rr.** j **** >•*. 40, *\-yr?*> * *P A DEBATE THE STATE OF THE DEAD, BETWEEN REV. THOMAS P. CONNELLY, A. B., AN EVANGELIST OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, AND NATHANIEL FIELD, M. FABTOR OP THE CHURCH OF GOD MEETING AT THE CHRISTIAN TABERNACLE IN THB CITY OF JEFFERSONVILLE, INDIANA. :. k :^ HELD AT OLD UNION MEETING HOUSE, IN THE VICINITY OF INDIAN- APOLIS, IN THE SUMMER OP 1852. REPORTED BY J. G. GORDON, ESQ., ATTORNEY AT LAW, AND REVISED BY THE PARTIES. LOUISVILLE: PRINTED BY MORTON & GRISWOIiD. 1854. Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1853, by NATHANIEL FIELD, M.D., In the Clerk's Office, for the District of Indiana. The Library of Congress WASHIHG toN Stereotyped and Printed by MORTON & GR1SWOLD, ' Louisville, Ey. PREFACE. The relative position of the parties to the following debate, makes it necessary that the circumstances which superinduced it should be explained. A division of sentiment having occurred in a large and respectable church, in the vicinity of Indianapolis, identified with the reformation, as advocated by Mr. Alexander Campbell, which some- what disturbed the equanimity of some of the preachers in that connection, who, like their great l.eader, oppose every thing as specu- lative and useless that does not accord with their views, a proposition was made by the party holding the sleep of the dead, to discuss the mooted question ; which was accepted by Mr. Thomas P. Connelly, an evangelist of the Christian Church, then a resident of the city of Indianapolis. Brother Nathan Hornaday, on behalf of that part of the brotherhood holding my views of the dead, addressed me on the the subject, requesting me to meet Mr. Connelly, as the defender and exponent of their views. After mature deliberation, I consented to do so. My letter of acceptance was forwarded to Mr. Connelly, who then opened a correspondence with me on the subject, which resulted in an agreement to discuss the proposition presented and elaborated in the following pages. It was my desire to make the discussion cover the whole ground of difference, and, therefore, I tendered the following issues, viz : 1. Man, by creation, or by virtue of his union with the first Adam, is immortal. Mr. Connelly taking the affirmative, Dr. Field the negative. 2. When man dies, he falls into an unconscious state until the resurrec- tion. Dr. Field the affirmative, Mr. Connelly the negative. 3. The punishment of the wicked will be endless suffering. Mi*. Connelly the affirmative, Dr. Field the negative, 4. Ths, kingdom of God promised to the saints in ths Old and Nop 4 PREFACE. Testaments, is yet future, and will not be set up and organized until the second advent of Christ. Dr. Field the affirmative, Mr. Connelly the negative, 5. All that the saints ever will inherit, will be given to them on this earth, which is destined again to become a paradise, and be the everlasting abode of the redeemed. Dr. Field the affirmative, Mr. Connelly the negative. For good reasons, I need not mention, all of the propositions were declined, except the second, which was so modified as to give Mr. C. the affirmative. By this arrangement, the debate was narrowed down to a single question, rather too isolated for the edification of a church divided in sentiment on several collateral questions; nevertheless, the discus- sion unavoidably took such a direction, that some light was elicited on the general subject of life and death. In the whole, I am satisfied it will prove beneficial, and deeply interesting, at this particular juncture, when the popular mind is so much excited by the delusions and vagaries of modern spiritualism. It cannot be said that the state of the dead is a matter of no importance. Daily observation and experience contradict the assumption. The peculiar character of the age in which we live, the morbid appetite for the marvellous, and the extravagant love of excitement, so rife in society, civil and and religious, render a theological work of this kind both appropriate and opportune. To the student of the Bible, and, indeed, to every one desirous of correct information in regard to the state of the dead, and other kindred topics, it will be found to be a book of real prac- tical utility. Its publication has been delayed much beyond the time in which I supposed it could be got through the press ; but in consequence of very bad health, which prevented me from superintending the business, it was postponed. All the speeches have been revised by the parties, and therefore, receive their hearty approval. Mr. Connelly, living at some dis- tance from the place of publication, has not been able to read the proof-sheets of his speeches ; but especial care has been taken to preserve conformity to the manuscript he furnished, and no changes have knowingly been made. Mr. Connelly and myself, it is supposed, belong to one and the same church or ecclesiastical organization. This is a mistake. We once did ; but to relieve the minds of the ministry of the reformation, PREFACE. O so called, who were greatly troubled at the idea of being responsible for the views already hinted at, and to avoid contention and strife, not only for the views themselves, but for the liberty of speech, I came to the conclusion, some time ago, to take an independent stand and teach the scriptures, constitute churches, and advise and assist in the management of their temporal and evangelical affairs, without regard to my former connections and associations. By