HERALD,
                                                     BATTLE CREEK, MICH.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              PERIODICALS.

                               ----------

THE ADVENT REVIEW & HERALD OF THE SABBATH, weekly. This sheet is an
earnest exponent of the Prophecies, and treats largely upon the Signs of
the Times, Second Advent of Christ, Harmony of the Law and the Gospel,
the Sabbath of the Lord, and, What we Must do to be Saved. Terms, $2.00
a year in advance.

THE YOUTH’S INSTRUCTOR, monthly. This is a high-toned, practical sheet,
devoted to moral and religious instruction, adapted to the wants of
youth and children. It is the largest and the best youth’s paper
published in America. Terms, 50 cts. a year, in advance.

THE HEALTH REFORMER. This is a live Journal, devoted to an Exposition of
the Laws of Human Life, and the application of those laws in the
Preservation of Health, and the Treatment of Disease. The REFORMER will
contain, each issue, thirty-two pages of reading matter, from able and
earnest pens, devoted to real, practical life, to physical, moral, and
mental improvement. Its publishers are determined that it shall be the
best Health Journal in the land.

Terms, $1.00 a year, in advance. Address, HEALTH REFORMER, Battle Creek,
Mich.


                     =BOOKS FROM OTHER PUBLISHERS.=

FUTURE PUNISHMENT, by H. H. Dobney, Baptist minister of England. The
Scriptural Doctrine of Future Punishment, with an Appendix, containing
the “State of the Dead,” by John Milton, author of “Paradise Lost,”
extracted from his “Treatise on Christian Doctrine.”

This is a very able and critical work. It should be read by every one
who is interested in the immortality subject. It is also one of the best
works upon the subject to put into the hands of candid ministers, and
other persons of mind.

Price, post-paid, $1.00.

THE VOICE OF THE CHURCH, on the Coming and Kingdom of the Redeemer; or,
a History of the Doctrine of the Reign of Christ on Earth. By D. T.
Taylor. A very valuable work, highly endorsed on both sides of the
Atlantic.

Price, post-paid, $1.00.

      The Great Reformation, by Martin, 5 Vols.,           $ 7.00
      D’Aubigne’s History of the Reformation, 5 Vols.,       4.50
      Scripture Biography,                                   4.50
      Cruden’s Concordance, sheep,                           2.00
         ”        ”        muslin,                           1.50
      Bible Dictionary, sheep,                               2.00
        ”       ”       muslin,                              1.50
      Cole’s Concordance,                                    1.50
      Prince of the House of David,                          2.00
      Pillar of Fire,                                        2.00
      Throne of David,                                       2.00
      The Court and Camp of David,                           1.50
      The Old Red House,                                     1.50
      Higher Christian Life,                                 1.50
      Pilgrim’s Progress, large type,                        1.25
         ”          ”        small   ”                        .60
      Biography of George Whitefield,                        1.25
      History of English Puritans,                           1.25
      Story of a Pocket Bible,                               1.25
      Captain Russell’s Watchword,                           1.25
      The Upward Path,                                       1.25
      Ellen Dacre,                                           1.25
      The Brother’s Choice,                                  1.15
      Climbing the Mountain,                                 1.15
      The Two Books,                                         1.15
      Awakening of Italy,                                    1.00
      White Foreigners,                                      1.00
      Lady Huntington,                                       1.00
      Young Man’s Counselor,                                 1.00
      Young Lady’s Counselor,                                1.00
      Paul Venner,                                           1.00
      Among the Alps,                                        1.00
      Poems of Home Life,                                     .80
      Edith Somers,                                           .80
      Nuts for Boys to Crack,                                 .80
      Anecdotes for the Family,                               .75
      Pictorial Narratives,                                   .60
      Bertie’s Birthday Present,                              .60
      Songs for Little Ones,                                  .60
      Memoir of Dr. Payson,                                   .60
      Mirage of Life,                                         .60
      Huguenots of France,                                    .50
      The Boy Patriot,                                        .50
      Springtime of Life,                                     .50
      May Coverly,                                            .50
      Glen Cabin,                                             .50
      The Old, Old Story, cloth, gilt,                        .50
      Poems by Rebekah Smith,                                 .50
      Charlotte Elizabeth,                                    .40
      Save the Erring,                                        .40
      Blanche Gamond,                                         .40
      My Brother Ben,                                         .40
      Hannah’s Path,                                          .35
      Star of Bethlehem,                                      .30
      Father’s Letters to a Daughter,                         .30

☛ A more full Catalogue of books of this nature, for sale at this
Office, can be had on application.

