Links to elsewhere on this Web site:   /apologetics.html   /book.html   /doctrinal.html  /essays.html  /links.html /sermonettes.html  /webmaster.html     For the home page, click here:    /index.html

Why does God Allow Evil?  Click here: /Apologeticshtml/Why Does God Allow Evil 0908.htm

May Christians work on Saturdays?  Click here:  /doctrinalhtml/Protestant Rhetoric vs Sabbath Refuted.htm

Should Christians obey the Old Testament law?  /doctrinalhtml/Does the New Covenant Abolish the OT Law.htm

Does the ministry have authority?  Click here:  /doctrinalhtml/Is There an Ordained Ministry vs Edwards.html

Is the United States the Beast?  Click here:  /doctrinalhtml/Are We the Beast vs Collins.htm

Should you give 10% of your income to your church?  Click here:  /doctrinalhtml/Does the Argument from Silence Abolish the Old Testament Law of Tithing 0205 Mokarow rebuttal.htm

Is Jesus God?  /doctrinalhtml/Is Jesus God.htm        /Doctrinalpdf/More Evidence That Jesus Is God 08.pdf

Will there be a third resurrection?  Click here:  /doctrinalhtml/Will There Be a Third Resurrection.htm

 

 

HERE AND HEREAFTER

 

or Man in Life and Death:  The Reward of the Righteous and the Destiny of the Wicked

 

by Uriah Smith

 

Originally published by:  Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington, D.C., 1897.  Now in the public domain since the copyright has expired.

 

 

Foreword

 

            This particularly brilliant book was written a little over one hundred years ago by Uriah Smith (1832-1903), who was for decades (with a few brief interruptions) the editor of The Review and Herald, the official house organ for the Seventh-day Adventist Church.  Although perhaps best known today for writing Daniel and the Revelation, a detailed analysis of  two of the most important books of prophecy in the Bible, Smith wrote other books as well.  Using the Bible as its foundation and lodestar, Here and Hereafter deals with whether or not the dead are conscious, the soul is immortal, and the wicked will be eternally tortured.  This book provides comprehensive coverage of the disputes over these teachings; almost every relevant text, “pro” or “con,” is brought to bear on the controversies at issue.  The passage of over a century has hardly made this book obsolete, since it deals with fundamental issues of Biblical interpretation on the doctrines concerning the state of the dead. What makes this book truly remarkable is the author’s skill in writing, including his sense of humor and use of metaphor.  Using Scripture alone, Smith decisively destroys the doctrines of the immortality of the soul and eternal torment.  Although he discusses some philosophical arguments favoring unconditional immortality, these are a mere epilogue to the vast bulk of his case.  All people on either side of the dispute, whether they affirm or deny that men and women have souls that go to heaven, hell, or purgatory upon death, will find Smith’s book spiritually profitable to read.

 

            For this Internet edition, some editing has been done to the original text.  Most importantly, the Greek and Hebrew characters originally used in the 1897 edition for many of the words from the original languages have been struck out and transliterated into English.  A leading reason for this change is that many readers find looking at Greek and Hebrew words in their original characters an automatic and immediate turn-off.  Since I wish to encourage the circulation of this book, this is a good enough reason alone to eliminate them in favor of English transliterations.  Also, by eliminating them, they won’t come up as gibberish in many word processing programs that either lack Greek and/or Hebrew fonts or don’t have them activated when file format conversions occur.  In addition, in many cases Smith’s punctuation, and in some cases, his capitalization of words, and that of sources he cites, have also been changed to bring them up to contemporary standards.  Therefore, no scholar or other person who needs exact precision for quoting material from Here and Hereafter in a book, essay, or article they are writing should consult this edition of Smith’s work.  In order to retain the value of the original indexes and table of contents for Here and Hereafter, the original page numbers using double brackets (e.g., [[66]]) have been systematically inserted into the text.  They are placed at the bottom of the material of the page they originally appeared on.  In some cases, to avoid splitting words or a Scripture citation, they have been put after the full word in question in cases in which in the original edition the word (or citation) was started on one page and continued on the next. The general index, obviously done by Smith partially tongue in cheek, has been more systematically alphabetized than it was by his own hand, thanks to the marvels of modern word processing technology.  In this section, the double-bracketed page numbers here have been moved to the end of the alphabetized section (by letter) they originally would have appeared in the cases when a page ended and began while still having the same letter at the beginning.  In a small number of cases, original errors that appeared in the original edition, such as transposed digits in a Scripture citation, have been corrected.  In a few instances, in footnotes using double brackets that have my initials at the end (e.g., [[EVS]], I have commented on where I believe Smith has made a significant error of Biblical interpretation or of philosophy.  Nevertheless, in a book of this length, the number of doctrinal mistakes is remarkably few.  Indeed, in one doctrine, that concerning their belief that the ultimate fate of Satan and the evil angels is destruction, not eternal torment, standard Seventh-day Adventist doctrine has been more correct than that usually taught within the Churches of God that have followed the general teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong and the old Worldwide Church of God (pre-1986).  Therefore, whether you never have heard about the Biblical teaching about conditional immortality or you have known it your whole life, you should find Uriah Smith’s Here and Hereafter spiritually insightful and mentally uplifting.  One of the greatest weights seriously committed Christians can bear is their belief in eternal torment; read this book, and you’ll be amazed how much anxiety can be lifted off your mind by embracing the belief that immortality can only be found by embracing Christ as Savior.

 

Eric V. Snow

Wixom, Michigan

 

 

Preface

 

            Does the reader ask for what object this book is written?  The inquiry shall be candidly and courteously considered.  There are certain serious questions which, in a world like this, force themselves upon all thoughtful minds. It should be a matter of absorbing interest to all to learn with what nature man is constituted; what his condition in death may be; what future awaits him, if any, beyond the grave; and how that future is affected by his course of conduct here.

 

            These are inquiries of most weighty moment; but all expe­rience proves that man of himself is not able to answer them. Only a revelation from God can throw light on these questions. Happily we have such a revelation which purports to have an­swered them; for it claims to be able to make men “wise unto salvation.” What that answer is, the following pages undertake to show. That is the object of this book.

 

            On the subjects here discussed there is a widespread and daily increasing agitation throughout the theological world at the present time. Breaking away from long-established tra­ditions, men are turning their attention more particularly to what the Bible says upon these points; and in all the leading nations of Christendom the views of Bible students are in a state of transition. The old theology is being brought to the bar of the Bible, and judged accordingly. The doctrine that there is no eternal life out of Christ, and that, consequently, the punishment of the wicked is not to be eternal misery, is now able to present an array of adherents so strong in num­bers, so cultivated in intellect, and so correct at heart, that many of its opponents are changing their base of operations toward it, and taking steps looking not only to a toleration of its existence, but to a compromise with its claims.  [[3]]

           

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

 

            The interest that has of late years arisen on the subject of the state of the dead, is most timely. Spiritualism has arisen and is seeking to spread its doctrines and baneful influence over all the land. This great delusion appeals to the popular views of the condition of man in death as a foundation for its claims. The teaching of the Bible on this point is the most effectual antidote to its seductive poison. Before the true light on the intermediate state, and the destiny of the wicked, not only Spiritualism, with its hosts of darkness flees away, but purgatory, saint-worship, universalism, and a host of other errors all go down.

 

            In this period of agitation and transition, let no man blindly commit himself to predetermined views, but hold him­self ready to follow truth always and everywhere. Let him hold his sympathies entirely at its disposal. This is the course of safety; for truth has angels, Christ, and God, upon its side; and though it had but one adherent on the earth, it would triumph all the same. Truth can receive no lasting detriment from the opposition of the world, and the powers of darkness, all combined. Its triumph is assured by the pledge of Omnipotence; and all who follow it, few in number though they be, at last will triumph with it too.  U.  S.

[[4]]

 

 

Table of Contents[1]

 

 

Chapter                                                                                                               Page

I.    Introduction........................................................................................................ 5

II.   The Creation of Man......................................................................................... 10

III.  Objections Examined........................................................................................ 16

             The Image of God--The Breath of Life--The Living Soul.

IV.   Bible Use of the Terms "Immortal" and "Immortality"........................................ 27

              Aphthartos (Immortal)--Athanasia (Immortality)--

                Aphtharsia (Immortality).

V.    The Words "Soul" and "Spirit".......................................................................... 31

              Nephesh--Psuche--Ruahh--Pneuma--N'shahma

VI.   Concerning the Human Spirit............................................................................ 37

              The Spirit Returns to God--From Whence Comes the Spirit?--

                Who Knows the Spirit of Man?--Committing the Spirit to

                God--The Spirits of Just Men Made Perfect--The Spirits

                in Prison--A Spirit Hath not Flesh and Bones--Neither

                Angel nor Spirit--Destroy Flesh, Save the Spirit.

VII.  Concerning the Human Soul............................................................................. 56

              Departure and Return of the Soul--Can the Soul be

                Killed?--The Souls Under the Altar--Body, Soul, and

                Spirit.

VIII. The Death of Adam......................................................................................... 66

IX.   Condition of Man in Death............................................................................... 72

[[5]]

X.    Objections Answered...................................................................................... 76

              Gathered to His People--Samuel and the Woman of Endor--

                The Transfiguration.  Matt. 17:1-9--The God of the

                Living--The Rich Man and Lazarus--With Me in Paradise--

                Absent from the Body--In the Body and Out--Departing

                and Being with Christ--Remaining Texts Considered.

XI.   The Resurrection of the Dead......................................................................... 115

              The Doctrine of the Resurrection Destroys the Theory of

                the Immortality of the Soul--The Resurrection a

                Necessity--Identity in the Resurrection--Bible

                Testimony for the Resurrection--The Resurrection of

                the Wicked.

XII.    The Judgment to Come................................................................................ 130

XIII.   The Life Everlasting..................................................................................... 132

XIV.    The Wages of Sin...................................................................................... 134

XV.        Objections Answered.............................................................................. 142

                Shame and Everlasting Contempt--Everlasting Fire--

                  Everlasting Punishment--Degrees of Punishment--The

                  The Undying Worm and Quenchless Fire--Tormented

                  Forever and Ever.

XVI.    God's Dealings with His Creatures.............................................................. 154

XVII.   The Claims of Philosophy........................................................................... 158

XVIII.  Historical View of the Doctrine of Immortality............................................ 165

XIX.      Influence of the Doctrine.......................................................................... 172

Appendix.............................................................................................................. 174

            The Doctrine Illustrated

Index of Authors Referred To................................................................................ 176

Index of Texts of Scripture..................................................................................... 178

General Index................................................................................................... ….184

[[6]]

 

 

Chapter 1

 

Introduction

 

            FORTUNATELY there are some things which men can­not deny. There are plenty of them who deny God, deny Christ, deny the Holy Spirit, deny divine revelation, and deny any hereafter. But they cannot deny that which may be called the “Here.” The present state of existence is a fact which cannot be ignored. Man finds himself in a real, material, world, on a plane of existence which is full of mystery and marvel. He finds himself with a bodily organism wonderfully constructed; with capabilities opening before him a wide field for activity; with a mind able to reason, reflect, draw conclusions, and lay plans for the future. He can pry into the secrets of nature, resolve substances of the earth into their original elements, and with instruments that multiply his vision a thousandfold, explore the blue expanse above him, and study the stellar worlds in their grand procession through boundless space. The wonders of nature and the marvel­ous achievements of his fellow men excite in his own mind conceptions of almost infinite possibilities.

 

            But amid all the phenomena of life, he sees another, if possible stranger still — the phenomenon of death. The [[7]] man of most skilful acquirements and mightiest intellect, falls in death. Immediately, so far as anything appears to the outward sense, his powers are gone. His mind ceases to act; his body, unable longer to resist decay, disintegrates and mingles with the dust. Truly one must be of very stolid and stupid mold, who under such cir­cumstances does not let his mind run out beyond the limits of his visible horizon, and have some inquiries to make in the regions of “things not seen.” And the broad plane of one’s present existence— a realm of reality not shadow, of fact not fancy— affords a firm basis from which to extend one’s deductions into other fields, even the hereafter.

 

            Without either counsel or co-operation of our own, we find ourselves on the plane of human existence, subject to all the conditions of this life, and hastening forward to its destiny, whatever it may be. A retinue of mysterious inquiries throngs our steps. Whence came this order of things? Who ordained this arrangement? For what purpose are we here? What is our nature? What are our obligations? And whither are we bound? Life, what a mystery! Having commenced, will it ever end? Once we did not exist; are we destined to that condition again? Death we see everywhere around us. Its victims are silent, cold, and still. They give no outward evidence of retaining any of those faculties, mental, emotional, or physical, which distinguished them when living. Is death the end of all these? And is death the extinction of all human beings? These are questions which have ever excited in the human mind an intensity of thought and a strength of feeling which no other subjects can awaken.

 

            To these questions, so well-defined, so definite in their demands, and of such all-absorbing interest, where [[8]] shall we look for an answer? Have we any means within our reach by which to solve these problems? We look abroad upon the earth, and admire its multiplied forms of life and beauty; we mark the revolving seasons and the uniform and beneficent operations of nature; we look to the heavenly bodies, and behold their glory, and the regularity of their mighty motions — do these answer our questions? They tell us something, but not all. They tell us of the great Creator and upholder of all things; for, as the apostle says, “The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead.” They tell us upon whom our existence depends, and to whom we are amenable.

 

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

 

            With what intense anxiety the mind turns to the future! What is to be the issue of this mysterious problem of life?  Who can tell? Nature is silent. We appeal to those who are entering the dark valley. But who can reveal the mysteries of those hidden regions till he has explored them? And the “curtain of the tent into which they enter, never outward swings.” Sternly the grave closes its heavy portals against every attempt to catch a glimpse of the [[9]] unknown beyond. Science proves itself helpless on this momentous question. The imagination breaks down; and the human mind, unaided, sinks into a melancholy, but well-grounded despair.

 

            Multitudes, however, profess to be able to answer these queries. The world has so long been so taught on this sub­ject, that hundreds upon hundreds of minions now believe, and have believed, that man has, inherent in his own nature, an undying principle, an “immortal soul,” which is the real, intelligent, responsible man — the living element in the body — but which is independent of the body, and can exist as well without the body as with it; which is just as much alive after the body is dead as it was before; which is therefore conscious, active, and in­telligent in that condition known as death, or while the body is in the grave; and which, after the Judgment, according as that great tribunal decides, must live in conscious happiness or misery through all eternity.

 

            One cannot but stand dazed and confounded before the awful possibilities involved in such an answer; and before accepting it, one would do well to search most carefully to ascertain beyond all reasonable question whether it be true. For if it be true, the first great appalling fact that stands out before us is that the greater portion of the human family are destined to exist forever in conscious torture beyond the power of language to describe — torture inflicted without the intention or possibility of accomplishing one iota of good either for themselves or others, and from which they can never gain one moment’s relaxation through an agonizing duration that shall never, never end. And all for what — Generally speaking, as a punishment for a life of less than fifty years of carelessness and sin in this world. Is there a man with a spark of human kind­ness in his soul, or the least shadow of a sense of justice [[10]] and mercy in his heart, who could endure the sight? Is there one who can tolerate the thought? Then how must the Creator of mankind be looked upon who can thus deal with them, even though they be sinners? Is it any wonder that God, under such teaching, has come to be regarded by an ever-growing army of skeptics, as a heart-/’ less, revengeful tyrant, who delights in rendering as mis­erable and wretched as possible, the creatures of his hand, whom he preserves alive for that very purpose?

 

But aside from the overwhelming terror of eternal con­scious misery, a long train of conclusions follows, con­cerning which we should consider whether we are prepared to accept them or not, before we subscribe to the answer above given. If it be true that man has an immortal soul that cannot die, it follows (1) that he who assured our first parents in Eden that they should not surely die (Gen. 3 4, 5), told the truth, and a belief of the truth was the deception which brought sin into the world to destroy the peace and happiness of mankind; (2) that the deification of dead men and the worship of ancestors, which prevail throughout heathendom, and upon which so much of idola­try is founded, has at least some foundation; (3) that the saint-worship, Mariolatry, purgatory, and mass, of the Roman Catholic and Greek churches, are true doctrines (4) that the future coming of Christ, and a future general Judgment, and a resurrection of the dead, can all be set aside as inconsistent and unnecessary; (5) that Restora­tionism, Universalism, and Spiritualism can be, on this hypothesis, defended from the Scriptures.

 

On the other hand, if man possesses no such undying principle by nature, as an immortal soul; if the dead are not conscious; if future eternal life depends on Christ alone all the doctrines and practises named above, top-pie over as gigantic frauds, deceptions, and superstitions; [[11]] Christ, in his position and work, as the Source of life and immortality, stands forth in his true light and untarnished glory; the coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the Judgment, and the time of rewards and punishment, all find a place which corresponds to the testimony of the Scriptures; and apparent harmony reigns in all branches of this subject. Surely the decision of a question, on the answer to which so much depends, cannot be left to human testimony. He who alone has knowledge of the unseen world, must resolve the doubts, dispel the mysteries, and explain the queries which cluster about these momentous problems. God must tell us, or we can never know what lies beyond this state of existence, till we experience it for ourselves. He who has placed us here, must himself make known to us his purposes and his will, or we are forever in the dark. Of this, all reverent and thoughtful minds are well assured.

           

            Stuart, in his “Exegetical Essays on Several Words Relating to Future Punishment” (pp. 13, 14), says:

 

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

 

      Alvin Hovey, D. D., “State of Men after Death,” p. 35, says: [[12]]

 

But what does the sacred record say of departed spirits? For if we are to know anything in respect to their condition after death, light from revelation is indispensable; the testimony of reason, conscience, aspiration, leaves us still in doubt; the eye of sense cannot pierce the veil; and our only refuge is the word of God.

 

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

 

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

 

            And what information have they been able to give us, who have either been ignorant of divine revelation, or, having the light, have turned their backs upon it?  Listen to a few of their words, which sufficiently indi­cates the character of the knowledge they possessed.  Socrates, about to drink the fatal hemlock, said:  “I am going out of the world, and you are to continue in it; but which of us has the better part is a secret to every one but God.”  Cicero, after recounting the various opinions of phi­losophers on this subject, levels all their systems to the ground by this ingenuous confession: “Which of these is true, God alone knows; and which is the most probable, is a very great question.”  Seneca, reviewing the arguments of the ancients on this subject, said:  “Immortality, however desirable, was rather promised than proved by these great men.”

 

            And the skeptic Hobbes, when death was forcing him from this state of existence, could only exclaim, with dread uncertainty, “I am taking a leap in the dark?”--dying words not calculated to inspire any great degree [[13]] of comfort and assurance in the hearts of those who are inclined to follow in his steps.

 

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

 

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

 

            And when we say the Bible, let it be understood that the Bible just as it reads, and just as it stands, is in­tended, not the Bible as emasculated by the modern “higher criticism.” We have no use for a Bible such as these critics leave us, its earlier records lost in the fog of myth and fable, while claiming to be given by inspira­tion of God. The Bible is a unit, and as a whole stands or falls together. Its earliest records, and most disputed portions, are openly recognized as genuine by Christ and his apostles; and one word of endorsement from such a source, is worth more than all the criticism which all the world upon the other side can offer. The story of the creation, the fall of man, and the scheme of human redemption, there revealed, is the only rational [[14]] ground on which to account for the presence and con­tinuance of sin and suffering in a world under the control of an Omnipotent Being whose name and nature is pu­rity and love. This record, then, will, in this work, be accepted as a straightforward narrative of plain, un­varnished verities.

 

            Prominent upon the pages of this book of inspiration, we see pointed out the great distinction which God has put between right and wrong, the rewards he has promised to virtue, and the punishment he has threatened against sin; we find it revealed that but few, comparatively, will be saved,[2] while the great majority of the human family will be lost; and as the means by which the perdition of ungodly men will be accomplished, we find described in fearfully ominous terms, a lake of fire burning with brim­stone, all-devouring and unquenchable.

 

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

 

            In commending the reader to the word of God on this great theme, it is unnecessary to suggest to any candid mind the spirit in which we should present our inquiries. Prejudice or passion should not come within the sacred precincts of such an investigation. If God has plainly revealed that all the finally impenitent of mankind are doomed to an eternity of Conscious misery, we must accept [[15]] that fact, however hard it may be to find any correspond­ence between the limitation of the guilt and the infinitude of the punishment, and however hard it may be to har­monize such treatment with the character of God, who has declared himself to be “LOVE.” If, on the other hand, the record shows that God’s government can be vindicated, sin meet its just deserts, and at the same time such dispo­sition be finally made of the lost as to relieve the universe from the horrid spectacle of a hell forever burning, fined with sensitive beings, frenzied with fire and flame, and blaspheming in their ever-strength a dispo­sition which accords with the sense of justice and emotions of benevolence which reign in every undepraved heart —can any one be the less ready to accept this fact, or hesi­tate, on this account, to join in the ascription, “Great and marvelous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and tine are thy ways, thou King of saints”? [[16]]

 

 

 

Chapter II

 

The Creation of Man

 

            The most direct way to learn what man’ s nature is, seem to be to study the story of his creation, if such a record can be found, and search for the sub­stances and elements that were made use of in his forma­tion. Happily such a record has been furnished, and it rests on higher authority than the deductions of human reason or the speculations of men. Here we fall back upon the testimony of the Bible, and take its language in its most obvious and literal sense. If any think that it comports better with the dignity and glory of an omnipo­tent Creator to suppose that he limited his creative energy to the production of an infinitesimal amount of protoplasm somewhere, and left that to evolve itself through countless ages, into all conceivable organisms, developing at last, through mollusks, vertebrates, mammals, and monkeys, to man, they are at liberty, of course, to enjoy that opinion; but the reader will allow us to prefer the record in Genesis, and here to put that forth in evidence, as a more satisfac­tory account of the origin and nature of the human family. That record gives, in a few plain, straightforward declara­tions, the account of man’s creation, as follows: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Gen. 2: 7.

 

            This record accounts for every feature and faculty pos­sessed by man, and all the mental and vital phenomena, [[17]] manifested through him. God had fashioned this beau­tiful world glowing with life and beauty; but yet there was no one to exercise dominion over it, no one to till the soil, and cause all its multiple forms of life to praise and glorify the Creator. To provide for this lack, God took a portion of the dust of the earth, wrought it into the form of a man, and by a process of organization, of which we can form no conception, made it flesh. All the organs of the body were there, fashioned for their different uses. They were all ready for action, but there was no life. Then God breathed into the man’s nostrils the breath of life, with its vitalizing, life-giving power, and man became a living soul. This body, before inert and helpless, be­came a living, moving power. The heart began to beat, and the life current flowed through all its channels; the lungs began their work, and the process of breathing appeared; the nerves assumed their office, and the man began to feel; the muscles were quickened, and he began to move; the brain acted, and he began to think and manifest that intelligence by which he could understand the instructions of his Maker, and exercise his will to do his bidding. Thus treated “man became a living soul.”

 

            The record states all that was done in reference to man, and all that was imparted to him, to make him the being that he was. And was not this sufficient? O, no! Exclaims the theologian; this was not enough; this was all material; but there must have been a soul, some im­material and immortal part, given him, to make possible the manifestation of the phenomena of mind; for “matter cannot think.” But who knows all these additional par­ticulars? Remember, we are here going by the record. We are supposed to know nothing beyond what the rec­ord states. Man, as a “living soul,” was of course capa­ble of exercising every faculty of body and mind common [[18]] to the human family. But by the process here described — the formation of the body, and the setting it in motion by the breath of life—man became just this “living soul.”  Now what right has any one to take this word “soul,” and give it a new meaning to be the vehicle of a new idea, and thrust it in here to change the whole scope and tenor of the record? This word “soul “is the very word theologians use to signify this immaterial and immortal part, which they so ardently wish to show was here in­terjected into Adam’s organism; but whatever this word expresses, that the record says the man, by the breathing into the nostrils of the breath of life, had “become.” He “became” a living soul.”

 

            But it is insisted that, as man could then think, there must have been something superadded to his nature; for matter, it is assumed with all assurance, cannot think; only spirit, it is repeated, is capable of such a process as at.[3] It might be a sufficient reply to such a claim, to simply call attention to the fact that in this declaration, people are setting up assumptions in a field of which they know nothing. It would perhaps be unbecoming to make such a charge, did not the very ones to whom reference is made, openly confess it. What is matter? And what is spirit? Those who presume the heaviest on the contrast between matter and spirit, acknowledge that they “do not understand the nature of either the one or the other.’ Thus an authority, high in the religious world, says:

 

If it is asked what is meant by matter, or what matter is, we must confess that we know not what constitutes its essence. In this respect its autology is beyond our reach; and the only advance we find it possible to make, is to point out some of the properties of matter, as discerned by our senses, and to exhibit some of the laws by which it is governed.[4] [[19]]

 

That renowned philosopher, John Locke, says:

 

We have the idea of matter and thinking, but possibly shall never be able to know whether any mere material being thinks or not; it being impossible for us, by the contemplation of our own ideas, without revelation, to discover whether Omnipotence has not given to some systems of matter, fitly disposed, a power to perceive and think, or else joined and affixed to matter so disposed, a think­ing, immaterial substance; it being, in respect of our notions, not much more remote from our comprehension to conceive that God can, if he pleases, superadd to matter a faculty of thinking, than that he should superadd to it another substance with a faculty of thinking; since we know not wherein thinking consists, nor to what sort of substance the Almighty has been pleased to give that power which cannot be in any created being but merely by the good pleas­ure of the Creator. For I see no contradiction in it, that the first eternal, thinking Being should, if he pleased, give to certain systems of created, senseless matter, put together as he thinks fit, some degrees of sense, perception, and thought.[5]

 

Mr. Clark, quoted before, makes a like confession con­cerning spirit:

 

We confess that we know not in what the essence of soul, or spirit, consists. We readily acknowledge our ignorance of the essence, the subject-being, of matter. We make the same confession — and under the same limitations—concerning the soul.[6]

 

But notwithstanding such acknowledgments as these, we find Mr. Clark arguing as follows, in reference to mind and matter:

 

We are accustomed to say the eye sees, the ear hears, the finger feels, and so forth; but such language is used only in accom­modation to our ignorance, or from the force of habit. It is incor­rect. The eye itself no more sees than the telescope which we hold before it to assist our vision; the ear hears not any more than the trumpet of till which the deaf man directs toward the speaker to convey the sound of his voice: and so with regard to all the organs of sense. They are but instruments which become the media of intelligence to the absolute mind, and it uses them whenever it is inclined or obliged to do so. [[20]]

 

Again Mr. Clark speaks further as follows:

 

The opinion that even organic matter could by any possibility be made to exhibit such power, cannot be received without the most clear and indubitable evidence. What is there to be found in the composition of the brain or nervous system, or in their organization, that would lead us to look for the development of thought, feeling, or conscience in them? The brain has been an­alyzed, and more than eight tenths of its substance has been found to be water.  Indeed, this, mixed up with a little albumen, a still less quantity of fat, osmazone, phosphorus, acids, salts, and sul­phur, constitutes its material elements. In all cases water largely predominates. Take even the pineal gland — that interior and mysterious organ of the brain, supposed by Descartes, and by many philosophers after him, to be the peculiar seat of the soul — even this has been analyzed. Its principal elements are found to be phosphate of lime together with a smaller proportion of carbonate of lime and phosphates of ammonia and magnesia. If the brain at large constitutes the soul, then the soul is only a peculiar com­bination of oxygen and hydrogen, with albumen, acids, salts, sul­phur, etc. Or, if the pineal gland constitutes the soul, then the principal element of the soul is phosphate of lime.[7]

 

A soul, such as has been invented by modern theology, or rather by ancient mythology, or rather by the great ophidian philosopher in Eden, it is no wonder it is found impossible to discover. But it seems a most useless pro­cedure to look for it through the analysis of dead matter. Men assume that certain things of most common occurrence cannot be done except by such a “soul,” and thus take upon themselves the unnecessary and embarrassing problem of trying to account for its origin and union with man. The simple concession that matter can be so or­ganized and vitalized as to exhibit all these phenomena, at once simplifies the matter, and relieves it of all diffi­culty. And in the arguments of these gentlemen, where is God? Where is Omnipotence? They confess that they not know what matter is. Are they sure that they now all the kinds of matter which God has at his command? [[21]] Are they aware of all the combinations of matter which God is able to make, and are they able to tell the results of all these? Is matter the vile and contemptible substance which their words would indicate? God has certainly seen fit to make use of it in all the worlds which he has created; and at the birth of our own world, “the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.” And the glorious terminus of the Christian pathway is set before us in terms that suggest materiality — it is a city which has foundations whose builder and maker is God; a city which has streets of gold and gates of pearl.

 

Matter takes on new properties by new combinations and new arrangements. A sufficient illustration is found in the household article, water, so necessary, in one con­dition, to all life and vegetation. In one state it is ice, hard and cold; in another, a liquid, useful for innumerable purposes; if raised to steam, it becomes an invisible giant, able to rend the strongest bars of steel, and compete with the lightning in destructive power. Yet it is all the time the same matter, only under different forms and combina­tions. In one form matter is sweet; in another, sour; in one, white like snow; in another, black like coal; in one, strong; in another, weak; in one, soft; in another, solid; in one, precious and beautiful; in another, of little worth; for the glittering diamond, held to be of almost priceless value, and the charcoal, unsightly to the eye and touch, are identically the same substance — pure carbon — only with its particles differently arranged. The difference between body and the so-called “spirit,” between senseless matter and thinking matter, could scarcely be greater.

 

Matter can be endowed with life. Here are two seeds; left upon the shelf they would continue unchanged for an indefinite length of time. Now take these seeds and put [[22]] them under different conditions: crush one to powder, and plant it; will it grow? No--its life has been des­troyed. Plant the other; the moisture and warmth of a congenial soil quicken into action the germ of life, and the seed swells, sends forth a sprout, strikes down into the earth its roots, and becomes a towering plant which flowers and fruits to delight the eye, or furnish sustenance to the bodies of men. What produced this marvelous result? Was there an immaterial spirit or intelligence enshrined within to bring it all about? — No; it was a power inherent in the matter itself. This is vegetable life; and the world is full of it— indeed, would be a waste, barren desert without it.

 

            Ascending a step we have something more wonderful still in animal life. The egg is simply a quantity of matter; but subject it to suitable conditions, and in due time a chicken comes forth full of life and activity. Is there an immaterial being in the chicken that makes it see and act, seek food and fly from danger?   No--it is simply matter organized to act in these strange and self-determining ways. Every animal below man is consid­ered to b9 only matter. It will not be admitted that such animals are endowed with immortal souls and never-dying spirits; yet what powers do they manifest! They see, hear, feel, taste, and smell; they exhibit fear, love, anger, hatred, and revenge; they give every evi­dence of memory, will, reflection, and reason.[8] But all this is matter; and yet we are told that matter cannot “think.” Can matter see? Can it hear, feel, taste, and smell? In its primary state of course it cannot; but it can be organized so that it is able to do all these things. No illustration nor enlargement is needed here; for it cannot be denied. Now is there anything unreasonable in the thought that God should put the finishing touch [[23]] of a higher degree of organization upon man, so that through the power of a more highly developed brain, he should become the intelligent, morally responsible being that he is?

 

            Those who deny that matter can be so organized as to think, are guilty of a strange inconsistency in their logic. The characteristics of matter are form, size, weight, loca­tion, etc. But as these are not attributable to love, hope, fear, and like emotions, they claim that these cannot be matter, but must be the production of a separate intelligent entity. They seem to forget that the attributes or results of the organization of matter cannot be contrasted with matter itself. The questions they ask concerning love, fear, bate, etc., whether they are round, square, or flat, we might well supplement with the same questions concerning light, heat, or cold. If any doubt that some eminent philosophers do reason thus, let them read the following from Joseph Cook:

 

When Caesar saw Brutus stab, and muffled up his face at the foot of Pompey’s statue, was his grief round, square, or triangular? [Laughter.] When Lincoln, by a stroke of the pen, manumitted four minion slaves, was his choice hexagonal or octagonal? . . These questions show that the terms which we apply to matter are totally inapplicable when applied to mind.”[9]

 

            This can easily be paralleled by questions referring to matter alone. In sight of the writer, as these lines are being penned, a dog is attempting to drive a hog from a neighboring field. The hog shows fight. With bristles erect, and glaring eyes, he makes a dash at the dog. With growl and bark the dog evades the onslaught, and keeps up his part of the contest by a charge from another quarter. Was that hog’s anger round, square, hexagonal, or octagonal? Were that dog’s plans to foil his antagonist, [[24]] rectangular or three-cornered, one thickness or three-­ply? Here was matter against matter, but how broad and thick were the specimens of fury exhibited, and how much did they weigh? — “[Uproarious laughter. Great applause.]”

 

       There are operations of matter as inexplicable as matter itself. Light, heat, cold, and even that subtle essence, electricity, which electricians describe as “an unknown force, acting in an unknown way,” are conceded to be a form of matter, or at least, incapable of manifestation without matter. So of mind, it cannot exist independent of matter. Brain material is necessary to its existence. Who can conceive of thought existing apart by itself? What would it be like, and how would it act? It is claimed that this inward man, this spirit being, which feels, sees, hears, etc., is of the same shape and size as the natural body, and is indivisible, so that if a man loses his natural leg or arm, the spirit leg or arm remains in its place just the same If this is not so, and the spirit body is divisible, then one might lose his spirit head, — and what would his condition then be? But to show that there is no such spirit body which does the feeling, seeing, etc., just try to strike, pinch, or pierce the spirit leg or arm after these corporeal members are removed, and what is the result?   Nothing--and this reveals the exact constitution of this supposed spirit body--nothing.

 

       Another question:  In what condition is this spirit body when it is put into man? What is its status? Has it full -power, or is it limited in its capabilities? If it has all its powers in the beginning, why does not the infant exhibit all the mental power and intelligence of a full-grown man? If it is not endowed with all its powers in the beginning, why not? As a separate creation, could not [[25]] God make it so?  Then why clog and cumber it with a body at all? But if it has at first simply the size and power of the infant, and can only expand and mature with the body, then it is dependent on the body, and sub­ject to all its conditions. And that such is the case with respect to the powers of the mind, Paul expressly affirms. He says: “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” 1 Cor. 13:11. Here is a plain statement that the understand­ing and thinking power is circumscribed by the limitations of the body. Then if it expands or shrinks with the body, strong or imbecile, childish or mature, just according as the body is in these conditions, when the body perishes, does it not perish with it? We speak of “it” to accom­modate the discussion to the claims of popular theology. But with this idea we find the argument hopelessly en­tangled in absurdities at every step. But with the view that these marvelous powers are simply the result of man’s superior organization, all becomes simple and plain, and easy of comprehension. In another chapter devoted to the question of the origin of the spirit, more will be said on some of the points here alluded to.

 

            Thus the record of Adam’s creation is amply sufficient to account for all the physical and mental phenomena exhibited by living men. The body was framed of the dust of the ground; the organs were alt formed complete and adapted to their various uses; the organization was of the most superior kind; the machine was perfect in all its parts; the breath of life was breathed into it, carrying with it the vital principle, the life- giving power which God had placed therein. Then man sprang into life; he stood erect, a “living soul,” intelligent through the action of the brain, and able to carry out the purposes of [[26]] life by the action of the body; capable of thinking, reason­ing, and exercising his will to do the bidding of his Maker, through the moral qualities of the nature thus im­parted to him. The same principle of life was imparted through the breath of life to all other breathing creatures; but having an inferior organization, they do not stand on the same plane of being as man, nor possess his nature. 

 

            But the Bible not only describes the creation of man, it also describes his dissolution; and this process we find to be just the reverse, the complete counterpart, of the other. It required, as we have seen, but few words to describe the creation of man, the putting together and setting in motion of this wonderful machine; so it requires but few words to describe the stopping of the machine, the taking of it apart and laying it in the tomb; the one record begins where the other ends, and goes right back through the reverse process. Thus David says: “Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.” Ps. 146:3, 4. In the creation of man, the body was first brought forth out of the earth; then the breath of life was put into it. Here this breath goes out of it, and then the body goes back to its earth. Solomon describes the same thing in little different language. He says: “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was; and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.” Eccl. 12:7. What God gave to man, as the record in Genesis states, was the “breath of life,” containing the life principle. This made man alive. This God withdraws, takes back to himself, and as a consequence the body, the dust, goes back to the earth as it was. Job also states the same thing in lan­guage calculated to throw still greater light upon the sub­ject. These are his words: “If he set his heart upon [[27]] man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath; all flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust.” Job 34:14, 15. That is, if God should form this purpose concerning man, to take away his life, all he would need to do would be to take back — gather unto himself what he gave to man— “his spirit and his breath;” and then the body of every man would turn again to dust. That Moses by the words “breath of life,” means the same as Solomon, by the word “spirit,” Job proves by using them both together on the same subject. None can fail to see the correspondence be­tween the Bible records of man’s creation and his death; and in neither of them do we find any mention of any separate and independent, immaterial and immortal, entity, worked into his composition, to make him the dual being which popular theology claims that he is.

 

Chapter III

 

Objections Examined

 

Examination of Expression Connected with the Record of Man’s Creation, which Are Supposed to Prove that He is in Possession of an Immortal Soul.

 

 

1.  The Image of God

 

 

            It is supposed by some that the expressions used in con­nection with the record of man’s creation, are such as to show that he has an immortal soul, or is an immortal being. Let us candidly examine them to see if such is really what they teach.

 

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

 

            The first impulse of a person unacquainted with this controversy would be to ask in astonishment what this has to do with the immortality of man; nor would his astonishment be in any wise diminished when he heard [[29]] the reply that “as God is immortal, man must be im­mortal also” because made in his image. Has God, then, no other attribute but immortality, that we must confine it to this? Is not God omnipotent? — Yes. Is man? — No. Is not God omnipresent?--Yes. Is man?— No. Is not God omniscient? — Yes. Is man? — No. Is not God independent and self-existent? Yes. Is man — No. Is not God infallible? — Yes. Is man? —No. Then why single out the one attribute of immortality, and make the likeness of man to God consist wholly in this? In the form of a syllogism, the popular argu­ment stands thus:

 

            Major Premise: God is immortal. 1 Tim. 1:17.

            Minor Premise: Man is created in the image of God. Gen 1:27.

            Conclusion:  Therefore man is immortal.

 

            This is easily quashed by another syllogism equally sound, thus:

 

            1.  God is omnipotent.

            2.  Man is made in the image of God.

3.      Therefore man is omnipotent.

 

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

 

In what respect, then, is man in the image of his Maker? The only correct and safe rule of interpretation, applying to language in the Bible as well as elsewhere, is to allow every word its most obvious and literal import, unless some plain reason exists for giving it a mystical or figurative meaning. The plain and literal definition of “image” (see any good lexicon), is, “An imitation, representation, [[30]]­ or similitude of any person or thing, sculptured, drawn, painted, or otherwise made perceptible to the sight; a visible presentation; a copy; a likeness; an effigy.” We have italicized a portion of this definition as containing an essential idea. An image must be some­thing that is visible to the eye. How can we conceive of an image of anything that is not perceptible to the sight, and which we cannot take cognizance of by any of the senses? Even an image formed in the mind must be conceived of as having some sort of outward shape or form. In this sense the word is used in the thirty-one times of its occurrence elsewhere in the Old Testament.

 

            The second time the word “image “is used, it is used to show the relation existing between son and father, and is a good comment on the relation which Gen. 1:26, 27 asserts to exist between man and God. Gen. 5:3:  “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image.” Every one would at once understand by this language, physical resemblance, and similarity of nature. Now put the two pas­sages together. Moses first asserts that God made man in his own image, after his likeness; and a few chapters farther on he asserts that this same man begat a son in his own likeness, after his image. And while all must admit that this latter includes bodily form or physical shape, the theological schools tell us that the former, from the same writer and with no intimation that it is used in any other sense, must refer solely to the attribute of immortality. There is no room for any other conclusion than that just as a son is, in outward appearance, the image of his father, and possesses like mental and moral character­istics, so man possesses, not the attributes of God in all their perfection, but a likeness, or image, of him in his physical form and moral nature. [[31]]

 

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

 

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

 

            Again: the word here translated image (eikon) is defined by Greenfield as meaning, by metonymy, “an exemplar, model, pattern, standard; Col. 3:10.” No such definition as this is given by Gesenius to the word in Genesis. So, though this Greek word may here have this sense, it affords no evidence that the Hebrew word in Gen. 1:26, 27 refers to immortality, and may not be confined to man’s outward form and moral nature.

 

            The same reasoning will apply to 1 Cor. 15:49, where the “image of the heavenly,” which is promised to the righteous, is something which is not in possession of the [[32]] natural man, but will be attained through the resurrection:  “We shall also bear the image of the heavenly.” It cannot, therefore, refer to the image stamped upon man at his creation, unless it be admitted that that image, with all its included qualities, has been lost by the human race — an admission fatal to the hypothesis of the believ­ers in the natural immortality of man.

 

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

 

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

 

            But here the mystical interpretation of our current theology has thrown up what is considered an insuperable objection to this view; for how can man be physically in the image of God, when God is not a person, is without form, and has neither body nor parts? In reply we ask, Where does the Bible say that God is a formless, impersonal being, having neither body nor parts?  Does it not say that he is a spirit (John 4:24)? — Yes; and we inquire again, Does it not say that the angels are spirits? Heb. 1:7, 14. And are not the angels, saying nothing [[33]] of those instances in which they have appeared to men in bodily form, and always in human shape (Gen. 18:1-8, 16-22; 32:24; Hosea 12:4; Num. 22:31; Judges 13:6, 13; Luke 1:11, 13, 28, 29; Acts 12: 7-9, etc., etc.) — are not the angels, we say, always spoken of as beings having bodily form? A spirit, or spiritual being, as God is, in the highest sense, so far from not having a bodily form, must possess it, as the instrumentality for the mani­festation of his powers. 1 Cor. 15:44.

 

            Again:   it is urged that God is omnipresent; and how can this be, if he is a person? Answer: He has a rep­resentative, his Holy Spirit, by which he is ever present and ever felt in all his universe. “Whither shall I go,” asks David, “from thy Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy presence?” Ps. 139: 7. And John saw stand­ing before die throne of God seven lamps, which are declared to be “the seven Spirits of God,”[10] and which are “sent forth into all the earth.” Rev. 4:5; 5:6.

 

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

 

            1.  God has made visible to mortal eyes parts of his person. Moses saw the God of Israel. Ex. 33:21-23. An immaterial being, if such a thing can be conceived of, without body or parts, cannot be seen with mortal eyes. To say that God assumed a body and shape for this occasion, places the common view in a worse light still; for it is virtually charging God with a double deception:  first, giving Moses to understand that he was a being with body and parts; and, secondly, under the promise of showing himself, showing him something that was not himself. And he told Moses that he would put his [[34]] “hand” over him as he passed by, and then take it away, that he might see his “back parts,” but not his “face.” Has he hands? Has he back parts? Has he a face? If not, why try to convey ideas by means of language?

 

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

 

            2.  Christ, as manifested among men, is declared to be the “image” of God, and in his “form.” Christ showed, after his resurrection, that his immortal, though not then glorified, body had flesh and bones.[11] Luke 24:39. Bodily he ascended into heaven, where none can presume to deny him a local habitation. Acts 1:9-11; Eph. 1:20; Heb. 8:1. But Paul, speaking of this same Jesus, says, “Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature.” Col. 1:15. Here the antithesis expressed is between God, who is invisible, and his “image” in the person of Christ, which was visible. It follows, therefore, that what of Christ the disciples could see, which was his bodily form, was the image to give them an idea of God whom they could not see. This of course would not exclude the moral attributes manifested by Jesus, but which could not be manifested without some bodily organization.

 

            Again:   “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” Phil. 2:5, 6. It remains to be told how Christ could be in the “form ‘of God, and yet God have no form. [[35]]

 

            Once more: “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,” etc. Heb. 1:1-3. This testimony is conclusive. It is an inspired declaration that God has a personal form; and to give an idea of what that form is, it declares that Christ, just as we conceive of him as ascended up bodily on high, is the express image thereof. It is said that the word “person,” should here be rendered “substance.” But this does not affect the conclusion in the least; for if there is substance, there must be shape, and the only indication given in the Bible of what that shape is, is the human form.

 

            The evidence already presented shows that there is no necessity for supposing that the image of God, in which man was created, consists of immortality; and Paul, in his testimony to the Romans, forever destroys the possi­bility of making it apply to immortality. He says (Rom. 1:22, 23): “Professing themselves to be wise, they be­came fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.” ‘The word here rendered “uncorruptible” is the same word that is translated “immortal,” and applied to God in 1 Tim. 1:17. Now if God by making man in his image, stamped him with immortality, man is just as uncorruptible as God himself. But Paul says that he is not so; that while God is uncorruptible, or immortal, man is corruptible, or mortal. The image of God does not, therefore, confer immortality, though it does indicate the high organization and godlike nature of man. [[36]]

I

 

2.  The Breath of Life

 

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

 

            Here the advocates of man’s natural immortality endeavor to make a strong stand, as it is very proper they should do, unless they are prepared at once to abandon their theory; for certainly if in that inspired record which describes the building up of man, the putting together of the different parts or constituent elements of which he is composed, there is no testimony that he was clothed with immortality, and no evidence furnished upon which an argument for such an attribute can be based, their whole system falls into irretrievable collapse. The claim asserted -on the strength of this passage is that man is composed of two parts: the body formed of the dust of the ground, and an immortal soul placed therein by God’s breathing -the breath of life into the nostrils of that dust-formed body. Two representative men shall be allowed to speak -on this point, and state the popular view. Thomas Scott, D. D., on Gen. 2:7, says:

        

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

 

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

 

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

 

            Critics speak of this expression in a different manner from theologians; for whereas the latter make it confer immortality, and raise man in this respect to the same plane with his Maker, the former speak of it as suggestive frail nature, and his precarious tenure of life itself. Thus Dr. Conant says:  “In whose nostrils is breath. Only breath, so frail a principle of life, and so easily extinguished!”

 

            And in a note on Isa. 2:22, where the prophet says, “Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of?” he adds:  “Not as in the common English version, ‘whose breath is in his nostrils,’ for where else should it be? The objection is not to its place in the body, which is the proper one for it, but to its frail and perishable nature.”

 

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

 

            But let us examine the claim that the “breath of life,” ‘which God breathed into man, conferred upon him the attribute of immortality. There was nothing naturally immortal, certainly, in the dust of which Adam was com­posed. Whatever of immortality he had, therefore, after receiving the breath of life, must have existed in that breath in itself considered. Hence it must follow that the “breath of life” confers immortality upon any crea­ture to which it is given. Will our friends accept this [[38]] issue? If not, they abandon the argument; for certainly it can confer no more upon man than upon any other recipient. And if they do accept it, we will introduce to them a class of immortal associates not very flattering to their vanity nor to their argument; for Moses applies the very same expression to all the lower orders of the animal creation.

 

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

 

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

 

            It is objected that in Gen. 2:7 the phrase “breath of life,” as applied to man, is plural, “breath of lives” (see Clarke), meaning both animal life and that immortal­ity which is the subject of our investigation. But, we reply, it is in the same number in Gen. 7:22, where it is applied to all animals; and if the reader will look at the margin [[39]] of this latter text, he will see that the expression is stronger still, “ the breath of the spirit of life,’’ or of lives. The same plural form is also found in the expression, “the tree of life,” in Gen. 2:9.

 

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

 

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

 

3.  The Living Soul

 

      Finding no immortality for man in the breath of life which God breathed into man’s nostrils at the commence­ment of his mysterious existence, it remains to inquire if it resides, as is so generally claimed, in the “living soul,” which man, as the result of that action, immediately [[40]] became. “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Gen. 2:7.

 

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

 

That this act was the infusion of a spiritual nature into the body of Adam, is evident from the following considerations: The phrase ‘breath of life,’ is rendered ‘breath of lives’ by all Hebrew scholars. Not only did animal life then begin, but another and higher life which constituted him not only a mere animal, but a living soul.’ He was a body before; he is now more than a body,— a soul and body united. If he was a ‘soul’ before, then how could he become such by the last act of creation? And if he was not a soul before, but now became one, then the soul must have been superadded to his former material nature.[12]

 

            Dr. Clarke, on Gen. 2:7, as already quoted, says: 

 

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

 

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

 

The vital point, to which they bend all their energies, is somehow to show that a distinct entity, an intelligent [[41]] part, an immortal soul, was brought near to that body as it lay there perfect in its organization, and thrust therein, and then immediately began through the eyes of that body to see, through its ears to hear, through its lips to speak, and through its nerves to feel. Query: Was this soul capable of performing all these functions before it entered the body? If it was, why thrust it within this prison-house? If it was not, will it be capable of performing them after it leaves the body?

 

            Heavy drafts are made on rhetoric, in favor of this superadded soul. Figures of beauty are summoned to lend their aid to the argument. An avalanche of flowers is thrown upon it to adorn its strength, or perchance to hide its weakness. But when we search for the logic, we find it a chain of sand. Right at the critical point, the argument fails to connect; and so, after all their expendi­ture of effort, after all their lofty flights and sweating toil, their conclusion comes out — blank assumption. Why? — Because they are endeavoring to reach a result which they are dependent upon the text to establish, but which the text directly contradicts. The record does not say that God formed a body, and put therein a superadded soul, to use that body as an instrument; but he formed man of the dust. That which was formed of the dust was the man himself, not simply an instrument for the man to use when he should be put therein. Adam was just as essentially a man before the breath of life was imparted, as after that event. This was the difference:

Before, he was a lifeless man; afterward, a living one. The organs were all there ready for their proper action. It only needed the vitalizing principle of the breath of life to set them in motion. That came, and the lungs began to expand, the heart to beat, the blood to flow, and the limbs to move; then were exhibited all the phenomena of  [[42]] vital physical action; then, too, the brain began to act, and there were exhibited all the phenomena of mental action — perception, thought, memory, will, etc.

 

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

           

            So with man. When the breath of life was imparted, which, as we have seen, was given in common to all the animal creation, that simply was applied which set the machine in motion. No separate and independent organi­zation was added, but a change took place in the man himself. The man became something, or reached a con­dition which before he had not attained. The verb “be­came” is defined by Webster, “to pass from one state to another; to enter into some state or condition by a change from another state or condition, or by assuming or receiving new properties or qualities, additional matter, or a new character.”  And Gen. 2:7 is then cited as an illustration of this definition. But it will be seen that none of these will fit the popular idea of the superadded soul; for that is not held to be simply a change in Adam’s condition, or a new property or quality of his being, or an addition of matter, or a new character, but a separate and independent entity, capable, without the body, of a higher existence than with it. The boy becomes a man; the acorn, an oak; the egg, an eagle; the chrysalis, a butterfly; but the capabilities of the change all inhere in the object which experiences it. A superadded, independent soul could not have been put into main, and he be said to have become that soul. Yet it is said of Adam, [[43]] that he, on receiving the breath of life, became a living soul. An engine is put into a ship, and by its power propels it over the face of the deep; but the ship, by receiving the engine, does not “become” the engine, nor the engine the ship. No sophistry, even from the dark­est depths of its alchemy, can bring up and attach to the word “become” a definition which will make it mean, as applied to any kind of body, the addition of a distinct and separate organization to that body.

 

            To the inquiry of Professor Mattison, “If he was ‘a soul’ before, then how could he become such by the last act of creation?" it may be replied: The antithesis is not based upon the word “soul,” but upon the word “living.” This will become evident by trying to read the passage without this word: “And the Lord God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a soul.” That is not it. He became a living soul. He was a soul before, but not a living soul. To thus speak of a lifeless soul, may provoke from some a sneer; nevertheless, the Hebrews so used the terms. (See Num. 6:6: “Dead body,” nephesh math, “dead soul” [Cruden]. The same in Lev. 21:11; Num. 19:13; Haggai 2:13.)

 

            Kitto, in his Religious Encyclopedia, under the term “Adam,” says:

 

“And Jehovah God formed the man (Hebrew, the Adam) dust from the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living animal.”  Some of our readers may be surprised at our having translated nephesh chaiyah by ‘living animal.’ There are good interpreters and preachers, who, confiding in the common translation, ‘living soul,’ have maintained that here is intimated a distinctive pre-eminence above the inferior animals, as possessed of an immaterial and immortal spirit. But, however true that dis­tinction is, and supported by abundant argument from both philosophy and the Scriptures, we should be acting unfaithfully if we were to assume its being contained or implied in this passage. [[44]]

 

            The “abundant argument from both philosophy and the Scriptures” for man’s immortal spirit, may be more difficult to find than many suppose. But this admission that nothing of the kind is implied in this passage, is a gratifying triumph of fair and candid criticism over a very popular, but wholly unfounded religious dogma.

 

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

 

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

 

            Putting these declarations all together, what do we have? — We have a very explicit statement that this first man, this living soul which Adam was made, was of the earth, earthy, did not bear the image of the heavenly in [[45]] its freedom from a decaying nature did not possess that incorruption without which we cannot inherit the kingdom of God, but was wholly mortal and corruptible. Would people allow these plain and weighty words of the apostle their true meaning upon this question, it would not only summarily arrest all controversy over the particular text under consideration, but leave little ground, at least from the teachings of the Scriptures, to argue for the natural immortality of man. 

 

            But the term "living soul,” like "the breath of life," is applied to all orders of the animate creation; to beasts and reptiles as well as to man. The Hebrew words are nephesh hhayah;[13] and these words are in the very first chapter of Genesis four times applied to the lower orders of animals: Gen. 1:20, 21, 24, 30. On Gen. 1:21, Dr. Adam Clarke offers this comment:

 

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

 

            This is a valuable comment on the meaning of these words. He would have greatly enhanced the utility of that information, if he had told us that the words “living soul,” as applied to man in Gen. 2:7, are the very same words that are rendered “living creatures,” and applied to the lower orders of animals in chapter 1.

 

            Professor Bush, in his notes on Gen. 2:7, says:

 

The phrase “living soul” is in the foregoing narrative repeat­edly applied to the inferior orders of animals, which are not con­sidered to be possessed of a “soul” in the sense in which that term is applied to man. It would seem to mean the same, therefore, [[46]] when spoken of man that it does when spoken of beasts; viz., an ani­mated being, a creature possessed of life and sensation, and capable of performing all the physical functions by which animals are dis­tinguished, as eating, drinking, walking, etc. . . .  Indeed, it may be remarked that the Scriptures generally afford much less explicit evidence of the existence of a sentient, immaterial principle in man, capable of living and acting separate from the body, than is usually supposed.

 

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

 

            Staggered by the fact (and unable to conceal it) that the term “living soul” is applied alike to all animals, the advocates of man’s immortality then undertake to make the word “became" the pivot of their argument. Man “became” a living soul, but it is not said of the beasts that they “became” such; hence this must denote the addition of something to man which the animals did not receive. And in their anxiety to make this appear, they surreptitiously insert the idea that the animal life of man is derived from the dust of the ground, and that something of a higher nature was imparted to man by the breath of life which was breathed into him, and the living soul which he became. Thus Mr. Landis, in his work, “The Immortality of the Soul,”[14] p. 141, says: “Hence something was to be added to the mere animal life derived [[47]] from the dust of the ground.” Now Mr. L. ought to know, and knowing, ought to have the candor to admit, that no life at all is derived from the dust of the ground. All the life that Adam had was imparted by the breath of life which God breathed into his nostrils, which breath all breathing animals, no matter how they obtained it, possessed as well as he.

 

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

 

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

 

And it will be further seen that this word “became” can have no value in the argument unless the absurd principle be first set up as truth, that whatever becomes anything must forever remain what it has become. Re­member that the question before us is, whether or not man’s soul is immortal, and will live forever despite all contingencies. He might reach a certain condition, and lose it again. The fact that he had reached it, would not prove that he would forever retain it. (See the argument on the use of the word “image “in the New Testament, presented in the first part of this chapter.) Now if it should be conceded (which it is not) that man, by becom­ing a “living soul” became exempt from death so long as he retained that position, the real and vital question whether he must always remain so, would still be un­touched. [[48]]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter IV

 

 

Bible Use of the Terms, “Immortal” and “Immortality”

 

 

It is unnecessary to remind the reader that the main object of this study concerning the nature and destiny of man, is to ascertain what the Bible teaches on this question. And as the Bible is our only source of instruc­tion, so its testimony must be the last source of appeal. We have seen that neither in the record of man’s creation, nor in any of the expressions used concerning it, is there any evidence that man is by nature immortal. But may it not be that in its use of the terms “immortal” and “immortality,” it has somewhere said that man is immortal, or has at least predicated immortality of him? It would be most natural to suppose that if man is immor­tal, the Bible would somewhere announce so important a fact.  Let us then inquire what use the Bible makes of these terms “immortal” and “immortality.” How fre­quently does it use them? To whom does it apply them? Of whom does it make immortality an attribute? Does it affirm it of man or any part of him?

 

            Should one, without opening the Bible, endeavor to form an opinion of its teachings from the current phrase­ology of modern theology, would he not conclude it to be full of declarations in the most explicit terms, that man is in possession of an immortal soul and deathless spirit; for the popular religious literature of to-day, which claims to be a true reflection of the declarations of God’s word, is [[49]] full of these expressions. Glibly they fall from the lips of the religious teacher. Broadcast they go forth from the religious press. Into orthodox sermons and prayers, they enter as essential elements. They are appealed to as the all-prolific source of comfort and consolation in case of those who mourn the loss of friends by death. We are told that those who go into the grave are not dead; for we are told in poetic strain, “There is no death; what seems so is transition;” they have only changed to another state of being, only gone before; for the soul is immortal, the spirit never-dying; and it cannot for a moment cease its conscious existence.

 

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

To the law, then, and to the testimony. What say the Scriptures on the subject of immortality? The reader is requested to take note of three facts, and the conclusion which inevitably follows from them:  [[50]]

 

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

 

            Remembering, thoughtful reader, the many times you have heard and read that all men were in possession of an immortal soul, how many times do you think the New Testament declares that you have such an immortal soul? One hundred times? No. Fifty?—No. Ten?— No. Five?—No. Twice?—No!  ONCE?—NO!! Does not the New Testament then apply the term immortal to anything? — Yes; and this brings us to —

 

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

The original word, however, aphthartos, from which “immortal” is here translated, occurs in six other instances in the New Testament, in every one of which it is rendered “incorruptible.” The word is defined by Greenfield, “Incorruptible, immortal, imperishable, undying, [[51]] enduring.” The following is a complete list of the texts where it is found:

 

   APHTHARTOS (IMMORTAL).

 

Rom. 1:23          the glory of the uncorruptible God.

I Cor. 9:25         a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.

I Cor. 15:52       the dead shall be raised incorruptible.

I Tim. 1:17         the King eternal, immortal, invisible.

I Peter 1:4          to an inheritance incorruptible.

I Peter 1:23        not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible.

I Peter 3:4          that which is not corruptible.

 

            According to these references it will be seen that this word is used, first, in Rom. 1:23, to describe God: “And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.” Here man is placed in contrast with God. God is incorruptible, or immortal, but man is corruptible, or mortal.

 

            It is used in 1 Cor. 9:25 to describe, not the soul of man, but the heavenly crown of the overcomer: “And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.”

 

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

 

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

 

      It is used in 1 Peter 1:4 to describe the inheritance reserved in heaven for the overcomer: “To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you.” Nothing about an immor­tal soul thus far in the list. [[52]]

 

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

 

      It is used in I Peter 3:4 to describe the heavenly adorning which all should labor to secure: “But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not cor­ruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.”

 

            And these are all the instances of its use. In not one of them is it applied to man or any part of him, as a natural possession. But does not the last text affirm that man is in possession of a deathless spirit? The words “incorruptible” and “spirit” both occur, it is true, in the same verse; but they do not stand together, another noun and its adjectives coming in between them; they are not in the same case, “incorruptible” being in the dative, and “spirit” in the genitive; they are not of the same gender, “incorruptible” being masculine or femi­nine, and “spirit’’ neuter. What is it which is in the sight of God of great price? — The ornament of a meek and quiet spirit. What is the nature of this ornament? -—It is not destructible like the laurel wreath, the rich ap­parel, the gold and gems, with which the unsanctified man seeks to adorn himself; but it is incorruptible, a disposi­tion molded by the Spirit of God, some of the fruit of that heavenly tree which God values. Does man by nature possess this incorruptible ornament, this meek and quiet spirit? — No; for we are exhorted to procure and adopt this instead of the other. This, and this only, the text affirms. To say that this text proves that man is in pos­session of a deathless spirit, is no more consistent nor logical than it would be to say that Paul declares that man has an immortal soul, because in his first epistle to [[53]] Timothy (chapter 1:17) he uses the word “immortal,” and in his first epistle to the Thessalonians (chapter 5:23) he uses the word “soul.” The argument would be the same in both cases.

 

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

 

In Rom. 2:7 it is set forth as something for which we are to seek by patient continuance in well-doing:  “To them who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality [God will render], eternal life.” This shows that we do not possess immor­tality here; for if we do, how can we be exhorted to seek for it?

 

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

 

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

 

In 2 Tim. 1:10 we are told from what source we receive the true light concerning it, which forever cuts off the claim that reason or science can demonstrate it, or that the oracles of heathenism can make it known to us: “But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” [[54]]

 

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

 

            As with the word “immortal,” so with the word “im­mortality;” it occurs in the Greek, in a few instances, where it is not translated “immortality “in the English version. There are two words from which the English term is rendered. These are athanasia and aphtharsia. The former, athanasia, is defined by Greenfield and Robinson simply “immortality,” and is so translated in every instance. It occurs only three times, and the following are the instances of its use.

 

ATHANASIA  (IMMORTALITY)

 

I Cor. 15:53     must put on immortality

I Cor. 15:54     shall have put on immorality

I Tim. 6:16       who only hath immortality

 

 

The latter word, aphtharsia, is defined by the same authorities, ‘‘incorruptibility, incorruptness; by implica­tion, immortality.” The following is a complete list of the texts where it occurs:  [[55]]

 

APHTHARSIA (IMMORTALITY).

 

Rom. 2: 7         seek for glory, honor, and immortality.

1 Cor. 15: 42   it is raised in incorruption.

I Cor. 15:50     neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

I Cor. 15:53     must put on incorruption.

I Cor. 15:54     shall have put on incorruption.

Eph. 6: 24        love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity.

2 Tim. 1:10       brought life and immortality to light.

Titus 2:7           gravity, sincerity.

 

            In addition to remarks already made on Rom. 2:7 and 2 Tim. 1:10, where this term is rendered, in our version, ‘‘immortality,” we may add that in 1 Cor. 15:42 it refers to the body after the resurrection from the dead; and in verses 50, 53, and 54 of the same chap­ter, it is that incorruption which cannot be inherited by corruption; that is, by our present mortal condition; and it is that which this corruptible must put on before we can enter into the kingdom of God. In Eph. 6:24 it is used to describe the love we should bear to Christ, and in Titus 2:7 the quality of the doctrine we should hold; in both of which instances it is translated “sincerity.”

 

            We now have before us all the testimony of the Bible relative to the use of the words “immortal” and “im­mortality.” So far from being applied to man, the terms are used, as in Rom. 1:23, to point out the contrast be­tween God and man. God is incorruptible, or immortal; man is corruptible, or mortal. But if the real man, the essential being, consists of an undecaying soul, a death­less spirit, he, too, is in this respect incorruptible, and this contrast could not be drawn. Immortality is placed before us as an object of hope for which we are to seek, a declaration which would be a fraud and deception if we already have it. The word is used to distinguish be­tween heavenly and eternal objects, and those that are [[56]] earthly and decaying. In view of these facts, no candid mind can dissent from the following—

 

            Conclusion:  So far as its use of the terms “immor­tal” and “immortality” is concerned, the Bible nowhere says that man is “immortal;” nowhere says that he has “immortality;” and it contains no evidence that he has in his nature any incorruptible, undying principle, but everywhere asserts just the reverse, by applying these terms in every instance to other objects. [[57]]

 

Chapter V

 

The Words “Soul” and “Spirit”

 

Examination of the Meaning of the Words “Soul” and “Spirit,” and What Use the Scriptures Make of These Terms

 

            The discussion of Gen. 2:7 (as in foregoing pages) brings directly before us for solution the question, What is meant by the terms “soul” and “spirit,” as applied to man? Believers in unconditional immortality point triumphantly to the fact that the terms “soul” and “spirit” are applied to human beings, and seem to regard that as settling the question, and raising an insuperable barrier against all further discussion. This arises simply from their not looking into this matter with sufficient thor­oughness to see that all we question in the case is the popular definition that is given to these terms. We do not deny that there is a “soul” and a “spirit” pertaining to man; we only say that if our friends will show that the Bible anywhere attaches to them the meaning with which modern theology has invested them, they will supply what has thus far been a perpetual lack, and forever settle this controversy. The trouble is, men borrow from heathen philosophy and their own imagination, the conception of an immaterial, immortal entity, and call it the soul; then when they find the term used in the Bible, they attach to, it their own definition, and call the question settled. This is not only illogical, but wicked. [[58]]

 

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

 

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

 

This idea being preposterous, one question more re­mains:  Which of these two is the immortal part?  Is it the soul or the spirit? It cannot be both; and it matters [[59]] not to us which is the one chosen. But we want to know what the decision is as between the two. If it is said that what we call the soul is the immortal part, then such texts as Eccl. 12:7: “The spirit shall return unto God who gave it;” and Luke 23:46: “Into thy hands I commend my spirit,” etc., must be given up as proof of any such immortal part; for these texts do not use the term “soul.” On the other hand, if it is claimed that it is the spirit which is the immortal part, then such texts as Gen. 35:18: “And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died);” and 1 Kings 17:21: “Let this child’s soul come into him again,” must be given up as favoring man’s immortality for they do not use the term “spirit.”

 

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

 

Foreseeing these difficulties, Smith, in his Bible Dic­tionary, distinguishes between soul and spirit, thus:  “Soul (Hebrew nephesh, Greek psuche). One of three parts of which man was anciently believed to consist. The term psuche is sometimes used to denote the vital principle, sometimes the sentient principle, or seat of the senses, desires, affections, appetites, passions. In the latter sense, it is distinguished from pneuma, the higher rational nature. This distinction appears in the Septuagint, and sometimes in the New Testament. 1 Thess. 5:23.” Then he quotes Olshausen on 1 Thess. 5:23, as saying: “For whilst the [[psuche]] (soul) denotes the lower region of the spiritual man— comprises, therefore, the powers to which analogous ones are found in animal life also, as understanding, appetitive faculty, memory, fancy —the (pneuma) includes those capacities which constitute the true human life.” [[60]]

 

So it seems that, according to these expositors, while the Hebrew nephesh, and the Greek psuche, usually trans­lated “soul,” denote powers common to all animal life, the Hebrew ruahh and the corresponding Greek pneuma, so often translated “spirit,” signify the higher powers, and consequently that part which is sup­posed to be immortal.

 

Let us now inquire for the true definition of these terms. The definition of each word will be given by standard lexicographers, and then references showing how these words are used in the Scriptures.

 

Hebrew nephesh, Greek psuche:  Soul

Hebrew ruahh, Greek  pneuma:  Spirit.

 

To these no one is at liberty to attach any arbitrary meaning. Their signification must be determined by the sense in which they are used in the sacred record and whoever goes beyond that, does violence to the word of God.  

 

 

Nephesh

 

 

Nephesh Defined —Gesenius, the standard Hebrew lexicographer, defines nephesh as follows:

 

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

 

Parkhurst, author of a Greek and a Hebrew lexicon, says: [[61]]

 

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

 

Taylor, author of a Hebrew concordance, says that neh-phesh “signifies the animal life, or that principle by which every animal, according to its kind, lives. Gen. 1:20, 24, 30. Which animal life, so far as we know anything of the manner of its existence, or so far as the Scriptures lead our thoughts, consists in the breath (Job 41:21; 31:39) and in the blood. Lev. 17:11, 14.” This will suffice for definition. Now for its use.

 

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

 

Besides the word “soul,” nephesh is translated “life” and “lives,” as in Gen. 1:20, 30, in all 118 times. It is translated “person,” as in Gen. 14:21, in all 29 times. It is translated “mind,” as in Gen. 23: 8, in all 15 times. It is translated “heart,” as in Ex. 23: 9, in all 15 times. It is translated “body,” or “dead body,” as in Num. 6: 6, in all 11 times. It is translated “will,” as in Ps. 27:12, in all 4 times. It is translated “appe­tite,” as in Prov. 23: 2, twice; “lust,” as in Ps. 78: 18, twice; “thing,” as in Lev. 11:10, twice. [[62]]

 

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

 

Nephesh Is Mortal:  This “soul” (nephesh) is repre­sented as in danger of the grave. Ps. 49:14, 15; 89:48; Job 33:18, 20, 22; Isa. 38:17. It is also spoken of as liable to be destroyed, killed, etc. Gen. 17:14; Ex. 31:14; Joshua 10:30, 32, 35, 37, 39, etc.

 

Psuche

 

Psuche Defined:  Greenfield gives to psuche the fol­lowing definition:

 

“Breath; life; i. e., the animal soul, principle of life; Luke 12:19, 20; Acts 20:10; life; i. e., the state of being alive, existence (spoken of natural life); Matt. 2:20; 6:25; and by implication, of life as extending beyond the grave; Matt. 10:39; John 12:25; by metonymy, that which has life, a living creature, living being; 1 Cor. 15:45; spoken of a man, person, individual; Acts 2:41.”

 

Bagster’s Analytical Greek Lexicon gives substantially the same definition, as follows:

 

Breath: the principle of animal life; the life, Matt. 2:20; an inanimate being, 1 Cor. 15:45; a human individual, soul, Acts 2:41; the immaterial soul, Matt. 10:28; the soul as the seat of religious and moral sentiment, Matt. 11:29; the soul as a seat of feeling, Matt. 12:18; the soul, the inner self, Luke 12:19.

 

Psuche as Used in the Scriptures:  The word “soul” in the New Testament comes invariably from the Greek psuche; which word occurs 105 times. It is trans­lated “soul” 58 times; “life” 40 times; “mind” 3 times; “heart” twice; “us’’ once; and “you” once; six different ways.

 

Ruahh

 

Ruahh Defined:  For the definition of this word we appeal again to Gesenius:  [[63]]

 

           

“[[Ruahh]] 1. Breath, a breathing, blowing; i. e., (a) breath of the nostrils, a snuffing, snorting; (b) breath of the mouth. Often of the vital breath, breath of life; fully, Gen. 6:17; (e) breath of air, air in motion. 2. The same as psuche, anima; i. e., the vital spirit, breath of life. 3. The rational soul, mind, spirit; (a) as the seat of the affections; (b) in reference to the disposition, the mode of feeling and acting; (c) of will, counsel, purpose; (d) more rarely of the understanding. 4. The Spirit of God.

 

Ruahh as Used in the Scriptures:  This word occurs in the Old Testament 442 times. The word “spirit,” in every instance of its occurrence in the Old Testament, 234 times, is from this word, except in Job 26:4 and Prov. 20:27, where it is from n’shah-mah. Besides be­ing rendered 232 times “ spirit,” it is translated “wind “97 times, “breath” 28 times, “smell” 8 times, “mind” 6 times, “blast” 4 times, also “anger, courage, smell, air,” etc.; in all sixteen different ways.

 

“Spirit” in the New Testament is from the Greek pneuma in every instance.

 

Pneuma

 

Pneuma Defined:  Robinson, in his Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, defines this word to mean, primarily, “1. A breathing, breath, breath of air, air in motion.  2. The spirit of man; i. e., the vital spirit, life, soul, the principle of life residing in the breath breathed into men from God, and again returning to God.” Parkhurst, in his Greek Lexicon, says: “It may be worth remarking that the leading sense of the old English word ‘ghost’ [which in Matt. 27:50; John 19:30, and ninety other places is from this word pneuma] is breath; . . . that ghost is evidently of the same root with gust of wind; and that both these words are plain derivatives from the Hebrew, to move with violence; whence also gush, etc.”

 

Pneuma as Used in the Scriptures:  This word occurs in the New Testament 385 times; and besides being rendered [[64]] “spirit” 288 times, is rendered “ghost” 92 times, “wind” once, and “life” once; four different ways. 

 

There is another word rendered “spirit,” in the Old Testament, and that is

 

 N’shah-mah

 

N’shah-mah Defined:  Gesenius gives to this word the following definitions:

 

“[[N’shah-mah]] 1. Breath, spirit, spoken of the breath of God, i. e., (a) the wind; (h) the breath, breathing, of his anger; (c) the spirit of God, imparting life and wisdom. 2. Breath, life, of man and beasts; Gen. 2:7; and breathed into his nostrils, the breath of life; more fully, Gen. 7:22. Hence, anima, the vital spirit, psuche, the same as . . .  3. The mind, the intellect. 4. Concrete, living thing, animal.”

 

N’shah-mah as Used in the Scriptures:  This word occurs in the Old Testament 24 times. It is 17 times rendered ‘‘ breath,” 3 times “ blast,” twice “ spirit.” once “soul,” and once “inspiration;” five different ways.

 

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

 

By a dishonorable perversion on this point, some have tried to hold up to ridicule the advocates of the view here defended. Thus, when we read in Gen. 2:7, that Adam became a “living soul,” the sense demands, and the [[65]] meaning of the word “soul” will warrant, that we then apply it to the whole person; Adam, as a complete being, was a “living soul.” But when we read in Gen. 35:18, “And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing (for she died),” we give the word, according to another of its definitions, a more limited signification, and apply it, with the lexicographer Parkhurst, to the “breath of life.”

 

But, strange to say, doctors of divinity have on this point descended to such trifling as the following: “Mate­rialists tell us that ‘soul’ means the whole man; then let us see how it will read in Gen. 35:18: ‘And it came to pass, as her whole man was in departing (for she died).’”  Or they will say, “Materialists tell us that ‘soul’ means the breath; then let us try it in Gen. 2:7:  ‘And Adam became a living breath.’”

 

Such a course, while it is no credit to their mental acu­men, is utterly disastrous to all their claims of candor and honesty in their treatment of this important subject. But in the whole list of definitions, and in the entire use of the words, we find nothing answering to that im­material, independent, immortal part, capable of a con­scious, intelligent, active existence out of the body as well as in.

 

It will be noticed also that some of the definitions are determined by the theological views extant upon this sub­ject; as, for instance, when psuche is defined to mean the “immaterial soul,” and Matt. 10:28 is quoted to prove it. We shall find, when we come to an examination of that passage, that no such “immaterial” thing can be there referred to. But let it be marked that in all the definitions of the words “soul” and “spirit,” and in all the instances of their use in the Scriptures, they are never once described or referred to as existing, or capable of existing, without a body. Dr. McCullock[15] says: “There [[66]] is no word in the Hebrew language that signifies either soul or spirit in the technical sense of implying something distinct from the body.”

 

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

 

           An attempt is sometimes made to parry the force of this fact by saying that the immortality of the soul, like that of God, is taken for granted. We reply, The im­mortality of God is not taken for granted. Although this might be taken for granted if anything could be so taken, yet it is directly asserted that God is immortal. “Now unto the King eternal, immortal,” etc., 1 Tim. 1:17; “The King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only hath immortality,” etc. 1 Tim. 6:15, 16. Let now the advocates of the soul’s natural immortality, produce one text where it is said to have immortality, as God is said to have it (1 Tim. 6:16), or where it is said to be immor­tal, as God is said to be (1 Tim. 1:17), and the ques­tion is settled. But this cannot be done; and the ignoble “taken-for-granted” argument falls dead to the floor. [[67]]

 

Chapter VI.

 

Concerning the Human Spirit

 

Examination of All the Texts in the Bible, in which the Term “Spirit” Is Used in a Way which Is Supposed to Prove that It Can Exist in a Conscious State Separate from the Body, and that It Is Immortal.

 

THE first of these is that oft-quoted declaration by Solomon, that--

 

1.  The Spirit Returns to God

 

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

 

      In the examination of this text, and all others of a like nature, let it ever be remembered that the question at issue is, Has man in his nature a constituent element which is an independent entity, and which, when the body dies, keeps right on in uninterrupted consciousness, being capa­ble of exercising in a still higher degree out of the body all the functions of intelligence and activity which it mani­fested through the body, and destined, whether a subject [[68]] of God’s favor or of his threatened and merited wrath, to live so long as God himself exists?

 

            Does this text assert anything of this kind? Does it state that from which even such an inference can be drawn? We invite the reader to go with us, while we endeavor to consider carefully what the text really teaches.  Those who hold that man has a spirit which can exist in a conscious, intelligent condition, separate from the body, appeal to this passage as direct testimony in favor of that view. Let us see how far we can go with them:

 

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

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

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

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

        5.         The spirit returns to God. Granted.

        6.         This spirit is therefore conscious after the dissolution of the body.  Not granted.  Where is the proof of this? Here our paths begin to diverge.  But how could the spirit return to God, it is asked, if it was not conscious? Answer: In the manner Job describes: “If he [God] set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath; all flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust.” Job 34:14, 15. This scripture speaks of God’s gathering to himself the “breath” of man — something which no one supposes to be capable of a separate, conscious existence. Moreover, this spirit and breath, given for awhile to man, God calls his own; and depriving man of it, he calls “gathering it to himself,” an expression fully as strong as that contained in the words, “the spirit shall return unto God who gave [[69]] it.” This proposition we are therefore compelled to reject as unsustained.

      7.         The next claim is that this spirit is therefore to exist forever. From this conclusion we must also dissent.  It is not expressed and does not seem to be even in the remotest manner implied. Thus the only two propositions which vital to the position for which our friends contend, are wholly assumed.

 

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

 

            Landis (p. 133) falls into this wrong method of reason­ing. He says:

 

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

 

        The breath of life, to be sure, is distinct from the body, and did not come from the dust of the ground; but to say that it can exist in a conscious state independent of the body, and that it must live forever, is a leap in logic most marvelous to behold.  [[70]]

 

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

 

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

 

But there is a grave objection lying against the popular exposition of this text, which must not pass unnoticed. It is involved in the question, What was the state or condi­tion of this spirit before God gave it to man? Was it an independent, conscious, and intelligent being before it was put into man, as it is claimed that it is after man gets through with it, and it returns to God? Solomon evidently designs to state, respecting all the elements of [[71]] which man is composed, as is expressly stated of the body, that they resume the original condition in which they were before they came together to form the com­posite being — man. We know it is argued that the expression respecting the body, that it returns to the dust “as it was,” is good ground for an inference that the spirit returns not as it was; but every principle of logic requires the very opposite conclusion. For, having set the mind upon that idea of sameness of condition respect­ing the body, and then referring us to the source from whence the spirit came, and stating that it goes back to that source, the language is as good as an affirmation that it goes back to its original condition also, and must be so understood unless an express affirmation is made to the contrary. The question is therefore pertinent, Was this spirit before it came into man, a conscious being, as it is claimed to be after it leaves him? In other words, have we all had a conscious pre-existence? Is the mystery of our Lord’s incarnation repeated in every member of the human race?--Yes! if popular theologians rightly ex­plain this text. And the more daring or reckless spirits among them, seeing the logical sequence of their reason­ing, boldly avow this position.

 

       Mr. Landis (to whom is made occasional reference as, a fair exponent of the popular theory) recoils at the idea of pre-existence, and claims (p. 147) that the spirit does ‘not return as it was, but acquires “a moral character, and so is changed from what it was when first created and given to man”! Oh! Then, when man’s body is formed, a spirit is created (from what?) and put into it!  Where did he learn this? To what new revelation has he had access to become acquainted with so remarkable a fact? Or whence derives he his authority to man manufacture statements of this kind? His soul swells with indignation [[72]] over some whom he styles “materialists,” and whom he accuses of manufacturing scripture. Thou that sayest a man should not, dost thou? Nothing is said of the “creation of a spirit” in connection with the formation of the body. Take the case of Adam: the body having been formed, God by an agency, not created for the pur­pose, but already existing with himself, endowed it with life, and Adam became a living soul.

 

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

 

        There is another consideration not without its bearing on this question. The words, “And the spirit shall return unto God who gave it,” are spoken promiscuously of all mankind. They apply alike to the righteous and the wicked. If the spirit survives the death of the body, the spirits of the righteous would, as a natural consequence, ascend to God, in whose presence they are promised fulness of joy. Ps. 16:11. But do the spirits of the wicked go to God also? If so, for what purpose do they go to him?  The immediate destination usually assigned to them is the lake of fire. Is it said that they first go to God to be judged? Then the question arises, Where does the Bible once affirm that a person is judged when he dies? On the contrary, the Scriptures invariably place the Judgment in the future, arid assert in the most explicit [[73]] terms that God has appointed a day for that purpose.  Acts 17:31.

 

       Thus the Bible doctrine of the Judgment is directly contradicted by this popular misconception of the text under notice. According to the Scriptures, no man has yet received his final judgment; yet according to the view under examination, the spirits of all who have ever died, good and bad, righteous and wicked, have all gone to God. For what purpose, we ask again, have the spirits of the wicked gone to him? Are they there still? Does God so deal with rebels against his government; that is, keep them with him, or give them heaven from one to six thousand years, more or less, and hell afterward? Or have they been judged and sent to hell already? Then there is no place for a future general Judgment, which the Scriptures declare there is to be. A view which in­troduces such inconsistencies into God’s dealings with his creatures, surely cannot stand.

 

      How infinitely preferable that view which alone the record warrants; that is, that the “spirit” which returns to God who gave it, is the “breath of life,” that agency by which God vivifies and sustains these physical frames. This breath of life, so far as the record goes, is just what God did give and all he did give to man in the beginning. The definition of the term sustains such an application. This spirit, without doing violence to either thought or language, can return to God in the same sense in which it came from him. And this view should be adopted, above all other considerations, because it harmonizes all the record, and avoids those inconsistencies and contra­dictions in which one finds himself inevitably involved the very moment he undertakes to make the spirit mean a separate entity, conscious in death, and immortal in its nature.  [[74]]

 

2.  From Whence Comes the Spirit?

 

      Another text claimed to be positive proof that man has a spirit which is above and beyond the power of death, is Zech. 12:1: “The burden of the word of the Lord for Israel, saith the Lord, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundations of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.”

 

      As to the nature of this “spirit” which God forms in man, its characteristics and attributes, this text affirms nothing. Above all, respecting the main inquiry, Is this spirit immortal? The text is entirely silent. Why, then, is it introduced? — Because it contains the word “spirit.” But, as has been shown, nothing is proved by the mere use of the words “ soul’’ and “spirit,’’ till some affirmation can be found in the Scriptures that these terms signify an independent entity, which has the power of uninterrupted consciousness, amid the endowment of immortality. For men to take these terms, and give them definitions, and clothe them with attributes which are the offspring of pagan philosophy, or figments of their own imagination, and then, claim that because the Bible uses these terms, it sustains their views, is, to say the least, a very unworthy display of logic. But, from the persistency with which this course is followed by those of the so-called orthodox view, one might conclude that it is the only way they have of sustaining their position.

 

      God “formeth the spirit of man within him.” So the text asserts. The word “form" is from the Hebrew yatsar, which means “to form, to fashion,” and the parti­ciple yotsar is used to signify a “molder, potter.” The Septuagint translates it by the word plasso. The definition of this word, as given by Liddell and Scott, is, “To form, mold, shape, Latin fingere, strictly used of [[75]] the artist who works in soft substances, such as earth, clay, wax.” The word, then, signifies giving shape and form to something already in existence; for the artist does not create his clay, wax, etc., but only changes its form. The second definition seems, however, to be more appli­cable to the case in hand. Thus, “II. Generally, to bring into shape or form, [[pl. ten psuchen, to soma]] to mold and form the mind or body by care, diet, and exercise.” Thus God makes man the crown of creation by forming in him (through a superior organization of the brain) an intellec­tual and moral nature; amid we can still further forum or mold it by care and cultivation. There is nothing here to favor the idea of the creation of a separate, immaterial, and immortal entity, and its introduction from without in­to the human frame.

 

      This text is illustrated by Job 32:8:  “But there is a spirit in man and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding;” not “giveth it [the spirit] under­standing’’ as it is often quoted. That is, men are en­dowed with a superior mental organization; and by means of that, God gives them understanding.

 

      Since, however, Zech. 12:1 is used by immaterialists, to prove that souls are specially created, it raises the ques­tion, which may as well be considered in this connection as any other, whence the spirit, whatever it is, is derived. In the text under consideration, the present tense is evidently used for the past; and hence it might be read, “The burden of the word of the Lord . . . which stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundations of earth, and formed the spirit of man within him.’’ If now this means the creation of an immortal entity to be added to man, called his spirit, it applies only to the first man, the man formed at the creation of the world. The question then remains, How do all succeeding members of [[76]] the human race get an immortal spirit? Is it by a special act of creation on the part of God, or is it by generation from father to son? Has God, for every member of the human race since Adam, by special act created a soul or spirit? They who say he has, contradict Gen. 2:2, which declares that all God’s work of creation, so far as it per­tains to this world, was finished in the first week of time. Surely that work was not finished if it is certain that God has been at work ever since, creating human souls as fast as bodies were brought into existence to need them, the greater part of the time thousands of them every day.

 

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

 

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

 

There could hardly be a plainer testimony that man as a whole is mortal and perishable. He is born of “corruptible” [[77]] seed. But more than this, it is added, “All flesh is as grass.” Should it be said that this means simply the body, we reply that the term “flesh” is fre­quently used in the New Testament to signify the whole man. Thus, Rom. 3:20: “By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified.” Paul does not here talk about the justification of bones, sinews, nerves, and muscles; he refers to the whole responsible man. In the same sense the term is used in many other passages. But Peter himself, in the passage just quoted, cuts off its application exclusively to the body; for after saying that “all flesh is as grass,” he continues, “and all the glory of man as the flower of grass.” The glory of man must include all that is noble and exalted about his nature. If the soul is the highest and most godlike part of man, it is included in this glory; but lo! It is all like the flower of the grass — transitory amid perishable.

 

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

 

      The texts usually relied upon to prove that souls are immediately created, are Eccl. 12:7; Isa. 57:16; Zech. 12:1. The first of these was examined in the last chapter. The word translated “form” in the last of these passages, as shown in this present chapter, is not a word that signi­fies “to create,” but only to put into form, mold, and fashion. Isa. 57:16 speaks of the souls which God has “made.” But there are numerous other texts, as Job 10:8-11; Isa. 44:2; 64:8; Jer. 1:5, etc., which speak in the same manner of the body. But if such ex­pressions can be used with respect to the body, produced [[78]] by the natural process of generation, the same expression with reference to the soul contains no proof that that is not also transmitted with the body.

 

      God said to our first parents, and the commission was repeated to Noah after the flood, “Be fruitful and mul­tiply.” Multiply what? — Themselves, of course. Did that mean that they should multiply bodies, and God would multiply souls to fit them? — Nothing of the kind; but they were to multiply beings having all the charac­teristics, endowments, and attributes of themselves. So Adam (Gen. 5:3) “begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth.” This son was like Adam in all respects, having all the natures that Adam possessed, and that which was begotten by Adam was called Seth. But according to the doctrine of creationism, Adam begat only a body, and God created a soul, which is the real man, amid called his name Seth, and put it into that body. Neither this text nor any other gives countenance to any such absurdity. If the soul is the seat of a person’s mental and moral qualities, and is a separate creation from the body, how does it happen that children resemble their parents so much in these par­ticulars? On the ground of creation, it would not be so.

 

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

 

I read and abridged an old work on the origin of the soul. I never before saw anything on the subject so satisfactory. I think the author proves to a demonstration that God has enabled man, as all other creatures, to propagate his whole species, consisting of soul and body.  [[79]]

 

            The testimony of Richard Watson (“ Institutes,” pp. 362, 363) is equally explicit. He says:

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

 

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

 

3.  Who Knows the Spirit of Man?

 

       With the words “who knoweth” Solomon here intro­duces, in Eccl. 3:21, a very important question respect­ing the spirit of man, He says: “Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?” Deeming this a good foundation, the advocates of natural immortality proceed to build thereon. They take it to be, first, a positive declaration that the spirit of man does go up, and that the spirit of the beast does go downward to the earth. Then the superstructure is easily erected thus:  Solomon [[80]] must have believed that man had a spirit capable of a separate and conscious existence in death; and this spirit, in the hour of dissolution, ascends up on high, and goes into the presence of God. It therefore survives the stroke of death, and is consequently immortal.

 

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

 

       But is not the word “spirit,” as applied to the beast, a different word in the original from the one translated ‘‘spirit” and applied to man? —No; they are both from the same original word, and that word is ruahh, the word from which “spirit” is translated in the Old Testa­ment in every instance with two exceptions, as has been already explained. A beast has the same kind of “spirit” that man has.

      

       Immaterialists feel the weight of the stunning blow which this fact gives to the popular view, and endeavor to parry its force by the following desperate resort. Solomon, they say, is here describing the state of doubt and perplexity through which he had formerly passed; and, to use their own words[16],’ “in this perplexity he [[81]] attributes to both man and beast a ruahh.” But they say that Solomon got over this state of doubt and uncertainty, and “never again attributed a ruahh to beasts.” Thus they are obliged to resort to the position that Solo­mon, with all his wisdom, was a skeptic, and wrote down his skepticism in this passage; and somehow it secured a place upon the sacred page as a part of inspiration! But before he got through the book, he experienced a change of heart, and then (chapter 12:7) could tell the truth about man’s spirit, that it went directly to God. But, unfortunately, he has left on record no indication of these two conditions of mind, nor of his transition from one to the other. He simply had no occasion to speak of beasts again in such a connection, and hence no occa­sion to speak of their ruahh. What we regard as the Bible view of man’s nature is not unfrequently denomi­nated “infidelity” by the popular theologians of the present day; but it strikes us as rather a bold position to go back and accuse the sacred writers themselves of laboring under a spirit of infidelity when they penned these sentiments. But if they were not infidels when they wrote, it is not infidelity to believe their writings.

 

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

 

      But, further, if this text asserts that the spirit of man goes up to God, it will be noticed again that it is spoken promiscuously of all mankind. Then the same queries would arise respecting the spirits of the wicked, for what [[82]] purpose they go to God, and the same objections would lie against that view, that were stated in the examination of Eccl. 12:7, in previous paragraphs of this work.

 

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

 

       Thus definite and positive is the teaching of Solomon that, in respect to their animal life, here upon earth, and their condition in death, men and beasts are exactly alike. And now can we suppose that, after having thus clearly expressed his views of this matter, he proceeds in the very next sentence to contradict it all, and assert that in death there is a difference between men and beasts? That men do have a pre-eminence? That all do not go to one place? That the spirit of man goes up conscious to God, [[83]] and the spirit of the beast goes down to perish in the earth.  This would be to make the wisest man that ever lived, the most stupid reasoner that ever put pen to paper.

 

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

 

       This puts the matter in quite a different light, and saves Solomon from self-contradiction; but alas for the immaterialist! It completely overturns the fabric of im­mortality which he builds thereon.

 

       The notion prevailed in the heathen world that men s spirit ascended up to be with the gods (and this is the foundation of heathen mythology), but the spirit of the beast went down to the earth. It was the old lesson taught by that unreliable character in Eden, “Ye shall not surely die,’’ but ‘‘ye shall be as gods.” Solomon contradicts all this by stating the truth in the case, namely, that death reduces man and beast alike to one common condition. Then he asks, Who knows that the opposite heathen doctrine is true, that the spirit of man goes up, and that of the beast down? He had declared that they all went to one place, in accordance with God’s original sentence, “Thou shalt surely die;“ now he calls for evidence, if there be any, to show that the opposite doc­trine is true. Thus he smites to the ground this pagan [[84]] notion by putting it to the proof of its claims, for which no proof exists. Only by perversion are they made to bolster up a doctrine which he intended them to condemn.

 

4.  Committing the Spirit to God

 

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

 

       It is a fact that the same or similar acts are spoken of frequently as done in reference to the life, that are said to [[85]] be done in reference to the spirit. Can a person commit his spirit to God? So he can commit to him die preservation of his life. Thus David says (Ps. 64:1):  “Preserve my life.” What! Mr. Landis would exclaim, preserve a nonentity? Jonah prayed (chapter 4:3), “0 Lord, take, 1 beseech thee, my life from me.” Christ says (John 10:15): “I hay down my life for the sheep;” and in John 13:38 he asks Peter, “Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake?”

 

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

 

      But if the spirit, as is claimed, lives right along after death, just as conscious as before, and a hundredfold more active, capable, intelligent, amid free, where would be the propriety of committing it to God in the hour of death, any more than at any point during its earthly existence? — There would be none whatever. Entering upon that permanent, higher life, it would be much more capable of caring for itself than in this earthly condition. The expression bears upon its very face, evidence that those who used it desired to commit something into the care of their Maker which was about to pass out of their posses­sion; to commit something into his hands for safekeeping until they should be brought back from the state of uncon­sciousness and inactivity into which they were then falling. And what was that? — It was what they were then losing; namely, their life, their pneuma, which Robinson defines [[86]] as meaning, among other things, “The principle of life residing in the breath, breathed into man from God and again returning to God.” And when the life is thus given up to God by his people, where is it? — “Hid with Christ in God.” Col. 3:3. And when will the believer receive it again? — When “Christ, who is our life, shall appear.”  Verse 4.  Then Stephen will receive from his Lord that which, while dying, he besought him to receive. Then they who for Christ’s sake have lost their life (not merely their bodies while their life continues right on), will have that life restored to them again, to be enjoyed eternally in the world to come.

 

5.  The Spirits of Just Men Made Perfect

 

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

 

       With a great show of confidence, either pretended or real, the advocates of man’s immortality bring forward this text in proof of their position. That portion of the foregoing quotation upon which they hang their theory is the expression, “the spirits of just men made perfect,” which they take to be both a declaration and a proof thereof, that the spirits of men are released by death, and thereupon are made perfect or glorified in the presence of God in heaven. A little further examination of the lan­guage will show any one that such an assertion is not made in the text, and that even such an inference cannot justly be drawn from it.  [[87]]

 

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

 

       It is not difficult to determine how we “come” to all the other objects mentioned by Paul in the three verses quoted; but how we come to the spirits of just men made perfect, according to the popular view of that expression, is not so clear. If we mistake not, the common view will have to be modified, or the explanation never be given.  [[88]]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

            “And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant.”  We now come to Jesus, the real mediator, instead of to [[89]] the typical priesthood of the former dispensation, which were only types of the true.

 

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

 

      It can readily be seen how we “come” to all these things under this dispensation; how these are all privileges and blessings under the gospel, beyond what was enjoyed in the former dispensation. But now, if the expression, the “spirits of just men made perfect,” means disem­bodied spirits in the popular sense, how to we come to these as a gospel blessing? This is what we would like to have our friends tell us. In what respect is our rela­tion to our dead friends, the supposed spirits of the departed, changed by the gospel?  If there is any sense in which we may be said to have “come” to these, any more than before, we would like to know it. Spiritual­ists might perhaps set up a claim here; but even that would not hold; for, according to their view, our dead friends come to us, not we to them.

 

       But again: When do we come into closest contact with a man’s spirit?  Is it when that spirit is supposed to have become disembodied, and has gone far away to dwell in the presence of God, and is to have no more forever with anything that is done under the sun? Eccl. 9:6. Is it not rather right here in this life, when the spirit of a man through the eyes of that man, looks upon us, through his mouth speaks to us, and through his hands handles us? Outside the ranks of Spiritualists, will any one say that we enjoy more intimate relations with a spirit when it is out of the body than we do while it is in the body? A consideration of this point, must convince [[90]] any one that the idea of coming to the “spirits of just men made perfect” cannot possibly be applied to spirits out of the body.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

       Finally, to show that this is not a view devised to meet any exigency of the position here advocated, a name can be appealed to, in its support, which will have great [[91]] weight with all, and will be final authority with many:  the name of Dr. Adam Clarke. On this text, he says:

 

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

 

            Although these remarks are a sufficient explanation of the text, we quote also the following paragraph from Dr. Clarke’s note at the end of Hebrews 12, as found in the original edition of his work:

 

Only the high priest, and he but one day in the year, was per­mitted to approach God under the Old Testament dispensation; but under the New, every believer in Jesus can come even to the throne, each has liberty to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, and to real Christians alone it can be said, Ye are come to God — the Judge of all — to him ye have constant access, and from him ye are continually receiving grace upon grace. We have already seen that ‘the righteous perfect,’ or just men made perfect,’ is a Jewish phrase, and signified those who had made the farthest advances in moral rectitude. The apostle uses it here to point out those in the church of Christ who had received the highest degrees of grace, possessed most of the mind of Christ, and were doing and suffering most for the glory of God; those who were most deeply acquainted with the things of God and the mysteries of the gospel, such as the apostles, evangelists, the primitive teachers, and those who presided in and over different churches. And these are termed the ‘spirits [dikaion teteleiomenon] of the just perfected,’ because they were a spiritual people, forsaking earth, and living in reference to that spiritual rest that was typified by Canaan.

 

 

6.  The Spirits in Prison

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

       But the bare suggestion of so singular a transaction as Christ’s going to preach to these spirits, under these con­ditions, immediately gives rise to the query, for what purpose [[93]] Christ should take pains to go down into hell, to preach to damned spirits there; and what message he could possibly bear to them. The day of their probation was past; they could not be helped by any gospel mes­sage: Then why preach to them? Would Christ go taunt them by describing before them blessings which they could never receive? Or by raising in their bosoms hopes of a release from damnation, which he never designed to grant?

 

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

 

         Another thinks these were the spirits of such as re­pented during the forty days’ rain of the flood; that they were with the saved in paradise, a department of the under world where the spirits of the good are kept (the Elysium, in fact, of ancient heathen mythology), but that they “still felt uneasy on account of having perished [[94]] [that is, lost their bodies] under a divine judgment,” and “were now assured by Jesus that their repentance had been accepted.”

 

      Such resorts show the desperate extremities to which the popular exposition of this passage is driven, and afford aid and comfort to the Romish purgatory.

 

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

 

       The whole issue thus turns on the question, When was this work of preaching performed? Some will say, “While they were in prison, and that means the state of death, and shows that the dead are conscious, and can be preached to.” Then, we reply, the dead can also be benefited by preaching, and led to repentance; and them the Romish doctrine of purgatory springs at once full-fledged into our creed; and not only that, but that worse than the Romish purgatory, the modern doctrine of pro­bation after death, is sustained.

 

         But does the text affirm that the preaching was done to these spirits while they were in prison? May it not be that the preaching was done at some previous time to persons who were, when Peter wrote, in prison, or, if you please, in a state of death? So it would be true that the spirits were in prison when Peter makes mention of them, and yet the preaching might have been done to [[95]] them at a former period, while they were still in the flesh and could be benefited by it. This is the view taken of the passage by Dr. Clarke.  He says:  “He went and preached] By the ministry of Noah one hundred and twenty years.”

 

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

 

The word pneumasi, ‘spirits,’ is supposed to render this view of the subject improbable, because this must mean disembodied spirits; but this certainly does not follow for the spirits of just men made perfect (Heb. 12:23) certainly means righteous men, and men still in the church militant; and the Father of spirits (Heb. 12:9) means men still in the body; and the God of the spirits of all flesh (Num. 16:22 and 27:16) means men not in a disembodied state.[17]

 

      The preaching was certainly to the antediluvians. But why, according to the popular notion, should Christ single out that class to preach to, about twenty-four hundred years afterward, in hell? The whole idea is forced, un­natural, and absurd. The preaching that was given to (them was through Noah, who, by the power of the Holy Ghost (1 Peter 1:12), delivered to them the message of warning. Let this be the preaching referred to, and all is harmonious and clear; and this interpretation the con­struction of the original demands; for the word rendered in our version, “were disobedient,” is simply the aorist participle; and the dependent sentence, “when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah,” limits the verb “preached “ rather than the participle. The whole passage might be translated thus: “In which also, having gone to the spirits in prison, he preached to the then diso­bedient ones, when once [or at the time when] the longsuffering [[96]] of God waited in the days of Noah.” Christ is said to have preached, because it was Christ’s Spirit in Noah. Noah was his representative; and according to the Latin maxim, “Qui facit per alium, facit per se,” “What one does through another, he does himself,” the preaching of Noah by this means, was the preaching of Christ.

 

       But in what sense were they in prison? — In the same sense in which persons in error and darkness are said to be in prison. Isa. 42:7: “To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison-house.” Also Isa. 61:1: “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he bath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound.” Christ himself declared (Luke 4:18-21) that this scripture was fulfilled in his mission to those here on earth who sat in darkness and error, and under the dominion of sin. So the antedilu­vians were shut up under the sentence of condemnation. Their days were limited to a hundred and twenty years; and their only way of escape from impending destruction was through the preaching of Noah. Gen. 6:3.

 

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

 

1.  We have only a human offering as a sacrifice for our sins; and the claim of Spiritualists, which no Chris­tian can hear without a shudder, is true, that the blood of Christ is no more than that of any man. [[97]]

 

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

 

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

 

       The word “quicken “ is the same that is used in Rom. 8:11: ‘‘But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead, dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.” God brought again our Lord from the dead by the Holy Spirit; and by the same Spirit are his followers to be raised up at the last day. [[98]]  But that Christ went anywhere in Spirit, or did any action between his death and quickening, is what the Scriptures nowhere affirm, and what no man has a right to claim.

 

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

 

        Some people seem to treat time Scriptures as if they were given to man that he might exercise his inventive powers in trying to misunderstand or pervert them to avoid the doctrines they teach. But no inventive power that the human mind has yet developed will enable a titan, let him plan, contrive, devise, and arrange as he may, to fix this preaching of Christ between his death and resur­rection. If he could fix it there, what would it prove?  The man of sin would rise up and bless him from his papal throne, for proving his darling purgatory. Such a position may do for Mormons, Mohammedans, pagans, and papists; but let no Protestant try to defend it, and not hang his head for shame. Mr. Landis says that “Mr. Dobney and the rest of the fraternity conveniently forget that there is any such passage [as 1 Peter 3:19] in the word of God.”  But we cannot help thinking that it [[99]] would have been well for him, and saved a pitiful display of distorted, not to say dishonest, logic, if he had been prudent enough to forget it too.

 

            Another testimony in favor of the correct view, which is entitled to respectful consideration, may here be intro­duced. It is from Alvah Hovey, D. D., of Newton Theological Seminary, and is issued in a pamphlet enti­tled, ‘‘State of Men after Death,” published by the American Baptist Publication Society, Philadelphia. He contends that those to whom Christ went and preached, were those who were disobedient in the days of Noah, and that he preached during the time when Noah was prepar­ing the ark; and he declares that ‘‘neither human reason, nor the word of God give a shadow of support” to the assumption that any who have not repented of sin in the present life, will be likely to do so in the intermediate state. From his argument we quote the following pas­sages (pp. 82—86): 

 

It seems to me that the apostle intended to represent the going and preaching as belonging to the same period of time with the disobedience and long-suffering . . . The participle may be rendered when they were disobedient ‘ just as a similar participle is translated by Hackett, Conant, Noyes, and Alford (Acts 19.2). ‘Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed)’ ... Nay, it is possible that the phrase ‘spirits in prison,’ was Peter’s cus­tomary designation for the ungodly of former times, even when he was referring to their earthly career .. If the Spirit, then, was Christ’s Spirit, the preaching of the illuminated prophet was Christ’s preaching, and any contempt or disobedience to that preaching, was contempt or disobedience to him. . . .  But if the preaching referred to by Peter was accomplished in hades, it is not so easy to understand why the contemporaries of Noah are singled out as the particular spirits addressed. [If this view be taken of it, he says,] we have no knowledge whatever of the message deliv­ered by Christ in spirit if he went and preached to the dead in hades, we are profoundly ignorant of what he announced: and it is not surprising that those who adopt this theory, differ greatly as to the nature of his supposed message. [[100]]

 

7.  A Spirit Hath Not Flesh and Bones

 

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

 

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

 

         Now when Jesus, to allay their fears, told them that a spirit had not flesh and bones as he had, he evidently [[101]] used the word “spirit ‘‘ in the sense of the idea which they then had in their minds; namely, that of a phantom; and though the word pneuma is used, which in its very great variety of meanings may be employed, perhaps, to express such a conception, we are not to understand that the word cannot be used to describe bodies like that which Christ then possessed. He was not such a spirit as they supposed; for a pneuma such as they then conceived of in the sense of a phantom, had not flesh and bones as he had. Bloomfield, on verse 37 says:  “It may be added that our Lord meant not to countenance those notions, but to show his hearers that, according to their own notions of spirits, he was not one.”

 

 

 

 

8.  Neither Angel Nor Spirit

 

     Acts 23:8: ‘‘For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both,” Paul declared himself, in verse 6, to be a Pharisee; and in telling what they believed (verse 8), it is claimed that Paul plainly ranged himself on the side of those who believe in the separate, conscious existence of the spirit of man. But does this text say that the Phari­sees believed any such thing? Three terms are used in expressing what the Sadducees did not believe, “resur­rection, angel, and spirit.” But when the faith of the Pharisees is stated, these three are reduced to two: ‘‘The Pharisees confess both.’’ Both means only two, not three. Now what two of the three terms before employed unite to express one branch of the faith of the Pharisees?--Evidently the terms “angel and spirit;” for they be­lieved that there were ‘‘angels” and “spirits” in the unseen world, but not disembodied human spirits; inas­much as they believed in the “resurrection,” by which alone human beings are to live again. [[102]]

 

            Appeal is made to the incident here narrated to try to array the apostle Paul on the side of the popular view that there are disembodied human spirits in conscious existence in the spirit world. But before this can be done, it must be shown that the Pharisees entertained such a belief, and that the apostle avowed himself a Pharisee in this respect. But we apprehend that neither of these points can be proved; for had they believed this, they would have had no use for the doctrine of the “resurrection.” It appears from verse 6 that Paul avowed himself a Pharisee only so far as pertained to their views of the resurrection of the dead. This seems to be plainly implied by the manner in which he joins his two affirmations together: “I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resur­rection of the dead I am called in question.” He cer­tainly was not a Pharisee in the broad acceptation of the term; for he was a Christian, and, from a theological point of view, not a Jew at all. Now whatever the Phari­sees may have believed concerning spirits, it in nowise in­volves the apostle so far as this narrative is concerned. But there is no evidence here that they believed in dis­embodied human spirits. When they say (verse 9), “If a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him,” they doubtless refer to his experience on his way to Damascus, with which they were familiar, and used those two words in apposition. A voice had called to him from heaven. He did not claim that it was an angel. There were other spirit organizations in the heavenly world besides angels, without supposing disembodied human spirits; hence they say, “If a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him.” This incident therefore furnishes no support to the popular view; for the whole issue before them was not concerning the condition of man in death, but concerning the resurrection of the dead. [[103]]

           

9.  Destroy Flesh—Save the Spirit

 

1 Cor. 5:5: “To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” Although this text is quoted to prove the separate, conscious existence of a part of man between death and the resurrection, the reader cannot fail to notice that the time when the spirit is saved; is in the day of the Lord Jesus, when the resurrection takes place. This text proves nothing, therefore, respecting the condition of the spirit previous to that time; and, so far as our present purpose is concerned, we might dismiss it with this remark; but a word or two more may serve to free the text still further from diffi­culty. What is meant by delivering the person to Satan? And what is the destruction of the flesh? Satan is the god of this world; and if any man is a friend of this world, he is on the side of Satan and an enemy of God. The church is the body of Christ, and belongs to him. A person committing the deeds spoken of in this chapter must be separated from that body, and given back to the world. He is thus delivered unto Satan. This is for the destruction of the flesh. The flesh is often used to mean the carnal mind. Gal. 5:19-21. The spiritually minded man has crucified or destroyed the flesh. Now a person who desires eternal life, when he finds himself set aside from the church and placed back in the world, the king­dom of Satan, on account of his having the carnal mind, understands that to gain eternal life he must then put away the carnal mind, or crucify and destroy the flesh. If he does this, he becomes spiritually minded, joined again to the body of Christ; and the old man, the flesh, being destroyed, he, as a spiritually minded man, will be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Spirit we understand [[104]] to be used in contrast with the flesh, the one denoting a person in a carnal state, the other in a spiritual. To deal with a person as the apostle here directs, set him aside from the church till he sees and repents of his sins, is often the only way to save him. In the day of the Lord Jesus, a person is saved by having his body fashioned like unto Christ’s glorious body, not destroyed. Phil. 3:21. The destruction spoken of in the text cannot therefore be the literal destruction of the body in contrast with the dis­embodied spirit. The true condition which the apostle desired such a one to reach, is expressed in Rom. 8:10:  “And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.”

           

CHAPTER VII

 

Concerning the Human Soul

 

Examination of All the Texts in the Bible, in which the Term “Soul” Is Used in a Way which is Supposed to Prove that It can Exist in a Conscious, Intelligent Condition, Independently of the Body, and that It is Immortal

 

1.  Departure and Return of the Soul

 

 

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

 

       We will now examine those scriptures in which the term “soul” is supposed to be used in a manner to show that it is a separate entity in man, immortal in its nature, and able to exist as well out of the body as in. The first of these is Gen. 35:18, which speaks of the death of  [[106]]

Rachel, and says: “And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Ben-oni.” This is adduced as evidence that the soul departs when the body dies, and lives on in an active, conscious condition.

 

            Luther Lee, in his day a prominent Wesleyan Methodist, wrote on this passage:

 

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

 

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

 

As her soul was in departing. Hebrew, betzeth naphshah, in the going out of her soul, or life. Greek, en to aphienai auten ten psuchen, in her sending out her life. The language legitimately implies no more than the departing, or ceasing, of the vital principle, whatever that be. In like manner, when the prophet Elijah stretched himself upon the dead child (1 Kings 17:21), and cried three times, saying, O Lord my God, . . . let this child’s soul come into him again, he merely prays for the return of his physical vitality.[18]

 

       The Hebrew word here translated “soul” is nephesh, rendered in the Septuagint by psuche; and it is unneces­sary to remind those who have read the chapter on “Soul and Spirit” that these words mean many other things be­sides ‘‘body “ and ‘‘brains.”

 

       They often signify that which can be said to leave the body, as we shall presently see, rendering entirely uncalled for the supposition of an immaterial spirit, which Mr. Lee makes such haste to adopt.

 

            What, then, did depart? And what is the plain, simple import of the declaration? We call the reader’s attention again to the criticism of Parkhurst, the lexicographer, on this passage: [[107]]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

       But according to the immaterialist view, this passage should not so read at all. For that view makes the soul to be the child proper; and with this idea, the passage [[108]] should read something like this: “And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah, and the child came back and took possession of his body and the body revived.” This is the popular view. Mark the chasm between it and the Scripture record.

 

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

 

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

 

2.  Can the Soul Be Killed?

 

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

 

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

 

       This is considered a stronghold by all immaterialists. The estimate which they put upon these texts is thus expressed by Mr. Landis (p. 181):  [[109]]

 

This text (Matt. 10:28), therefore, must continue to stand as the testimony of the Son of God in favor of the soul’s immortality, and his solemn condemnation of the soul-ruining errors of the anni­hilation and Sadducean doctrine.

 

            The reply comes, without calling, on this wise: Mr. L. evidently applies the argument to a wrong issue; for what­ever it may teach concerning the intermediate state, it is most positively against the doctrine of eternal misery, and the consequent immortality of the soul. It teaches that

God can destroy the soul in hell; and     there is no force in our Lord’s warning unless we understand it to affirm that he will thus destroy the souls of the wicked. We never could with any propriety be warned to fear a person because he could do that which he never designed to do, and never would do. We are to fear the civil magistrate to such a degree, at least, as not to offend against the laws, because he has power to put those laws into execu­tion, and visit upon us merited punishment, but our fear is to rest not simply upon the fact that he has power to do this, but upon the certainty that he will do it if we are guilty of crime. Otherwise there could be no cause for fear, and no ground for any exhortation to fear.

 

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

 

       The next inquiry is, What is the meaning of the word “destroy”? — We answer that, take the word “soul” to mean what we will, the word “destroy” here has the same meaning and the same force as applied to the soul, that the word ‘‘kill’’ has as applied to the body in the [[110]] sentence before. Whatever killing does to the body, destroying does to the soul. Don’t fear men, because they cannot kill the soul as they kill the body; but fear God, because he can and will kill the soul (if wicked) just as men kill the body. But every one well understands what it does to the body to kill it. It deprives all of its functions and powers of life and activity.  It would do the same to the soul to destroy it, supposing the soul to be what is popularly believed. The word here rendered “destroy” is apolluo, and is defined by Greenfield, ‘‘to destroy, to kill, to put to death,” etc.

 

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

 

       The word “hell “in our English version is from three different Greek words. These words are hades, gehenna, and tartaroo (a verb signifying to thrust down to Tartarus). These all designate different places; and the following full list of the instances of their occurrence in the New Testament, will show their use.

 

       Hades occurs in the following passages:

 

       Matt.    11:23, shall be brought down to hell.

                        16:18, the gates of hell shall not prevail.

            Luke    10:15, shalt be thrust down to hell.

                        16:23, in hell he lifted up his eyes.

            Acts     2:27, wilt not leave my soul in hell.

                        2:31 his soul was not left in hell.  [[111]]

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

             Rev.    1:18, have the keys of hell and of death.

                        6:8, was Death and hell followed

                        20:13, death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them.

                        20:14, death and hell were cast into the lake of fire.

 

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

 

Matt.    5:22, shall be in danger of hell fire.

            5:29, whole body should be cast into hell.

            5:30, whole body should be cast into hell.

            10:28, destroy both soul and body in hell.

            18:9, having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

            23:15, more the child of hell than yourselves.

            23:33, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

           Mark     9:43, having two hands to go into hell.

            9:45, having two feet to be cast into hell.

            9:47, having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

Luke    12:5, hath power to cast into hell.

James   3:6, it is set on fire of hell.

 

       Tartaro-o is used only in the following text: “God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell.” 2 Peter 2:4.

 

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

 

       Now the punishment against which the text warns us is not a punishment in hades, the state or place of the dead, but in Gehenna, which is not inflicted till after the resurrection. Therefore we affirm that the text contains [[112]] no instruction whatever concerning the condition of mat in death, but passes over the entire period from the death of the body to the resurrection. And this is further evi­dent from the language in which Luke records the passage:  “Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he bath killed bath power to cast into hell.”

 

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

 

        Another declaration front the lips of our Lord, found in Matt. 16:25, 26, will throw some light on our present [[113]] subject “For whosoever will save his life shall lose it:  and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” The word “soul” should here be rendered “life.” What shall a man give in exchange for his life? That is, his future life. Dr. Clarke, on verse 26, says: “On what authority many here translate the word psuche in the 25th verse, ‘life,’ and in this verse, ‘soul,’ I know not; but am certain it means ‘life’ in both places.”

 

       Verse 39 of Matthew 10 is also a good comment on verse 28, now under notice: “He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.” Here the same word, psuche, rendered “soul” in verse 28, is twice used, and rendered “life.” The teaching of the passage is very evident. “He that findeth his life shall lose it;” that is, he that rejects Christ for the sake of preserving this present life (psuche), shall lose it (the future psuche) in the world to come; “and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it;” that is, he that will follow Christ, though it cost him his present life (psuche), shall find it (psuche) in the world to come; for man cannot touch that life; as in verse 28, they may kill the body, deprive us of this present life; but they cannot destroy the psuche that remains to God’s children after this, that is, the life to come.

 

       Rendering psuche as it is rendered in verse 28, this 39th verse would read: “He that findeth his soul shall lose it; and he that loseth his soul for my sake shall find it.” Let us now take the expression to “find “or “save the soul,” and to “lose the soul,” in the sense of popu­lar theology, and see how ridiculous the teaching of the passages above referred to would be. Whosoever will [[114]] save his soul (to save the soul meaning to save it from hell) shall lose it (that is, shall go into hell torments); but whosoever will lose his soul (suffer eternal misery) for my sake shall find it (shall be saved in heaven). This makes utter nonsense of the passage, and so is sufficient condemnation of the view which makes such an interpre­tation necessary.

 

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

 

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

 

         The life of all men is in the hands of God. The body was formed of the dust, but the “life” was imparted by God. Man, by sin, has made this present life a tem­porary one. But through the plan of salvation, by which the human race was placed upon a second probation after Adam’s fall, with the privilege of still gaining eternal life, a future life is decreed for all; for there shall be a resur­rection of the just and the unjust. With the righteous, this life will be eternal; for they have secured the forgiveness [[115]] of all their sins through Jesus Christ; but with the wicked it will soon end in the second death; for they have thrown away their golden privilege, and clung to their sins, the wages of which is death. Evil men may, by persecution, hasten the close of the Christian’s present temporary life — may cut it short by killing the body — for some years before it would close in the natural course of events; but that future life, which in the purpose of God is as sure as his own throne, they cannot touch.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

       In Rev. 6:9-11 is another instance where the word “soul” is used in a manner which many take to be proof that there is in man a separate entity, conscious in death, and capable in a disembodied state, of performing all the acts, and exercising all the emotions, which pertain to this life. The verses referred to read:  [[116]]

 

And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: and they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, 0 Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow servants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

     3.  Solomon says of the dead, that their love, their hatred, and their envy is now perished. Eccl. 9:6. But that makes no difference; for here are the souls of the holy martyrs still smarting with resentment against their persecutors, and calling for vengeance upon their devoted heads.  Is this altogether consistent? Would not the superlative bliss of heaven swallow up all resent­ment against those who had done them this good, though they meant them harm, and lead them to bless rather than curse the hand that had hastened them thither?  [[117]]

           

    But further: the same view which puts these souls into heaven, puts the souls of the wicked, at the termination of this mortal life, into the lake of fire, where they are racked with unutterable and unceasing anguish, in full view of all the heavenly host. In proof that the worlds of bliss and torment are held to be in full view of each other, we have only to refer to the common interpretation of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, in which Abraham in bliss and the rich man in torment, are supposed not only to behold each other, but to converse together. But is it so? If it is not, then the popular exposition of the parable must be abandoned.  But that supposed stronghold will not readily be surrendered. It is proper, therefore, to look at the bearing it has upon the case before us.

 

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

 

      Here they were in their agony, in full view of these souls of the martyrs, and their piercing shrieks of infinite and hopeless woe, ringing in their ears — for the rich man and Abraham, as we have seen, could converse together across the gulf. And was not the sight of all this woe enough to satisfy the most insatiate desires for vengeance? Is there a fiend in hell who could manifest the malevolence of planning and praying for greater ven­geance than this? Yet these souls are represented, even under these circumstances, as calling upon God to avenge their blood on their persecutors, and saying, “How long?” as if chiding the tardy movements of Providence, in commencing or intensifying their torments. Such is [[118]] the character which the common view attributes to these holy martyrs, and such the spirit with which it clothes a system of religion, the chief injunction of which is mercy. Does it find endorsement in any breast in which there remains a drop of even the milk of human kindness?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

We are not to suppose that this literally occurred, and that John actually saw the souls of martyrs beneath the altar, for the whole representation is symbolical; nor are we to suppose that the [[119]] injured and the wronged in heaven actually pray for vengeance on those who wronged them, nor that the redeemed in heaven will continue to pray with reference to things on earth; but it may be fairly inferred from this that there will be as real a remembrance of the wrongs of the persecuted, the injured, and the oppressed, as if such a prayer was offered there; and that the oppressor has as much to dread from the divine vengeance, as if those whom he has injured should cry in heaven to the God who hears prayer, and who takes vengeance.[19]

 

       But it is said that white robes were given them; hence it is further urged that they must be conscious. But this no more follows than it does from the fact that they cried. What were the circumstances? — This scene is located at the opening of the fifth seal, and the souls brought to view are those who had been martyred under preceding papal persecutions. They had gone down to the grave in the most ignominious manner. Their lives had been mis­represented, their reputations tarnished, their names de­famed, their motives maligned, and their graves covered with shame and reproach, as containing the dishonored dust of the most vile and despicable characters. Thus the church of Rome, which then molded the sentiments of the principal nations of the earth, spared no pains to make her victims an abhorring unto all flesh.

 

       But the Reformation commenced its work. It soon began to be seen that the Romish Church was the corrupt and disreputable party, and those against whom it vented its rage were the good, the pure, and the true. The work went on among the most enlightened nations, the reputa­tion of the church going down, and that of the martyrs coming up, until the corruptions of the papal abomination were fully exposed, and that huge system of iniquity stood before the world in all its naked deformity, while the mar­tyrs were vindicated from all the aspersions under which [[120]] that anti-Christian church had sought to bury them. Then it was seen that they had suffered, not for being vile and criminal, but “for the word of God and for the testimony which they held.” Then their praises were sung, their virtues admired, their fortitude applauded, their names honored, and their memory cherished. And thus it is even to this day. White robes have thus been given unto them.

 

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

 

       The reader is also referred to a previous chapter on Soul and Spirit. From the definitions there given, it is evident that the word “soul” may mean, and the con­text requires that it here should mean, simply the martyrs, those who had been slain; the expression, “the souls of them,” being used to designate the whole person. They were represented to John as having been slain upon the altar of papal sacrifice on this earth, and lying dead be­neath it. So Dr. Clarke, on this passage, says, “The altar is upon earth, not in heaven.” They certainly were not alive when John saw them under the fifth seal; for [[121]] he again brings to view the same company in almost the same language, and assures us that the first time they live after their martyrdom, is at the resurrection of the just.  Rev. 20: 4-6. Lying there, victims of papal blood­thirstiness and oppression, the great wrong, of which their sacrifice was the evidence, called upon God for vengeance. They cried, or their blood cried, even as Abel’s blood cried, to God from the ground.

 

       Thus all becomes clear and plain when we treat the Bible as we would treat any other book; that is, let figures have their place, and perform their office; but let all figurative language be explained by the literal. Before this simple rule, the strongholds of man’s natural immortality go down one after another like cardboard breastworks before a charge of modern artillery.

 

4.  Body, Soul, and Spirit

 

1 Thess. 5:23: “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the com­ing of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Because the words ‘‘soul” and ‘‘spirit” are here used, the common reader, misled by the popular definitions given to these terms, is apt to take this text at once as a recognition of such an immortal part of man as current theology pictures before us. But it will be noticed that here are two terms each of which is, at different times, thrust forward as meaning the immortal part of man. In the face of this text, one or the other of these terms must now be surrendered as bearing that signification; for surely man has not two immortal parts. Here, then, it must be conceded that either the term, “spirit” does not signify an immaterial and immortal part of man, or that the term “soul” does not signify any such part. Now one term has just as [[122]] much claim to be considered an immortal part of man as the other, and whichever one is surrendered as not signi­fying such part, it will be just as easy to disprove the claims of the other. Three terms here are applied to man, with the evident idea of giving enough to make it sure that man’s entire being is intended. This is apparent from the opening expression: “The very God of peace sanctify you wholly,” etc.; and later the use of the word “whole,” conveys the same idea: “Your whole spirit and whole soul and [whole] body.” But it will be noticed that no wish is expressed in regard to any one part independently of the others. Paul does not say, May your spirit be preserved blameless, without the soul and body, or your soul without the spirit and body, or your body without the soul and spirit. But the prayer takes in all three together as an inseparable compound, the whole constituting the entire man. In the Bible description of man, there is no “line of cleavage” between these different parts. It takes them all to make the whole responsible being.

 

       If one that any exposition which does not locate these different parts, is unsatisfactory, it is very easy to make such location. The “body” is composed of matter— it is a quantity of material; the organization into a condition capable of being endowed with life, makes a “soul,” or an ‘‘organized being;” and the “spirit,’’ or “breath of life,” gives it vitality; and as a result an organized, living, rational being appears. The material of which man is composed, the organization and the life with which he is endowed, makes the whole being. The definitions of the terms as already shown, will fully bear out this application. It is a periphrasis, or expression drawn out in full, to describe the whole person. As such it is an unfortunate text for the popular view.  [[123]]

 

 

Chapter VIII

 

The Death of Adam

 

 

            Thus far in these pages, the inquiry has been concern­ing the creation of man, and what was conferred upon him in that creation in respect to life and immortality.  It has been found that there is no expression used in the record of man’s creation, or in immediate connection with it, which shows that he was endowed with an undying nature; that the Bible nowhere affirms that he is immor­tal, or has immortality; and that no text uses the terms “soul” and “spirit,” in connection with man, in such a way as to show that he is in possession of anything answering to the immaterial and immortal entity claimed for him by so-called orthodox teachers; but just the reverse.  As a next step in this study, it is pertinent to inquire con­cerning the death of man; that is, to what condition death reduces him; and then the general testimony of the Scrip­tures concerning the condition of the dead may be ex­amined. Let us, then, see what is to be learned from the record of the death of Adam.

 

       The inquirer into the nature of man and his condition in death, must ever turn with the deepest interest to the record which has been given concerning the father of our race. In the first chapters of Genesis we have an account of the origin of the human family, at once so simple and consistent that the jeers of skepticism fall harmless at its feet, and science, in comparison, only makes itself ridicu­lous in trying to account for it in any other manner. And [[124]] in the sentence pronounced upon Adam, the first man, when he fell under the guilt of transgression, we are shown to what condition death was designed to reduce all other men. In the creation and death of Adam, we have a vivid account of the building up and the unbuilding of a human being; and this case, being the first and most illustrious, must furnish the precedent and establish the rule for all the other members of the human family.

 

       Of the creation of Adam and the elements of which he was composed, sufficient, perhaps, has already been said. The record brings to view a formation made wholly of the dust of the ground. “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.”  This body was endowed with a high and noble organization, and into life by the breath which the Lord breathed into its nostrils. The body, before it was made alive, had no power to act; the breath before it was breathed into the body, had no power of voluntary action; but when these two elements were brought together, when this breath was breathed into this body, the body was quickened, the machinery was set in motion, by this vital principle, and all the phenomena of physical life and mental action at once resulted.

 

       The Author of this creative work would necessarily, as the ruler over all, require the creatures of his hand to obey him. But he would not compel them to do so; for only a spontaneous love, and a voluntary and willing obedience can constitute true service. He therefore placed the man whom he had formed, as was meet, upon a state of probation, to test his loyalty to his Maker. The scene of his trial was the beautiful garden, in which was everything that was pleasant to the sight and good for food; and over all that adorned or enriched his Eden home, with one exception, he had unlimited control.  [[125]] And this exception, the condition upon which he was to be tested, is thus definitely expressed: “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.’ Adam and Eve could not mistake the requirement of this law, nor fail to understand the intent of the penalty. And before Satan could cause his temptation to make any impression on the mind of Eve, he had to contradict this threatening, assuring her that they should not surely die. A question of veracity was thus raised between God and Satan; amid, strange to say, the theological world, in in­terpreting the penalty, have virtually, with the exception of a small minority, sided with Satan. This is seen in the interpretation which is commonly put on this threat­ened penalty of death, making it consist of three divisions: (1) alienation of the soul from God, the love of sin, and the hatred of holiness, called ‘‘death spiritual; ‘‘ (2) the separation of soul and body, called “death temporal (3) immediately after death temporal, the conscious tor­ment of the soul in hell, which is to have no end, which is called “death eternal.” The Baptist Confession of Faith, art. 5, says:

 

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

 

            Let us look at the different installments of this penalty, and see if they will harmonize with the language in which the original threatening is expressed; namely, “Thou shalt surely die.” Adam incurred the penalty by sinning. After he had shined, he was, as the result of his action, a sinner. But a state of sin is that state of alienation from God which those of the orthodox school make to be a part [[126]] of the penalty of his transgression. In this they confound the punishment of sin with that which was simply its result, and thus practically give the sentence this pro­foundly sensible reading:  “In the day that thou sinned, thou shalt surely be a sinner”!  It will never do to charge such a construction upon the sacred record; hence no more need be said about the claim that “death spiritual” was a part of the threatened penalty. Let another point now be noticed.

 

       Because Adam wickedly became a sinner, and brought himself into a state of alienation from God, the doom was pronounced upon him, “Thou shalt surely die.” Could this mean that he should suffer the punishment of eternal death? If so, Adam never could have been released therefrom.  But he is to be released from the death incurred by his transgression; for “in Christ,” the Scriptures assure us, all shall again “be made alive.” These two installments, then, “death spiritual” amid “death eternal,” utterly fail when brought to the test of the language in which the sentence is expressed:  one is not reasonable, and the other not possible.

 

       Temporal death, then, alone remains to be considered; but the interpretation which is given to this completely nullifies the penalty, and makes Satan to have been cor­rect when he said, “Thou shalt not surely die.” Tem­poral death is interpreted to mean the separation of the soul from the body; the body alone to die, but the soul, which is called the real, responsible man, to enter upon an enlarged and higher life, which is to continue forever. In this case, there is no death; amid the sentence should ­have read. In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt be freed from the clog of this mortal body, and enter upon a new and eternal life. So said Satan, “Ye shall not surely die,” but “ye shall be as gods;” and true to this assertion [[127]] from the father of lies, the heathen have all along deified their dead men, and worshiped their departed heroes; while modern poets have sung, “There is no death; what seems so is transition.” If ever the skill of a deceiver, and the gullibility of a victim, were manifested in an unaccountable degree, it is in this fact: that right in the face and eyes of the pale throng that daily passes down through the gate of death, the Devil can make men believe that after all his first lie was true, and there is no such thing as death.

 

From these considerations, it is evident that nothing will meet the demands of the sentence but the cessation of the life of the whole man. But that, says one, can­not be, for he was to die in the very day he ate of the forbidden fruit; yet he did not literally die for nine hundred and thirty years. If this is an objection against the view here advocated, it is equally such against every other. Take the threefold penalty above noticed. If death spiritual, death temporal, and death eternal was the penalty, how much was fulfilled on the day he sinned?—Not death eternal, surely, and not death temporal which did not take place for nine hundred and thirty years, but only spiritual. But this was only the first install­ment of the penalty, and far less decisive than the other two. The most that the friends of this interpretation can say, therefore, is that the penalty began on that very day to be fulfilled. But as much can be said in behalf of the view of temporal death only. “Dying, thou shalt die,” reads the margin; which some understand to mean, “Thou shalt inherit a immortal nature, and the process of decay shall commence.” As soon as man sinned, he came under the sentence of death, and the work of dis­solution began. He bore up against the encroachments of [[128]] age for nine hundred and thirty years, and then the work was fully accomplished.

 

But there need be no misunderstanding here; for the unfortunate event called forth such words from God, and rendered such a course of action on his part necessary, as to set forth in the most unmistakable manner the nature of the penalty he had affixed to disobedience.

 

When Adam sinned, it remained for God to carry out that of which he had forewarned him. Adam must be brought to account, and receive sentence for his deeds. Having before him the three guilty parties, the man, the woman, and the serpent, God began with Adam — “Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat?” Adam acknowledged the crime, but laid the blame of it upon the woman. God then ad­dressed the woman, “What is this that thou hast done?” and she laid the blame upon the serpent. God then turned to the serpent and proceeded to sentence the par­ties, reversing the order, beginning with the serpent and ending with Adam. And when the case of Adam came up, the narrative proceeds in these plain words: “And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou and unto dust shalt thou re­turn.” Gen. 3:11-19.

 

            In these words the Lord himself gives himself give us an authoritative interpretation of the penalty, from which there is no [[129]] appeal. Mark again the closing language of the sentence (Gen. 3:19): “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” The return to dust is here made a subsequent event, to be preceded by a period of wearing toil. And being finally overcome by the labors and ills of life, the person addressed was to return again to the dust from which he was taken. With Adam, this process com­menced on the very day he transgressed, and the penalty threatened, which covered all this condition of things from the beginning to the end, was executed in full when this process was fully completed in Adam’s death, nine hundred and thirty years thereafter.

 

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

 

The use of the word “day” in such a sense, meaning an indefinite period of time, is of frequent occurrence in the Scriptures. An instance in point occurs in 1 Kings 2: 36-46. King Solomon bound Shimei by an oath to [[130]] remain in Jerusalem, under the sentence that on the “day” he went out in any direction, he should be slain. After three years, two of Shimei’s servants ran away to Gath, and he went after them. It was then told Solomon that Shimei had been to Gath and returned. Solomon sent for him, reminded him of the conditions on which his life was suspended, and the oath he had broken, and then commanded the executioner to put him to death.

 

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

 

So with Adam. He was immediately cut off from the tree of life, his source of physical vitality. So much was executed on that very day. Death was then his inevitable portion, to be accomplished within the limits of period covered by the word “day.”  But it is claimed by some that the sentence in Gen. 3:19, was spoken only of the body, not of the soul. The poetry of Longfellow,  “Dust thou art, to dust returnest/ Was not spoken of the soul,” takes much better with the people than the plain lan­guage of inspiration itself.

 

To whom, then, or to what, was this sentence ad­dressed, “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return”? Let this question be carefully studied. Ad­mitting that there is such a creature as the popular, independent, [[131]] immortal soul, was the language addressed to that, or to the body? If there is such a soul as this, what does it constitute, on the authority of the friends of that theory themselves? — It is held that it is the real, responsible, intelligent man. Watson says, “It is the soul only which perceives pain or pleasure, which suffers ­or enjoys;” and D. D. Whedon says, “It is the soul that hears, feels, tastes, and smells through its sensorial organs.’’  The sentence, then, would be addressed to that which could hear; the penalty would be pronounced upon that which could feel. The body, in the common view, is only an irresponsible instrument, the means by which the soul acts. It can, of itself, neither see, hear, feel, will, nor act.  Who, then, will have the hardihood to assert that God addressed his sentence to the irresponsible instrument, the body merely? This would be the same as if the judge in a criminal court should pro­ceed deliberately to address the knife with which the murderer had taken the life of his victim, and pronounce sentence upon that instead of upon the murderer himself.

 

In the sentence, the personal pronoun “thy” is once, and the personal pronoun “thou” is five times, applied to the “Adam” whom God addressed. “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” When we address our fellow men by the different personal pronouns of our lan­guage, what is the object we address? Is it not the conscious, intelligent, responsible man, that which sees, feels, hears, thinks, acts, and is morally accountable? But this, in popular parlance, is the ‘‘soul;” these pro­nouns must every time, then, stand for the soul. The pronouns “thy” and “thou,” in Gen. 3:19, must, therefore [[132]] refer to Adam’s soul. If they do not mean the soul here, how does the same pronoun “thou,” in Luke 23:43, mean the thief’s soul, when Christ said to him, “To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise”? Or the “I” and “my” in 2 Peter 1:13, refer to Peter’s soul, as we are told they do, when he says, “Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle”? The friends of the popular view must be consistent and uniform in their interpretations. If in these instances the pronouns do not refer to the soul, then these strong proof texts, to which the immaterialist always appeals, are abandoned; if they do here refer to the soul, they must likewise, in Gen. 3:19, refer to the soul, and the words, “Unto dust shalt thou return,” must mean the soul. In that lan­guage, then, God addresses Adam’s soul; and we have the authority of Jehovah himself, the Creator of man — against whose sentence, and the sunlight of whose word, it does not become puny mortals to oppose their short­sighted dictums, and the rushlight of human reason — that what the Bible means by mans soul is wholly mortal, and that in the dissolution of death it goes back to dust again! There is no avoiding this conclusion; and it forever settles the question of man’s condition in death. It shows that the intermediate state must be one in which the conscious man has lost his consciousness, the intel­ligent man his intelligence, the responsible man his re­sponsibility, and in which all the powers of his being--mental, emotional, and physical — have ceased to act.

 

No further argument need be introduced to show that the Adamic penalty was literal death, and that it reduced the whole man to a condition of unconsciousness and decay. But a few additional considerations will show that the popular view is cumbered with absurdities on [[133]] every hand, so plain that they should have proved their own antidote, and saved the doctors of theology from the preposterous definitions they have attached to death.

 

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

 

Again: Christ tasted death for every man. He hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. That is, Christ died the same death for us which was introduced into the world by Adam’s sin. Was this death eternal? If so, the Saviour is perished, and the plan of salvation must prove an utter failure.

 

 In Rom. 5:12-14 occurs this remarkable passage:  “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned; for until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come).”

 

In the first part of the verse, Paul speaks of the death that came in by Adam’s sin, and then says that it reigned from Adam to Moses over them that had not sinned. From this language, accepting the popular interpretation of the Adamic penalty, we must come to the intolerable conclusion that personally sinless beings from Adam to Moses, were consigned to eternal misery! From such a sentiment, every fiber of our humanity recoils with horror. [[134]] The death threatened Adam was literal death, not eternal life in misery.

 

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

 

John Locke says:

 

By reason of Adam’s transgression, all men are mortal and come to die. . .. It seems a strange way of understanding a law which requires the plainest and directest words, that by death should be meant eternal life in misery. . . . I confess that by death, here, I can understand nothing but a ceasing to be, the losing of all actions of life and sense. Such a death came upon Adam and all his posterity, by his first disobedience in paradise, under which death they should have lain forever had it not been for the redemp­tion by Jesus Christ.[20]

 

Isaac Watts, though he was a believer in the immor­tality of the soul, has the candor to say:

There is not one place of Scripture that occurs to me, where the word “death” as it was threatened in the law of innocency, nec­essarily signifies a certain miserable immortality of the soul, either to Adam, the actual sinner, or to his posterity.[21]

 

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

 

With two more considerations we close this chapter:

1.  Adam was on probation. Life and death were set before him. “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” said God. The only promise of life that he had in case of disobedience, came from one whom it is not very flattering to the advocates of a natural immortality, to call the- first propounder and natural ally of their system. But had Adam been endowed with a [[135]] natural immortality, eternal life could not have been sus­pended on his obedience. But it was so suspended, as we learn from the first pages of Revelation. Immortality was, therefore, not absolute, but contingent. Immortal he might become by obedience to God; disobeying, he was to die. He was not created either mortal or immor­tal. Which he should be, was to be decided by his own actions. He did disobey, and was driven from the gar­den now,” said God, “lest he put forth his and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever “— therefore the cherubim and flaming sword were placed to exclude thereafter his approach to the life-giving tree. Quite the reverse of an uncontingent immor­tality is certainly brought to view here. Adam could bequeath to his posterity no higher nature than he him­self possessed. The stream that, commencing just out­side of the garden of Eden, has flowed down through the lapse of six thousand years, has certainly never risen higher than the fountainhead; and we may be sure we possess no superior endowments, in this respect, to those of Adam.

 

2.  The second consideration under this head is the exhortations we have in the word of God to seek for immortality, if we would obtain it. “Seek the Lord, and ye shall live,” is his declaration to the house of Israel. Amos 5:6. “The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom. 6:23. Gift to whom? To every man irrespective of character? — By no means; but gift through Christ, to them only who are his. Again: “To them who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality [God will render], eter­nal life.” Rom. 2:7. Varying the language of the apostle a little, we may here inquire, What a man hath, [[136]] why doth he yet seek for? The propriety of seeking for that which we already have, is something in regard to which it yet remains that we be enlightened by the advo­cates of the dominant theology. These testimonies from inspired writers, show most positively that we have not immortality in this life, and that in death man does not soar to heaven or sink to hell, but rests quietly in the dust of the earth till the resurrection shall call him thence. [[137]]

 

 

Chapter IX

 

 

Condition of Man in Death

 

 

            From the testimony of the Scriptures concerning the death of Adam, already examined, it is clear that the death which has “passed upon all men” reduces them to a state of inactivity and unconsciousness in the dust of the earth. This conclusion will be found to be strength­ened and buttressed on every side by much other testi­mony which the Bible furnishes on the condition of man in death.

 

First, the Bible clearly describes the place of the dead. The word used for this purpose in the Old Testament is sheol, and the corresponding word in the New Tes­tament is hades. They denote, as their use proves, a place of silence, secrecy, sleep, rest, darkness, corrup­tion, and worms. They are names for the common re­ceptacle of the dead, both righteous and wicked. The righteous dead are there; for at the resurrection they raise the victorious shout, “O death, where is thy sting? O grave [Greek, hades], where is thy victory?” I Cor. 15:55. And the wicked dead are there; for at the resur­rection to damnation, it is said that death and hell (Greek, hades) deliver them up. Rev. 20:13. That the hades of the New Testament is the sheol of the Old, is evident from Psalm 16, compared with Acts 2:27. Thus, Ps. 16:10 says: “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell [He­brew, sheol]; and the New Testament makes a direct quo­tation of this passage, and for sheol uses the word hades. Acts 2:27. [[138]]

 

1.  All Alike Go into Sheol.—Thus Jacob says, “I will go down into the grave [sheol] unto my son mourning.” Gen. 37:35. Korah and his company went down into sheol. Num. 16:30, 33. All mankind go there.  Ps. 89:48.

 

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

 

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

 

4.  Location of Sheol. — It is in the earth beneath. It embraces the interior of the earth as the region of the dead, and the place of every grave. Eze. 32:18-32. It is always spoken of as beneath, in the interior of the earth, or in the nether parts of the earth. (See Num. 16:30, 33; Isa. 5:14; 14:9-20; Eze. 31:15-18; 32:18-32.) Referring to the fires now preying upon the interior parts of the earth, and which shall at last cause the earth to melt with fervent heat, the Lord, through Moses, says: “For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest sheol, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.” Deut. 32:22. Jonah went down into sheol when he descended into the depths of the waters, where none but dead men had ever been. Jonah 2:2.  [[139]]

 

5.  Death Is Compared to Sleep.— There must, then, be some analogy between a state of sleep and a state of death, and this analogy must pertain to that which renders sleep a peculiar condition. Our condition in sleep differs from our condition when awake simply in this, that when we are soundly asleep, we are entirely unconscious. In this respect, then, death is hike sleep; that is, the dead are unconscious. This figure is frequently used to repre­sent the condition of the dead. Dan. 12:2: “Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake.” Matt. 27:52:  “Many bodies of the saints which slept arose.” After Stephen beheld the vision of Christ, and was stoned to death, the record says (Acts 7:60) he ‘‘fell asleep).” In 1 Cor. 15:20, Christ is called the first-fruits of them that slept; and in verse 51 Paul says, “We shall not all sleep.” Again, Paul writes to the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 4:13, 14), that he would not have them ignorant concerning them which are asleep. In verse 14 he speaks of them asleep in Jesus, and explains what he means, in verse 16 by calling them “dead in Christ.” And the advocates of the conscious state cannot of these expressions by saying that they apply to the body merely; for they do not hold that the consciousness which we have in life (which is the same that we lose in death pertains to the body merely.  Job plainly declares that they will not awake till the resurrec­tion at the last day. “Man dieth, and wasteth away:  yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he? As the waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up: so man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.” Such declarations as these are decisive concerning the condition of man in death. [[140]]

 

            6.  The Dead Are in a Condition as though They Had Not Been.—So Job testifies; for he affirms that if he could have died in earliest infancy, like a hidden, untimely birth, he would not have been; and in this respect he declared he would have been like kings, counselors, and princes of the earth, who built costly tombs in which to enshrine their bodies when dead. To that condition he applies the expression so often quoted, “There the wicked cease from troubling; and there the weary be at rest.” Job 3:11-18. And Obadiah (verse 16) speaks of the dead as in a condition “as though they had not been.”

 

7.  The Dead have No Knowledge. — Speaking of the dead man, Job says (chapter 14:21): “His sons come to honor, and he knoweth it not; and they are brought low, but he perceiveth it not of them.” Surely, if the  “real man” is conscious and intelligent in death, he would follow the history of his sons with great interest. As this passage says that he does not, it follows that he has no knowledge. Again, when the Lord was about to bring judgments upon Jerusalem, he told King Josiah that he should go into his grave in peace, and that his eyes should not see the evil. 2 Kings 22:20. But would he not see it if conscious in death? Most cer­tainly. This proves, therefore, that he would not be conscious. Ps. 146:4: “His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.” David here refers to the weakness and inability of men to be of service to their friends, because they are subject to death. They lose the breath of life, and their bodies go back to dust. Then, says David, their thoughts perish. The word rendered here “thoughts,” more than simply one’s plans and purposes in life; it means the act of the mind in the process of thinking and [[141]] reasoning. In the day of one’s death, that power with him ceases or perishes. How, then, can there be any immortal soul, surviving death? — There cannot be. As proof that this is the intent of this passage, hear the words of Solomon, David’s son, in Eccl. 9:5, 6: “For the living know that they shall die; but the dead know not anything. . . . Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion forever in anything that is done under the sun.” Verse 10: “There is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.” Evidence like this can neither be mistaken nor evaded. It is vain f or the immaterialist to claim that it applies to the body in distinction from an immortal soul; for they do not hold that the thoughts (dialogismos, thought, reasoning) but to the to Solomon, that which knows when the man is living, does not know when he is dead. There is no way for the immaterialist to avoid this testimony except to deny that Solomon told the truth.

 

8.  The Dead Are in the Dust of the Earth.— Job 17:13: “If I wait, the grave is mine house.” In chapter 14:14, he said, “All the days of my appointed the will I wait, till my change come.” The change referred to must therefore be the resurrection, and he describes his condi­tion till that time, in the following language: “I have made my bed in the darkness. I have said to corruption, Thou art my father: to the worm, Thou art my mother, and my sister, . . . when our rest together is in the dust.” Job 17:13-16. The dead are not therefore in heaven or hell, but in the dust. Isa. 26:19: “Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust:  for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall [[142]] cast out the dead.” Is it possible that the phraseology of this text can be misunderstood? It speaks of the living again of dead men, of the arising of dead bodies, and of the earth’s casting out the dead. And the command is addressed to them thus: “Awake and sing.” Who? Ye who are still conscious, basking in the bliss of heaven, and chanting the high praises of God? — No; but, “ye who dwell in dust;” ye who are in your graves.  If the dead are conscious, Isaiah talked nonsense.  If we believe his testimony, we must look into the graves for the dead.

 

            9.  The Dead have No Remembrance of God.— Ps. 6:5: “For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?” Ps. 115:17:  “The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence.” These texts do not say that it is the wicked only who do not remember and praise the Lord; but it applies to all who are “in death.” But who can suppose that the righteous, if they are conscious in death, would not remember God and give him thanks? Good King Hezekiah, when praising the Lord for adding to his days fifteen years, gives his as the reason why he thus rejoiced (Isa. 38:18, 19): “For the grave cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth. The living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I do this day: the father to the children shall make known thy truth.” No stronger contrast between the living and the dead could be drawn than this. Modern doctors of divinity have Hezekiah in heaven, praising God. He declared that when he was dead, he could not do this. Whose testimony is the more worthy of credit, that of the inspired king of Israel, or that of uninspired theologians tangled in the meshes of a (7) false theology, in the labyrinth of error and confusion?  If we can believe Hezekiah, and we think we can, the [[143]] righteous dead do not praise their Maker as long as they are in their graves. They are therefore wholly uncon­scious.

 

10.  The Dead Are Not Ascended to the Heavens.— So Peter testifies respecting the patriarch David (Acts 2: 29, 34, 35): “Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day.  For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool.” We call the special attention of the reader to the whole argument presented by Peter, beginning with verse 24. Peter undertakes to prove from a prophecy recorded in the Psalms, the resurrection of Christ. He says (verse 31): “He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell [hades, the grave], neither his flesh did see corruption.”

 

And how does he prove that David speaks of Christ, and not of himself? — He proves it from the fact that David’s soul was left in hades, and his flesh did see cor­ruption; and his sepulcher was with them to that day. For David, he says, has not ascended into the heavens. Now if David’s soul did live right on in consciousness, if it was not left in hades, but did ascend into heaven, no man can show that David, in that psalm, did not speak of himself instead of Christ; and then Peter’s argument for the resurrection of Christ would be entirely destroyed. But Peter, especially when speaking as he was on this occasion, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, knew how to reason; and his argument entirely destroys the dogma of the immortality of the soul. Thus the doctrine of the conscious state of the dead is not only without any foundation in the Scriptures themselves, but it directly [[144]] antagonizes some of the most important doctrines of the Bible. David will in due time ascend to heaven, but it will be by a resurrection from the dead. So he himself says (Ps. 17: 15): “I shall be satisfied, when I awake [from the sleep of death] with thy likeness.”

 

11.  Without a Resurrection, the Dead Are Perished.— This is the conclusion Paul draws in his masterly argu­ment in 1 Corinthians 15, and it applies even to those who have fallen asleep in Christ. Verses 16-18: “For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.”

 

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

 

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

 

After stating that if there is no resurrection, we perish, he assures us, that Christ is risen, and that there is a resurrection [[145]] for all. Then he takes up the resurrection of those who sleep in Christ, and tells us when that resurrec­tion shall be. It is to take place, not by the rising from this mortal coil of an ethereal, immaterial essence when we die, but it is to be at the great day, when the last trump shall shatter this decrepid earth from center to circumference.

 

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

 

I proceed to consider what account the Scriptures give of that state to which death reduces us. And this we find represented by sleep; by a negation of all life, thought, or action; by rest, resting-lace, or home, silence, oblivion, darkness, destruction, or corruption.

 

This representation is abundantly sustained by the scriptures referred to; and by all these the great fact is inscribed in indelible characters over the portals of the dark valley, that our existence is not perpetuated by means of an immortal soul, but that, without a resurrec­tion from the dead, there is no future life. Can we do otherwise, reader, than accept this conclusion?

 

Chapter X

 

Objections Answered

 

Examination of Texts Supposed to Prove the Conscious State of the Dead

 

1.  Gathered to His People

 

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

 

Yet the dogma of natural immortality very reluctantly yields the ground. To a twentieth proof text, it will [[147]] cling even the more tenaciously, if the preceding nineteen are all swept away. Besides the texts already noticed, there are a few other passages behind which it seeks refuge; and with alacrity we follow it into all its hiding-places, confident that in no passage in all the Bible can it find a shelter, but that into every one which it claims as its own, it has entered not by right of possession, but as an intruder and a usurper, and a short and speedy process of eviction can be Scripturally served upon it in every place. 

 

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

 

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

 

What, then, is this gathering? Does it refer to the body or the soul? It cannot refer to the body, for while his body was [[148]] buried in the cave of Machpelah, in Canaan, his fathers were buried afar off; Terah, in Haran, in Mesopotamia, and the rest of his ancestors far off in Chaldea. Of course, then, this gathering relates, not to the body, but to the soul; he was gathered to the assembly of the blessed, and thus entered his habitation.

 

To show how gratuitous, not to say preposterous, is this conclusion, we raise a query on two points: 1. Does the expression, “gathered to his people,” denote that he went to dwell in conscious intercourse with them? 2. Were his ancestors such righteous persons that they went to heaven when they died?

 

In answering these queries, the last shall be the first. It is a significant fact that Abraham had to be separated from his kindred and his father’s house, in order that God might make him a special subject of his providence. And in Joshua 24:2 we are plainly told that his ancestors were idolators; for they served other gods. Such being their character death would send them, according to the popular view, to the regions of the damned. At the time, then, of Abraham’s death, they were writhing amid the lurid waves of the lake of fire. And when Abraham was gathered to them, if it was in the sense which the the­ology of our day teaches, he, too, was consigned to the flames of hell! O, to what absurdities will men suffer themselves to be led, blindfold, by a petted theory! God had said to Abram (Gen. 15:15): “And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.” Was this the consoling promise that he should go to hell in peace in a gold old age?  And is the record of his death an assertion that he has his place among the damned? — Yes; if the immaterialist theory be correct. Children of Abraham, arise! And with one mouth vindi­cate your “righteous father” from the foul aspersion. Renounce a theory as far from heaven-born, which com­pels you thus to look upon the “father of the faithful.” [149]

 

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

 

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