diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/54373-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/54373-0.txt | 10296 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 10296 deletions
diff --git a/old/54373-0.txt b/old/54373-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 167a9f1..0000000 --- a/old/54373-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,10296 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of The state of the dead and the destiny of -the wicked, by Uriah Smith - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license - - -Title: The state of the dead and the destiny of the wicked - -Author: Uriah Smith - -Release Date: March 22, 2017 [EBook #54373] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE STATE OF THE DEAD *** - - - - -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. - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The state of the dead and the destiny -of the wicked, by Uriah Smith - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE STATE OF THE DEAD *** - -***** This file should be named 54373-0.txt or 54373-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/4/3/7/54373/ - -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.) - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions -will be renamed. - -Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no -one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation -(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without -permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, -set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to -copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to -protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project -Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you -charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you -do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the -rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose -such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and -research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do -practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is -subject to the trademark license, especially commercial -redistribution. - - - -*** START: FULL LICENSE *** - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project -Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at -http://gutenberg.org/license). - - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy -all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. -If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the -terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or -entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement -and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" -or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the -collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an -individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are -located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from -copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative -works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg -are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project -Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by -freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of -this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with -the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by -keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project -Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in -a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check -the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement -before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or -creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project -Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning -the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United -States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate -access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently -whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, -copied or distributed: - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived -from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is -posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied -and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees -or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work -with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the -work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 -through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the -Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or -1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional -terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked -to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the -permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any -word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or -distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than -"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version -posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), -you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a -copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon -request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other -form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided -that - -- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is - owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he - has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the - Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments - must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you - prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax - returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and - sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the - address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to - the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." - -- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or - destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium - and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of - Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any - money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days - of receipt of the work. - -- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set -forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from -both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael -Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the -Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm -collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain -"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or -corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual -property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a -computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by -your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with -your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with -the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a -refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity -providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to -receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy -is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further -opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER -WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO -WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. -If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the -law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be -interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by -the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any -provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance -with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, -promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, -harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, -that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do -or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm -work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any -Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. - - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers -including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists -because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from -people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. -To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 -and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive -Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at -http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent -permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. -Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered -throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at -809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email -business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact -information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official -page at http://pglaf.org - -For additional contact information: - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To -SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any -particular state visit http://pglaf.org - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. -To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate - - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm -concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared -with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project -Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. - - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. -unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily -keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. - - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: - - http://www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |