Online Sentiment Analisys

The App concept is to experiment a Shiny App with R Studio using some data to process something.

Based on it, I decided to use the Project Gutemberg as a data source. To do So, I tried at first to use the rVest package to access and process each book into a plain text file.

Due SSL Limitations on the Shinny.io enviroment I download a few books and use it as a data source, which as also a valid experiment, in order to understand how a shiny app handles access to files (a constat concern on web development enviroments)

The Key Point is to select one Book, our load a new book from www.gutemberg.org and them using the syhuzet R packge extrat the “tone”/“emotional” variance thru the book time line.

Here is some exemples of the books used to accomplish this task. Its basically a text file encoded on UTF-8

  pageRef<- "../data/1.txt"
  text <-  readChar(file.path(pageRef), file.info(pageRef)$size)
  head(text,50)

[1] "The Project Gutenberg EBook of The state of the dead and the destiny of\r\nthe wicked, by Uriah Smith\r\n\r\nThis eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with\r\nalmost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or\r\nre-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included\r\nwith this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license\r\n\r\n\r\nTitle: The state of the dead and the destiny of the wicked\r\n\r\nAuthor: Uriah Smith\r\n\r\nRelease Date: March 22, 2017 [EBook #54373]\r\n\r\nLanguage: English\r\n\r\nCharacter set encoding: UTF-8\r\n\r\n*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE STATE OF THE DEAD ***\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nProduced by KD Weeks, MFR, Bryan Ness and the Online\r\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This\r\nfile was produced from images generously made available\r\nby The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n\r\n                          Transcriber’s Note:\r\n\r\nThis version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects.\r\nItalics are delimited with the ‘_’ character as _italic_.\r\n\r\nFootnotes have been moved to follow the paragraphs in which they are\r\nreferenced.\r\n\r\nMinor errors, attributable to the printer, have been corrected. Please\r\nsee the transcriber’s note at the end of this text for details regarding\r\nthe handling of any textual issues encountered during its preparation.\r\n\r\n                                  THE\r\n                           STATE OF THE DEAD\r\n                                AND THE\r\n                         DESTINY OF THE WICKED.\r\n\r\n                               ----------\r\n\r\n                            BY URIAH SMITH.\r\n\r\n                               ----------\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                               ----------\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                              STEAM PRESS\r\n          OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION,\r\n                          BATTLE CREEK, MICH.:\r\n\r\n                                  ---\r\n\r\n                                 1873.\r\n\r\n                                PREFACE.\r\n\r\n                               ----------\r\n\r\n\r\nQuestions of such absorbing interest to the human race as “The State of\r\nthe Dead,” and “The Destiny of the Wicked,” should command the candid\r\nattention of all serious and thoughtful men. The Bible alone can answer\r\nthe inquiries of the human mind on these important subjects; and if the\r\nBible is the full and complete revelation which it claims to be, we must\r\nbelieve that it has answered them. What that answer is, the following\r\npages undertake to show.\r\n\r\nOn the questions here discussed there is at the present time a\r\ndaily-increasing agitation in the theological world. The frequency with\r\nwhich these topics come to the surface in the religious papers of the\r\nland, is evidence of this. Not only in this country, but in England and\r\nGermany, the views of Bible students on these points are in a state of\r\ntransition. The doctrine that there is no eternal life out of Christ,\r\nand that consequently the punishment of the wicked is not to be eternal\r\nmisery, is now able to present an array of adherents so strong in\r\nnumbers, so cultivated in intellect, and so correct at heart, that many\r\nof its opponents are changing their base of operations toward it, and\r\ntaking steps looking not only to a toleration of its existence, but to a\r\ncompromise with its claims.\r\n\r\nIn adding another book to the many which have been written on this\r\nsubject, the object has been to give in a concise manner a more general\r\nview of the teaching of the word of God, the ultimate source of\r\nauthority, on this question, than has heretofore been presented. A\r\nchapter on the Claims of Philosophy is appended to the Biblical\r\nargument, more to answer the queries of those who attach importance to\r\nsuch considerations, than because they are entitled to any real weight\r\nin the determination of this controversy.\r\n\r\nThe interest that has of late years arisen on the subject of the state\r\nof the dead, is timely. Spiritualism, with its foul embrace and\r\npestilential breath, is seeking to spread its pollutions over all the\r\nland; and it appeals to the popular views of the condition of man in\r\ndeath as a foundation for its claims. The teaching of the Bible on this\r\npoint is the most effectual antidote to that unhallowed delusion. Before\r\nthe true light on the intermediate state, and the destiny of the wicked,\r\nnot only spiritualism with its foul brood flees away, but purgatory,\r\nsaint worship, universalism, and a host of other errors all go down.\r\n\r\nIn this period of agitation and transition, let no man blindly commit\r\nhimself to predetermined views, but hold himself ready to follow truth\r\nalways and everywhere. Let him hold his sympathies entirely at its\r\ndisposal. This is the course of safety; for truth has angels, Christ and\r\nGod upon its side; and though it had but one adherent on the earth, it\r\nwould triumph all the same. So while truth can receive no detriment from\r\nthe combined opposition of all the world, its adherents, few in number\r\nthough they may be, will secure in the end an everlasting gain.\r\n\r\n                                                                 U. S.\r\n\r\nBATTLE CREEK, _May 2, 1873_.\r\n\r\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                       MAN’S NATURE AND DESTINY.\r\n\r\n                             --------------\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                               CHAPTER I.\r\n                           PRIMARY QUESTIONS.\r\n\r\n\r\nGradually the mind awakes to the mystery of life. Excepting only the\r\nfirst pair, every adult member of the human race has come up through the\r\nhelplessness of infancy and the limited acquirements of childhood. All\r\nhave reached their full capacity to think and do, only by the slow\r\ndevelopment of their mental and physical powers. Without either counsel\r\nor co-operation of our own, we find ourselves on the plane of human\r\nexistence, subject to all the conditions of the race, and hastening\r\nforward to its destiny, whatever it may be.\r\n\r\nA retinue of mysterious inquiries throng our steps. Whence came this\r\norder of things? Who ordained this arrangement? For what purpose are we\r\nhere? What is our nature? What are our obligations? And whither are we\r\nbound? Life, what a mystery! Having commenced, will it ever end? Once we\r\ndid not exist; are we destined to that condition again? Death we see\r\neverywhere around us. Its victims are silent, cold, and still. They give\r\nno outward evidence of retaining any of those faculties, mental,\r\nemotional, or physical, which distinguished them when living. Is death\r\nthe end of all these? And is death the extinction of the race? These are\r\nquestions which have ever excited in the human mind an intensity of\r\nthought, and a strength of feeling, which no other subjects can produce.\r\n\r\nTo these questions, so well-defined, so definite in their demands, and\r\nof such all-absorbing interest, where shall we look for an answer? Have\r\nwe any means within our reach by which to solve these problems? We look\r\nabroad upon the earth and admire its multiplied forms of life and\r\nbeauty; we mark the revolving seasons and the uniform and beneficent\r\noperations of nature; we look to the heavenly bodies and behold their\r\nglory, and the regularity of their mighty motions--do these answer our\r\nquestions? They tell us something, but not all. They tell us of the\r\ngreat Creator and upholder of all things; for, as the apostle says, “The\r\ninvisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen,\r\nbeing understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and\r\nGodhead.” They tell us upon whom our existence depends and to whom we\r\nare amenable.\r\n\r\nBut this only intensifies our anxiety a thousand fold. For now we want\r\nto know upon what conditions his favor is suspended. What must we do to\r\nmeet his requirements? How may we secure his approbation? He surely is a\r\nbeing who will reward virtue and punish sin. Sometime our deeds must be\r\ncompared with his requirements, and sentence be rendered in accordance\r\ntherewith. How will this affect our future existence? Deriving it from\r\nhim, does he suspend its continuance on our obedience? or has he made us\r\nself-existent beings, so that we must live forever, if not in his favor,\r\nthen the conscious recipients of his wrath?\r\n\r\nWith what intense anxiety the mind turns to the future. What is to be\r\nthe issue of this mysterious problem of life? Who can tell? Nature is\r\nsilent. We appeal to those who are entering the dark valley. But who can\r\nreveal the mysteries of those hidden regions till he has explored them?\r\nand the “curtain of the tent into which they enter, never outward\r\nswings.” Sternly the grave closes its heavy portals against every\r\nattempt to catch a glimpse of the unknown beyond. Science proves itself\r\na fool on this momentous question. The imagination breaks down; and the\r\nhuman mind, unaided, sinks into a melancholy, but well-grounded,\r\ndespair.\r\n\r\nGod must tell us, or we can never know what lies beyond this state of\r\nexistence, till we experience it for ourselves. He who has placed us\r\nhere, must himself make known to us his purposes and his will, or we are\r\nforever in the dark. Of this, all reverent and thoughtful minds are well\r\nassured.\r\n\r\nProfessor Stuart, in his “Exegetical Essays on Several Words Relating to\r\nFuture Punishment,” says:--\r\n\r\n“The light of nature can never scatter the darkness in question. This\r\nlight has never yet sufficed to make the question clear to any portion\r\nof our benighted race, whether the soul is immortal. Cicero,\r\nincomparably the most able defender of the soul’s immortality of which\r\nthe heathen world can yet boast, very ingenuously confesses that, after\r\nall the arguments which he had adduced in order to confirm the doctrine\r\nin question, it so fell out that his mind was satisfied of it only when\r\ndirectly employed in contemplating the arguments adduced in its favor.\r\nAt all other times he fell unconsciously into a state of doubt and\r\ndarkness. It is notorious, also, that Socrates, the next most able\r\nadvocate, among the heathen, of the same doctrine, has adduced arguments\r\nto establish the never-ceasing existence of the soul which will not bear\r\nthe test of examination. If there be any satisfactory light, then, on\r\nthe momentous question of a future state, it must be sought from the\r\nword of God.”\r\n\r\nH. H. Dobney, Baptist minister, of England (Future Punishment, p. 107),\r\nsays:--\r\n\r\n“Reason cannot prove man to be immortal. We may devoutly enter the\r\ntemple of nature, we may reverently tread her emerald floor, and gaze on\r\nher blue, ‘star-pictured ceiling,’ but to our anxious inquiry, though\r\nproposed with heart-breaking intensity, the oracle is dumb, or like\r\nthose of Delphi and Dodona, mutters only an ambitious reply that leaves\r\nus in utter bewilderment.”\r\n\r\nAnd what information have they been able to give us, who have either\r\nbeen ignorant of divine revelation, or, having the light, have turned\r\ntheir backs upon it? Listen to a little of what they have told us, which\r\nsufficiently indicates the character of the knowledge they possessed.\r\n\r\nSocrates, when about to drink the fatal hemlock, said:--\r\n\r\n“I am going out of the world, and you are to continue in it; but which\r\nof us has the better part, is a secret to every one but God.”\r\n\r\nCicero, after recounting the various opinions of philosophers on this\r\nsubject, levels all their systems to the ground by this ingenuous\r\nconfession:--\r\n\r\n“Which of these is true, God alone knows, and which is the most\r\nprobable, is a very great question.”\r\n\r\nSeneca, reviewing the arguments of the ancients on this subject, said:--\r\n\r\n“Immortality, however desirable, was rather promised than proved by\r\nthese great men.”\r\n\r\nAnd the skeptic Hobbs, when death was forcing him from this state of\r\nexistence, could only exclaim, with dread uncertainty, “I am taking a\r\nleap in the dark!”--dying words not calculated to inspire any great\r\ndegree of comfort and assurance in the hearts of those who are inclined\r\nto follow in his steps.\r\n\r\nWith a full sense of our need, we turn, then, to the revelation which\r\nGod has given us in his word. Will this answer our inquiries? It is not\r\na revelation if it does not; for this must be the very object of a\r\nrevelation. Logicians tell us that there is “an antecedent probability\r\nin favor of a divine revelation, arising from the nature of the Deity\r\nand the moral condition of man.” On the same ground, there must be an\r\nequal probability that, if we are immortal, never-dying beings, that\r\nrevelation will plainly tell us so.\r\n\r\nTo the Bible alone, we look for correct views on the important subjects\r\nof the character of God, the nature of life and death, the resurrection,\r\nHeaven, and hell. But our views upon all these, must be, to a great\r\nextent, governed by our views of the nature and destiny of man. On this\r\nsubject, therefore, the teachings of the Bible must, of consistency, be\r\nsufficiently clear and full.\r\n\r\nProminent upon the pages of inspiration, we see pointed out the great\r\ndistinction which God has put between right and wrong, the rewards he\r\nhas promised to virtue, and the punishment he has threatened against\r\nsin; we find it revealed that but few, comparatively, will be saved,\r\nwhile the great majority of our race will be lost; and as the means by\r\nwhich the perdition of ungodly men is accomplished, we find described in\r\nfearfully ominous terms, a lake of fire burning with brimstone, intense\r\nand unquenchable.\r\n\r\nHow these facts intensify the importance of the question, Are all men\r\nimmortal? Are these wicked immortal? Is their portion an eternity of\r\nincomprehensible, conscious torture, and unutterable woe? Have they in\r\ntheir nature a principle so tenacious of life that the severest\r\nimplements of destruction with which the Almighty can assail it, an\r\neternity of his intensest devouring fire can make no inroads upon its\r\ninviolate vitality? Fearful questions!--questions in reference to which\r\nit cannot be that the word of God will leave us in darkness, or perplex\r\nus with doubt, or deceive us with falsehood.\r\n\r\nIn commending the reader to the word of God on this great theme, it is\r\nunnecessary to suggest to any candid mind the spirit in which we should\r\npresent our inquiries. Prejudice or passion should not come within the\r\nsacred precincts of such an investigation. If God has plainly revealed\r\nthat all the finally impenitent of our race are doomed to an eternity of\r\nconscious misery, we must accept that fact, however hard it may be to\r\nfind any correspondence between the magnitude of the guilt and the\r\ninfinitude of the punishment, and however hard it may be to reconcile\r\nsuch treatment with the character of a God who has declared himself to\r\nbe “LOVE.” If, on the other hand, the record shows that God’s government\r\ncan be vindicated, sin meet its just deserts, and at the same time such\r\ndisposition be finally made of the lost, as to relieve the universe from\r\nthe horrid spectacle of a hell forever burning, filled with sensitive\r\nbeings, frenzied with fire and flame, and blaspheming in their\r\never-strengthening agony--can any one be the less ready to accept this\r\nfact, or hesitate, on this account, to join in the ascription, “Great\r\nand marvelous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; _just and true_ are thy\r\nways, thou King of saints”?\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                              CHAPTER II.\r\n                       IMMORTAL AND IMMORTALITY.\r\n\r\n\r\nIn turning to the Bible, our only source of information on this\r\nquestion, to learn whether or not man is immortal, the first and most\r\nnatural step in the inquiry is to ascertain what use the Bible makes of\r\nthe terms “immortal” and “immortality.” How frequently does it use them?\r\nTo whom does it apply them? Of whom does it make immortality an\r\nattribute? Does it affirm it of man or any part of him?\r\n\r\nShould we, without opening the Bible, endeavor to form an opinion of its\r\nteachings from the current phraseology of modern theology, we should\r\nconclude it to be full of declarations in the most explicit terms that\r\nman is in possession of an immortal soul and deathless spirit; for the\r\npopular religious literature of to-day, which claims to be a true\r\nreflection of the declarations of God’s word, is full of these\r\nexpressions. Glibly they fall from the lips of the religious teacher.\r\nBroadcast they go forth from the religious press. Into orthodox sermons\r\nand prayers they enter as essential elements. They are appealed to as\r\nthe all-prolific source of comfort and consolation in case of those who\r\nmourn the loss of friends by death. We are told that they are not dead;\r\nfor “there is no death; what seems so is transition;” they have only\r\nchanged to another state of being, only gone before; for the soul is\r\nimmortal, the spirit never dying; and it cannot for a moment cease its\r\nconscious existence.\r\n\r\nThis is all right provided the Bible warrants such declarations. But it\r\nis far from safe to conclude without examination that the Bible does\r\nwarrant them; for whoever has read church history knows that it is\r\nlittle more than a record of the unceasing attempts of the great enemy\r\nof all truth to corrupt the practices of the professors of Christianity,\r\nand to pervert and obscure the simple teachings of God’s word with the\r\nabsurdities and mysticisms of heathen mythology. It has been only by the\r\nutmost vigilance that any Christian institution has been preserved, or\r\nany Christian doctrine saved, free from some of the corruptions of the\r\ngreat systems of false religion which have always held by far the\r\ngreater portion of our race in their chains of darkness and\r\nsuperstition. And if we arraign the creeds of the six hundred Protestant\r\nsects, as containing many unscriptural dogmas, it is only what every one\r\nof them does, in reference to the other five hundred and ninety-nine.\r\n\r\nTo the law, then, and to the testimony. What say the Scriptures on the\r\nsubject of immortality?\r\n\r\nFACT 1. The terms “immortal” and “immortality” are not found in the Old\r\nTestament, either in our English version or in the original Hebrew.\r\nThere is, however, one expression, in Gen. 3:4, which is, perhaps,\r\nequivalent in meaning, and was spoken in reference to the human race;\r\nnamely, “Thou shalt not surely die.” But unfortunately for believers in\r\nnatural immortality, this declaration came from one whom no person would\r\nlike to acknowledge as the author of his creed. It is what the devil\r\nsaid to Eve, the terrible deception by means of which he accomplished\r\nher fall, and so “brought death into the world and all our woe.” But\r\ndoes not the New Testament supply this seemingly unpardonable omission\r\nof the Old, by many times affirming that all men have immortality?\r\n\r\nRemembering the many times you have heard and read from Biblical\r\nexpositors that you were in possession of an immortal soul, how many\r\ntimes do you think that declaration is made in the New Testament? One\r\nhundred times? Fifty? Thirty? Twenty? Ten? No. Five? No. Twice? _No._\r\nONCE? NO! Does not the New Testament then apply the term immortal to\r\nanything? Yes; and this brings us to\r\n\r\nFACT 2. The term immortal is used but once in the New Testament, in the\r\nEnglish version, and is then applied to God. The following is the\r\npassage: 1 Tim. 1:17: “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible,\r\nthe only wise God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.”\r\n\r\nThe original word, however, αφθαρτος (_aphthartos_) from which immortal\r\nis here translated, occurs in six other instances in the New Testament,\r\nin every one of which it is rendered incorruptible. The word is defined\r\nby Greenfield, “Incorruptible, immortal, imperishable, undying,\r\nenduring.”\r\n\r\nIt is used, first, to describe God, in Rom. 1:23, “And changed the glory\r\nof the _uncorruptible_ God into an image made like to corruptible man,\r\nand to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.”\r\n\r\nIt is used in 1 Cor. 9:25, to describe the heavenly crown of the\r\novercomer: “And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in\r\nall things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown, but we an\r\n_incorruptible_.”\r\n\r\nIt is used in 1 Cor. 15:52, to describe the immortal bodies of the\r\nredeemed: “In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump;\r\nfor the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised\r\n_incorruptible_, and we shall be changed.”\r\n\r\nIt is used in 1 Tim. 1:17, to describe God as already quoted.\r\n\r\nIt is used in 1 Pet. 1:4, to describe the inheritance reserved in Heaven\r\nfor the overcomer: “To an inheritance _incorruptible_ and undefiled,\r\nthat fadeth not away, reserved in Heaven for you.”\r\n\r\nIt is used in 1 Pet. 1:23, to describe the principle by which\r\nregeneration is wrought in us: “Being born again, not of corruptible\r\nseed, but of _incorruptible_, by the word of God, which liveth and\r\nabideth forever.”\r\n\r\nIt is used in 1 Pet. 3:4, to describe the heavenly adorning which we are\r\nto labor to secure: “But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that\r\nwhich is _not corruptible_, even the ornament of a meek and quiet\r\nspirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.”\r\n\r\nAnd these are all the instances of its use. In no one of them is it\r\napplied to man or any part of him, as a natural possession. But does not\r\nthe last text affirm that man is in possession of a deathless spirit?\r\nThe words “incorruptible” and “spirit” both occur, it is true, in the\r\nsame verse; but they do not stand together, another noun and its\r\nadjectives coming in between them; they are not in the same case,\r\nincorruptible being in the dative, and spirit, in the genitive; they are\r\nnot of the same gender, incorruptible being masculine or feminine, and\r\nspirit, neuter. What is it which is in the sight of God of great price?\r\nThe ornament of a meek and quiet spirit. What is the nature of this\r\nornament? It is not destructible like the laurel wreath, the rich\r\napparel, the gold and gems with which the unsanctified man seeks to\r\nadorn himself; but it is incorruptible, a disposition molded by the\r\nSpirit of God, some of the fruit of that heavenly tree which God values.\r\nDoes man by nature possess this incorruptible ornament, this meek and\r\nquiet spirit? No; for we are exhorted to procure and adopt this instead\r\nof the other. This, and this only, the text affirms. To say that this\r\ntext proves that man is in possession of a deathless spirit, is no more\r\nconsistent nor logical than it would be to say that Paul declares that\r\nman has an immortal soul, because in his first epistle to Timothy\r\n(1:17), he uses the word immortal, and in his first epistle to the\r\nThessalonians (5:23), he uses the word soul. The argument would be the\r\nsame in both cases.\r\n\r\nFACT 3. The word “immortality” occurs but five times in the New\r\nTestament, in our English version. The following are the instances:--\r\n\r\nIn Rom. 2:7, it is set forth as something for which we are to seek by\r\npatient continuance in well-doing: “To them who by patient continuance\r\nin well-doing seek for glory and honor and _immortality_, [God will\r\nrender] eternal life.”\r\n\r\nIn 1 Cor. 15:53, 54, it is twice used to describe what this mortal must\r\nput on before we can inherit the kingdom of God: “For this corruptible\r\nmust put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on _immortality_. So\r\nwhen this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal\r\nshall have put on _immortality_, then shall be brought to pass the\r\nsaying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.”\r\n\r\nIn 1 Tim. 6:16, it is applied to God, and the sweeping declaration is\r\nmade that he alone has it: “Who only hath _immortality_, dwelling in the\r\nlight which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can\r\nsee: to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen.”\r\n\r\nIn 2 Tim. 1:10, we are told from what source we receive the true light\r\nconcerning it, which forever cuts off the claim that reason or science\r\ncan demonstrate it, or that the oracles of heathenism can make it known\r\nto us: “But now is made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus\r\nChrist, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and\r\n_immortality_ to light through the gospel.”\r\n\r\nHow has Christ brought life and immortality to light? Answer: By\r\nabolishing death. There could have been no life nor immortality without\r\nthis; for the race were hopelessly doomed to death through sin. Then by\r\nwhat means and for whom has he abolished death? Answer: By dying for man\r\nand rising again, a victor over death; and he has wrought this work only\r\nfor those who will accept of it through him; for all who reject his\r\nproffered aid will meet at last the same fate that would have been the\r\nlot of all, had Christ never undertaken in our behalf. Thus through the\r\ngospel, the good news of salvation through him, he has brought to light\r\nthe fact, not that all men are by nature already in possession of\r\nimmortality, but that a way is opened whereby we may at last gain\r\npossession of this inestimable boon.\r\n\r\nAs with the word immortal, so with immortality: the original from which\r\nit comes, occurs a few more times than it is so translated in the\r\nEnglish version. There are two words translated immortality. These are\r\nἀθανασία (_athanasia_) and ἀφθαρσία (_aphtharsia_). The former is\r\ndefined by Greenfield and Robinson simply “immortality,” and is so\r\ntranslated in every instance. It occurs three times, in 1 Cor. 15:53,\r\n54; 1 Tim. 6:16, as noticed above. The latter is defined, by the same\r\nauthorities, “incorruptibility, incorruptness; by implication,\r\nimmortality.” In addition to the instances above cited, it occurs in the\r\nfollowing passages; in all eight times:--\r\n\r\n1 Cor. 15:42: “So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in\r\ncorruption; it is raised in _incorruption_.” In verses 50, 53 and 54, of\r\nthe same chapter, it is that _incorruption_ which corruption [our\r\npresent mortal condition] does not inherit, and which this corruptible\r\nmust put on before we can enter into the kingdom of God. In Eph. 6:24,\r\nit is used to describe the love we should bear to Christ, and in Titus\r\n2:7, the quality of the doctrine we should hold, in both which instances\r\nit is translated “sincerity.”\r\n\r\nWe now have before us all the testimony of the Bible relative to\r\nimmortality. So far from being applied to man, the term is used as in\r\nRom. 1:23, to point out the contrast between God and man. God is\r\nincorruptible or immortal. Man is corruptible or mortal. But if the real\r\nman, the essential being, consists of an undecaying soul, a deathless\r\nspirit, he, too, is incorruptible, and this contrast could not be drawn.\r\nIt is placed before us as an object of hope for which we are to seek:\r\ndeclarations which would be a fraud and deception if we already have it.\r\nIt is used to distinguish between heavenly and eternal objects, and\r\nthose that are earthly and decaying. In view of these facts, no candid\r\nmind can dissent from the following\r\n\r\nCONCLUSION: So far as its use of the terms “immortal” and “immortality”\r\nis concerned, the Bible contains no proof that man is in possession of\r\nan undying nature.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                              CHAPTER III.\r\n                           THE IMAGE OF GOD.\r\n\r\n\r\nIf man is immortal, we should naturally suppose that the Bible would\r\nmake known so weighty a truth in some of the instances where it has had\r\noccasion to use the words immortal and immortality. Where else could it\r\nmore properly be revealed? And the fact that its use of those terms\r\naffords no proof that man is in possession of this great attribute, but\r\nrather that it belongs to God alone, should cause a person to receive\r\nwith great allowance the positive assertions of popular theology on this\r\nquestion. Nevertheless it is supposed that there are other sources from\r\nwhich proof can be drawn that man has a hold on life equal with that of\r\nJehovah himself; so that he will live as long as God exists.\r\n\r\nThe first of these is the opening testimony of the Bible concerning man,\r\nwhich asserts that he was to be made in the image of God. Gen. 1:26, 27:\r\n“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let\r\nthem have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the\r\nair, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every\r\ncreeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his\r\nown image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created\r\nhe them.”\r\n\r\nThe first impulse of a person unacquainted with this controversy would\r\nbe to ask in astonishment what this has to do with the immortality of\r\nman; nor would his astonishment be in any wise diminished when he heard\r\nthe reply that as God is immortal, man, made in his image, must be\r\nimmortal also. Has God, then, no other attribute but immortality, that\r\nwe must confine it to this? Is not God omnipotent? Yes. Is man? No. Is\r\nnot God omnipresent? Yes. Is man? No. Is not God omniscient? Yes. Is\r\nman? No. Is not God independent and self-existent? Yes. Is man? No. Is\r\nnot God infallible? Yes. Is man? No. Then why single out the one\r\nattribute of immortality, and make the likeness of man to God consist\r\nwholly in this? In the form of a syllogism the popular argument stands\r\nthus:--\r\n\r\n_Major Premise_: God is immortal. 1 Tim. 1:17.\r\n\r\n_Minor Premise_: Man is created in the image of God. Gen. 1:27.\r\n\r\n_Conclusion_: Therefore man is immortal.\r\n\r\nThis is easily quashed by another equally good, thus:--\r\n\r\n1. God is omnipotent.\r\n\r\n2. Man is made in the image of God.\r\n\r\n3. Therefore man is omnipotent.\r\n\r\nThis conclusion, by being brought within the cognizance of our senses,\r\nbecomes more obviously, though it is not more essentially, absurd. It\r\nshows either that the argument for immortality drawn from the image of\r\nGod, is unqualified assumption, or that puny and finite man is clothed\r\nwith all the attributes of the deity.\r\n\r\nIn what respect, then, is man in the image of his Maker? A universal\r\nrule of interpretation, applying to Bible language as well as any other,\r\nis to allow every word its most obvious and literal import, unless some\r\nplain reason exists for giving it a mystical or figurative meaning. The\r\nplain and literal definition of image is, as given by Webster, “An\r\nimitation, representation or similitude of any person or thing,\r\nsculptured, drawn, painted, or otherwise made _perceptible to the\r\nsight_; a _visible_ presentation; a copy; a likeness; an effigy.” We\r\nhave italicized a portion of this definition as containing an essential\r\nidea. An image must be something that is visible to the eye. How can we\r\nconceive of an image of anything that is not perceptible to the sight,\r\nand which we cannot take cognizance of by any of the senses? Even an\r\nimage formed in the mind must be conceived of as having some sort of\r\noutward shape or form. In this sense, of having outward form, the word\r\nis used in each of the thirty-one times of its occurrence elsewhere in\r\nthe Old Testament.\r\n\r\nThe second time the word image is used, it is used to show the relation\r\nexisting between son and father, and is a good comment on the relation\r\nwhich Gen. 1:26, 27, asserts to exist between man and God. Gen. 5:3:\r\n“And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years and begat a son in his own\r\nlikeness, after his image.” No one would think of referring this to\r\nanything but physical resemblance. Now put the two passages together.\r\nMoses first asserts that God made man in his own image, after his\r\nlikeness, and a few chapters farther on asserts that this same man begat\r\na son in his own likeness, after his image. And, while all must admit\r\nthat this latter refers to bodily form or physical shape, the\r\ntheological schools tell us that the former, from the same writer, and\r\nwith no intimation that it is used in any other sense, must refer solely\r\nto the attribute of immortality. Is not this taking unwarrantable\r\nliberty with the inspired testimony? There is no room for any other\r\nconclusion than that just as a son is, in outward appearance, the image\r\nof his father, so man possesses, not the nature and attributes of God in\r\nall their perfection, but a likeness or image of him in his physical\r\nform.\r\n\r\nIt may be said that the word image is used in a different sense in the\r\nNew Testament, as, for example, in Col. 3:9, 10: “Lie not one to\r\nanother, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds, and\r\nhave put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image\r\nof him that created him.” Let it ever be borne in mind that the point\r\nwhich popular theology has to prove is that man is immortal because in\r\nthe image of God. This text is against that view; for that which is here\r\nsaid to be in the image of Him that created him, is not the natural man\r\nhimself, but the new man which is put on, implying that the image had\r\nbeen destroyed, and could be restored only in Christ. If, therefore, it\r\nmeant immortality as used by Moses, this text would show that that\r\nimmortality was not absolute, but contingent, and, having been lost by\r\nthe race, can be regained only through Christ.\r\n\r\nEph. 4:24, shows how this new man is created: “And that ye put on the\r\nnew man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.”\r\nNothing is said about immortality even in connection with the new man.\r\n\r\nAgain: The word here translated image (ἐικων) is defined by Greenfield,\r\nas meaning by metonymy, “an exemplar, model, pattern, standard, Col.\r\n3:10.” No such definition as this is given by Gesenius to the word in\r\nGenesis. So, though this Greek word may here have this sense, it affords\r\nno evidence that the Hebrew word in Gen. 1:26, 27, can refer to anything\r\nelse but the outward form.\r\n\r\nThe same reasoning will apply to 1 Cor. 15:49, where the “image of the\r\nheavenly,” which is promised to the righteous, is something which is not\r\nin possession of the natural man, but will be attained through the\r\nresurrection: “we _shall_ bear the image of the heavenly.” It cannot\r\ntherefore refer to the image stamped upon man at his creation, unless it\r\nbe admitted that that image, with all its included privileges, has been\r\nlost by the human race--an admission fatal to the hypothesis of the\r\nbelievers in the natural immortality of man.\r\n\r\nIn 1 Cor. 11:7, we read that man, as contrasted with the woman, is “the\r\nimage and glory of God.” To make the expression “image of God” here mean\r\nimmortality, is to confine it to man, and rob the better part of the\r\nhuman race of this high prerogative.\r\n\r\nIn Gen. 9:6, we read: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his\r\nblood be shed; for in the image of God made he man.” Substituting what\r\nthe image is here claimed to mean, we should have this very singular\r\nreading: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed;\r\nfor he made him immortal, and his life cannot be taken.” Evidently the\r\nreference in all such passages is, not only to “the human face divine,”\r\nbut to the whole physical frame, which, in comparison with all other\r\nforms of animated existence, is upright and godlike.\r\n\r\nBut here the mystical interpretation of our current theology has thrown\r\nup what is considered an insuperable objection to this view; for how can\r\nman be physically in the image of God, when God is not a person, is\r\nwithout form, and has neither body nor parts? In reply, we ask, Where\r\ndoes the Bible say that God is a formless, impersonal being, having\r\nneither body nor parts? Does it not say that he is a spirit? John 4:24.\r\nYes; and we inquire again, Does it not say that the angels are spirits?\r\nHeb. 1:7, 14. And are not the angels, saying nothing of those instances\r\nin which they have appeared to men in bodily form, and always in human\r\nshape (Gen. 18:1-8, 16-22; 32:24; Hos. 12:4; Num. 22:31; Judges 13:6,\r\n13; Luke 1:11, 13, 28, 29; Acts 12:7-9; &c., &c.), always spoken of as\r\nbeings having bodily form? A spirit, or spiritual being, as God is, in\r\nthe highest sense, so far from not having a bodily form, must possess\r\nit, as the instrumentality for the manifestation of his powers. 1 Cor.\r\n15:44.\r\n\r\nAgain, it is urged that God is omnipresent; and how can this be, if he\r\nis a person? Answer: He has a representative, his Holy Spirit, by which\r\nhe is ever present and ever felt in all his universe. “Whither shall I\r\ngo,” asks David, “from thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy\r\npresence?” Ps. 139:7. And John saw standing before the throne of God\r\nseven Spirits, which are declared to be “the seven Spirits of God,” and\r\nwhich are “sent forth into all the earth.” Rev. 4:5; 5:6.\r\n\r\nWe now invite the attention of the reader to a little of the evidence\r\nthat may be presented to show that God is a person, and so that man,\r\nthough of course in an imperfect and finite degree, may be an image, or\r\nlikeness of him, as to his bodily form.\r\n\r\n1. God has made visible to mortal eyes parts of his person. Moses saw\r\nthe God of Israel. Ex. 33:21-23. An immaterial being, if such a thing\r\ncan be conceived of, without body or parts, cannot be seen with mortal\r\neyes. To say that God assumed a body and shape for this occasion, places\r\nthe common view in a worse light still; for it is virtually charging\r\nupon God a double deception: first, giving Moses to understand that he\r\nwas a being with body and parts, and, secondly, under the promise of\r\nshowing himself, showing him something that was _not_ himself. And he\r\ntold Moses that he would put his hand over him as he passed by, and then\r\ntake it away, that he might see his back parts, but not his face. Has he\r\nhands? has he back parts? has he a face? If not, why try to convey ideas\r\nby means of language?\r\n\r\nAgain, Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy of the elders, saw the\r\nGod of Israel. Ex. 24:9-11. “And there was under his feet as it were a\r\npaved work of a sapphire stone.” Has he feet? Or is the record that\r\nthese persons saw them, a fabrication? No man, to be sure, has seen his\r\nface, nor could he do it and live, as God has declared. Ex. 33:20; John\r\n1:18.\r\n\r\n2. Christ, as manifested among men, is declared to be the image of God,\r\nand in his form. Christ showed, after his resurrection, that his\r\nimmortal, though not then glorified, body, had flesh and bones. Luke\r\n24:29. Bodily he ascended into Heaven where none can presume to deny him\r\na local habitation. Acts 1:9-11; Eph. 1:20; Heb. 8:1. But Paul, speaking\r\nof this same Jesus, says, “Who is the image of the invisible God, the\r\nfirstborn of every creature.” Col. 1:15. Here the antithesis expressed\r\nis between God who is invisible, and his image in the person of Christ\r\nwhich was visible. It follows, therefore, that what of Christ the\r\ndisciples could see, which was his bodily form, was the image, to give\r\nthem an idea of God, whom they could not see.\r\n\r\nAgain: “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who,\r\nbeing in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.”\r\nPhil. 2:5, 6. It remains to be told how Christ could be in the form of\r\nGod, and yet God have no form.\r\n\r\nOnce more: “God who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in\r\ntime past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days\r\nspoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by\r\nwhom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and\r\nthe _express image of his person_,” &c. Heb. 1:1-3. This testimony is\r\nconclusive. It is an inspired declaration that God has a personal form;\r\nand to give an idea of what that form is, it declares that Christ, just\r\nas we conceive of him as ascended up bodily on high, is the express\r\nimage thereof.\r\n\r\nThe evidence already presented shows that there is no necessity for\r\nmaking the image of God in which man was created to consist of anything\r\nelse but bodily form. But to whatever else persons may be inclined to\r\napply it, Paul in his testimony to the Romans, forever destroys the\r\npossibility of making it apply to immortality. He says, Rom. 1:22, 23:\r\n“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the\r\nglory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible\r\nman, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.” The word\r\nhere rendered uncorruptible is the same word that is translated immortal\r\nand applied to God in 1 Tim. 1:17. Now if God by making man in his image\r\nstamped him with immortality, man is just as incorruptible as God\r\nhimself. But Paul says that he is not so; that while God is\r\nuncorruptible or immortal, man is corruptible or mortal. The image of\r\nGod does not therefore, confer immortality.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                              CHAPTER IV.\r\n                          THE BREATH OF LIFE.\r\n\r\n\r\nGen. 1:27, states, in general terms, the form in which man was created,\r\nas contrasted with other orders of animal life. In Gen. 2:7, the process\r\nis described by which this creation was accomplished. Finding no proof\r\nin the former passage that man was put in possession of immortality (see\r\npreceding chapter) we turn to the latter text to examine the claims\r\nbased upon that. The verse reads: “And the Lord God formed man of the\r\ndust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life:\r\nand man became a living soul.”\r\n\r\nHere the advocates of man’s natural immortality endeavor to make a\r\nstrong stand, as it is very proper they should do; for certainly if in\r\nthat inspired record which describes the building up of man, the putting\r\ntogether of the different parts or constituent elements of which he is\r\ncomposed, there is no testimony that he was clothed with immortality,\r\nand no hook furnished upon which an argument for such an attribute can\r\nbe hung, their whole system is shaken to its very foundation.\r\n\r\nThe claim based upon this passage is that man is composed of two parts:\r\nthe body formed of the dust of the ground, and an immortal soul placed\r\ntherein by God’s breathing into the nostrils of that dust-formed body\r\nthe breath of life. We will let two representative men speak on this\r\npoint, and state the popular view. Thomas Scott, D. D., on Gen. 2:7,\r\nsays:--\r\n\r\n“The Lord not only gave man life in common with the other animals which\r\nhad bodies formed of the same materials; but immediately communicated\r\nfrom himself the _rational soul_, here denoted by the _expression of\r\nbreathing into his nostrils the breath of life_.”\r\n\r\nAdam Clarke, LL. D., on Gen. 2:7, says:--\r\n\r\n“In the most distinct manner God shows us that man is a compound being,\r\nhaving a body and soul distinctly and separately created, the body out\r\nof the dust of the earth, _the soul immediately breathed from God\r\nhimself_.”\r\n\r\nCritics speak of this expression in a different manner from theologians;\r\nfor whereas the latter make it confer immortality, and raise man in this\r\nrespect to the same plane with his Maker, the former speak of it as\r\nsuggestive of man’s frail nature, and his precarious tenure of life\r\nitself. Thus Dr. Conant says:--\r\n\r\n“In whose nostrils is breath. Only breath, so frail a principle of life,\r\nand so easily extinguished.”\r\n\r\nAnd in a note on Isa. 2:22, where the prophet says, “Cease ye from man\r\nwhose breath is in his nostrils; for wherein is he to be accounted of?”\r\nhe adds:--\r\n\r\n“Not as in the common English version, ‘whose breath is in his\r\nnostrils;’ for where else should it be? The objection is not to its\r\nplace in the body, which is the proper one for it, but to its _frail and\r\nperishable nature_.”\r\n\r\nTo the same intent the psalmist speaks, Ps. 146:3, 4: “Put not your\r\ntrust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. _His\r\nbreath goeth forth_, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his\r\nthoughts perish.”\r\n\r\nBut let us examine the claim that the “breath of life” which God\r\nbreathed into man conferred upon him the attribute of immortality. There\r\nwas nothing naturally immortal, certainly, in the dust of which Adam was\r\ncomposed. Whatever of immortality he had, therefore, after receiving the\r\nbreath of life, must have existed in that breath in itself considered.\r\nHence, it must follow that the “breath of life” confers immortality upon\r\nany creature to which it is given. Will our friends accept this issue?\r\nIf not, they abandon the argument; for certainly it can confer no more\r\nupon man than upon any other being. And if they do accept it, we will\r\nintroduce to them a class of immortal associates not very flattering to\r\ntheir vanity nor to their argument; for Moses applies the very same\r\nexpression to all the lower orders of the animal creation.\r\n\r\nIn Gen. 7:15, we read: “And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and\r\ntwo of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.” It must be evident to\r\nevery one, at a glance, that the whole animal creation, including man,\r\nis comprehended in the phrase “all flesh.” But verses 21 and 22 contain\r\nstronger expressions still: “And all flesh died that moved upon the\r\nearth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping\r\nthing that creepeth upon the face of the earth, and every man. _All in\r\nwhose nostrils was the breath of life_, of all that was in the dry land,\r\ndied.”\r\n\r\nHere the different orders of animals are named, and man is expressly\r\nmentioned with them; and all alike are said to have had in their\r\nnostrils the breath of life. It matters not that we are not told in the\r\ncase of the lower animals how this breath was conferred, as in the case\r\nof man; for the immortality, if there is any in this matter, must\r\nreside, as we have seen, in the breath itself, not in the manner of its\r\nbestowal; and here it is affirmed that all creatures possess it; and of\r\nthe animals, it is declared, as well as of man, that it resides in their\r\nnostrils.\r\n\r\nIt is objected that in Gen. 2:7, the “breath of life” as applied to man\r\nis plural, “breath of lives” (see Clarke), meaning both animal life, and\r\nthat immortality which is the subject of our investigation. But, we\r\nreply, it is the same form in Gen. 7:22, where it is applied to all\r\nanimals; and if the reader will look at the margin of this latter text\r\nhe will see that the expression is stronger still, “the breath of the\r\nspirit of life” or of lives.\r\n\r\nThe language which Solomon uses respecting both men and beasts strongly\r\nexpresses their common mortality: “For that which befalleth the sons of\r\nmen, befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth,\r\nso dieth the other; yea, _they have all one breath_; so that a man [in\r\nthis respect] hath no pre-eminence above a beast; for all is vanity. All\r\ngo unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.”\r\nEccl. 3:19, 20.\r\n\r\nThus the advocates of natural immortality by appealing to Moses’ record\r\nrespecting the breath of life, are crushed beneath the weight of their\r\nown arguments; for if “the breath of life” proves immortality for man,\r\nit must prove the same for every creature to which it is given. The\r\nBible affirms that all orders of the animal creation that live upon the\r\nland, possess it. Hence our opponents are bound to concede the\r\nimmortality of birds, beasts, bugs, beetles, and every creeping thing.\r\nWe are sometimes accused of bringing man down by our argument to a level\r\nwith the beast. What better is this argument of our friends which brings\r\nbeasts and reptiles up to a level with man? We deny the charge that we\r\nare doing the one, and shall be pardoned for declining to do the other.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                               CHAPTER V.\r\n                            THE LIVING SOUL.\r\n\r\n\r\nFinding no immortality for man in the breath of life which God breathed\r\ninto man’s nostrils at the commencement of his mysterious existence, it\r\nremains to inquire if it resides in the “living soul,” which man, as the\r\nresult of that action, immediately became. “And the Lord God formed man\r\nof the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of\r\nlife, and man became a living soul.” Gen. 2:7.\r\n\r\nOn this point also it is proper to let the representatives of the\r\npopular view define their position. Prof. H. Mattison, on the verse just\r\nquoted, says:--\r\n\r\n“That this act was the infusion of a spiritual nature into the body of\r\nAdam, is evident from the following considerations: The phrase,\r\n‘breath of life,’ is rendered breath of lives by all Hebrew scholars.\r\nNot only did animal life then begin, but another and higher life which\r\nconstituted him not only a mere animal, but a ‘living soul.’ He was a\r\nbody before,--he is now more than a body, a soul and body united. If\r\nhe was a ‘soul’ before, then how could he become such by the last act\r\nof creation? And if he was not a soul before, but now became one, then\r\nthe soul must have been superadded to his former material\r\nnature.”--_Discussion with Storrs_, p. 14.\r\n\r\nDr. Clarke, on Gen. 2:7, says:--\r\n\r\n“In the most distinct manner God shows us that man is a _compound_\r\nbeing, having a body and soul distinctly and separately created; the\r\nbody out of the dust of the earth, the soul immediately breathed from\r\nGod himself.”\r\n\r\nTo the same end see the reasonings of Landis, Clark (D. W.), and others.\r\nAware of the importance to their system of maintaining this\r\ninterpretation, they very consistently rally to its support the flower\r\nof their strength. It is the redan of their works, and they cannot be\r\nblamed for being unwilling to surrender it without a decisive struggle.\r\nFor if there is nothing in the inspired record of the formation of man,\r\nthat record which undertakes to give us a correct view of his nature, to\r\nshow that he is endowed with immortality, their system is not only\r\nshaken to its foundation, but even the foundation itself is swept\r\nentirely away.\r\n\r\nThe vital point, to which they bend all their energies, is somehow to\r\nshow that a distinct entity, an intelligent part, an immortal soul, was\r\nbrought near to that body as it lay there perfect in its organization,\r\nand thrust therein, which immediately began through the eyes of that\r\nbody to see, through its ears to hear, through its lips to speak, and\r\nthrough its nerves to feel. Query: Was this soul capable of performing\r\nall these functions before it entered the body? If it was, why thrust it\r\nwithin this prison house? If it was not, will it be capable of\r\nperforming them after it leaves the body?\r\n\r\nHeavy drafts are made on rhetoric in favor of this superadded soul.\r\nFigures of beauty are summoned to lend to the argument their aid. An\r\navalanche of flowers is thrown upon it, to adorn its strength, or\r\nperchance to hide its weakness. But when we search for the logic, we\r\nfind it a chain of sand. Right at the critical point, the argument fails\r\nto connect; and so after all their expenditure of effort, after all\r\ntheir lofty flights, and sweating toil, their conclusion comes\r\nout--blank assumption. Why? Because they are endeavoring to reach a\r\nresult which they are dependent upon the text to establish, but which\r\nthe text directly contradicts. The record does not say that God formed a\r\nbody, and put therein a superadded soul, to use that body as an\r\ninstrument; but he formed _man_ of the dust. That which was formed of\r\nthe dust was the man himself, not simply an instrument for the man to\r\nuse when he should be put therein. Adam was just as essentially a man\r\nbefore the breath of life was imparted, as after that event. This was\r\nthe difference: before, he was a dead man; afterward, a living one. The\r\norgans were all there ready for their proper action. It only needed the\r\nvitalizing principle of the breath of life to set them in motion. That\r\ncame, and the lungs began to expand, the heart to beat, the blood to\r\nflow, and the limbs to move; then was exhibited all the phenomena of\r\nphysical action; then, too, the brain began to act, and there was\r\nexhibited all the phenomena of mental action, perception, thought,\r\nmemory, will, &c.\r\n\r\nThe engine is an engine before the motive power is applied. The bolts,\r\nbars, pistons, cranks, shafts, and wheels, are all there. The parts\r\ndesigned to move are ready for action. But all is silent and still.\r\nApply the steam, and it springs, as it were, into a thing of life, and\r\ngives forth all its marvelous exhibitions of celerity and power.\r\n\r\nSo with man. When the breath of life was imparted, which, as we have\r\nseen was given in common to all the animal creation, that simply was\r\napplied which set the machine in motion. No separate and independent\r\norganization was added, but a change took place in the man himself. The\r\nman _became_ something, or reached a condition which before he had not\r\nattained. The verb “became” is defined by Webster, “to pass from one\r\nstate to another; to enter into some state or condition, by a change\r\nfrom another state or condition, or by assuming or receiving new\r\nproperties or qualities, additional matter or a new character.” And Gen.\r\n2:7, is then cited as an illustration of this definition. But it will be\r\nseen that none of these will fit the popular idea of the superadded\r\nsoul; for that is not held to be simply a change in Adam’s condition, or\r\na new property or quality of his being, or an addition of matter, or a\r\nnew character; but a separate and independent entity, capable, without\r\nthe body, of a higher existence than with it. The boy becomes a man; the\r\nacorn, an oak; the egg, an eagle; the chrysalis, a butterfly; but the\r\ncapabilities of the change all inhere in the object which experiences\r\nit. A superadded, independent soul could not have been put into man, and\r\nbe said to have _become_ that soul. Yet it is said of Adam, that he, on\r\nreceiving the breath of life, _became_ a living soul. An engine is put\r\ninto a ship, and by its power propels it over the face of the deep; but\r\nthe ship, by receiving the engine, does not become the engine, nor the\r\nengine the ship. No sophistry, even from the darkest depths of its\r\nalchemy, can bring up and attach to the word “become” a definition which\r\nwill make it mean, as applied to any body, the addition of a distinct\r\nand separate organization to that body.\r\n\r\nTo the inquiry of Prof. Mattison, “If he was ‘a soul’ before, then how\r\ncould he become such by the last act of creation,” it may be replied,\r\nThe antithesis is not based upon the word soul, but upon the word\r\nliving. This will become evident by trying to read the passage without\r\nthis word: “And the Lord God breathed into his nostrils the breath of\r\nlife, and man became a soul.” That is not it. He became a _living_ soul.\r\nHe was a soul before, but not a living soul. To thus speak of a dead\r\nsoul, may provoke from some a sneer; nevertheless, the Hebrews so used\r\nthe terms. See Num. 6:6: “He shall come at no dead body,” on which\r\nCruden says, “in Hebrew, dead soul.”\r\n\r\nKitto, in his Relig. Encyclopedia, under the term Adam, says:--\r\n\r\n“And Jehovah God formed the man (Heb., the Adam) dust from the ground,\r\nand blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a _living\r\nanimal_. Some of our readers may be surprised at our having translated\r\n_nephesh chaiyah_ by living animal. There are good interpreters and\r\npreachers who, confiding in the common translation, living soul, have\r\nmaintained that here is intimated a distinctive pre-eminence above the\r\ninferior animals, as possessed of an immaterial and immortal spirit.\r\nBut, however true that distinction is, and supported by abundant\r\nargument from both philosophy and the Scriptures, we should be acting\r\nunfaithfully if we were to assume its being _contained_ or _implied_ in\r\nthis passage.”\r\n\r\nThe “abundant argument from both philosophy and the Scriptures” for\r\nman’s immortal spirit, may be more difficult to find than many suppose.\r\nBut this admission that nothing of the kind is implied in this passage,\r\nis a gratifying triumph of fair and candid criticism over what has been\r\nalmost universally believed and taught.\r\n\r\nBut we are not left to our own reasoning on this point; for inspiration\r\nitself has given us a comment upon the passage in question; and\r\ncertainly it is safe to let one inspired writer explain the words of\r\nanother.\r\n\r\nPaul, in 1 Cor. 15:44, and onward, is contrasting the first Adam with\r\nthe second, and our present state with the future. He says: “There is a\r\nnatural body and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The\r\nfirst man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a\r\nquickening spirit.” Here Paul refers directly to the facts recorded in\r\nGen. 2:7. In verse 47, he tells us the nature of this man that was made\r\na living soul: “The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is\r\nthe Lord from Heaven.” In verse 49, he says, “And as we have borne the\r\nimage of the earthy,” have been, like Adam, living souls, “we shall also\r\nbear the image of the heavenly,” when our bodies are fashioned like unto\r\nhis glorious body. Phil. 3:21. In verses 50 and 53, he tells us why it\r\nis necessary that this should be done, and how it will be accomplished:\r\n“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the\r\nkingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. For this\r\ncorruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on\r\nimmortality.”\r\n\r\nPutting these declarations all together, what do we have? We have a very\r\nexplicit statement that this first man, this living soul which Adam was\r\nmade, was of the earth, earthy, did not bear the image of the heavenly\r\nin its freedom from a decaying nature, did not possess that incorruption\r\nwithout which we cannot inherit the kingdom of God, but was wholly\r\nmortal and corruptible. Would people allow these plain and weighty words\r\nof the apostle their true meaning upon this question, it would not only\r\nsummarily arrest all controversy over the particular text under\r\nconsideration, but leave small ground, at least from the teachings of\r\nthe Scriptures, to argue for the natural immortality of man.\r\n\r\nBut the terms “living soul” like the breath of life, are applied to all\r\norders of the animate creation, to beasts and reptiles, as well as to\r\nman. The Hebrew words are _nephesh chaiyah_; and these words are in the\r\nvery first chapter of Genesis four times applied to the lower orders of\r\nanimals: Gen. 1:20, 21, 24, 30. On Gen. 1:21, Dr. A. Clarke offers this\r\ncomment:--\r\n\r\n“_Nephesh chaiyah_; a general term to express all creatures endued with\r\nanimal life, in any of its infinitely varied gradations, from the\r\nhalf-reasoning elephant down to the stupid potto, or lower still, to the\r\npolype, which seems equally to share the vegetable and animal life.”\r\n\r\nThis is a valuable comment on the meaning of these words. He would have\r\ngreatly enhanced the utility of that information, if he had told us that\r\nthe same words are applied to man in Gen. 2:7.\r\n\r\nProf. Bush, in his notes on this latter text, says:--\r\n\r\n“The phrase living soul is in the foregoing narrative repeatedly applied\r\nto the inferior orders of animals which are not considered to be\r\npossessed of a ‘soul’ in the sense in which that term is applied to man.\r\nIt would seem to mean the same, therefore, when spoken of man, that it\r\ndoes when spoken of beasts, viz.: an animated being, a creature\r\npossessed of life and sensation, and capable of performing all the\r\nphysical functions by which animals are distinguished, as eating,\r\ndrinking, walking, &c.... Indeed it may be remarked that the Scriptures\r\ngenerally afford much less _explicit_ evidence of the existence of a\r\nsentient immaterial principle in man, capable of living and acting\r\nseparate from the body, than is usually supposed.”\r\n\r\nAnd there is nothing in the term “living” to imply that the life with\r\nwhich Adam was then endowed would continue forever; for these living\r\nsouls are said to die. Rev. 16:3: “And every living soul died in the\r\nsea.” Whether this means men navigating its surface or the animals\r\nliving in its waters, it is equally to the point as showing that that\r\nwhich is designated by the terms “living soul,” whatever it is, is\r\nsubject to death.\r\n\r\nStaggered by the fact (and unable to conceal it) that the terms “living\r\nsoul” are applied to all animals, the advocates of man’s immortality\r\nthen undertake to make the word “became” the pivot of their argument.\r\nMan “became” a living soul, but it is not said of the beasts that they\r\nbecame such; hence this must denote the addition of something to man\r\nwhich the animals did not receive. And in their anxiety to make this\r\nappear, they surreptitiously insert the idea that the animal life of man\r\nis derived from the dust of the ground, and that something of a higher\r\nnature was imparted to man by the breath of life which was breathed into\r\nhim, and the living soul which he became. Thus Mr. Landis, in his work,\r\n“The Immortality of the Soul,”[A] p. 141, says: “Hence something was to\r\nbe added to the mere animal life derived from the dust of the ground.”\r\nNow Mr. L. ought to know, and knowing, ought to have the candor to\r\nadmit, that no life at all is derived from the dust of the ground. All\r\nthe life that Adam had was imparted by the breath of life which God\r\nbreathed into his nostrils, which breath all breathing animals, no\r\nmatter how they obtained it, possessed as well as he.\r\n\r\nFootnote A:\r\n\r\n  “The Immortality of the Soul and the Final Condition of the Wicked\r\n  Carefully Considered. By Robert W. Landis. New York: Published by\r\n  Carlton and Porter.” This is a work of 518 pages, and being issued\r\n  under the patronage of the great Methodist Book Concern, we take it to\r\n  be a representative work, and shall occasionally refer to its\r\n  positions.\r\n\r\nNo emphasis can be attached to the word “became:” for everything that is\r\ncalled a living soul must by some process have become such. “Whatever\r\nwas or is first _became_ what it was or is.”\r\n\r\nTake the case of Eve. She was formed of a rib of Adam, made of\r\npre-existent matter. It is not said of her that God breathed into her\r\nnostrils the breath of life, or that she became a living soul; yet no\r\none claims that her nature was essentially different from that of Adam\r\nwith whom she was associated, as a fitting companion.\r\n\r\nAnd it will be further seen that this word “became” can have no value in\r\nthe argument, unless the absurd principle be first set up as truth, that\r\nwhatever becomes anything must forever remain what it has become.\r\n\r\nDefenders of the popular view, by such reasoning reduce their argument\r\nto its last degree of attenuation; but here its assumption becomes so\r\ntransparent that it has no longer power to mislead, and needs no further\r\nreply.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                              CHAPTER VI.\r\n                     WHAT IS SOUL? WHAT IS SPIRIT?\r\n\r\n\r\nThe discussion of Gen. 2:7 (as in the preceding chapter), brings\r\ndirectly before us for solution the question, What is meant by the terms\r\nsoul and spirit, as applied to man? Some believers in unconditional\r\nimmortality point triumphantly to the fact that the terms soul and\r\nspirit are used in reference to the human race, as though that settled\r\nthe question, and placed an insuperable embargo upon all further\r\ndiscussion. This arises simply from their not looking into this matter\r\nwith sufficient thoroughness to see that all we question in the case is\r\nthe popular definition that is given to these terms. We do not deny that\r\nman has a soul and spirit; we only say that if our friends will show\r\nthat the Bible anywhere attaches to them the meaning with which modern\r\ntheology has invested them, they will supply what has thus far been a\r\nperpetual lack, and forever settle this controversy.\r\n\r\nWhat do theologians tell us these terms signify? Buck, in his\r\nTheological Dictionary, says: “Soul, that vital, immaterial, active\r\nsubstance or principle in man whereby he perceives, remembers, reasons,\r\nand wills.” On spirit, he says: “An incorporeal being or intelligence;\r\nin which sense God is said to be a spirit, as are the angels and the\r\nhuman soul.” On man, he says: “The constituent and essential parts of\r\nman created by God are two: body and soul. The one was made out of dust;\r\nthe other was breathed into him.” This soul, he further says, “is a\r\nspiritual substance;” and then, apparently feeling not exactly safe in\r\ncalling that a _substance_ which he claims to be _immaterial_, he\r\nbewilders it by saying “subsistence,” and then adds, “immaterial,\r\nimmortal.”\r\n\r\nThis position strikes us as considerably open to criticism. On this\r\ndefinition of “soul,” how can we deny it to the lower animals? for they\r\n“perceive, remember, reason, and will.” And, if spirit means the “human\r\nsoul,” the question arises, Has man two immortal elements in his nature?\r\nfor the Bible applies both terms to him at the same time. Paul, to the\r\nThessalonians, says: “And I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body\r\nbe preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Does\r\nPaul here use tautology, by applying to man two terms meaning the same\r\nthing? That would be a serious charge against his inspiration. Then has\r\nman two immortal parts, soul and spirit both? This would evidently be\r\noverdoing the matter; for, where one is enough, two are a burden. And\r\nfurther, on this hypothesis, would these two immortal parts exist\r\nhereafter as two independent and separate beings?\r\n\r\nThis idea being preposterous, one question more remains: Which of these\r\ntwo is the immortal part? Is it the soul or the spirit? It cannot be\r\nboth; and it matters not to us which is the one chosen. But we want to\r\nknow what the decision is between the two. If they say that what we call\r\nthe soul is the immortal part, then they give up such texts as Eccl.\r\n12:7: “The spirit shall return to God who gave it;” and Luke 23:46,\r\n“Into thy hands I commend my spirit,” &c. On the other hand, if they\r\nclaim that it is the spirit which is the immortal part, then they give\r\nup such texts as Gen. 35:18: “And it came to pass as her soul was in\r\ndeparting (for she died);” and 1 Kings 17:21, “Let this child’s soul\r\ncome into him again.”\r\n\r\nAnd, further, if the body and soul are both _essential_ parts of man, as\r\nMr. B. affirms, how can either exist as a distinct, conscious, and\r\nperfect being without the other?\r\n\r\nForeseeing these difficulties, Smith, in his Bible Dictionary,\r\ndistinguishes between soul and spirit thus: “Soul (Heb. _nephesh_, Gr.\r\nψυχὴ). One of three parts of which man was anciently believed to\r\nconsist. The term ψυχὴ, is sometimes used to denote the vital principle,\r\nsometimes the sentient principle, or seat of the senses, desires,\r\naffections, appetites, passions. In the latter sense, it is\r\ndistinguished from πνευμα [_pneuma_], the higher rational nature. This\r\ndistinction appears in the Septuagint, and sometimes in the New\r\nTestament. 1 Thess. 5:23.” Then he quotes Olshausen on 1 Thess. 5:23, as\r\nsaying: “For whilst the ψυχὴ [soul] denotes the lower region of the\r\nspiritual man,--comprises, therefore, the powers to which analogous ones\r\nare found in _animal_ life also, as understanding, appetitive faculty,\r\nmemory, fancy,--the πνευμα [_pneuma_] includes those capacities which\r\nconstitute the true human life.”\r\n\r\nSo it seems that, according to these expositors, while the Hebrew\r\n_nephesh_, and Greek _psuche_, usually translated soul, denote powers\r\ncommon to all animal life, the Hebrew _ruach_, and the corresponding\r\nGreek _pneuma_, signify the higher powers, and consequently that part\r\nwhich is supposed to be immortal.\r\n\r\nNow let us inquire what meaning the sacred writers attach to these\r\nterms. As already stated, the original words from which soul and spirit\r\nare translated, are, for soul, _nephesh_ in the Hebrew, and _psuche_ in\r\nthe Greek, and for spirit, _ruach_ in the Hebrew, and _pneuma_ in the\r\nGreek. To these no one is at liberty to attach any arbitrary meaning. We\r\nmust determine their signification by the sense in which they are used\r\nin the sacred record; and whoever goes beyond that, does violence to the\r\nword of God.\r\n\r\nThe word _nephesh_ occurs 745 times in the Old Testament, and is\r\ntranslated by the term soul about 473 times. In every instance in the\r\nOld Testament where the word soul occurs, it is from _nephesh_, with the\r\nexception of Job 30:15, where it comes from _n’dee-vah_, and Isa. 57:16,\r\nwhere it is from _n’shah-mah_. But the mere use of the word soul\r\ndetermines nothing; for it cannot be claimed to signify an immortal\r\npart, until we somewhere find immortality affirmed of it.\r\n\r\nBesides the word soul, _nephesh_, is translated life and lives, as in\r\nGen. 1:20, 30, in all 118 times. It is translated person, as in Gen.\r\n14:21, in all 29 times. It is translated mind, as in Gen. 23:8, in all\r\n15 times. It is translated heart, as in Ex. 23:9, in all 15 times. It is\r\ntranslated body, or dead body, as in Num. 6:6, in all 11 times. It is\r\ntranslated will, as in Ps. 27:12, in all 4 times. It is translated\r\nappetite, as in Prov. 23:2, twice; lust, as in Ps. 78:18, twice; thing,\r\nas in Lev. 11:10, twice.\r\n\r\nBesides the foregoing, it is rendered by the various pronouns, and by\r\nthe words, breath, beast, fish, creature, ghost, pleasure, desire, &c.,\r\nin all forty-three different ways. _Nephesh_ is never rendered spirit.\r\n\r\nThis soul (_nephesh_) is represented as in danger of the grave, Ps.\r\n49:14, 15; 89:88; Job 33:18, 20, 22; Isa. 38:17. It is also spoken of as\r\nliable to be destroyed, killed, &c., Gen. 17:14; Ex. 31:14; Josh. 10:30,\r\n32, 35, 37, 39, &c.\r\n\r\nParkhurst, author of a Greek and a Hebrew Lexicon, says:--\r\n\r\n“As a noun, _neh-phesh_ hath been supposed to signify the spiritual part\r\nof man, or what we commonly call his soul. I must for myself confess\r\nthat I can find no passage where it hath undoubtedly this meaning. Gen.\r\n35:18; 1 Kings 17:21, 22; Ps. 16:10, seem fairest for this\r\nsignification. But may not _neh-phesh_, in the three former passages, be\r\nmost properly rendered _breath_, and in the last, a breathing, or animal\r\nframe?”\r\n\r\nTaylor, author of a Hebrew Concordance, says that _neh-phesh_ “signifies\r\nthe animal life, or that principle by which every animal, according to\r\nits kind, lives. Gen. 1:20, 24, 30; Lev. 11:40. Which animal life, so\r\nfar as we know anything of the manner of its existence, or so far as the\r\nScriptures lead our thoughts, consists in the _breath_, Job. 41:21;\r\n31:39, and in the _blood_. Lev. 17:11, 14.”\r\n\r\nGesenius, the standard Hebrew lexicographer, defines _nephesh_ as\r\nfollows:--\r\n\r\n“1. Breath. 2. The vital spirit, as the Greek _psuche_, and Latin\r\n_anima_, through which the body lives, _i. e._, the principle of life\r\nmanifested in the breath.” To this he also ascribes “whatever has\r\nrespect to the sustenance of life by food and drink, and the contrary.”\r\n“3. The rational soul, mind, _animus_, as the seat of feelings,\r\naffections, and emotions. 4. Concr. living thing, animal in which is the\r\n_nephesh_, life.”\r\n\r\nThe word soul in the New Testament comes invariably from the Greek ψυχή\r\n(_psuche_); which word occurs 105 times. It is translated soul 58 times;\r\nlife, 40 times; mind, 3 times; heart, twice; us, once; and you, once.