this step, I not only avoided the denunciations of the ministry of the reformation, who, from being the avowed champions of liberty and free discussion, have suddenly become the advocates of proscription and gag-laws ; but placed myself in a position favorable to a true and progressive \ reformation. Not an imperfect and restricted one, meted and bounded \ by the views and authority of one man, but by the Bible itself. My present position is not only promotive of a reformation of progress, but of union and co-operation for evangelical purposes, with all who practically and sincerely adopt the Bible alone as their creed. The church at Jeffersonville, of which I have the oversight, occupies broad and liberal ground, on which they can consistently invite all genuine and consistent advocates of reform to meet with them in labor and fellowship. It is their aim to practice what they profess — not only to say that all men are free to read and think for themselves, but to allow them to do it. I invoke for this work a calm and unprejudiced perusal, as embody- ing all the arguments of any importance on both sides of the question. Mr. Connelly has done his proposition full justice ; and if he has not succeeded in proving it, it is not because he lacked ability. He is a logician and an orator, and I do not believe that there is any man in Indiana, who could have managed his cause with more adroitness, or acquitted himself with greater credit. November 7, 1853. N. FIELD. RULES OF THE DISCUSSION First. It shall commence at 10 o'clock A. M., and close at 4 P. M. of each day, allowing an interval of two hours for refreshment. Second. The parties shall be limited to half hour speeches. Third. The speakers will observe towards each other personal respect and Christian courtesy in conducting the discussion. As their object is the discovery and dissemination of truth, they will cherish for each other that charity which is the bond of perfection. Fourth. The debate will continue from day to day, until the parties are satisfied that the arguments on both sides are exhausted. Fifth. During the discussion, there shall be no public expressions of the feelings and opinions of the auditors in regard to the question in debate. L. H. Jameson, W. G. Proctoh, John Hadlet, Moderators. Time of meeting; Friday, August 27, 1852. DEBATE ON THE STATE OF THE DEAD. MR. CONNELLY'S FIRST SPEECH. Brethren and Fellow Citizens : — For the first time in my life, I stand before a popular audience as a debatant to contend for one of the great truths of Christianity. And I need not suggest to you, that our efforts, made in the right spirit and under- standing^ upon such subjects, may not be in vain, for every question tending to enlighten our understandings in relation to the nature and destiny of man, is eminently worthy of our attention. Such is the subject, for the discussion of which we are now convened. It may not be amiss, however, to say in the outset, that, in order that we may profit by this discussion, truth should be the only object of both speaker and hearer. We should look at every thing said, seriously, candidly, earnestly. We should be attentive, that we may know the meaning of what is said, and that we may learn what the word — the standard to which we all desire to conform in our faith and practice — teaches. Actuated by such desires, it is hardly possible that we should part without being profited by our meeting. But if we desire victory, rather than truth, the establishment of a favorite opinion, rather than the true import of the word of God, I need 8 DEBATE ON THE not say that no good result may be expected to follow our efforts on this occasion, for such a disposition is utterly opposed to the spirit of truth. We all agree, that the word of God is truth, and that that word is found in the scriptures of the Old and New Testament. I expect to appeal to them in support of the proposition I have undertaken to defend, and my opponent will no doubt make a similar appeal. There is no question between us as to the truth of the scriptures. On that point we are agreed. Our only controversey is in reference to what the scriptures do really teach. And while I will quote scriptures to prove my proposition, and my brother will quote other scrip- tures to show the reverse, it will not prove that these scriptures contradict each other, but only that one or the other of us does not rightly understand them. To overcome any mis-apprehension on such seemingly conflicting passages of scripture, is the object for which we should both labor. And to harmonize such scripture it will not do to put a forced and unwarrantable construc- tion on either, but one that will readily harmonize with the context of each passage. Having said this much by way of introduction, I will now proceed to the develop- ment of my proposition, which reads as follows : viz : — ** The scriptures teach that when man dies his spirit remains in a conscious state, separate from the body until the resurrection?' Before entering upon the discussion, it may not be amiss to define the terms of the proposition, as a correct understanding of them is essential to an understanding of all the arguments that may be adduced, either for or against the proposition. I shall then give you the sense . in which I employ the terms of the proposition. Man is STATE OF THE DEAD. 9 a being distinguished by reason in whom matter and spirit are united. Spirit, is the immaterial intelligent part of