                    Address,           REVIEW & HERALD,
                                                   BATTLE CREEK, MICH.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     =HEALTH REFORM PUBLICATIONS.=

                             --------------

=The Hygienic System.= By R. T. Trall, M. D. Recently published at the
Office of the HEALTH REFORMER. It is just the work for the time, and
should be read by the million. Price, post-paid, 20 cents.

=The Health and Diseases of Woman.= By R. T. Trall, M. D. A work of
great value. Price, post-paid, 20 cents.

=Tobacco-Using.= A philosophical exposition of the Effects of Tobacco on
the Human System. By R. T. Trall, M. D. Price, post-paid, 20 cents.

=Cook Book=, and Kitchen Guide: comprising recipes for the preparation
of hygienic food, directions for canning fruit, &c., together with
advice relative to change of diet. Price, post-paid, 20 cents.

=Hydropathic Encyclopedia.= Trall. Price, post-paid, $4.50.

=Water Cure for the Million.= Trall. Price, post-paid, 30 cents.

=Uterine Diseases and Displacements.= Trall. Price, post-paid, $3.00.

=Science of Human Life.= By Sylvester Graham, M. D. Price, post-paid,
$3.00.

=Valuable Pamphlet.= Containing three of the most important of Graham’s
twenty-five Lectures on the Science of Human Life--eighth, the Organs
and their Uses; thirteenth, Man’s Physical Nature and the Structure of
His Teeth: fourteenth, the Dietetic Character of Man. Price, post-paid,
35 cts.

=Hydropathic Family Physician.= By Joel Shew, M. D. Price, post-paid,
$3.50.

=Domestic Practice.= Johnson. Price, post-paid, $1.75.

=Hand Book of Health=--Physiology and Hygiene. Published by the Health
Reform Institute, Battle Creek, Mich. Price, post-paid, 75 cents; paper
cover, 40 cents.

=Water Cure in Chronic Diseases.= By J. M. Gully, M. D. Price,
post-paid, $1.75.

=Cure of Consumption.= Dr. Work. Price, post-paid, 80 cts.

=Reform Tracts=, by mail, in packages of not less than 200 pages,
post-paid, at the rate of 800 pages for $1.00.

Address,     =Health Reformer=, _Battle Creek, Mich._

------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Transcriber’s Note

The few words in Greek have been reproduced here as printed. Several
lack the necessary (and occasionally the correct) diacritical marks.

There are also occasional lapses in the quotation of Biblical passages,
where opening or closing quotation marks are misplaced or missing. The
King James Version, which is used by the author, has been employed here
as well to more accurately punctuate them.

The General Index, in the original text, used a tabular form. This has
been re-cast as an indented list.

Errors deemed most likely to be the printer’s have been corrected, and
are noted here. The references are to the page and line in the original.

  27.28    and which are [“]sent forth                    Added.

  30.23    man in 'hi[sim /s im]age stamped him with      Spaced
           immortality,                                   moved.

  51.19    '1 Kings [17[, /:]21, 22;                      Replaced.

  79.23    God.[”] Col. 3:3. [“]And when will the         Added/Removed.
           believer

  79.24    [“]When> Christ who is our life                Added.

  131.4    the father of all the lies in the world[./,]   Replaced.

  131.5    by assiduously circulating them[,/.]           Replaced.

  153.14   [“]Wherefore, God is not ashamed               Added.

  160.7    together is in the dust.[”] Job. 17:13-16;     Added.
           4:11-19;

  160.14   whither thou goest.[”] Eccl. 9:4-6, 10.        Added.

  191.16   O grave, where is thy victory[./?]             Replaced.

  212.3    under the unfortu[n]ate necessity              Added.

  213.21   [P/B]ut as Paul does not here intimate         Replaced.

  264.20   What fate awaits us when we                    Added.
           die?=[”]=--_Alger._

  285.2    Homer, in the [Illiad],                        _sic_--Iliad

  285.13   fire as cannot be extingu=[i]=shed             Added.

  294.21   this time forth even forever, [”/’] that is,   Replaced.

  317.13   when I see in the lukewarmness of my           _sic_--devotions
           devosions,

  320.24   exerting all his divine attri[tri]butes        Removed.

  327.22   gloomy gorges and craggy h[e]ights of the      Added.
           mountains,

  338.9    we simply affirm that they will be             Added.
           anni[hi]lated

  349.11   carniv[e/o]rous crime                          Replaced.

  364.10   C[ir/ri]ticism , a desperate case of, 176      Transposed.

  371.33   from the Seventh-day Bap[t]ists,               Added.

  c7.11    Pictorial Nar[r]atives>, .60                   Added.