\r\n\r\nSpirit in the Old Testament is from two Hebrew words _n’shah-mah_ and\r\n_ruach_.\r\n\r\nThe former occurs 24 times. It is 17 times rendered breath, 3 times,\r\nblast, twice, spirit, once, soul, and once, inspiration. It is defined\r\nby Gesenius, “Breath, spirit, spoken of the breath of God, _i. e._, _a_)\r\nthe wind, _b_) the breath, breathing of his anger. 2. Breath, life of\r\nman and beasts. 3. The mind, the intellect. 4. Concr. living thing,\r\nanimals.”\r\n\r\nThe latter, _ruach_, occurs 442 times. Spirit in every instance in the\r\nOld Testament is from this word, except Job 26:4, and Prov. 20:27; where\r\nit is from _n’shah-mah_. Besides spirit it is translated wind 97 times,\r\nbreath, 28 times, smell, 8 times, mind, 6 times, blast, 4 times; also\r\nanger, courage, smell, air, &c., in all sixteen different ways.\r\n\r\nSpirit in the New Testament is from the Greek, πνεῦμα (_pneuma_) in\r\nevery instance. The original word occurs 385 times, and besides spirit\r\nis rendered ghost 92 times, wind, once, and life, once. Parkhurst in his\r\nGreek Lexicon, says: “It may be worth remarking that the leading sense\r\nof the old English word ghost is breath; ... that ghost is evidently of\r\nthe same root with _gust_ of wind; and that both these words are plain\r\nderivatives from the Hebrew, to move with violence; whence also _gush_,\r\n&c.”\r\n\r\n_Pneuma_ is defined by Robinson in his Greek Lexicon of the New\r\nTestament, to mean, primarily, “1. A breathing, breath, breath of air,\r\nair in motion. 2. The spirit of man, _i. e._, the vital spirit, life,\r\nsoul, the principle of life residing in the breath breathed into men\r\nfrom God, and again returning to God.”\r\n\r\nWe now have before us the use and definitions of the words from which\r\nsoul and spirit are translated. From the facts presented we learn that a\r\nlarge variety of meanings attaches to them; and that we are at liberty\r\nwherever they occur to give them that definition which the sense of the\r\ncontext requires. But when a certain meaning is attached to either of\r\nthese words in one place, it is not saying that it has the same meaning\r\nin every other place.\r\n\r\nBy a dishonorable perversion on this point some have tried to hold up to\r\nridicule the advocates of the view we here defend. Thus, when we read in\r\nGen. 2:7, that Adam became a living soul, the sense demands, and the\r\nmeaning of the word soul will warrant, that we then apply it to the\r\nwhole person; Adam, as a complete being, was a living soul. But when we\r\nread in Gen. 35:18, “And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing,\r\nfor she died,” we give the word, according to another of its\r\ndefinitions, a more limited signification, and apply it, with Parkhurst,\r\nto the breath of life.\r\n\r\nBut some have met us here in this manner: “Materialists tell us that\r\nsoul means the whole man, then let us see how it will read in Gen.\r\n35:18; ‘And it came to pass as the whole man was in departing; for she\r\ndied.’” Or they will say, “Materialists tell us that soul means the\r\nbreath; then let us try it in Gen. 2:7: ‘And Adam became a living\r\nbreath.’”\r\n\r\nSuch a course, while it is no credit to their mental acumen, is utterly\r\ndisastrous to all their claims of candor and honesty in their treatment\r\nof this important subject. While we are not at liberty to go beyond the\r\nlatitude of meaning which is attached to the words soul and spirit, we\r\nare at liberty to use whatever definition the circumstances of the case\r\nrequire, varying of course in different passages. But in the whole list\r\nof definitions, and in the entire use of the words, we find nothing\r\nanswering to that immaterial, independent, immortal part, capable of a\r\nconscious, intelligent, active existence out of the body as well as in,\r\nof which the popular religious teachers of the day endeavor to make\r\nthese words the vehicle.\r\n\r\nAnd now we would commend to the attention of the reader another\r\nstupendous fact, the bearing of which he cannot fail to appreciate. We\r\nwant to know if this soul, or spirit, is immortal. The Hebrew and Greek\r\nwords from which they are translated, occur in the Bible, as we have\r\nseen, _seventeen hundred times_. Surely, once at least in that long list\r\nwe shall be told that the soul is immortal, if this is its high\r\nprerogative. Seventeen hundred times we inquire if the soul is once said\r\nto be immortal, or the spirit deathless. And the invariable and\r\noverwhelming response we meet is, _Not Once!_ Nowhere, though used so\r\nmany hundred times, is the soul said to be undying in its nature, or the\r\nspirit deathless. Strange and unaccountable fact, if immortality is an\r\ninseparable attribute of the soul and spirit!\r\n\r\nAn attempt is sometimes made to parry the force of this fact by saying\r\nthat the immortality of the soul, like that of God, is taken for\r\ngranted. We reply, The immortality of God is not taken for granted.\r\nAlthough this might be taken for granted if anything could be so taken,\r\nyet it is directly asserted that God is immortal. Let now the advocates\r\nof the soul’s natural immortality produce one text where it is said to\r\nhave immortality, as God is said to have it, 1 Tim. 6:16, or where it is\r\nsaid to be immortal, as God is said to be, 1 Tim. 1:17, and the question\r\nis settled. But this cannot be done; and the ignoble shift of the\r\ntaken-for-granted argument falls dead to the floor.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                              CHAPTER VII.\r\n                       THE SPIRIT RETURNS TO GOD.\r\n\r\n\r\nEcclesiastes 12:7: “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was,\r\nand the spirit shall return to God who gave it.” It is natural for men\r\nto appeal first and most directly to those sources from which they\r\nexpect the most efficient help. So the advocates of man’s natural\r\nimmortality, when put to the task of showing what scriptures they regard\r\nas containing proof of their position, almost invariably make their\r\nfirst appeal to the text here quoted.\r\n\r\nIn the examination of this text, and all others of a like nature, let it\r\never be remembered that the question at issue is, Has man in his nature\r\na constituent element, which is an independent entity, and which, when\r\nthe body dies, keeps right on in uninterrupted consciousness, being\r\ncapable of exercising in a still higher degree out of the body the\r\nfunctions of intelligence and activity which it manifested through the\r\nbody, and destined, whether a subject of God’s favor, or of his\r\nthreatened and merited wrath, to live so long as God himself exists.\r\n\r\nDoes this text assert anything of this kind? Does it state that from\r\nwhich even such an inference can be drawn? We invite the reader to go\r\nwith us, while we endeavor to consider carefully what the text really\r\nteaches. Our opponents appeal to it as direct testimony. Let us see how\r\nfar we can go with them.\r\n\r\n1. Solomon, under a series of beautiful figures, speaks in Eccl. 12:1-7,\r\nof the lying down of man in death. Granted.\r\n\r\n2. Dust, or the body, and spirit are spoken of as two distinct things.\r\nGranted.\r\n\r\n3. At death, the spirit leaves the body. Granted.\r\n\r\n4. The spirit is disposed of in a different manner from the body.\r\nGranted.\r\n\r\n5. This spirit returns to God, and is therefore conscious, after the\r\ndissolution of the body. Not granted. Where is the proof of this? Here\r\nour paths begin to diverge from each other. But how could it return to\r\nGod if it was not conscious? Answer: In the manner Job describes. “If he\r\n[God] set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and\r\nhis breath, all flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again to\r\ndust.” Job 34:14, 15. This text speaks of God’s gathering to himself the\r\n“breath” of man; something which no one supposes to be capable of a\r\nseparate conscious existence. Over against this proposition we are\r\ncompelled to mark, Assumption.\r\n\r\n6. This spirit is therefore to exist forever. This conclusion also we\r\nfail to see, either expressed, or even in the remotest manner, implied.\r\nThus the vital points in the evidence are wholly assumed.\r\n\r\nBut if the spirit here does not mean what it is popularly supposed to\r\nmean, what is its signification? What is it that returns to God? It will\r\nbe noticed that it is something which God “gave” to man. And Solomon\r\nintroduces it in a familiar manner, as if alluding to something already\r\nrecorded and well understood. He makes evident reference to the creation\r\nof man in the beginning. His body was formed of the dust; and in\r\naddition to this, what did God do for man or give unto him? He breathed\r\ninto his nostrils the _breath of life_. This is the only spirit that is\r\ndistinctly spoken of as having been given by God to man. No one claims\r\nthat this, like the body, was from the dust, or returns to dust; but it\r\ndoes not therefore follow that it is conscious or immortal.\r\n\r\nLandis, p. 133, falls into this wrong method of reasoning. He says:--\r\n\r\n“If the soul were mortal, it too would be given up to the dust, it would\r\nreturn also to the earth. But God affirms that it does not return to the\r\nearth; and therefore it is distinct from the mortal and perishable part\r\nof man.”\r\n\r\nThe breath of life is distinct from the body, and did not come from the\r\ndust of the ground; but to say that it can exist in a conscious state\r\nindependent of the body, and that it must live forever, is groundless\r\nassumption.\r\n\r\nIf spirit here means “the breath of life,” how, or in what sense, does\r\nit return to God? Landis, p. 150, thus falsely treats this point also:\r\n“How can the air we breathe,” he asks, “return to God?” Between the\r\nbreath of life as imparted to man by God, vitalizing the animal frame,\r\nand air considered simply as an element, we apprehend there is a broad\r\ndistinction. Solomon is showing the dissolution of man by tracing back\r\nthe steps taken in his formation. The breath of life was breathed into\r\nAdam in the beginning; by which he became a living soul. That is\r\nwithdrawn from man, and as a consequence he becomes inanimate. Then the\r\nbody, deprived of its vitalizing principle, having been formed of the\r\ndust, goes back to dust again.\r\n\r\nThat the breath of life came from God to man, none will deny. Do they\r\nask how it returns to him? Tell us how it came from him, and we will\r\ntell how it returns. In the same sense in which God gave it to man, in\r\nthat sense it returns to him. That is all there is of it. The\r\nexplanation is perfectly simple, because one division of the problem is\r\ncomprehended just as easily as the other. It is an easy thing to turn\r\noff with a flippant sneer an explanation which if allowed to stand,\r\ntakes the very breath of life out of a cherished theory.\r\n\r\nBut there is a grave objection lying against the popular exposition of\r\nthis text, which must not pass unnoticed. It is involved in the\r\nquestion, What was the state or condition of this spirit before God gave\r\nit to man? Was it an independent, conscious, and intelligent being,\r\nbefore it was put into Adam, as it is claimed that it was after Adam got\r\nthrough with it, and it returned to God? Solomon evidently designs to\r\nstate respecting all the elements of which man is composed, as is\r\nexpressly stated of the body, that they resume the original condition in\r\nwhich they were, before they came together to form the component parts\r\nof man. We know it is argued that the expression respecting the body,\r\nthat it returns to the dust “as it was,” is good ground for an inference\r\nthat the spirit returns not as it was. Every principle of logic requires\r\nthe very opposite conclusion. For, having set the mind upon that idea of\r\nsameness of condition, and then referring us to the source from whence\r\nthe spirit came, and stating that it goes back to that source, the\r\nlanguage is as good as an affirmation that it goes back to its original\r\ncondition also, and must be so understood unless an express affirmation\r\nis made to the contrary. The question is therefore pertinent, Was this\r\nspirit before it came into man, a conscious being, as it is claimed to\r\nbe after it leaves him? In other words, have we all had a conscious\r\npre-existence? Is the mystery of our Lord’s incarnation repeated in\r\nevery member of the human race? Yes! if popular theologians rightly\r\nexplain this text. And the more daring or reckless spirits among them,\r\nseeing the logical sequence of their reasoning, boldly avow this\r\nposition.\r\n\r\nMr. Landis (to whom we make occasional reference as an exponent of the\r\npopular theory) recoils at the idea of pre-existence, and claims (p.\r\n147) that the spirit does not return as it was, but acquires “a moral\r\ncharacter, and so is changed from what it was when first created and\r\ngiven to man”! Oh! then, when Adam’s body was formed of the dust of the\r\nground a spirit _was created_ (from what?) and put into it. Where did he\r\nlearn this? To what new revelation has he had access to become\r\nacquainted with so remarkable a fact? Or whence derives he his authority\r\nto manufacture statements of this kind? His soul swells with indignation\r\nover some whom he styles materialists, and whom he accuses of\r\nmanufacturing scripture. Thou that sayest a man should not, dost thou?\r\nNothing is said of the “creation of a spirit” in connection with the\r\nformation of Adam’s body. The body having been formed, God, by an\r\nagency, not created for the purpose, but already existing with himself,\r\nendowed it with life, and Adam became a living soul.\r\n\r\nHaving thus artfully introduced the idea that the spirit was created for\r\nthe occasion, Mr. L. takes up this reasoning which shows that if the\r\nspirit is conscious after leaving the body, it must have been before it\r\nentered it, and, applying to it a term doubtless suggested by his own\r\nfeelings in view of the assumptions to which he was himself obliged to\r\nresort, calls it silly. Nevertheless here is the rock on which their\r\nexposition of this text inevitably and hopelessly founders.\r\n\r\nThere is another consideration not without its bearing on this question.\r\nThe words, “And the spirit shall return to God who gave it,” are spoken\r\npromiscuously of all mankind. They apply alike to the righteous and\r\nwicked. If the spirit survives the death of the body, the spirits of the\r\nrighteous would, as a natural consequence, ascend to God, in whose\r\npresence they are promised fullness of joy. But do the spirits of the\r\nwicked go to God also? For what purpose? The immediate destination\r\nusually assigned to them is the lake of fire. Is it said that they first\r\ngo to God to be judged? Then we ask, Where does the Bible once affirm\r\nthat a person is judged when he dies? On the contrary, the Scriptures\r\ninvariably place the Judgment in the future, and assert in the most\r\nexplicit terms that God has appointed a day for that purpose. Acts\r\n17:31.\r\n\r\nThus the Bible doctrine of the Judgment is directly contradicted by this\r\nview. According to the Scriptures no man has yet received his final\r\njudgment; yet, according to the view under examination, the spirits of\r\nall who have ever died, good and bad, righteous and wicked, have gone to\r\nGod. For what purpose have the spirits of the wicked gone to him? Are\r\nthey there still? Does God so deal with rebels against his\r\ngovernment--give them Heaven from one to six thousand years, more or\r\nless, and hell afterward? Away with a view which introduces such\r\ninconsistencies into God’s dealings with his creatures.\r\n\r\nHow infinitely preferable that view which alone the record warrants;\r\nthat is, that the spirit that returns to God who gave it is the breath\r\nof life, that agency by which God vivifies and sustains these physical\r\nframes; since this, so far as the record goes, is just what God did give\r\nto man in the beginning, since the definition of the term sustains such\r\nan application, since this spirit, without doing violence to either\r\nthought or language, can return to God in the same sense in which it\r\ncame from him, and, above all, since this view harmonizes all the\r\nrecord, and avoids those inconsistencies and contradictions in which we\r\nfind ourselves inevitably involved the very moment we undertake to make\r\nthe spirit mean a separate entity, conscious in death and immortal in\r\nits nature.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                             CHAPTER VIII.\r\n                      THE FORMATION OF THE SPIRIT.\r\n\r\n\r\nIn a search for testimony relative to the nature of man, with the\r\npurpose of ascertaining whether or not he is immortal, those texts first\r\ndemand attention which are claimed as proof that he is above and beyond\r\nthe power of death. Zech. 12:1, is introduced as positive testimony on\r\nthis side of the question:\r\n\r\n“The burden of the word of the Lord for Israel, saith the Lord, which\r\nstretcheth forth the heavens and layeth the foundations of the earth,\r\nand formeth the spirit of man within him.”\r\n\r\nWith an immense flourish this text is introduced by Mr. Landis, p. 152;\r\nand with an air of triumph he adds that materialists are in the habit of\r\npassing it in silence. We think we can answer for them that they have\r\nseen in it nothing to answer, and hence have declined to spend their\r\ntime beating the air. As to the nature of the spirit which God forms in\r\nman, its characteristics and attributes, this text affirms nothing.\r\nAbove all, respecting the main inquiry, Is this spirit immortal? the\r\ntext is entirely silent. Why then is it introduced? Because it contains\r\nthe word spirit. But, as has been shown (chapter vi), nothing is proved\r\nby the mere use of the words soul and spirit, till some affirmation can\r\nbe found in the Scriptures that these terms signify an independent\r\nentity, which has the power of uninterrupted consciousness, and the\r\nendowment of immortality. For men to take these terms and give them\r\ndefinitions and clothe them with attributes which are the offspring of\r\npagan philosophy, or figments of their own imagination, and then claim\r\nthat because the Bible uses these terms it sustains their views, is to\r\nus, at least, a very unsatisfactory method of settling this question.\r\nBut, from the persistency with which it is followed by those of the\r\nopposite view, one might conclude that it is the only way they have of\r\nsustaining their position.\r\n\r\nGod formeth the spirit of man within him. So the text asserts. The word,\r\nform, is in the Septuagint, _plasso_. The definition of this word, as\r\ngiven by Liddell and Scott, is, “To form, mould, shape, Lat. _fingere_,\r\nstrictly used of the artist who works in soft substances, such as earth,\r\nclay, wax.” The word, then, signifies giving shape and form to something\r\nalready in existence; for the artist does not create his clay, wax, &c.,\r\nbut only changes its form. The second definition seems, however, to be\r\nmore applicable to the case in hand. Thus, “II. generally, to bring into\r\nshape or form, πλ. τὴν ψυχὴν τὸ σῶμα, to mould and form the mind or body\r\nby care, diet, and exercise.” Thus God makes man the crown of creation\r\nby forming in him (through a superior organization of the brain) an\r\nintellectual or mental nature, and we can still further form or mold it,\r\nby care and cultivation. There is nothing here to favor the idea of the\r\ncreation of a separate immaterial and immortal entity, and its insertion\r\ninto the human frame.\r\n\r\nThis text is illustrated by Job 32:8: “But there is a spirit in man; and\r\nthe inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding;” not “giveth\r\nit [the spirit] understanding,” as we heard an immaterialist in debate\r\nnot long since read it; but “giveth them [the men] understanding.” That\r\nis, men are endowed with a superior mental organization; and by means of\r\nthat God gives them understanding.\r\n\r\nSince, however, Zech. 12:1, is used by immaterialists, to prove that\r\nsouls are specially created, it raises the question, which may as well\r\nbe considered in this connection as any other, whence the spirit,\r\nwhatever it is, is derived. In the text under consideration, the present\r\ntense is evidently used for the past; and hence it might be read, “The\r\nburden of the word of the Lord ... which stretched forth the heavens,\r\nand laid the foundations of the earth, and _formed_ the spirit of man\r\nwithin him.” If now this means the creation of an immortal entity to be\r\nadded to man, called his spirit, it applies only to the first man, the\r\nman formed at the creation of the world. The question then remains, How\r\ndo all succeeding members of the human race, how do we, get an immortal\r\nspirit? Is it by a special act of creation on the part of God, or is it\r\nby generation from father to son? Has God, for every member of the human\r\nrace since Adam, by special act created a soul or spirit? They who say\r\nhe has, contradict Gen. 2:2, which declares that all God’s work of\r\ncreation, so far as it pertains to this world, was finished in the first\r\nweek of time. If this testimony is true, it is certain that God has not\r\nbeen at work ever since creating human souls as fast as bodies were\r\nbrought into existence to need them, the greater part of the time\r\nthousands of them every day.\r\n\r\nHas God thus made himself the servant of the human race, to wait upon\r\ntheir will, caprice, and passions? for how many of the inhabitants of\r\nthis earth are the offspring of the foulest iniquity and the most\r\nunbridled lust! Does God hold himself in readiness to create souls which\r\nmust come from his hand immaculate and pure, to be thrust into such vile\r\ntenements, at the bidding of godless lust? The reader will pardon the\r\nirreverence of the question, for the sake of an exposure of the\r\nabsurdity of that theory which prompts it.\r\n\r\nBut if we say that the soul is transmitted with the body, then what\r\nbecomes of its incorruptibility and immortality? for “that which is born\r\nof the flesh is flesh.” John 3:6. And Peter says (1 Pet. 1:23-25):\r\n“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the\r\nword of God which liveth and abideth forever. For all flesh is as grass,\r\nand all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth,\r\nand the flower thereof falleth away; but the word of the Lord endureth\r\nforever.”\r\n\r\nThere could hardly be a plainer testimony that man as a whole is mortal\r\nand perishable. He is born of corruptible seed. But more than this, it\r\nis added, “All flesh is as grass.” Should it be said that this means\r\nsimply the body, we reply that the term flesh is frequently used in the\r\nNew Testament to signify the whole man. Thus, Rom. 3:20: “By the deeds\r\nof the law there shall no flesh be justified.” Paul does not here talk\r\nabout the justification of bones, sinews, nerves and muscles; he refers\r\nto the whole responsible man. In the same sense the term is used in many\r\nother passages. But Peter himself, in the passage just quoted, cuts off\r\nits application exclusively to the body; for after saying that “all\r\nflesh is as grass,” he continues, “and all the glory of man as the\r\nflower of grass.” The glory of man must include all that there is noble\r\nand exalted about his nature. If the soul is the highest and most\r\ngodlike part of man, it is included in this glory; but lo! it is all\r\nlike the flower of the grass, transitory and perishable.\r\n\r\nThe word mortal, which means liable to death, occurs five times in our\r\nEnglish version, and in every instance is used to describe the nature of\r\nthe real man. Rom. 6:12; 8:11; 1 Cor. 15:53, 54; 2 Cor. 4:11. It occurs\r\nin the original in one other instance (2 Cor. 5:4) where it is rendered\r\n“mortality.”\r\n\r\nThe texts usually relied on to prove that souls are immediately created\r\nare Eccl. 12:7; Isa. 57:16; Zech. 12:1. The first of these was examined\r\nin the last chapter. The word translated “form” in the last of these\r\npassages, as shown in this present chapter, is not a word that signifies\r\nto create, but only to put into form, mold, and fashion. Isa. 57:16,\r\nspeaks of the souls which God has made. But there are numerous other\r\ntexts, as Job 10:8-11; Isa. 44:2; 64:8; Jer. 1:5, &c., which speak in\r\nthe same manner of the body. But if such expressions can be used with\r\nrespect to the body, produced by the natural process of generation, the\r\nsame expression with reference to the soul contains no proof that that\r\nis not also transmitted with the body.\r\n\r\nGod said to our first parents, and the commission was repeated to Noah\r\nafter the flood, “Be fruitful and multiply.” Multiply what? Themselves,\r\nof course. Did that mean that they should multiply bodies, and God would\r\nmultiply souls to fit them? Nothing of the kind; but they were to\r\nmultiply beings having all the characteristics, endowments, and\r\nattributes of themselves. So Adam, Gen. 5:3, “begat a son in his own\r\nlikeness, after his image, and called his name Seth.” This son was like\r\nAdam in all respects, having all the natures that Adam possessed; and\r\nthat which was begotten by Adam was called Seth. But according to the\r\ndoctrine of creationism, Adam begat only a body, and God created a soul,\r\nwhich is the real man, and called his name Seth, and put it into that\r\nbody. Neither this text nor any other gives countenance to any such\r\nabsurdity.\r\n\r\nSome prominent theologians, both ancient and modern, have adopted the\r\ndoctrine of traduction as opposed to that of creationism, believing the\r\nlatter to be contrary to philosophy and revelation, but the former to be\r\nin harmony with both. In Wesley’s Journal, Vol. v., p. 10, is found the\r\nfollowing entry:--\r\n\r\n“I read and abridged an old work on the origin of the soul. I never\r\nbefore saw anything on the subject so satisfactory. I think the author\r\nproves to a demonstration that God has enabled man, as all other\r\ncreatures, to propagate his whole specie, consisting of soul and body.”\r\n\r\nThe testimony of Richard Watson (Institutes, pp. 362, 3) is equally\r\nexplicit. He says:--\r\n\r\n“A question as to the transmission of this corruption of nature from\r\nparents to children has been debated among those who, nevertheless,\r\nadmit the fact; some contending that the soul is _ex traduce_; others\r\nthat it is by immediate creation. It is certain that, as to the\r\nmetaphysical part of this question, we can come to no satisfactory\r\nconclusion. The Scriptures, however, appear to be more in favor of\r\ntraduction. ‘Adam begat a son in his own likeness.’ ‘That which is born\r\nof the flesh is flesh,’ which refers certainly to the soul as well as to\r\nthe body.... The tenet of the soul’s descent appears to have most\r\ncountenance from the language of Scripture, and it is no small\r\nconfirmation of it, that when God designed to incarnate his own Son, he\r\nstepped out of the ordinary course, and formed a sinless human nature\r\nimmediately by the power of the Holy Ghost.”\r\n\r\nThe evidence is thus rendered conclusive from both reason and Scripture,\r\nthat the soul is transmitted through the process of generation with the\r\nbody. What then, we ask again, becomes of its immortality? For “that\r\nwhich is born of the flesh is flesh,” and mortality cannot generate\r\nitself to a higher plane and beget immortality. This is not saying that\r\nmind is matter; for the results of organization are not to be confounded\r\nwith the matter of which the organization is composed.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                              CHAPTER IX.\r\n                              WHO KNOWETH?\r\n\r\n\r\nWith these words Solomon introduces, in Eccl. 3:21, a very important\r\nquestion respecting the spirit of man. He says: “Who knoweth the spirit\r\nof man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth\r\ndownward to the earth?” Deeming this a good foundation, the advocates of\r\nnatural immortality proceed to build thereon. They take it to be, first,\r\na positive declaration that the spirit of man does go up, and the spirit\r\nof the beast downward to the earth. Then the superstructure is easily\r\nerected: Thus, Solomon must have believed that man had a spirit capable\r\nof a separate and conscious existence in death; and this spirit, in the\r\nhour of dissolution, ascends up on high, and goes into the presence of\r\nGod. It therefore survives the stroke of death, and is consequently\r\nimmortal.\r\n\r\nHere they rest their argument; but we would like to have them proceed;\r\nfor the text speaks of the spirit of the beast, which must also be\r\ndisposed of. If the spirit of man, because it separates from him and\r\ngoes up, is conscious, is not the spirit of the beast, because it\r\nseparates from it and goes down, conscious also? There is nothing in the\r\nman’s spirit going up which can by any means show it to be conscious,\r\nany more than there is in the spirit of the beast going down, to show it\r\nto be conscious. But, if the spirit of the beast survives the stroke of\r\ndeath, it has just as much immortality as that of man. This line of\r\nargument, therefore, proves too much, and must be abandoned.\r\n\r\nBut is not the word spirit as applied to the beast a different word in\r\nthe original from the one translated spirit and applied to man? No; they\r\nare both from the same original word; and that word is _ruach_, the word\r\nfrom which spirit is translated in the Old Testament in every instance\r\nwith two exceptions. The beast has the same spirit that man has.\r\n\r\nLandis (p. 146) feels the weight of the stunning blow which this fact\r\ngives to the popular view, and endeavors to parry its force by the\r\nfollowing desperate resort: He says that Solomon is here describing the\r\nstate of doubt and perplexity through which he had formerly passed; and,\r\nto use Mr. L.’s own words, “in this perplexity he attributes to both man\r\nand beast a _ruach_.” But he says that Solomon got over this state of\r\ndoubt and uncertainty, and “never again attributed a _ruach_ to beasts.”\r\nWhat we regard as the Bible view of man’s nature is not unfrequently\r\ndenominated infidelity by the popular theologians of the present day;\r\nbut it strikes us as rather a bold position to go back and accuse the\r\nsacred writers of laboring under a spirit of infidelity when they penned\r\nthese sentiments.\r\n\r\nBut if we take Solomon’s words to be a declaration that the spirit of\r\nman does go up, his question, even then, would imply a strong\r\naffirmation that we are ignorant of its essential qualities. Who knoweth\r\nthis spirit? Who can tell its nature? Who can describe its inherent\r\ncharacteristics? Who can tell how long it shall continue to exist? On\r\nthese vital points, the text is entirely silent, granting all that is\r\nclaimed for it.\r\n\r\nBut, further, if this text asserts that the spirit of man goes up to\r\nGod, it will be noticed that it is spoken promiscuously of all mankind.\r\nThen the same queries would arise respecting the spirits of the wicked,\r\nfor what purpose they go to God, and the same objections would lie\r\nagainst that view that were stated in the examination of Eccl. 12:7, in\r\nchapter vii.\r\n\r\nTo arrive, however, at the correct meaning of Eccl. 3:21, a brief\r\nexamination of the context is necessary. In verse 18, Solomon expresses\r\na desire that the sons of men may see that they themselves are beasts.\r\nNot that he intended to be understood that man is in no respect superior\r\nto a beast; for no one, inspired or not, above the level of an idiot,\r\nwould make such an assertion, in view of man’s more perfect\r\norganization, his reasoning faculties, and, above all, his future\r\nprospects, if righteous. He simply means, as plainly expressed in the\r\nnext verse, that in one respect, namely, their dissolution in death, man\r\npossesses no superiority over the other orders of animated existence.\r\n“For,” he says, “that which befalleth the sons of men, befalleth beasts;\r\neven one thing befalleth them; as the one dieth [here is the point of\r\nsimilarity], so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath [_ruach_,\r\nthe same word that is rendered spirit in verse 21]; so that a man [in\r\nthis respect] hath no pre-eminence above a beast. All go unto one place\r\n[is that place Heaven? and is this a declaration that all, men and\r\nbeasts alike, go there?] all are of the dust, and all turn to dust\r\nagain.”\r\n\r\nThus definite and positive is the teaching of Solomon that in respect to\r\ntheir life here upon earth, and their condition in death, men and beasts\r\nare exactly alike; and now can we suppose that, after having thus\r\nclearly expressed his views of this matter, he proceeds in the very next\r\nsentence to contradict it all, and assert that in death there is a\r\ndifference between men and beasts, that men do have a pre-eminence, that\r\nall do _not_ go to one place, that the spirit of man goes up conscious\r\nto God, and the spirit of the beast goes down to perish in the earth?\r\nThis would be to make the wisest man that ever lived, the most stupid\r\nreasoner that ever put pen to paper.\r\n\r\nHow, then, is his language in verse 21 to be understood? Answer:\r\nUnderstand it as a question whether the spirit of man goes up, and the\r\nspirit of the beast down, as some asserted in opposition to the views\r\nwhich he taught. John Milton, author of Paradise Lost, so translates it:\r\n“Who knoweth the spirit of man [_an sursum ascendat_] _whether_ it goeth\r\nupward?” &c. The Douay Bible renders the passage thus: “Who knoweth _if_\r\nthe spirit of the children of Adam ascend upward, and _if_ the spirit of\r\nthe beasts descend downward?” The Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Chaldee\r\nParaphrase, the Syriac, and the German of Luther, give the same reading.\r\n\r\nThis puts the matter in quite a different light, and saves Solomon from\r\nself-contradiction; but, alas for the immaterialist! it completely\r\noverturns the structure of immortality built thereon.\r\n\r\nThe notion prevailed in the heathen world that man’s spirit ascended up\r\nto be with the gods, but the spirit of the beast went down to the earth.\r\nIt was the old lesson taught by that unreliable character. in Eden, “Ye\r\nshall not surely die,” but “ye shall be as gods.” Solomon contradicts\r\nthis by stating the truth in the case, that death reduces man and beast\r\nalike to one common condition. Then he asks, Who knows that the opposite\r\nheathen doctrine is true, that the spirit of man goes up, and that of\r\nthe beast down? He had declared that they all went to one place, in\r\naccordance with God’s original sentence, “Thou shalt surely die;” now he\r\ncalls for evidence, if there be any, to show that the opposite doctrine\r\nis true. Thus he smites to the ground this pagan notion by putting it to\r\nthe proof of its claims, for which no proof exists.\r\n\r\nThere is another class of expressions respecting the word spirit, which\r\nproperly come under consideration at this point. The first is Ps. 31:5,\r\nwhere David says: “Into thine hand I commit my spirit.” Our Lord used\r\nsimilar language, perhaps borrowed from this expression of David, when,\r\nexpiring on the cross, he said, “Father, into thy hands I commend my\r\nspirit.” Luke 23:46. And Stephen, the martyr, in the same line of\r\nthought, put up this expiring prayer: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”\r\nActs 7:59. What was it which David and our Lord wished to commit into\r\nthe hands of God, and Stephen, into the hands of Christ? A conscious\r\nentity it is claimed, the living and immortal part of man; for nothing\r\nless could properly be committed to God. Thus Mr. Landis (p. 131) asks:\r\n“What was it then? The mere life which passed into nonentity at death?\r\nAnd can any one suppose they would have commended to God a nonentity?\r\nThis would be a shameless trifling with sacred things.” But David, on\r\none occasion (1 Sam. 26:24), prayed that his life might be much set by,\r\nor be precious, in the eyes of the Lord. That which is precious in his\r\nsight, it seems might very properly be commended to his keeping,\r\nespecially when passing, for his sake, out of our immediate control. And\r\nin the very psalm (31) in which he commits his spirit to God, he does it\r\nin view of the fact that his enemies had “devised to take away his\r\n_life_.” Verse 13.\r\n\r\nIt is a fact that the same or similar acts are spoken of frequently as\r\ndone in reference to the life that are said to be done in reference to\r\nthe spirit. Can a person commit his spirit to God? So he can commit to\r\nhim the preservation of his life. Thus David says, Ps. 64:1: “Preserve\r\nmy life.” What! Mr. Landis would exclaim, preserve a nonentity? Jonah\r\nprayed (4:3), “O Lord, take, I beseech thee, my life from me.” Christ\r\nsays, John 10:15: “I lay down my life for the sheep;” and in John 13:38,\r\nhe asks Peter, “Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake?”\r\n\r\nThus our life is something that we can commit to another for safe\r\nkeeping; it can be taken away from us; we can give it up, or lay it\r\ndown. Is it, therefore, a distinct entity, conscious in death? If it is\r\nnot, then equivalent expressions applied to the spirit do not prove that\r\nto be conscious in death and immortal; for they prove the same in the\r\none case as in the other; and whatever they fail to prove in the one\r\ncase, they fail to prove also in the other.\r\n\r\nBut if the spirit, as is claimed, lives right along after death, just as\r\nconscious as before, and a hundred-fold more active, capable,\r\nintelligent, and free, where would be the propriety of committing it to\r\nGod in the hour of death, any more than at any point during its earthly\r\nexistence? There would be none whatever. Entering upon that permanent\r\nhigher life, it would be much more capable of caring for itself than in\r\nthis earthly condition. The expression bears upon its very face evidence\r\nthat those who used it desired to commit something into the care of\r\ntheir Maker which was about to pass out of their possession; to commit\r\nsomething into his hands for safe keeping until they should be brought\r\nback from the state of unconsciousness and inactivity into which they\r\nwere then falling. And what was that? It was what they were then losing,\r\nnamely, their life, their _pneuma_, which Robinson defines as meaning,\r\namong other things, “The principle of life residing in the breath,\r\nbreathed into man from God, and again returning to God.” And when the\r\nlife is thus given up to God by his people, where is it? “Hid with\r\nChrist in God.” Col. 3:3. And when will the believer receive it again?\r\n“When Christ who is our life shall appear.” Verse 4. Then Stephen will\r\nreceive from his Lord that which while dying he besought him to receive.\r\nThen they who for Christ’s sake have lost their life (not merely their\r\nbodies while their life continued right on) will have that life restored\r\nto them again.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                               CHAPTER X.\r\n                 THE SPIRITS OF JUST MEN MADE PERFECT.\r\n\r\n“But ye are come,” says Paul, “unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the\r\nliving God, the Heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of\r\nangels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn which are\r\nwritten in Heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of\r\njust men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant,\r\nand to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of\r\nAbel.” Heb. 12:22-24.\r\n\r\n\r\nWith a great show of confidence, either pretended or real, the advocates\r\nof man’s immortality bring forward this text in proof of their position.\r\nThat portion of the forgoing quotation upon which they hang their theory\r\nis the expression, “the spirits of just men made perfect,” which they\r\ntake to be both a declaration and proof thereof, that the spirits of men\r\nare released by death, and thereupon are made perfect or glorified in\r\nthe presence of God in Heaven. A little further examination of the\r\nlanguage will, we think, show that such an assertion is not made in the\r\ntext and that even such an inference cannot justly be drawn.\r\n\r\nThat Paul is here contrasting the blessings and privileges enjoyed by\r\nbelievers under the gospel dispensation with those possessed by the Jews\r\nunder the former dispensation, will probably not be questioned on either\r\nside. Ye are not come to the mount that might be touched [Mount Sinai]\r\nand the sound of a trumpet, &c., that is, to that system of types and\r\nceremonies instituted through Moses at Sinai, of which an outward\r\npriesthood were the ministers, and Old Jerusalem the representative\r\ncity; but ye are come to Mount Zion, to the New Jerusalem, to Jesus, and\r\nto his better sacrifice. These things to which we are come are the\r\nsuperior blessings of the gospel, over what was enjoyed under the former\r\ndispensation. But where or how does the fact come in, as one of these\r\nblessings, that man has a spirit which is conscious in death, and is\r\nmade perfect by the dissolution of the body? It will be seen that if\r\nthis be a fact, it is brought in, at best, only incidentally. There is\r\nno proof of it in the expression, “spirits of just men made perfect,” in\r\nitself considered; for they could be made perfect at some future time,\r\nwithout supposing them conscious from death to the resurrection. The\r\nonly proof that can here be found, then, lies in the fact that we are\r\nsaid to have _come_ to these spirits. This is supposed to prove that\r\nthey must be spirits out of the body, and that they must also be\r\nconscious. Then we inquire, How do we come to the spirits of just men\r\nmade perfect, and what is meant by the expression?\r\n\r\nIt is not difficult to determine how we come to all the other objects\r\nmentioned by Paul in the three verses quoted; but how we come to the\r\nspirits of just men made perfect, according to the popular view of that\r\nexpression, is not so clear. If we mistake not, the common view will\r\nhave to be modified, or the explanation remain ungiven.\r\n\r\nLet us see: “Ye are come [or, putting it in the first person, since Paul\r\nbrings these to view as present blessings all through the gospel\r\ndispensation, we are come] unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the\r\nliving God, the heavenly Jerusalem.” That is, we in this dispensation no\r\nlonger look to Old Jerusalem as the center of our worship, but we look\r\nabove, to the New Jerusalem, where the sanctuary and Priest of this\r\ndispensation are. In this sense we are come to them.\r\n\r\n“And to an innumerable company of angels.” Angels are the assistants of\r\nour Lord in his work, who now mediates for his people individually. Dan.\r\n7:10. They are sent forth to minister to those who shall be heirs of\r\nsalvation. Heb. 1:14. They are therefore more intimately concerned in\r\nthe believer’s welfare in this dispensation than in the old. We have\r\nthus come to their presence and ministration.\r\n\r\n“To the general assembly and church of the firstborn which are written\r\nin Heaven.” That is, we have now come to the time when believers of\r\nwhatever nationality, whose names are recorded in the Lamb’s book of\r\nlife in Heaven, constitute a general assembly, or compose one church. We\r\ndo not now look to Jewish genealogies to find the people of God, but we\r\nlook to the record in Heaven. And God now takes his people into covenant\r\nrelation with himself as individuals, and not as a nation. Thus we are\r\ncome in this dispensation to the general assembly, the church of the\r\nfirstborn.\r\n\r\n“And to God the Judge of all.” Directly, through the mediation of his\r\nSon, we draw near to God. Passing over for a time the expression under\r\ndiscussion, the spirits of just men made perfect, we read on:--\r\n\r\n“And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant.” We now come to Jesus,\r\nthe real mediator, instead of to the typical priesthood of the former\r\ndispensation.\r\n\r\n“And to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better things than that of\r\nAbel.” That is, there is now ministered for us the blood of Jesus, the\r\nbetter sacrifice, which takes away from us sin in fact, instead of the\r\nblood of beasts, which took it away only in figure.\r\n\r\nIt can readily be seen how we come to all these things under this\r\ndispensation; how these are all privileges and blessings under the\r\ngospel, beyond what was enjoyed in the former dispensation. But now, if\r\nthe spirits of just men made perfect mean disembodied spirits in the\r\npopular sense, how do we come to these as a gospel blessing? This is\r\nwhat we would like to have our friends tell us. In what respect is our\r\nrelation to our dead friends, the supposed spirits of the departed,\r\nchanged by the gospel? If there is any sense in which we may be said to\r\nhave come to these, we would like to know it.\r\n\r\nBut again, when do we come into closest contact with a man’s spirit? Is\r\nit when that spirit is disembodied, and has gone far away to dwell in\r\nthe presence of God, and is to have no more to do forever with anything\r\nthat is done under the sun? Eccl. 9:6. Is it not rather when the spirit\r\nof a man through the eyes of that man looks upon us, through his mouth\r\nspeaks to us, and through his hands handles us? Outside the hell-doomed\r\nhosts of spiritualists, will any one say that we enjoy more intimate\r\nrelations with a spirit when it is out of the body than we do while it\r\nis in the body? A consideration of this point must convince any one that\r\nthe idea of _coming_ to the spirits of just men made perfect cannot\r\npossibly be applied to spirits out of the body.\r\n\r\nIt will be noticed further that the text does not speak of spirits made\r\nperfect, but of men made perfect. The Greek (και πνεύμασι δικαίων\r\nτετελειωμένων) shows that the participle, “made perfect,” agrees with\r\n“the just,” or “just men,” and not with “spirits.” When, then, we\r\ninquire, are men made perfect? There is a certain sense in which they\r\nare made perfect in this life through the justification of the blood of\r\nChrist, and sanctification of his Spirit; and they are made perfect in\r\nan absolute sense, as in Heb. 11:40, when they experience the final\r\nglorification, and their vile bodies are made like unto Christ’s most\r\nglorious body. Phil. 3:21.\r\n\r\nIf it is said that the text refers to this latter perfection, then it is\r\nplaced beyond the resurrection, and affords no proof of a conscious\r\ndisembodied spirit. If it refers to the former, then it applies to\r\npersons still in this state, and not in death. To one or the other it\r\nmust refer; and apply it which way we may, it does not bring to view a\r\nspirit conscious in death. Therefore it fails entirely to prove the\r\npoint in favor of which our friends produce it.\r\n\r\nIn harmony with the context, we apply it to the present state, to men in\r\nthis life, to a blessing peculiar to the gospel, to the justification\r\nand sanctification which the believer now enjoys through Christ. And in\r\nthis sense we see how we come to it, as to all the other things\r\nmentioned by Paul. We come to the enjoyment of this blessing ourselves,\r\nand to communion and fellowship with those who are also in possession of\r\nit.\r\n\r\nFinally, to show that this not a view devised to meet any exigency of\r\nour position, we will bring to its support a name which with all will\r\nhave great weight, and with many will be final authority. Dr. Adam\r\nClarke, on this passage, says:--\r\n\r\n“In several parts of this epistle [to the Hebrews], τελειος, the just\r\nman, signifies one who has a full knowledge of the Christian system, who\r\nis justified and saved by Christ Jesus; and τετελειωμενοι are the _adult\r\nChristians_, who are opposed to the νεπιοι or babes in knowledge and\r\ngrace. See chap. 5:12-14; 8:11; Gal. 4:1-3. _The spirits of just men\r\nmade perfect_, or the _righteous perfect_, are the full-grown\r\nChristians; those who are justified by the blood and sanctified by the\r\nSpirit of Christ. Being _come_ to such implies that spiritual union\r\nwhich the disciples of Christ have with each other, and which they\r\npossess how far soever separate; for they are all joined in one Spirit,\r\nEph. 2:18; they are in the unity of the Spirit, Eph. 4:3, 4; and of one\r\nsoul, Acts 4:32. This is a unity which was never possessed even by the\r\nJews themselves, in their best state; it is peculiar to real\r\nChristianity; as to _nominal_ Christianity, wars and desolations between\r\nman and his fellows are quite consistent with _its_ spirit.”\r\n\r\nThe reader is also referred to Dr. C.’s note at the end of Heb. 12.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                              CHAPTER XI.\r\n                         THE SPIRITS IN PRISON.\r\n\r\n“For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust,\r\nthat he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but\r\nquickened by the Spirit; by which also he went and preached unto the\r\nspirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the\r\nlongsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a\r\npreparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water.” 1\r\nPet. 3:18-20.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe advocates of natural immortality are not long in finding their way\r\nto this passage. Here, it is claimed, are spirits brought to view, out\r\nof the body; for they were the spirits of the antediluvians: and they\r\nwere conscious and intelligent; for they could listen to the preaching\r\nof Christ, who, by his conscious spirit, while his body lay in the\r\ngrave, went and preached to them.\r\n\r\nLet us see just what conclusions the popular interpretation of this\r\npassage involves, that we may test their claims by the Scriptures. 1.\r\nThe spirits were the spirits of wicked men; for they were disobedient in\r\nthe days of Noah, and perished in the flood. 2. They were consequently\r\nin their place of punishment, the place to which popular theology\r\nassigns all such spirits immediately on their passing from this state of\r\nexistence. 3. The spirit of Christ went into hell to preach to them.\r\nThese are the facts that are to be cleared of improbabilities, and\r\nharmonized with the Scriptures, before the passage can be made available\r\nfor the popular view.\r\n\r\nBut the bare suggestion of so singular a transaction as Christ’s going\r\nto preach to these spirits, immediately gives rise to the query for what\r\npurpose Christ should take pains to go down into hell, to preach to\r\ndamned spirits there; and what message he could possibly bear to them.\r\nThe day of their probation was past; they could not be helped by any\r\ngospel message; then why preach to them? Would Christ go to taunt them\r\nby describing before them blessings which they could never receive, or\r\nraising in their bosoms hopes of a release from damnation, which he\r\nnever designed to grant?\r\n\r\nThese considerations fall like a mighty avalanche across the way of the\r\ncommon interpretation. The thought is felt to be almost an insuperable\r\nobjection, and many are the shifts devised to get around it. One thinks\r\nthat the word preached does not necessarily mean to preach the gospel,\r\nnotwithstanding almost every instance of the use of the word in the New\r\nTestament describes the preaching of the gospel by Christ or his\r\napostles; but that Christ went there to announce to them that his\r\nsufferings had been accomplished, and the prophecies concerning him\r\nfulfilled. But what object could there be in that? How would that affect\r\ntheir condition? Was it to add poignancy to their pain by rendering\r\ntheir misery doubly sure? And were there not devils enough in hell to\r\nperform that work, without making it necessary that Christ should\r\nperform such a ghostly task, and that, too, right between those points\r\nof time when he laid down his life for our sins and was raised again for\r\nour justification?\r\n\r\nAnother thinks these were the spirits of such as repented during the\r\nforty days’ rain of the flood; that they were with the saved in\r\nParadise, a department of the under world where the spirits of the good\r\nare kept (the elysium, in fact, of ancient heathen mythology), but that\r\nthey “still felt uneasy on account of having perished [that is, lost\r\ntheir bodies] under a divine judgment,” and “were now assured by Jesus\r\nthat their repentance had been accepted.”\r\n\r\nSuch resorts show the desperate extremities to which the popular\r\nexposition of this passage is driven.\r\n\r\nOthers frankly acknowledge that they cannot tell what, nor for what\r\npurpose, Christ preached to the lost in hell. So Landis, p. 236. But he\r\nsays it makes no difference if we cannot tell what he preached nor why\r\nhe preached, since we have the assurance that he did go there and\r\npreach. Profound conclusion! Would it not be better, since we have the\r\nassurance that he preached, to conclude that he preached at a time when\r\npreaching could benefit them, rather than at a time when we know that it\r\ncould not profit them, and there could be no occasion for it whatever?\r\n\r\nThe whole issue thus turns on the question, When was this work of\r\npreaching performed? Some will say, “While they were in prison, and that\r\nmeans the state of death, and shows that the dead are conscious and can\r\nbe preached to.” Then, we reply, the dead also can be benefited by\r\npreaching, and led to repentance; and the doctrine of purgatory springs\r\nin full blossom into our creed.\r\n\r\nBut does the text affirm that the preaching was done to these spirits\r\nwhile they were in prison? May it not be that the preaching was done at\r\nsome previous time to persons who were, when Peter wrote, in prison, or,\r\nif you please, in a state of death? So it would be true that the spirits\r\nwere in prison when Peter makes mention of them, and yet the preaching\r\nmight have been done to them at a former period, while they were still\r\nin the flesh and could be benefited by it. This is the view taken of the\r\npassage by Dr. Clarke. He says:--\r\n\r\n“_He went and preached_] By the ministry of Noah one hundred and twenty\r\nyears.”\r\n\r\nThus he places Christ’s going and preaching by his Spirit in the days of\r\nNoah, and not during the time his body lay in the grave.\r\n\r\nAgain, he says:--\r\n\r\n“The word πνευμασι, _spirits_, is supposed to render this view of the\r\nsubject improbable, because this must mean _disembodied_ spirits; but\r\nthis certainly does not follow; for the _spirits of just men made\r\nperfect_, Heb. 12:23, certainly means righteous men, and men _still in\r\nthe church militant_; and the Father of _spirits_, Heb. 12:9, means men\r\n_still in the body_; and the God of the _spirits_ of all flesh, Num.\r\n16:22, and 27:16, means _men_, _not_ in a disembodied state.”\r\n\r\nThe preaching was certainly to the antediluvians. But why should Christ\r\nsingle out that class to preach to, about twenty-four hundred years\r\nafterward, in hell? The whole idea is forced, unnatural, and absurd. The\r\npreaching that was given to them was through Noah, who, by the power of\r\nthe Holy Ghost (1 Pet. 1:12), delivered to them the message of warning.\r\nLet this be the preaching referred to, and all is harmonious and clear;\r\nand this interpretation the construction of the original demands; for\r\nthe word rendered in our version, “were disobedient,” is simply the\r\naorist participle; and the dependent sentence, “when once the\r\nlong-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah,” limits the verb\r\n“preached” rather than the participle. The whole passage might be\r\ntranslated thus: “In which also, having gone to the spirits in prison,\r\nhe preached to the then disobedient ones, when once [or at the time\r\nwhen] the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah.”\r\n\r\nBut how were they in prison? In the same sense in which persons in error\r\nand darkness are said to be in prison. Isa. 42:7: “To open the blind\r\neyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in\r\ndarkness out of the prison house.” Also Isa. 61:1: “The Spirit of the\r\nLord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good\r\ntidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to\r\nproclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them\r\nthat are bound.” Christ himself declared, Luke 4:18-21, that this\r\nscripture was fulfilled in his mission to those here on earth who sat in\r\ndarkness and error, and under the dominion of sin. So the antediluvians\r\nwere shut up under the sentence of condemnation. Their days were limited\r\nto a hundred and twenty years; and their only way of escape from\r\nimpending destruction was through the preaching of Noah.\r\n\r\nSo much with reference to the spirits to whom the preaching was given.\r\nNow we affirm further that Christ’s spirit did not go anywhere to preach\r\nto anybody, while he lay in the grave. If Christ’s spirit, the real\r\nbeing, the divine part, did survive the death of the cross, then\r\n\r\n1. We have only a human offering for our sacrifice; and the claim of the\r\nspiritualists is true that the blood of Christ is no more than that of\r\nany man.\r\n\r\n2. Then Christ did not pour out his soul unto death and make it an\r\noffering for sin, as the prophet declared that he would, Isa. 53:10, 12;\r\nand his soul was not sorrowful even unto death, as he himself affirmed.\r\nMatt. 26:38.\r\n\r\n3. The text says Christ was quickened by the Spirit; and between his\r\ndeath and quickening no action is affirmed of him; and hence any such\r\naffirmation on the part of man is assumption. There can be no doubt but\r\nthe quickening here brought to view was his resurrection. The Greek word\r\nis a very strong one, ζωοποιέω, to impart life, to make alive. He was\r\nput to death in the flesh, but made alive by the Spirit. Landis, p. 232,\r\nlabors hard to turn this word from its natural meaning and make it\r\nsignify, not giving life, but continuing alive. It is impossible to\r\nregard this as anything less than unmitigated sophistry. The verb is a\r\nregular active verb. In the passive voice it expresses an action\r\nreceived. Christ did not continue alive, but _was made alive_ by the\r\nSpirit. Then he was for a time dead. How long? From the cross to the\r\nresurrection. Rom. 1:4. So he says himself in Rev. 1:18, I am he that\r\nliveth and was dead. Yet men will stand up, and for the purpose of\r\nsustaining a pet theory, rob the world’s Offering of all its virtue, and\r\nnullify the whole plan of salvation, by declaring that Christ never was\r\ndead.\r\n\r\nThe word quicken is the same that is used in Rom. 8:11: “But if the\r\nSpirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead, dwell in you, He that\r\nraised up Christ from the dead, shall also quicken your mortal bodies by\r\nhis Spirit that dwelleth in you.” God brought again our Lord from the\r\ndead by the Holy Spirit; and by the same Spirit are his followers to be\r\nraised up at the last day. But that Christ went anywhere in spirit, or\r\ndid any action between his death and quickening, is what the Scriptures\r\nnowhere affirm, and no man has a right to claim.\r\n\r\nMr. Landis, p. 235, argues that this preaching could not have been in\r\nthe days of Noah, because the events narrated took place this side the\r\ndeath of Christ. Why did he not say this side the resurrection of\r\nChrist? Oh! that would spoil it all. But the record shows upon its very\r\nface that if it refers to a time subsequent to Christ’s death, it was\r\nalso subsequent to his resurrection; for if events are here stated in\r\nchronological order, the resurrection of Christ as well as his death\r\ncomes before his preaching. Thus, 1. He was put to death in the flesh.\r\n2. Was quickened by the Spirit, which was his resurrection, as no man\r\nwith any show of reason can dispute; and 3. Went and preached to the\r\nspirits in prison. So the preaching does not come in, on this ground,\r\ntill after Christ was made alive from the dead.\r\n\r\nSome people seem to treat the Scriptures as if they were given to man\r\nthat he might exercise his inventive powers in trying to get around\r\nthem. But no inventive power that the human mind has yet developed will\r\nenable a man, let him plan, contrive, devise, and arrange, as he may, to\r\nfix this preaching of Christ between his death and resurrection. If he\r\ncould fix it there, what would it prove? The man of sin would rise up\r\nand bless him from his papal throne, for proving his darling purgatory.\r\nSuch a position may do for Mormons, Mohammedans, Pagans, and Papists;\r\nbut let no Protestant try to defend it, and not hang his head for shame.\r\nMr. Landis says that “Mr. Dobney and the rest of the fraternity\r\nconveniently forget that there is any such passage [as 1 Pet. 3:19] in\r\nthe word of God.” But we cannot help thinking that it would have been\r\nwell for him, and saved a pitiful display of distorted logic, if he had\r\nbeen prudent enough to forget it too.\r\n\r\nTHE WORD SPIRIT IN OTHER TEXTS.\r\n\r\nThere are a few other texts which contain the word spirit an explanation\r\nof which may be properly introduced at this point:--\r\n\r\nLuke 24:39: “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me\r\nand see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have.” These\r\nare the words of Christ as on one occasion he met with his disciples\r\nafter his resurrection; and as he then possessed a spiritual body which\r\nis given by the resurrection, it is claimed that his words prove the\r\nexistence of spirits utterly disembodied in the popular sense. But we\r\ninquire, What did the disciples suppose they saw? Verse 37 states: “They\r\nsupposed they had seen a spirit;” and on this verse Greenfield puts in\r\nthe margin the word _phantasma_ instead of _pneuma_, and marks it as a\r\nreading adopted by Griesbach. They supposed they had seen a phantom,\r\napparition, specter. This exactly corresponds with their action when on\r\nanother occasion Christ came to them walking on the sea, Matt. 14:26;\r\nMark 6:49, and they were affrighted and cried out, supposing it was a\r\nspirit, where the Greek uses phantom in both instances. The Bible\r\nnowhere countenances the idea that phantoms or specters have any real\r\nexistence; but the imagination and superstition of the human mind have\r\never been prolific in such conceptions. The disciples were of course\r\nfamiliar with the popular notions on this question; and when the Saviour\r\nsuddenly appeared in their midst, coming in without lifting the latch,\r\nor making any visible opening, as spiritual bodies are able to do, their\r\nfirst idea was the superstitious one of an apparition or specter, and\r\nthey were affrighted.\r\n\r\nNow when Jesus, to allay their fears, told them that a spirit had not\r\nflesh and bones as he had, he evidently used the word spirit in the\r\nsense of the idea which they then had in their minds, namely, that of a\r\nphantom; and though the word _pneuma_ is used, which in its very great\r\nvariety of meanings may be employed, perhaps, to express such a\r\nconception, we are not to understand that the word cannot be used to\r\ndescribe bodies like that which Christ then possessed. He was not such a\r\nspirit as they supposed; for a _pneuma_, such as they then conceived of,\r\nin the sense of a phantom, had not flesh and bones as he had.\r\nBloomfield, on verse 37, says:--\r\n\r\n“It may be added that our Lord meant not to countenance those notions,\r\nbut to show his hearers that, according to their _own_ notions of\r\nspirits, he was not one.”\r\n\r\nActs 23:8: “For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither\r\nangel nor spirit, but the Pharisees confess both.” Paul declared himself\r\nin verse 6 to be a Pharisee; and in telling what they believed, in verse\r\n8, it is claimed that Paul plainly ranged himself on the side of those\r\nwho believe in the separate conscious existence of the spirit of man.\r\nBut does this text say that the Pharisees believed any such thing? Three\r\nterms are used in expressing what the Sadducees did not believe,\r\n“resurrection, angel, and spirit.” But when the faith of the Pharisees\r\nis stated, these three are reduced to _two_: “The Pharisees confess\r\n_both_.” Both means only two, not three. Now what two of the three terms\r\nbefore employed unite to express one branch of the faith of the\r\nPharisees? The word angel could not be one; for angels are a distinct\r\nrace of beings from the human family. Then we have left, resurrection\r\nand spirit. The Pharisees believed in angels and in the resurrection of\r\nthe human race. Then all the spirit they believed in, as pertaining to\r\nman, according to this testimony, is what is connected with the\r\nresurrection; and that, of course, is the spiritual body with which we\r\nare then endowed. “It is sown,” says this same apostle, “a natural body,\r\nit is raised a _spiritual_ body.” 1 Cor. 15:44. That the term spirit is\r\napplied to those beings which possess a spiritual body is evident from\r\nHeb. 1:7, which reads, “Who maketh his angels spirits.” Angels are\r\npersonal beings, but their bodies are spiritual bodies, invisible, under\r\nordinary circumstances, to mortal eyes. Hence they are called spirits.\r\nSo of God, John 4:24: “God is a Spirit;” that is, a spiritual being; not\r\nan impersonal one, as much in one place as another.\r\n\r\n1 Cor. 5:5: “To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of\r\nthe flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”\r\nAlthough this text is quoted to prove the separate conscious existence\r\nof a part of man between death and the resurrection, the reader cannot\r\nfail to notice that the time when the spirit is saved is in the day of\r\nthe Lord Jesus, when the resurrection takes place. This text proves\r\nnothing, therefore, respecting the condition of the spirit previous to\r\nthat time; and, so far as our present purpose is concerned, we might\r\ndismiss it with this remark; but a word or two more may serve to free\r\nthe text still further from difficulty. What is meant by delivering the\r\nperson to Satan? and what is the destruction of the flesh? Satan is the\r\nGod of this world; and if any man is a friend of the world, he is on the\r\nside of Satan and an enemy of God. The church is the body of Christ, and\r\nbelongs to him. A person committing the deeds spoken of in this chapter\r\nmust be separated from that body, and given back to the world. He is\r\nthus delivered unto Satan. This is for the destruction of the flesh. The\r\nflesh is often used to mean the carnal mind. Gal. 5:19-21. The\r\nspiritually-minded man has crucified, or destroyed, the flesh. Now, a\r\nperson who desires eternal life, when he finds himself set aside from\r\nthe church, and placed back in the world, the kingdom of Satan, on\r\naccount of his having the carnal mind, understands that to gain eternal\r\nlife he must then put away the carnal mind, or crucify and destroy the\r\nflesh. If he does this, he becomes spiritually minded, joined again to\r\nthe body of Christ, and the old man, the flesh, being destroyed, he, as\r\na spiritually-minded man, will be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.\r\nSpirit we understand to be used in contrast with the flesh, the one\r\ndenoting a person in a carnal state, the other, in a spiritual. To deal\r\nwith a person as the apostle here directs, set him aside from the church\r\ntill he sees, and repents of, his sins, is often the only way to save\r\nhim. In the day of the Lord Jesus, a person is saved by having his body\r\nfashioned like unto Christ’s glorious body, not destroyed. Phil. 3:21.\r\nThe destruction spoken of in the text cannot therefore be the literal\r\ndestruction of the body in contrast with the disembodied spirit.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                              CHAPTER XII.\r\n                   DEPARTURE AND RETURN OF THE SOUL.\r\n\r\n\r\nWe have now examined all those passages in which the word spirit is used\r\nin such a manner as to furnish what is claimed to be evidence of its\r\nuninterrupted consciousness after the death of the body. We have found\r\nthem all easily explainable in harmony with other positive and literal\r\ndeclarations of the Scriptures that the dead know not any thing, that\r\nwhen a man’s breath goeth forth and he returneth to his earth, his very\r\nthoughts perish, and that there is no wisdom nor knowledge nor device in\r\nthe grave to which we go. And so far the unity of the Bible system of\r\ntruth on this point is unimpaired, and the harmony of the testimony of\r\nthe Scriptures is maintained.\r\n\r\nWe will now examine those scriptures in which the term soul is supposed\r\nto be used in a manner to favor the popular view. The first of these is\r\nGen. 35:18: “And it came to pass as her soul was in departing (for she\r\ndied), that she called his name Benoni.” This is adduced as evidence\r\nthat the soul departs when the body dies, and lives on in an active,\r\nconscious condition.\r\n\r\nLuther Lee remarks on this passage:--\r\n\r\n“Her body did not depart. Her brains did not depart. There was nothing\r\nwhich departed which could consistently be called her soul, only on the\r\nsupposition that there is in man an immaterial spirit which leaves the\r\nbody at death.”\r\n\r\nWe may offset this assertion of Luther Lee’s with the following\r\ncriticism from Prof. Bush:--\r\n\r\n“_As her soul was in departing._ Heb. _betzeth naphshah, in the going\r\nout of her soul_, or _life_. Gr., ἐν τω ἀφιεναι ἀυτην την ψυχην, _in her\r\nsending out her life_. The language legitimately implies no more than\r\nthe departing or ceasing of the vital principle, whatever that be. In\r\nlike manner when the prophet Elijah stretched himself upon the dead\r\nchild, 1 Kings 17:21, and cried three times, saying, ‘O Lord my God, let\r\nthis child’s soul come into him again,’ he merely prays for the return\r\nof his physical vitality.”--_Note on Gen. 35:18._\r\n\r\nThe Hebrew word here translated soul is _nephesh_, rendered in the\r\nSeptuagint by _psuche_; and it is unnecessary to remind those who have\r\nread the chapter on Soul and Spirit that these words mean something\r\nbesides body and brains. They often signify that which can be said to\r\nleave the body, as we shall presently see, rendering entirely uncalled\r\nfor the supposition of an immaterial spirit which Mr. Lee makes such\r\nhaste to adopt.\r\n\r\nWhat then did depart, and what is the plain, simple import of the\r\ndeclaration? We call the reader’s attention again to the criticism of\r\nParkhurst, the lexicographer, on this passage:--\r\n\r\n“As a noun, _nephesh_ hath been supposed to signify the spiritual part\r\nof man, or what we commonly call his soul. I must for myself confess\r\nthat I can find no passage where it hath undoubtedly this meaning. Gen.\r\n35:18; 1 Kings 17:21, 22; Ps. 16:10, seem fairest for this\r\nsignification. But may not _nephesh_, in the three former passages, be\r\nmost properly rendered _breath_, and in the last, a breathing or animal\r\nframe?”\r\n\r\nThus, while Mr. Parkhurst admits that Gen. 35:18, is the fairest\r\ninstance that can be found where _nephesh_ could be supposed to mean the\r\nspiritual part of man, yet he will not so far hazard his reputation, as\r\na scholar and critic as to give it that meaning in this or any other\r\ninstance, declaring that here it may most properly be rendered “breath.”\r\nAnd this is in harmony with the account of man’s creation, where it is\r\nseen that the imparting of the breath of life is what made Adam a living\r\nsoul; and the loss of that breath, of course, reduces man again to a\r\nstate of death.\r\n\r\n1 Kings 17:21, 22: “And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah, and the soul\r\nof the child came into him again, and he revived.” In the light of the\r\nforegoing criticism on Gen. 35:18, this text scarcely needs a passing\r\nremark. The same principle of interpretation applies to this as to the\r\nformer. But one can hardly read such passages as this without noticing\r\nhow at variance they read with the popular view. The child, as a whole,\r\nis the object with which the text deals. The child was dead. Something\r\ncalled the soul, which the child is spoken of as having in possession,\r\nhad gone from him, which caused his death. This element, not the child\r\nitself, but what belonged to the child, as a living being, came into him\r\nagain, and _the child_ revived.\r\n\r\nBut according to the immaterialist view, this passage should not so read\r\nat all. For that makes the soul to be the child proper; and the passage\r\nshould read something like this: “And the Lord heard the voice of\r\nElijah, and the child came and took possession of his body again, and\r\nthe body revived.” This is the popular view. Mark the chasm between it\r\nand the Scripture record.\r\n\r\nVerse 17 tells what had left the child, and what it was therefore\r\nnecessary for the child to recover before he could live again. “His\r\nsickness was so sore,” says the record, “that there was no _breath_ left\r\nin him.” That was the trouble: the breath of life was gone from the\r\nchild. And when Elijah comes to pray for his restoration, he asks, in\r\nthe most natural manner possible, that the very thing that had left the\r\nchild, and thereby caused his death, might come into him again, and\r\ncause him to live; and that was simply what verse 17 states, the breath\r\nof life.\r\n\r\nThus in neither of these passages do we find any evidence of the\r\nexistence of an immaterial, immortal soul, which so confidently claims\r\nthe throne of honor in the temple of modern orthodoxy.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                             CHAPTER XIII.\r\n                        CAN THE SOUL BE KILLED?\r\n\r\nMatt. 10:28: “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to\r\nkill the soul; but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and\r\nbody in hell.”\r\n\r\n\r\nLuke records the same sentiment in these words:--\r\n\r\n“And I say unto you, my friends. Be not afraid of them that kill the\r\nbody, and after that have no more that they can do. But I forewarn you\r\nwhom ye shall fear: Fear him, which, after he hath killed, hath power to\r\ncast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.” Luke 12:4, 5.\r\n\r\nThe estimate which immaterialists put upon these texts is thus expressed\r\nby Mr. Landis, p. 181: “This text [Matt, 10:28] therefore must continue\r\nto stand as the testimony of the Son of God in favor of the soul’s\r\nimmortality, and his solemn condemnation of the soul-ruining errors of\r\nthe annihilation and Sadducean doctrine.”\r\n\r\nWe reply: Mr. L. evidently applies the argument to a wrong issue; for\r\nwhatever it may teach concerning the intermediate state, it is most\r\npositively against the doctrine of eternal misery, and the consequent\r\nimmortality of the soul. It teaches that God can destroy the soul in\r\nhell; and there is no force in our Lord’s warning unless we understand\r\nit to affirm that he will thus destroy the souls of the wicked. We never\r\ncould with any propriety be warned to fear a person because he could do\r\nthat which he never designed to do, and never would do. We are to fear\r\nthe civil magistrate to such a degree, at least, as not to offend\r\nagainst the laws, because he has power to put those laws into execution,\r\nand visit upon us merited punishment; but our fear is to rest not simply\r\nupon the fact that he has power to do this, but upon the certainty that\r\nhe will do it if we are guilty of crime. Otherwise there could be no\r\ncause of fear, and no ground for any exhortation to fear.\r\n\r\nNow we are to fear God, that is, fear to disobey him, because he is able\r\nto destroy body and soul in hell; and what is necessarily implied in\r\nthis? It is implied that he certainly _will_ do this in the cases of all\r\nthose who do not fear him enough to comply with his requirements. So the\r\ntext is a direct affirmation that the wicked will be destroyed, both\r\nsoul and body in hell.\r\n\r\nThe next inquiry is, What is the meaning of the word, destroy? We answer\r\nthat, take the word, soul, to mean what we will, the word, destroy, here\r\nhas the same meaning and the same force as applied to the soul, that the\r\nword kill has as applied to the body in the sentence before. Whatever\r\nkilling does to the body, destroying does to the soul. Don’t fear men\r\nbecause they cannot kill the soul as they kill the body; but fear God\r\nbecause he can and will kill the soul (if wicked) just as men kill the\r\nbody. This is the only consistent interpretation of the language. But\r\nall well understand what it does to the body to kill it. It deprives it\r\nof all its functions and powers of life and activity. It does the same\r\nto the soul to destroy it, supposing the soul to be what is popularly\r\nsupposed. The word here rendered destroy is ἀπολλύω (_appolluo_), and is\r\ndefined by Greenfield, “to destroy, to kill, to put to death,” &c.\r\n\r\nHaving seen that the text affirms in the most positive manner the\r\ndestruction of soul and body, or the complete cessation of existence,\r\nfor all the wicked, in hell, we now inquire whether it teaches a\r\nconscious existence for the soul in the intermediate state? This must\r\nbe, it is claimed, because man cannot kill it. But the killing which God\r\ninflicts, according to the popular view, is torment in the flames of\r\nhell, and that commences immediately upon the death of the body. Let us\r\nthen see what the Scriptures testify concerning the receptacle of the\r\ndead and the place of punishment.\r\n\r\nThe word, hell, in our English version is from three different Greek\r\nwords. These words are ἅδης (_hades_), γεέννα (_ge-enna_), and ταρταρόω\r\n(_tartaro-o_, a verb signifying to thrust down to tartarus). These all\r\ndesignate different places; and the following full list of the instances\r\nof their occurrence in the New Testament, will show their use.\r\n\r\n_Hades_ occurs in the following passages:--\r\n\r\n  Matt.     11:23. Shalt be brought down to _hell_.\r\n\r\n            16:18. The gates of _hell_ shall not prevail.\r\n\r\n  Luke      10:15. Shalt be thrust down to _hell_.\r\n\r\n            16:23. In _hell_ he lifted up his eyes.\r\n\r\n  Acts       2:27. Wilt not leave my soul in _hell_.\r\n\r\n             2:31. His soul was not left in _hell_.\r\n\r\n  1 Cor.    15:55. O _Grave_, where is thy victory?\r\n\r\n  Rev.       1:18. Have the keys of _hell_ and death.\r\n\r\n              6:8. Was death, and _hell_ followed.\r\n\r\n  Rev.      20:13. Death and _hell_ delivered up the dead which were\r\n                   in them.\r\n\r\n            20:14. Death and _hell_ were cast into the lake of fire.\r\n\r\n_Ge-enna_ signifies Gehenna, the valley of Hinnom, near Jerusalem, in\r\nwhich fires were kept constantly burning to consume the bodies of\r\nmalefactors and the rubbish which was brought from the city and cast\r\ntherein. It is found in the following places:--\r\n\r\n  Matt.      5:22. Shall be in danger of _hell_ fire.\r\n             5:29. Whole body should be cast into _hell_.\r\n             5:30. Whole body should be cast into _hell_.\r\n            10:28. Destroy both soul and body in _hell_.\r\n             18:9. Having two eyes to be cast into _hell_ fire.\r\n            23:15. More the child of _hell_ than yourselves.\r\n            23:33. How can ye escape the damnation of _hell_?\r\n  Mark       9:43. Having two hands to go into _hell_.\r\n             9:45. Having two feet to be cast into _hell_.\r\n             9:47. Having two eyes to be cast into _hell_.\r\n  Luke       12:5. Hath power to cast into _hell_.\r\n  James       3:6. It is set on fire of _hell_.\r\n\r\n_Tartaro-o_ is used only in the following text:\r\n\r\n“God spared not the angels that sinned, but _cast them down to hell_.” 2\r\nPet. 2:4.\r\n\r\nFrom these references it will be seen that _hades_ is the place of the\r\ndead whether righteous or wicked, from which they are brought only by a\r\nresurrection. Rev. 20:13. On the contrary, Gehenna is the place into\r\nwhich the wicked are to be cast alive with all their members, to be\r\ndestroyed soul and body. These places, therefore, are not to be\r\nconfounded together.\r\n\r\nNow the punishment against which the text warns us, is not a punishment\r\nin _hades_, the state or place of the dead, but in _Gehenna_, which is\r\nnot inflicted till after the resurrection. Therefore we affirm that the\r\ntext contains no evidence whatever of the condition of man in death, but\r\npasses over the entire period from the death of the body to the\r\nresurrection. And this is further evident from the record in Luke: “Be\r\nnot afraid of them that kill the body, and after that, have no more that\r\nthey can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which\r\nafter he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell.”\r\n\r\nLuke does not use the term, soul, at all; yet he expresses the same\r\nsentiment as Matthew. Man can kill the body or destroy this present\r\nlife; but he can accomplish no destruction beyond that. But God can not\r\nonly kill the body, or destroy the present life, but he can cast into\r\nGehenna, or destroy the life that we have beyond the resurrection. These\r\ntwo things alone the text has in view. And now when we remember that\r\n_psuche_, the word here rendered, soul, often means life, either the\r\npresent or future, and is forty times in the New Testament so rendered,\r\nthe text is freed from all difficulty. The word, kill, to be sure is not\r\nsuch as would naturally be used in connection with life; but the word,\r\ndestroy, which is among the definitions of the original word,\r\n_apokteino_, can be appropriately used with life. Thus, fear not them\r\nwhich kill the body, but are not able to destroy the future life; but\r\nrather fear him who is able to destroy the body and put an end to all\r\nfuture life in hell. And it is worthy of notice that the destruction in\r\nhell here threatened is not inflicted upon a person without his body.\r\nNothing is said about God’s destroying the soul alone; but it is at some\r\npoint beyond this life, when the person again has a body: which is not\r\ntill after the resurrection.\r\n\r\nAnother declaration from the lips of our Lord, found in Matt. 16:25, 26,\r\nwill throw some light on our present subject: “For whosoever will save\r\nhis life shall lose it; and whosoever will lose his life for my sake\r\nshall find it. For what is a man profited if he shall gain the whole\r\nworld, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for\r\nhis soul?” The word soul should here be rendered life. Dr. Clarke, on\r\nverse 26, says: “On what authority many here translate the word _psuche_\r\nin the 25th verse, _life_, and in this verse, _soul_, I know not, but am\r\ncertain it means life in both places.”\r\n\r\nBut let us take the expressions, “soul” and “to lose the soul,” in the\r\npopular sense, and what should we have? Whosoever will save his soul (to\r\nsave the soul meaning to save it from hell) shall lose it (that is shall\r\ngo into hell torments): but whosoever will lose his soul (suffer eternal\r\nmisery) for my sake, shall find it (shall be saved in Heaven). This\r\nmakes utter nonsense of the passage, and so is a sufficient condemnation\r\nof the view which makes such an interpretation necessary.\r\n\r\nThe passage simply refers to the present and future life. Thus,\r\nwhosoever will save his life, that is, will deny Christ and his gospel\r\nfor the sake of avoiding persecution, or of preserving his present life,\r\nhe shall lose it in the world to come, when God shall destroy both soul\r\nand body in Gehenna; but he who shall lose his present life if need be,\r\nfor the sake of Christ and his cause, shall find it in the world to\r\ncome, when eternal life is given to all the overcomers.\r\n\r\nHere the life is spoken of as something which can be lost and found\r\nagain. Between the losing and finding no one can claim that it maintains\r\na conscious existence. And what is meant by finding it? Simply that God\r\nwill bestow it upon us in the future beyond the resurrection. So what is\r\nmeant by the expression that man cannot kill it? Simply the same thing,\r\nthat God will, in the resurrection, endow us with life again, a life\r\nwhich is beyond the power of man.\r\n\r\nThe life of all men is in the hands of God. The body was formed of the\r\ndust, but the life was imparted by God. Man, by sin, has made this\r\npresent life a temporary one. But through the plan of salvation, by\r\nwhich the human race was placed upon a second probation, after Adam’s\r\nfall, with the privilege of still gaining eternal life, a future life is\r\ndecreed for all; for there shall be a resurrection of the just and\r\nunjust. With the righteous, this life will be eternal; for they have\r\nsecured the forgiveness of all their sins through Jesus Christ; but with\r\nthe wicked, it will soon end in the second death; for they have thrown\r\naway their golden privilege, and clung to their sins, the wages of which\r\nis death. Man may hasten the close of this present temporary life, may\r\ncut it short by killing the body, for some years before it would close\r\nin the natural course of events; but that future life, which in the\r\npurpose of God is as sure as his own throne, they cannot touch.\r\n\r\nThe exhortation is to those who are striving to serve God, and who\r\nthereby are liable to lose their present lives at the hands of wicked\r\nmen for the truth’s sake. Fear them not, though with the bloody arm of\r\npersecution they may deprive you of the present life; for the life which\r\nis to come they cannot reach.\r\n\r\nAnd the warning is to the wicked that unless they fear God more than\r\nmen, and are governed by his glory more than by worldly considerations,\r\nhe will bring their existence to an utter end in the fire Gehenna.\r\n\r\nThe text, therefore, so far from proving the existence in man of an\r\nindependent, death-surviving, conscious entity called the immortal soul,\r\nspeaks only of the present and future life, and, passing over the entire\r\nperiod between death and the resurrection, then promises the righteous a\r\nlife which man cannot destroy, and affirms that the wicked shall utterly\r\ncease to be in the second death.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                              CHAPTER XIV.\r\n                       THE SOULS UNDER THE ALTAR.\r\n\r\n\r\nIn Rev. 6:9-11, is another instance where the word, soul, is used in a\r\nmanner which many take to be proof that there is in man a separate\r\nentity, conscious in death, and capable in a disembodied state of\r\nperforming all the acts, and exercising all the emotions, which pertain\r\nto this life. The verses referred to read:--\r\n\r\n“And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls\r\nof them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which\r\nthey held. And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord,\r\nholy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that\r\ndwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them;\r\nand it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little\r\nseason, until their fellow-servants also and their brethren, that should\r\nbe killed as they were, should be fulfilled.”\r\n\r\nOn the hypothesis of the popular view, what conclusions must we draw\r\nfrom this testimony?\r\n\r\n1. It is assumed that these souls were in Heaven; then the altar under\r\nwhich John saw them must have been the altar of incense, as that is the\r\nonly altar brought to view in Heaven. Rev. 8:3. But the altar spoken of\r\nin the text is evidently the altar of sacrifice upon which they were\r\nslain. Therefore to represent them as under the altar of incense, which\r\nwas never used for sacrifice, is both incongruous and unscriptural.\r\n\r\n2. We must conclude that they were in a state of confinement, shut up\r\nunder the altar--not a condition we would naturally associate with the\r\nperfection of heavenly bliss.\r\n\r\n3. Solomon says of the dead, that their love, their hatred, and their\r\nenvy, is now perished. Eccl. 9:6. But that makes no difference; for here\r\nare the souls of the holy martyrs still smarting with resentment against\r\ntheir persecutors, and calling for vengeance upon their devoted heads.\r\nIs this altogether consistent? Would not the superlative bliss of Heaven\r\nswallow up all resentment against those who had done them this good\r\nthough they meant them harm, and lead them to bless rather than curse\r\nthe hand that had hastened them thither?\r\n\r\nBut further, the same view which puts these souls into Heaven, puts the\r\nsouls of the wicked, at the termination of this mortal life, into the\r\nlake of fire, where they are racked with unutterable and unceasing\r\nanguish, in full view of all the heavenly host. In proof of this, the\r\nparable of the rich man and Lazarus is strenuously urged. But is it so?\r\nIf it is not, then the popular exposition of that parable must be\r\nabandoned. But that supposed stronghold will not readily be surrendered,\r\nso it is proper to look at the bearing it has upon the case before us.\r\n\r\nAccording, then, to the orthodox view, the persecutors of these souls\r\nwere even then, or certainly soon would be, enveloped in the flames of\r\nhell, right before their eyes, every fiber of their being quivering with\r\na keenness of torture which no language can express, and of which no\r\nmind can adequately conceive.\r\n\r\nHere they were, their agony full in view of these souls of the martyrs,\r\nand their piercing shrieks of infinite and hopeless woe ringing in their\r\nears; for the rich man and Abraham, you know, could converse together\r\nacross the gulf. And was not the sight of all this woe enough to glut\r\nthe most insatiate vengeance? Is there a fiend in hell who could\r\nmanifest the malevolence of planning and praying for greater vengeance\r\nthan this? Yet these souls are represented, even under these\r\ncircumstances, as calling upon God to avenge their blood on their\r\npersecutors, and saying “How long?” as if chiding the tardy movements of\r\nProvidence, in commencing, or intensifying, their torments. Such is the\r\ncharacter which the common view attributes to these holy martyrs, and\r\nsuch the spirit with which it clothes a system of religion the chief\r\ninjunction of which is to forgive, and the chief law of which is mercy.\r\nDoes it find indorsement in any breast in which there remains a drop of\r\neven the milk of human kindness?\r\n\r\n4. These souls pray that their _blood_ may be avenged--an article which\r\nthe uncompounded, invisible, and immaterial soul, as generally\r\nunderstood, is not supposed to possess.\r\n\r\nThese are some of the difficulties we meet, some of the camels we have\r\nto swallow, in taking down the popular view.\r\n\r\nBut it is urged that these souls must be conscious; for they cry to God.\r\nHow easily our expositors forget that language has any literal use, when\r\nthey wish it to be figurative, or that it is ever used as a figure, when\r\nthey wish it to be literal. There is supposed to be such a figure of\r\nspeech as personification, in which, under certain conditions, life,\r\naction, and intelligence, are attributed to inanimate objects. Thus the\r\nblood of Abel is said to have cried to God from the ground. Gen. 4:9,\r\n10. The stone cried out of the wall, and the beam out of the timber\r\nanswered it. Hab. 2:11. The hire of the laborers, kept back by fraud,\r\ncried; and the cry entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. James\r\n5:4. So these souls could cry, in the same sense, and yet be no more\r\nconscious than Abel’s blood, the stone, the beam, or the laborer’s hire.\r\n\r\nSo incongruous is the popular view that Albert Barnes makes haste to set\r\nhimself right on the record as follows:--\r\n\r\n“We are not to suppose that this _literally_ occurred, and that John\r\nactually saw the souls of the martyrs beneath the altar--for the whole\r\nrepresentation is symbolical; nor are we to suppose that the injured and\r\nthe wronged in Heaven actually pray for vengeance on those who wronged\r\nthem, or that the redeemed in Heaven will continue to pray with\r\nreference to things on the earth; but it may be fairly inferred from\r\nthis that there will be _as real_ a remembrance of the wrongs of the\r\npersecuted, the injured, and the oppressed, _as if_ such a prayer was\r\noffered there; and that the oppressor has as much to dread from the\r\ndivine vengeance, _as if_ those whom he has injured should cry in Heaven\r\nto the God who hears prayer, and who takes vengeance.”--_Notes on Rev.\r\n6._\r\n\r\nBut it is said that white robes were given them; hence it is further\r\nurged that they must be conscious. But this no more follows than it does\r\nfrom the fact that they cried. How was it? They had gone down to the\r\ngrave in the most ignominious manner. Their lives had been\r\nmisrepresented, their reputations tarnished, their names defamed, their\r\nmotives maligned, and their graves covered with shame and reproach, as\r\ncontaining the dishonored dust of the most vile and despicable\r\ncharacters. Thus the church of Rome, which then molded the sentiments of\r\nthe principal nations of the earth, spared no pains to make her victims\r\nan abhorring unto all flesh.\r\n\r\nBut the Reformation commences its work. It soon begins to be seen that\r\nthe Romish church is the corrupt and disreputable party, and those\r\nagainst whom it vents its rage are the good, the pure, and the true. The\r\nwork goes on among the most enlightened nations, the reputation of the\r\nchurch going down, and that of the martyrs coming up, until the\r\ncorruptions of the papal abomination are fully exposed, and that huge\r\nsystem of iniquity stands before the world in all its naked deformity,\r\nwhile the martyrs are vindicated from all the aspersions under which\r\nthat Antichristian church had sought to bury them. Then it was seen that\r\nthey had suffered, not for being vile and criminal, but “for the word of\r\nGod and for the testimony which they held.” Then their praises were\r\nsung, their virtues admired, their fortitude applauded, their names\r\nhonored, and their memory cherished. And thus it is even to this day.\r\nWhite robes have thus been given unto every one of them.\r\n\r\nThe whole trouble on such passages as this we conceive to arise from the\r\ntheological definition of the word soul: From that definition, one is\r\nled to suppose that this text speaks of an immaterial, invisible,\r\nimmortal essence in man, which soars into its coveted freedom on the\r\ndeath of its hindrance and clog, the mortal body. No instance of the\r\noccurrence of the word in the original Hebrew or Greek will sustain such\r\na definition. It oftenest means life; and is not unfrequently rendered,\r\nperson. It applies to the dead as well as to the living, as may be seen\r\nby reference to Gen. 2:7, where the word, “living,” need not have been\r\nexpressed were life an inseparable attribute of the soul; and to Num.\r\n19:13, where the Hebrew Concordance reads, “dead soul.”\r\n\r\nThe reader is also referred to the previous chapter on Soul and Spirit.\r\nFrom the definitions there given, it is evident that the word soul may\r\nmean, and the context requires that it here should mean, simply the\r\nmartyrs, those who had been slain; the expression, “the souls of them,”\r\nbeing used to designate the whole person. They were represented to John\r\nas having been slain upon the altar of papal sacrifice on this earth,\r\nand lying dead beneath it. So Dr. Clarke, on this passage, says, “The\r\naltar is upon earth, not in Heaven.” They certainly were not alive when\r\nJohn saw them under the fifth seal; for he again brings to view the same\r\ncompany in almost the same language, and assures us that the first time\r\nthey live after their martyrdom is at the resurrection of the just. Rev.\r\n20:4-6. Lying there, victims of papal blood-thirstiness and oppression,\r\nthe great wrong, of which their sacrifice was the evidence, called upon\r\nGod for vengeance. They cried, or their blood cried, even as Abel’s\r\nblood cried to God from the ground.\r\n\r\nThus another stronghold of the immortality of the soul must be\r\nsurrendered to a harmonious interpretation, and the plain teaching, of\r\nthe word of God.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                              CHAPTER XV.\r\n                        GATHERED TO HIS PEOPLE.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe pleasing doctrine that man can never die, though unfortunate in its\r\nparentage, is very tenacious of its life. In treating this subject in\r\nprevious chapters, we have found that the record of man’s creation\r\nbrings to view no immortal element as entering into his being; that the\r\nBible, in its use of the terms immortal and immortality, never employs\r\nthem to express an attribute inherent in man’s nature; that no\r\ndescription of soul and spirit, and no signification of the original\r\nwords, will sustain the present popular definition of these terms; that\r\nthe soul and spirit, though spoken of in the Bible, in the aggregate,\r\nseventeen hundred times, are never once said to be immortal or\r\nnever-dying; and that no text in which these words are supposed to be\r\nemployed in such a manner as to show that they signify an\r\never-conscious, immortal principle, can possibly be interpreted to\r\nsustain such a doctrine.\r\n\r\nYet the dogma of natural immortality, very reluctantly yields the\r\nground. To a twentieth proof text it will cling even the more\r\ntenaciously, if the preceding nineteen are all swept away. Besides the\r\ntexts already noticed, there are a few other passages behind which it\r\nseeks refuge; and with alacrity we follow it into all its hiding-places,\r\nconfident that in no passage in all the Bible can it find a shelter, but\r\nthat into every one which it claims as its own, it has entered, not by\r\nright of possession, but as an intruder and a usurper.\r\n\r\nBehind the obituaries of the patriarchs it seeks to shield itself. It is\r\nclaimed, for instance, that the death of Abraham is recorded in such a\r\nmanner as to show that his conscious existence did not cease with his\r\nearthly life. We might justly insist on their going farther back and\r\ntaking the recorded close of the lives of the antediluvian patriarchs as\r\nthe basis of their argument. One of these, Enoch, was translated to\r\nHeaven without seeing death; and all the others, according to popular\r\nbelief, went to Heaven just as effectually, through death. But how\r\ndifferent is their record. Of Enoch it is said that he “was not; for God\r\ntook him;” while of the others it is said, And they “died.” Surely these\r\ntwo records do not mean the same thing, and Enoch, whom God took, and\r\nwho is consequently alive in Heaven, must be, judging from the record,\r\nin a different condition from those who died.\r\n\r\nBut to return to the case of Abraham. The record of his death reads:\r\n“Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man\r\nand full of years, and was gathered to his people.” On this verse,\r\nLandis, p. 130, thus remarks:--\r\n\r\n“What then is this _gathering_to the body or the soul? It cannot refer\r\nto the body, for while his body was buried in the cave of Macpelah, in\r\nCanaan, his fathers were buried afar off; Terah, in Haran, in\r\nMesopotamia, and the rest of his ancestors far off in Chaldea. Of\r\ncourse, then, this gathering relates not to the body, but to the soul;\r\nhe was gathered to the assembly of the blessed, and thus entered his\r\nhabitation.”\r\n\r\nTo show how gratuitous, not to say preposterous, is this conclusion, we\r\nraise a query on two points: 1. Does the expression, “gathered to his\r\npeople,” denote that he went to dwell in conscious intercourse with\r\nthem? 2. Were his ancestors such righteous persons that they went to\r\nHeaven when they died? In answering these queries, the last shall be the\r\nfirst. It is a significant fact that Abraham had to be _separated_ from\r\nhis kindred and his _father’s house_, in order that God might make him a\r\nspecial subject of his providence. And in Josh. 24:2, we are plainly\r\ntold that his ancestors were idolaters; for they served other gods. Such\r\nbeing their character, death would send them, according to the popular\r\nview, to the regions of the damned. At the time, then, of Abraham’s\r\ndeath, they were writhing amid the lurid waves of the lake of fire. And\r\nwhen Abraham was gathered to them, if it was in the sense which the\r\ntheology of our day teaches, he, too, was consigned to the flames of\r\nhell! Oh! to what absurdities will men suffer themselves to be led\r\nblindfold by a petted theory. God had said to Abram, Gen. 15:15: “And\r\nthou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good\r\nold age.” Was this the consoling promise that he should go to hell in\r\npeace in a good old age? And is the record of his death an assertion\r\nthat he has his place among the damned!? Yes! if the immaterialist\r\ntheory be correct. Children of Abraham, arise! and with one mouth\r\nvindicate your “righteous father” from the foul aspersion. Renounce a\r\ntheory as far from Heaven-born which compels you thus to look upon the\r\n“father of the faithful.”\r\n\r\nDoes, then, the expression, “gathered to his people,” mean his personal,\r\nconscious intercourse with them? If man has an immortal soul which lives\r\nin death, it does; and if it does, Abraham is in hell. There is no way\r\nof avoiding this conclusion, except by repudiating the idea that man has\r\nsuch a soul, and denying his conscious happiness or misery while in a\r\nstate of death.\r\n\r\nBut how, then, could he be gathered to his people? Answer: He could go\r\ninto the grave into which they had gone, into the state of death, in\r\nwhich they were held. Jacob said, when mourning for Joseph whom he\r\nsupposed dead: “I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning.” Not\r\nthat he expected to go into the same locality, or the same grave; for he\r\ndid not suppose that his son, being, as he then thought, devoured by\r\nwild beasts, was in the grave literally at all; but by the grave he\r\nevidently meant a state of death; and as his son had been violently\r\ndeprived of life, he too would go down mourning into the state of death;\r\nand this he calls going unto his son. In Acts 13:36, Paul, speaking of\r\nDavid, says that he “was _laid unto his fathers_.” This all must\r\nacknowledge to be the exact equivalent of being “gathered to his\r\npeople;” then the apostle goes on and adds, “_and saw corruption_.” That\r\nwhich was laid unto his fathers, or was gathered to his people, saw\r\ncorruption. Men may labor, if they choose, to refer it to the immortal\r\nsoul; but in that way they do it a very doubtful favor; for the success\r\nof their argument is the destruction of their theory; and the soul is\r\nshown to be something which is perishable and corruptible in its nature.\r\n\r\nThe peaceful death of our father Abraham furnishes no proof of an\r\nimmortal soul in man, and from his hallowed resting-place no arguments\r\nfor such a dogma can be drawn.\r\n\r\nAnother text may properly be considered in this connection:--\r\n\r\nPs. 90:10: “The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if\r\nby reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength\r\nlabor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off and we fly away.”\r\n\r\nOn the authority of this text it is claimed that something flies away\r\nwhen our strength is cut off in death; that that something is the\r\nimmortal soul, and that if it flies away, it is therefore conscious; and\r\nif it thus survives the stroke of death, it is therefore immortal:\r\nrather a numerous array of conclusions, and rather weighty ones, to be\r\ndrawn from the three words, “we fly away.” Let us look at David’s\r\nargument. The reason given why our strength is labor and sorrow, is\r\nbecause it is soon cut off and we fly away. If, now, our flying away\r\nmeans the going away of a conscious soul, into Heaven, for instance, if\r\nwe are righteous, his argument stands thus: “Yet is their strength labor\r\nand sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and _we go to Heaven_.” Singular\r\nreasoning, this! But his argument is all consistent if by flying away he\r\nmeans that we go into the grave, where Solomon assures us that there is\r\nno work, wisdom, knowledge, nor device. Let us not abuse the psalmist’s\r\nreasoning.\r\n\r\nThe text plainly tells us what flies away; namely, _we_ fly away. We is\r\na personal pronoun and includes the whole person. According to Buck’s\r\nassertion that man is composed of two _essential_ elements, soul and\r\nbody, the man is not complete without them both; and the pronoun, we,\r\ncould not be used to express either of them separately. The text does\r\nnot intimate any separation; it does not say that the soul flies away,\r\nor the spirit flies away; but _we_, in our undivided personality, fly\r\naway. To what place does the body, an essential part of the we, fly? To\r\nthe grave, and there only.\r\n\r\nThis is confirmed by Eccl. 9:3: “The heart of the sons of men is full of\r\nevil; and madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that\r\nthey go to the dead.” Had this text read, “And after that they go away,”\r\nit would have been exactly parallel to Ps. 90:10; for no essential\r\ndifference can be claimed between going and flying. But here it is\r\nexpressly told where we go: we go to the _grave_. What is omitted in Ps.\r\n90:10, is here supplied.\r\n\r\nWe may also add that the Hebrew word _gooph_, rendered “fly away,”\r\nsignifies, according to Gesenius, “First, to cover, spec. with wings,\r\nfeathers, as birds cover their young. Second, to fly, properly of birds.\r\nThird, to cover over, wrap in darkness. Fourth, to overcome with\r\ndarkness, to faint, to faint away.”\r\n\r\nThe idea is plainly this: Though our days be fourscore years, yet is\r\ntheir strength labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we sink\r\naway, go to the grave, and are wrapped in the darkness of death. Viewed\r\nthus, David’s language is consistent, and his reasoning harmonious; but\r\nhis language we pervert and his logic we destroy, the moment we try to\r\nmake his words prove the separation from the body, of a conscious soul\r\nat death.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                              CHAPTER XVI.\r\n                     SAMUEL AND THE WOMAN OF ENDOR.\r\n\r\n\r\nIn all arguments for the continued life and consciousness of the dead, 1\r\nSam. 28:3-20, usually holds a conspicuous place. In examining this\r\nscripture, we will look at (1) the narrative, (2) the claim that is\r\nbased upon it, (3) the character of the actors in the incident, (4) the\r\nfacts to be considered, and (5) the conclusions to be drawn.\r\n\r\n1. _The narrative._ Samuel was a prophet of God in Israel from 1112 to\r\n1058 before Christ. Saul was king of Israel from 1096 to 1056 before\r\nChrist. Samuel anointed Saul to his office as king, and from time to\r\ntime communicated instruction to him from the Lord as his counselor and\r\nadviser. At the time when the incident recorded in 1 Sam. 28:3-20,\r\noccurred, Samuel was dead. There was war between the Israelites and the\r\nPhilistines. The Philistines pressed hard upon Israel. They gathered\r\ntheir forces together in Shunem, and Saul, assembling all Israel to\r\noppose them, pitched in Gilboa. Dismayed at the mighty array of the\r\nPhilistine host, Saul’s heart sunk within him, and he was sore afraid.\r\nIn anxiety and trembling, he cast about him for help. He sought the\r\nLord, but the Lord answered him not. No dream was given, no token by\r\nUrim appeared, no prophet had a word from the mouth of the Lord to meet\r\nthe circumstances of his deep distress. He thought of his old-time\r\nfriend, the prophet Samuel, to whom he had so often gone, and who had so\r\noften directed his steps in times of doubt and danger. But Samuel was\r\ndead, and how could he consult him?\r\n\r\nThere was in the land a class of people who claimed to have power to\r\ncommunicate with the dead. This work, called necromancy (a “_pretended_\r\ncommunication with the dead”--_Webster_), had been strictly forbidden by\r\nthe Lord, Lev. 19:31; 20:27; Deut. 18:9-12, &c. And Saul in obedience to\r\nthe command of the Lord, Ex. 22:18, had cut off, so far as they could be\r\nfound, all persons of that class out of the land. Yet a few, controlled\r\nwholly by the devil, still practiced, with caution and secrecy, their\r\nhellish orgies.\r\n\r\nWhether Saul had ever believed in the reality of this work, or not, we\r\nare not informed. But it is certain that in his present extremity, his\r\nbelief gave way to the pretensions of these necromancers, and the evil\r\nthought took possession of him that he could consult in this way with\r\nthe prophet Samuel. So he inquired for a woman that had a familiar\r\nspirit, and was told of one at Endor.\r\n\r\nDisguising himself, in order that the woman, knowing Saul’s decree\r\nagainst witchcraft, might not fear to communicate for him, and going\r\nsecretly by night, he sought the woman. The woman being assured that no\r\nevil was intended and no punishment should happen to her, asked whom she\r\nshould bring up. Saul answered, Bring me up Samuel. And when she saw the\r\nobject which her conjuration had evoked, she cried out with fear, and\r\nsaid to her royal guest, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul.\r\nHe told her to fear not, but tell what she saw. She answered, An old\r\nman, covered with a mantle. “And Saul perceived,” says the narrative,\r\n“that it was Samuel.”\r\n\r\nSamuel asked Saul why he had disquieted him to bring him up; and Saul\r\nanswered, that he might make known what he should do; for the\r\nPhilistines made war upon him, and God was departed from him, and he was\r\nsore distressed. Samuel then asked him why he came to him since God had\r\ndeparted from him, and had become his enemy. Then he proceeded to tell\r\nhim that the kingdom was rent out of his hand because he had failed to\r\nobey the Lord; that the Philistines should triumph in the battle, and\r\nthat on the morrow he and his sons should die. This was the finishing\r\nstroke to the already breaking heart of Saul, and, utterly overwhelmed\r\nwith his calamities, he fell senseless to the earth.\r\n\r\nSuch are the essential facts brought to view in the narrative. Let us\r\nnow look at what is claimed from them.\r\n\r\n2. _The claim._ This can be expressed in few words. It is claimed that\r\nSamuel actually appeared on this occasion, and that therefore the dead\r\nare conscious, or that there is a spirit in man that lives on in\r\nconsciousness when the body dies; and, therefore again, the soul is\r\nimmortal.\r\n\r\nThe validity of this claim rests very much on the question whether the\r\ntransaction here recorded was wrought by the power of God or by the\r\ndevil. If by God, then the representation was a true one; if by the\r\ndevil, we may look for deception; for he commenced his work by becoming\r\nthe father of all the lies in the world, and continues it by assiduously\r\ncirculating them. We will therefore consider,\r\n\r\n3. _The character of the actors._ These actors were, first, the woman\r\nthat had a familiar spirit; and familiar spirits are spirits of devils.\r\nCompare together Num. 25:1-3; Ps. 106:28; and 1 Cor. 10:20. This work of\r\ndealing with familiar spirits, God had declared to be an abomination to\r\nhim, he had expressly forbidden it, and sentenced to death all who\r\npracticed it.\r\n\r\nThe other chief actor in this scene was Saul. And what was his condition\r\nat this time? He had so long lived in violation of divine instruction\r\nthat God had departed from him, and answered him no more by dreams, nor\r\nby Urim, nor by prophets, which were the ways he had himself appointed\r\nto communicate with his people. Query: Would the Lord refuse to\r\ncommunicate with him in ways of his own appointing, and then come to him\r\nby means the use of which he had expressly forbidden? We see then that\r\nneither of the actors in this scene were persons through whom, or for\r\nwhom, we should expect the Lord to work. We will therefore notice\r\nfurther,\r\n\r\n4. _The facts to be considered._\r\n\r\n_a._ The wonders wrought on this occasion were all accomplished by the\r\nfamiliar spirit with whom this woman consorted. There were two things\r\nfor this spirit to do: (1) Either to bring up in reality the dead person\r\nthat was called for, or (2) to counterfeit the dead man so perfectly\r\nthat those who were conversing with the familiar spirit would believe\r\nthat they were conversing with their dead friend.\r\n\r\n_b._ That it was not Samuel, but the familiar spirit personating Samuel,\r\nthat appeared, is evident from the fact that this supposed Samuel,\r\nbefore holding any communication with Saul, put the woman on her guard,\r\ntelling her that her guest was none other than Saul himself. This is\r\nshown by the fact that the woman, as soon as she saw him, cried out with\r\nfear, not because Samuel really appeared contrary to her expectations,\r\nas some have supposed; for she did not cry out, “Samuel has come,\r\nindeed!” but because of what the appearance told her, for she\r\nimmediately turned to Saul and said, “Why hast thou deceived me? for\r\nthou art Saul.” This would not be the work of the real Samuel, to put\r\nthe woman on her guard, to aid her in her unholy work of incantation.\r\n\r\n_c._ According to the claim based on this transaction, it was Samuel’s\r\nimmortal soul that appeared on this occasion, but its appearance was,\r\naccording to the description of the woman, an old man covered with a\r\nmantle. Do immortal souls go about in this way, in the form of old men\r\ncovered with mantles? This renders it still more evident that it was the\r\nfamiliar spirit, imitating Samuel as he appeared while here upon earth.\r\n\r\n_d._ Saul did not see Samuel at all. But does it not read that “Saul\r\nperceived that it was Samuel”? Yes; but perceived how? Not by the sight\r\nof his eyes, but from the woman’s description. The words “saw,” as\r\napplied to the woman, verse 12, and “perceive,” as applied to Saul,\r\nverse 14, are in the Septuagint different words. The woman actually saw\r\nthe appearance before her; and here the word (_eido_) εἴδω is used,\r\nwhich signifies, according to Liddell and Scott, “to see, behold, look\r\nat;” but when it is said that Saul perceived, the word is (_gignosco_)\r\nγιγνώσκω, which signifies, according to the same authority, “to know,\r\nperceive, gain knowledge of, observe, mark, be aware of, see into,\r\nunderstand,” by an operation of the mind. In harmony with this view, is\r\nSaul’s language to the woman, “What sawest _thou_?” and “What form is he\r\nof?” If any should say that Saul might have seen all that the woman saw\r\nif he had not been prostrate upon the ground, it is sufficient to reply\r\nthat it was not till after he asked these questions that he “stooped\r\nwith his face to the ground, and bowed himself.” Verse 14. If Samuel had\r\nactually been present, Saul could have seen him as well as the woman.\r\n\r\n_e._ The appearance which the woman saw came up out of the earth. Was\r\nthat Samuel’s immortal soul? Are these souls in the earth? We supposed\r\nthey were in the heavenly glories of the world above.\r\n\r\n_f._ Is it said that, as the form came up out of the earth, Samuel had a\r\nresurrection. Then the conscious-soul theory is abandoned. But if this\r\nwas a resurrection of Samuel, how could he come up out of the ground\r\nhere at Endor, near the sea of Galilee, when he was buried in distant\r\nRamah, verse 3, near Jerusalem? And if the old man was raised from the\r\ndead, what became of him? Did he go through the pains of a second\r\ndissolution, and enter the grave again? If so, well might he complain to\r\nSaul for disquieting him to bring him up.\r\n\r\n_g._ This pretended Samuel told Saul that he and his sons would be with\r\nhim the following day. Verse 19. If he was an immortal spirit in glory,\r\nhow could Saul, whom God had rejected for his sins, go to be with him\r\nthere?\r\n\r\n_h._ Another sacred writer mentions this event in Saul’s life, and\r\nassigns it as one of the two reasons why he was given up by the Lord to\r\ndie. 1 Chron. 10:13.\r\n\r\n5. _Conclusions._ What conclusions are inevitable from the foregoing\r\nfacts? It is first of all evident that Samuel was not present on that\r\noccasion either as an immortal spirit from the third Heaven, or as one\r\nresurrected from the dead. For\r\n\r\n_a._ It is not consistent to suppose that God, having refused to answer\r\nSaul’s petitions in any legitimate way, would have respect to them when\r\npresented through this forbidden channel.\r\n\r\n_b._ It is inconsistent to suppose that an immortal soul from glory\r\nwould come up out of the earth, as did the form which the woman evoked\r\nwith her hellish incantations.\r\n\r\n_c._ It is inconsistent to suppose that Samuel was resurrected bodily\r\nhere in Endor, when he was buried in Ramah.\r\n\r\n_d._ If he was raised, it must have been by God or the devil. But the\r\ndevil cannot raise the dead, and it is evident that God would not, at\r\nleast in answer to these agencies, the use of which he had forbidden\r\nunder pain of death. God would not thus raise up his servant to talk\r\nwith Saul on the devil’s own ground.\r\n\r\n_e._ It is incredible that such a man as Samuel, who held witchcraft as\r\nsuch a heinous sin, 1 Sam. 15:23, should first hold friendly converse\r\nwith this abandoned woman in the midst of her incantations, and put her\r\non her guard, before delivering his message to Saul.\r\n\r\n_f._ It is the boldest assumption to suppose that any one, through this\r\nagency of the devil, would have power to summon at will any immortal\r\nsoul from glory, or to raise any one from the dead, or that this woman,\r\nthrough her hellish incantations, would have power to behold the holy\r\nSamuel, while Saul could see nothing.\r\n\r\nBut is it not said that the woman saw Samuel? Yes; and here is the only\r\nseeming difficulty in all the narrative. We find these four expressions:\r\n“The woman saw Samuel;” verse 12; “And Samuel said to Saul;” verse 15;\r\n“Then said Samuel;” verse 16; and, “because of the words of Samuel.”\r\nVerse 20. And how could it be so written, it is asked, if Samuel was not\r\nthere, and the woman did not see him, and he did not say the things here\r\nrecorded?\r\n\r\nAnswer. This is easily explained by a very common law of language.\r\nConsider the circumstances. The woman stood ready to bring up any one\r\nthat might be called for. She believed, of course, that they actually\r\ncame, just as mediums now-a-days believe the forms they see are those of\r\ntheir departed friends. Samuel was called for, and this mantled old man\r\nappeared. She supposed it was Samuel; and Saul supposed it was Samuel;\r\nand then, according to the general law of the _language of appearance_,\r\nthe narrative proceeds _according to their supposition_. When it says\r\nSamuel, it only means that form that appeared, which they _supposed_ to\r\nbe Samuel.\r\n\r\nSecondly, the conclusion is apparent that this was only a manifestation\r\nof ancient necromancy, sorcery, witchcraft, or spiritualism; a wholesale\r\ndeception palmed off upon his dupes by the devil in disguise. Between\r\nthe ancient and modern there is this difference: Then he had to pretend\r\nto bring up the dead from the ground; for the people then believed that\r\nthe dead were in the lower regions of the earth: now he brings them down\r\nfrom the upper spheres; for the prevailing belief now is that those\r\nregions are populous with the conscious spirits of the departed.\r\n\r\nLet no one then appeal to the workings of the witch of Endor to prove\r\nthe immortality of the soul, unless he is prepared to claim openly that\r\nthe Bible is a fiction, that ancient necromancy was a divine practice,\r\nand that modern spiritualism with all its godless blasphemies and its\r\nreeking corruptions is the only reliable oracle of truth and purity.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                             CHAPTER XVII.\r\n                   THE TRANSFIGURATION. MATT. 17:1-9.\r\n\r\n\r\nWhen our Lord was transfigured, on a high mountain of Galilee, before\r\nPeter and James and John, there appeared with him two other glorified\r\npersonages, talking with him. These, the inspired narrator says, were\r\nMoses and Elias, as the disciples understood them to be. Luke 9:30-33.\r\n\r\nWith what pleasure does the immaterialist meet with an account of any\r\nmanifestation or action on the part of those who have long been dead; it\r\nhas so specious an appearance of sustaining his views, or at least of\r\nfurnishing him ground for an argument; for, says he, the person was\r\ndead, and this manifestation was by his conscious spirit or immortal\r\nsoul.\r\n\r\nSo far as the case of Elias is concerned, as he appeared at the\r\ntransfiguration, it affords that theory no benefit; for he, being\r\ntranslated, never saw death, and so could appear in the body with which\r\nhe ascended. This is conceded by all; and for this reason his case is\r\nnever put in as a witness on this question, except by those who are so\r\nunfamiliar with the record as to suppose that he, too, once died, and\r\nhere appeared as a disembodied spirit.\r\n\r\nBut with Moses the case is different; for we have in the Bible a plain\r\naccount of his death and burial; yet here he appeared on the mount,\r\nalive, active, and conscious; for he talked with Christ. And so with an\r\nair of triumph, perhaps sincere, Landis asks (p. 181), “What then have\r\nour opponents to say to this argument? for they must meet it or renounce\r\ntheir theory.”\r\n\r\nWere we Sadducees, denying the resurrection, and any future life beyond\r\nthe grave, this case would lie as an insuperable barrier across our\r\npathway; but so long as the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is\r\ntaught in the Bible, the incident is not necessarily against those who\r\ndeny the existence of any such thing as a conscious, disembodied human\r\nspirit, since the presence of Moses on the mount can be accounted for\r\notherwise than through such a medium.\r\n\r\nThis scene was either a representation, made to pass before the minds of\r\nthe disciples, or it was a reality as it appeared. The view that it was\r\nmerely a representation receives some countenance from the fact that it\r\nis called a vision. “Tell the vision to no man,” said Christ; and, while\r\nthe word, vision, is sometimes applied to real appearances, as in Luke\r\n24:43, it also is taken to represent things that do not yet exist, as in\r\nJohn’s vision of the new heavens and new earth. Again, Luke says that\r\nthey (Moses and Elias) “appeared in glory.” Our Lord himself has not yet\r\nattained unto the full measure of glory that is to result to him from\r\nhis work of redemption, 1 Pet. 1:11; Isa. 53:11; and it may well be\r\ndoubted likewise if any of his followers have reached their full state\r\nof glory. If, then, the expression quoted from Luke refers to the future\r\nperfected glory of the redeemed, we have another evidence that this was\r\nonly a representation, like John’s visions of future scenes of bliss,\r\nand not then a reality. But, if this was only a vision, no argument can\r\nbe drawn from it for the intermediate existence of the soul; for, in\r\nthat case, Moses and Elias need not have been even immaterially present.\r\n\r\nBut let us consider it a reality. Then the presence of Moses can be\r\naccounted for by supposing his resurrection from the dead. Against this\r\nhypothesis our opponents have nothing to offer but their own assertions;\r\nand they seem determined to make up in the amount of this commodity what\r\nit lacks in conclusiveness. Thus Landis says, “Moses had died and was\r\nburied, and as his body had never been raised from the dead, he of\r\ncourse appeared as a disembodied spirit.” And Luther Lee says, “So far\r\nas Moses is concerned, the argument is conclusive.” But against these\r\nauthorities, we bring forth another on the other side, as weighty, at\r\nleast, as both of them together. Dr. Adam Clarke says, on the same\r\npassage, “The body of Moses was probably raised again, as a pledge of\r\nthe resurrection.”\r\n\r\nBefore presenting an argument to show that Moses was raised, let us look\r\nat one consideration which proves beyond a peradventure that what\r\nappeared on the mount was not Moses’ disembodied spirit. It will be\r\nadmitted by all that the transfiguration was for the purpose of\r\npresenting in miniature the future kingdom of God, the kingdom of glory.\r\nAndrews (Life of our Lord, p. 321) says: “The Lord was pleased to show\r\ncertain of the apostles, by a momentary transfiguration of his person,\r\nthe supernatural character of his kingdom, and into what new and higher\r\nconditions of being both he and they must be brought ere it could\r\ncome.... They saw in the ineffable glory of his person, and the\r\nbrightness around them, a foreshadowing of the kingdom of God as it\r\nshould come with power; and were for a moment ’eye-witnesses of his\r\nmajesty.’ 2 Pet. 1:16.”\r\n\r\nWho are to be the subjects in this heavenly kingdom? Ans. Those who are\r\ntranslated at Christ’s coming, and the righteous dead who are raised\r\nfrom their graves at that time. Will there be any disembodied spirits\r\nthere? None; for the theory is that at the resurrection, which precedes\r\nthe setting up of this kingdom, the disembodied spirits again take\r\npossession of their reanimated bodies. Of this kingdom, the\r\ntransfiguration was a representation. There was Christ, the glorified\r\nking; there was Elias, the representative of those who are to be\r\ntranslated; and there was Moses; but, if it was simply his disembodied\r\nsoul, then there was a representation of something that will not exist\r\nin the kingdom of God at all; and the representation was an imperfect\r\none, and so an utter failure. But if Moses was there in a body raised\r\nfrom the dead, then the scene was harmonious and consistent, he\r\nrepresenting, as Dr. Clarke supposes, the righteous dead who are to be\r\nraised, and Elias, the living who are to be translated.\r\n\r\nThe question now turns upon the resurrection of Moses from the dead; and\r\nif scriptural evidence can be shown that Moses was thus raised, this\r\npassage immediately changes sides in this controversy. That Moses was\r\nraised, we think is to be necessarily inferred from Jude 9: “Yet Michael\r\nthe archangel, when contending with the devil, he disputed about the\r\nbody of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but\r\nsaid, The Lord rebuke thee.” It will be noticed that this dispute was\r\nabout the _body_ of Moses. Michael (Christ, John 5:27-29; 1 Thess. 4:16)\r\nand the devil, each claimed, it appears, the right to do something with\r\nhis body.\r\n\r\nSome have endeavored to reconcile Jude’s testimony with the\r\nnon-resurrection of Moses, by claiming that the devil wished to make\r\nknown to the children of Israel the place of Moses’ burial, in order to\r\nlead them into idolatry; and that the contention between him and Michael\r\nhad reference to this. But such a conjecture cannot be entertained, as\r\nin this case the contention would have been about the _grave_ of Moses,\r\nrather than about his _body_.\r\n\r\nBut this dispute did have reference solely to the body of Moses. Then we\r\ninquire further what the devil has to do with the bodies of men. He is\r\nsaid to have the power of death; hence the grave is his dominion, and\r\nwhoever enters there he claims as his lawful prey. On the other hand,\r\nChrist is the Life-giver, whose prerogative it is to bring men out from\r\nunder the power of death. The most natural conclusion, therefore, is,\r\nthat the dispute took place on this very point; that it had reference to\r\nthe bringing back to life of that dead body, which the devil would\r\nnaturally wish to keep, and claim the right to keep, in his own power.\r\nBut Christ rebuked the adversary, and rescued his victim from his grasp.\r\nThis is the _necessary_ inference from this passage, and, as such, is\r\nentitled to weight in this argument.\r\n\r\nThe chief objection to this view, is this: If Moses was raised so many\r\nyears before the resurrection of Christ, how can Christ be called the\r\nfirst-fruits of them that slept, as in 1 Cor. 15:20, 23? how can he be\r\nsaid to be the first that should rise from the dead, as in Acts 26:23?\r\nor be called the first-begotten, and first-begotten of the dead, as in\r\nHeb. 1:6, and Rev. 1:5? or the first-born among many brethren, the\r\nfirst-born of every creature, and the first-born from the dead, as in\r\nRom. 8:29, and Col. 1:15, 18?\r\n\r\nIn answering these queries, we first call attention to an important\r\nfact: Several individuals, of whom we have explicit account, were raised\r\nto life before the resurrection of Christ. The following cases may be\r\ncited: (1) The widow’s son, 1 Kings 17, (2) the son of the Shunammite, 2\r\nKings 4, (3) the son of the widow of Nain, Luke 7:14, (4) the ruler’s\r\ndaughter, Luke 8:40, 55, and (5) the resurrection of Lazarus.\r\n\r\nThese instances cannot be disposed of by making a distinction between a\r\nresurrection to mortality and one to immortality; for where does the\r\nBible make any such distinction? or where does it give even an\r\nintimation of anything of the kind? Christ, in sending word to John of\r\nthe results of his work, told the disciples to tell him, among other\r\nthings, that _the dead_ were _raised up_. And when the wicked are\r\nrestored to life, it is called a _resurrection_, no less so than the\r\nrestoration of the righteous. See John 5:29; Acts 24:15; Rev. 20:5. But\r\nthe wicked are not raised to immortality; therefore in the matter of\r\nbeing raised from the dead, the Bible recognizes no distinction on\r\naccount of the different conditions to which the different classes are\r\nraised. Hence the cases referred to above were resurrections from the\r\ndead just as really as though they had been raised to immortality; and\r\nthe distinction which some attempt to make is thus shown to be wholly\r\ngratuitous, and is excluded from the controversy.\r\n\r\nThe objection now lies just as much against the cases of those of whose\r\nresurrection we have the most explicit account, as against that of\r\nMoses; and the question next to be met is, Can those passages which\r\ndeclare that a number of the dead were raised before the resurrection of\r\nChrist, and those which speak of Christ as the first to be raised, be\r\nshown to be free from contradiction?\r\n\r\nIt will be noticed that the objection, so far as the words,\r\nfirst-fruits, first-begotten, and first-born, are concerned, rests\r\nwholly upon the supposition that these words denote exclusively priority\r\nin time. It instantly vanishes before the fact that these words are not\r\nconfined to this meaning.\r\n\r\nChrist is called the first-fruits in 1 Cor. 15, solely in reference to\r\nhis being the antitype of the wave-sheaf, and in contrast with the great\r\nharvest that will take place at his second coming. This word is used in\r\ndifferent senses, as we learn from Jas. 1:18, and Rev. 14:4, where it\r\ncannot have reference to antecedence in time. This is all that need be\r\nsaid on this word.\r\n\r\nThe word rendered first-begotten and first-born is πρωτοτοκος\r\n(_prototokos_). This word is defined by Robinson thus: “Properly the\r\nfirst-born of father or mother;” and, as the first-born was entitled to\r\ncertain prerogatives and privileges over the rest of the family, the\r\nword takes another meaning, namely, “first-born, the same as _the\r\nfirst_, _the chief_, one highly distinguished and pre-eminent. So of\r\nChrist, the beloved Son of God. Col. 1:15.” Greenfield’s definition is\r\nsimilar. This word is used in the same sense in the Septuagint. In Ex.\r\n4:22, Israel is called the first-born; and in Jer. 31:9, Ephraim is\r\ncalled the first-born; but, in point of time, Esau was before Israel,\r\nand Manasseh before Ephraim. Their being called the first-born must\r\ntherefore be owing to the rank, dignity, and station, to which they had\r\nattained.\r\n\r\nAnd hence the conclusion is not without foundation that these words,\r\nwhen applied to Christ, denote the pre-eminent rank and station which he\r\nholds in the great work, rather than the order of time in which his\r\nresurrection occurred, a point to which no importance whatever can be\r\nattached. All hinges upon Christ, and all is accomplished by his power,\r\nand by virtue of his resurrection. He stands out foremost and\r\npre-eminent in all these displays, whether they take place before or\r\nafter his advent to this world.\r\n\r\nThe expression in Acts 27:23, presents apparently the greatest\r\ndifficulty of any. The verse reads: “That Christ should suffer, and that\r\nhe should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show\r\nlight unto the people and to the Gentiles.” As it stands in our common\r\nversion it is difficult to reconcile this statement with the fact that a\r\nnumber were raised from the dead previous to the resurrection of Christ\r\nas already noticed, and we are led to wonder why Paul, knowing of all\r\nthese cases, should make such a statement. But, if we mistake not, the\r\noriginal presents a different idea. In Greenfield’s Testament, the text\r\nstands thus:--\r\n\r\n  Εἰ παθητὸς ὁ Χριστὸς, εἰ πρῶτος ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν φῶς μέλλει\r\nκαταγγέλλειν τω λαῷ καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσι.\r\n\r\nWe call the attention of those familiar with the Greek to this passage,\r\nand submit that it can be properly rendered as follows: “That Christ was\r\nto suffer, [and] that first from the resurrection of the dead he was to\r\nshow light to the people and to the Gentiles.”\r\n\r\nBloomfield, in his note on this verse, says that the words “may be\r\nrendered, either ‘after the resurrection from the dead,’ or ‘by the\r\nresurrection;’ but the latter is preferable.” And Wakefield translates\r\nit thus: “That the Christ would suffer death, and would be the first to\r\nproclaim salvation to this people and to the Gentiles by a resurrection\r\nfrom the dead.”\r\n\r\nThis is in accordance with what the same apostle declared to Timothy (1\r\nTim. 1:10), that Christ brought life and immortality to light through\r\nthe gospel. And viewed in this light, the text is freed from all\r\ndifficulty. It simply teaches that Christ would be the first to\r\ndemonstrate before the people, by a resurrection from the dead, future\r\nlife and immortality for the redeemed.\r\n\r\nThe resurrection of Lazarus, and other similar cases, though they might\r\nshow that the power of death could be so far broken as to give us a new\r\nlease of mortal life, shed no light on our existence beyond this mortal\r\nstate. And the resurrection of Moses, supposing him to have been raised,\r\nwas not a public demonstration designed to show the people the path to a\r\nfuture life. So far as we have any account, no one knew that he had been\r\nraised till he appeared upon the mount of transfiguration. Christ was\r\nthe first one to show to the world, by his rising from the dead, the\r\ngreat light of life and immortality beyond the grave.\r\n\r\nThus the last seeming objection against the idea that Moses had a\r\nresurrection is taken away; while in its favor we have his appearance on\r\nthe mount, and the language of Jude, which can be explained on no other\r\nground.\r\n\r\nLet us then take that view which a consistent regard for scriptural\r\nharmony demands, though another supposed strong column on which rests\r\nthe dogma of the immortality of the soul, goes down before it with a\r\ncrash to the very dust.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                             CHAPTER XVIII.\r\n               DID CHRIST TEACH THAT THE DEAD ARE ALIVE?\r\n\r\n\r\nYes, says the immaterialist, for he taught that God, who declares\r\nhimself to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is not the God of\r\nthe dead, but of the living; therefore, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are\r\nliving; but they are living as immaterial, disembodied immortal spirits;\r\nfor their bodies are in the grave.\r\n\r\nThe occasion on which these words were spoken is described in Matt.\r\n22:23-32. To understand the words of Christ, we must understand fully\r\nthe point at issue, and what his words were designed to prove; and to do\r\nthis, we must look carefully at the narrative:--\r\n\r\n“The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no\r\nresurrection, and asked him, saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die,\r\nhaving no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed\r\nunto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren; and the first,\r\nwhen he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his\r\nwife unto his brother: likewise the second also, and the third, unto the\r\nseventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the\r\nresurrection, whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had\r\nher. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the\r\nScriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither\r\nmarry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in\r\nHeaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read\r\nthat which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham,\r\nand the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the\r\ndead, but of the living.”\r\n\r\nWhat, then, was the point at issue between Christ and the Sadducees? See\r\nverse 23: “The same day, came to him the Sadducees, which _say there is\r\nno resurrection_, and asked him,” &c. The Sadducees professed to believe\r\nthe writings of Moses, but denied the resurrection. Christ also believed\r\nthe writings of Moses, but _taught_ the resurrection. Here, then, was a\r\nfair issue between them. They hear him teaching the resurrection; and to\r\nobject their faith to his, they refer to the law of Moses concerning\r\nmarriage, and then state a familiar fact; viz., that seven brothers, one\r\nafter another, all had one woman, and all died. Now arises a problem\r\nvery difficult to their minds, no doubt. How will this matter be\r\narranged in the resurrection which you teach? Whose wife shall she be in\r\nthe resurrection? Let it be noticed that the controversy between Christ\r\nand the Sadducees had no respect whatever to an intermediate state, nor\r\ndoes their query or Christ’s answer have any reference to such a state.\r\nThey do not inquire whose wife she is now, or which of the men’s\r\nimmortal souls claims her immortal soul in the spirit world; but, Whose\r\nwife _shall she be_ in the resurrection (a future event)? Christ tells\r\nthem that they err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.\r\nAnd then, to defend himself and condemn them out of their own mouth, he\r\nproceeds to prove--what? a conscious intermediate state? No; but _the\r\nresurrection_, from the writings of Moses. “But as touching the\r\nresurrection from the dead,” says he [as touching the dead that they\r\nrise, says Mark; and that the dead are raised, says Luke], “have ye not\r\nread that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of\r\nAbraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God\r\nof the dead, but of the living.”\r\n\r\nLet us now show that this quotation did prove the resurrection, and our\r\nargument on this passage is closed. That, Moses by this language, did\r\nteach the resurrection of the dead, we think is easily evident. Thus,\r\nAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were dead; but God is not the God of the dead\r\n(or those who are irrecoverably and eternally dead, as the Sadducees\r\nbelieved them to be), but he _is_ the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.\r\nWhat, therefore, shall we logically and scripturally conclude from this\r\nfact? Why, simply that they shall live again, or have a resurrection\r\nfrom the dead. In this view of the subject, Christ reasoned well, proved\r\nthe point he aimed to prove, confounded the Sadducees, and gained the\r\napplause of the Pharisees, who believed in the resurrection.\r\n\r\nBut grant for a moment that the language means what is popularly claimed\r\nfor it, and what becomes of Christ’s reputation as a reasoner, and a\r\nteacher of wisdom sent from God? He set out to prove the resurrection;\r\nbut when he closes his argument, lo, wonderful to tell! he has proved\r\nthat all men are alive, and, therefore, there is no _need_ of a\r\nresurrection! He neither meets the query of the Sadducees, nor defends\r\nhimself, but quite the reverse. Believe that our Lord would reason thus,\r\nye who can!\r\n\r\nIf any should admit that a resurrection is proved by the language, but\r\nclaim from it that such resurrection takes place at death, a theory not\r\nuncommon at the present time, we reply that they thereby abandon the\r\nconscious-state theory, and affirm the existence of those who have died,\r\non another ground, viz., a resurrection. But, further, this is equally\r\nforeign from what Christ set out to prove; for he had reference to an\r\nevent which was then future to the seven brethren and the woman that\r\ndied. They asked him, saying, “In the resurrection, therefore, when they\r\n_shall rise_, whose wife _shall she be_ of them,” &c. And Jesus answered\r\nand said, “When they _shall rise_ from the dead, they neither marry nor\r\nare given in marriage, but are as the angels in Heaven.” Mark 12:23-25.\r\nAgain, in Luke’s account, Jesus says, “But they which _shall be_\r\naccounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the\r\ndead, neither marry nor are given in marriage.” Luke 20:35. Thus we see\r\nthat a future event is everywhere referred to, and if he in reality\r\nproved that an event had already taken place, which he designed to show\r\nwould take place in the future, it speaks no better for his reasoning or\r\nhis wisdom than the former supposition.\r\n\r\nWhy God calls himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, though they\r\nare yet dead, we learn from Heb. 11:16. It is not because they are now\r\nalive, but because in God’s purpose who speaks of things that are not,\r\nas though they were, they are to live, and “he _hath prepared_ for them\r\na city.” “Wherefore, God is not ashamed to be called their God; for he\r\nhath prepared for them a city,” into possession of which they will of\r\ncourse come in the future.\r\n\r\nIn view of these facts, our friends should be careful lest they expose\r\nthemselves to the rebuke Christ gave to the Sadducees: “Ye do err, not\r\nknowing the Scriptures;” for this instance, like all others, when\r\nproperly understood, so far from sustaining their position, becomes an\r\nirrefragable evidence of the resurrection of the dead, and a future\r\nlife, but affirms nothing whatever for consciousness in death.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                              CHAPTER XIX.\r\n     MOSES AND THE PROPHETS ON THE PLACE AND CONDITION OF THE DEAD.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe hoary fable that every man has in his own nature an immaterial,\r\never-conscious, never-dying principle, vaulting from the gloomy regions\r\nof heathen mythology over into the precincts of Christianity, and\r\nclaiming the positive authority of Christ and his apostles, instead of\r\nthe uncertain speculations of Socrates and Plato, conceives that it\r\nfinds a secure intrenchment in Luke 16:19-31, or the record concerning\r\nthe rich man and Lazarus.\r\n\r\nInto this record, as into the strongest of strongholds, it enters with\r\nevery demonstration of confidence; and from its supposed impregnable\r\nwalls, it hurls mockery and defiance against all opposing views, as the\r\ninfatuated subjects of Belshazzar defied the soldiers of Cyrus from the\r\nwalls of Babylon.\r\n\r\nWe venture to approach, at least to reconnoiter. We venture further,\r\nfrom the record itself, even to lay siege to it, and dig a trench about\r\nit, which, if we mistake not, will soon effectually reduce it, and all\r\nthe arguments for immortality it is supposed to contain.\r\n\r\nThe first fact to which we call the attention of the reader is that\r\nChrist, as the result of this narrative or parable, or whatever it may\r\nbe, refers us to Moses and the prophets for light and information\r\nrespecting the place and condition of the dead. In the record, the rich\r\nman is represented as requesting that Lazarus might be sent to his\r\nbrethren on earth, lest they should come into the same place of torment.\r\nHow would he prevent them? By carrying back to them information\r\nrespecting the state that follows this life; by telling how it fared\r\nwith the covetous rich man who had enjoyed his good things in this life,\r\nand inducing them to live such a life here as to avoid the condition\r\ninto which he had fallen.\r\n\r\nAnd what was Abraham’s answer? “They have Moses and the prophets.... If\r\nthey hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded\r\nthough one rose from the dead.” That is to say, Moses and the prophets\r\nhad given them just as positive information respecting the condition\r\ninto which man passes from this life, as could be given them by one who\r\nshould repass the portals of the grave and rise from the dead.\r\n\r\nThe significance of this declaration should not be overlooked. It throws\r\nus right back upon the records of Moses and the prophets for information\r\nupon that subject respecting which the incident here related is claimed\r\nto be full and sufficient testimony.\r\n\r\nWe therefore inquire what Moses and the prophets have taught us\r\nrespecting the place where the scene here depicted is represented to\r\nhave taken place. What place was this? Answer, _Hades_; for this is the\r\nword from which hell is translated in verse 23. In hell, _hades_, the\r\nrich man lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham and Lazarus afar off,\r\nthough still within sight and speaking distance. The New Testament was\r\nwritten in Greek, while Moses and the prophets wrote in Hebrew. What is\r\nthe Hebrew word answering to the Greek _hades_? Answer, _Sheol_. These\r\nare the equivalent terms in the two languages. All that a Hebrew writer\r\nmeant by _sheol_, a Greek writer meant by _hades_, and _vice versa_. The\r\nquestion, then, is simply this: What have Moses and the prophets taught\r\nus respecting _sheol_, and the condition of those who enter therein?\r\n\r\n_Meaning of hades and sheol._ These words denote the common receptacle\r\nof the dead, both righteous and wicked. The righteous dead are there;\r\nfor at the resurrection they raise the victorious shout, “O Death, where\r\nis thy sting? O Grave [Gr. _hades_], where is thy victory?” 1 Cor.\r\n15:55. And the wicked dead are there; for at the resurrection to\r\ndamnation it is said that death and hell [Gr. _hades_] deliver them up.\r\nRev. 20:13. That the _hades_ of the New Testament is the _sheol_ of the\r\nOld, Ps. 16, and Acts 2:27, bear testimony. Thus Ps. 16:10, says, “Thou\r\nwilt not leave my soul in hell [Heb. _sheol_];” and the New Testament,\r\nas above, makes a direct quotation of this passage by saying, “Thou wilt\r\nnot leave my soul in _hades_.”\r\n\r\n_Use of the word sheol._ This word occurs in the Old Testament\r\nsixty-five times. It is rendered hell and grave each thirty-one times,\r\nand pit three times. With our Lord’s special indorsement of what is\r\nthere written concerning it, we may look with interest at the facts\r\nbrought out by the testimony of Moses and the prophets.\r\n\r\n_All alike go there._ Thus Jacob says, “I will go down into _sheol_ [to\r\nuse the original word in place of the English rendering], unto my son\r\nmourning.” Gen. 37:35. Korah and his company went down into _sheol_.\r\nNum. 16:30, 33. All mankind go there. Ps. 89:48.\r\n\r\n_What goes into sheol._ _Sheol_ receives the whole man bodily at death.\r\nJacob expected to go down with his gray hairs to _sheol_. Korah, Dathan,\r\nand Abiram, went into _sheol_ bodily. The soul of the Saviour left\r\n_sheol_ at his resurrection. Ps. 16:10; Acts 2:27, 31. David, when\r\nrestored from dangerous sickness, testified that his soul was saved from\r\ngoing into _sheol_. Ps. 30:2, 3.\r\n\r\n_The duration of its dominion._ Those who go down into _sheol_ must\r\nremain there till their resurrection. At the second coming of Christ,\r\nall the righteous are delivered from _sheol_. All the living wicked are\r\nthen turned into _sheol_, and for one thousand years it holds them in\r\nits dread embrace. Then it gives them up, and judgment is executed upon\r\nthem. Rev. 20:11-15.\r\n\r\n_Location of sheol._ It is in the earth beneath. It embraces the\r\ninterior of the earth as the region of the dead, and the place of every\r\ngrave. Eze. 32:18-32. It is always spoken of as beneath, in the interior\r\nof the earth, or in the nether parts of the earth. See Num. 16:30, 33;\r\nIsa. 5:14; 14:9-20; Eze. 31:15-18; 32:18-32. Referring to the fires now\r\npreying upon the interior parts of the earth, and which shall at last\r\ncause the earth to melt with fervent heat, the Lord, through Moses,\r\nsays: “For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the\r\nlowest _sheol_, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set\r\non fire the foundation of the mountains.” Deut. 32:22. Jonah went down\r\ninto _sheol_ when he descended into the depths of the waters, where none\r\nbut dead men had ever been. Jonah 1:2.\r\n\r\n_Condition of the righteous in sheol._ They do not praise the Lord\r\nthere. David so testifies: “In death there is no remembrance of thee; in\r\n_sheol_ who shall give thee thanks?” Ps. 6:5. Hezekiah uttered the same\r\ngreat truth, when he was delivered from death in answer to prayer: “I\r\nsaid in the cutting off of my days, I shall go to the gates of _sheol_;\r\nI am deprived of the residue of my years.... Behold, for peace I had\r\ngreat bitterness; but thou hast in love to my soul delivered it from the\r\n_pit of corruption_; for thou hast cast all my sins behind my back. For\r\n_sheol cannot praise_ thee, death cannot celebrate thee: they that go\r\ndown into the pit cannot hope for thy truth. The living, the living, he\r\nshall praise thee, as I do this day: the father to the children shall\r\nmake known thy truth.” Isa. 38:10-19; Ps. 115:17; 146:1-4.\r\n\r\n_Condition of the wicked in sheol._ They are still and silent there.\r\nDavid, in a prayer indited by the Spirit of God, says: “Let the wicked\r\nbe ashamed, and let them be silent in _sheol_.” Ps. 31:17. In 1 Sam.\r\n2:9, we read that the wicked shall be silent in darkness.\r\n\r\n_General character of sheol._ It is a place of silence, secresy, sleep,\r\nrest, darkness, corruption, and worms. Job says: “So man lieth down, and\r\nriseth not: till the heavens be no more they shall not awake nor be\r\nraised out of their sleep. Oh! that thou wouldst hide me in _sheol_,\r\nthat thou wouldst keep me secret till thy wrath be past, that thou\r\nwouldst appoint me a set time and remember me. If a man die, shall he\r\nlive again? All the days of my appointed time will I wait till my change\r\ncome. Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee; thou wilt have a desire\r\nto the work of thine hands.” Job 14:12-15. Again he says: “If I wait,\r\n_sheol_ is mine house: I have made my bed in the darkness. I have said\r\nto corruption, Thou art my father: to the worm, Thou art my mother and\r\nmy sister. And where is now my hope? As for my hope, who shall see it?\r\nThey shall go down to the bars of _sheol_, when our rest together is in\r\nthe dust.” Job. 17:13-16; 4:11-19; Ps. 88:10-12.\r\n\r\n_There is no knowledge in sheol._ This fact is plainly stated by Solomon\r\nthrough the Spirit of inspiration: “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do,\r\ndo it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge,\r\nnor wisdom in _sheol_ whither thou goest.” Eccl. 9:4-6, 10. When man\r\ngoes in there his very thoughts perish. Ps. 146:4.\r\n\r\nSuch are the great facts concerning _sheol_, or hades, revealed to us in\r\nthe books of “Moses and the prophets.” Their statements are literal,\r\nplain, explicit, and unequivocal. In opposition to all these, can it be\r\nmaintained that in _sheol_ and _hades_ there _is_ consciousness, wisdom,\r\ndevice, knowledge, happiness, and misery, as is popularly claimed on the\r\nauthority of this record about the rich man and Lazarus? If not, and if\r\n_sheol_ is such a place of silence, darkness, inactivity, and\r\nunconsciousness, as they declare, can the use of such language as is\r\nemployed respecting the rich man and Lazarus in this very place be\r\naccounted for?\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                              CHAPTER XX.\r\n                       THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe previous chapter left us with the problem on our hands whether it\r\nwere better to try to overthrow all that Moses and the prophets have\r\nwritten respecting _sheol_ and the condition of those who enter therein,\r\nfor the purpose of sustaining the common view of the rich man and\r\nLazarus, or to try to account for the use of the language used in that\r\nnarrative, in harmony with what Moses and the prophets have said\r\nrespecting that place.\r\n\r\nIn the first place, we cannot set aside what Moses and the prophets have\r\nwritten; for Christ, in the very case under consideration, indorses them\r\nand refers us to them for instruction. How, then, can we account for the\r\nfact that the rich man is represented as conscious, intelligent, and\r\nactive, in _hades_, when Moses and the prophets have taught us that\r\n_hades_ is a place of darkness and silence, without knowledge, wisdom,\r\nor device? If the record of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable, the\r\nuse of such language is at once accounted for; for if it is a parable,\r\nthe language is allegorical; and in allegory, life and action are often\r\nattributed to inanimate objects, for the sake of enforcing or\r\nillustrating some particular truth.\r\n\r\nSome notable instances of this style of writing are furnished us in the\r\nOld Testament. In Judges 9:7-15, the trees are represented as going\r\nforth to anoint a king over them; and they appealed to the olive tree\r\nand the fig tree and the vine, and received answers from them in which\r\nthey declined to leave their stations of usefulness to be promoted over\r\nthem. Finally, they appealed to the bramble; and the bramble accepted\r\nthe trust. Now this representation was not designed to teach that trees\r\nordain civil government, walk about, and converse together; but it was\r\nto illustrate the folly of the men of Shechem in electing Abimelech\r\nking. Again, in 2 Kings 14:9, we read that the king of Israel sent to\r\nthe king of Judah, saying, “The thistle in Lebanon sent to the cedar\r\nthat was in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my son to wife.” This\r\nis not to teach that thistles and cedars have sons and daughters who\r\nunite in marriage, but to illustrate the contempt which the king of\r\nIsrael felt for the proposition which the king of Judah made to him.\r\n\r\nLandis, p. 188, claims that it makes no difference whether the case of\r\nthe rich man and Lazarus is a parable or not, since a parable should not\r\nbe so worded as to convey a wrong impression to the mind, which this\r\nwould do, if the soul is not conscious in death. We reply, It makes all\r\nthe difference in the world; for if it is a parable, the life and action\r\nattributed to the inanimate inhabitants of hades, is not to teach\r\nanything respecting their real condition, any more than the life and\r\naction attributed to the trees and brambles in the cases referred to, is\r\ndesigned to teach what their condition is; but this intelligence and\r\naction are attributed to these inanimate objects, to illustrate some\r\ngreat truth which the speaker wished to enforce.\r\n\r\nIn the case of the rich man and Lazarus, what was the object in view?\r\nAnswer: To rebuke the Pharisees for their covetousness (“And the\r\nPharisees also, who were _covetous_, heard all these things; and they\r\nderided him.” Verse 14); to show to them, since they thought that riches\r\nin this life was a mark of the divine favor and would secure God’s\r\nblessing in the next, that if they gave themselves up to the sensual\r\nenjoyment of their riches, neglecting and oppressing the poor, they\r\nwould, in the future, meet God’s wrath instead of his favor; and that\r\nthe poor, whom they despised and oppressed, might attain to that very\r\nstate of felicity, set forth under the figure of Abraham’s bosom, of\r\nwhich they thought themselves so sure.\r\n\r\nThat this is a parable seems abundantly evident: 1. It stands in\r\nconnection with a long list of parables. The preceding chapter, Luke 15,\r\ncontains three. This chapter opens with the parable of the unjust\r\nsteward; and there is no intimation of a change from parable to literal\r\nnarration in this case. 2. It is said that this cannot be a parable,\r\nbecause it is introduced by a direct assertion. “There was a certain\r\nrich man,” &c. But others which are parables are introduced in exactly\r\nthe same manner. Thus verse 1, “There _was_ a certain rich man which had\r\na steward,” &c. And chapter 15:11: “A certain man _had_ two sons,” &c.\r\n3. The prophets, to whom we are referred, speak of the dead in _sheol_,\r\nin the nether parts of the earth, as conversing together, taunting each\r\nother, weeping bitterly, refusing to be comforted, &c., representations\r\nexactly similar to those made in the case of the rich man and Lazarus,\r\nand full as striking, but which no one can regard as setting forth the\r\nactual condition of the dead.\r\n\r\nThus in Isa. 14:9-20, it is represented that when the king of Babylon is\r\noverthrown, he goes down into _sheol_, and the DEAD (for there are no\r\nothers in its dark domain) are stirred up to meet him. The kings that\r\nhad been destroyed by the king of Babylon, are represented as having\r\nthrones in _sheol_ beneath, and when the king of Babylon joins them in\r\ntheir dark abode, they rise up from their thrones, and mock him with\r\nfeigned obeisance, as in life they had rendered him real homage. And\r\nthey say, “Art thou become weak as we? Art thou become like unto us? Is\r\nthis the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms?”\r\nNo one can suppose that they literally act or speak thus. But all this\r\nis a striking figure to represent that death would reduce the king of\r\nBabylon to the same level with his subjects and prisoners.\r\n\r\nAgain in Eze. 31:15-18, and 32:17-32, Pharaoh and his host, slain in\r\nbattle with the king of Babylon, are set forth in the same manner. The\r\nstrong among the mighty are represented as speaking to him out of the\r\nmidst of _sheol_, as he enters therein. And this _sheol_, in “the nether\r\nparts of the earth,” full of graves and of the dead, is contrasted with\r\nthe land of the living. These victims of slaughter went down to _sheol_\r\nwith their weapons of war; and their swords they “laid under their\r\nheads;” and when Pharaoh, lying among them, saw the multitude of his\r\nenemies that were slain also, he was comforted at the sight.\r\n\r\nAnother case, perhaps still more remarkable, is that of Rachel. Jer.\r\n31:15-17; Matt. 2:17, 18; Gen. 25:17-20. Long ages after Rachel had\r\ndied, and entered into _sheol_, a dreadful slaughter took place among\r\nher posterity. Thereupon she is represented as breaking forth into\r\nlamentation and bitter weeping, and refusing to be comforted because her\r\nchildren were not. And the Lord says to her, “Refrain thy voice from\r\nweeping, and thine eyes from tears; for thy work shall be rewarded,\r\nsaith the Lord.”\r\n\r\nNo one can suppose that Rachel literally wept at the murder of her\r\nchildren nearly 2000 years after her death, nor that the slaughtered\r\nEgyptians put their swords under their heads as they were lying in\r\n_sheol_, and conversed together in the nether parts of the earth, some\r\nbeing comforted, and others ashamed; nor that the kings overthrown by\r\nthe king of Babylon rose up from their sepulchral thrones in mock\r\nsolemnity, and taunted him with becoming weak as they.\r\n\r\nBut these were all figures to set forth great and salutary truths. May\r\nnot our Lord then, for once, be permitted for a like purpose to use a\r\nlike figure, so largely employed by the prophets, and so well known to\r\nhis hearers, by personifying persons in _hades_ to perform actions which\r\nwere not there literally to occur? We have certainly as good reason to\r\nsuppose that Rachel, the Egyptians, and the king of Babylon, were real\r\npersonages, and their descent into _sheol_ and the accompanying\r\ncircumstance as related by the prophets, veritable history, as to\r\nsuppose that Dives was a real character, and his torment in _hades_, and\r\nhis conversation with Abraham, a real transaction.\r\n\r\nThose who held in their hands the Old-Testament scriptures were\r\nperfectly familiar with such figures. There the “trees of the field”\r\nconverse and “clap their hands,” the “floods” lift up their “voice,” the\r\nhills and mountains “sing,” stones from the wall “cry out,” and beams\r\n“answer,” the blood of Abel finds a “voice,” and “cries out from the\r\nground,” and dead men rejoice over the fall of their rivals, slain by\r\nthe sword. In a volume abounding with such figures, cannot for once a\r\nrich man, representing a class of living persons, be endowed in _hades_\r\nwith life and speech? must this one figure of personification be singled\r\nout from all others, as a rigidly literal narrative, and be made to\r\nsustain the weight of the most terrific doctrine of which the mind of\r\nman can conceive?\r\n\r\nSufficient evidence has been produced to show that this is a parable.\r\nAnd now we invite the attention of the reader to the testimony of two\r\neminent authors respecting the use which should be made of parables.\r\n\r\nDr. Clarke (note on Matt. 5:26) says:--\r\n\r\n“Let it be remembered that by the consent of all (except the basely\r\ninterested), no _metaphor_ is ever to be produced in _proof_ of a\r\ndoctrine. In the things that concern our eternal salvation, we need the\r\nmost pointed and _express evidence_ on which to establish the faith of\r\nour souls.”\r\n\r\nAnd Trench, in his work on parables, lays down this very important\r\nrule:--\r\n\r\n“The parables may not be made first sources of doctrine. Doctrines\r\notherwise and already grounded, may be illustrated, or indeed further\r\nconfirmed by them, but it is not allowable to constitute doctrine first\r\nby their aid. They may be the outer ornamental fringe, but not the main\r\ntexture of the proof. For from the literal to the figurative, from the\r\nclearer to the more obscure, has ever been recognized as the law of\r\nScripture interpretation. This rule, however, has been _often\r\nforgotten_, and controversialists, looking round for arguments with\r\nwhich to sustain some _weak position_, one for which they can find no\r\nother support in Scripture, often invent for themselves supports in\r\nthese.”\r\n\r\nBut some persist that this is not a parable, but a literal narrative;\r\nand not to seem captious, we will consider it in this light. If this is\r\nveritable history, all the particulars must be taken literally. Then the\r\nwicked, tormented in the flames of hell, are within sight and speaking\r\ndistance of the saved in Heaven. In other words, Heaven is but the shore\r\nof hell, and on that shore the redeemed can sit and watch the damned in\r\ntheir fearful contortions of agony for which there is no name, and\r\nlisten to their entreaties for relief and their shrieks of fathomless\r\ndespair, to an extent, it would seem, sufficient to satisfy the fiercest\r\nvengeance and the most implacable revenge. If this be so, our friends\r\nmust certainly abandon the argument they build on Rev. 6:9, 10, where\r\nthey have it that the souls of the martyrs, disembodied and conscious,\r\ncry to God to visit vengeance upon their persecutors. If they were where\r\nthey could look over into the fiery gulf, and behold their persecutors\r\nvainly battling with its flaming billows, or if not already there,\r\ndestined in a few short years to be plunged therein, let no one say of\r\nthe holy martyrs that they would, under such circumstances, cry\r\nimpatiently to God to hasten or intensify his vengeance. The arguments\r\nbased on the narrative of the rich man and Lazarus, and Rev. 6:9, 10,\r\nmust, one or the other of them, be given up; for they devour each other.\r\nLet the advocates of the popular theory look to this.\r\n\r\nThe beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. The\r\nrich man also died, and was buried. Let it be noted that the persons\r\nthemselves, as a whole, are spoken of, not any of their essential\r\nelements, or immaterial appendages. Nothing is said of the soul of\r\neither the rich man or Lazarus. As we are now considering this as a\r\nliteral transaction, a question vital to the argument is, _When_ do the\r\nangels bear those who have died, as persons (for there is nothing\r\nanywhere said about the angels’ carrying their souls), into Abraham’s\r\nbosom, or the state of the blessed? Such scriptures as Matt. 24:30, 31;\r\n1 Thess. 4:16, 17, answer this question very explicitly: “And he shall\r\nsend his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather\r\ntogether his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the\r\nother.” When? At the second advent of the Son of man in majesty and\r\nglory; for then it is that the voice of the archangel, ringing through\r\nthe long galleries of _hades_, shall wake the righteous dead from their\r\nsilent slumbers, and angels bear them upward on wings of light, to be\r\nforever with the Lord.\r\n\r\nThe rich man dies, and is buried; and his next experience is the\r\nsuffering of torment in consuming flame. How long after his burial he\r\nfinds himself in this torment, we are not directly informed. But he has\r\nbodily organs; for he has eyes to see, and a tongue to be cooled; but\r\nthese the dead are not usually considered to possess till the\r\nresurrection. This drives Landis, p. 191, to the unusual admission that\r\nthe soul retains the human form, with its corresponding organs, hands,\r\nfeet, eyes, tongue, &c. Again, the rich man sees Lazarus in Abraham’s\r\nbosom; but, as we have already seen, Lazarus is not literally borne\r\nthere by the angels till the resurrection.\r\n\r\nAs a literal transaction, the scene is inevitably located, by the\r\nconcurrent testimony of all Scripture, beyond the resurrection. How,\r\nthen, it can be said to transpire in _hades_, we leave those to decide\r\nwho believe that it is a literal transaction. Certain it is that no such\r\nscenes can really occur in _hades_, if the representations of that place\r\ngiven us by Moses and the prophets are correct; while analogous scenes\r\nwill really take place beyond the resurrection: there the righteous are\r\nrewarded, and the wicked punished in devouring fire; there the Lord told\r\nthe impenitent Jews that they should see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in\r\nthe kingdom of God, and they themselves thrust out, and that then there\r\nwould be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Luke 13:28.\r\n\r\nOne view, only, maintains harmony between this and other portions of the\r\nsacred writings; and that is the one which is here, imperfectly it may\r\nbe, but yet sincerely, advocated: that Christ, following the example of\r\nthe prophets, uses the figure of personification, and anticipates, as\r\ntranspiring in the grave, scenes which substantially occur beyond the\r\nresurrection; and that the object of the parable was to rebuke the\r\nPharisees for their covetousness by indicating the fate that awaited a\r\nlife of avarice and oppression here, however sumptuous that life might\r\nbe.\r\n\r\nThat it does not teach the existence of conscious souls between death\r\nand the resurrection, is forever settled by the fact that Lazarus could\r\nreturn only by a resurrection from the dead. When the rich man requested\r\nthat Lazarus might be sent to warn his brethren, Abraham replied that\r\nthey had Moses and the prophets, and if they would not hear them, they\r\nwould not “be persuaded _though one rose from the dead_.” The\r\nconversation did not therefore relate to the coming back of the immortal\r\nsoul of Lazarus; and indeed no mention is made of any such thing in the\r\nwhole transaction.\r\n\r\nTherefore, interpret it as we may, it cannot be reasonably or\r\nscripturally used to prove the entrance of man’s naked, unclothed spirit\r\ninto bliss or woe at the hour of death.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                              CHAPTER XXI.\r\n                          WITH ME IN PARADISE.\r\n\r\n\r\nAccording to Luke’s account of the crucifixion of our Saviour, Luke\r\n23:27-46, one of the two malefactors who were crucified with him, said\r\nto Jesus, “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And\r\nJesus said unto him, Verily, I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with\r\nme in Paradise.” Verses 42, 43. This, says the immaterialist, “must ever\r\nstand as a clear announcement of the uninterrupted immortality of the\r\nsoul.” (_Landis_, p. 211.) The “clear announcement” is made out in this\r\nmanner: Christ and the thief, it is claimed, both died that day; they\r\nboth went to paradise that day; and their condition while there was, of\r\ncourse, one of consciousness and intelligence.\r\n\r\nThere is one fact which stands somewhat in the way of this clear\r\nannouncement; and that is, that _Christ did not go to paradise that\r\nday_. In answer to the popular view, we first set forth this unqualified\r\nproposition, and undertake its proof; and if this shall prove to be well\r\ngrounded, the doctrine of annihilation will be found in a degree true;\r\nfor the claims usually built on the scripture above quoted are utterly\r\nand forever annihilated by this fact.\r\n\r\nIn entering upon the argument to show that Christ did not go to paradise\r\nthat day, we first inquire what paradise is and where it is. The word\r\noccurs but three times in the English version of the Scriptures, all in\r\nthe New Testament; two besides the verse under consideration; but these\r\nare amply sufficient to define and locate it.\r\n\r\nFirst, Paul in 2 Cor. 12:2, says: “I knew a man in Christ above fourteen\r\nyears ago (whether in the body I cannot tell; or whether out of the\r\nbody, I cannot tell; God knoweth), such an one caught up to the third\r\nHeaven.” In verse 4, he affirms that the place to which this man was\r\ncaught up was paradise. This establishes the fact that paradise is in\r\nthe third Heaven.\r\n\r\nAgain, in Rev. 2:7, we read the promise which the Saviour gives to the\r\novercomers; and he says: “To him that overcometh will I give to eat of\r\nthe tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.” This\r\nestablishes another equally important fact, that paradise is where the\r\ntree of life now is. Now, if the Scriptures anywhere give us any further\r\ninformation respecting the place where the tree of life is to be found,\r\nwe have still further testimony respecting paradise.\r\n\r\nIn Rev. 21 and 22, we have a description of the New Jerusalem, the holy\r\ncity which is above. In chap. 22:1, 2, we read: “And he showed me a pure\r\nriver of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne\r\nof God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it [the city], and\r\non either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare\r\ntwelve manner of fruit, and yielded her fruit every month.” By this\r\ntestimony, we learn that the tree of life, which grows in the midst of\r\nthe paradise of God, is in the holy city, fast by the river of life,\r\nwhich proceeds from the throne of God. Nothing could be more explicit\r\nthan this. We have now found the paradise of the New Testament. It is in\r\nthe third Heaven, where the tree of life is, and where God maintains his\r\nresidence and his throne. Whoever, therefore, goes into paradise, goes\r\ninto the presence of God. If the Saviour went there on the day of his\r\ncrucifixion, with the impenitent thief, he went into the presence of his\r\nFather.\r\n\r\nNow let us reverently listen to the words of the Lord and believe what\r\nhe says, while he himself testifies whether he went to paradise on the\r\nday of his crucifixion, or not. On the morning of his resurrection, the\r\n_third day_ after his crucifixion, he said to Mary, who was about to\r\nembrace his feet, in accordance with the ancient custom of deference or\r\nworship, “Touch me not; FOR I AM NOT YET ASCENDED TO MY FATHER.” The\r\nthird day, remember, from the crucifixion, and not ascended into\r\nparadise yet!\r\n\r\nStruck into a state of bewilderment by this stunning fact, Landis, pp.\r\n209, 211, clutches wildly for some supports by which to rear again his\r\nprostrate structure. He feigns to find evidence in John 16:16, that\r\nJesus told his disciples that at death he would go to his Father: a\r\nscripture which very evidently has reference, not to his death, but to\r\nhis bodily ascension, forty days after his resurrection. Then, referring\r\nto the fact that the word “ascend” is from _anabaino_, he says: “Now\r\nevery tyro knows that in composition _ana_ has very frequently [?] the\r\nforce of _again_. _Baino_ alone means simply _to ascend_; _ana_ adds a\r\nshade of meaning.”\r\n\r\nIt is frequently the case that writers try to drive others into an\r\nadmission of their statements by representing that they will appear very\r\nignorant and stupid to deny them. But Mr. L., not being a tyro,\r\ndoubtless understands that nearly every statement in this criticism is\r\nfalse in itself considered, and every one of them wholly so, as applied\r\nto the case in hand. _Ana_, in composition with _baino_, does not have\r\nthe force of again. In neither Liddell and Scott, Robinson, Greenfield,\r\nnor Parkhurst, is there any such definition as “ascended again” given to\r\n_anabaino_. _Baino_ alone does not mean “to ascend.” No such definition\r\nis given to it in the standard authorities here named. It means simply\r\nto go, without any reference to the direction; other words, either in\r\ncomposition with it, or in the context, signifying whether this motion\r\nis up or down, forward or backward, over or under, &c. In no one of the\r\neighty-one instances of the use of the word in the New Testament, is it\r\ntranslated “ascend again.” And finally, those texts which Mr. L. quotes\r\nas containing the word again, as Matt. 3:16, which he quotes, “Christ\r\n_went up again_, or returned,” and Matt. 5:1, which he quotes, “He went\r\nup _again_ into a mountain,” the word, again, is not expressed in the\r\nEnglish nor implied in the Greek. In only one instance is the word again\r\nused with _anabaino_; that is Gal. 2:1, where Paul says, “I went up\r\n_again_ to Jerusalem;” but here the word again is from another word\r\n(_palin_), and _anabaino_ is translated simply “went up.”\r\n\r\nRarely do we meet with an instance of more reckless desperation in the\r\nline of criticism. And what is the object of it? It is to have us\r\nunderstand that when Christ says, “I am not yet ascended to my Father,”\r\nhe means to say, I am not yet ascended _again_ to my Father. And from\r\nthis he would have us further draw the lucid inference that Christ had\r\nascended once, that is, in his disembodied spirit, between his death and\r\nresurrection, and now tells Mary not to touch him because he has not\r\nascended again! It would be difficult to conceive of a more unnecessary\r\nand far-fetched inference. And that men will seriously contend for such\r\na view, shows the orbless obstinacy with which they will cling to\r\npreconceived notions, though they have only the most groundless trifles\r\nto sustain them, rather than surrender them for more consistent views.\r\nNothing can be more evident than that Christ, when he said, “I am not\r\nyet ascended to my Father,” affirmed in the most direct manner that\r\nsince his advent into this world, he had not, up to that time, ascended\r\nto his Father.\r\n\r\nRather than thus summarily lose the argument that the thief was still\r\nconscious in death, and that the soul is therefore (?) immortal, another\r\nattempt is made to adjust the matter thus: Although Christ did not go to\r\nhis Father, he nevertheless went to paradise, which is not where the\r\nFather dwells, but the intermediate resting place of departed souls. Do\r\nwe then understand them? We found them, a little while ago, arguing from\r\nEccl. 12:7, that the disembodied spirit _did_ return to God; which they\r\nclaimed to be proof positive that the soul is immortal; and thought it\r\nwould puzzle the annihilationists not a little. Do they now give this\r\nup, and admit that the soul or spirit does not go to God, but only into\r\nsome intermediate place, called paradise? It matters not to us which\r\nposition they take, only we wish to know which one it is. We cannot hold\r\nour peace and allow them to take one position on one text and another on\r\nanother, to avoid the embarrassments into which their theory plunges at\r\nevery turn.\r\n\r\nThat paradise is no intermediate state, a halfway house between the\r\ngrave and the resurrection, we have fully shown; for we have the\r\npositive statements of the Scriptures to show that paradise is in the\r\nthird Heaven, where God sits upon his throne; and Christ told Mary, the\r\nthird day after his crucifixion, in so many words, that he had not yet\r\nascended there.\r\n\r\nThe popular interpretation of Christ’s language to the thief thus\r\nutterly failing, we are thrown back upon the text for some other\r\nexplanation of the phraseology there used: “Verily I say unto thee,\r\nTo-day shalt thou be with me in paradise.”\r\n\r\nThere are but two probable ways in which this language can be\r\ninterpreted: One is, to let the phrase, “to-day,” refer to the time to\r\nwhich the thief had reference in his request. He said, “Lord, remember\r\nme when thou comest into thy kingdom.” He looked forward to the day when\r\nChrist should come into his kingdom. And if the “to-day” in Christ’s\r\nanswer refers to this time, then the sense would be, “Verily I say unto\r\nthee, To-day, or this day, the day to which you refer, when I come into\r\nmy kingdom, thou shalt be with me in paradise.” The word, to-day, is\r\nfrom the Greek, σήμερον (_semeron_); and all the definitions we find of\r\nit would seem to confine it to present time, excluding an application of\r\nit to the future. This interpretation, therefore, we think cannot be\r\nurged.\r\n\r\nThe other, and only remaining method of interpreting the passage, is to\r\nplace the comma after “to-day,” making to-day an adverb qualifying say.\r\nThe sense would then be, Verily I say unto thee to-day, thou shalt be\r\nwith me in paradise, at that period in the future when I shall come in\r\nmy kingdom.\r\n\r\nThis method of punctuation, if it is allowable, clears the subject of\r\nall difficulty. Let us then candidly consider what objections can be\r\nurged against it.\r\n\r\nAs to the punctuation itself, we all know that that is not the work of\r\ninspiration, and withal that it is of recent origin, the comma in its\r\npresent form not having been invented till the year A. D. 1790. It is\r\ntherefore allowable to change this in any manner that the sense of the\r\npassage, the context, or even other portions of the Scriptures may\r\ndemand. And in support of this punctuation, we have the example of some\r\nGreek manuscripts, which, according to Griesbach, place the comma after\r\n“to-day” in this declaration.\r\n\r\nBut the objector accuses us of making sad nonsense of the text by this\r\nchange; and he asks, in bitter irony, “Didn’t the thief know it was that\r\nday, without Christ’s telling him?” Very true, as a matter of fact; but\r\nlet the objector beware lest his sarcasm fall upon the Scriptures\r\nthemselves; for such very expressions do occur therein. See Zech. 9:12:\r\n“Turn you to the stronghold, ye prisoners of hope: even _to-day_ do I\r\ndeclare that I will render double unto thee.” Transposing this sentence,\r\nwithout altering the sense, we have phraseology similar to that of Luke\r\n23:43; namely, “I declare unto you even to-day, I will render double\r\nunto thee.” The events threatened here were to take place in the future,\r\nwhen the Lord should bend Judah, &c. See context. So the phrase,\r\n“to-day,” could not qualify the “rendering double,” &c., but only the\r\ndeclaration.\r\n\r\nHere, then, is an expression exactly parallel with that in Luke, and the\r\nsame irony is applicable; thus, “Did not the prisoners of hope know it\r\nwas that day when the declaration was made to them?” But let our\r\nopponents now discard their unworthy weapon; for here it is leveled\r\nagainst the words of Inspiration itself.\r\n\r\nBut when we take into consideration the circumstances of the case, we\r\nsee a force and propriety in the Saviour’s making his declaration\r\nemphatically upon that day. He had been preaching the advent of the\r\nkingdom of Heaven to listening multitudes. A kingdom, he had promised to\r\nhis followers. But the powers of death and darkness had apparently\r\ntriumphed, and were crushing into the very grave both his prospects and\r\nhis promises. He who was expected to be the king of the coming kingdom,\r\nstretched upon the shameful cross, was expiring in ignominy and\r\nreproach; his disciples were scattered; and where now was the prospect\r\nof that kingdom which had been preached and promised? But amid the\r\nsupernatural influences at work upon that memorable day, a ray of divine\r\nillumination may have flashed in upon the soul of the poor thief,\r\ntraveling the same road of death beside his Lord. A conviction of the\r\ntruthfulness of his claims as the Messiah, the Son of God, may have\r\nentered into his mind, and a desire have sprung up in his heart to trust\r\nhis lot in his hands, leading him to put up a humble and sincere\r\npetition, Lord, in mercy remember me when the days of thy triumph and\r\nglory shall come. Yes, says the suffering Saviour, in the hearing of the\r\nmocking multitude, I say unto thee, _to-day_--to-day, in this hour of my\r\ndarkness and agony--to-day, when the fatal cross is apparently giving\r\nthe lie to all my pretensions--to-day, a day of forlorn prospects and\r\nwithered hopes, so far as human eyes can see--verily, _to-day_, I say\r\nunto thee, thou shalt be with me in paradise, when my kingdom shall be\r\nestablished in triumph and glory.\r\n\r\nThus, there is a divine force and beauty in these words of our Lord, as\r\nuttered on that occasion. How like a sun at midnight would they have\r\nbroken in upon the gloom that enshrouded the sorrowing hearts of the\r\ndisciples, had they fathomed their import. For who had occasion to sink\r\nin despair, if not He upon whom all depended, and that, too, when\r\nexpiring under the agonies of the cross. But lo! no cloud of gloom is\r\nsufficient to fix its shadows upon his serene brow. His divine\r\nforesight, riding calmly over the events of the present, fixes itself\r\nupon that coming period of glory, when he shall see of the travail of\r\nhis soul and be satisfied. There, in the hour of his deepest humility,\r\nhe points them to the joys of paradise.\r\n\r\nThus, by a simple removal of the comma one word forward, the stone of\r\nstumbling is taken out of this text, by making it harmonize with other\r\nScriptures; and thus, the promise, by having reference to something in\r\nthe future, and not to anything to be performed on that day, contains no\r\naffirmation of consciousness in death.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                             CHAPTER XXII.\r\n                         ABSENT FROM THE BODY.\r\n\r\n\r\nAnother passage, supposed to teach the separate conscious existence of\r\nthe soul, is found in 2 Cor. 5:8: “We are confident, I say, and willing\r\nrather, to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.” On\r\nthe acknowledged principle that it is illogical to endeavor to build any\r\ngreat doctrine upon an isolated passage, without taking into\r\nconsideration the general tenor of the context, if not also other\r\nwritings from the same author, let us look at some of the statements\r\nwhich Paul has made in this connection.\r\n\r\nIn verse 1 of this chapter, Paul introduces an earthly house and a\r\nheavenly house, and says, “For we know that if our earthly house of this\r\ntabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made\r\nwith hands, eternal in the heavens.” He states our condition while in\r\nthe earthly house. Verse 2: “In this we groan,” verse 4, “being\r\nburdened.” He tells what we desire in this state. Verse 2. “Earnestly\r\ndesiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from Heaven [verse\r\n3]: if so be that being clothed, we shall not be found naked.” In verse\r\n4, Paul repeats all these facts in order to state the result of the work\r\nwhich he desired: “For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being\r\nburdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon.” Now he\r\nstates the result of being clothed upon with the house from Heaven which\r\nhe so earnestly desired: “But clothed upon, that mortality might be\r\nswallowed up of life.” Then he states that the condition he had in view\r\nis that for which God in the beginning designed the human race: “Now he\r\nthat has wrought us for the self-same thing is God.” That is, God\r\ndesigned that we should ultimately reach that condition which he here\r\ndesignates as being clothed upon with our house from Heaven. Then he\r\nstates what assurance we have in this life that we shall eventually\r\nattain to this condition: “who also hath given unto us the earnest\r\n[assurance, pledge, token] of the Spirit.” That is, the Spirit dwelling\r\nin our hearts, is the assurance or pledge we have that we shall finally\r\nreceive the desire of our hearts, and be clothed upon with our house\r\nfrom Heaven. In verse 6, he states this to be the ground of his\r\nconfidence, although while “we are at home in the body, we are absent\r\nfrom the Lord.” And then after incidentally stating the secret of the\r\nChristian’s course in this life, “we walk by faith, not by sight,” he\r\npenned the text quoted at the commencement of this chapter, stating that\r\nhe was willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present with\r\nthe Lord.\r\n\r\nWe now have before us quite fully, the subject upon which Paul is here\r\ntreating. A thought now as to the meaning of the terms he employs. What\r\ndoes he mean by the earthly house and the heavenly house? by being\r\nclothed and unclothed? by mortality being swallowed up of life? and by\r\nbeing absent from the body and present with the Lord?\r\n\r\nWhat he calls in verse 1, “our earthly house,” he designates in verse 6,\r\nas being “at home in the body.” The chief characteristic of this house\r\nis that it may be dissolved, or is mortal. This earthly house is\r\ntherefore our mortal body, or what is essentially the same thing, this\r\npresent mortal condition. The house from Heaven is eternal or immortal.\r\nThis, therefore, by parity of reasoning, is the immortal body or the\r\nstate of immortality which awaits the redeemed beyond the resurrection.\r\n\r\nPaul, in Rom. 8:22, 23, speaks very plainly of these two conditions:\r\n“For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain\r\ntogether until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have\r\nthe first-fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within\r\nourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our\r\nbody.” None can fail to see the parallel between this passage in Romans,\r\nand that portion of 2 Cor. 5, now under consideration. To the\r\nCorinthians, Paul says, that in our earthly house we groan, being\r\nburdened; to the Romans, that we groan within ourselves, or in this\r\nmortal body; to the Corinthians, that while in this state we have the\r\nearnest of the Spirit; to the Romans, that we have the first-fruits of\r\nthe Spirit, which is the same thing, the pledge, assurance, or earnest;\r\nto the Corinthians, that we desire to be clothed upon with our house\r\nfrom Heaven; to the Romans, that we wait for the adoption, to wit, the\r\nredemption of our body. The ultimate object in view in both cases, as a\r\nmatter of hope and desire, is the redeemed or eternal state; but in the\r\none case it is being “clothed upon with our house from Heaven,” and in\r\nthe other, it is “the redemption of our body.” These two expressions,\r\ntherefore, denote one and the same thing.\r\n\r\nReturning to a consideration of the meaning of the terms which Paul\r\nuses, we inquire what is meant by being unclothed. And the evident\r\nanswer is, The dissolution of our earthly house, or the falling of our\r\nmortal body in death. The state of death, then, is that condition in\r\nwhich we are unclothed. And the being clothed upon, is being released\r\nfrom this state, when mortality is swallowed up of life, and we are\r\ntaken into the presence of the Lord. Then Paul states a conclusion very\r\napparent from his premises, that while we are at home in the body we are\r\nabsent from the Lord, and adds that he is willing rather to be absent\r\nfrom the body and present with the Lord.\r\n\r\nThe only verse in which consciousness in death can even be supposed to\r\nbe intimated, is the 8th verse, which speaks of our being absent from\r\nthe body and present with the Lord. But even here it will be seen that\r\nthe whole question turns on the time when we enter the presence of the\r\nLord. Is it immediately on the dissolution of our earthly house? This\r\nthe text does not inform us; but on this the preceding verses are very\r\nexplicit, as we shall presently see.\r\n\r\nLet us now look at a few considerations which show that it is impossible\r\nto harmonize the popular view of consciousness in death, with the\r\nstatements which the apostle here makes. It is claimed that the house\r\nwhich we have eternal in the Heavens is the immortal soul with which we\r\nimmediately enter into Heaven when the earthly house is dissolved.\r\nGranting that this is so, let us go forward a little and mark the\r\ndifficulty in which this view is involved. The time comes when the\r\nmortal body is raised from the dead and made immortal. In these redeemed\r\nbodies we are to live in the kingdom of God to all eternity. This is\r\nfinally our eternal house. But when we take possession of this, what\r\nbecomes of our house that we occupied between death and the\r\nresurrection? If we pass from our mortal bodies at death immediately\r\ninto a spiritual body prepared for us, which is the house we have in\r\nHeaven, and in which we live till the resurrection, when our natural\r\nbodies are redeemed, and we take possession of them, it necessarily\r\nfollows that we vacate that second house which we had occupied in\r\nHeaven. Then what becomes of that house? Moreover this view introduces\r\nsomething before us of which Paul has made no mention; for here we have\r\nthree houses, but Paul’s language allows of only two; and one of these\r\nthree houses, on the view before us, has to be abandoned, to go to ruin,\r\nwhen we take possession of our redeemed bodies. All this is unscriptural\r\nand absurd. Such a view is an impossibility.\r\n\r\nAgain, Paul affirms in verse 5 that God hath wrought us for this\r\nself-same thing, that is, created man for such a state of being as we\r\nshall enjoy, when clothed upon with our house from Heaven. Is this\r\ncondition the separate existence of an immortal soul? No; for if man had\r\nnever sinned, he would have reached that state without seeing death, and\r\nthe idea of an immortal soul would never have had an existence. The\r\nwhole doctrine is the offspring of sin, for it is the result of the\r\nfall. It is the second falsehood which the devil found necessary to\r\nsustain his first one, “Ye shall not surely die.” For when all that is\r\noutward, tangible, and visible of man does fall in death, his untruth\r\nwould be very apparent unless he could make them believe that there is\r\nan invisible medium through which they still continue to live. Paul,\r\ntherefore, in the scripture under notice, does not have any reference to\r\nan intermediate state.\r\n\r\nHe further says that we have through the Spirit an earnest, or pledge,\r\nthat this condition, which is set forth as the chief object of desire,\r\nwill finally be reached, and we shall be clothed with our house from\r\nHeaven. But what is the Holy Spirit in our hearts an earnest or pledge\r\nof? What does it signify that we have a measure of the Holy Spirit here?\r\nIs it a proof or assurance that we have immortal souls that will live\r\nwhen the body is dead? No, but that we shall be redeemed and made\r\nimmortal. See Eph. 1:13, 14: “In whom also, after that ye believed, ye\r\nwere sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of\r\nour inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto\r\nthe praise of his glory.” And in Rom. 8:11, Paul again says: “But if the\r\nSpirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that\r\nraised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by\r\nhis Spirit that dwelleth in you.”\r\n\r\nThese are the glorious promises of which the Holy Spirit in our hearts\r\nis a pledge and assurance: that these mortal bodies shall be quickened\r\nfrom the dead, even as Christ was raised up, and that we shall share in\r\nthe inheritance, when the purchased possession shall be redeemed. It\r\nlooks not to any intermediate state, but to the ultimate reward.\r\n\r\nAnd finally, Paul forever bars his teaching against the entrance of the\r\nconscious state dogma, by saying that when we are clothed upon with our\r\nhouse from Heaven, mortality is swallowed up of life. How can mortality\r\nbe swallowed up of life? It can be only by having a principle of life\r\ncome upon it which shall overpower and absorb it. Mortality can be\r\nswallowed up only by immortality or eternal life. Is this the passing of\r\nthe soul from the mortal body at the hour of death? Let us look at it.\r\nWhat is there about man, according to the common view, which is mortal?\r\nThe body. And what is immortal? The soul. At death, the body, that part\r\nwhich is mortal, does not become immortal, but loses all its life, and\r\ngoes into the grave to crumble back to dust. And the soul, which was\r\nimmortal before, is no more than immortal afterward. Is there any\r\nswallowing up of mortality by life here? Just the reverse. Mortality, or\r\nthe mortal part, is swallowed up by death. There is not so much life\r\nafterward as before; for after death, the soul only lives, while the\r\nbody, which was alive before, is now dead.\r\n\r\nBut Paul, before penning this language in 2 Cor. 5, had already told the\r\nCorinthians when mortality would be swallowed up of life, and how it\r\nwould be accomplished; so he knew when he penned this portion of his\r\nsecond epistle that they would understand it perfectly. See the 15th\r\nchapter of his first epistle, verses 51-55: “Behold I show you a\r\nmystery: we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a\r\nmoment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet\r\nshall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be\r\nchanged. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal\r\nmust put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on\r\nincorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall\r\nbe brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in\r\nvictory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?”\r\n\r\nIn verse 50, he says: “Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood\r\ncannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit\r\nincorruption.” Corruption does not inherit, or possess, incorruption.\r\nMortality does not possess immortality. The mortal body does not inclose\r\nan immortal principle, which it has power to hold within its grasp, till\r\nthat grasp is rendered nerveless by the stroke of death, and the soul\r\nflies away in glad release. But this mortal, all that there is about man\r\nthat is mortal, must put on, must be itself invested with, immortality,\r\nand this corruptible, all about us that is perishable, must itself\r\nbecome incorruptible; then it will not be this corruptible flesh and\r\nblood, and then it can inherit the kingdom of God, and start off bold\r\nand vigorous on its race of endless life; and outside of this change,\r\nand independent of this grand investiture of our mortal nature with\r\nimmortality, there is no eternal life for any of the race. And when this\r\nis accomplished, then death is swallowed up in victory; then we are\r\nclothed upon with our house from Heaven; then mortality is swallowed up\r\nof life. But this is not at death, but at the last trump, when the Lord\r\nappears in glory, and the dead are raised, and the righteous living are\r\nchanged in the twinkling of an eye. How can the religious world stumble\r\nin a path so plain!\r\n\r\nBut if the heavenly house is our future immortal body, it may be asked\r\nhow Paul can say, as he does in 2 Cor. 5:1, “We have [present tense] a\r\nbuilding of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.”\r\nWe have this in the same sense that we have, at the present time,\r\neternal life. And John tells us how this is: It is by faith, or by\r\npromise, not by actual possession. 1 John 5:11: “And this is the record,\r\nthat God hath given to us eternal life.” God hath given it to us; and on\r\nthe strength of this promise we have it. But where is it now? “And this\r\nlife is”--in us? No, but--“in his Son.” And when he, the Son, who is our\r\nlife, shall appear, we shall be clothed upon with our heavenly house,\r\nand appear with him in glory. Col. 3:4.\r\n\r\nAgain, it may be asked how Paul can speak of two houses, as though we\r\nmoved from one into the other, if it is only a change of condition from\r\nmortal to immortality. He illustrates this in the figure he takes to\r\nrepresent conversion. Eph. 4:22-24: “That ye put off concerning the\r\nformer conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the\r\ndeceitful lusts; and be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye\r\nput on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true\r\nholiness.” Here the simple change of heart, the change of the\r\ndisposition, from sin to holiness, is spoken of as putting off one man\r\nand putting on another. With even greater propriety, may the change from\r\nmortal to immortality be spoken of as removing from an earthly,\r\nperishable house, to an immortal, heavenly one.\r\n\r\nThe terms Paul uses to describe the two states, are clearly defined. On\r\nthe one side it is an earthly house, groaning with burdens, mortality,\r\nabsent from the Lord. On the other, it is clothed upon with our house\r\nfrom Heaven, mortality swallowed up of life, present with the Lord. He\r\ndid not desire to be unclothed, which, as already noticed, signifies the\r\ncondition of death; but he did desire to be present with the Lord;\r\ntherefore in death he would have us understand that the Christian is not\r\npresent with the Lord.\r\n\r\nFrom all this, we can only conclude that when he says he is willing to\r\nbe absent from the body and present with the Lord, he means to be\r\nunderstood that he is willing that this burdened, groaning, mortal state\r\nshould end, and the promised glorious and eternal day begin. And being\r\nconfident, through the presence of the Spirit of God in his heart, that\r\nwhen this change should be wrought, he would have a glorious part\r\ntherein, he was more than willing it should come. It was but the\r\nbreathing again of that prayer which has arisen like a continual sigh\r\nfrom the heart of the church through all her weary pilgrimage, “Thy\r\nkingdom come; yea, come, Lord Jesus, come quickly;” not, “Let our\r\nimmortal souls,” which they did not suppose they possessed, “enter a\r\nconscious state in death” in which they did not believe.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                             CHAPTER XXIII.\r\n                          IN THE BODY AND OUT.\r\n\r\n\r\nIt is confidently asserted that Paul believed a man could exist\r\nindependently of the body from certain expressions which he uses in 2\r\nCor. 12: 2-4:--\r\n\r\n“I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body,\r\nI cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)\r\nsuch an one caught up to the third Heaven. And I knew such a man,\r\nwhether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)\r\nhow that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words,\r\nwhich it is not lawful for a man to utter.”\r\n\r\nBy the man whom he knew, it is generally supposed that the apostle means\r\nhimself, and the language he uses is a record of his own experience.\r\nPaul was taken to the third Heaven, to paradise, and heard words which\r\nit is not possible for a man to utter; but whether it was in his body,\r\nor out, he did not know.\r\n\r\nThis instance, then, furnishes no example of a spirit actually existing\r\nin a conscious condition outside of the body, even if this is what is\r\nmeant by the expression, “out of the body;” for Paul assures us that he\r\ndid not know that he was in that condition. Yet it is claimed that it\r\nhas all the force of an actual example; for such a condition is\r\nrecognized as possible. It is very readily admitted that such a\r\ncondition is recognized, as is expressed by the terms, “out of the\r\nbody;” but that this means an immaterial spirit, an immortal soul, the\r\nreal, intelligent man, speeding away through the universe even to the\r\nthird Heaven, there to hear unspeakable words, and gather up heavenly\r\ninformation, and return at will to resume its abode in the, for a time,\r\ndeserted body, should not be too hastily inferred from this passage.\r\n\r\nOf what is the apostle speaking? He says, in verse 1: “It is not\r\nexpedient for me, doubtless, to glory. I will come to visions and\r\nrevelations of the Lord. I knew a man in Christ, above fourteen years\r\nago,” &c., as previously quoted. His subject, then, is the visions and\r\nrevelations he had received from the Lord; and the language from verse 2\r\nto verse 4 is the record of one such remarkable revelation, perhaps the\r\nmost remarkable one he had ever experienced. He was given a view of\r\nparadise, and heard unspeakable words. And so real and clear and vivid\r\nwas the view, that he did not know but that he was transported bodily\r\ninto that place. If not in this manner, the view was given in the\r\nordinary course of vision, that is, by having the scene presented before\r\nthe mind by the power of the Holy Ghost.\r\n\r\nAll must concede that only these two conditions are brought to view,\r\neither his transportation bodily to paradise, or the ordinary condition\r\nof being in vision. If he went bodily to paradise, the instance has no\r\nbearing of course on the question of consciousness in death. And if it\r\nwas an ordinary vision, how does this prove consciousness in death? The\r\nquestion is reduced to this one point; and the answer turns on the\r\ndefinition given to the expression, “out of the body.” Did Paul mean by\r\nit, what modern expositors wish us to understand by it? Paul meant by\r\nit, simply being in vision; the expositors aforesaid mean by it, the\r\ngoing out of the immortal spirit from the body, and its existence for a\r\ntime in a separate conscious intelligent condition independent of the\r\nbody. But let us look a little further, and see what this condition is.\r\nAccording to the common view, the separation of the soul from the body\r\nis death. This is what death is defined to mean. There can be no such\r\nthing as the separation of soul and body, and death not result. And the\r\nreturn of the soul to again inhabit the body, is a resurrection from the\r\ndead. This is what is claimed in the case of Rachel, whose soul\r\ndeparted, and she died, Gen. 35:18, and the widow’s son whom Elijah\r\nraised, whose soul came into him again, and he revived. 1 Kings 17:22.\r\n\r\nBut does any one suppose that Paul meant to say that he did not know but\r\nthat he died and had a resurrection? That is what he did say, if the\r\nwords, “out of the body,” mean what some would have us understand by\r\nthem. His soul went off to paradise, and his body lay here, we know not\r\nhow long, a corpse upon the earth! And when his soul returned, he had a\r\nresurrection from the dead! A necessary conclusion so preposterous, must\r\nbe sufficient to convince any one that Paul, by the expression, “out of\r\nthe body,” does not mean a state of death. He simply means that he was\r\nin vision, a state in which the mind, controlled for the time by the\r\nHoly Ghost, is made to take cognizance of distant or future scenes, and\r\nthe person seems to himself to be really and bodily present, viewing the\r\nscenes, and listening to the words that are spoken, before him. Dreams,\r\nwhich all have experienced, are doubtless good illustrations of how this\r\ncan be, and the case of John, in the Revelation, furnishes a notable\r\nexample; for he was carried forward far into the future, and seemed to\r\nbe present and taking part in scenes that did not then exist, and at\r\nwhich he could not really have been present, even in his supposed\r\nimmaterial immortal soul.\r\n\r\nPaul, then, had no reference whatever to a state of death in 2 Cor.\r\n12:2-4. To suppose him to refer to that, according to the immaterialist\r\nview, runs us into the greatest absurdity. Hence his language affords no\r\nproof that there is a soul in man which can live on in a conscious\r\nintelligent state, while the mortal body crumbles back to dust.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                             CHAPTER XXIV.\r\n                    DEPARTING AND BEING WITH CHRIST.\r\n\r\n\r\nWhen will all men come to agree respecting the state of the dead? When\r\nwill the question whether the dead are alive, conscious, active, and\r\nintelligent, or whether they rest in the grave in unconsciousness and\r\ninactivity, cease to be a vexed question? When shall it be decided\r\nwhether the shout of triumph which the ransomed are to raise, “O death,\r\nwhere is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?” is the celebration\r\nof a real victory, or only an unnecessary and useless transaction, as it\r\nmust be if the grave holds not the real man, but only the shell, the\r\nmortal body, which is generally considered an incumbrance and a clog?\r\nNever will this question be decided till men shall be willing to follow\r\nthe Scriptures, instead of trying to compel the Scriptures to follow\r\nthem; never, while they put the figurative for the literal, and the\r\nliteral for the figurative, mistake sound for sense, and rest on the\r\npossible construction of an isolated text, instead of, and in opposition\r\nto, the general tenor of the teaching of the inspired writers.\r\n\r\nPaul has told us often enough, and it would seem explicitly enough, when\r\nthe Christian goes to be with his Lord. It is at the redemption of the\r\nbody. Rom. 8:23. It is in the day of the Lord Jesus. 1 Cor. 5:5. It is\r\nat the last trump. 1 Cor. 15:51-55. It is when we are clothed upon with\r\nour house from Heaven. 2 Cor. 5:4. It is when Christ our life shall\r\nappear. Col. 3:4. It is when the Lord descends from Heaven with a shout,\r\nand the dead are raised. 1 Thess. 4:16, 17. It is at the coming of the\r\nLord. 2 Thess. 2:1. It is to be at “that day,” an expression by which\r\nPaul frequently designates the day of Christ’s appearing. 2 Tim. 4:7, 8.\r\n\r\nYet Paul, in one instance, without stopping to explain, uses the\r\nexpression, “to depart and to be with Christ;” whereupon his words are\r\nseized by religious teachers as unanswerable evidence that at death the\r\nspirit enters at once into the presence of its Redeemer. The passage is\r\nfound in Phil. 1:21-24, and reads as follows:--\r\n\r\n“For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the\r\nflesh, this is the fruit of my labor: yet what I shall choose I wot not.\r\nFor I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart and to be\r\nwith Christ; which is far better. Nevertheless, to abide in the flesh is\r\nmore needful for you.”\r\n\r\nWilling to go with our friends as far as we can in their interpretation\r\nof any passage, we raise no issue here on the word depart. Paul probably\r\nmeans by it the same as in 2 Tim. 4:6, where he says, “The time of my\r\ndeparture is at hand,” referring to his approaching death. Then Paul,\r\nimmediately on dying, was to be with Christ. Not so fast. The very point\r\nintended to be proved has, in such a conclusion, to be assumed. Paul had\r\nin view two conditions: this present state, and the future state.\r\nBetween these two he was in a strait. The cause of God on earth, the\r\ninterests of the church, stirring to its very depths his large and\r\nsympathetic heart, drew him here; his own desires drew him to the future\r\nstate of victory and rest. And so evenly balanced were the influences\r\ndrawing him in either direction, that he hardly knew upon which course\r\nhe would decide, were it left to him as a matter of choice.\r\nNevertheless, he said that it was more needful for the church that he\r\nremain here, to give them still the benefit of his counsel and his\r\nlabors.\r\n\r\nThe state or condition to which he looked forward was one which he\r\ngreatly desired. About four years before he wrote these words to the\r\nPhilippians, he had written to the Corinthians, telling them what he did\r\ndesire, and what he did not desire, in reference to the future. Said he,\r\n“Not that we would be unclothed.” 2 Cor. 5:4. By being unclothed, he\r\nmeant the state of death, from the cessation of mortal life to the\r\nresurrection. This he did not desire; but he immediately adds what he\r\ndid desire, namely, to be “clothed upon, that mortality might be\r\nswallowed up of life;” and when this is done, all that is mortal of us\r\nis made immortal, the dead are raised, and the body is redeemed. Rom.\r\n8:23; 1 Cor. 15:52, 53.\r\n\r\nIn writing to the Corinthians, he thus stated that the object of his\r\ndesire was to be clothed upon, and have mortality swallowed up of life;\r\nto the Philippians he stated that the object of his desire was to be\r\nwith Christ. These expressions, then, mean the same thing. Therefore, in\r\nPhil. 1:23, Paul passes over the state of death, the unclothed state,\r\njust as he had done to the Corinthians; for he would not tell the\r\nCorinthians that he did not desire a certain state, and four years after\r\nwrite to the Philippians that he did desire it. Paul did not thus\r\ncontradict himself.\r\n\r\nBut this intermediate state is the disputed territory in this\r\ncontroversy; the condition of the dead therein is the very point in\r\nquestion: and on this the text before us is entirely silent.\r\n\r\nThis is the vulnerable point in the popular argument on this text. It is\r\nassumed that the being with Christ takes place immediately on the\r\ndeparture. But, while the text asserts nothing of this kind, multitudes\r\nof other texts affirm that the point when we gain immortality and the\r\npresence of Christ, is a point in the future beyond the resurrection.\r\nAnd, unless some necessary connection can be shown between the departing\r\nand the being with Christ, and the hosts of texts which make our\r\nentrance into Christ’s presence a future event can be harmonized\r\ntherewith, any attempt to prove consciousness in death from this text is\r\nan utter failure.\r\n\r\nLandis seems to feel the weakness of his side in this respect, and\r\nspends the strength of his argument, pp. 224-229, in trying to make the\r\ninference appear necessary that the being with Christ must be immediate\r\non the departure. He would have us think it utterly absurd and\r\nnonsensical to suppose a moment to elapse between the two events.\r\n\r\nLet us then see if there is anything in Paul’s language which\r\ncontradicts the idea that a period of utter unconsciousness, of greater\r\nor less length, intervenes between death and our entrance into the\r\nfuture life. In the first place, if the unconsciousness is absolute, as\r\nwe suppose, the space passed over in the individual’s experience is an\r\nutter blank. There is not the least perception, with such person, of the\r\nlapse of a moment of time. When consciousness returns, the line of\r\nthought is taken up at the very point where it ceased, without the\r\nconsciousness of a moment’s interruption. This fact is often proved by\r\nactual experience. Persons have been known to become utterly unconscious\r\nby a fracture of the skull, and a portion of it being depressed upon the\r\nbrain, suspending its action. Perhaps when the accident happened they\r\nwere in the act of issuing an order, or giving directions to those about\r\nthem. They have lain unconscious for months, and then been relieved by a\r\nsurgical operation; and when the brain began again to act, and\r\nconsciousness returned, they have immediately spoken and completed the\r\nsentence they were in the act of uttering when they were struck down,\r\nmonths before. This shows that to these persons there was no\r\nconsciousness of any time intervening, more than what passes between the\r\nwords of a sentence which we are speaking. It was all the same to them\r\nas if they had at once completed the sentence they commenced to utter,\r\ninstead of having weeks and months of unconsciousness thrown in between\r\nthe words of which that sentence was composed.\r\n\r\nSo with the dead. They are not aware of the lapse of a moment of time\r\nbetween their death and the resurrection. A wink of the eye shuts out\r\nfor an instant the sight of all objects, but it is so instantaneous that\r\nwe do not perceive any interruption of the rays of vision. Six thousand\r\nyears in the grave to a dead man is no more than a wink of the eye to\r\nthe living. To them, consciousness, our only means of measuring time, is\r\ngone; and it will seem to them when they awake that absolutely none has\r\nelapsed. When Abel awakes from the dead, it will seem to him, until his\r\nattention is attracted by the new scenes of immortality to which he will\r\nbe raised, that he is rising up from the murderous blows of Cain, under\r\nwhich he had seemingly just fallen. And to Stephen, who died beholding\r\nthe exaltation of Christ in Heaven, it will be the same as if he had,\r\nwithout a moment’s interruption, entered into his glorious presence. And\r\nwhen Paul himself shall be raised, it will seem to him that the stroke\r\nof the executioner was his translation to glory.\r\n\r\nSuch being the indisputable evidence of facts upon this point, we ask\r\nhow a person, understanding this matter, would speak of the future life,\r\nif he expected to obtain it in the kingdom of God? Would he speak of\r\npassing long ages in the grave before he reached it? He might, if he\r\ndesigned to state, for any one’s instruction, the actual facts in the\r\ncase; but if he was speaking simply of his own experience, it would not\r\nbe proper for him to mention the intervening time, because he would not\r\nbe conscious of any such time, and it would not seem to him on awaking\r\nto life again that any such period had elapsed.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, Bishop Law lays down this general principle on this\r\nquestion:--\r\n\r\n“The Scriptures, in speaking of the connection between our present and\r\nfuture being, do not take into the account our _intermediate state in\r\ndeath_; no more than we, in describing the course of any man’s actions,\r\ntake into account the time _he sleeps_. Therefore, the Scriptures (to be\r\nconsistent with themselves) _must affirm_ an immediate connection\r\nbetween death and the Judgment. Heb. 9:27; 2 Cor. 5:6, 8.”\r\n\r\nJohn Crellius says:--\r\n\r\n“Because the time between death and the resurrection is not to be\r\nreckoned, therefore the apostle might speak thus, though the soul has no\r\nsense of anything after death.”\r\n\r\nDr. Priestly says:--\r\n\r\n“The apostle, considering his own situation, would naturally connect the\r\nend of this life with the commencement of another and a better, as he\r\nwould have no perception of any interval between them. That the apostle\r\nhad no view short of the coming of Christ to Judgment, is evident from\r\nthe phrase he makes use of, namely, _being with Christ_, which can only\r\ntake place at his second coming. For Christ himself has said that he\r\nwould come again, and that he would take his disciples to himself, which\r\nclearly implies that they were not to be with him before that time.”\r\n\r\nSo in harmony with this reference to our Lord’s teaching is the language\r\nused by Paul in 1 Thess. 4:16, 17, that we here refer to it again: “For\r\nthe Lord himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice\r\nof the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ\r\nshall rise first. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up\r\ntogether with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and so\r\nshall we ever be with the Lord.”\r\n\r\nAs Christ taught that the time when his people were to be with him again\r\nwas at his second coming, so Paul here teaches. We call attention to the\r\nword _so_, in the last sentence of the quotation. So means in this way,\r\nin this manner, by this means. “_So_,” in this manner, by this means,\r\n“shall we ever be with the Lord.” When Paul, as he does here, describes\r\nwithout any limitations, the way and means by which we go to be with the\r\nLord, he precludes every other means. He the same as says there is no\r\nother means by which we can be with the Lord, and if there is any other\r\nmeans of gaining this end, this language is not true. If we go to be\r\nwith the Lord, by means of our immortal spirit, when we die, we do not\r\ngo to be with him by means of the visible coming of Christ, the\r\nresurrection of the dead, and the change of the living, and Paul’s\r\nlanguage is a stupendous falsehood. There is no possible way of avoiding\r\nthis conclusion, except by claiming that the descent of the Lord from\r\nHeaven, the mighty shout, the voice of the archangel, the sounding of\r\nthe great trump of God, the resurrection of the dead, and the change of\r\nthe living, all take place when a person dies--a position too absurd to\r\nbe seriously refuted, and almost too ridiculous to be even stated.\r\n\r\nShall we then take the position that Paul taught the Philippians that a\r\nperson went by his immortal spirit immediately at death to be with the\r\nLord, when he had plainly told the Thessalonians that this was to be\r\nbrought about in altogether a different manner, and by altogether\r\ndifferent means? No one who would have venerated that holy apostle when\r\nalive, or who has any decent regard for his memory now that he is dead,\r\nwill accuse him of so teaching.\r\n\r\nWhy, then, does he say that he has a desire to depart, that is, to die?\r\nBecause he well understood that his life of suffering, of toil, and\r\ntrial here was to terminate by death; and if the church could spare him,\r\nhe would gladly have it come, not only to release him from his almost\r\nunbearable burdens, but because he knew further that all the intervening\r\nspace between his death and the return of his Lord would seem to him to\r\nbe instantly annihilated, and the glories of the eternal world, through\r\nhis resurrection from the dead, would instantly open upon his view.\r\n\r\nIt is objected again that Paul was very foolish to express such a desire\r\nif he was not to be with his Lord till the resurrection; for, in that\r\ncase, he would be with him no sooner if he died than he would if he did\r\nnot die. Those who make this objection, either cannot have fully\r\nconsidered this subject, or they utterly fail to comprehend it. They\r\nhave no difficulty in seeing how Paul would be with Christ sooner by\r\ndying, provided his spirit, when he died, immediately entered into his\r\npresence; but they cannot see how it would be so when the time between\r\nhis death and the coming of Christ is to him an utter blank, and then\r\nwithout the consciousness on his part, that a single instant has\r\nelapsed, he is ushered into the presence of his Redeemer. Remember that\r\nPaul’s consciousness was his only means of measuring time; and if he had\r\ndied just as he wrote these words to the Philippians, it would have been\r\n_to him_ an entrance into Christ’s presence just as much sooner as what\r\ntime elapsed between the penning of that sentence and the day of his\r\ndeath. None can fail to see this point, if they will consider it in the\r\nlight of the fact we have here tried so fully to set forth, that the\r\ndead have no perceptions of passing time.\r\n\r\nIn the light of the foregoing reasoning, let us read and paraphrase this\r\nfamous passage to the Philippians:--\r\n\r\n“For to me to live is for the furtherance of the cause of Christ, and\r\nfor me to die is still gain to that cause (because ‘Christ shall be\r\nmagnified in my body, whether it be by life or death,’ verse 20). But if\r\nI live in the flesh, this, the furtherance of Christ’s cause, is the\r\nfruit of my labor; but what course I should take were it left for me to\r\ndecide, I know not; for I am in a straight betwixt two: I know that the\r\nchurch still needs my labors, but I have a desire to end my mortal\r\npilgrimage, and be the next instant, so far as my experience goes (for\r\nthe dead perceive no passing of time), in the presence of my Lord.\r\nConsulting my own feelings, this I should esteem far better; but I know\r\nthat it is more needful for you that I abide still in a condition to\r\nlabor on for your good in this mortal state.”\r\n\r\nWho can say, bearing in mind the language Paul frequently uses in his\r\nother epistles, that this is not a just paraphrase of his language here.\r\nThe only objection against it is, that, so rendered, it does not support\r\nthe conscious-state dogma. But it makes a harmony in all that Paul has\r\ntaught on the subject; and is it not far more desirable to maintain the\r\nharmony of the sacred writings, than to try to make them defend a dogma\r\nwhich involves them in a fatal contradiction?\r\n\r\nREMAINING TEXTS CONSIDERED.\r\n\r\nWe have now examined all the principal texts of the Scriptures which are\r\nsupposed to have a bearing on the question of the intermediate state. A\r\nfew others of minor importance are occasionally urged in favor of the\r\npopular view, and as such are entitled to a passing notice. We give them\r\nin consecutive order as follows:--\r\n\r\nRom. 8:38, 39. “For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, ...\r\nshall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ\r\nJesus our Lord.”\r\n\r\nIt is claimed that death cannot separate us from the love of God; but,\r\nas God cannot exercise his love toward any but a rational and conscious\r\ncreature, therefore the soul must be alive after death. (_Immortality of\r\nthe Soul, by Luther Lee_, p. 111.) To what far-fetched and abortive\r\nreasoning will wrong theories lead intelligent men. We owe the reader an\r\napology for noticing this passage at all. We should not here introduce\r\nit, were it not used as an objection to the view we advocate; and we\r\nshould not believe it could ever be urged as an objection, had we not\r\nactually seen it. The reasoning of the apostle has to be completely\r\ninverted before any argument (may we be pardoned the misnomer) can be\r\nmanufactured out of it for the conscious-state theory. For it is of our\r\nlove to God, through Christ, and not of his to us, that the apostle\r\nspeaks. It has reference, also, wholly to this life. Thus he says, verse\r\n35, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation,\r\nor distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or\r\nsword?” That is, shall these things which we have to endure in this life\r\non account of our profession of the gospel and our love for Christ,\r\nquench that love in any wise? Shall we compromise the gospel, and\r\nalienate ourselves from the love of Christ, who has done so much for us,\r\nand through whom we hope for so much (see the whole chapter), to avoid a\r\nlittle persecution, peril, and distress? The separation from the love of\r\nChrist by death, of which he speaks, is the same as the separation by\r\npersecution, &c.; but tribulation, distress, persecution, famine,\r\nnakedness, peril, and sword, do not necessarily kill us; they have\r\nrespect to this life; the separation, therefore, is something which\r\ntakes place here--simply an alienation of our hearts from him. And shall\r\nall these things, he asks--nay, more, shall even the prospect of death\r\non account of our profession of Christ, prevent our loving and following\r\nhim? No! is the implied and emphatic answer.\r\n\r\nSuch we believe to be the view which any one must take of this passage,\r\nwho does not find himself under the unfortunate necessity of making out\r\na case.\r\n\r\nBut looking at this scripture from the objector’s stand-point, the\r\nsingular inquiry at once forces itself upon us, Can the immortal soul in\r\nits disembodied state suffer tribulation, distress, persecution, famine,\r\nnakedness, peril, and sword!?\r\n\r\n2 Cor. 4:16. “For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man\r\nperish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.”\r\n\r\nIs this inward man the immortal soul? We answer, No; but the new man\r\nwhich we put on, Christ formed within _the hope_ of glory. See Col. 3:9,\r\n10; Eph. 4:22, 24; 3:16, 17; Col. 1:27.\r\n\r\n1 Thess. 4:14. “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even\r\nso them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.”\r\n\r\nYes, says the objector, bring them from Heaven; so they must now be with\r\nhim there in a conscious state. Not quite so fast. The text speaks of\r\nthose who sleep in Jesus. Do you believe those who have gone to Heaven\r\nare asleep? We always supposed that Heaven was a place of unceasing\r\nactivity, and of uninterrupted joy. And, again, are all these persons\r\ngoing to be brought from Heaven asleep! What a theological incongruity!\r\nBut, from what place are they brought, if not from Heaven? The same\r\nplace, we answer, from which God brought our Lord Jesus Christ. And what\r\nplace was that? See Heb. 13:20: “Now the God of peace, that brought\r\nagain _from the dead_ our Lord Jesus,” &c. We may then read the text in\r\nThessalonians, as follows: “For if we believe that Jesus died and God\r\nbrought him from the dead, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will\r\nGod bring with him from the dead.” Simply this the text affirms, and\r\nnothing more. It is a glorious pledge of the resurrection, and so far\r\ndiametrically opposed to the conscious-state theory.\r\n\r\n2 Tim. 4:6. “For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my\r\ndeparture is at hand.”\r\n\r\nIt is claimed that the departure here referred to is death, with which\r\nwe agree. We take no exceptions to the remark so often made, “Departed\r\nthis life,” &c. But as Paul does not here intimate that his departure\r\nwas to be to Heaven, or even to any conscious intermediate state, we\r\nhave no right to infer this.\r\n\r\n2 Pet. 1:14. “Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle,\r\neven as our Lord Jesus Christ hath showed me.”\r\n\r\nIt is here claimed that the “I” that speaks, and the “my” that is in\r\npossession of a tabernacle, is Peter’s soul, the man proper, and the\r\ntabernacle, is the body which he was going to lay off. That Peter here\r\nhas reference to death, we doubt not; but it was to be as the Lord Jesus\r\nChrist had showed him. How had he shown him it would be? See John 21:18,\r\n19: “But when _thou_ shalt be old, _thou_ shalt stretch forth thy hands,\r\nand another shall gird _thee_, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.\r\nThis spake he, signifying by what death _he_ should glorify God.” Here\r\nwe are shown that the “thou” and the “he,” claimed on 1 Pet. 1:14, to be\r\nPeter’s soul, the man proper, was going to die, and by death, glorify\r\nGod. And Peter himself says in the next verse, “Moreover, I will\r\nendeavor that ye may be able after _my_ decease to have these things\r\nalways in remembrance.” Here, then, the same “my,” Peter’s soul, the man\r\nproper, recollect, which in the verse before is in the possessive case,\r\nand governed by tabernacle, is again in the possessive case, and\r\ngoverned by decease, or _death_! Yes, Peter _himself_ was going to die.\r\nWe find no proof of a double entity here.\r\n\r\nThis phraseology is well illustrated by Job 7:21, which shows that the\r\nman proper, the “I,” sleeps in the dust: “And why dost Thou not pardon\r\nmy transgression, and take away mine iniquity? for now shall I sleep in\r\nthe dust; and thou shalt seek me in the morning, but I shall not be.”\r\n\r\n2 Pet 2:9. “The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of\r\ntemptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of Judgment to be\r\npunished.”\r\n\r\nThis testimony shows that the unjust do not enter into a place of\r\npunishment at death, but are _reserved_ to the day of Judgment. Where\r\nare they reserved? Answer. In the general receptacle of the dead, the\r\ngrave. See Job 21:30.\r\n\r\nRev. 20:5. “But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand\r\nyears were finished. This is the first resurrection.”\r\n\r\nBy this first resurrection a portion of the dead are restored to life,\r\nconsciousness, and activity, while it is said of those whose condition\r\nis not affected by this resurrection, that they _lived not_ for a\r\nthousand years. This proves that up to the time of this resurrection,\r\n_all_ the dead were in a condition just the opposite of life--a\r\ncondition in which it might be said of them that they “lived not.” And\r\nthis, mark, is spoken of the whole conscious being, not of the body\r\nmerely. No language could more positively show that in death the whole\r\nperson is in a state just the opposite of life.\r\n\r\nRev. 22:8, 9. “And I John ... fell down to worship before the feet of\r\nthe angel which showed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou\r\ndo it not; for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the\r\nprophets.”\r\n\r\nThis text is supposed to prove that one of the old prophets came to John\r\nas an angel, showing that the dead exist in a conscious state. But it\r\ndoes not so teach. The angel simply stated that he was John’s\r\nfellow-servant, and the fellow-servant of John’s brethren, the prophets,\r\nand the fellow-servant of them which keep the sayings of this book. The\r\nbeing of whom they were all worshipers together was the great God.\r\nTherefore, says the angel, do not worship me, since I am only a\r\nworshiper with you at the throne of God; but worship God. This angel had\r\ndoubtless been sent to the ancient prophets to reveal things to them, as\r\nhe had now come to John. Such we believe to be the legitimate teaching\r\nof this scripture, the last that is found in the book of God supposed to\r\nteach a conscious state.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                              CHAPTER XXV.\r\n                           THE DEATH OF ADAM.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe inquirer into the nature of man, and his condition in death, must\r\never turn with the deepest interest to the record left us concerning the\r\nfather of our race. In Adam we have an account of the origin of the\r\nhuman family, at once so simple and consistent that the jeers of\r\nskepticism fall harmless at its feet, and science, in comparison, only\r\nmakes itself ridiculous, in trying to account for it in any other\r\nmanner. And in the sentence pronounced upon him when he fell under the\r\nfearful guilt of transgression, we are shown to what condition death was\r\ndesigned to reduce the human family. In the creation and death of Adam,\r\nwe have the account of the building up and the unbuilding of a human\r\nbeing; and this case, being the first and most illustrious, must furnish\r\nthe precedent and establish the rule for the whole race.\r\n\r\nOf the creation of Adam and the elements of which he was composed, we\r\nhave already spoken. The record brings to view a formation made wholly\r\nof the dust of the ground. “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of\r\nthe ground.” This body was endowed with a high and perfect organization,\r\nand was quickened into life by the breath which the Lord breathed into\r\nits nostrils. The body, before it was made alive, had no power to act;\r\nthe breath which was breathed into it could not of itself act; but the\r\nbody being quickened, the machinery set in motion by this vital\r\nprinciple, all the phenomena of physical life and mental action at once\r\nresulted.\r\n\r\nThe Author of this noblest of creative works, who must of necessity, as\r\nthe ruler over all, require the creatures of his hand to obey him, and\r\ntoward whom an exercise of love, and a voluntary and willing submission,\r\ncan alone constitute obedience, placed the man whom he had formed, as\r\nwas meet, upon a state of probation, to test his loyalty to his Maker.\r\nThe scene of his trial was the beautiful garden in which was everything\r\nthat was pleasant to the sight and good for food; and over all that\r\nadorned or enriched his Eden home, with one exception, he had unlimited\r\ncontrol. The condition upon which he was to be tested is thus definitely\r\nexpressed:--\r\n\r\n“And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden\r\nthou mayest freely eat. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and\r\nevil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof\r\nthou shalt surely die.”\r\n\r\nAdam and Eve could not mistake the requirement of this law, nor fail to\r\nunderstand the intent of the penalty. And before Satan could cause his\r\ntemptation to make any impression on the mind of Eve, he had to\r\ncontradict this threatening, assuring her that they should not surely\r\ndie. A question of veracity was thus raised between God and Satan; and\r\nstrange to say, the theological world, in interpreting the penalty, have\r\nvirtually, with the exception of a small minority, sided with Satan.\r\nThis is seen in the interpretation which is commonly put on this\r\npenalty, making it consist of three divisions: 1. Alienation of the soul\r\nfrom God, the love of sin, and the hatred of holiness, called spiritual\r\ndeath. 2. The separation of soul and body, called temporal death. 3.\r\nImmediately after temporal death, the conscious torment of the soul in\r\nhell, which is to have no end, and is called eternal death. The Baptist\r\nConfession of Faith, Art. 5, says:--\r\n\r\n“We believe that God made man upright; but he, sinning, involved himself\r\nand posterity in death spiritual, temporal, and eternal; from all which\r\nthere is no deliverance but by Christ.”\r\n\r\nLet us look at the different installments of this penalty, and see if\r\nthey will harmonize with the language in which the original threatening\r\nis expressed: “Thou shalt surely die.” Adam incurred the penalty by\r\nsinning. After he had sinned, he was a sinner. But a state of sin is\r\nthat state of alienation from God which the orthodox school make to be a\r\npart of the penalty of his transgression. In this they take as the\r\n_punishment_ of sin that which was simply its _result_; and they make\r\nthe sentence read, virtually, in this profoundly sensible manner: “In\r\nthe day that thou sinnest, thou shalt surely be a sinner!”\r\n\r\nBecause he wickedly became a sinner, and brought himself into a state of\r\nalienation from God, the doom was pronounced upon him, “Thou shalt\r\nsurely die.” Could this mean eternal death? If so, Adam never could have\r\nbeen released therefrom. But he is to be released from it; for “in\r\nChrist shall all be made alive.”\r\n\r\nThese two installments, then, spiritual and eternal death, utterly fail\r\nus, when brought to the test of the language in which the sentence is\r\nexpressed: one is nonsense, and the other an impossibility.\r\n\r\nTemporal death alone remains to be considered; but the interpretation\r\nwhich is given to this, completely nullifies the penalty, and makes\r\nSatan to have been correct when he said, “Thou shalt not surely die.”\r\nTemporal death is interpreted to mean the separation of the soul from\r\nthe body, the body alone to die, but the soul, which is called the real,\r\nresponsible man, to enter upon an enlarged and higher life. In this\r\ncase, there is no death; and the sentence should have read, In the day\r\nthou eatest thereof, thou shalt be freed from the clog of this mortal\r\nbody, and enter upon a new and eternal life. So said Satan, “Ye shall be\r\nas gods;” and true to this assertion from the father of lies, the\r\nheathen have all along deified their dead men, and worshiped their\r\ndeparted heroes; and modern poets have sung, “There is no death; what\r\nseems so is transition.” If ever the skill of a deceiver and the\r\ngullibility of a victim were manifested in an unaccountable degree, it\r\nis in this fact, that right in the face and eyes of the pale throng that\r\ndaily passes down through the gate of death, the devil can make men\r\nbelieve that after all his first lie was true, and there is no such\r\nthing as death.\r\n\r\nFrom these considerations, it is evident that nothing will meet the\r\ndemands of the sentence but the cessation of the life of the whole man.\r\nBut that, says one, cannot be, for he was to die in the very day he ate\r\nof the forbidden fruit; but he did not literally die for nine hundred\r\nand thirty years. If this is an objection against the view we advocate,\r\nit is equally such against every other. Take the threefold penalty above\r\nnoticed. If death spiritual, death temporal, and death eternal, was the\r\npenalty, how much was fulfilled on the day he sinned? Not death eternal,\r\nsurely, and not death temporal, which did not take place for nine\r\nhundred and thirty years, but only death spiritual. But this was only\r\nthe first installment of the penalty, and far less important than the\r\nother two. The most that the friends of this interpretation can say,\r\ntherefore, is that the penalty begun on that very day to be fulfilled.\r\nBut we can say as much with our view. “Dying, thou shalt die,” reads the\r\nmargin; which some understand to mean, thou shalt inherit a mortal\r\nnature, and the process of decay shall commence. As soon as he sinned,\r\nhe came under the sentence of death, and the work commenced. He bore up\r\nagainst the encroachments of dissolution for nine hundred and thirty\r\nyears, and then the work was fully accomplished.\r\n\r\nWhen God proceeded to pronounce sentence upon Adam, he gave us an\r\nauthoritative interpretation of the penalty from which there is no\r\nappeal. Gen. 3:19: “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till\r\nthou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: _for dust\r\nthou art, and unto dust shalt thou return_.”\r\n\r\nThe return to dust is here made a subsequent event, to be preceded by a\r\nperiod of wearing toil. And being finally overcome by the labors and\r\nills of life, the person addressed was to return again to the dust from\r\nwhich he was taken. With Adam, this process commenced on the very day he\r\ntransgressed, and the penalty threatened, which covered all this work\r\nfrom beginning to end, was executed in full when this process was fully\r\ncompleted in Adam’s death, nine hundred and thirty years thereafter.\r\n\r\nTwo things are connected together in the penalty affixed to Adam’s\r\ndisobedience. These are the words, day and die: In the _day_ thou\r\neatest, thou shalt _die_. The dying, whatever view we take of it, must\r\ninclude temporal or literal death. But this was not accomplished on that\r\nvery day. Therefore, to find a death which was inflicted on that literal\r\nday, a figurative sense is given to the word die, and it is claimed that\r\na spiritual death was that day wrought upon Adam. But we inquire, If\r\neither of these terms, day or die, are to be taken figuratively, why not\r\nlet the dying be literal, and the day be figurative, especially since\r\nthe sentence which God pronounced upon Adam, when he came up for trial,\r\nshows that literal death, and that only, was intended in the penalty?\r\n\r\nThe use of the word day in such a sense, meaning an indefinite period of\r\ntime, is of frequent occurrence in the Scriptures. An instance in point\r\noccurs in 1 Kings 2:36-46. King Solomon bound Shimei by an oath to\r\nremain in Jerusalem, under the sentence that on the day he went out in\r\nany direction, he should be slain. After three years, two of his\r\nservants ran away to Gath, and he went after them. It was then told\r\nSolomon that Shimei had been to Gath and returned. Solomon sent for him,\r\nreminded him of the conditions on which his life was suspended, and the\r\noath he had broken, and then commanded the executioner to put him to\r\ndeath.\r\n\r\nGath was some twenty-five miles from Jerusalem. That Shimei could go\r\nthere and get his servants, return, be sent for by Solomon, and be tried\r\nand executed, all on the same day, is a supposition by no means\r\nprobable, even if it is possible. Yet in his death the sentence was\r\nfulfilled, that on the day he went out he should be slain. Because on\r\nthe very day he passed out of the city, the only condition that held\r\nback the execution of the sentence was removed, and he was virtually a\r\ndead man.\r\n\r\nSo with Adam. He was immediately cut off from the tree of life, his\r\nsource of physical vitality. So much was executed on that very day.\r\nDeath was then his inevitable portion, to be accomplished within the\r\nlimits of that period covered by the word, day.\r\n\r\nWe are very well aware of the method adopted to evade the conclusion\r\nwhich naturally follows from the language of the sentence in Gen. 3:19.\r\nThis, it is claimed, was spoken only of the body, not of the soul. The\r\npoetry of Longfellow,\r\n\r\n                   “Dust thou art, to dust returnest,\r\n                     Was not spoken of the soul,”\r\n\r\ntakes much better with most people than the plain language of\r\ninspiration itself.\r\n\r\nTo whom, then, or to what, was this sentence addressed, “Dust thou art,\r\nand unto dust shalt thou return”? Admitting that there is such a\r\ncreature of the imagination as the popular, independent, immortal soul,\r\nwas the language addressed to that or to the body? If there is such a\r\nsoul as this, what does it constitute, on the authority of the friends\r\nof that theory, themselves? It is the real, responsible, intelligent\r\nman. Watson says, “It is the soul _only_ which perceives pain or\r\npleasure, which suffers or enjoys;” and D. D. Whedon says, “It is the\r\nsoul that hears, feels, tastes, and smells, through its sensorial\r\norgans.” The sentence, then, would be addressed to that which could\r\nhear; the penalty would be pronounced upon that which could feel. The\r\nbody, in the common view, is only an irresponsible instrument, the means\r\nby which the soul acts. It can, of itself, neither see, hear, feel,\r\nwill, or act. Who then will have the hardihood to assert that God\r\naddressed his sentence to the irresponsible instrument, the body merely?\r\nThis would be the same as for the judge in a criminal court to proceed\r\ndeliberately to address the knife with which the murderer had taken the\r\nlife of his victim, and pronounce sentence upon that, instead of the\r\nmurderer himself. Away with a view which offers to the Majesty of Heaven\r\nthe insult of representing that he acts in this way!\r\n\r\nIn the sentence, the personal pronoun, _thy_, is once, and the personal\r\npronoun, _thou_, is five times, applied to the Adam whom God addressed.\r\n“In the sweat of _thy_ face, shalt _thou_ eat bread, till _thou_ return\r\nunto the ground; for out of it wast _thou_ taken: for dust _thou_ art,\r\nand unto dust shalt _thou_ return.” When we address our fellowmen by the\r\ndifferent personal pronouns of our language, what do we address? The\r\nconscious, intelligent, responsible man, that which sees, feels, hears,\r\nthinks, acts, and is morally accountable. But this, in popular parlance,\r\nis the soul; these pronouns must every time stand for the soul. The\r\npronouns thy and thou, in Gen. 3:19, must then mean Adam’s soul. If they\r\ndo not mean it here, how does the same pronoun, thou, in Luke 23:43,\r\nmean the thief’s soul, when Christ said to him, “This day shalt _thou_\r\nbe with me in paradise”? or the _I_ and _my_ in 2 Pet. 1:14, refer to\r\nPeter’s soul, as we are told they do, when he says, “Knowing that\r\nshortly I must put off this my tabernacle.” Our friends must be\r\nconsistent and uniform in their interpretations. If in these instances\r\nthe pronouns do not refer to the soul, then these strong proof-texts, to\r\nwhich the immaterialist always appeals, are abandoned: if they do here\r\nrefer to the soul, they must likewise in Gen. 3:19, refer to the soul.\r\nIn that language, then, God addresses Adam’s soul; and we have the\r\nauthority of Jehovah himself, the Creator of man, against whose\r\nsentence, and the sunlight of whose word, it does not become puny\r\nmortals to oppose their shallow dictums, and the rushlight of human\r\nreason, that man’s soul is wholly mortal, and that in the dissolution of\r\ndeath it goes back to dust again! There is no avoiding this conclusion;\r\nand it forever settles the question of man’s condition in death. It\r\nshows that the intermediate state must be one in which the conscious man\r\nhas lost his consciousness, the intelligent man his intelligence, the\r\nresponsible man his responsibility, and in which all the powers of his\r\nbeing, mental, emotional, and physical, have ceased to act.\r\n\r\nNo further argument need be introduced to show that the Adamic penalty\r\nwas literal death, and that it reduced the whole man to a condition of\r\nunconsciousness and decay. But a few additional considerations will show\r\nthat the popular view is cumbered with absurdities on every hand so\r\nplain that they should have proved their own antidote, and saved the\r\ndoctors of theology from the preposterous definitions they have attached\r\nto death.\r\n\r\nWe have the authority of Paul for stating that through Christ we are\r\nreleased from all the penalty which the race has incurred through Adam’s\r\ntransgression. “As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made\r\nalive.” If the death in which we are involved through Adam is death\r\nspiritual, temporal, and eternal, then all the race is redeemed from\r\nthese through Christ, and Universalism is the result.\r\n\r\nAgain, Christ tasted death for every man. He hath redeemed us from the\r\ncurse of the law, being made a curse for us. That is, Christ died the\r\nsame death for us which was introduced into the world by Adam’s sin. Was\r\nthis death eternal? If so, the Saviour is gone, and the plan of\r\nsalvation can never be carried into effect.\r\n\r\nIn Rom. 5:12-14, occurs this remarkable passage:--\r\n\r\n“Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and _death_ by sin;\r\nand so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until\r\nthe law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no\r\nlaw. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that\r\nhad not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the\r\nfigure of Him that was to come.)”\r\n\r\nIn the first part of the verse Paul speaks of the death that came in by\r\nAdam’s sin, and then says that it reigned from Adam to Moses over them\r\nthat had not sinned. From this language, accepting the popular\r\ninterpretation of the Adamic penalty, we must come to the intolerable\r\nconclusion that personally sinless beings from Adam to Moses were\r\nconsigned to eternal misery! From such a sentiment, every fiber of our\r\nhumanity recoils with horror. We cannot stifle the feeling that it is an\r\noutrage upon the character of God, and therefore cannot be true. The\r\ndeath threatened Adam was literal death, not eternal life in misery.\r\n\r\nTo the view that the Adamic penalty was simply literal death, many\r\neminent men have given their unqualified adhesion.\r\n\r\nJohn Locke (_Reasonableness of Christianity_, s. 1,) says:--\r\n\r\n“By reason of Adam’s transgression all men are mortal and come to\r\ndie.... It seems a strange way of understanding a law which requires the\r\nplainest and directest words, that by death should be meant eternal life\r\nin misery.... I confess that by death, here, I can understand nothing\r\nbut a ceasing to be, the losing of all actions of life and sense. Such a\r\ndeath came upon Adam and all his posterity, by his first disobedience in\r\nparadise, under which death they should have lain forever had it not\r\nbeen for the redemption by Jesus Christ.”\r\n\r\nIsaac Watts (_Ruin and Recovery of Mankind_, s. 3), though he was a\r\nbeliever in the immortality of the soul, has the candor to say:--\r\n\r\n“There is not one place of Scripture that occurs to me, where the word\r\ndeath as it was threatened in the law of innocency, necessarily\r\nsignifies a certain miserable immortality of the soul, either to Adam,\r\nthe actual sinner, or to his posterity.”\r\n\r\nDr. Taylor says:--\r\n\r\n“Death was to be the consequence of his [Adam’s] disobedience, and the\r\ndeath here threatened can be opposed only to that life God gave Adam\r\nwhen he created him.”\r\n\r\nWith two more considerations we close this chapter:--\r\n\r\n1. Adam was on probation. Life and death were set before him. “In the\r\nday that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die,” said God. The only\r\npromise of life he had in case of disobedience came from one whom it is\r\nnot very flattering to the advocates of a natural immortality to call\r\nthe first propounder and natural ally of their system. But had Adam been\r\nendowed with a natural immortality, it could not have been suspended on\r\nhis obedience. But it was so suspended, as we learn from the first pages\r\nof revelation. It was, therefore, not absolute, but contingent. Immortal\r\nhe might become by obedience to God; disobeying, he was to die. He did\r\ndisobey, and was driven from the garden. “And now,” said God, “lest he\r\nput forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and\r\n_live forever_;”--therefore, the cherubim and flaming sword were placed\r\nto exclude forever his approach to the life-giving tree. Quite the\r\nreverse of an uncontingent immortality is certainly brought to view\r\nhere. Adam could bequeath to his posterity no higher nature than he\r\nhimself possessed. The stream, that commencing just outside the garden\r\nof Eden, has flowed down through the lapse of six thousand years, has\r\ncertainly never risen higher than the fountain head; and we may be sure\r\nwe possess no superior endowments in this respect to those of Adam.\r\n\r\n2. The second consideration under this head is, the exhortations we have\r\nin the word of God to _seek_ for immortality, if we would obtain it.\r\n“Seek the Lord, and ye shall live,” is his declaration to the house of\r\nIsrael. Amos 5:4, 6. “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is\r\neternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom. 6:23. Gift to whom?\r\nTo every man, irrespective of character? By no means; but gift _through_\r\nChrist, to them only who are his. Again, “To them who by patient\r\ncontinuance in well-doing _seek_ for glory, honor, and immortality [God\r\nwill render], eternal life.” Rom. 2:7. Varying the language of the\r\napostle a little, we may here inquire, What a man _hath_, why doth he\r\nyet seek for? The propriety of seeking for that which we already have,\r\nis something in regard to which it yet remains that we be enlightened by\r\nthe advocates of the dominant theology.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                             CHAPTER XXVI.\r\n                           THE RESURRECTION.\r\n\r\n\r\nAs clearly as the human race have been taught by the experience of six\r\nthousand years that death is their common lot, so clearly are we taught\r\nby the word of God, and by some notable exhibitions of divine power,\r\nthat all who have gone into their graves shall come forth again to life.\r\n\r\nThe words in the New Testament which express this fact are _anastasis_,\r\n_egersis_, and _exanastasis_. The two latter occur but once each, the\r\nfirst in reference to the resurrection of Christ, in Matt. 27:53, the\r\nlast in Phil. 3:11, where Paul expresses a desire to attain to a\r\nresurrection out from among the dead. _Anastasis_ occurs forty-two\r\ntimes, being the word which is invariably used in the New Testament,\r\nwith the exceptions just named, to express the resurrection. This word\r\nis defined by Robinson to mean, literally, _a rising up_, as of walls,\r\nof a suppliant, or from a seat. Specially in the New Testament, the\r\nresurrection of the body from death, the return of the dead body to\r\nlife, as, first of individuals who have returned to life on earth, Heb.\r\n11:35; secondly, of the future and general resurrection at the end of\r\nall things, John 11:24. It is often joined to the word, dead; as in the\r\nexpression, the resurrection of the dead.\r\n\r\nFrom these well-established meanings of the word it is evident that that\r\nwhich goes down will rise again. That which goes into the grave will\r\ncome up again out of the grave. The rising again of the body is\r\ncertainly assured by this word, and the manner in which it is used. This\r\nresurrection is a future event: “The hour is coming, in the which all\r\nthat are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth.” John\r\n5:28, 29. Paul said, when disputing with Tertullus before the governor,\r\nI “have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there\r\nshall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust.”\r\nActs 24:15. And he tells us in chapter 26:7, that unto that promise the\r\ntwelve tribes hope to come.\r\n\r\nIf, then, this is a firmly-established fact, that God is to make such a\r\nmighty manifestation of his power as to re-animate the scattered dust of\r\nthose whom the grave has consumed from time’s earliest morn, there must\r\nbe some cause for such an action. This great event has a tremendous\r\nbearing on the question of the intermediate state, and all views of that\r\nstate must be adjusted to harmonize therewith. If any view is\r\nentertained which virtually renders such an event unnecessary, it must\r\nbe shown that the resurrection as here defined is not taught in the word\r\nof God, or it must be admitted that the doctrine which nullifies it, is\r\nunscriptural.\r\n\r\nThe important inquiry now arises respecting the popular view, If the\r\nreal being, the intelligent, responsible entity, ceases not its life and\r\nconsciousness at death, but continues on in a more enlarged and perfect\r\nsphere of existence and activity, what need is there of the resurrection\r\nof the body? If the body is but a trammel, a clog to the operations of\r\nthe soul, what need that it should come back and gather up its scattered\r\nparticles from the silent tomb, and re-fetter itself with this material\r\nrobe?\r\n\r\nWm. Tyndale, defending the doctrine of Martin Luther, that the dead\r\nsleep, addressed to his opponent the same pungent inquiry. He said:--\r\n\r\n“And ye, in putting them [departed souls] in Heaven, hell, and\r\npurgatory, destroy the argument wherewith Christ and Paul prove the\r\nresurrection.... If the souls be in Heaven, tell me why they be not in\r\nas good case as the angels be? and then what cause is there of the\r\nresurrection?”\r\n\r\nAndrew Carmichael (_Theology of Scripture_, vol. ii., p. 315) says:--\r\n\r\n“It cannot be too often repeated: _If there be an immortal soul there is\r\nno resurrection; and if there be any resurrection there is no immortal\r\nsoul_.”\r\n\r\nDr. Muller (_Ch. Doc. of Sin_, p. 318) says:--\r\n\r\n“The Christian faith in immortality is indissolubly connected with a\r\npromise of a future resurrection of the dead.”\r\n\r\nWe now propose to show that the resurrection is a prominent doctrine of\r\nthe Bible; and if this can be established, it follows, upon the judgment\r\nof these eminent men, that the immortality of the soul cannot be true.\r\nWe need not stop to notice that impalpable and groundless theory which\r\nmakes the resurrection take place immediately at death, by supposing it\r\nto be the rising of the soul from the earthly house of this tabernacle,\r\nand its entering at once into its spiritual house, this to be inhabited,\r\nand the former, abandoned, forever. For in this case there is no\r\nresurrection; since the soul lives right on, and does not die at all.\r\nThe resurrection which the Bible brings to view is a resurrection of\r\n_the dead_. It cannot be applied to anything that continuously lives,\r\nhowever many changes it may pass through. A person must go down into a\r\nstate of death before he can be raised from the dead. Hence this theory\r\nis no resurrection at all, and so is at war with all the Bible says\r\nabout the resurrection of the dead. Moreover, it is utterly impossible\r\nto harmonize this with the many references to the general resurrection\r\nat the end of the world.\r\n\r\nWe return to the Bible doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, the\r\nliteral resurrection and resuscitation of our natural bodies, and affirm\r\nthat the Bible makes this resurrection necessary, by representing the\r\ndead to be in such a condition that without this event they can have no\r\nfuture existence.\r\n\r\n1. Death is compared to sleep. There must, then, be some analogy between\r\na state of sleep and a state of death, and this analogy must pertain to\r\nthat which renders sleep a peculiar condition. Our condition in sleep\r\ndiffers from our condition when awake, simply in this, that when we are\r\nsoundly asleep we are entirely _unconscious_. In this respect, then,\r\ndeath is like sleep; that is, the dead are unconscious. This figure is\r\nfrequently used to represent the condition of the dead. Dan. 12:2: “Many\r\nof them that _sleep_ in the dust of the earth shall awake.” Matt. 27:52:\r\n“Many bodies of the saints which _slept_ arose.” Acts 7:60: After\r\nStephen had beheld the vision of Christ and was stoned to death, the\r\nrecord says, he “fell _asleep_.” In 1 Cor. 15:20, Christ is called the\r\nfirst-fruits of them that _slept_; and in verse 57, Paul says, “We shall\r\nnot all _sleep_.” Again Paul writes to the Thessalonians, 1 Thess. 4:13,\r\n14, that he would not have them ignorant concerning them which are\r\n_asleep_. In verse 14, he speaks of them as _asleep_ in Jesus, and\r\nexplains what he means, in verse 16, by calling them “dead in Christ.”\r\nAnd the advocates of the conscious state cannot dispose of these\r\nexpressions by saying that they apply to the body merely; for they do\r\nnot hold that the consciousness which we have in life (which is what we\r\nlose in death) pertains to the body merely. Job plainly declares that\r\nthey will not awake till the resurrection, at the last day. “Man dieth\r\nand wasteth away; yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he? As the\r\nwaters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up, so man\r\nlieth down and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not\r\nawake, nor be raised out of their sleep.” If, therefore, there is no\r\nresurrection, these dead are destined to sleep in unconsciousness\r\nforever.\r\n\r\n2. The dead are in a condition as though they had not been. So Job\r\ntestifies; for he affirms that if he could have died in earliest\r\ninfancy, like a hidden, untimely birth, he would not have been; and in\r\nthis respect he declared he would have been like kings, counsellors, and\r\nprinces of the earth who built costly tombs in which to enshrine their\r\nbodies when dead. To that condition he applies the expression which has\r\nsince been so often quoted, “There the wicked cease from troubling, and\r\nthere the weary be at rest.” Job 3:11-18. If, then, a person when dead\r\nis as though he had not been, without a resurrection to release him from\r\nthis state, he will never be, or exist, again.\r\n\r\n3. The dead have no knowledge. Speaking of the dead man, Job says\r\n(14:21), “His sons come to honor, and he knoweth it not; and they are\r\nbrought low, and he perceiveth it not of them.” Ps. 146:4. “His breath\r\ngoeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts\r\nperish.” Solomon was inspired to speak to the same effect as his father\r\nDavid: Eccl. 9:5, 6: “For the living know that they shall die, but the\r\ndead know not anything.... Also their love, and their hatred, and their\r\nenvy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion forever in\r\nanything that is done under the sun.” Verse 10: “There is no work, nor\r\ndevice, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave whither thou goest.”\r\nEvidence like this can neither be mistaken nor evaded. It is vain for\r\nthe immaterialist to claim that it applies to the body in distinction\r\nfrom an immortal soul; for they do not hold that the thoughts\r\n(διαλογισμός, _thought, reasoning_,) which David says perish in death,\r\nbelong to the body, but to the soul. And according to Solomon, that\r\nwhich knows when the man is living, does not know when he is dead.\r\nWithout a resurrection, therefore, the dead will forever remain without\r\nknowledge.\r\n\r\n4. The dead are not in Heaven nor in hell, but in the dust of the earth.\r\nJob 17:13-16: “If I wait, the grave is mine house.” In chap. 14:14, he\r\nsaid, “All the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change\r\ncome.” The change referred to, must therefore be the resurrection, and\r\nhe describes his condition till that time, in the following language: “I\r\nhave made my bed in the darkness. I have said to corruption, Thou art my\r\nfather; to the worm, Thou art my mother and my sister, ... when _our\r\nrest together is in the dust_.” Isa. 26:19: “Thy dead men shall live;\r\ntogether with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that\r\ndwell in dust; for thy dew is as the dew of herbs; and the earth shall\r\ncast out the dead.” Is it possible that the phraseology of this text can\r\nbe misunderstood? It speaks of the living again of dead men, of the\r\narising of dead bodies, and of the earth’s casting out the dead. And the\r\ncommand is addressed to them thus: “Awake and sing.” Who? Ye who are\r\nstill conscious, basking in the bliss of Heaven and chanting the high\r\npraises of God? No; but, “Ye who dwell _in dust_;” ye who are in your\r\ngraves. If the dead are conscious, Isaiah talked nonsense. If we believe\r\nhis testimony we must look into the graves for the dead; and if there is\r\nno resurrection, there they will forever lie mingled with the clods of\r\nthe valley.\r\n\r\n5. The dead, even the most holy and righteous, have no remembrance of\r\nGod, and cannot, while in that condition, render him any praise and\r\nthanksgiving. Ps. 6:5: “For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in\r\nthe grave who shall give thee thanks?” Ps. 115:17: “The dead praise not\r\nthe Lord, neither any that go down into silence.” Good King Hezekiah,\r\nwhen praising the Lord for adding to his days fifteen years, gives this\r\nas the reason why he thus rejoiced: Isa. 38:18, 19: “For the grave\r\ncannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee; they that go down into\r\nthe pit cannot hope for thy truth. The _living_, the _living_, he shall\r\npraise thee, as I do this day; the father to the children shall make\r\nknown thy truth.” Modern doctors of divinity have Hezekiah in Heaven\r\npraising God. He declared that when he was dead he could not do this.\r\nWhose testimony is the more worthy of credit, that of the inspired king\r\nof Israel, or that of the theologians of subsequent ages of error and\r\nconfusion? If we can believe Hezekiah, unless there is to be a\r\nresurrection, the righteous dead are never more to praise their Maker.\r\n\r\n6. The dead, even the righteous, are not ascended to the Heavens. So\r\nPeter testifies respecting the patriarch David: Acts 2:29, 34, 35: “Men\r\nand brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that\r\nhe is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day.\r\nFor David is not ascended into the Heavens: but he saith himself, The\r\nLord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes\r\nthy footstool.” We call the especial attention of the reader to the\r\nwhole argument presented by Peter, beginning with verse 24. Peter\r\nundertakes to prove from a prophecy recorded in the Psalms, the\r\nresurrection of Christ. He says, verse 31, “He, seeing this before,\r\nspake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell\r\n[_hades_, the grave], neither did his flesh see corruption.” And how\r\ndoes he prove that David speaks of Christ, and not of himself? He proves\r\nit from the fact that David’s soul _was_ left in _hades_ and his flesh\r\ndid see corruption; and his sepulcher was with them to that day. For\r\nDavid, he says, has not ascended into the Heavens. Now if David’s soul\r\ndid live right on in consciousness; if it was not left in _hades_, no\r\nman can show that David, in that psalm, did not speak of himself instead\r\nof Christ; and then Peter’s argument for the resurrection of Christ\r\nwould be entirely destroyed. But Peter, especially when speaking as he\r\nwas on this occasion under the influence of the Holy Ghost, knew how to\r\nreason; and his argument entirely destroys the dogma of the immortality\r\nof the soul. But if David has not yet ascended into the Heavens, how is\r\nhe ever to get there? There is no other way but by a resurrection of the\r\ndead. So he himself says, Ps. 17:15: “I shall be satisfied when I awake\r\n[from the sleep of death], with Thy likeness.”\r\n\r\n7. And finally, Paul, in his masterly argument in 1 Cor. 15, states\r\nexplicitly the conclusion which is necessary from every one of the texts\r\nwhich we have quoted, that if there is no resurrection, then all the\r\ndead, even those who have fallen asleep in Christ, are perished. Verses\r\n16-18. “For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised. And if\r\nChrist be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. _Then\r\nthey also which are fallen asleep in Christ are_ PERISHED.”\r\n\r\nAs we read this testimony, we pause in utter amazement that any who\r\nprofess to believe the Bible should cling with tenacity to the doctrine\r\nof the immortality of the soul which so directly contradicts it. If the\r\nsouls of the dead live right on, are they perished? What! perished? and\r\nyet living in a larger sphere? Perished? and yet enjoying the attendant\r\nblessings of everlasting life in Heaven? Perished? and yet at God’s\r\nright hand where there is fullness of joy, and pleasures forevermore?\r\nPerish, amid the ruins of the heathen mythology from which it springs,\r\nthat theory which thus lifts its dead men on high, contrary to the\r\nteachings of the word of God!\r\n\r\nPaul speaks of the whole being. As in Adam we die, so in Christ shall we\r\nbe made alive. Is it conceivable that Paul drops out of sight the real\r\nman, the soul which soars away to realms of light, and frames all this\r\nargument, and talks thus seriously about the cast-off shell, the body,\r\nmerely? The idea is preposterous to the last degree.\r\n\r\nAfter stating that if there is no resurrection we perish, he assures us\r\nthat Christ is risen and that there is a resurrection for all; then he\r\ntakes up the resurrection of those who sleep in Christ, and tells us\r\nwhen that resurrection shall be. It is to take place, not by the rising\r\nfrom this mortal coil of an ethereal, immaterial essence when we die,\r\nbut it is to be at the great day when the last trump shall shatter this\r\ndecrepid earth from center to circumference.\r\n\r\nThe testimony on this point is well summed up by Bishop Law, who speaks\r\nas follows:--\r\n\r\n“I proceed to consider what account the Scriptures give of that state to\r\nwhich death reduces us. And this we find represented by _sleep_; by a\r\nnegation of all _life_, _thought_, or _action_; by _rest_,\r\n_resting-place_, or _home_, _silence_, _oblivion_, _darkness_,\r\n_destruction_, or _corruption_.”\r\n\r\nThis representation is abundantly sustained by the Scriptures referred\r\nto; and by all these the great fact is inscribed in indelible characters\r\nover the portals of the dark valley, that our existence is not\r\nperpetuated by means of an immortal soul, but that without a\r\nresurrection from the dead, there is no future life.\r\n\r\nBut it is objected that, from our standpoint of the unconsciousness of\r\nthe dead, a resurrection is impossible; for if a person ever ceases to\r\nexist as a conscious being, the re-organization of the matter of which\r\nhe was composed would be a new creation, but not a resurrection. It is\r\nsufficient to say in reply that continued consciousness is not necessary\r\nto preserve identity of being. This is proved by nearly every member of\r\nthe human family every day. Did the reader ever enjoy a period of sound,\r\nunconscious sleep? If so, when he awoke, how did he know that he was the\r\nsame individual he was before? How does any one know, after a good\r\nnight’s sleep, that he is the same person that retired to rest the night\r\nbefore? Simply because his organization is the same on awaking that it\r\nwas when he became unconscious in sleep. Now suppose that during this\r\nperiod of unconsciousness, while the soul itself, if there is in man\r\nsuch a distinct entity as is claimed, is also unconscious, the body of a\r\nperson could be cut up into innumerable fragments, the bones ground to\r\npowder, the flesh dissolved in acids, and the entire being, soul and\r\nall, destroyed. After remaining in this condition a little time, suppose\r\nall those particles could be put back again substantially as they were\r\nbefore, the general arrangement of the matter, especially of the brain,\r\nthe organ of the mind being identically what it was; and then suppose\r\nthat life could be imparted to it again, and the person be allowed to\r\nsleep on till morning; when he woke, would he be conscious of any break\r\nin the line of his existence? Any one must see that he would not. Being\r\norganized just as before, his mind would resume its consciousness just\r\nas if nothing had happened.\r\n\r\nSo with the dissolution of death. After its period of unconsciousness is\r\npassed over, in the resurrection the particles of the body are reunited,\r\nre-organized, and re-arranged, essentially as they were at the moment of\r\ndeath, and reanimated; then the line of life is taken up, and the\r\ncurrent of thought resumed just where it was laid down in death, it\r\nmatters not how many thousands of years before. This, the power of God\r\ncan do; and to deny this is to “err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the\r\npower of God.” In this way, we can have a true and proper resurrection,\r\na living again of the whole person, as the Bible affirms. On the\r\nsupposition of continued consciousness, this is impossible; for in this\r\ncase the real man lives right on, the body, which the Bible makes of so\r\nmuch importance, being only the garment with which it was temporarily\r\nclothed; and in this case the resuscitation of the body would not and\r\ncould not be the resurrection of the man. The popular view makes the\r\nBible as inconsistent on the subject of man, as it would be for a\r\nhistorian to give the history of some celebrated man’s coat, and call it\r\nthe history of the man himself.\r\n\r\nThen it is further objected that if persons come up in the resurrection\r\nas they went down in death, we should have a motley group, bloated with\r\ndropsy, emaciated with consumption, scabbed, scarred, ulcered, maimed\r\nand deformed; which would be both unreasonable and disgusting. And this,\r\nit is claimed, is a necessary consequence from the view that the same\r\nmatter is raised that went into the grave, and so far re-organized\r\naccording to its previous arrangement as to constitute identity of\r\nbeing. But when we speak of the re-arrangement of the particles of the\r\nbody, is it not evident to all that there are fortuitous and abnormal\r\nconditions which are not to be taken at all into the account? and that\r\nthe essential and elemental parts are only to be understood? Who would\r\nimagine that the body might not differ in the resurrection from what it\r\nwas before, as much at least as it differs at one period in its earthly\r\nhistory from its condition at another, and yet its identity be\r\npreserved? But we are sometimes in health, sometimes in sickness,\r\nsometimes in flesh, and sometimes wasted away, sometimes with diseased\r\nmembers, and sometimes entirely free from disease; and in all these\r\nchanges we are conscious that we have the same body. Why? Because its\r\nessential elements remain, and its organization is continued. Whatever\r\nchange can take place in our bodies during our earth life, and our\r\nidentity be continued, changed to the same degree may be the body when\r\nraised from the dead, and yet it be the same body. But a missing member\r\nmight be instantly replaced, a diseased limb healed, the consumptive\r\nrestored to the bloom of health, or the body, swollen with dropsy,\r\nreduced to its natural size, and the individual still be conscious that\r\nhe was the same person.\r\n\r\nIt is said still further by way of objection, that the matter of one\r\nbody, after being decomposed by death, is absorbed and taken into other\r\nbodies, and becomes constituent parts of them; so that at the\r\nresurrection the same matter may have belonged to several different\r\nbodies, and cannot be restored to them all; therefore the doctrine of\r\nthe resurrection of the body is unphilosophical.\r\n\r\nIf the reader will take the trouble to submit this objection to a little\r\nintelligent scrutiny, he will find it to grow rapidly and beautifully\r\nless, until finally it vanishes entirely away. Let us take the extremest\r\ncase supposable: that of the cannibal who might possibly (though this\r\nwould not naturally be the case), make an entire meal of human flesh. We\r\ncannot admit the statement of a certain minister who, in his zeal to\r\nmake this objection appear very strong, claimed that a cannibal might\r\nhave the whole body of his victim within his own at the same time. For\r\nthis supposes that he would eat a whole man at one meal, and, further,\r\nthat he would consume the viscera, skull, bones, brains, and all. But it\r\nis hardly supposable that, cannibals though they are, they have such an\r\nenormous capacity, or are such unpardonable eaters.\r\n\r\nNevertheless, let us suppose that a cannibal would, in process of time,\r\nconsume an entire victim; what proportion could he use in this way? Not\r\none-half, by weight. And what proportion of this would be taken up by\r\nthe body and become incorporated with it? But a small fraction. And to\r\nwhat parts would this naturally go? To those grosser and unessential\r\nparts which most rapidly change, and demand the most constant supply.\r\nBut while a few pounds of matter are supplied to the body, if that body\r\nmaintains a uniform condition, an equal amount of matter has been thrown\r\noff. Thus it will be seen that at no one time is it possible for any\r\nmaterial amount of one body to be a part of another. But if there was\r\ndanger, in these rare cases, that an essential element of one body would\r\nbecome a constituent part of another, and so remain, could not the\r\nprovidence of God easily interpose to prevent this, by giving these\r\nparticles another direction? Most assuredly it could. And this is not\r\nbeneath His care who numbers all the hairs of our heads, and without\r\nwhose notice not a sparrow falls to the ground. This objection not only\r\nbetrays an utter lack of faith in God’s power and care in such matters,\r\nbut philosophically considered, it amounts simply to a cavil.\r\n\r\nIt is the resurrection of the body of which the Bible treats. It knows\r\nno other. In 1 Cor. 15:35, 36, Paul asserts an obvious fact, that\r\nnothing can be quickened (revived or resuscitated, as from death, or an\r\ninanimate state--_Webster_,) except it first die. To talk of a\r\nquickening or making alive of that which does not die, or of a\r\nresurrection from the dead of that which does not go down into death, is\r\nrichly deserving of the epithet which Paul there applies to it.\r\n\r\nAnd what is it that shall be quickened in the resurrection? The holy and\r\ninfallible word of God replies, _This mortal body_. Rom. 8:11: “But if\r\nthe Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead dwell in\r\nyou, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also _quicken your\r\nmortal bodies_ by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.” Again, in verse 23,\r\nPaul says: “Even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the\r\nadoption, to wit, the _redemption of our body_.” And in 1 Cor. 15, Paul\r\nis as explicit as he well can be on this subject. Verse 44: “It is sown\r\na natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.” What does he mean by the\r\nnatural body, and by its being sown? He means the burial of our present\r\nbodies in the grave. So he says in verses 42, 43: “So also is the\r\nresurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in\r\nincorruption: it is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown\r\nin weakness; it is raised in power: it is sown a natural body; it is\r\nraised a spiritual body.” What is sown? The natural body. Then what is\r\nraised? The very same thing. IT is sown; IT is raised; raised in\r\nincorruption, in glory, in power, a spiritual body. Raised in this\r\nmanner, the natural body becomes a spiritual body. Why? Because the\r\nSpirit of Him that raised up Christ quickens, resuscitates, or makes it\r\nalive again, as Paul wrote to the Romans. Should it be said that there\r\nis a natural body and a spiritual body in existence at the same time, we\r\nanswer that according to Paul, that is not so. He says, verse 46:\r\n“Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is\r\nnatural; and _afterward_ that which is spiritual.” In verse 49, he says\r\nwe have borne the image of the earthly, and we shall bear, future, the\r\nimage of the heavenly; and this will be when this mortal and\r\ncorruptible, which is this mortal body, puts on incorruption, verses 52,\r\n53, or is clothed upon with the house from Heaven. 2 Cor. 5.\r\n\r\nTo the Philippians, Paul testifies again on this point: “For our\r\nconversation is in Heaven, from whence also we look for the Saviour, the\r\nLord Jesus Christ, who shall _change our vile body_, that it may be\r\nfashioned like unto his glorious body.” This language is explicit. A\r\nchange is to be wrought in the vile, mortal or corruptible body of this\r\npresent state, not a spiritual body released from it, which never sees\r\ndeath and needs no change; and the change that is promised is, that this\r\nbody taken as it now is, is to be fashioned, changed over, into the\r\nlikeness of Christ’s glorious, immortal body.\r\n\r\nHaving thus shown that a future resurrection is an event of the most\r\nabsolute necessity, inasmuch as without it there is no future existence\r\nfor the human race (a fact which entirely destroys at one blow the\r\ndoctrine of the immortality of the soul), we now propose to notice the\r\nprominence given to this event in the sacred writings, and some of the\r\nplain declarations that it will surely take place.\r\n\r\n1. The resurrection is the great event to which the sacred writers\r\nlooked forward as the object of their hope. In the far distant ages a\r\nday rose to their view in which the dead came forth from their graves,\r\nand stood before God; and before the coming of that day, they did not\r\nexpect eternal life.\r\n\r\nSo Job testifies: “I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he will\r\nstand at the latter day upon the earth. And though after my skin worms\r\ndestroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God.” Job 19:25, 26.\r\n\r\nDavid entertained the same satisfactory hope. “As for me,” he says, “I\r\nshall be satisfied when I awake with Thy likeness.” Ps. 17:15.\r\n\r\nIsaiah struck some thrilling notes on the same theme: “Thy dead men\r\nshall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing,\r\nye that dwell in dust; for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth\r\nshall cast out the dead.” Isa. 26:19.\r\n\r\nIt was the hope of Paul, that eminent apostle, through all his\r\nsufferings and toils. For this he could sacrifice any temporal good, and\r\ntake up any cross. He assures us that he considered his afflictions, his\r\ntroubles on every side, his perplexities, persecutions, stripes,\r\nimprisonments, and perils, but light afflictions; yea, he could utterly\r\nlose sight of them; and then he tells us why he could do it: it was in\r\nview of “the glory which shall be revealed in us,” “knowing,” says he,\r\n“that He which raised up the Lord Jesus, _shall raise us up also by\r\nJesus_, and shall present us with you.” 2 Cor. 4:14. The assurance that\r\nhe should be raised up at the last day, and be presented with the rest\r\nof the saints, when the Lord shall present to his Father a church\r\nwithout spot or wrinkle or any such thing, Eph. 5:27, sustained him\r\nunder all his burdens. The resurrection was the staff of his hope. Again\r\nhe says that he could count all things loss, if by any means he might\r\nattain to a resurrection (_exanastasis_) out from among the dead. Phil.\r\n3:8-11.\r\n\r\nWe refer to one more passage which expresses as clearly as language can\r\ndo it, the apostle’s hope. 2 Cor. 1:8, 9: “For we would not, brethren,\r\nhave you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were\r\npressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even\r\nof life. But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should\r\nnot trust in ourselves, but in God _which raiseth the dead_.” Paul here\r\ngives us to understand that he could not trust in himself because he was\r\nmortal. He must therefore put his trust in God; and he tells us why he\r\ndoes this: not because God had promised him any happiness as a\r\ndisembodied soul; but because he was able and willing _to raise him from\r\nthe dead_. Paul “kept back nothing that was profitable,” and did not\r\nshun “to declare all the counsel of God,” yet he never once endeavored\r\nto console himself or his brethren by any allusion to a disembodied\r\nstate of existence, but passed over this as if it were not at all to be\r\ntaken into the account, and fixed all his hope on the resurrection. Why\r\nthis, if going to Heaven or hell at death, be a gospel doctrine?\r\n\r\n2. The resurrection is the time to which prophets and apostles looked\r\nforward as the day of their reward. Should any one carefully search the\r\nBible to ascertain the time which it designates as the time of reward to\r\nthe righteous, and punishment to the wicked, he would find it to be not\r\nat death, but at the resurrection. Our Saviour clearly sets forth this\r\nfact in Luke 14:13, 14: “But when thou makest a feast, call the poor,\r\nthe maimed, the lame, the blind; and thou shalt be blessed; for they\r\ncannot recompense thee; for thou shalt be recompensed,” not at death,\r\nbut, “_at the resurrection of the just_.”\r\n\r\nMark also the language by which the Lord would restrain that voice of\r\nweeping which was heard in Ramah. When Herod sent forth and slew all the\r\nchildren in Bethlehem from two years old and under, in hopes thereby to\r\nput to death the infant Saviour, then was fulfilled, says Matthew, what\r\nwas spoken by the prophet, “In Ramah was there a voice heard,\r\nlamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her\r\nchildren, and would not be comforted, because they were not.” But what\r\nsaid the Lord to Rachel? See the original prophecy, Jer. 31:15-17: “Thus\r\nsaith the Lord, Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from\r\ntears; for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord; and they shall\r\ncome again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope in thine end,\r\nsaith the Lord, that thy children shall come again to their own border.”\r\nNot thus would the mourning Rachels of the 19th century be comforted by\r\nthe professed shepherds of the flock of Christ. They would tell them,\r\nRefrain thy voice from weeping; for thy sons are now angel cherubs\r\nchanting their joyful anthems in their Heavenly Father’s home. But the\r\nLord points the mourners in Ramah forward to the resurrection for their\r\nhope; and though till that time their children “were not,” or were out\r\nof existence, in the land of death, the great enemy of our race, yet,\r\nsays the Lord, they shall come again from the land of the enemy, they\r\nshall return again to their own border, and thy work shall be rewarded;\r\nand he bids them refrain their voices from weeping, their eyes from\r\ntears, and their hearts from sorrow, in view of that glorious event.\r\n\r\nThe apostles represent the day of Christ’s coming and the resurrection\r\nas the time when the saints will receive their crowns of glory. Says\r\nPeter, “And when the Chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a\r\ncrown of glory that fadeth not away.” 1 Pet. 5:4. And Paul says that\r\nthere is laid up for him a crown of righteousness, and not for him only,\r\nbut for all those also that love his appearing, and which shall be given\r\nhim in that day (the day of Christ’s appearing). These holy apostles\r\nwere not expecting their crowns of reward sooner than this.\r\n\r\nAll this is utterly inconsistent with the idea of a conscious\r\nintermediate state, and rewards or punishments at death. But the word of\r\nGod must stand, and the theories of men must bow to its authority.\r\n\r\nIn 1 Cor. 15:32, Paul further tells us when he expected to reap\r\nadvantage or reward for all the dangers he incurred here in behalf of\r\nthe truth: “If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at\r\nEphesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and\r\ndrink; for to-morrow we die.” If without a resurrection he would receive\r\nno reward, it is evident that he expected his reward at that time, but\r\nnot before. His language here is moreover a re-iteration of verse 18,\r\nthat if there is no resurrection, they which are fallen asleep in Christ\r\nare perished.\r\n\r\nOur Lord testified that of all which the Father had given him he should\r\nlose nothing, but would raise it up at the last day. This language is\r\nalso at once a positive declaration that the resurrection shall take\r\nplace, and that without this event, all is lost. To the same effect is 1\r\nCor. 15:52, 53, “The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised\r\nincorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible _must_ put\r\non incorruption, and this mortal _must_ put on immortality.” Here is a\r\nplain announcement that the resurrection will take place; that the\r\nchange mentioned will be wrought at that time; and that this change must\r\ntake place or we cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Verse 50. Therefore,\r\nwithout a resurrection, none who have fallen in death will ever behold\r\nthe kingdom of God.\r\n\r\n3. The resurrection is made the basis of many of the comforting promises\r\nof Scripture. 1 Thess. 4:16, 17: “For the Lord himself shall descend\r\nfrom Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the\r\ntrump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we which are\r\nalive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to\r\nmeet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” We\r\nhave already referred to this passage in this chapter on the\r\nResurrection. We quote it again to show that God designed that from\r\nthese promises we should comfort ourselves and one another in that\r\nkeenest of all our afflictions, and the darkest of all our hours, the\r\nhour of bereavement. For the apostle immediately adds, “Wherefore\r\ncomfort one another with these words.” Is it to such facts as these, the\r\nsecond coming of Christ, and the resurrection of the dead, that the\r\ntheology of our day appeals to alleviate the sorrow which the human\r\nheart will feel for the loss of departed loved ones? Here, if anywhere,\r\nand on this subject, if on any that the apostle has anywhere taken up,\r\nshould come in the modern doctrine of uninterrupted consciousness in the\r\nintermediate state. But Paul was evidently against any such doctrine,\r\nand so denies it a place on the page of truth, but passes right over to\r\nthe resurrection as the place where comfort is to be found for the\r\nmourners.\r\n\r\nAs the resurrection is inseparably connected with the second coming of\r\nChrist, the words of Christ in John 14:1-3, are equally in point on this\r\nquestion. When he was about to leave his sorrowing disciples, he told\r\nthem that he was going to prepare a place for them; he informed them\r\nmoreover of his design that they should ultimately be with himself. But\r\nhow was this to be accomplished? Was it through death, by which a\r\ndeathless spirit would be released to soar away to meet its Saviour? No;\r\nbut, says he, I will _come again_ and receive you to myself, that where\r\nI am, there ye may be also. Should any say that this coming of the\r\nSaviour is at death, we reply that the disciples of our Lord did not so\r\nunderstand it. See John 21:22, 23. Jesus incidentally remarked\r\nconcerning one of his followers, “If I will that he tarry _till I come_,\r\nwhat is that to thee? follow thou me;” and the saying went immediately\r\nabroad among the disciples, on the strength of these words, that that\r\ndisciple should _not die_.\r\n\r\nThe eminent and pious Joseph Alleine also testifies:--\r\n\r\n“But we shall lift up our heads because the day of our redemption\r\ndraweth nigh. This is the day I look for, and wait for, and have laid up\r\nall my hopes in. If the Lord return not, I profess myself undone; my\r\npreaching is vain, and my suffering is vain. The thing, you see, is\r\nestablished, and every circumstance is determined. How sweet are the\r\nwords that dropped from the precious lips of our departing Lord! What\r\ngenerous cordials hath he left us in his parting sermon and his last\r\nprayer! And yet of all the rest these are the sweetest: ‘I will come\r\nagain and receive you unto myself, that where I am there ye may be\r\nalso.’ What need you any further witness?”\r\n\r\nDr. Clarke, in his general remarks on 1 Cor. 15, says:--\r\n\r\n“The doctrine of the resurrection appears to have been thought of much\r\nmore consequence among the primitive Christians than it is _now_. How is\r\nthis? The apostles were continually insisting on it, and exciting the\r\nfollowers of God to diligence, obedience, and cheerfulness through it.\r\nAnd their successors in the present day seldom mention it.... There is\r\nnot a doctrine in the gospel on which more stress is laid; and there is\r\nnot a doctrine in the present system of preaching, which is treated with\r\nmore neglect.”\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                             CHAPTER XXVII.\r\n                             THE JUDGMENT.\r\n\r\n\r\nWe have seen how the grand doctrine of the future resurrection of the\r\ndead, demolishes with its ponderous weight the gossamer fabric of the\r\nimmortality of the soul. There is another doctrine as scriptural and as\r\nprominent as the resurrection which opposes its impregnable battlements\r\nto the same anti-scriptural fable--a fable, weak, though encased in the\r\ncoat of mail with which heathendom furnishes it, and not very imposing\r\nin appearance, though adorned with the gorgeous trappings of the mother\r\nof harlots. We refer to the doctrine of the future general Judgment.\r\n\r\nThis doctrine, and the theory of the conscious state of the dead, cannot\r\nexist together. There is an antagonism between them, irreconcilable, and\r\nirrepressible. If every man is judged at death, as he indeed must be, if\r\nan immortal soul survives the dissolution of the body, and enters at\r\nonce into the happiness or misery of the eternal state, accordingly as\r\nits character has been good or bad, there is no occasion and no room for\r\na general Judgment in the future; and if, on the other hand, there is to\r\nbe such a future Judgment, it is proof positive that the other doctrine\r\nis not true.\r\n\r\nWe affirm, then, that the Scriptures clearly teach that there is to be a\r\ngeneral Judgment in the future, at which time such awards shall be\r\nrendered to every one as shall accord with the record of his deeds. A\r\npassage in Hebrews may seem to some minds to afford proof that the\r\nJudgment follows immediately after death, and which may, consequently,\r\ndemand a brief notice at this point. Heb. 9:27: “And as it is appointed\r\nunto men once to die, but after this the Judgment.” The sentence does\r\nnot end here, but is continued into the next verse: “_So_ Christ was\r\nonce offered to bear the sins of many.” From this it is evident that the\r\ndeath to which Paul refers is some death which illustrates the death of\r\nChrist as an offering for sin: As men die, and after this the Judgment,\r\n_so_ (in like manner) Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.\r\nIt is not then the common death of human beings to which the apostle\r\nrefers; for there is nothing in this death to show how Christ died as an\r\noffering for sin.\r\n\r\nThis language occurs at the conclusion of an argument on the priesthood\r\nof Christ, as illustrated by the priesthood connected with the Jewish\r\nservice. Under that dispensation there was a yearly round of service\r\nconnected with the worldly sanctuary. On the day of atonement, when the\r\nsanctuary was to be cleansed, a goat was slain for all the people. Their\r\nlife was imputed to it, and in it they in figure died. The blood of this\r\ngoat, representing the forfeited lives of the people, was then\r\nministered in the most holy place, which was a work of determination and\r\ndecision in their cases, which the word here rendered judgment\r\nsignifies. So Christ, the antitype, was once offered, and, if we avail\r\nourselves of his intercession, his blood is accepted instead of our\r\nforfeited lives, and we shall stand acquitted in the real Judgment work\r\nin the sanctuary above, as Israel were acquitted when the same work was\r\nperformed in figure in the worldly sanctuary of the former dispensation.\r\nThis text, therefore, not referring to the end of individual mortal\r\nlife, and its relation to future retribution, has no relevancy to the\r\nquestion under discussion.\r\n\r\nWe return to the proposition that a future general Judgment is\r\nappointed. Paul reasoned before Felix of a Judgment to come. Acts 24:25.\r\nBut as it may be said that this was to be experienced when Felix died,\r\nwe will introduce another text which not only speaks of this Judgment as\r\nfuture, but shows that it will pass simultaneously on the human race:\r\nActs 17:31: “Because he hath appointed a day in the which he will judge\r\nthe world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he\r\nhath given assurance unto all men in that he hath raised him from the\r\ndead.” Here it is announced in plain terms that the Judgment of this\r\nworld is future, that it is to take place at the time appointed, and\r\nthat a day, or period, is set apart for this purpose.\r\n\r\nPeter refers to the same day and says that the angels that sinned, and\r\nthe unjust of our own race, are reserved unto it. 2 Pet. 2:4, 9. Again\r\nhe says that this present earth is reserved unto fire, with which it\r\nshall be destroyed in that day. 2 Pet. 3:7-12. Jude says that the angels\r\nthat kept not their first estate are reserved in everlasting chains\r\nunder darkness unto the Judgment of the great day. Jude 6. This is the\r\nday when Christ is represented as separating the good from the bad, as a\r\nshepherd divideth the sheep from the goats, Matt. 25:31-34, and the time\r\nto which John looked forward when he said that he saw the dead, small\r\nand great, stand before God, and the books were opened, and they were\r\njudged out of those things written in the books.\r\n\r\nThe Judgment also stands in many lines of prophecy, not as something\r\nwhich has been going forward from the beginning, not as taking place as\r\neach member of the human family passes from the stage of mortal\r\nexistence, but as the great event with which the probation of the human\r\nrace is to end. Testimony on this point need not be multiplied. It\r\ncannot be denied that a day is coming in which sentence will be rendered\r\nat once upon all who have lived a life of probation in this world, a\r\nsentence which shall decide their condition for the eternity that lies\r\nbeyond.\r\n\r\nThis fact being established, its bearing upon the question of\r\nconsciousness in death, cannot be overlooked. For, if every human being\r\nat death passes at once into a state of reward or punishment, what\r\noccasion is there for a future general Judgment that a second decision\r\nmay be rendered in their cases? Is it possible that a mistake was made\r\nin the former decision? possible that some are now writhing in the\r\nflames of hell, who should be basking in the bliss of Heaven? possible\r\nthat some are taking their fill of happiness in the bowers of paradise,\r\nwhose corrupt hearts and criminal life demand that they should have\r\ntheir place with fiends in the lowest hell? And if mistakes have once\r\nbeen made in the sentence rendered, may they not be made again? What\r\nassurance can we have that, though we may be entitled by thorough\r\nrepentance to the happiness of Heaven, we may not be sentenced for all\r\neternity to the damnation of hell? Is it possible that such foul blots\r\nof injustice stand upon the record of the government of Heaven? Yes, if\r\nthe conscious-state theory be true! We arraign that theory face to face\r\nwith this stupendous fact, and bid it behold its work. It destroys God’s\r\nomniscience! It charges him with imperfection! It accuses his government\r\nof mistakes which are worse than crimes! Is any theory, which is subject\r\nto such overwhelming imputations, worthy of a moment’s credence?\r\n\r\nTo avoid the foregoing fatal conclusions, is it said that sentence is\r\nnot passed at death, but that the dead are held somewhere in a state of\r\nsuspense, without being either rewarded or punished till the Judgment?\r\nThen we inquire how this can be harmonized with the invariable arguments\r\nwhich immaterialists use on this question? For is it not claimed that\r\nthe spirit goes immediately to God to receive sentence from the hand of\r\nits Creator? Is it not claimed that the rich man was immediately after\r\ndeath in hell, in torment? Is it not claimed that the repentant thief\r\nwas that very day with Christ in the joys of paradise? If these\r\ninstances and arguments are abandoned, let it be so understood. If not,\r\nthen no such after thought can be resorted to, to shield the\r\nconscious-state dogma from the charges above mentioned.\r\n\r\nWe close this argument with a paragraph from the candid pen of H. H.\r\nDobney, Baptist minister of England. In Future Punishment, pp. 139, 140,\r\nhe says:--\r\n\r\n“There is something of awkwardness, which the Scriptures seem to avoid,\r\nin making beings who have already entered, and many ages since, on a\r\nstate of happiness or misery, come from those abodes to be judged, and\r\nto receive a formal award to the very condition which has long been\r\nfamiliar to them. To have been in Heaven with Christ for glorious ages,\r\nand then to stand at his bar for Judgment, and be invited to enter\r\nHeaven as their eternal home, as though they had not been there already,\r\nscarcely seems to look exactly like the Scripture account, while it\r\nwould almost appear to be wanting in congruity. Nor is this all. There\r\nis another difficulty, namely: That the idea of a saint already ‘with\r\nChrist,’ ‘present with the Lord’ (who is in Heaven, be it remembered, in\r\nhis resurrection and glorified body, wherewith he ascended from the brow\r\nof Olivet), coming from Heaven to earth to glide into a body raised\r\nsimultaneously from the ground, he being in reality already possessed of\r\na spiritual body, would seem _an invention which has not one syllable in\r\nScripture to give it countenance_.”\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                            CHAPTER XXVIII.\r\n                           THE WAGES OF SIN.\r\n\r\n             “One question more than others all,\r\n               From thoughtful minds implores reply;\r\n             It is as breathed from star and pall,\r\n               What fate awaits us when we die?”--_Alger._\r\n\r\n\r\nWe have now examined the teaching of the Bible relative to man, in his\r\ncreation, in his life, in his death, and in the intermediate state to\r\nhis resurrection; and we have found its uniform and explicit testimony\r\nto be that he has no inherent, inalienable principle in his nature which\r\nis exempt from death; but that the only avenue to life beyond the grave\r\nis through the resurrection. We have found also that such a resurrection\r\nto a second life is decreed for all the race; and now the more momentous\r\nquestion, what the issue of that existence is to be, presents itself for\r\nsolution.\r\n\r\nNatural, or temporal, death, we die in Adam. This death visits all alike\r\nirrespective of character. The sincerest saint falls under its power, as\r\ninevitably as the most reckless sinner. This cannot be our final end;\r\nfor it would not be in accordance with justice that our ultimate fate\r\nshould hinge on a transaction, like the sin of Adam, for which we are\r\nnot responsible. Every person must be the arbiter of his own destiny. To\r\nsecure this, the redemption which intervenes through Christ, provides\r\nfor all a release from the death entailed upon us by the Adamic\r\ntransgression, in order that every person’s individual acts may\r\nconstitute the record which shall determine his destiny beyond the\r\ngrave. What is that destiny to be?\r\n\r\nOur inquiry respects, not the future of the righteous, concerning which\r\nthere is no material controversy, but that of the sinner. Is his fate an\r\neternity of life in a devouring fire which is forever unable to devour\r\nhim? an eternal approach of death which never really arrives?\r\n\r\nBlinded by the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, two opposite\r\nconclusions are reached by those who connect this doctrine with two\r\ndifferent classes of Scripture declarations. For one class, reading that\r\nthe punishment of the sinner is to be eternal, and holding that man has\r\nan inherent immortality which can never be alienated, at once come to\r\nthe terrible conclusion of an eternity of conscious suffering, an\r\neternal hell as taught by Augustine. Another, connecting it with the\r\ndeclarations that God’s anger shall not always burn against the wicked,\r\nbut that a time comes when every intelligence in the universe, in the\r\nplenitude of joy, is heard ascribing honor, and blessing, and praise to\r\nGod, speedily reaches the conclusion of universal restoration as taught\r\nby Origen. And if the doctrine of the immortality of the soul be a\r\nscriptural doctrine, then the Scriptures are found supporting these two\r\ndiametrically opposite conclusions.\r\n\r\nWe have seen that the Scriptures do not teach any such inherent\r\nimmortality as is claimed for man; this, therefore, cannot fetter us in\r\nour investigation of this question. God can continue the existence of\r\nthe wicked to all eternity after the resurrection, if he so chooses; but\r\nif so, the doctrine must rest on explicit statements of the Scriptures\r\nto that effect. Paul says plainly that the wages of sin is death; Rom.\r\n6:23; and as we do not receive wages for the work of another, this must\r\nbe a declaration of what will result to every individual for a course of\r\nsin; and before this can be made to mean eternal life in misery, the\r\npresent constitution of language must be destroyed, and new definitions\r\nbe given to established terms. We hold this declaration of Paul’s, on\r\nwhich we take our stand, to be the true ground between the errors above\r\nmentioned, and one which not only harmonizes all the Bible on this\r\nquestion, but which has abundance of positive testimony in its favor.\r\n\r\n1. The future punishment, threatened to the wicked, is to be eternal in\r\nits duration. The establishment of this proposition, of course\r\noverthrows the universal restoration of Origen; and the nature of this\r\npunishment, involving a state of death, overthrows alike the restoration\r\nview of Origen, and the eternal hell of Augustine.\r\n\r\nOne “Thus saith the Lord,” is sufficient for the establishment of any\r\ndoctrine. One such we offer in support of the proposition now before us.\r\nSpeaking of the reprobate, Christ says, “And these shall go away into\r\neverlasting punishment,” and immediately adds concerning the righteous,\r\n“but the righteous, into life eternal.” Here the same Greek word,\r\n_aionios_, is used to express the duration of these opposite states. If,\r\nas must be admitted, the word expresses unending duration in the case of\r\nthe righteous, it must mean the same in that of the wicked.\r\n\r\nTo the same end we might refer to the words of Christ on two other\r\noccasions: John 3:36; Matt. 26:24. In the first of these passages he\r\nsays: “He that believeth not the Son shall not see life;” that is,\r\neternal life. But if, after a certain period of suffering, such persons\r\nare released from that state by a restoration to God’s favor, this\r\ndeclaration could not be true. In the second, he speaks of some of whom\r\nhe says that it would be good for them if they had not been born. And\r\nthis utterly precludes the idea that they should ever be released to\r\nenter the bliss of Heaven; for the first moment of such release would\r\nmake amends for all past suffering; and throughout eternity they would\r\npraise God that they had been born.\r\n\r\nThe punishment of the wicked, alike with the reward of the righteous, is\r\ntherefore to be eternal. Two unending conditions are held out to men,\r\nand between the two, they have the privilege in this life of choosing.\r\n\r\n2. In what will the eternal state of the wicked consist? Before\r\npresenting an argument to show that it is death in the literal sense, it\r\nmay be necessary to notice the few passages of Scripture which are put\r\nforth as evidence that it is eternal misery.\r\n\r\n1. Daniel 12:2: “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth\r\nshall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting\r\ncontempt.” The shame spoken of in this text is coupled by the objector\r\nwith the contempt, and claimed to be like that, everlasting; and if the\r\nshame, which is an emotion to be exercised by the individuals\r\nthemselves, is to be eternal, they must be awakened to everlasting life\r\nand consciousness.\r\n\r\nThe fact that they are raised to shame proves indeed that they have a\r\nveritable resurrection to life and consciousness, and that this is no\r\nfigure of speech which is applied to them. But the reader will notice\r\nthat the shame is not said, like the contempt, to be everlasting.\r\nContempt is not an emotion which they feel; they are not raised to the\r\ncontempt of themselves; but it is an emotion felt by others toward them;\r\nand this does not imply the consciousness of those against whom it is\r\ndirected; inasmuch as contempt may be felt for them as well after they\r\nhave passed from the stage of consciousness as before. The Syriac\r\nsustains this idea. It reads, “Some to shame and the eternal contempt of\r\ntheir companions.” And thus it will be. Shame for their wickedness and\r\ncorruption will burn into their very souls, so long as they have\r\nconscious being. And when they pass away, consumed for their iniquities,\r\ntheir loathsome characters and their guilty deeds, excite only contempt\r\non the part of the righteous, unmodified and unabated, so long as they\r\nhold them in remembrance at all. The text, therefore, furnishes no proof\r\nof the eternal suffering of the wicked.\r\n\r\n2. Matt. 25:41: “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire,\r\nprepared for the devil and his angels.” What is here said to be\r\neverlasting? Wicked men? No. The devil? No. His angels? No. But only the\r\nfire. And how can the application of this term to the fire prove the\r\nindestructibility and eternal life of those who are cast therein? It may\r\nbe answered, What propriety could there be in keeping up the fire\r\neverlastingly, if its victims were not to be eternally the objects of\r\nits power? And we reply, This word is sometimes used to denote the\r\nresults and not the continuance of the process. Everlasting fire may not\r\nbe fire which is everlastingly burning, but fire which produces results\r\nwhich are everlasting in their nature. The victims cast therein will be\r\nconsumed, and if from that destruction they are never to be released, if\r\nthat fiery work is never to be undone, it is to them an everlasting\r\nfire. This will appear more fully when we come to speak of the “eternal\r\nfire” through which God’s vengeance was visited on the wicked cities of\r\nSodom and Gomorrah.\r\n\r\nThere are several passages of scripture in which the same word,\r\n_aionios_, is unquestionably used in this sense. In Heb. 5:9, we read of\r\n“eternal salvation;” that is, a salvation which is eternal or\r\neverlasting in its results, not one which is forever going on, but never\r\naccomplished. In Heb. 6:2, Paul speaks of “eternal judgment;” not\r\njudgment which is eternally going forward, but one which, having once\r\npassed upon all men, Acts 17:31, is irreversible in its decisions, and\r\neternal in its effects. In Heb. 9:12, he speaks in the same way of\r\n“eternal redemption,” not a redemption through which we are eternally\r\napproaching a redeemed state which we never reach, but a redemption\r\nwhich releases us for all eternity from the power of sin and death. It\r\nwould be just as proper to speak of the saints as always redeeming, but\r\nnever redeemed, as to to speak of the sinner as always consuming but\r\nnever consumed, or always dying but never dead. This fire is prepared\r\nfor the devil and his angels, and will be shared by all of the human\r\nrace who choose to follow the devil in his accursed rebellion against\r\nthe government of Heaven. It will be to them an everlasting fire; for\r\nonce having plunged into its fiery vortex, there is no life, beyond.\r\nOther texts noticed in succeeding chapters.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                             CHAPTER XXIX.\r\n                        EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT.\r\n\r\nMatt. 25:46: “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but\r\nthe righteous into life eternal.”\r\n\r\n\r\nThis text is very commonly urged as an objection against the view that\r\nthe destiny of the reprobate is an utter and eternal extinction of\r\nbeing; and it is one which has great apparent force. But the secret of\r\nthis apparent strength lies in the fact that the term punishment is\r\nalmost invariably supposed to be confined to conscious suffering, and\r\nthat when any affliction is no longer taken cognizance of by the senses,\r\nit ceases to be a punishment at all. But if it can be shown from sound\r\nreason, and from the analogy of human penalties, that punishment is\r\nestimated by the loss involved, and not merely by the amount of pain\r\ninflicted, the objection vanishes at once, and will cease to hold back\r\nmany devout and holy minds from adopting the view we here advocate.\r\n\r\nOn the duration of the punishment brought to view in the text, we take\r\nno issue. It is to be eternal; but what is to be its nature? The text\r\nsays, Everlasting punishment; popular orthodoxy says, Unending misery;\r\nthe Bible, we believe, says, Eternal death.\r\n\r\nIs death punishment? If so, when a death is inflicted from which there\r\nis to be no release, that punishment is eternal or everlasting. Then the\r\napplication of this scripture to the view we hold is very apparent. The\r\nheathen, to reconcile themselves to what they supposed to be their\r\ninevitable fate, used to argue that death was no evil. But when they\r\nlooked forward into the endless future of which that death deprived\r\nthem, they were obliged to reverse their former decision and acknowledge\r\nthat death was an _endless injury_.--_Cicero, Tusc. Disp._ i., 47.\r\n\r\nWhy is the sentence of death in our courts of justice reckoned as the\r\nmost severe and greatest punishment? It is not because the pain involved\r\nis greater; for the scourge, the rack, the pillory, and many kinds of\r\nminor punishment, inflict more pain upon the petty offender than\r\ndecapitation or hanging inflicts upon the murderer. But it is reckoned\r\nthe greatest because it is the most lasting; and its length is estimated\r\nby the life the person would have enjoyed, if it had not been inflicted.\r\nIt has deprived him of every hour of that life he would have had but for\r\nthis punishment; and hence the punishment is considered as co-existent\r\nwith the period of his natural life.\r\n\r\nAugustine says:--\r\n\r\n“The laws do not estimate the punishment of a criminal by the brief\r\nperiod during which he is being put to death, but by their removing him\r\nforever from the company of living men.”--_De. civ. Dei, xxi._, 11.\r\n\r\nThe same reasoning applies to the future life as readily as to the\r\npresent. By the terrible infliction of the second death, the sinner is\r\ndeprived of all the bright and ceaseless years of everlasting life. The\r\nloss of every moment, hour, and year, of this life, is a punishment;\r\nand, as the life is eternal, the loss, or the punishment, is eternal\r\nalso. “There is here no straining of argument to make out a case. The\r\nargument is one which man’s judgment has in every age approved as just.”\r\n\r\nThe original sustains the same idea. The word for punishment is\r\n_kolasis_; and this is defined, “a curtailing, a pruning.” The idea of\r\ncutting off is here prominent. The righteous go into everlasting life,\r\nbut the wicked, into an everlasting state in which they are curtailed or\r\ncut off. Cut off from what? Not from happiness; for that is not the\r\nsubject of discourse; but from life, as expressly stated in reference to\r\nthe righteous. “The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is\r\neternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” And since the life given to\r\nman through Christ, is eternal life, it follows that the loss of it\r\ninflicted as a punishment, is eternal punishment.\r\n\r\nThe same objection is again stated in a little different form. As in the\r\nages before our existence we suffered no punishment, so, it is claimed\r\nit will be no punishment to be reduced to that state again. To this, we\r\nreply, that those who never had an existence cannot, of course, be\r\nconceived of in relation to rewards and punishments at all. But when a\r\nperson has once seen the light of life, when he has lived long enough to\r\ntaste its sweets and appreciate its blessings, is it then no punishment\r\nto be deprived of it? Says Luther Lee (Immortality of the Soul, p. 128),\r\n“We maintain that the simple loss of existence cannot be a penalty or\r\npunishment in the circumstances of the sinner after the general\r\nresurrection.” And what are these circumstances? He comes up to the\r\nbeloved city, and sees the people of God in the everlasting kingdom. He\r\nsees before them an eternity, not of life only, but of bliss and glory\r\nindescribable, while before himself is only the blackness of darkness\r\nforever. Then, says the Saviour, addressing a class of sinners, there\r\nshall be wailing and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham,\r\nIsaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of God. What is the cause of this\r\nwailing? It is not that they have to choose between annihilation or\r\neternal torture. Had they this privilege, some might perhaps choose the\r\nformer; others would not. But the cause of their woe is not that they\r\nare to receive a certain kind of punishment when they would prefer\r\nanother, but because they have lost the life and blessedness which they\r\nnow behold in possession of the righteous. The only conditions between\r\nwhich they can draw their cheerless comparisons are, the blessed and\r\nhappy state of the righteous within the city of God, and their own\r\nhapless lot outside of its walls. And we may well infer from the nature\r\nof the case, as well as the Saviour’s language, that it is _because_\r\nthey find themselves thus thrust out, that they lift up their voices in\r\nlamentation and woe. “There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when\r\nye shall see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of God, _and ye\r\nyourselves thrust out_!”\r\n\r\nThe sinner then begins to see what he has lost; the sense of it, like a\r\nbarbed arrow, pierces his soul; and the thought that the glorious\r\ninheritance before him might have been his but for his own self-willed\r\nand perverse career, sets the keenest edge upon every pang of remorse.\r\nAnd as he looks far away into eternity, to the utmost limit which the\r\nmind’s eye can reach, and gets a glimpse of the inconceivable\r\nblessedness and glory which he might have enjoyed but for his idol sin,\r\nthe hopeless thought that all is lost will be sufficient to rend the\r\nhardest and most obdurate heart with unutterable agony. Say not then\r\nthat loss of existence under such circumstances is no penalty or\r\npunishment.\r\n\r\nBut again: The Bible plainly teaches degrees of punishment; and how is\r\nthis compatible, it is asked, with the idea of a mere state of death to\r\nwhich all alike will be reduced? Let us ask believers in eternal misery\r\nhow they will maintain degrees in _their_ system? They tell us the\r\nintensity of the pain endured will be in each case proportioned to the\r\nguilt of the sufferer. But how can this be? Are not the flames of hell\r\nequally severe in all parts? and will they not equally affect _all_ the\r\nimmaterial souls cast therein? But God can interpose, it is answered, to\r\nproduce the effect desired. Very well, then, we reply, cannot he also\r\ninterpose, if necessary, according to our view, and graduate the pain\r\nattendant upon the sinner’s being reduced to a state of death as the\r\nclimax of his penalty? So, then, our view is equal with the common one\r\nin this respect, while it possesses a great advantage over it in\r\nanother; for, while that has to find its degrees of punishment in\r\nintensity of pain alone, the duration in all cases being equal, ours may\r\nhave not only degrees in pain, but in duration also; for, while some may\r\nperish in a short space of time, the weary sufferings of others may be\r\nlong drawn out. But yet we apprehend that the bodily suffering will be\r\nbut an unnoticed trifle compared with the mental agony, that keen\r\nanguish which will rack their souls as they get a view of their\r\nincomparable loss, each according to his capacity of appreciation. The\r\nyouth who had but little more than reached the years of accountability\r\nand died, perhaps with just enough guilt upon him to debar him from\r\nHeaven, being less able to comprehend his situation and his loss, will\r\nof course feel it less. To him of older years, more capacity, and\r\nconsequently a deeper experience in sin, the burden of his fate will be\r\nproportionately greater. While the man of giant intellect, and almost\r\nboundless comprehension, who thereby possessed greater influence for\r\nevil, and hence was the more guilty for devoting those powers to that\r\nevil, being able to understand his situation fully, comprehend his fate\r\nand realize his loss, will feel it most keenly of all. Into _his_ soul\r\nindeed the iron will enter most intolerably deep. And thus, by an\r\nestablished law of mind, the sufferings of each may be most accurately\r\nadjusted to the magnitude of his guilt.\r\n\r\nThen, says one, the sinner will long for death as a release from his\r\nevils, and experience a sense of relief when all is over. No, friend,\r\nnot even this pitiful semblance of consolation is granted; for no such\r\nsense of relief will ever come. The words of another will best\r\nillustrate this point:--\r\n\r\n“‘But the sense of relief when death comes at last.’ We hardly need to\r\nreply: There can be no sense of relief. The light of life gone out, the\r\nexpired soul can never know that it has escaped from pain. The bold\r\ntransgressor may fix his thoughts upon it now, heedless of all that\r\nintervenes; but he will forget to think of it then. To waken from a\r\ntroubled dream, and to know that it was only a dream, is an exceeding\r\njoy; and with transport do the friends of one dying in delirium, note a\r\ngleam of returning reason, ere he breathes his last. But the soul’s\r\ndeath knows no waking; its maddening fever ends in no sweet moment of\r\nrest. It can never feel that its woe is ended. The agony ends, not in a\r\nhappy consciousness that all is past, but in eternal night--in the\r\nblackness of darkness forever!”--_Debt and Grace_, p. 424.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                              CHAPTER XXX.\r\n                 THE UNDYING WORM AND QUENCHLESS FIRE.\r\n\r\nMark 9:43, 44: “And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better\r\nfor thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into\r\nhell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: where their worm dieth\r\nnot, and the fire is not quenched.”\r\n\r\n\r\nTwice our Lord repeats this solemn sentence against the wicked, “Where\r\ntheir worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” Verses 46, 48.\r\nThese passages are relied on with as much assurance, perhaps, as any, to\r\nprove the eternal misery of the reprobate. If this language had never\r\nbeen used by any of the inspired writers of the Scriptures, till it was\r\nthus used in the New Testament, it might be urged with some degree of\r\nplausibility, as an expressive imagery of eternal torment. But, even in\r\nthis case, it might be replied that fire, so far as we have any\r\nexperience with it, or knowledge of its nature, invariably consumes that\r\nupon which it preys, and hence must be a symbol of complete destruction;\r\nand that the expression, as it occurs in Mark 9:44, can denote nothing\r\nless than the utter consumption of those who are cast into that fire.\r\n\r\nBut this expression was one which was well known and understood by those\r\nwhom Christ was addressing. Isaiah and Jeremiah frequently use the\r\nfigure of the undying worm and quenchless fire. In their familiar\r\nscriptures the people daily read these expressions. Let us see what idea\r\nthey would derive from them. We turn to Jeremiah 17:27, and read:--\r\n\r\n“But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the Sabbath day, and not\r\nbear a burden, even entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath\r\nday; then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour\r\nthe palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched.”\r\n\r\nFrom this text we certainly can learn the meaning that was attached to\r\nthe expression, “unquenchable fire,” by the Hebrew people. This fire was\r\nnot to be quenched, therefore it was unquenchable. But it was to be\r\nkindled in the gates of Jerusalem, and devour the palaces thereof. It\r\nwas therefore literal, natural, fire. But how could a fire of this kind,\r\nthus kindled, be supposed to be a fire that would burn eternally? They\r\ncertainly would not so understand it. No more should we. Moreover, this\r\nthreatening of the Lord by Jeremiah was fulfilled. 2 Chron. 36:19: “And\r\nthey burnt the house of God, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem, and\r\nburnt all the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed all the goodly\r\nvessels thereof.” Verse 21. “To fulfill the word of the Lord by\r\nJeremiah.” Thus Jerusalem was burned according to Jeremiah’s prediction\r\nthat it should be consumed in unquenchable fire. But how long did that\r\nfire burn? Only till it had reduced to ashes the gates and palaces on\r\nwhich it preyed. Unquenchable fire is therefore simply a fire that is\r\nnot quenched, or does not cease, till it has entirely consumed that\r\nwhich causes or supports it. Then it dies out of itself, because there\r\nis nothing more to burn. The expression does not mean a fire that must\r\nabsolutely eternally burn, and that consequently all that is cast\r\ntherein to feed the flame must forever be preserved by having the\r\nportion consumed immediately renewed.\r\n\r\nTo the wicked the threatened fire is unquenchable because it will not be\r\nquenched, or caused to cease, till it has entirely devoured them.\r\n\r\nPs. 37: 20: “But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord\r\nshall be as the fat of lambs; they shall consume; into smoke shall they\r\nconsume away.” Mal. 4: 3: “And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they\r\nshall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do\r\nthis saith the Lord of hosts.”\r\n\r\nEzekiel speaks of unquenchable fire in a similar manner.\r\n\r\nEze. 20: 47, 48: “Thus saith the Lord God: Behold I will kindle a fire\r\nin thee, and it shall devour every green tree in thee, and every dry\r\ntree; the flaming flame shall not be quenched, and all faces from the\r\nsouth to the north shall be burned therein. And all flesh shall see that\r\nI the Lord have kindled it: it shall not be quenched.”\r\n\r\nThough this is doubtless figurative language, denoting sore calamities\r\nupon a certain land called the forest of the south field, it\r\nnevertheless furnishes an instance of how the expression, unquenchable\r\nfire, was then used and understood; for that generation many ages ago\r\nperished, and those judgments long since ceased to exist.\r\n\r\nIsaiah not only speaks of the unquenchable fire, but he couples with it\r\nthe undying worm, the same as the language in Mark:\r\n\r\nIsa. 66: 24: “And they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the\r\nmen that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die,\r\nneither shall their fire be quenched, and they shall be an abhorring\r\nunto all flesh.”\r\n\r\nThis is undoubtedly the language from which the expression in Mark is\r\nborrowed; but a moment’s examination of it will show that the worm is\r\nnot the remorse of a guilty conscience, but that, like the fire, it is\r\nsomething external to, and distinct from, the objects upon which it\r\npreys; and moreover that those upon whom it feeds are not the living,\r\nbut the dead: it is the “carcasses” of the men that have transgressed\r\nagainst the Lord. In Isa. 14: 11, and 51: 8, the prophet again speaks of\r\nthe worm as an agent of destruction, but it is always in connection with\r\ndeath. It is thus evident that the terms employed by our Lord in\r\ndescribing the doom of the wicked would convey to the minds of his\r\nhearers the very opposite of the idea of eternal life in misery.\r\n\r\nThere is other evidence, though no other is necessary, to show that the\r\nidea which would be conveyed, and which the language was designed to\r\nconvey, to their minds, was that of complete extinction of being, an\r\nutter consumption by external elements of destruction. The word\r\ntranslated hell in the passage under consideration is _ge-enna_. It is\r\nbetter to enter into life maimed, than to go in full possession of all\r\nour members and faculties into _ge-enna_. Did those to whom Christ spoke\r\nknow anything about this place, and what kind of a fate awaited those\r\nwho were cast therein? A vivid picture of the place of torment to which\r\nour Lord refers was in constant operation before their eyes, near by\r\nJerusalem.\r\n\r\nGreenfield defines the word thus:--\r\n\r\n“Gehenna, the valley of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, once celebrated for\r\nthe horrid worship of Moloch and afterward polluted with every species\r\nof filth, as well as the carcasses of animals and dead bodies of\r\nmalefactors; to _consume which_, in order to avert the pestilence which\r\nsuch a mass of corruption would occasion, constant fires were kept\r\nburning.”\r\n\r\nSuch was the fire of Gehenna; not a fire into which people were cast to\r\nbe kept alive and tortured, but one into which they were cast to be\r\nconsumed; not one which was designed to prey upon living beings, but\r\nupon the carcasses of animals and the dead bodies of malefactors. Hence\r\nwe can see the consistency of associating the fire and the worm\r\ntogether. Whatever portion of the dead body the fire failed to consume,\r\nthe worm would soon seize upon and devour. If a person had been\r\ncondemned to be cast alive into this place, as the wicked will be cast\r\ninto their Gehenna, what would have been his hope of escape? If the fire\r\ncould have been speedily quenched before it had taken his life, and the\r\nworms which consumed what the fire left, could have been destroyed, he\r\nmight have had some hope of coming out alive; but if this could not be\r\ndone, he would know of a surety that his life would soon become extinct,\r\nand then even his lifeless remains would be utterly consumed by these\r\nagents of destruction.\r\n\r\nThis was the scene to which Christ pointed his hearers to represent the\r\ndoom that awaits the wicked; that, as they gazed upon the work of\r\ncomplete destruction going on in the valley of Hinnom, the worms\r\ndevouring what the flames spared, they might learn that in the future\r\nGehenna which awaited them, no part of their being would be exempt from\r\nutter and complete destruction, one agent of death completing what\r\nanother failed to accomplish.\r\n\r\nAs the definition of the word _ge-enna_ throws great light on the\r\nmeaning of this text, so the definition of another term used is equally\r\nto the point. The words for unquenchable fire are _pur_ (long u)\r\n_asbeston_, and this word _asbeston_, primarily means simply unquenched,\r\nthat is, not caused to cease by any external means: the idea of eternal\r\nis a theological definition which has been attached to it. Ancient\r\nwriters used it in this sense. Homer, in the Illiad, xvi., 123, 294,\r\nspeaks of the Trojans’ hurling “unquenchable fire” upon the Grecian\r\nships, though but one of them was burnt by it. And Eusebius, who was a\r\nlearned Greek, employs the same expression in two instances in\r\nrecounting the martyrdom of Christians. Cronion and Julian, after being\r\ntortured in various ways, were consumed in an “unquenchable fire,” _puri\r\nasbesto_. The same is also said of Epimachus and Alexander. “The _pur\r\nasbeston_,” says Wetstein, “denotes such a fire as cannot be\r\nextinguished before it has consumed and destroyed all.”\r\n\r\nSuch is the evident meaning of this passage, and the sense in which it\r\nmust have been understood at that time. Yet commentators, eighteen\r\nhundred years this side of that time, presume to turn this whole\r\nrepresentation upside down, and give to the terms a meaning exactly\r\nopposite from that which they were intended to convey. That sense alone\r\ncan be the correct one in which they were first spoken; and concerning\r\nthat there can be no question.\r\n\r\nThere is another text often urged to prove the eternal conscious misery\r\nof the wicked. It is one in which fire is mentioned as the instrument\r\nused for the punishment of the wicked; and this fire being called\r\neternal, is understood in the same sense as the unquenchable fire of\r\nMark 9:43. It may therefore properly be examined in this connection.\r\n\r\nJude 7: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like\r\nmanner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange\r\nflesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal\r\nfire.”\r\n\r\nThis text, when rightly understood, will, we think, like that in Mark 9,\r\nbe found to convey just the opposite meaning from that popularly given\r\nto it. The first great error in the interpretation of this text, lies,\r\nas we view it, in a wrong application of the tense employed. It is\r\nclaimed that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, having been\r\ndestroyed, were committed to the flames of hell, where they are now\r\n(present tense) suffering the vengeance of that eternal fire. But a\r\nmoment’s glance at the text will show that it is the example set forth,\r\nand not the suffering, that is in the present tense. There are other\r\nfacts mentioned in the same tense with the suffering; thus, “giving\r\nthemselves over to fornication,” “going after strange flesh,” “suffering\r\nthe vengeance of eternal fire.” If one of these expressions denotes\r\nsomething that is now going on, the others also denote the same. If they\r\nare now suffering the fire, they are now giving themselves over to\r\nfornication, and going after strange flesh; for all these declarations\r\nare in the same construction. But no one will claim that the Sodomites\r\nare now taking the course here described; neither, then, can it be\r\nclaimed that they are now suffering the pain of fire.\r\n\r\nThe sense of the passage appears to be very evidently this: That the\r\nSodomites, giving themselves up to their wicked practices, and, as a\r\nconsequence, suffering an eternal overthrow by fire rained down upon\r\nthem from heaven, are thus set forth as an example to the ungodly of all\r\ncoming ages, of the overthrow they will also experience if they follow\r\nthe same course.\r\n\r\nPeter speaks of the same event, as an example to the wicked, and tells\r\nwhat effect that fire had upon the cities of the plain. It did not\r\npreserve them in the midst of the fire in unceasing torture, but turned\r\nthem into ashes. He says, 2 Pet. 2:6: “And turning the cities of Sodom\r\nand Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them with an overthrow, making them\r\nan ensample unto those that after should live ungodly.” This language is\r\ntoo plain to need comment. How are the Sodomites made an example? By\r\nbeing overthrown and turned into ashes for their open and presumptuous\r\nsins. It is God saying to the wicked of all coming time, Behold, how\r\nyour sins shall be visited unless you repent.\r\n\r\nBut those fires are not now burning. Seek out the site of those ancient\r\nand abandoned cities, and the brackish waters of the Dead Sea will be\r\nfound rolling their sluggish waves over the spot where once they stood.\r\nThose fires are therefore called eternal, because their effects are\r\neternal, or age-lasting. They never have recovered, nor will they ever\r\nrecover while the world stands, from that terrible overthrow.\r\n\r\nAnd thus this text is very much to the purpose on the question before\r\nus; for it declares that the punishment of Sodom is an exact pattern of\r\nthe future punishment of the wicked; hence that punishment will not be\r\neternal life in the fiery flame, but an utter consumption, even as Sodom\r\nwas consumed, by its resistless vengeance.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                             CHAPTER XXXI.\r\n                      TORMENTED FOREVER AND EVER.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe only remaining texts to be urged in favor of the eternal torment of\r\nthe wicked, are two passages which are found in the book of Revelation.\r\nThe first is Rev. 14:11: “And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up\r\nforever and ever; and they have no rest day nor night who worship the\r\nbeast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.”\r\n\r\nIt is proper first to inquire of whom this is spoken. The question\r\nbefore us relates to the destiny of all the wicked. No text is therefore\r\nconclusive on this question, which speaks of only a certain class, or a\r\nlimited number, of the wicked; for a particular class might for good\r\nreasons be set apart to a certain punishment, and that punishment be\r\nexceptional in their cases, and not such as awaits the whole race of the\r\nguilty. The passage just quoted speaks not of all the wicked, but only\r\nof a limited class--the worshipers of the beast and his image. The\r\nbeast, according to evidence which no Protestant will be disposed to\r\nquestion, means the papal power; Rev. 13:1-10; and the image is to be\r\nformed, near the close of the career of that power. Rev. 13:14-18;\r\n14:1-5. The text, therefore, embraces only comparatively a small portion\r\nof the wicked of the human race. The ancient world, with its teeming\r\nmillions, and the present heathen world, knowing nothing of this power,\r\nare alike exempted from the punishment here brought to view. This text\r\nmight therefore be set aside as inconclusive, since, even if it should\r\nbe admitted to prove eternal torture for some, it does not for all.\r\n\r\nBut we claim that no text affirms eternal torment for a single conscious\r\nintelligence in all the universe, and hence undertake to show that this\r\npassage does not prove it in reference to even the limited class brought\r\nto view. The expression, “The smoke of their torment ascendeth up\r\nforever and ever,” is the one upon which the doctrine of eternity of\r\nsuffering is in this case suspended. But the same may be said of this\r\nexpression that was said in last chapter in reference to the undying\r\nworm and the quenchless fire. It was not new in John’s day, but was\r\nborrowed from the Old Testament, and was one which was well understood\r\nat that time.\r\n\r\nIn Isa. 34:9, 10, the prophet, speaking of the land of Idumea, says:\r\n“And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust\r\nthereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch.\r\nIt shall not be quenched night nor day: the smoke thereof shall go up\r\nforever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall\r\npass through it forever and ever.” But two applications can be made of\r\nthis language. Either it refers to the literal land of Edom east and\r\nsouth of Judea, or it is a figure to represent the whole world in the\r\nday of final conflagration. In either case it is equally to the point.\r\nIf the literal land of Idumea is meant, and the language has reference\r\nto the desolations which have fallen upon it, then certainly no eternity\r\nof duration is implied in the declaration that the smoke thereof shall\r\ngo up forever. For all the predictions against the land of Idumea have\r\nlong since been fulfilled, and the judgments have ceased. If it refers\r\nto the fires of the last day, when the elements melt with fervent heat,\r\nno eternity of duration is even then implied in the expression; for the\r\nearth is not to be forever destroyed by the purifying fires of the last\r\nday. It is to rise from its ashes, and a new earth come forth purified\r\nfrom all the stains of sin, and free from all the deformity of the\r\ncurse, to be the everlasting abode of the righteous.\r\n\r\nHere is an instance in which the word, forever, apply it in either of\r\nthe only two ways possible, must denote a limited period. And here the\r\nSeptuagint uses αἰων (_aion_) the same as is used in Rev. 14:11; and\r\nfrom this passage in Isaiah, the language in Revelation was probably\r\nborrowed. That the words αἰων and αἰωνιος sometimes denote a limited\r\nperiod, and not invariably one of eternal duration, will appear in the\r\nexamination of the only remaining text that calls for consideration,\r\nnamely, Rev. 20:10: “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the\r\nlake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are,\r\nand shall be tormented day and night forever and ever.”\r\n\r\nThe same limitation is apparent in this text that was observed in the\r\npreceding. It does not refer to all the wicked, but speaks only of the\r\ndevil, the beast, and the false prophet. The lake of fire, the place and\r\nmeans of their torment, is again mentioned in verse 14; but there it is\r\nthe symbol of complete and utter destruction. Death and Hades, it says,\r\nwere cast into the lake of fire, and after this it is said, “There shall\r\nbe no more death.” Rev. 21:4. Whatever, then, is cast into the lake of\r\nfire, after it has wrought its work of destruction upon them, no longer\r\nexists. This is the plain inference from what is here asserted\r\nrespecting death. Then follows the testimony of verse 15, that\r\n“whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the\r\nlake of fire.” And this makes a final disposition of all who are not\r\nsaved in the kingdom of Heaven.\r\n\r\nThere is nothing in the way of this application, unless the words\r\n“forever and ever” denote absolutely an eternity of duration. These\r\nwords are translated in the New Testament from _aion_, and _aionios_,\r\nrespecting which the following facts may be stated.\r\n\r\n_Aion_ is defined by different lexicographers as follows:--\r\n\r\nGreenfield: “Duration, finite or infinite, unlimited duration, eternity;\r\na period of duration past or future, time, age, lifetime; the world,\r\nuniverse.”\r\n\r\nSchrevelius: “An age, a long period of time; indefinite duration; time,\r\nwhether longer or shorter.”\r\n\r\nLiddell and Scott: “A space or period of time, especially a lifetime,\r\nlife, _ævum_; an age, a generation; long space of time, eternity; in\r\nplural, _eis tous aionas ton aionon_, unto ages of ages, forever and\r\never, N. T., Gal. 1:5.-3. later, a space of time clearly defined and\r\nmarked out, an era, age, period of a dispensation: _ho aion houtos_,\r\nthis present life, this world.”\r\n\r\nParkhurst: “Always being. It denotes duration or continuance of time,\r\nbut with great variety. I. Both in the singular and the plural it\r\nsignifies eternity, whether past or to come. II. The duration of this\r\nworld. III. The ages of the world. IV. This present life. V. The world\r\nto come. VI. An age, period, or periodical dispensation of divine\r\nprovidence. VII. _Aiones_ seems, in Heb. 11:3, to denote the various\r\nrevolutions and grand occurrences which have happened in this created\r\nsystem, including also the world itself. Comp. Heb. 1:2, and Macknight\r\non both texts. _Aion_, in the LXX. generally answers to the Hebrew\r\n_holam_, which denotes _time hidden_ from man, whether indefinite or\r\ndefinite, whether past or future.”\r\n\r\nRobinson: “Duration, the course or flow of time in various relations as\r\ndetermined by the context, viz: (A) For human life, existence. (B) For\r\ntime indefinite, a period of the world, the world, in Gr. writers, and\r\nalso in Sept. and N. Testament. (C) For endless duration, perpetuity,\r\neternity.... Sept. mostly for Heb. _holam_, ‘hidden time,’ duration,\r\neternity.--Hence, in N. T. of long-continued time, indefinite duration,\r\nin accordance with Greek usage, but modified as to construction and\r\nextent by the example of the LXX., and the Rabbinic views.”\r\n\r\nSchleusner gives as the first meaning of _aion_, “a definite and\r\nlong-continued time,” _i. e._, a long-continued but still a definite\r\nperiod of time.\r\n\r\nWahl has arranged the definitions of _aion_ thus: “(1) Time, unlimited\r\nduration, _ævum_. (2) The universe, _mundus_. (3) An age, period of the\r\nworld,” as the Jewish age, Christian age, &c. This reference to\r\nSchleusner and Wahl we find in Stuart on Future Punishment, pp. 91, 93.\r\n\r\n_Holam_, the Hebrew word which corresponds to the Greek _aion_, is\r\napplied according to Gesenius to things which endure for a long time,\r\nfor an indefinite period. It is applied to the Jewish priesthood, to the\r\nMosaic ordinances, to the possession of the land of Canaan, to the hills\r\nand mountains, to the earth, to the time of service to be rendered by a\r\nslave, and to some other things of a like nature. Stuart, p. 72.\r\n\r\nCruden, in his Unabridged Concordance, under the word eternal, says:--\r\n\r\n“The words, eternal, everlasting, and forever, are sometimes taken for a\r\nlong time, and are not always to be understood strictly. Thus, ‘Thou\r\nshalt be our guide from this time forth even forever,’ that is, during\r\nour whole life. And in many other places of Scripture, and in particular\r\nwhen the word forever is applied to the Jewish rites and privileges, it\r\ncommonly signifies no more than during the standing of that\r\ncommonwealth, until the coming of the Messiah.”\r\n\r\nDr. Clarke places in our hands a key to the interpretation of the words,\r\n“forever” and “forever and ever,” which is adapted to every instance of\r\ntheir use. According to his rule they are to be taken to mean as long as\r\na thing, considering the surrounding circumstances, can exist. And he\r\nillustrates this in his closing remarks on 2 Kings 5, where, speaking of\r\nthe curse of the leprosy pronounced upon Gehazi forever, he says:--\r\n\r\n“Some have thought, because of the prophet’s curse, ‘The leprosy of\r\nNaaman shall cleave unto thee and to thy seed forever,’ that there are\r\npersons still alive who are this man’s descendants, and afflicted with\r\nthis horrible disease. Mr. Maundrell, when he was in Judea, made\r\ndiligent inquiry concerning this, but could not ascertain the truth of\r\nthe supposition. To me it appears absurd; the denunciation took place in\r\nthe posterity of Gehazi till it should become extinct; and under the\r\ninfluence of this disorder, this must _soon_ have taken place. The\r\n_forever_ implies as long as any of his posterity should remain. This is\r\nthe import of the word, _leolam_. _It takes in the whole extent or\r\nduration of the thing to which it is applied._ The _forever_ of Gehazi\r\nwas till his posterity became extinct.”\r\n\r\nThe word _aionios_ is derived from _aion_, and its general meaning may\r\nbe determined from the definitions given above to the latter word.\r\n\r\nThat these words are frequently applied to the existence of divine\r\nbeings, and the future happiness of the saints, is true; and that in\r\nthese cases they denote eternal duration is equally evident; yet,\r\naccording to the definition of the words and the rule laid down by Dr.\r\nClarke, that eternal duration could not be made out by the use of these\r\nwords alone. They denote duration or continuance of time, the length of\r\nthat duration being determined by the nature of the objects to which\r\nthey are applied. When applied to things which we know from other\r\ndeclarations of the Scriptures are to have no end, they signify an\r\neternity of being; but when applied to things which are to end, they are\r\ncorrespondingly limited in their meaning. That the existence of God and\r\nthe future happiness of the righteous are to be absolutely eternal, we\r\nare abundantly assured by scriptures which make no use of the words in\r\nquestion. When applied to these they therefore signify a period of\r\nduration which is never to end. Just as plainly are we assured that the\r\nexistence of the wicked is at last to cease in the second death; and\r\nwhen applied to this, the words _aion_ and _aionios_ must be limited\r\naccordingly in their signification. Overlooking this plain principle of\r\ninterpretation, Prof. Stuart, p. 89, comes to this erroneous conclusion\r\nrespecting these words, because they are applied alike to the sufferings\r\nof the lost and the happiness of the saved, that “we must either admit\r\nthe endless misery of hell, or give up the endless happiness of Heaven.”\r\nWe are under no such necessity. The words, _aion_ and _aionios_,\r\naccording to Dr. Clarke, cover the whole of the existence of the two\r\nclasses in their respective spheres, and that only. The one is, after a\r\nseason of suffering and anguish, to come to an end; the other is to go\r\non in bliss to all eternity.\r\n\r\nSo when it is said that the beast and the false prophet, and they who\r\nworship the beast and his image, are to be tormented day and night\r\nforever and ever, we must understand this expression to cover only the\r\nduration of their future existence beyond the grave. If we are anywhere\r\ngiven to understand by other scriptures and by other terms which are\r\nmore rigid in their meaning, that this is to be eternal, the terms must\r\nhere be so understood; if not, we have no warrant for so defining them\r\nhere.\r\n\r\nThat the forever and ever, _eis tous aionas ton aionon_, of the\r\nsuffering of the wicked, denotes a period of long duration, there is no\r\nquestion; and it may be much longer than any have been disposed to\r\nconceive who deny its eternity; yet it is to come to an end, not by\r\ntheir restoration to God’s favor, but by the extinction of that life\r\nwhich has in it no immortality, and because they have refused to accept\r\nof the life freely offered to them, which is to continue through ages\r\nwithout end.\r\n\r\nWe have now examined all the more prominent passages which are urged in\r\nfavor of the eternal suffering of the lost. Though others may by some be\r\nbrought forward to prove this doctrine, we may safely take the position\r\nthat if it is not proved by those we have examined, it cannot be proved\r\nby any in all the Bible; for these use the strongest terms and are most\r\nexplicit in their nature. And of these how many are there? Five in all.\r\nThose who have never before examined this subject, will perhaps be\r\nsurprised to learn how small is the number of such texts. And should\r\nthey take into the account every text which is thought to have even the\r\nslightest semblance of proving the immortality of the lost, it would not\r\nbe calculated to abate that surprise to any great degree.\r\n\r\nIt now remains that we examine those texts, more in number, and more\r\nexplicit in statement, which prove that the wicked shall be at last as\r\nthough they had not been.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                             CHAPTER XXXII.\r\n               THE END OF THEM THAT OBEY NOT THE GOSPEL.\r\n\r\n“What shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?” 1 Pet.\r\n4:17.\r\n\r\n\r\nBy this direct interrogation inspiration calls us face to face to the\r\ngreat question of the final destiny of the lost, not to leave us at last\r\nin perplexity and doubt, but to give us full information in reference\r\nthereto.\r\n\r\nBy the foregoing examination of themes which have a bearing upon this\r\nquestion, we have been brought to a place where the way is all clear to\r\nlisten unbiased to the direct testimony of the Bible on the point now\r\nbefore us. No immortality is anywhere affirmed of the soul, no eternal\r\nmisery is anywhere threatened against the lost. What then is to be their\r\nfate? It is abundantly affirmed that they shall die.\r\n\r\nThe inquiry into the nature of the death threatened Adam, in chapter\r\nxxv., brought very clearly to view the fact that the penalty pronounced\r\nupon his sin reduced back to the dust the entire being, leaving no part\r\nconscious and active in the intermediate state. And the same penalty\r\nstands against sin now as at the beginning. For our personal sins, death\r\nis now threatened against us, as it was against him. This is the second\r\ndeath; and those who fall under this will be reduced to the same\r\ncondition as that into which Adam was brought by death, with no promise\r\nnor possibility of ever being released therefrom.\r\n\r\nEze. 18:26: “When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness,\r\nand committeth iniquity, and dieth _in_ them; _for_ his iniquity that he\r\nhath done shall he die.”\r\n\r\nTwo deaths are here brought to view: First, the death common to this\r\nstate of being, which all share alike, good and bad, which is called the\r\nfirst, or temporal, death; secondly, if a person dies this death in a\r\nstate of sin, that is, with sins upon him of which he does not repent\r\nbefore he dies, _for_ those sins that he has committed he shall die.\r\nAnother death awaits him. The first death was not for his personal\r\ntransgressions; for this is entailed upon all alike through Adam, both\r\ngood and bad. But every one is to die for his own sins unless he\r\nrepents. How is this to be brought about? He is to be raised from the\r\nfirst death and judged; and, if sins are then found upon him, for those\r\nsins he suffers the same penalty, death; and being thus reduced to death\r\nagain, he will forever remain dead; for from this death there is no\r\nrelease nor redemption provided. This is the second death, and is the\r\neverlasting punishment in store for all the workers of iniquity.\r\n\r\nPaul says, Rom. 6:23, “The wages of sin is death;” and James (1:15)\r\ncorroborates this testimony, by saying, “Sin, when it is finished,\r\nbringeth forth death.” In Rom. 2, Paul tells us of certain characters\r\nwhich are certainly deserving, if any can be, of eternal torture; but,\r\nin passing sentence upon them, he does not draw out before us a picture\r\nof unending conscious misery, a course for which he has the most\r\nappropriate occasion, if it be true, but only tells us, in accordance\r\nwith reason as well as revelation, that they are worthy of _death_. But\r\ndeath is a state which can be reached only on a complete extinction of\r\nlife. As long as there is any life about a man, he is not dead. “The\r\ndeath that never dies,” is a contradiction of terms. Nor can a person\r\nproperly be said to be dying, unless he is tending to a state of death,\r\nwhich he will by and by reach. And yet the popular view of this subject\r\nis well expressed in the following language of Thomas Vincent:--\r\n\r\n“The torments of hell will not be in one part only, but in every part,\r\nnot in a weaker degree, but in the greatest extremity; not for a day, or\r\na month, or a year, but forever: the wicked will be always dying, never\r\ndead; the pangs of death will ever be upon them, and yet they shall\r\nnever give up the ghost; if they could die they would think themselves\r\nhappy; they will always be roaring, and never breathe out their last;\r\nalways sinking, and never come to the bottom; always burning in those\r\nflames, and never consumed; the eternity of hell will be the hell of\r\nhell.”\r\n\r\nAgain, the Lord says, speaking of a certain class of his enemies, “For\r\nyet a little while and the indignation shall cease, and mine anger in\r\ntheir destruction.” Isa. 10:25. This is conclusive testimony that all\r\nthose with whom the Lord has occasion to be angry, as he is with all the\r\nwicked, Ps. 7:11, will be finally destroyed, and in that destruction his\r\nanger toward them will cease. Yet the majority of divines tell us that\r\nGod’s “fiery indignation and incensed fury” toward them will never\r\ncease; that he will never literally destroy them, but will forever\r\ntorment them, and keep them alive expressly that he may torment them.\r\nSays Benson:--\r\n\r\n“He will exert _all_ his divine attributes to make them as wretched as\r\nthe capacity of their nature will admit.” And he continues, “They must\r\nbe perpetually swelling their enormous sums of guilt, and still running\r\ndeeper, immensely deeper, in debt to divine and infinite justice. Hence\r\nafter the longest imaginable period, they will be so far from having\r\ndischarged their debt that they will find more due than when they first\r\nbegan to suffer.”\r\n\r\nThus the sinner is represented as being able to distance in sin the\r\npower of Omnipotence to punish. They go on accumulating loads of guilt\r\nin their rebellion against the divine government, while God, exerting\r\n_all_ his divine attributes, follows tardily after, in fruitless efforts\r\nto make the terrors of his punishment adequate to the infinitude of\r\ntheir guilt. Oh, horrid picture of perverted imagination! Did we not\r\nbelieve its authors labored under the sincere conviction that they were\r\ndoing God service, and did we not know that many good and estimable\r\npersons still defend the doctrine under an earnest, though mistaken,\r\nzeal for God, it would deserve to be styled the most arrant blasphemy.\r\n\r\nThis condition of the finally reprobate, so often and so distinctly\r\ndefined as a state of death, is also set forth by very many other\r\nexpressions, by every variety of phrase, in fact, which expresses, in\r\nthe most complete and absolute manner, an utter loss of existence.\r\n\r\nHenry Constable, A. M., in his work on “The Duration and Nature of\r\nFuture Punishment,” p. 12, says:--\r\n\r\n“But it is not only by this phrase, ‘death,’ that the Old Testament\r\ndescribes the punishment of the ungodly. By every expression in the\r\nHebrew language, significant of loss of life, loss of existence, the\r\nresolution of organized substance into its original parts, its reduction\r\nto that condition in which it is as though it had never been called into\r\nbeing--by every such expression does the Old Testament describe the end\r\nof the ungodly. ‘The destruction of the transgressors and the sinners\r\nshall be together:’ ‘prepare them for the _day of slaughter_:’ ‘_the\r\nslain_ of the Lord shall be many:’ ‘they shall go forth and look upon\r\n_the carcasses_ of the men that have sinned:’ ‘God shall _destroy_\r\nthem:’ ‘they shall be _consumed_:’ ‘they shall be _cut off_:’ ‘they\r\nshall be rooted _out of the land of the living_:’ ‘_blotted out of the\r\nbook of life_:’‘_they are not_.’ The Hebrew scholar will see from the\r\nabove passages that there is no phrase of the Hebrew language\r\nsignificant of all destruction short of that philosophical annihilation\r\nof elements which we do not assert, which is not used to denote the end\r\nof the ungodly.”\r\n\r\n_The wicked shall be destroyed._ “The Lord preserveth all them that love\r\nhim; but all the wicked will he destroy.” Ps. 145:20. Here preservation\r\nis promised only to those who love God, and in opposition to this,\r\n_destruction_ is threatened to the wicked. But human wisdom teaches us\r\nthat God will preserve the wicked in hell--preserve them for the mere\r\nsake of torturing them. Mr. Benson again says:--\r\n\r\n“God is therefore present in hell to see the punishment of these rebels.\r\nHis fiery indignation kindles, and his incensed fury feeds the flame of\r\ntheir torment, while his powerful presence and operation _maintains\r\ntheir being_, and renders their powers most acutely sensible, thus\r\nsetting the keenest edge upon their pain, and making it cut most\r\nintolerably deep.”\r\n\r\n_The wicked shall perish._ “For God so loved the world, that he gave his\r\nonly begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not _perish_,\r\nbut have everlasting life.” John 3:16. A double enunciation of the truth\r\nis couched in this short text. It is that eternal life is to be obtained\r\nonly through Christ, and that all who do not thus obtain it will\r\neventually perish. John testifies further on the same point in his 1st\r\nepistle, 5:11: “And this is the record: that God hath given to us\r\neternal life, and this life is in his Son.” From which it follows, as a\r\nmost natural consequence, that “he that hath not the Son of God _hath\r\nnot life_.” Verse 12.\r\n\r\n_The wicked shall go to perdition._ “We are not of them who draw back\r\nunto perdition, but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.”\r\nHeb. 10:39. We either gain the salvation of our souls by a perseverance\r\nin faith, and obtain eternal life by a patient continuance in\r\nwell-doing, Rom. 2:7, or we sink back into perdition, which, is defined\r\nto be utter ruin, or _destruction_.\r\n\r\n“_The wicked shall come to an end and be as though they had not been._”\r\n“For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be; yea, thou shalt\r\ndiligently consider his place, and _it_ shall not be.” Ps. 37:10. If\r\nthis testimony be true, there will be neither a sinner nor any _place_\r\nfor a sinner, after God has executed upon them his just judgments. “They\r\nshall be as though they had not been.” Obad. 16.\r\n\r\nThe reader is requested to mark the significance of these texts. They\r\nare not figures, but plain enunciations of truth, demanding to be\r\nunderstood in the plainest and most literal manner. And though they are\r\nso abundant, and can be so easily produced, they are not to be passed\r\nover any more lightly on this account.\r\n\r\n_The wicked are compared to the most inflammable and perishable\r\nsubstances._ Had the wicked been compared to the most durable substances\r\nwith which we are acquainted in nature; had they been likened to the\r\n“everlasting hills,” the during rock, or the precious metals, gold and\r\ngems, the most incorruptible of all substances; such comparisons would\r\nnot have been without their weight in giving us an idea of an eternity\r\nof existence; nor can we think they would have been overlooked by the\r\nother side. We therefore claim an equal significance on our side of the\r\nquestion for the fact that they are everywhere compared to just the\r\nopposite of the above-named substances--substances the most perishable\r\nand corruptible of any that exist. For no idea can be drawn from such\r\ncomparisons at all compatible with the idea of eternal preservation in\r\nthe midst of glowing and devouring fire.\r\n\r\nThus it is said of the wicked that they shall be dashed in pieces like a\r\npotter’s vessel, Ps. 2:9, they shall be like the beasts that perish, Ps.\r\n49:20, like the untimely fruit of a woman, Ps. 58:8, like a whirlwind\r\nthat passeth away, Ps. 68:2; Prov. 10:25, like a waterless garden\r\nscorched by an eastern sun, Isa. 1:30, like garments consumed by the\r\nmoth, Isa. 51:8, like the thistle down scattered by the whirlwind, Isa.\r\n17:13, margin. They shall consume like the fat of lambs in the fire, Ps.\r\n37:20, consume into smoke (_ibid._), and ashes, Mal. 4:3, melt like wax,\r\nPs. 68:2, burn like tow, Isa. 1:31, consume like thorns, Isa. 34:12,\r\nvanish away like exhausted waters, Ps. 58:7.\r\n\r\nThe illustrations which the New Testament uses to represent the destiny\r\nof the wicked are of exactly the same nature. They are likened to chaff,\r\nwhich is to be burned entirely up, Matt. 3:12, tares to be consumed,\r\nMatt. 13:40, withered branches to be burned, John 15:6, bad fish cast\r\naway to corruption, Matt. 13:47, 48, a house thrown down to its\r\nfoundations, Luke 6:49, to the destruction of the old world by water,\r\nLuke 17:27, to the destruction of the Sodomites by fire, verse 29, 2\r\nPet. 2:5, 6, and to natural brute beasts, that perish in their own\r\ncorruption. Verse 12.\r\n\r\nSuch are the illustrations of the Scriptures on this subject. If the\r\nwicked are to be tormented forever, all these illustrations are not only\r\nunnatural, but false; for in that case they are not like the perishing\r\nbeasts, the passing whirlwind, the moth-consumed garment, the burning\r\nfat, the vanishing smoke, or the melting wax; nor like chaff, tares, and\r\nwithered branches, consumed and reduced to ashes. These all lose their\r\nform and substance, and become as though they had not been; but this the\r\nwicked never do, according to the popular view. There is an enormous\r\ncontradiction somewhere. Is it between the writers of the Bible? or\r\nbetween uninspired men and the word of God? The trouble is not with the\r\nBible; all is harmony there. The discrepancy arises from the creeds and\r\ntheories of men.\r\n\r\nThe language of Moses and of Paul shows that an eternal existence of\r\nmoral corruption and fiery torture is not the doom of the wicked. When\r\nMoses besought the Lord to forgive the sin of Israel, he said, “Yet now,\r\nif thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out\r\nof thy book which thou hast written.” Ex. 32:32. This book must be the\r\nbook of life, in which the names of the righteous are written. By being\r\nblotted out of this book, Moses evidently meant being devoted to the\r\ndoom of sinners. If Israel could not be forgiven, he would himself\r\nperish with that unfaithful people. But no one can for a moment suppose\r\nthat he wished throughout eternity for a life of sin, pain, and\r\nblasphemy, in hell. He only wished for an utter cessation of that life\r\nwhich, if his prayer could not be granted, would be an intolerable\r\nburden. And if this is what he meant by being blotted out of God’s book,\r\nit follows that this will be the doom of the ungodly; for the Lord\r\nanswered, “Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my\r\nbook.”\r\n\r\nIn a similar manner, Paul speaks concerning the same people: “For I\r\ncould wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my\r\nkinsmen according to the flesh.” Rom. 9:3. We cannot suppose that Paul\r\nwould desire a life of sin and moral corruption, such as that of the\r\nsinner in hell is said to be, even for the sake of his people. But he\r\nwas willing to give up his life for them, and cease to exist, if thereby\r\nthey might be saved.\r\n\r\nTo notice more particularly some of the scriptures in which a portion of\r\nthe foregoing figures are found, their testimony may be summed up in the\r\nfollowing final proposition:--\r\n\r\n_The wicked shall be consumed and devoured by fire._ “Woe unto them that\r\ncall evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light\r\nfor darkness,” &c. “Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the\r\nflame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and\r\ntheir blossom shall go up as dust”! Isa. 5:20-24. Reader, have you ever\r\nseen fire devour stubble, or flame consume chaff? Then you have seen a\r\nfigure of the destruction of the wicked. And let the advocate of eternal\r\nmisery tell us, if such language does not denote the utter consumption\r\nof the wicked, what language would do it, if the doctrine were true. Let\r\nus know what language Inspiration should have used, had it wished to\r\nconvey such an idea. Is it such as this? “But the wicked shall perish,\r\nand the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs; they shall\r\nconsume; into smoke shall they consume away.” Ps. 37:20. “And they went\r\nup on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints\r\nabout, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven,\r\nand _devoured_ them.” The word here rendered devour, κατέφαγεν, says\r\nStuart, is “intensive, to _eat up, devour_, so that it denotes utter\r\nexcision.” In the light of this scripture, we can readily understand how\r\nit is that the wicked are to be recompensed in the earth. Prov. 11:31.\r\nComing up in the second resurrection, at the end of the 1000 years of\r\nRev. 20:5, they come up around the New Jerusalem, the beloved city, the\r\nabode of the saints, then descended from Heaven to earth, chap. 21:5,\r\nand then their fearful retribution overtakes them. It is then that they\r\nhave their portion in those purifying fires that sweep over the earth,\r\nin which, according to Peter’s testimony, the elements of this great\r\nglobe itself shall melt with fervent heat. 2 Pet. 3:10, 12. For it is at\r\nthe day of Judgment (by which of course we must understand the execution\r\nof the Judgment) and perdition of ungodly men that this takes place. See\r\nverse 7. So, too, the righteous, as they go forth upon the new earth,\r\nverse 13, destined to be their eternal and glorious abode, will receive\r\ntheir recompense in the earth. Then will be fulfilled the word of the\r\nLord by the prophet Malachi, which says, “For behold, the day cometh,\r\nthat shall burn as an oven: and all the proud, yea, and all that do\r\nwickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up,\r\nsaith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor\r\nbranch. But unto you that fear my name, shall the Sun of righteousness\r\narise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as\r\ncalves of the stall. And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall\r\nbe ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this,\r\nsaith the Lord of hosts.” Mark the distinctness of this language. It\r\ndoes not say that the wicked shall be _as_ ashes, nor does it introduce\r\nany comparison here whatever, but plainly states a plain fact, that they\r\n_shall be ashes_, under the soles of the saints’ feet. Not that the\r\nsaints will literally walk on ashes, but the wicked, having been reduced\r\nto ashes, like all other sin-and-curse-polluted things, are incorporated\r\ninto the substance of the new earth, which the saints are evermore to\r\ninhabit, as it emerges from the renovating fires of the last day.\r\n\r\nThen will the universe be clean and pure. Then the stain of sin will all\r\nbe wiped away forever; sinners, and the great enemy that deceived them\r\n(for he, too, shall be destroyed, Heb. 2:14), being rooted out of the\r\nland of the living. Its every scar now impressed upon the handiwork of\r\nGod shall be effaced; and this unfortunate earth shall be re-adorned, as\r\nonly God, omnipotent in power and omniscient in wisdom, is able to adorn\r\nit. And then will arise that glad anthem of universal Jubilee, in which\r\nshall join _every creature_ which is in Heaven, and on the earth, and\r\nunder the earth, and such as are in the sea, ascribing blessing, and\r\nhonor, and glory, and power, unto him that sitteth on the throne, and\r\nunto the Lamb forever and ever. Rev. 5:13. There is no room here for a\r\ngreat receptacle of fiery torment, where an innumerable company of human\r\nbeings shall burn and blaspheme and sin and suffer forever and ever.\r\nThere is no room in this great song of joy for the discordant and\r\nhopeless wailing of the damned. There is no provision made for an\r\neternal rebellion against the government of God, and eternal blasphemy\r\nagainst his holy name! No! only the loyal subjects of the great Captain\r\nof our salvation, only such as love immortal life, and seek for it, and\r\nprepare themselves for its inestimable blessings, shall ever enjoy the\r\nglorious boon; while those who put from themselves the word of God, and\r\n“judge themselves unworthy of everlasting life,” Acts 13:46, will be\r\nremanded back to the original elements from which they sprung; and\r\nstrict Justice will write upon their unhonored and unlamented graves\r\nthat they themselves were the arbiters of their own fate.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                            CHAPTER XXXIII.\r\n                   GOD’S DEALINGS WITH HIS CREATURES.\r\n\r\n\r\n“Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” asked an eminent\r\nservant of God in the opening pages of revelation, Gen. 18:25; and when\r\nall is finished, the redeemed, looking over all God’s dealings with man,\r\nexclaim with fervent lips, “Just and true are thy ways, thou King of\r\nsaints.” Rev. 15:3. It is objected that we should raise no question\r\nregarding the justness of the doom to which God may devote any portion\r\nof our race; because we are not able to judge of his ways. Of things\r\nwith which we are imperfectly acquainted, or which are above our\r\ncomprehension, this is undoubtedly true; but respecting our relation to\r\nGod, the light in which he looks upon sin, and the disposition he will\r\nfinally make of it, he says to us, “Come, let us reason.” We are never\r\ncalled upon to form an opinion or a decision in regard to things\r\nrespecting which we are incapable of judging; but we are called upon to\r\nreverence God, as a God of love, wisdom, justice, and mercy. We must,\r\ntherefore, be capable of judging of his character, his mercy, his love,\r\nhis wisdom, and his justice. Are these characteristics displayed in his\r\nfuture dealings with the wicked, according to the view generally\r\npromulgated by the churches of the present day? The question to be\r\ndecided is this: Is an eternity of torture so intense that the severest\r\npain a person can suffer on earth is but a faint shadow of it, any _just\r\npunishment_ for any conceivable amount of sin committed by the worst of\r\nmen, during the brief period of our mortal life? What is our present\r\nlife? Something for which we did not ask; something given us without our\r\nknowledge or consent; and, in the forcible language of another, “Can any\r\nabuse of this unasked-for gift justify the recompense of an existence\r\nspent in unending agony?”\r\n\r\nBetween the sins committed in this finite life, and the fiery torment of\r\nhell continued through numberless millions of ages, and then no nearer\r\nits end than when the first groan was uttered, there is a disproportion\r\nso infinite, that few attempt to rest that eternal misery on merely the\r\nsins of the present life; and they endeavor to vindicate God’s justice\r\nin the matter, or at least to apologize for his course, by saying that\r\nthe sinner continues to sin, and that is the reason why he continues to\r\nsuffer. The guilt of all the sins done in the body is soon expiated in\r\nthe fiery flame; but then they must suffer for the sins committed after\r\nthey left this mortal state, and commenced their life of agony in hell.\r\nAnd here they are represented as sinning faster than the inconceivable\r\nwoe of hell can punish. It is affirmed of them, as quoted from Benson in\r\nthe previous chapter, that “they must be perpetually swelling their\r\nenormous sums of guilt, and still running deeper, immensely deeper, in\r\ndebt to divine and infinite justice. Hence, after the longest imaginable\r\nperiod, they will be so far from having discharged their debt that they\r\nwill find more due than when they first began to suffer.”\r\n\r\nIn like manner Wm. Archer Butler, in his sermon on Future Punishment,\r\nsays:--\r\n\r\n“The punishments of hell are but the perpetual vengeance that\r\naccompanies the sins of hell. An eternity of wickedness brings with it\r\nan eternity of woe. The sinner is to suffer for everlasting, but it is\r\nbecause the sin itself is as everlasting as the suffering.”\r\n\r\nDo the Scriptures anywhere thus speak? Do they not affirm, not once or\r\ntwice, but over and over again, that the punishment of the future is for\r\nthe sins of the present time? It is for the sins in which the sinner\r\ndies, not for what he commits after death, that he is to suffer future\r\nretribution. Eze. 18:26. The works for which we are to be brought into\r\njudgment (and for no others can we be punished) are the works of this\r\npresent life. Eccl. 12:14. And Paul testifies, “For we must all appear\r\nbefore the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the\r\nthings _done in his body_, according to that he hath done, whether it be\r\ngood or bad.” 2 Cor. 5:10. It is for the sins done by human beings in\r\nthe body, in this present life, not for what they will commit as lost\r\nspirits in hell, that they are to answer at the judgment seat of Christ,\r\nand for which they are to receive a just retribution. And if everlasting\r\nmisery is thought to be too much for this, we are not at liberty to\r\nthrow in _post-mortem_ sins to balance the excessive punishment. If\r\neternal torment cannot be defended as a just punishment for the sins of\r\nthis present life, it cannot be defended at all.\r\n\r\nTo illustrate: Suppose in an earthly tribunal the judge should sentence\r\na criminal to a punishment altogether too severe for the crime of which\r\nhe had been guilty, and then should endeavor to justify his course by\r\nsaying that he gave the sentence because he knew that the criminal would\r\ndeserve it by the sins he would commit after he went to jail! How long\r\nwould such a judge be tolerated? Yet this is the very course attributed\r\nby learned doctors of divinity, to the Judge of all the earth, who has\r\ndeclared that he will do right.\r\n\r\nOn the supposition that eternal torture is to be inflicted as the\r\npenalty for a life of sin in this world, were man asked if God’s conduct\r\nin this respect was just, his own innate sense of justice, not yet\r\nwholly obliterated by the fall, would prompt him to a universal and\r\ndetermined, No! The framers of different religious systems have felt\r\nthis, and seem to have searched sharply for some avenue of escape from\r\nthe fearful wrong of this horrid theory. So Plato had his Acherusian\r\nlake from which at least some of the wretched sufferers in Tartarus,\r\nafter a purgative process might issue forth again to the upper air.\r\nAugustine following Plato in his notion of an abode of unending pain for\r\nsome, had also his purgatory from whence others might find a road to\r\nHeaven. Rome has only a purgatory, the fires of a finite period, for the\r\nmillions within her communion. Origen conceived of a purgatory wider\r\nthan Plato’s, Augustine’s, or Rome’s, from which all should at length be\r\nrestored to the favor of God.\r\n\r\nThe churches of the Reformation have generally accepted of Augustine’s\r\nhell, but denied his purgatory. In the Protestant denominations,\r\ntherefore, we have this doctrine in its most horrid aspects. And it is\r\nno marvel that many who have felt compelled by their creed to accept it,\r\nhave shrunk from its advocacy, and have tacitly, if not openly,\r\nconfessed that they could heartily wish it were a lie.\r\n\r\nSaurin at the close of one of his sermons thus speaks:--\r\n\r\n“I sink, I sink, under the awful weight of my subject; and I declare,\r\nwhen I see my friends, my relations, the people of my charge,--this\r\nwhole congregation, when I think that I, that you, that we are all\r\nexposed to these torments; when I see in the lukewarmness of my\r\ndevosions, in the langour of my love, in the levity of my resolutions\r\nand designs, the least evidence, though it be only possible or\r\npresumptive, of my future misery, I find in the thought a mortal poison,\r\nthat diffuseth itself through every period of my existence, rendering\r\nsociety tiresome, nourishment insipid, pleasure disgustful, _and life\r\nitself a cruel bitter_. I cease to wonder that the fear of hell hath\r\nmade some _melancholy_, others _mad_; that it hath disposed some to\r\nexpose themselves to a living martyrdom, by fleeing from all commerce\r\nwith the rest of mankind, and others, to suffer the most terrible,\r\nviolent torments.”\r\n\r\nAlbert Barnes, the well-known preacher and commentator, speaks on the\r\nsame point as follows:--\r\n\r\n“I confess when I look upon a world of sinners and of sufferers; upon\r\ndeath-beds and grave-yards, upon the world of woe filled with hosts to\r\nsuffer forever; when I see my friends, my parents, my family, my people,\r\nmy fellow-citizens; when I look upon a whole race all involved in this\r\nsin and danger, and when I see the great mass of them wholly\r\nunconcerned, and when I feel that God only can save them, and yet he\r\ndoes not do it--I am struck dumb. It is all dark, dark, dark to my soul,\r\nand I cannot disguise it.”--_Sermons_, pp. 124, 125.\r\n\r\nSuch is the effect of the doctrine of eternal misery with some,\r\naccording to the confession of its own advocates. No one can say that\r\nsuch effects are either good or desirable. And why does it not have this\r\neffect upon more? We answer, it is because the lips only mechanically\r\nassent to what the heart and reason either will not try to realize, or\r\nelse do not seriously believe. Says Bishop Newton:--\r\n\r\n“Imagine a creature, nay, imagine numberless creatures produced out of\r\nnothing ... delivered over to torments of endless ages, without the\r\nleast hope or possibility of relaxation or redemption. Imagine it you\r\nmay, but you can never seriously believe it, nor reconcile it to God and\r\ngoodness.”--_Dissertation_, No. 60.\r\n\r\nBut the majority are affected by it far differently. Every better\r\nemotion of their nature revolts at the idea, and they will not accept\r\nit. They cannot believe that God is thus cruel, tyrannical, revengeful,\r\nimplacable; the personification, in short, of every trait of character\r\nwhich, when seen in men here, we consider unmistakable marks of\r\ndebasement and degradation; and believing the Bible and Christianity to\r\nbe identified with such teaching as this, with equal promptness they too\r\nare rejected and cast away. But here we need not enlarge. Probably no\r\none will read these lines under whose observation some case has not come\r\nof persons driven into skepticism, yes, driven and held there, by the\r\npopular doctrine of eternal misery--a doctrine which has been well\r\ndescribed by a Christian writer, as “a theology that is confused,\r\nentangled, imperfect, and gloomy; a theology which, while it abundantly\r\nbreeds infidelity among the educated classes, fails to spread through\r\nthe body of the population, and but dimly, or only as a flickering\r\ncandle enlightens the world.”--_I. Taylor._\r\n\r\nBut how is it with the view we have tried to present? Quite the reverse,\r\nas our own observation proves. Instances have come under our immediate\r\nknowledge of persons who, when they saw the divine harmony of God’s\r\nsystem of government, as brought to view in his word, when they saw the\r\njust and reasonable disposition which the Bible declares that he will\r\nmake of all those who will persist in rebellion against him,--a\r\ndisposition in which justice and mercy so beautifully blend, have been\r\nable to take that Bible and say for the first time in their life they\r\ncould believe it to be the book of God. And believing this, they have\r\nbeen led to turn their feet into its testimonies, and strive by\r\nobedience to its plain requirements to escape a doom which they could\r\nsee to be just, and therefore knew to be certain. This has been the\r\nexperience of many. Let, then, the impression no longer exist, and the\r\nassertion no more be made, that these views tend to irreligion and\r\ninfidelity. Their fruits everywhere show just the reverse.\r\n\r\nCan it then be wondered at that we should be solicitous to disabuse the\r\nminds of the people in this respect? Shall we not have a zeal for the\r\nLord, and be untiring in our efforts to wipe off from the book and\r\ncharacter of God the aspersions which are by this doctrine cast upon\r\nthem? God represents himself to his creatures by the endearing name of\r\nLove; he declares that he is very pitiful and of tender mercy,\r\nlong-suffering and slow to anger, not hasty to execute sentence against\r\nan evil work, not gratified in any manner by the death of the wicked,\r\nand not willing that any should perish; he declares that he delighteth\r\nin mercy, that he will not contend forever, neither be always wroth. And\r\ncan it be that while thus representing himself to the inhabitants of\r\nearth, he was kindling fiery torture on multitudes of wretched beings in\r\nthe dreary regions of hell, feeding their flame with his incensed fury,\r\npreserving and tormenting them in infinite indignation, exerting all his\r\ndivine attributes to make them as wretched as the capacity of their\r\nnature would admit, and maintaining a fixed purpose to do this through\r\nthe endless ages of eternity! If not, “what a portentous error must it\r\nbe!” How fearfully is his character misrepresented! What a bold and\r\naudacious libel is uttered against his holy name!\r\n\r\nThe root and trunk of all this, is the “taken-for-granted” position that\r\nthe soul is immortal. But search through your Bible and see if you find\r\nit so. See if you will not rather be prepared to exclaim with the\r\neminent commentator, Olshausen, that “the doctrine of the ‘immortality\r\nof the soul,’ and the name, are _alike unknown to the entire Bible_.”\r\n(Comment on 1 Cor. 15:19, 20.) See if you can find the death that never\r\ndies, and never-dying soul. If not, we ask you to reject the idea at\r\nonce as a most dangerous and destructive error. Men are thus rejecting\r\nit. The leaven is working in the public mind. Men are growing suspicious\r\nof the truth of a declaration, first uttered by a not over-truthful\r\ncharacter in Eden, perpetuated thence through heathenism, and at last\r\nthrough the medium of the mother of harlots, disseminated through all\r\nthe veins and channels of Orthodoxy. But truth will work its way up,\r\nhowever deeply the rubbish may have been heaped upon it; and before the\r\nbright rising of its light, all antiquated superstitions and\r\ntraditionary dogmas, will lie exposed in their native deformity.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                             CHAPTER XXXIV.\r\n                       THE CLAIMS OF PHILOSOPHY.\r\n\r\n\r\nAfter the Bible, what? When once the word of God pronounces upon a\r\nquestion, what further evidence is needed to sustain the position, or\r\nwhat evidence is strong enough to break its decision? What can human\r\nreason, science, and philosophy, do for a theory upon which the\r\nScriptures have written “Ichabod”?\r\n\r\nWe have, in previous chapters, examined the teaching of the Bible on the\r\nwhole subject of man’s creation, nature, death, intermediate state, and\r\nfinal doom. We have found that man was not created absolutely mortal or\r\nimmortal, but relatively both: immortality was within his reach, and\r\nmortality lay as a danger in his path. He sinned and became absolutely\r\nmortal. Then death becomes an unconscious sleep in the grave, and his\r\ndestiny beyond the tomb, if he does not secure through Christ, eternal\r\nlife, is an utter loss of existence. But there are some who think that\r\nreason, science, and philosophy, are sufficient to disprove these\r\nconclusions; or, at least, that they are so strong that the Bible record\r\nmust be made to harmonize with the claims drawn from these sources. But\r\nthey forget that much that we call reason is in the sight of God\r\n“foolishness,” that there is a philosophy which the Bible pronounces\r\n“vain,” and some kinds of science which it says are “falsely so called.”\r\n\r\nWe are willing to grant philosophy the privilege of trying to\r\nsubstantiate its claims. It may boast like Goliah, but it will be found\r\nweaker than Belshazzar before the handwriting on the wall.\r\n\r\n_The soul immortal._ It is claimed that the soul is immaterial, and\r\ncannot therefore be destroyed, and hence must be immortal. Luther Lee\r\nsays:--\r\n\r\n“If God himself has made the soul immaterial, he cannot destroy it by\r\nbringing material agents to act upon it.”\r\n\r\nThis claim is good if whatever is indestructible is immortal. But this\r\nis a manifest error. The elements of the human body are indestructible,\r\nbut the body is not therefore immortal. It is subject to change, death,\r\nand decay. But if it is claimed that the soul, being immaterial, is\r\nwithout elements, then perhaps it might follow that it is\r\nindestructible; for that which is nothing can never be made less than\r\nnothing.\r\n\r\nBut if the soul of man, being immaterial, is thus proved to be immortal,\r\nwhat shall we say of the souls of the lower orders of animals? for they\r\nmanifest the phenomena of mind as well as men. They remember, fear,\r\nimagine, compare, manifest gratitude, anger, sorrow, desire, &c. Bishop\r\nWarburton says:--\r\n\r\n“I think it may be strictly demonstrated that man has an immaterial\r\nsoul; _but then_, the same arguments which prove _that_, prove,\r\nlikewise, that the souls of all living animals are immaterial.”\r\n\r\nWhoever, therefore, affirms the immortality of man from the\r\nimmateriality of his soul, is bound to affirm the same, not only of the\r\nnobler animals, but also of all the lower orders of the brute creation.\r\nHere, believers in natural immortality are crushed beneath the weight of\r\ntheir own arguments. If it be said that God can, if he choose, blot from\r\nexistence the immaterial soul of the beetle and the titmouse, we reply,\r\nso can he that of man; and then its immortality is at an end, and the\r\nwhole argument is abandoned.\r\n\r\n“_Matter cannot think._” This is the fundamental proposition on which\r\nthe airy phantom of the immortality of the soul relies for its support.\r\nSince man does think, and matter cannot think, the mind or soul must be\r\nimmaterial and immortal. It is one thing to make such an assertion; it\r\nis quite another thing to prove it; and the proof lies not within the\r\npower of man. That mind, like electricity, may be a property of matter,\r\nor result from material causes, Sidney Smith, in his Principles of\r\nPhrenology, 1838, very clearly states as follows:--\r\n\r\n“The existence of matter must be conceded, in an argument which has for\r\nits object the proof that _there is something besides_; and when that is\r\nadmitted, the proof rests with the skeptic, who conceives that the\r\nintervention of some other principle is necessary to account for the\r\nphenomena presented to our experience. The hidden qualities of this\r\nsubstance must be detected, and its whole attributes known, before we\r\ncan be warranted in _assuming the existence of something else_ as\r\nnecessary to the production of what is presented to our consciousness.\r\nAnd when such a principle as that of galvanism or electricity,\r\nconfessedly a property of matter, can be present in or absent from a\r\nbody, attract, repel, and move, without adding to or subtracting from\r\nthe weight, heat, size, color, or any other quality of a corpuscle, it\r\nwill require some better species of logic than any hitherto presented to\r\nestablish the impossibility of mind being a certain form, quality, or\r\naccessory of matter, inherent in and never separated from it. We do not\r\nargue thus because we are confident that there exists nothing but\r\nmatter; for, in truth our feeling is that the question is involved in\r\ntoo much mystery to entitle us to speak with the boldness of settled\r\nconviction on either side. But we assume this position, because we think\r\nthe burden of proof falls on the spiritualists, and that they have not\r\nestablished the necessity of inferring the existence of another entity\r\nbesides matter to account for all the phenomena of mind, by having\r\nfailed to exhaust all the possible qualities or probable capacities of\r\nthat substance which they labor so assiduously to degrade and despise.\r\n\r\n“But while they have altogether failed to establish this necessity,\r\nwhereon depends their entire proposition, they have recourse to the\r\nusual expedients of unsuccessful logicians, by exciting the ignorant\r\nprejudices of bigotry and intolerance, against all that is dignified\r\nwith the name of dispassionate philosophy.\r\n\r\n“The truth is, it is time that all this fudge and cant about the\r\ndoctrine of materialism, which affects the theory of immortality in no\r\nshape whatever--as the God who appointed the end could as easily ordain\r\nthat the means might be either through the medium of matter or\r\nspirit--should be fairly put down by men of common sense and\r\nmetaphysical discrimination.”\r\n\r\nOn the same point, Mr. W. G. Moncrieff says:--\r\n\r\n“Often do we hear the words, ‘Matter cannot think,’ and the trumpet of\r\northodoxy summons us to attend.\r\n\r\n“In our simplicity we have been led to reason thus: Matter cannot\r\nthink--God made man of the dust of the ground--then of course man cannot\r\nthink! He may grow like a palm tree, but can reason no more than it. Now\r\nthis argumentation seems really valid, and yet every human being in his\r\nsenses laughs it to scorn. _I do think_, is the protest of each child of\r\nhumanity. Then if you do, we respond, in your case, matter must perform\r\nthe function of reflection and kindred operations. More than living\r\norganization you are not, and if you declare living, organized matter\r\nincapable of thought, we are bound to infer that you have no thought at\r\nall. Accepting your premises, we must hand you the conclusion. The logic\r\nis good, but we are generous enough to allow that we cannot subscribe to\r\nit. It has often occurred to us as a fair procedure, just for the sake\r\nof bringing orthodoxy to a stand, to assert that spirit cannot think; of\r\ncourse, we are only referring to created beings, on this occasion. We\r\nhave often tried to understand the popular idea of a spirit; and we must\r\nconfess that it defies our apprehension. It is something, nothing; a\r\nsubstance, an essence; everything by turns, and nothing long. To believe\r\nthat such a production could evolve thought, is an inordinate demand on\r\nhuman credulity. How the expedient was resorted to we cannot tell: was\r\nit because thought is invisible, that this invisible parent was sought\r\nfor it? Then why not trace heat beyond the fire, perfume beyond the\r\nrose, attraction beyond the sun, and vitality beyond the branchy oak? Of\r\nall insane fancies, this popular idea of the human spirit is the most\r\ncomplete; we have no wish to give offense, but the truth must be\r\nspoken.”\r\n\r\nWe arraign this theory also before the majesty of the brute creation.\r\nWhat about the immaterial minds of the lower animals? Does matter think\r\nin their cases? or have they also immortal souls? Dogs, horses, monkeys,\r\nelephants, &c., have been taught to perform different acts, imitate\r\nvarious movements, and even to dance the same tune over and over again,\r\nto accompanying strains of music: acts which involve the exercise of\r\nmemory, will, reason, and judgment.\r\n\r\nThe exercise of high mental powers is shown in the intelligence and\r\nsagacity of the horse and elephant, in the manifold cunning of the fox,\r\nin the beaver and bee, which construct their houses with such mechanical\r\ningenuity, in the mules of the Andes, which thread with so sure a foot\r\nthe gloomy gorges and craggy heights of the mountains, and in the dogs\r\nof St. Bernard, as they rescue benighted and half-frozen travelers in\r\nthe passes of the Alps. Hogg, the Ettrick Shepherd, speaking of the\r\nsagacity of one of his dogs, says:--\r\n\r\n“He had never turned sheep in his life; but as soon as he discovered\r\nthat it was his duty to do so, and that it obliged me, I can never\r\nforget with what anxiety and eagerness he _learned_ his different\r\nevolutions; he would try every way, deliberately, till he found out what\r\nI wanted him to do; and when once I made him _understand_ a direction,\r\nhe never mistook or forgot it. Well as I knew him, he often astonished\r\nme, for when hard pressed, in accomplishing the task which was set him,\r\nhe had expedients of the moment that bespoke _a great share of the\r\nreasoning faculty_.”\r\n\r\nJohn Locke, the distinguished writer on metaphysical questions, says:--\r\n\r\n“Birds’ learning of tunes, and the endeavors one may observe in them to\r\nhit the notes right, put it past doubt with me that they have\r\nperception, and retain ideas in their _memories_, and use them for\r\npatterns.... It seems as evident to me that they [brutes] _do reason as\r\nthat they have sense_.”\r\n\r\nPritchard, On the Vital Principle, says:--\r\n\r\n“Sensation is an attribute of the mind, and the possession of mind\r\ncertainly extends as far as its phenomena. Whatever beings have\r\nconscious feeling, have, unless the preceding arguments amount to\r\nnothing, souls, or immaterial minds, distinct from the substance of\r\nwhich they appear to us to be composed. _If all animals feel, all\r\nanimals have souls._”\r\n\r\nH. H. Dobney, Future Punishment, p. 101, says:--\r\n\r\n“While consciousness, reason, and the sense of right and wrong, are\r\namong the highest attributes of man, these in a degree are allowed to be\r\npossessed by some at least of the brute creation. Dr. Brown, according\r\nto his biographer, Dr. Welsh, ‘believed that many of the lower animals\r\nhave the sense of right and wrong; and that the metaphysical argument\r\nwhich proves the immortality of man, extends with equal force to the\r\nother orders of earthly existence.’”\r\n\r\nSimilar views are attributed to Coleridge and Cudworth.\r\n\r\nDalton, in his treatise on Human Physiology, p. 428, says:--\r\n\r\n“The possession of this kind of intelligence and reasoning power, is not\r\nconfined to the human species. We have already seen that there are many\r\ninstinctive actions in man as well as in animals. It is no less true\r\nthat, in the higher animals, there is often _the same exercise of\r\nreasoning power as in man_. The degree of this power is much less in\r\nthem than in him, _but its nature is the same_. Whenever, in an animal,\r\nwe see any action performed, with the evident intention of accomplishing\r\na particular object, such an act is plainly the result of reasoning\r\npower, not essentially different from our own.\r\n\r\n“The establishment of sentinels by gregarious animals to warn the herd\r\nof the approach of danger; the recollection of punishment inflicted, for\r\na particular action, and the subsequent avoidance or concealment of that\r\naction; the teachability of many animals, and their capacity of forming\r\nnew habits, or improving the old ones, are instances of the same kind of\r\nintellectual power, and _are quite different from instinct_, strictly\r\nspeaking. It is this faculty which especially predominates over the\r\nother in the higher classes of animals, and which finally attains its\r\nmaximum of development in the human species.”\r\n\r\nWith these testimonies from such eminent witnesses, we leave the friends\r\nof the rational argument inextricably mixed up with the brute creation.\r\nThe legitimate result of their theory is to confer immortality upon all\r\norders of animated existence. We are sometimes accused of degrading man\r\nto the level of the brute. But if our friends of the other side elevate\r\nall brutes up to the level of man, how does that practically differ from\r\nwhat they accuse us of doing? The result is the same. If all come at\r\nlast upon the same level, it matters not whether brutes come up or man\r\ngoes down.\r\n\r\nBut our view is not open to this objection. While we deny that\r\nimmortality is proved for either man or beast by any vital or mental\r\npowers which they may exhibit, our theory finds a superior position for\r\nman in his more refined mental and physical organization, whereby he\r\nbecomes possessed of a higher mental and moral nature, and is the proper\r\nrecipient of the hope of immortality.\r\n\r\nAnother fact on which it is supposed that an argument for immortality\r\ncan be founded is,\r\n\r\n_The capacities of the soul._ The mind of man, it is argued, by its\r\nwonderful achievements, and its lofty aspirations, shows itself capable\r\nof some higher and better state of being than we at present enjoy. And\r\nfrom this the conclusion is easy (if people will not stop to scan very\r\ncritically the connection) that such a state of being inevitably awaits\r\nmankind, in which they are destined to live forever.\r\n\r\nBut this argument, which, stripped of its disguise, is simply an\r\negotistical assertion, I am fit to be a god, and therefore I am a god,\r\nwill be found to collapse under very slight pressure. Mr. J. Panton Ham\r\ndescribes it in fitting terms, when he speaks of it as follows:--\r\n\r\n“Because a man has skill and ability, is he therefore immortal? We, in\r\nour ignorance and imperfection, would exalt the intellectual above the\r\nmoral. The former has greater attractions for imperfect man than the\r\nlatter. Had we the peopling of paradise, we should fill it with the\r\nworld’s heroes in literature, science, and the arts. The skillful are\r\nthe world’s saints, and the proper candidates for Heaven’s ‘many\r\nmansions.’ This argument, dispassionately considered apart from the\r\nimposing parade of human achievements, is just this: Man is _clever_,\r\ntherefore he is _immortal_. Here is neither logic nor religion. The\r\ncleverness of man is surely no title to immortality, much less is it the\r\nproof of its possession. It is a silly logic which asserts human\r\nimmortality from such strange premises as balloons and pyramids,\r\nelectro-telegraphs and railways.”\r\n\r\nBut all men cannot engineer the construction of a pyramid, nor construct\r\na balloon, nor build an engine, much less accomplish the greater feat\r\ninvolved in their first invention. All men are not learned and skillful,\r\nand of such eminent capabilities. Is it not, in fact, almost an\r\ninfinitely small proportion of the human race that has manifested those\r\ngreat powers on which this argument is based! And can the capacities of\r\na few leading minds determine the destiny of the great mass of men who\r\npossess no such powers?\r\n\r\nAnd if an argument may be based on the capacities of some, may not an\r\nequal and opposite argument be based on the incapacity of others? and in\r\nthis case on which side would the weight of evidence lie? And as there\r\nis almost every conceivable gradation of intelligence, who will tell us\r\nwhereabouts in this scale the infinite endowment of immortality is first\r\nperceptible? Looking at the human race, and the races immediately below,\r\nwe behold a point where they seem to blend indistinguishably into each\r\nother. Will an utter lack of capacity be affirmed of the higher orders\r\nof the brute creation? And descending in the scale, where shall we stop?\r\nWhere is the transition from immortality to mortality?\r\n\r\nWe have given, in the preceding portion of this chapter, extracts from\r\neminent authors showing that brutes reason, that they exercise, to a\r\ndegree, all the powers of the human mind, that they have a sense, to\r\nsome extent, of right and wrong, and give evidence, of the same nature\r\nas man is able to give in reference to himself, that they possess just\r\nas immaterial a soul as he. And have we not all seen horses and dogs\r\nthat gave evidence of possessing more good sense than some men? And in\r\nthis graduated scale of animated existence, where is the dividing line\r\nbetween the mortal and the immortal? Will some one locate it? What\r\ndegree of mental capacity is necessary to constitute an evidence of\r\nimmortality? And here we leave this argument. It demands no further\r\nnotice till its friends who base immortality on mental capacity will\r\ndetermine which class of their less fortunate brothers is so low as to\r\nbe beyond its reach.\r\n\r\n_Universal belief and inborn desire._ Men have universally believed in\r\nthe immortality of the soul, it is claimed, and all men desire it;\r\ntherefore, all men have it. Strange conclusion from strange premises. As\r\nto the first part of this argument, the universal belief, that appears\r\nnot to be true, in fact. On this, a glance at a quotation or two must\r\nsuffice. Whately (Essay 1 on a Future State) says:--\r\n\r\n“We find Socrates and his disciples, represented by Plato, as fully\r\nadmitting in their discussions of the subject, that ‘men in general were\r\nhighly incredulous as to the soul’s future existence.’ The Epicurean\r\nschool openly contended against it. Aristotle passes it by as not worth\r\nconsidering, and takes for granted the contrary supposition, as not\r\nneeding proof.”\r\n\r\nLeland, on the Advantages of Revelation, says:--\r\n\r\nWhen Cicero “sets himself to prove the immortality of the soul, he\r\nrepresents the contrary as the prevailing opinion,” there being “crowds\r\nof opponents, not the Epicureans only; but, which he could not account\r\nfor, those that were the most learned persons, had that doctrine in\r\ncontempt.”\r\n\r\nTouching the other portion of the argument, the universal and inborn\r\ndesire, those who make use of it, to make it of any avail, are bound to\r\nsupply and prove the suppressed premise, which is that all men have what\r\nthey desire. The syllogism would then stand thus: 1. All men have what\r\nthey desire. 2. All men desire immortality. Conclusion. Therefore, all\r\nmen are immortal. This is a fair statement of the question; but are any\r\npresumptuous enough to take the ground that all men have what they\r\ndesire? Is it true, in fact? Do not our every-day’s observations give it\r\nthe unqualified lie? Men desire riches, but do all possess them? they\r\ndesire health, but do all have it? they desire happiness here, but what\r\nan infinitely small portion of the race are really happy. To try to get\r\nover the matter by saying that these desires that men have _may_ be\r\ngratified by their taking a right course, is an abandonment of the whole\r\nargument; for thus much we readily grant concerning immortality: all men\r\nmay gratify their desires here by taking a right course; immortality\r\nalso is suspended upon conditions, and those only will have it in whom\r\nthose conditions are found to be scrupulously complied with.\r\n\r\nBut there is another fatal flaw in this argument in another respect; for\r\nit is not immortality in the abstract that is the object of this great\r\ndesire among men, but _happiness_. And the very persons who contend for\r\nimmortality because men desire it, hold that a great portion of the race\r\nwill be forever miserable. But this is not what men desire; and not\r\nbeing what they desire, it follows that all will not obtain what they\r\ndesire, and hence the argument built on desire is good for nothing on\r\ntheir own showing. It simply proves universal salvation, or that men\r\nwill be forever happy because all men desire it, or it proves nothing.\r\n\r\n_The analogies of nature._ The day shuts down in darkness, but is not\r\nforever lost; the morn returns again, and the bright sun comes forth\r\nrejoicing as a strong man to run a race. Nature is bound, cold and\r\nlifeless, in the icy chains of winter; but it is not lost in absolute\r\ndeath. Anon the spring approaches, and at its animating voice and warm\r\nbreath, the pulse of life beats again through all her works; her cold\r\ncheek kindles with the glow of fresh vitality; and she comes forth\r\nadorned with new beauty, waking new songs of praise in every grove. The\r\nchrysalis, too, that lay apparently a dead worm, motionless and dry,\r\nsoon wakes up to a higher life, and comes forth gloriously arrayed, like\r\na “living blossom of the air,” sipping nectar from the choicest sweets\r\nof earth, and nestling in the bosom of its fairest flowers. And so, too,\r\nit is claimed of man, “that when the body shall drop as a withered\r\ncalyx, the soul shall go forth like a winged seed.”--_Horticultural\r\nAddress, by E. H. Chapin._\r\n\r\nLet us take care that here our judgments are not led captive by the\r\nfascinations of poetry, or the rhetorical beauties of which this\r\nargument is so eminently susceptible. Among the many instances of\r\nnature, we find only a few that furnish the analogies here presented.\r\nThe chrysalis, so often referred to, after it has spent its brief day as\r\na living butterfly, perishes and is heard of no more forever. So with\r\nall the higher order of brutes: they fall in death and make no more\r\ntheir appearance upon our path. The most, then, that can be drawn from\r\nthis argument, is a faint foreshadowing, perhaps, of a future life. But\r\nhere, let it be understood, there is no issue. We all agree that the\r\nrace shall be called again to life. “As in Adam all die, so in Christ\r\nshall all be made alive.” 1 Cor. 15:22. But the point at issue is, Are\r\nour souls immortal, and must this life be, to all our race, necessarily\r\neternal? To prove that man will live again is one thing; to prove that\r\nthat life will be eternal, is quite another.\r\n\r\n_The anomalies of the present state._ How often do we here see the\r\nwicked spreading himself like a green bay tree, having more than heart\r\ncould wish, while the righteous grope their way along, in trouble and\r\nwant. The wicked are exalted, and the good are oppressed. This does not\r\nlook like the arrangement of a God who is the patron of virtue and the\r\nenemy of vice. It is therefore argued that there will be another state\r\nin which all these wrongs shall be righted, virtue rewarded, and\r\nwickedness punished. Yes, we reply, there will. But, certainly, a space\r\nof time infinitely short of eternity would suffice to correct all the\r\nanomalies of this brief life, which so puzzle men here. This argument,\r\nlike the former, may be a fair inference for a future state; it may\r\nportend to the ungodly a scene of retribution, but can prove nothing as\r\nto its duration.\r\n\r\n_Immortality assumed._ We are told that the Bible assumes the\r\nimmortality of the soul as a truth so evident that it is not necessary\r\nto expressly affirm it. This is why the doctrine has come to be so\r\ngenerally received against so explicit evidence against it. _It has been\r\ntaken for granted!_ Says Bishop Tillotson:--\r\n\r\n“The immortality of the soul is rather supposed, or taken for granted,\r\nthan expressly revealed in the Bible.”\r\n\r\n“It is taken for granted” that immortality is an essential attribute of\r\nthe soul, and that therefore for the Bible to affirm it would be mere\r\ntautology. But we reply, Is not immortality an essential attribute also\r\nof Jehovah? Yet the Bible has been tautological enough to plainly state\r\nthis fact. And it would seem that it might have carried its “tautology”\r\na little further, and told us as much, at least _once_, about the soul,\r\nif that too is immortal; for surely its immortality cannot be _more_\r\nessential than that of Jehovah.\r\n\r\n_Annihilation impossible._ Nature everywhere revolts, we are told,\r\nagainst our doctrine of annihilation, and everywhere proves it false;\r\nfor nothing ever has been, nor ever can be, annihilated. To which we\r\nreply, Very true; and here we would correct the impression which some\r\nseem to entertain, that we believe in any such annihilation of the\r\nwicked; or the annihilation of anything as matter. In reference to the\r\nwicked, we simply affirm that they will be annihilated as living beings,\r\nthe matter of which they are composed passing into other forms. The\r\nsecond definition of annihilate, according to Webster, is, “To destroy\r\nthe form or the peculiar distinctive properties, so that the specific\r\nthing no longer exists; as, to _annihilate_ a forest by cutting and\r\ncarrying away the trees, though the timber may still exist; to\r\n_annihilate_ a house by demolishing the structure.” Just so of the\r\nwicked: as conscious intelligent beings they are annihilated, being\r\nresolved into their original elements.\r\n\r\n_Evil tendency._ Why promulgate the doctrine of the destruction of the\r\nwicked, it is asked, even if it be true? Will not evil rather than good\r\nresult from it? Some, honestly no doubt, deprecate any agitation of this\r\nquestion; and we have even heard some, impelled either by their fears or\r\ntheir prejudices, go so far as to declare that “it will make more\r\ninfidels than Tom Paine’s Age of Reason,” and that “no conversions to\r\nGod will ever follow in the track of its blighting and soul-destroying\r\ninfluence.”\r\n\r\nIt might be necessary first to inquire what idea these persons have of\r\ninfidelity. Perhaps they apply that term to everything that is not in\r\nagreement with their own views. And if this is the standard by which\r\nthey judge of this matter, their assertion may possibly be in part\r\ncorrect; for converts to this doctrine are multiplying at a rapid rate.\r\nBut giving to infidelity its legitimate definition, we call upon all\r\nthose who claim that this doctrine makes infidels, to give some proof of\r\ntheir assertion before they again repeat it. This matter can be easily\r\ntested. The friends and advocates of this doctrine are neither few nor\r\nobscure. Men from all the walks of life, public and private, are daily\r\nswelling the ranks; and if this doctrine makes infidels, the infidels of\r\nour day should be found among those who receive it. But do we find them\r\nthere? If one solitary individual can be found who repudiates the\r\nScriptures as the revealed will of God, because he has been made to\r\nbelieve that they do not teach eternal misery for the lost, we would be\r\nglad to see him, or even to learn of him. This is not what causes\r\ninfidelity, it is what cures it. What do we find in the ranks of the\r\nfriends of this doctrine? Not the criminal and vicious classes, not\r\nthose who have thrown off all restraint, not rejecters of divine\r\nrevelation; but we find those who were formerly skeptics rescued from\r\ntheir skepticism, and infidels recovered from their infidelity. We find\r\nmultitudes who can now rest down with sweet assurance on the word of\r\nGod, the perplexities with which they had been troubled respecting God’s\r\ndealings with his creatures all cleared from the mind, and whose\r\nfeelings may be well expressed in the following language from Henry\r\nConstable, A. M.:--\r\n\r\n“For myself, I cannot express my sense of the value I place on the view\r\nI now seek to impress on others. It has for me thrown a light on God’s\r\ncharacter, and God’s word, and the future of his world, which I once\r\nthought I should never have seen on this side of the grave. It has not\r\nremoved the wholesome and necessary terrors of the Lord from the mind,\r\nbut it has clothed God with a loveliness which makes him, and the\r\neternal Son who represents him to man, incalculably more attractive. I\r\nam no longer looking for shifts to excuse his conduct in my own eyes and\r\nthose of others, and forced to feel that here at least I could never\r\nfind one to answer my object. I can look at all he has done, and all he\r\ntells me he will hereafter do, and, scanning it closely, and examining\r\nit even where it has most of awe and severity, exclaim with all my heart\r\nand with all my understanding--‘Just and true are thy ways, thou King of\r\nsaints.’”\r\n\r\nThese are among its general good effects. But there exists a special\r\nreason at the present time why men should be made acquainted with the\r\ntrue teachings of the Bible on this question. It is the only antidote\r\nagainst modern spiritualism, that master-piece of Satanic cunning and\r\ndeception, and the climax of his corrupting work in the earth. In what\r\nhorrid blasphemies has this delusion arrayed itself! To what corruption\r\ndoes it lead its votaries! How utterly it debauches the moral natures of\r\nall those who suffer themselves to receive its polluting touch! And\r\nnotwithstanding it carries in its train all these terrible evils, how\r\nrapidly is it spreading through the land, and at what a fearful rate is\r\nit swelling the catalogue of its victims!\r\n\r\nWhy is this? It is because the way has long and thoroughly been prepared\r\nfor it in the doctrine of the conscious state of the dead, and the\r\nimmortality of the soul. This is its foundation, its life and spirit.\r\nTake away this, and it is robbed of its vitality. For if it be true, as\r\nthe Bible declares, that when a man goes into the grave, his thoughts\r\nperish, his love and hatred and envy are no longer exercised, and he\r\nknows not anything, then whatever spirit comes to us from the unseen\r\nworld, professing to be the spirit of a dead man, it comes with a lie in\r\nits mouth, and thus shows itself to be of the synagogue of Satan. This\r\nis the Ithuriel spear that transforms this lying system, which at its\r\nbest showing is as low and ugly as the blotchiest toad that ever lived,\r\ninto the real devil that it is. Then let this truth be spread abroad on\r\nall the wings of the wind, that in the hands of the people may be placed\r\nsome safeguard against this ghastly embodiment of falsehood, pollution,\r\nand death.\r\n\r\nWith the truth clearly stated as to how God will deal with the sinner\r\nand finally dispose of sin, we can appeal with confidence to the calm\r\nreason and the better nature of every child of Adam. We can second the\r\ntender entreaty which God extends to every wayward soul, “Turn ye, turn\r\nye, for why will ye die?” “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no\r\npleasure in the death of the wicked, but that he turn from his way and\r\nlive.” Life and death are set before you. The Saviour bids you look unto\r\nhim and live. Mercy entreats you to destroy not yourself. The spirit and\r\nthe bride bid you come and partake of the water of life freely.\r\n\r\nYou can no longer take refuge from an awakened conscience under the idea\r\nthat the threatenings of the Lord are not understood, and may not\r\ntherefore be so terrific as supposed. The sinner’s doom is unmistakably\r\ndeclared; and in the justness of that sentence, however slightly you may\r\nnow realize the heinousness and just desert of sin, your own reason can\r\nbut heartily concur. Will you then plunge headlong to ruin? or will you\r\nturn and accept the immense gratuity of eternal life? Of course you do\r\nnot _mean_ to perish. We accuse you not of this. The shining form of\r\nHope is dancing on before you in the path of life--hope that ere it is\r\ntoo late, ere the silver cord be loosed or ever the golden bowl be\r\nbroken, you will make sure a treasure and inheritance in Heaven.\r\n\r\nWe would impress upon your mind that this hope _may_ deceive you. Ere\r\nyou reach the delusive phantom, the earth may suddenly open beneath your\r\nfeet, and Hades receive you to its fixed embrace. Ere you overtake the\r\nbeckoning form, ere the good intention be carried out, ere you grasp the\r\nprize now held only by the uncertain tenure of good resolve, the glory\r\nof the coming Judge, descending through the parting and dissolving\r\nheavens, may suddenly burst upon your unprepared soul. Yes! the great\r\nvoice from the temple of Heaven, crying, “It is finished!” may suddenly\r\narrest you in the midst of your delaying and dallying career! The\r\nheavenly court of mercy may cease its sitting, ere you have made a\r\nfriend of the great Advocate who alone can plead your cause!\r\n\r\n“Procrastination is the thief of time.” It may be the thief of your\r\neternal bliss. Its every moment is high-handed and insane presumption.\r\nIts path is a path of unseen and innumerable dangers. You have no lease\r\nof your life. The present state is one of exposure and peril. The shafts\r\nof death are flying thickly about you. Time is short and its sands are\r\nswiftly falling. The bliss of Heaven, or the blackness of darkness\r\nforever, will soon be yours. With the saved or lost you must soon take\r\nyour position. There is no intermediate ground. Choose, then, we beseech\r\nyou, the enduring portion. Choose for eternity, choose wisely, choose\r\n_now_. And may it be ours to join the great song of salvation at last,\r\nascribing blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, unto Him who\r\nsitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb who poured out his soul an\r\noffering for sin, that whosoever would believe on him might not perish\r\nbut have everlasting life.\r\n\r\n           Worthy the Lamb once slain! So shall at last\r\n             All beings sing in Heaven and earth and sea,\r\n           The direful reign of sin forever past,\r\n             Before them, bliss whose end shall never be.\r\n\r\n           Worthy the Lamb! his life has saved from death,\r\n             Through him alone the immortal boon is given,\r\n           So shall each bounding pulse, each joyful breath,\r\n             Ascribe to him the bliss and power of Heaven.\r\n\r\n           Welcome, life-giving hour, expected long!\r\n             Dawn on these regions peopled with the dead.\r\n           Our hearts leap forward to begin the song\r\n             Of a glad universe whence sin has fled.\r\n\r\n[Illustration]\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                               APPENDIX.\r\n               MORALITY OF THE DOCTRINE OF A FUTURE LIFE.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe following is from “The Doctrine of a Future Life,” by W. R. Alger.\r\nHe here discusses the “morality of the doctrine of a future life” on the\r\nstrong hypothesis that there is to be no existence hereafter, and\r\nutterly disproves the conclusions which some would make the inevitable\r\nconsequence of such a doctrine. The same objections are urged against\r\nthe view we entertain that after the Judgment the sinner is to endure a\r\npunishment which reaches its climax in the loss of existence. With a\r\nhundred-fold more force the reasoning of Mr. Alger lies against these\r\nobjections when urged in opposition to our view. We have in this life\r\nthe great incentive to goodness and virtue, that is involved in the hope\r\nof immortality, seconded by the wonderful intervention of Christ in our\r\nbehalf, which is calculated to arouse all the nobler sentiments of our\r\nbeing. If this will not win men from sin to a holy life, they would not\r\nbe driven to it by threats of eternal torture. Mr. Alger says:--\r\n\r\n“The morality of the doctrine of a future life having thus been defended\r\nfrom the attacks of those who have sought to destroy it in the fancied\r\ninterests either of the enjoyments of the earth, or of the purity of\r\nvirtue and religion, it now remains to free it from the still more fatal\r\nsupports which false or superficial religionists have sought to give it\r\nby wrenching out of it meanings it never held, by various perverse\r\nabuses of it, by monstrous exaggerations of its moral importance to the\r\npresent. We have seen that the supposition of another life, correctly\r\ninterpreted, lays no new duty upon man, takes away from him no old duty\r\nor privilege, but simply gives to the previously-existing facts of the\r\ncase the intensifying glory and strength of fresh light, motive, and\r\nconsolation. But many public teachers, not content to treat the subject\r\nwith this sobriety of reason, instead of presenting the careful\r\nconclusions of a conscientious analysis, have sought to strengthen their\r\nargument to the feelings by help of prodigious assumptions, assumptions\r\nhastily adopted, highly colored, and authoritatively urged. Upon the\r\nhypothesis that annihilation is the fate of man, they are not satisfied\r\nmerely to take away from the present all the additional light,\r\nincentive, and comfort, imparted by the faith in a future existence, but\r\nthey arbitrarily remove all the alleviations and glories intrinsically\r\nbelonging to the scene, and paint it in the most horrible hues, and set\r\nit in a frame of midnight. Thus, instead of calmly seeking to elicit and\r\nrecommend truth, they strive, by terrifying the fancy and shocking the\r\nprejudices, to make people accept their dogma because frightened at the\r\nseeming consequences of rejecting it. It is necessary to expose the\r\nfearful fallacies which have been employed in this way, and which are\r\nyet extensively used for the same purpose.\r\n\r\n“Even a Christian writer usually so judicious as Andrews Norton has\r\nsaid: ‘Without the belief in personal immortality there can be no\r\nreligion; for what can any truths of religion concern the feelings and\r\nthe conduct of beings whose existence is limited to a few years in this\r\nworld?’ Such a statement from such a quarter is astonishing. Surely the\r\nsentiments natural to a person or incumbent upon him do not depend on\r\nthe _duration_ of his being, but on the character, endowments, and\r\nrelations of his being. The hypothetical fact that man perishes with his\r\nbody does not destroy God, does not destroy man’s dependence on God for\r\nall his privileges, does not annihilate the overwhelming magnificence of\r\nthe universe, does not alter the native sovereignty of holiness, does\r\nnot quench our living reason, imagination, or sensibility, while they\r\nlast. The soul’s gratitude, wonder, love, and worship, are just as right\r\nand instinctive as before. If our experience on earth, before the\r\nphenomena of the visible creation and in conscious communion with the\r\nemblemed attributes of God, does not cause us to kneel in humility and\r\nto adore in awe, then it may be doubted if Heaven or hell will ever\r\npersuade us to any sincerity in such acts. The simple prolongation of\r\nour being does not add to its qualitative contents, cannot increase the\r\nkinds of our capacity or the number of our duties. Chalmers utters an\r\ninjurious error in saying as he does, ‘If there be no future life, the\r\nmoral constitution of man is stripped of its significancy, and the\r\nAuthor of that constitution is stripped of his wisdom, and authority and\r\nhonor.’ The creative Sovereign of fifty million firmaments of worlds,\r\n‘stripped of his wisdom and authority and honor,’ because a few insects\r\non a little speck are not eternal! Can egotistic folly any further go?\r\nThe affirmation or denial of immortality neither adds to nor diminishes\r\nthe numerical relations and ingredients of our nature and experience. If\r\nreligion is fitted for us on the former supposition, it is also on the\r\nlatter. To any dependent intelligence blessed with our human\r\nsusceptibilities, reverential love and submission are as obligatory,\r\nnatural and becoming on the brink of annihilation as on the verge of\r\nimmortality. Rebellious egotism makes all the difference. Truth is\r\ntruth, whatever it be. Religion is the meek submission of self-will to\r\nGod’s will. That is a duty not to be escaped, no matter what the future\r\nreserves or excludes for us.\r\n\r\n“Another sophism almost universally accepted needs to be shown. Man, it\r\nis said, has no interest in a future life if not conscious in it of the\r\npast. If, on exchange of worlds, man loses his memory, he virtually\r\nceases to exist, and might just as well be annihilated. A future life\r\nwith perfect oblivion of the present is no life at all for us. Is not\r\nthis style of thought the most provincial egotism, the utter absence of\r\nall generous thought and sympathy unselfishly grasping the absolute\r\nboons of being? It is a shallow error, too, even on the grounds of\r\nselfishness itself. In any point of view the difference is diametric and\r\nimmense between a happy being in an eternal present, unconscious of the\r\npast, and no being at all. Suppose a man thirty years of age were\r\noffered his choice to die this moment, or to live fifty years longer of\r\nunalloyed success and happiness, only with a complete forgetfulness of\r\nall that has happened up to this moment. He would not hesitate to grasp\r\nthe gift, however much he regretted the condition.\r\n\r\n“It has often been argued that with the denial of a retributive life\r\nbeyond the grave all restraints are taken off from the passions, free\r\ncourse given to every impulse. Chateaubriand says bluntly, ‘There can be\r\nno morality if there be no future state.’ With displeasing coarseness,\r\nand with most reprehensible recklessness of reasoning, Luther says, in\r\ncontradiction to the essential nobleness of his loving, heroic nature,\r\n‘If you believe in no future life, I would not give a mushroom for your\r\nGod. Do, then, as you like. For if no God, so no devil, no hell: as with\r\na fallen tree, all is over when you die. Then plunge into lechery,\r\nrascality, robbery, and murder.’ What bible of Moloch had he been\r\nstudying to form, for the time, so horrid a theory of the happiest life,\r\nand to put so degrading an estimate upon human nature? Is man’s will a\r\nstarved wolf, only held back by the triple chain of fear of death,\r\nSatan, and hell, from tearing forth with ravenous bounds to flesh the\r\nfangs of his desires in bleeding virtue and innocence? Does the greatest\r\nsatisfaction man is capable of here, the highest blessedness he can\r\nattain to, consist in drunkenness, gluttony, dishonesty, violence, and\r\nimpiety? If he had the appetite of a tiger or a vulture,--then, thus to\r\nwallow in the offal of vice, dive into the carrion of sensuality,\r\nabandon himself to reveling in carnivorous crime, might be his instinct\r\nand his happiness. But by virtue of his humanity man loves his fellows,\r\nenjoys the scenery of nature, takes delight in thought and art, dilates\r\nwith grand presentiments of glory and eternity, mysteriously yearns\r\nafter the hidden God. To a reasonable man--and no other is to be\r\nreasoned with on matters of truth and interest--the assumption of this\r\nbrief season as all, will be a double motive not to hasten and imbitter\r\nits brevity by folly, excess, and sin. If you are to be dead to-morrow,\r\nfor that very reason, in God’s name, do not, by gormandizing and\r\nguzzling, anticipate death to-day! The true restraint from wrong and\r\ndegradation is not a crouching conscience of superstition and\r\nselfishness, fancying a chasm of fire, but a high-toned conscience of\r\nreason and honor, perceiving that they _are_ wrong and degradation, and\r\nspontaneously loathing them.\r\n\r\n“Still worse, many esteemed authors have not hesitated to assert that\r\nunless there be a future life there is not only no check on passion\r\nwithin, but no moral law without: every man is free to do what he\r\npleases, without blame or fault. Sir Kenelm Digby says, in his ‘Treatise\r\non Man’s Soule,’ that ‘to predicate mortality in the soule taketh away\r\nall morality, and changeth men into beastes, by removing the ground of\r\nall difference in those thinges which are to governe our actions.’ This\r\nstyle of teaching is a very mischievous absurdity. Admit, for a moment,\r\nthat Jocko in the woods of Brazil, and Schiller in the brilliant circles\r\nof Weimar, will at last meet the same fate in the dusty grasp of death;\r\nyet, while they live, one is an ape, the other is a man. And the\r\ndifferences of capacity and of duty are numberless and immense. The\r\nstatement is enough: argument would be ridiculous. The words of an\r\naudacious French preacher are yet more shocking than those of the\r\nEnglish nobleman. It is hard to believe they could be uttered in good\r\nfaith. Says Massillon, in his famous declamation on immortality, ‘If we\r\nwholly perish with the body, the maxims of charity, patience, justice,\r\nhonor, gratitude, and friendship, are but empty words. Our own passions\r\nshall decide our duty. If retribution terminate with the grave, morality\r\nis a mere chimera, a bugbear of human invention.’ What debauched\r\nunbeliever ever inculcated a viler or a more fatal doctrine? Its utter\r\nbaselessness, as a single illustration may show, is obvious at a glance.\r\nAs the sciences of algebra and geometry, the relations of numbers and\r\nbodies, are true for the material world although they may be lost sight\r\nof when time and space are transcended in some higher state, so the\r\nscience of ethics, the relations of nobler and baser, of right and\r\nwrong, the manifold grades and qualities of actions and motives, are\r\ntrue for human nature and experience in this life even if men perish in\r\nthe grave. However soon certain facts are to end, while they endure they\r\nare as they are. In a moment of carelessness, by some strange slip of\r\nthe mind,--showing, perhaps, how tenaciously rooted are the common\r\nprejudice and falsehood on this subject,--even so bold and fresh a\r\nthinker as Theodore Parker has contradicted his own philosophy by\r\ndeclaring, ‘If to-morrow I perish utterly, then my fathers will be to me\r\nonly as the ground out of which my bread-corn is grown. I shall care\r\nnothing for the generations of mankind. I shall know no higher law than\r\npassion. Morality will vanish.’ Ah, man reveres his fathers, and loves\r\nto act nobly, not because he is to live forever, but because he is a\r\nman. And, though all the summer hopes of escaping the grave were taken\r\nfrom human life, choicest and tenderest virtues might still flourish, as\r\nit is said the German cross-bill pairs and broods in the dead of winter.\r\nThe martyr’s sacrifice and the voluptuary’s indulgence are very\r\ndifferent things to-day, if they do both cease to-morrow. No speed of\r\nadvancing destruction can equalize Agamemnon and Thersites, Mansfield\r\nand Jeffries, or hustle together justice and fraud, cowardice and valor,\r\npurity and corruption, so that they will interchange qualities. There is\r\nan eternal and immutable morality, as whiteness is white, and blackness\r\nis black, and triangularity is triangular. And no severance of temporal\r\nties or compression of spatial limits can ever cut the condign bonds of\r\nduty and annihilate the essential distinctions of good and evil,\r\nmagnanimity and meanness, faithfulness and treachery.\r\n\r\n“Reducing our destiny from endless to definite cannot alter the inherent\r\nrightfulness and superiority of the claims of virtue. The most it can do\r\nis to lessen the strength of the motive, to give the great motor-nerve\r\nof our moral life a perceptible stroke of palsy. In reference to the\r\nquestion, Can ephemera have a moral law? Richter reasons as follows:\r\n‘Suppose a statue besouled for two days. If on the first day you should\r\nshatter it, and thus rob it of one day’s life, would you be guilty of\r\nmurder? One can injure only an immortal.’ The sophistry appears when we\r\nrectify the conclusion thus: one can inflict an _immortal_ injury only\r\non an immortal being. In fact, it would appear to be a greater wrong and\r\ninjury, for the time, to destroy one day’s life of a man whose entire\r\nexistence was confined to two days, than it would be to take away the\r\nsame period from the bodily existence of one who immediately thereupon\r\npasses into a more exalted and eternal life. To the sufferer, the former\r\nwould seem an immitigable calamity, the latter a benign furtherance;\r\nwhile, in the agent, the overt act is the same. This general moral\r\nproblem has been more accurately answered by Isaac Taylor, whose lucid\r\nstatement is as follows: ‘The creatures of a summer’s day might be\r\nimagined, when they stand upon the threshold of their term of existence,\r\nto make inquiry concerning the attributes of the Creator and the rules\r\nof his government; for these are to be the law of their season of life\r\nand the measure of their enjoyments. The sons of immortality would put\r\nthe same questions with an intensity the greater from the greater\r\nstake.’\r\n\r\n“Practically, the acknowledged authority of the moral law in human\r\nsociety cannot be destroyed. Its influence may be unlimitedly weakened,\r\nits basis variously altered, but as a confessed sovereign principle it\r\ncannot be expelled. The denial of the freedom of the will theoretically\r\nexplodes it; but social custom, law, and opinion will enforce it still.\r\nMake man a mere dissoluble mixture of carbon and magnetism, yet so long\r\nas he can distinguish right and wrong, good and evil, love and hate,\r\nand, unsophisticated by dialectics, can follow either of opposite\r\ncourses of action, the moral law exists and exerts its sway. It has been\r\nasked, ‘If the incendiary be, like the fire he kindles, a result of\r\nmaterial combinations, shall he not be treated in the same way?’ We\r\nshould reply thus: No matter what man springs from or consists of, if he\r\nhas moral ideas, performs moral actions, and is susceptible of moral\r\nmotives, then he is morally responsible; for all practical and\r\ndisciplinary purposes he is wholly removed from the categories of\r\nphysical science.\r\n\r\n“Another pernicious misrepresentation of the fair consequences of the\r\ndenial of a life hereafter is shown in the frequent declaration that\r\nthen there would be no motive to any thing good and great. The\r\nincentives which animate men to strenuous services, perilous virtues,\r\ndisinterested enterprises, spiritual culture, would cease to operate.\r\nThe essential life of all moral motives would be killed. This view is to\r\nbe met by a broad and indignant denial based on an appeal to human\r\nconsciousness and to the reason of the thing. Every man knows by\r\nexperience that there are a multitude of powerful motives, entirely\r\ndisconnected with future reward or punishment, causing him to resist\r\nevil and to do good even with self-sacrificing toil and danger. When the\r\nfireman risks his life to save a child from the flames of a tumbling\r\nhouse, is the hope of Heaven his motive? When the soldier spurns an\r\noffered bribe and will not betray his comrades nor desert his post, is\r\nthe fear of hell all that animates him? A million such decisive\r\nspecifications might be made. The renowned sentence of Cicero, “_Nemo\r\nunquam sine magna spe immortalitatis se pro patria offerret ad mortem_,”\r\nis effective eloquence; but it is a baseless libel against humanity and\r\nthe truth. In every moment of supreme nobleness and sacrifice,\r\npersonality vanishes. Thousands of patriots, philosophers, saints, have\r\nbeen glad to die for the freedom of native land, the cause of truth, the\r\nwelfare of fellow-men, without a taint of selfish reward touching their\r\nwills. Are there not souls\r\n\r\n             ‘To whom dishonor’s shadow is a substance\r\n             More terrible than death here and hereafter.’\r\n\r\nHe must be the basest of men who would decline to do any sublime act of\r\nvirtue because he did not expect to enjoy the consequences of it\r\neternally. Is there no motive for the preservation of health because it\r\ncannot be an everlasting possession? Since we cannot eat sweet and\r\nwholesome food forever, shall we therefore at once saturate our stomachs\r\nwith nauseating poisons?\r\n\r\n“If all experienced good and evil wholly terminate for us when we die,\r\nstill, every intrinsic reason which, on the supposition of immortality,\r\nmakes wisdom better than folly, industry better than sloth,\r\nrighteousness better than iniquity, benevolence and purity better than\r\nhatred and corruption, also makes them equally preferable while they\r\nlast. Even if the philosopher and the idiot, the religious\r\nphilanthropist and the brutal pirate, did die alike, who would not\r\nrather live like the sage and the saint than like the fool and the\r\nfelon? Shall Heaven be held before man simply as a piece of meat before\r\na hungry dog to make him jump well? It is a shocking perversion of the\r\ngrandest doctrine of faith. Let the theory of annihilation assume its\r\ndirest phase, still, our perception of principles, our consciousness of\r\nsentiments, our sense of moral loyalty, are not dissolved, but will hold\r\nus firmly to every noble duty until we ourselves flow into the\r\ndissolving abyss. But some one may say, ‘If I have fought with beasts at\r\nEphesus, what advantageth it me if the dead rise not?’ It advantageth\r\nyou everything _until you are dead_, although there be nothing\r\nafterwards. As long as you live is it not glory and reward enough _to\r\nhave conquered_ the beasts at Ephesus? This is sufficient reply to the\r\nunbelieving flouters at the moral law. And, as an unanswerable\r\nrefutation of the feeble whine of sentimentality that without immortal\r\nendurance nothing is worthy our affection, let great Shakespeare\r\nadvance, with his matchless depth of bold insight reversing the\r\nconclusion, and pronouncing, in tones of cordial solidity,--\r\n\r\n        ‘This, thou perceivest, will make thy love more strong,\r\n        To love that well which thou must leave ere long.’\r\n\r\n“What though Decay’s shapeless hand extinguish us? Its foreflung and\r\nenervating shadow shall neither transform us into devils nor degrade us\r\ninto beasts.\r\n\r\n“The future life, outside of the realm of faith, to an earnest and\r\nindependent inquirer, and considered as a scientific question, lies in a\r\npainted mist of uncertainty. There is room for hope, and there is room\r\nfor doubt. The wavering evidences in some moods preponderate on that\r\nside, in other moods, on this side. Meanwhile it is clear that, while he\r\nlives here, the best thing he can do is to cherish a devout spirit,\r\ncultivate a noble character, lead a pure and useful life in the service\r\nof wisdom, humanity, and God, and finally, when the appointed time\r\narrives, meet the issue with reverential and affectionate conformity,\r\nwithout dictating terms. Let the vanishing man say, like Ruckert’s dying\r\nflower, ‘Thanks to-day for all the favors I have received from sun and\r\nstream and earth and sky,--for all the gifts from men and God which have\r\nmade my little life an ornament and a bliss. Heaven, stretch out thine\r\nazure tent while my faded one is sinking here. Joyous spring-tide, roll\r\non through ages yet to come, in which fresh generations shall rise and\r\nbe glad. Farewell all! Content to have had my turn, I now fall asleep,\r\nwithout a murmur or a sigh.’ Surely the mournful nobility of such a\r\nstrain of sentiment is preferable by much to the selfish terror of that\r\nunquestioning belief which in the Middle Age depicted the chase of the\r\nsoul by Satan, on the columns and doors of the churches, under the\r\nsymbol of a deer pursued by a hunter and hounds; and which has in later\r\ntimes produced in thousands the feeling thus terribly expressed by\r\nBunyan, ‘I blessed the condition of the dog and toad because they had no\r\nsoul to perish under the everlasting weight of hell!’\r\n\r\n“Sight of truth, with devout and loving submission to it, is an\r\nachievement whose nobleness outweighs its sorrow, even if the gazer\r\nforesee his own destruction.\r\n\r\n“It is not our intention in these words to cast doubt on the immortality\r\nof the soul, or to depreciate the value of a belief in it. We desire to\r\nvindicate morality and religion from the unwitting attacks made on them\r\nby many self-styled Christian writers in their exaggeration of the\r\npractical importance of such a faith. The qualitative contents of human\r\nnature have nothing to do with its quantitative contents: our duties\r\nrest not on the length, but on the faculties and relations, of our\r\nexistence. Make the life of a dog endless, he has only the capacity of a\r\ndog; make the life of a man finite, still, within its limits, he has the\r\npsychological functions of humanity. Faith in immortality may enlarge\r\nand intensify the motives to prudent and noble conduct; it does not\r\ncreate new ones. The denial of immortality may pale and contract those\r\nmotives; it does not take them away.\r\n\r\n“Knowing the burden and sorrow of earth, brooding in dim solicitude over\r\nthe far times and men yet to be, we cannot recklessly utter a word\r\ncalculated to lessen the hopes of man, pathetic creature, who weeps into\r\nthe world and faints out of it. It is our faith--not knowledge--that the\r\nspirit is without terminus or rest. The faithful truth-hunter, in dying,\r\nfinds not a covert, but a better trail. Yet the saintliness of the\r\nintellect is to be purged from prejudice and self-will. With God we are\r\nnot to prescribe conditions. The thought that all high virtue and piety\r\nmust die with the abandonment of belief in immortality is as pernicious\r\nand dangerous as it is shallow, vulgar, and unchristian. The view is\r\nobviously gaining prevalence among scientific and philosophical\r\nthinkers, that life is the specialization of the universal in the\r\nindividual, death the restoration of the individual to the whole. This\r\ndoubt as to a personal future life will unquestionably increase. Let\r\ntraditional teachers beware how they venture to shift the moral law from\r\nits immutable basis in the will of God to a precarious poise on the\r\nselfish hope and fear of man. The sole safety, the ultimate desideratum,\r\nis perception of law with disinterested conformity.”--_Doctrine of a\r\nFuture Life_, pp. 652-661.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                        INDEX OF AUTHORS QUOTED.\r\n\r\n Alger, W. R., 264, 345\r\n Alleine, Jos., 257\r\n Andrews, S. J., 140\r\n Augustine, 273\r\n\r\n Baptist Confession, 219\r\n Barnes, A., 117, 317\r\n Benson, 302, 303\r\n Bloomfield, 97, 147\r\n Buck, Chas., 47\r\n Bush, Geo., 43, 101\r\n Butler, Wm. A., 314\r\n\r\n Carmichael, A., 233\r\n Chaldee Paraphrase, 76\r\n Chapin, E. H., 335\r\n Cicero, 9, 273\r\n Clarke, A., 32, 36, 43, 86, 90, 140, 167, 257, 295\r\n Conant, T. J., 32\r\n Constable, H., 303, 340\r\n Crellius, J., 206\r\n Cruden, 294\r\n\r\n Dalton, 328\r\n Dobney, H. H., 8, 263, 328\r\n Douay Bible, 76\r\n\r\n Eusebius, 285\r\n\r\n Gesenius, 51\r\n Greenfield, 283, 292\r\n\r\n Ham, J. P., 331\r\n Hobbs, 9\r\n Hogg, James, 327\r\n Homer, 285\r\n Hudson, C. F., 278\r\n\r\n Kitto, 41\r\n\r\n Landis, R. W., 45, 58, 59, 61, 64, 73, 77, 89, 94, 105, 122, 162, 170,\r\n    172, 175, 203\r\n Law, Bishop, 205, 242\r\n Lee, Luther, 101, 140, 210, 274, 323\r\n Leeland, 333\r\n Liddell & Scott, 292\r\n Locke, John, 228, 328\r\n Longfellow, 224\r\n Luther, 76\r\n\r\n Mattison, H., 36\r\n Moncrieff, W. G., 326\r\n Muller, Dr., 233\r\n\r\n Newton, Bp., 318\r\n\r\n Olshausen, 49, 321\r\n\r\n Parkhurst, 51, 53, 102, 293\r\n Priestly, Dr., 206\r\n Pritchard, 328\r\n\r\n Robinson, 53, 293\r\n\r\n Saurin, 317\r\n Scott, Thos., 32\r\n Schrevelius, 292\r\n Schleusner, 293\r\n Seneca, 9\r\n Septuagint, 76\r\n Socrates, 9\r\n Smith, Sidney, 324\r\n Smith, Wm., 49\r\n Stuart, Moses, 8, 296\r\n Syriac Version, 76\r\n\r\n Taylor, I., 319\r\n Taylor, Dr. J., 51, 229\r\n Tillotson, Bp., 337\r\n Trench, 167\r\n Tyndale, Wm., 233\r\n\r\n Vincent, Thos., 301\r\n\r\n Wahl, 294\r\n Wakefield, 147\r\n Warburton, Bp., 324\r\n Watson, 70\r\n Watts, Isaac, 228\r\n Wesley, 70\r\n Wetstein, 285\r\n Whately, R., 333\r\n Whedon, D. D., 224\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                                 INDEX\r\n                                 --OF--\r\n                    THE PRINCIPAL TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE\r\n                       ILLUSTRATED OR EXPLAINED.\r\n\r\n                               GENESIS.\r\n                                                      PAGE.\r\n               1: 20, 21, 24, 30,                        43\r\n               1: 26, 27,                                21\r\n               2: 2,                                     67\r\n               2: 7,                             31, 36, 54\r\n               2: 16, 17,                               218\r\n               3: 4,                                     14\r\n               3: 19,                                   221\r\n               4: 9, 10,                                117\r\n               5: 3,                                 24, 70\r\n               7: 15, 21, 22,                        33, 34\r\n               9: 6,                                     26\r\n              14: 21,                                    50\r\n              15: 15,                                   123\r\n              16: 22,                                    27\r\n              17: 14,                                    51\r\n              18: 1-8,                                   27\r\n              18: 25,                                   312\r\n              23: 8,                                     50\r\n              25: 8,                                    122\r\n              25: 17-20,                                165\r\n              32: 24,                                    27\r\n              35: 18,                           48, 54, 101\r\n              37: 35,                                   157\r\n\r\n                                EXODUS.\r\n               4: 32,                                   145\r\n              22: 18,                                   129\r\n              23: 9,                                     50\r\n              24: 9-11,                                  28\r\n              31: 14,                                    51\r\n              32: 32,                                   307\r\n              33: 20,                                    29\r\n              33: 21-23,                                 28\r\n\r\n                              LEVITICUS.\r\n              11: 10,                                    51\r\n              19: 31; 20: 27,                           129\r\n\r\n                               NUMBERS.\r\n               6: 6,                                 41, 50\r\n              16: 22,                                    91\r\n              16: 30, 33,                               157\r\n              19: 13,                                   119\r\n              22: 31,                                    27\r\n              25: 1-3,                                  131\r\n              27: 16,                                    91\r\n\r\n                             DEUTERONOMY.\r\n              18: 9-12,                                 129\r\n              32: 22,                                   158\r\n\r\n                                JOSHUA.\r\n              10: 30,                                    51\r\n              24: 2,                                    123\r\n\r\n                                JUDGES.\r\n               9: 7-15,                                 162\r\n              13: 6, 13,                                 27\r\n\r\n                               1 SAMUEL.\r\n               2: 9,                                    159\r\n              15: 23,                                   135\r\n              26: 24,                                    77\r\n              28: 3-20,                                 127\r\n\r\n                               1 KINGS.\r\n               2: 36-46,                                223\r\n              17: 21,                               48, 103\r\n              17: 22,                              103, 143\r\n\r\n                               2 KINGS.\r\n               4: 34,                                   143\r\n              14: 9,                                    162\r\n\r\n                             1 CHRONICLES.\r\n              10: 13,                                   134\r\n\r\n                             2 CHRONICLES.\r\n              36: 19: 21,                               280\r\n\r\n                                 JOB.\r\n               3: 11-18,                                236\r\n               4: 11-19,                                160\r\n               7: 21,                                   214\r\n              10: 8-11,                                  69\r\n              14: 12-15,                           159, 237\r\n              14: 21,                                   236\r\n              17: 13-16,                           160, 237\r\n              19: 25, 26,                               250\r\n              26: 4,                                     52\r\n              30: 15,                                    50\r\n              32: 8,                                     66\r\n              33: 18, 20, 22,                            51\r\n              34: 14, 15,                                57\r\n\r\n                                PSALMS.\r\n               2: 9,                                    306\r\n               6: 5,                               158, 238\r\n               7: 11,                                   301\r\n              16: 10,                                   156\r\n              17: 15,                              240, 250\r\n              27: 12,                                    50\r\n              30: 2, 3,                                 157\r\n              31: 5,                                     77\r\n              31: 17,                                   159\r\n              37: 10,                                   305\r\n              37: 20,                         281, 306, 309\r\n              49: 14, 15,                                51\r\n              49: 20,                                   306\r\n              58: 7, 8,                                 306\r\n              64: 1,                                     78\r\n              68: 2,                                    306\r\n              78: 18,                                    51\r\n              88: 10-12,                                160\r\n              89: 48,                                   157\r\n              89: 88,                                    51\r\n              90: 10,                                   125\r\n             106: 28,                                   131\r\n             115: 17,                              159, 238\r\n             139: 7,                                     27\r\n             145: 20,                                   303\r\n             146: 3, 4,                        33, 159, 236\r\n\r\n                               PROVERBS.\r\n              10: 25,                                   306\r\n              11: 31,                                   309\r\n              20: 7,                                     52\r\n              23: 2,                                     50\r\n\r\n                             ECCLESIASTES.\r\n               3: 19, 20,                                35\r\n               3: 21,                                    72\r\n               9: 3,                                    126\r\n               9: 5, 6, 10,                    84, 114, 237\r\n              12: 7,                                 48, 56\r\n              12: 14,                                   315\r\n\r\n                                ISAIAH.\r\n               1: 30, 31,                               306\r\n               5: 14,                                   158\r\n               5: 20-24,                                309\r\n              10: 25,                                   301\r\n              14: 9-20,                            158, 164\r\n              14: 11,                                   282\r\n              17: 13,                                   306\r\n              26: 19,                              238, 250\r\n              34: 9, 10,                                290\r\n              34: 12,                                   306\r\n              38: 10-19,                                159\r\n              38: 17,                                    51\r\n              38: 18, 19,                               238\r\n              42: 7,                                     92\r\n              44: 2,                                     69\r\n              51: 8,                               282, 306\r\n              53: 10-12,                            93, 139\r\n              57: 16,                                50, 69\r\n              61: 1,                                     92\r\n              66: 24,                                   282\r\n\r\n                               JEREMIAH.\r\n               1: 5,                                     69\r\n               17 27,                                   280\r\n              31: 9,                                    146\r\n              31: 15-17,                           165, 253\r\n\r\n                               EZEKIEL.\r\n              18: 26,                              299, 315\r\n              20: 47, 48,                               281\r\n              31: 15-18,                           158, 165\r\n              32: 18-32,                                158\r\n\r\n                                DANIEL.\r\n               7: 10,                                    82\r\n              12: 2,                               235, 268\r\n\r\n                                HOSEA.\r\n              12: 4,                                     27\r\n\r\n                                 AMOS.\r\n               5: 4, 6,                                 230\r\n\r\n                               OBADIAH.\r\n               1: 16,                                   305\r\n\r\n                                JONAH.\r\n               1: 2,                                    158\r\n               4: 3,                                     78\r\n\r\n                               HABAKKUK.\r\n               1: 7,                                     98\r\n               2: 11,                                   117\r\n\r\n                              ZECHARIAH.\r\n               9: 12,                                   180\r\n              12: 1,                                 64, 66\r\n\r\n                               MALACHI.\r\n               4: 1-3,                             306, 310\r\n\r\n                               MATTHEW.\r\n               2: 17, 18,                               165\r\n               3: 12,                                   306\r\n               5: 22, 29, 30,                           108\r\n              10: 28,                              105, 108\r\n              11: 23,                                   108\r\n              13: 40, 47, 49,                           306\r\n              16: 18,                                   108\r\n              16: 25, 26,                               110\r\n              17: 1-9,                                  137\r\n              18: 9,                                    108\r\n              22: 23-32,                                149\r\n              23: 15, 33,                               108\r\n              24: 26,                                    96\r\n              24: 30, 31,                               169\r\n              25: 31, 34,                               261\r\n              25: 41, 46,                          269, 271\r\n              26: 24,                                   267\r\n              26: 38,                                    93\r\n              27: 52, 53,                          231, 285\r\n\r\n                                 MARK.\r\n               6: 9,                                     96\r\n               9: 43, 45, 47,                           108\r\n               9: 43, 44,                               279\r\n              12: 23-25,                                152\r\n\r\n                                 LUKE.\r\n               1: 11, 13, 28, 29,                        27\r\n               4: 18-21,                                 92\r\n               6: 49,                                   306\r\n               7: 14,                                   144\r\n               8: 40, 45,                               144\r\n              10: 15,                                   108\r\n              12: 4, 5,                            105, 108\r\n              13: 28,                                   171\r\n              14: 13, 14,                               252\r\n              15: 11,                                   164\r\n              16: 19, 31,                     108, 154, 161\r\n              17: 27, 29,                               306\r\n              20: 35,                                   153\r\n              23: 39-43,                                172\r\n              23: 46,                                48, 77\r\n              24: 29,                                    29\r\n              24: 39,                                    95\r\n              24: 43,                                   139\r\n\r\n                                 JOHN.\r\n               1: 18,                                    29\r\n               3: 6,                                     68\r\n               3: 16,                                   304\r\n               3: 36,                                   267\r\n               4: 24,                                27, 98\r\n               5: 27, 29,                          142, 144\r\n               5: 28, 29,                               232\r\n              10: 15,                                    78\r\n              11: 24,                                   231\r\n              13: 38,                                    78\r\n              14: 1-3,                                  256\r\n              15: 6,                                    306\r\n              21: 18, 19,                               214\r\n              21: 22, 23,                               257\r\n\r\n                                 ACTS.\r\n               1: 9-11,                                  29\r\n               2: 27, 31,                          108, 156\r\n               2: 29, 34, 35,                           239\r\n               7: 15,                                    77\r\n               7: 60,                                   235\r\n              12: 7-9,                                   27\r\n              13: 36,                                   124\r\n              13: 46,                                   312\r\n              17: 31,                          63, 260, 271\r\n              23: 8,                                     97\r\n              21: 15,                              144, 232\r\n              24: 25,                                   260\r\n              26: 7,                                    232\r\n              26: 23,                                   146\r\n\r\n                                ROMANS.\r\n               1: 4,                                     93\r\n               1: 23,                            15, 20, 30\r\n               2: 7,                           17, 230, 304\r\n               3: 20,                                    68\r\n               5: 12-14,                                227\r\n               6: 12,                                    69\r\n               6: 23,                              230, 300\r\n               8: 11,                           69, 94, 248\r\n               8: 22, 23,                          185, 200\r\n               8: 29,                                   143\r\n               8: 38, 39,                               210\r\n               9: 3,                                    308\r\n\r\n                            1 CORINTHIANS.\r\n               5: 5,                                98, 200\r\n               9: 25,                                    15\r\n              10: 20,                                   131\r\n              11: 7,                                     26\r\n              15: 18,                                   240\r\n              15: 20, 23,                          143, 235\r\n              15: 32,                                   254\r\n              15: 35, 36,                               247\r\n              15: 42-44,                        19, 42, 248\r\n              15: 46, 47, 49,                   25, 42, 249\r\n              15: 50,                                    19\r\n              15: 51-55,               15, 17, 19, 108, 200\r\n\r\n                            2 CORINTHIANS.\r\n               1: 8, 9,                                 251\r\n               4: 11,                                    69\r\n               4: 14,                                   251\r\n               4: 16,                                   212\r\n               5: 4,                                69, 200\r\n               5: 8,                                    183\r\n               5: 10,                                   315\r\n              12: 2,                                    173\r\n              12: 2-4,                                  195\r\n\r\n                              GALATIANS.\r\n               1: 5,                                    291\r\n               5: 19, 21,                                99\r\n\r\n                              EPHESIANS.\r\n               1: 20,                                    29\r\n               4: 22, 24,                           25, 193\r\n               5: 27,                                   251\r\n               6: 24,                                    20\r\n\r\n                             PHILIPPIANS.\r\n               1: 21-24,                                200\r\n               2: 5, 6,                                  29\r\n               3: 20,                                   100\r\n               3: 21,                           42, 85, 249\r\n               3: 11,                                   231\r\n               3: 8-11,                                 251\r\n\r\n                              COLOSSIANS.\r\n               1: 15, 18,                           29, 143\r\n               1: 27,                                   212\r\n               3: 3,                                     97\r\n               3: 4,                               103, 200\r\n               3: 9, 10,                            24, 212\r\n\r\n                           1 THESSALONIANS.\r\n               4: 13, 14, 16, 17,       142, 169, 200, 212,\r\n                                                        235\r\n\r\n                              1 TIMOTHY.\r\n               1: 10,                                   147\r\n               1: 17,                            15, 30, 36\r\n               2: 1,                                    200\r\n               6: 16,                                18, 56\r\n\r\n                              2 TIMOTHY.\r\n               1: 10,                                    18\r\n               4: 6,                                    213\r\n               4: 7, 8,                                 200\r\n\r\n                                TITUS.\r\n               2: 7,                                     20\r\n\r\n                               HEBREWS.\r\n               1: 1-3,                                   30\r\n               1: 6,                                    143\r\n               1: 7, 14,                                 27\r\n               2: 14,                                   311\r\n               5: 9,                                    270\r\n               6: 2,                                    270\r\n               8: 1,                                     29\r\n               9: 12,                                   271\r\n               9: 27,                                   259\r\n              10: 39,                                   304\r\n              11: 3,                                    293\r\n              11: 16,                                   153\r\n              11: 35,                                   231\r\n              12: 9, 23,                                 91\r\n\r\n                                JAMES.\r\n               1: 15,                                   300\r\n               1: 18,                                   145\r\n               3: 6,                                    108\r\n\r\n                               1 PETER.\r\n               1: 11,                                   139\r\n               1: 12,                                    91\r\n               1: 4, 23,                                 16\r\n               1: 23-25,                                 68\r\n               3: 4,                                     16\r\n               3: 18-20,                                 87\r\n               4: 17,                                   298\r\n               5: 4,                                    254\r\n\r\n                               2 PETER.\r\n               1: 16,                                   141\r\n               2: 4, 9,                       109, 215, 261\r\n               2: 6,                                    287\r\n               2: 5, 6, 12,                             306\r\n               3: 7-12                             261, 310\r\n\r\n                                1 JOHN.\r\n               5: 11, 12,                          192, 304\r\n\r\n                                 JUDE.\r\n               1: 6,                                    261\r\n               1: 7,                                    286\r\n\r\n                              REVELATION.\r\n               1: 5,                                    143\r\n               1: 18,                               93, 108\r\n               2: 7,                                    173\r\n               4: 5,                                     27\r\n               5: 6,                                     27\r\n               6: 8,                                    108\r\n               6: 9-11,                            113, 169\r\n              13: 1-10,                                 289\r\n              13: 14-18,                                289\r\n              14: 4,                                    145\r\n              14: 1-5,                                  289\r\n              14: 11,                                   288\r\n              15: 3,                                    312\r\n              16: 3,                                     44\r\n              20: 5,                               144, 215\r\n              20: 10,                                   291\r\n              20: 11-15,                      108, 109, 158\r\n              21: 4, 15,                                291\r\n              21: 5,                                    309\r\n              22: 1, 2,                                 174\r\n              22: 8, 9,                                 215\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                             GENERAL INDEX.\r\n\r\n\r\n Abraham’s ancestors idolaters, 123\r\n\r\n Abel’s blood cried from the ground to God, 117\r\n\r\n Absent from the body, meaning of, 183\r\n\r\n Adam threatened with literal death, 228,\r\n   testimony of Locke, Watts, and Taylor, 228,\r\n   his condition in his creation, 229\r\n\r\n A dishonorable perversion, 53, 54\r\n\r\n _Aion_, meaning of, according to Greenfield, Schrevelius, Liddell and\r\n    Scott, Parkhurst, Robinson, Schleusner, and Wahl, 292, 293\r\n\r\n _Aionios_, meaning of, 295\r\n\r\n Analogies of nature, 335\r\n\r\n Analogy between sleep and death, 235\r\n\r\n Anecdote of the reasoning powers of brutes, 327\r\n\r\n Annihilation impossible, 337\r\n\r\n Angels not the ancient prophets, 215\r\n\r\n An ancient case of modern spiritualism, 136\r\n\r\n _Anastasis_, meaning of, 231\r\n\r\n A clean universe at last, 311\r\n\r\n An illustration on future punishment, 315\r\n\r\n Anomalies of the present state, 336\r\n\r\n A spirit, or spiritual being, what, 27\r\n\r\n A spirit hath not flesh and bones, 95,\r\n   note by Bloomfield, 97\r\n\r\n A threefold death disproved, 219\r\n\r\n Attempt to understand the popular idea of a spirit, 326\r\n\r\n _Athanasia_, _aphthartos_, and _aphtharsia_, use and meaning of, 15, 19\r\n\r\n Bible views of future punishment produce the best effect, 319\r\n\r\n Can the soul be killed? 105\r\n\r\n Capacities of the soul, 330\r\n\r\n Christ the express image of God, 29, 30\r\n\r\n Christ, the first-fruits, first-begotten, and first-born, how, 143-145\r\n\r\n Christ first raised from the dead, exposition of Acts 26:23, 146\r\n\r\n Christ and the Sadducees 149\r\n\r\n Clarke on Gen. 2:7, 32,\r\n   on Heb. 12:22, 86,\r\n   his key to the words forever and ever, 295\r\n\r\n Comma, in its present form, when invented, 179\r\n\r\n Conant on Gen. 2:7; Isa. 2:22, 32\r\n\r\n Connection between our present and future being, testimony of Bishop\r\n    Law, 205,\r\n   Crellius and Priestly, 206\r\n\r\n Criticism, a desperate case of, 176\r\n\r\n Cruden on the words eternal, everlasting, and forever, 294\r\n\r\n Day in Gen. 2:17, meaning of, 223\r\n\r\n Date of Samuel’s ministry, 128\r\n\r\n Date of Saul’s reign, 128\r\n\r\n Death a punishment, 272,\r\n   Augustine’s testimony, 273,\r\n   no relief to the sinner, 278\r\n\r\n Deeds done in the body only to be judged, 315\r\n\r\n David not ascended to Heaven, 239\r\n\r\n Departing and being with Christ, 199\r\n\r\n Death of Adam, the same that is threatened against the sinner, 299\r\n\r\n Departure and return of the soul, 100,\r\n   note by Luther Lee, 101,\r\n   by Prof. Bush, 101,\r\n   by Parkhurst, 102\r\n\r\n Destiny of the wicked: they shall be destroyed, 303,\r\n   shall perish, go to perdition, and be as though they had not been,\r\n      304,\r\n   their doom set forth in language that is not figurative, 305,\r\n   they are compared to the most inflammable substances, 305,\r\n   they shall be consumed and devoured by fire, 308\r\n\r\n Earthly house, what, 185\r\n\r\n Eternal torment threatened to no one, 289\r\n\r\n Eternal suffering not proportioned to the sins of a finite life, 313\r\n\r\n Eternal fire, Jude 7,\r\n   illustrated and explained, 286\r\n\r\n Everlasting fire, 270\r\n\r\n Everlasting punishment, 271\r\n\r\n Evil tendency of the doctrine of the destruction of the wicked, 338\r\n\r\n Expressions used to describe the final condition of the wicked, 303\r\n\r\n Future punishment eternal, 267,\r\n   it consists in death, 299\r\n\r\n Gathered to his people, meaning of, 120,\r\n   sees corruption, 124\r\n\r\n _Ge-enna_, the hell of Mark 9:43, 44,\r\n   meaning of, 283\r\n\r\n God not a God of the dead but of the living, meaning of, 153\r\n\r\n God’s dealings with his creatures, 312\r\n\r\n God a person, 28\r\n\r\n _Hades_ and _sheol_, meaning of, 156,\r\n   use of the word _sheol_, 157,\r\n   who go there, and the duration of its dominion, 157,\r\n   its location, 158,\r\n   condition of the righteous there, 158,\r\n   general character of, 159,\r\n   no knowledge there, 160\r\n\r\n Hell, words so translated, 107\r\n\r\n Hinnom, valley of, a figure of the place of future punishment, 283\r\n\r\n _Holam_, Hebrew, corresponding to aion, defined by Gesenius, 294\r\n\r\n House from Heaven, what, 185\r\n\r\n Idumea, threatenings against, 290,\r\n   the language illustrates Rev. 14:11, 290\r\n\r\n Immortal and immortality, how often used in the Bible, 13-20\r\n\r\n Immortality assumed, 337\r\n\r\n Immaterial souls of brutes, 323,\r\n   the testimony of Bishop Warburton, 324\r\n\r\n Instinct not the only reasoning power possessed by brutes, 329\r\n\r\n In the body and out, 195\r\n\r\n Is Abraham in hell? 123\r\n\r\n Judgment, doctrine of, contradicted by the popular view, 63\r\n\r\n _Katephagen_, Rev. 20:9, defined by Stuart, 309\r\n\r\n _Kolasis_, Matt. 25:46, meaning of, 274\r\n\r\n Language of appearance, 136\r\n\r\n Lazarus carried to Abraham’s bosom, when? 169\r\n\r\n Matter cannot think, 324,\r\n   the proof rests with the skeptic, Sidney Smith’s testimony, 325,\r\n   W. G. Moncrieff’s testimony, 326\r\n\r\n Milton’s translation of Eccl. 3:21, 76\r\n\r\n Mind determined by sensation to belong to the lower animals, 328\r\n\r\n Moses and the prophets on the place and condition of the dead, 154\r\n\r\n Moses was raised from the dead, 142\r\n\r\n Nature sheds no light on the future state, 8\r\n\r\n Necromancy defined by Webster, 128\r\n\r\n _Nephesh_ defined by Parkhurst, Taylor, and Gesenius, 51\r\n\r\n Origen’s restorationism, an enlarged purgatory, 316\r\n\r\n Parable, case of the rich man and Lazarus, a, 163,\r\n   how to be used, testimony of Clarke and Trench, 167\r\n\r\n Paradise, where situated, 173\r\n\r\n Paraphrase of Phil. 1:21-24, 209\r\n\r\n Paul’s departure, 213\r\n\r\n Personification used in the Bible, 117, 162\r\n\r\n Peter’s tabernacle, its putting off, 213\r\n\r\n Pharisees confess spirit, 97\r\n\r\n _Plasso_, definition of, 65\r\n\r\n Punctuation of Luke 23:43, 179\r\n\r\n Punishment for sins in hell not threatened, 314\r\n\r\n Punishment, degrees of, 276\r\n\r\n Purgatory, an invention to relieve the great wrong of conscious eternal\r\n    misery, 316,\r\n   borrowed from Plato by Augustine, adopted by Rome, 316\r\n\r\n Reasons why the doctrine of future punishment should be agitated, 320\r\n\r\n Reformers adopted Augustine’s hell without his purgatory, 316\r\n\r\n Rebellion against God, not eternal, 311\r\n\r\n Resurrection proved by Christ, 151,\r\n   from what words translated, 231,\r\n   a prominent doctrine of the Bible, 234,\r\n   Clarke’s testimony, 257,\r\n   not impossible, 262,\r\n   objections against answered, 244-247,\r\n   object of the Christian’s hope, 250,\r\n   time of reward to the righteous, 252,\r\n   comfort of mourners, _id._,\r\n   time when crowns of glory are to be given, 254,\r\n   basis of Scripture promises, 255,\r\n   inseparably connected with the coming of Christ, 256\r\n\r\n Samuel and the woman of Endor, 127\r\n\r\n Scott’s note on Gen. 2:7, 32\r\n\r\n _Semeron_, meaning of, 179\r\n\r\n Sense of right and wrong possessed to a degree by the lower animals,\r\n    328\r\n\r\n Separation from the love of God, 210\r\n\r\n Shame and everlasting contempt, Dan. 12:2, 268\r\n\r\n Sins in hell committed faster than God can punish, Benson, 302\r\n\r\n Sodom and Gomorrah turned into ashes by eternal fire, 287\r\n\r\n Soul and spirit, meaning of, 46,\r\n   times of their use in the Bible, 50-55\r\n\r\n Souls under the altar, 113,\r\n   note by Barnes, 117\r\n\r\n Spirit, how formed, 64,\r\n   returns to God, 56,\r\n   for what purpose? 62,\r\n   not conscious, 61,\r\n   committed to God, 77,\r\n   saved in the day of the Lord, 1 Cor. 5:5, 98\r\n\r\n Spirits of just men made perfect, 80,\r\n   spirits in prison, 87,\r\n   note by Clarke, 91\r\n\r\n State to which death reduces us, Law’s testimony, 242\r\n\r\n Tendency of the doctrine of eternal misery, testimony of Saurin and A.\r\n    Barnes, 317,\r\n   it cannot be believed, testimony of Bp. Newton, 318\r\n\r\n The image of God, 21\r\n\r\n The breath of life, 31,\r\n   possessed by all animals, 33, 34\r\n\r\n The living soul, 36,\r\n   dead soul, 41,\r\n   applied to all orders of animals, 43\r\n\r\n The transfiguration, 137,\r\n   a miniature of the kingdom of God, 140,\r\n   no disembodied souls there, 141\r\n\r\n The rich man and Lazarus, 161\r\n\r\n The dead rise up to meet the king of Babylon and Pharaoh in _sheol_,\r\n    164, 165\r\n\r\n Thief on the cross, 172\r\n\r\n The inward man, what? 212\r\n\r\n The unjust reserved to Judgment, 215\r\n\r\n The death of Adam, 216,\r\n   his sentence, 218\r\n\r\n The dead as though they had not been, 236,\r\n   have no knowledge, _id._,\r\n   not in Heaven nor hell, 237,\r\n   without a resurrection are perished, 240\r\n\r\n The Judgment a future event, 258,\r\n   objections answered, 259,\r\n   destroys the idea of the conscious-state theory, 262,\r\n   testimony of Dobney, 263\r\n\r\n The doctrine of the immortality of the soul leads to erroneous\r\n    conclusions on future punishment, 266\r\n\r\n The wages of sin, 264\r\n\r\n The undying worm and quenchless fire, 279,\r\n   a figure borrowed from the Old Testament, 280,\r\n   testimony of Jeremiah, 280,\r\n   of David and Ezekiel, 281,\r\n   of Isaiah, 282\r\n\r\n The two deaths mentioned in Eze. 18:26, 299\r\n\r\n The wicked, how recompensed in the earth, 309\r\n\r\n The claims of philosophy, 322\r\n\r\n The soul immaterial, 323\r\n\r\n Them that sleep in Jesus brought with him, 212\r\n\r\n “Thou” and “thy,” meaning of in Gen. 3:19, 225\r\n\r\n Tormented forever and ever, Rev. 14:11, 288,\r\n   of whom spoken, 289\r\n\r\n Traduction _vs._ creationism, 69-71\r\n\r\n Trees represented as appointing a king over themselves, 162\r\n\r\n True spirit of inquiry, 11\r\n\r\n Tunes learned by birds, 328\r\n\r\n Tyndale’s pungent inquiry, 233\r\n\r\n Universal belief and inborn desire, 333\r\n\r\n Unquenchable fire, meaning of the word _asbestos_, 284\r\n\r\n Vincent’s description of hell, 301\r\n\r\n We fly away, Ps. 90:10, meaning of, 125-127\r\n\r\n White robes of Rev. 6:11, meaning of, 119\r\n\r\n Who knoweth? Eccl. 3:21, 72\r\n\r\n Word translated perceive, in 1 Sam. 28:14, 133\r\n\r\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n\r\n                               CATALOGUE\r\n\r\n      Of Books, Pamphlets, Tracts, &c., Issued by the Seventh-Day\r\n                   Adventist Publishing Association,\r\n                          Battle Creek, Mich.\r\n\r\n                         ---------------------\r\n\r\nHYMNS AND TUNES; 320 pages of hymns, 96 pages of music; in plain\r\nmorocco, $1.00.\r\n\r\nA COMPLETE HISTORY OF THE SABBATH AND FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK. By J. N.\r\nAndrews, $1.00.\r\n\r\nTHE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY, Vols. 1 & 2. By Ellen G. White. Each $1.00.\r\n\r\nTHOUGHTS ON THE REVELATION, critical and practical. By U. Smith. 328\r\npp., $1.00.\r\n\r\nTHOUGHTS ON THE BOOK OF DANIEL critical and practical. By U. Smith.\r\nBound, $1.00; condensed edition, paper, 35 cts.\r\n\r\nTHE NATURE AND DESTINY OF MAN. By U. Smith. 384 pp., bound, $1.00,\r\npaper, 40 cts.\r\n\r\nLIFE INCIDENTS, in connection with the great Advent movement. By Eld.\r\nJames White. 373 pp., $1.00.\r\n\r\nAUTOBIOGRAPHY OF ELD. JOSEPH BATES, with portrait of the author. 318\r\npp., $1.00,\r\n\r\nHOW TO LIVE; comprising a series of articles on Health, and how to\r\npreserve it, with various recipes for cooking healthful food, &c. 400\r\npp., $1.00.\r\n\r\nSABBATH READINGS; or Moral and Religious Reading for Youth and Children.\r\n400 pp., 60 cts; in five pamphlets, 50 cts.\r\n\r\nAPPEAL TO YOUTH; Address at the Funeral of Henry N. White; also a brief\r\nnarrative of his life, &c. 96 pp., muslin, 40 cts.; paper covers, 10\r\ncts.\r\n\r\nTHE GAME OF LIFE, with notes. Three illustrations 5x6 inches each,\r\nrepresenting Satan playing with man for his soul. In board, 50 cts., in\r\npaper, 30 cts.\r\n\r\nTHE UNITED STATES IN PROPHECY. By U. Smith. Bound, 40 cts.; paper, 20\r\ncts.\r\n\r\nHYMNS AND SPIRITUAL SONGS for Camp-meetings and other Religious\r\nGatherings. Compiled by Eld. James White. 196 pp. Bound, 50 cts., paper,\r\n25 cts.\r\n\r\nREFUTATION OF THE AGE TO COME.] By J. H. Waggoner. Price 20 cts.\r\n\r\nPROGRESSIVE BIBLE LESSONS FOR CHILDREN; for Sabbath Schools and\r\nFamilies. G. H. Bell. Bound, 35 cts., paper, 25 cts.\r\n\r\nTHE ADVENT KEEPSAKE; comprising a text of Scripture for each day of the\r\nyear, on the subjects of the Second Advent, the Resurrection, &c. Plain\r\nmuslin, 25 cts; gilt, 40 cts.\r\n\r\nA SOLEMN APPEAL relative to Solitary Vice, and the Abuses and Excesses\r\nof the Marriage Relation. Edited by Eld. James White. Muslin, 50 cts.;\r\npaper, 30 cts.\r\n\r\nAN APPEAL to the Working Men and Women, in the Ranks of Seventh-day\r\nAdventists. By James White. 172 pp., bound, 40 cts; paper covers, 25\r\ncts.\r\n\r\nSERMONS ON THE SABBATH AND LAW; embracing an outline of the Biblical and\r\nSecular History of the Sabbath for 6000 years. By J. N. Andrews. 25 cts.\r\n\r\nTHE STATE OF THE DEAD. By U. Smith. 224 pp., 25 cts.\r\n\r\nHISTORY of the Doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul. By D. M.\r\nCanright. 25 cts.\r\n\r\nDISCUSSION ON THE SABBATH QUESTION, between Elds. Lane and Barnaby. 25\r\ncts.\r\n\r\nTHE ATONEMENT; an Examination of a Remedial System in the light of\r\nNature and Revelation. By J. H. Waggoner. 20 cts.\r\n\r\nOUR FAITH AND HOPE, Nos. 1 & 2.--Sermons on the Advent, &c. By James\r\nWhite, Each 20 cts.\r\n\r\nTHE NATURE AND TENDENCY OF MODERN SPIRITUALISM. By J. H. Waggoner. 20\r\ncts.\r\n\r\nTHE BIBLE FROM HEAVEN; or, a dissertation on the Evidences of\r\nChristianity. 20 cts.\r\n\r\nDISCUSSION ON THE SABBATH QUESTION, between Elds. Grant and Cornell. 20\r\ncts.\r\n\r\nREVIEW OF OBJECTIONS TO THE VISIONS. U. Smith, 20 cts.\r\n\r\nCOMPLETE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS, concerning the Sabbath and First Day\r\nof the Week. By J. N. Andrews. 15 cts.\r\n\r\nTHE DESTINY OF THE WICKED. By U. Smith. 15 cts.\r\n\r\nTHE MINISTRATION OF ANGELS; and the Origin, History, and Destiny of\r\nSatan. By D. M. Canright, 15 cts.\r\n\r\nTHE MESSAGES OF REV. 14, particularly the Third Angel’s Message and\r\nTwo-Horned Beast. By J. N. Andrews. 15 cts.\r\n\r\nTHE RESURRECTION OF THE UNJUST; a Vindication of the Doctrine. By J. H.\r\nWaggoner. 15 cts.\r\n\r\nTHE SANCTUARY AND TWENTY-THREE HUNDRED DAYS. By J. N. Andrews. 10 cts.\r\n\r\nTHE SAINTS’ INHERITANCE, or, The Earth made New. By J. N. Loughborough.\r\n10 cts.\r\n\r\nTHE SEVENTH PART OF TIME; a sermon on the Sabbath Question. By W. H.\r\nLittlejohn. 10 cts.\r\n\r\nREVIEW OF GILFILLAN, and other authors, on the Sabbath By T. B. Brown.\r\n10 cts.\r\n\r\nTHE SEVEN TRUMPETS; an Exposition of Rev. 8 and 9. 10 cts.\r\n\r\nTHE DATE OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS OF DAN. 9 established. By J. N. Andrews.\r\n10 cts.\r\n\r\nTHE TRUTH FOUND; the Nature and Obligation of the Sabbath of the Fourth\r\nCommandment. By J. H. Waggoner. 10 cts.\r\n\r\nVINDICATION OF THE TRUE SABBATH. By J. W. Morton. 10 cts.\r\n\r\nSUNDAY SEVENTH-DAY EXAMINED. A Refutation of the Teachings of Medem,\r\nJennings, Akers, and Fuller. By J. N. Andrews. 10 cts.\r\n\r\nMATTHEW TWENTY-FOUR; a full Exposition of the chapter. By James White.\r\n10 cts.\r\n\r\nKEY TO PROPHETIC CHART; the symbols of Daniel and John explained, and\r\nthe prophetic periods determined. 10 cts.\r\n\r\nTHE POSITION AND WORK OF THE TRUE PEOPLE OF GOD under the Third Angel’s\r\nMessage. By W. H. Littlejohn. 10 cts.\r\n\r\nAN APPEAL TO THE BAPTISTS, from the Seventh-day Baptists, for the\r\nRestoration of the Bible Sabbath. 10 cts.\r\n\r\nMILTON ON THE STATE OF THE DEAD. 5 cts.\r\n\r\nFOUR-CENT TRACTS: The Two Covenants--The Law and the Gospel--The Seventh\r\nPart of Time--Who Changed the Sabbath?--Celestial Railroad--Samuel and\r\nthe Witch of Endor--The Ten Commandments not Abolished--Address to the\r\nBaptists.\r\n\r\nTHREE-CENT TRACTS: The Kingdom--Scripture References--Much in\r\nLittle--The End of the Wicked--Infidel Cavils Considered--Spiritualism a\r\nSatanic Delusion--The Lost Time Question.\r\n\r\nTWO-CENT TRACTS: The Sufferings of Christ--Seven Reasons for\r\nSunday-Keeping Examined--Sabbath by Elihu--The Rich Man and Lazarus--The\r\nSecond Advent--Definite Seventh Day--Argument on Sabbaton--Clerical\r\nSlander--Departing and Being with Christ--Fundamental Principles of S.\r\nD. Adventists--The Millennium.\r\n\r\nONE-CENT TRACTS: Appeal on Immortality--Brief Thoughts on\r\nImmortality--Thoughts for the Candid--Sign of the Doy of God--The Two\r\nLaws--Geology and the Bible--The Perfection of the Ten Commandments--The\r\nComing of the Lord--Without Excuse.\r\n\r\nCHARTS: THE PROPHETIC, AND LAW OF GOD CHARTS, painted and mounted, such\r\nas are used by our preachers, each $1.50. The two charts, on cloth,\r\nunpainted, by mail, with key, without rollers. $2.50.\r\n\r\nTHE WAY OF LIFE. This is an Allegorical Picture, showing the way of Life\r\nand Salvation through Jesus Christ from Paradise Lost to Paradise\r\nRestored. By Eld. M. G. Kellogg. The size of this instructive and\r\nbeautiful picture is 19x24 inches. Price, post-paid, $1.00.\r\n\r\n\r\n                      =Works in Other Languages.=\r\n\r\nThe Association also publishes the _Advent Tidende_, Danish, monthly, at\r\n$1.00 per year, and works on some of the above-named subjects in the\r\nGerman, French, Danish, and Holland languages.\r\n\r\n☛ Any of the foregoing works will be sent by mail to any part of the\r\nUnited States, post-paid, on receipt of the prices above stated.\r\n\r\n               ⁂ Address                   REVIEW & HERALD,\r\n                                                     BATTLE CREEK, MICH.\r\n\r\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n\r\n                              PERIODICALS.\r\n\r\n                               ----------\r\n\r\nTHE ADVENT REVIEW & HERALD OF THE SABBATH, weekly. This sheet is an\r\nearnest exponent of the Prophecies, and treats largely upon the Signs of\r\nthe Times, Second Advent of Christ, Harmony of the Law and the Gospel,\r\nthe Sabbath of the Lord, and, What we Must do to be Saved. Terms, $2.00\r\na year in advance.\r\n\r\nTHE YOUTH’S INSTRUCTOR, monthly. This is a high-toned, practical sheet,\r\ndevoted to moral and religious instruction, adapted to the wants of\r\nyouth and children. It is the largest and the best youth’s paper\r\npublished in America. Terms, 50 cts. a year, in advance.\r\n\r\nTHE HEALTH REFORMER. This is a live Journal, devoted to an Exposition of\r\nthe Laws of Human Life, and the application of those laws in the\r\nPreservation of Health, and the Treatment of Disease. The REFORMER will\r\ncontain, each issue, thirty-two pages of reading matter, from able and\r\nearnest pens, devoted to real, practical life, to physical, moral, and\r\nmental improvement. Its publishers are determined that it shall be the\r\nbest Health Journal in the land.\r\n\r\nTerms, $1.00 a year, in advance. Address, HEALTH REFORMER, Battle Creek,\r\nMich.\r\n\r\n\r\n                     =BOOKS FROM OTHER PUBLISHERS.=\r\n\r\nFUTURE PUNISHMENT, by H. H. Dobney, Baptist minister of England. The\r\nScriptural Doctrine of Future Punishment, with an Appendix, containing\r\nthe “State of the Dead,” by John Milton, author of “Paradise Lost,”\r\nextracted from his “Treatise on Christian Doctrine.”\r\n\r\nThis is a very able and critical work. It should be read by every one\r\nwho is interested in the immortality subject. It is also one of the best\r\nworks upon the subject to put into the hands of candid ministers, and\r\nother persons of mind.\r\n\r\nPrice, post-paid, $1.00.\r\n\r\nTHE VOICE OF THE CHURCH, on the Coming and Kingdom of the Redeemer; or,\r\na History of the Doctrine of the Reign of Christ on Earth. By D. T.\r\nTaylor. A very valuable work, highly endorsed on both sides of the\r\nAtlantic.\r\n\r\nPrice, post-paid, $1.00.\r\n\r\n      The Great Reformation, by Martin, 5 Vols.,           $ 7.00\r\n      D’Aubigne’s History of the Reformation, 5 Vols.,       4.50\r\n      Scripture Biography,                                   4.50\r\n      Cruden’s Concordance, sheep,                           2.00\r\n         ”        ”        muslin,                           1.50\r\n      Bible Dictionary, sheep,                               2.00\r\n        ”       ”       muslin,                              1.50\r\n      Cole’s Concordance,                                    1.50\r\n      Prince of the House of David,                          2.00\r\n      Pillar of Fire,                                        2.00\r\n      Throne of David,                                       2.00\r\n      The Court and Camp of David,                           1.50\r\n      The Old Red House,                                     1.50\r\n      Higher Christian Life,                                 1.50\r\n      Pilgrim’s Progress, large type,                        1.25\r\n         ”          ”        small   ”                        .60\r\n      Biography of George Whitefield,                        1.25\r\n      History of English Puritans,                           1.25\r\n      Story of a Pocket Bible,                               1.25\r\n      Captain Russell’s Watchword,                           1.25\r\n      The Upward Path,                                       1.25\r\n      Ellen Dacre,                                           1.25\r\n      The Brother’s Choice,                                  1.15\r\n      Climbing the Mountain,                                 1.15\r\n      The Two Books,                                         1.15\r\n      Awakening of Italy,                                    1.00\r\n      White Foreigners,                                      1.00\r\n      Lady Huntington,                                       1.00\r\n      Young Man’s Counselor,                                 1.00\r\n      Young Lady’s Counselor,                                1.00\r\n      Paul Venner,                                           1.00\r\n      Among the Alps,                                        1.00\r\n      Poems of Home Life,                                     .80\r\n      Edith Somers,                                           .80\r\n      Nuts for Boys to Crack,                                 .80\r\n      Anecdotes for the Family,                               .75\r\n      Pictorial Narratives,                                   .60\r\n      Bertie’s Birthday Present,                              .60\r\n      Songs for Little Ones,                                  .60\r\n      Memoir of Dr. Payson,                                   .60\r\n      Mirage of Life,                                         .60\r\n      Huguenots of France,                                    .50\r\n      The Boy Patriot,                                        .50\r\n      Springtime of Life,                                     .50\r\n      May Coverly,                                            .50\r\n      Glen Cabin,                                             .50\r\n      The Old, Old Story, cloth, gilt,                        .50\r\n      Poems by Rebekah Smith,                                 .50\r\n      Charlotte Elizabeth,                                    .40\r\n      Save the Erring,                                        .40\r\n      Blanche Gamond,                                         .40\r\n      My Brother Ben,                                         .40\r\n      Hannah’s Path,                                          .35\r\n      Star of Bethlehem,                                      .30\r\n      Father’s Letters to a Daughter,                         .30\r\n\r\n☛ A more full Catalogue of books of this nature, for sale at this\r\nOffice, can be had on application.\r\n\r\n                    Address,           REVIEW & HERALD,\r\n                                                   BATTLE CREEK, MICH.\r\n\r\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n\r\n                     =HEALTH REFORM PUBLICATIONS.=\r\n\r\n                             --------------\r\n\r\n=The Hygienic System.= By R. T. Trall, M. D. Recently published at the\r\nOffice of the HEALTH REFORMER. It is just the work for the time, and\r\nshould be read by the million. Price, post-paid, 20 cents.\r\n\r\n=The Health and Diseases of Woman.= By R. T. Trall, M. D. A work of\r\ngreat value. Price, post-paid, 20 cents.\r\n\r\n=Tobacco-Using.= A philosophical exposition of the Effects of Tobacco on\r\nthe Human System. By R. T. Trall, M. D. Price, post-paid, 20 cents.\r\n\r\n=Cook Book=, and Kitchen Guide: comprising recipes for the preparation\r\nof hygienic food, directions for canning fruit, &c., together with\r\nadvice relative to change of diet. Price, post-paid, 20 cents.\r\n\r\n=Hydropathic Encyclopedia.= Trall. Price, post-paid, $4.50.\r\n\r\n=Water Cure for the Million.= Trall. Price, post-paid, 30 cents.\r\n\r\n=Uterine Diseases and Displacements.= Trall. Price, post-paid, $3.00.\r\n\r\n=Science of Human Life.= By Sylvester Graham, M. D. Price, post-paid,\r\n$3.00.\r\n\r\n=Valuable Pamphlet.= Containing three of the most important of Graham’s\r\ntwenty-five Lectures on the Science of Human Life--eighth, the Organs\r\nand their Uses; thirteenth, Man’s Physical Nature and the Structure of\r\nHis Teeth: fourteenth, the Dietetic Character of Man. Price, post-paid,\r\n35 cts.\r\n\r\n=Hydropathic Family Physician.= By Joel Shew, M. D. Price, post-paid,\r\n$3.50.\r\n\r\n=Domestic Practice.= Johnson. Price, post-paid, $1.75.\r\n\r\n=Hand Book of Health=--Physiology and Hygiene. Published by the Health\r\nReform Institute, Battle Creek, Mich. Price, post-paid, 75 cents; paper\r\ncover, 40 cents.\r\n\r\n=Water Cure in Chronic Diseases.= By J. M. Gully, M. D. Price,\r\npost-paid, $1.75.\r\n\r\n=Cure of Consumption.= Dr. Work. Price, post-paid, 80 cts.\r\n\r\n=Reform Tracts=, by mail, in packages of not less than 200 pages,\r\npost-paid, at the rate of 800 pages for $1.00.\r\n\r\nAddress,     =Health Reformer=, _Battle Creek, Mich._\r\n\r\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n\r\n                           Transcriber’s Note\r\n\r\nThe few words in Greek have been reproduced here as printed. Several\r\nlack the necessary (and occasionally the correct) diacritical marks.\r\n\r\nThere are also occasional lapses in the quotation of Biblical passages,\r\nwhere opening or closing quotation marks are misplaced or missing. The\r\nKing James Version, which is used by the author, has been employed here\r\nas well to more accurately punctuate them.\r\n\r\nThe General Index, in the original text, used a tabular form. This has\r\nbeen re-cast as an indented list.\r\n\r\nErrors deemed most likely to be the printer’s have been corrected, and\r\nare noted here. The references are to the page and line in the original.\r\n\r\n  27.28    and which are [“]sent forth                    Added.\r\n\r\n  30.23    man in 'hi[sim /s im]age stamped him with      Spaced\r\n           immortality,                                   moved.\r\n\r\n  51.19    '1 Kings [17[, /:]21, 22;                      Replaced.\r\n\r\n  79.23    God.[”] Col. 3:3. [“]And when will the         Added/Removed.\r\n           believer\r\n\r\n  79.24    [“]When> Christ who is our life                Added.\r\n\r\n  131.4    the father of all the lies in the world[./,]   Replaced.\r\n\r\n  131.5    by assiduously circulating them[,/.]           Replaced.\r\n\r\n  153.14   [“]Wherefore, God is not ashamed               Added.\r\n\r\n  160.7    together is in the dust.[”] Job. 17:13-16;     Added.\r\n           4:11-19;\r\n\r\n  160.14   whither thou goest.[”] Eccl. 9:4-6, 10.        Added.\r\n\r\n  191.16   O grave, where is thy victory[./?]             Replaced.\r\n\r\n  212.3    under the unfortu[n]ate necessity              Added.\r\n\r\n  213.21   [P/B]ut as Paul does not here intimate         Replaced.\r\n\r\n  264.20   What fate awaits us when we                    Added.\r\n           die?=[”]=--_Alger._\r\n\r\n  285.2    Homer, in the [Illiad],                        _sic_--Iliad\r\n\r\n  285.13   fire as cannot be extingu=[i]=shed             Added.\r\n\r\n  294.21   this time forth even forever, [”/’] that is,   Replaced.\r\n\r\n  317.13   when I see in the lukewarmness of my           _sic_--devotions\r\n           devosions,\r\n\r\n  320.24   exerting all his divine attri[tri]butes        Removed.\r\n\r\n  327.22   gloomy gorges and craggy h[e]ights of the      Added.\r\n           mountains,\r\n\r\n  338.9    we simply affirm that they will be             Added.\r\n           anni[hi]lated\r\n\r\n  349.11   carniv[e/o]rous crime                          Replaced.\r\n\r\n  364.10   C[ir/ri]ticism , a desperate case of, 176      Transposed.\r\n\r\n  371.33   from the Seventh-day Bap[t]ists,               Added.\r\n\r\n  c7.11    Pictorial Nar[r]atives>, .60                   Added.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nEnd of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The state of the dead and the destiny\r\nof the wicked, by Uriah Smith\r\n\r\n*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE STATE OF THE DEAD ***\r\n\r\n***** This file should be named 54373-0.txt or 54373-0.zip *****\r\nThis and all associated files of various formats will be found in:\r\n        http://www.gutenberg.org/5/4/3/7/54373/\r\n\r\nProduced by KD Weeks, MFR, Bryan Ness and the Online\r\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This\r\nfile was produced from images generously made available\r\nby The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)\r\n\r\n\r\nUpdated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions\r\nwill be renamed.\r\n\r\nCreating the works from public domain print editions means that no\r\none owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation\r\n(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without\r\npermission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,\r\nset forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to\r\ncopying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to\r\nprotect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project\r\nGutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you\r\ncharge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you\r\ndo not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the\r\nrules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose\r\nsuch as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and\r\nresearch.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do\r\npractically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is\r\nsubject to the trademark license, especially commercial\r\nredistribution.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n*** START: FULL LICENSE ***\r\n\r\nTHE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE\r\nPLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK\r\n\r\nTo protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free\r\ndistribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work\r\n(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase \"Project\r\nGutenberg\"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project\r\nGutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at\r\nhttp://gutenberg.org/license).\r\n\r\n\r\nSection 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm\r\nelectronic works\r\n\r\n1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm\r\nelectronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to\r\nand accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property\r\n(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all\r\nthe terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy\r\nall copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.\r\nIf you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project\r\nGutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the\r\nterms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or\r\nentity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.\r\n\r\n1.B.  \"Project Gutenberg\" is a registered trademark.  It may only be\r\nused on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who\r\nagree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few\r\nthings that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works\r\neven without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See\r\nparagraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project\r\nGutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement\r\nand help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic\r\nworks.  See paragraph 1.E below.\r\n\r\n1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (\"the Foundation\"\r\nor PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project\r\nGutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the\r\ncollection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an\r\nindividual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are\r\nlocated in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from\r\ncopying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative\r\nworks based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg\r\nare removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project\r\nGutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by\r\nfreely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of\r\nthis agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with\r\nthe work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by\r\nkeeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project\r\nGutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.\r\n\r\n1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern\r\nwhat you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in\r\na constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check\r\nthe laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement\r\nbefore downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or\r\ncreating derivative works based on this work or any other Project\r\nGutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning\r\nthe copyright status of any work in any country outside the United\r\nStates.\r\n\r\n1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:\r\n\r\n1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate\r\naccess to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently\r\nwhenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the\r\nphrase \"Project Gutenberg\" appears, or with which the phrase \"Project\r\nGutenberg\" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,\r\ncopied or distributed:\r\n\r\nThis eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with\r\nalmost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or\r\nre-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included\r\nwith this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license\r\n\r\n1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived\r\nfrom the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is\r\nposted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied\r\nand distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees\r\nor charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work\r\nwith the phrase \"Project Gutenberg\" associated with or appearing on the\r\nwork, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1\r\nthrough 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the\r\nProject Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or\r\n1.E.9.\r\n\r\n1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted\r\nwith the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution\r\nmust comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional\r\nterms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked\r\nto the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the\r\npermission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.\r\n\r\n1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm\r\nLicense terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this\r\nwork or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.\r\n\r\n1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this\r\nelectronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without\r\nprominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with\r\nactive links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project\r\nGutenberg-tm License.\r\n\r\n1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,\r\ncompressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any\r\nword processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or\r\ndistribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than\r\n\"Plain Vanilla ASCII\" or other format used in the official version\r\nposted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),\r\nyou must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a\r\ncopy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon\r\nrequest, of the work in its original \"Plain Vanilla ASCII\" or other\r\nform.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm\r\nLicense as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.\r\n\r\n1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,\r\nperforming, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works\r\nunless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.\r\n\r\n1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing\r\naccess to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided\r\nthat\r\n\r\n- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from\r\n     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method\r\n     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is\r\n     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he\r\n     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the\r\n     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments\r\n     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you\r\n     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax\r\n     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and\r\n     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the\r\n     address specified in Section 4, \"Information about donations to\r\n     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.\"\r\n\r\n- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies\r\n     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he\r\n     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm\r\n     License.  You must require such a user to return or\r\n     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium\r\n     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of\r\n     Project Gutenberg-tm works.\r\n\r\n- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any\r\n     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the\r\n     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days\r\n     of receipt of the work.\r\n\r\n- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free\r\n     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.\r\n\r\n1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm\r\nelectronic work or group of works on different terms than are set\r\nforth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from\r\nboth the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael\r\nHart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the\r\nFoundation as set forth in Section 3 below.\r\n\r\n1.F.\r\n\r\n1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable\r\neffort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread\r\npublic domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm\r\ncollection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic\r\nworks, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain\r\n\"Defects,\" such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or\r\ncorrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual\r\nproperty infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a\r\ncomputer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by\r\nyour equipment.\r\n\r\n1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the \"Right\r\nof Replacement or Refund\" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project\r\nGutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project\r\nGutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project\r\nGutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all\r\nliability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal\r\nfees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT\r\nLIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE\r\nPROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE\r\nTRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE\r\nLIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR\r\nINCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH\r\nDAMAGE.\r\n\r\n1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a\r\ndefect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can\r\nreceive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a\r\nwritten explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you\r\nreceived the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with\r\nyour written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with\r\nthe defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a\r\nrefund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity\r\nproviding it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to\r\nreceive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy\r\nis also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further\r\nopportunities to fix the problem.\r\n\r\n1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth\r\nin paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER\r\nWARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO\r\nWARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.\r\n\r\n1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied\r\nwarranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.\r\nIf any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the\r\nlaw of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be\r\ninterpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by\r\nthe applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any\r\nprovision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.\r\n\r\n1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the\r\ntrademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone\r\nproviding copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance\r\nwith this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,\r\npromotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,\r\nharmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,\r\nthat arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do\r\nor cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm\r\nwork, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any\r\nProject Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.\r\n\r\n\r\nSection  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm\r\n\r\nProject Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of\r\nelectronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers\r\nincluding obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists\r\nbecause of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from\r\npeople in all walks of life.\r\n\r\nVolunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the\r\nassistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's\r\ngoals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will\r\nremain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project\r\nGutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure\r\nand permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.\r\nTo learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation\r\nand how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4\r\nand the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.\r\n\r\n\r\nSection 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive\r\nFoundation\r\n\r\nThe Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit\r\n501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the\r\nstate of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal\r\nRevenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification\r\nnumber is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at\r\nhttp://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg\r\nLiterary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent\r\npermitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.\r\n\r\nThe Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.\r\nFairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered\r\nthroughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at\r\n809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email\r\nbusiness@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact\r\ninformation can be found at the Foundation's web site and official\r\npage at http://pglaf.org\r\n\r\nFor additional contact information:\r\n     Dr. Gregory B. Newby\r\n     Chief Executive and Director\r\n     gbnewby@pglaf.org\r\n\r\n\r\nSection 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg\r\nLiterary Archive Foundation\r\n\r\nProject Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide\r\nspread public support and donations to carry out its mission of\r\nincreasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be\r\nfreely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest\r\narray of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations\r\n($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt\r\nstatus with the IRS.\r\n\r\nThe Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating\r\ncharities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United\r\nStates.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a\r\nconsiderable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up\r\nwith these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations\r\nwhere we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To\r\nSEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any\r\nparticular state visit http://pglaf.org\r\n\r\nWhile we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we\r\nhave not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition\r\nagainst accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who\r\napproach us with offers to donate.\r\n\r\nInternational donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make\r\nany statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from\r\noutside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.\r\n\r\nPlease check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation\r\nmethods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other\r\nways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.\r\nTo donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate\r\n\r\n\r\nSection 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic\r\nworks.\r\n\r\nProfessor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm\r\nconcept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared\r\nwith anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project\r\nGutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.\r\n\r\n\r\nProject Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed\r\neditions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.\r\nunless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily\r\nkeep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.\r\n\r\n\r\nMost people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:\r\n\r\n     http://www.gutenberg.org\r\n\r\nThis Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,\r\nincluding how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary\r\nArchive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to\r\nsubscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.\r\n"