man. Consciousness, possessing the power of knowing one's own thoughts. To die, to cease to live, the result of a separation of the spirit from the body. That we assume nothing in these definitions will appear as we proceed. Having thus briefly defined the terms of the proposition before us, I will in the next place state in a plain and comprehensive manner the main points embraced in the proposition one by. one. This will enable us to bestow proper attention upon each, and facilitate our understand- ing of the whole. First, then, I will endeavor to show that at death there is a separation of the spirit from the body. In proof of this I call your attention to the following passages of scripture. "Yea, surely God will not do wickedly, neither will the Almighty pervert judgment. Who hath given him a charge over the earth ? or who hath disposed the whole world ? If he set his heart upon man, if he gather to himself his spirit and his breath : all flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust," Job xxxiv, 12, 17. You perceive, that in this scripture it is distinctly stated, that in death there is a separation of the spirit from the body. If he (God) set his heart upon man and take his spirit, his flesh returns to the dust. The spirit is taken by the Creator while the body goes to the dust. Again: "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was ; and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it," Ecc. xii, 7. Here, also, we have a clear distinction between the spirit and the dust or body ; and it is affirmed that while the one in death returns to the earth as it was, the other goes to God who gave it. This was spoken by Solomon after he had 10 DEBATE ON THE reviewed all the vanities and follies of earth, and had seen them all terminate at last in dust. He says this separation occurs when the silver cord is loosed, the golden bowl is broken, the pitcher is broken at the fountain, or the wheel at the cistern, and consequently at death. Again. " And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit, and having said thus, he gave up the ghost," Luke xxiii, 46. This is the language of the blessed Saviour, as he hung upon the cross, when he was about to give up his life for the sins of men. He commends his spirit into the hands of his Father, making no mention, no allusion, whatever, to the body. It does not claim his care. Surely it would have been otherwise, if the body had been the man proper. But to the same effect is the following scripture: "And they stoned Stephen calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit," Acts vii, 59. How similar this language to that of the dying Saviour ! Stephen here petitioned him in whom he trusted, for whose cause he had labored, and for which he was about to die, to receive his spirit. If the body was the man, and all die together, and lose consciousness in death, why did he not say, Lord Jesus, receive me, or my body. On any other hypothesis than that for which I contend, the language here is inexplicable. Again. "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also," James ii, 26. James mani- festly shows in this statement, that the body is dead onl/ as separated from the spirit. I know the Apostle is here speaking of faith. But in order that he might make the great and important truth, that faith is dead, ineffectual, without works, stand prominently before the minds of those whom STATE OF THE DEAD. H he addressed, he adduced this familiar fact as an illustra- tion. And the fact that he thus familiarly employs this figure, clearly implies that that fact, from which the figure is deduced, was a part of the faith of the Christians whom he addressed. Had it been otherwise, the language would have been without meaning to them. Hence we must understand the Apostle as illustrating a doctrine not understood by those to whom he was writing, by one they did understand and believe, and from which they could derive a correct notion of the one he was endeavoring to teach, and this shows that my position was not only a part of his own faith, but the faith of the Church, at that time. These scriptures, then, we think, very distinctly and conclusively sustain the position, that death is a separation of the spirit from the body. We, therefore, repeat it, as a truth standing out prominently in the scriptures, that death is only a separation of body and spirit; from which it clearly appears that spirit and body, though united during life, are distinct in their natures and tendencies. We have given the several passages of scripture on which we rely as proof of this position in advance, that the brother may have a fair chance to meet and examine them, and show, if he can, that our conclusion is not legitimate. I affirm, in the second place, that -personality is attri- buted to the spirit in the scriptures. In proof of this position, I beg leave to cite the following scriptures : First, Eph. vi, 12, "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities,, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places ; " or as Macknight properly renders this passage, "against wicked spirits in the hea- venly regions.' * You perceive, my friends, that spiritual existences are clearly recognized, and that personality is 12 DEBATE ON THE distinctly attributed to these spirits, in the language just read, as also consciousness, but of this in its proper place. Second, Heb.i, 7, "Who maketh his angels spirits and his ministers a flame of fire." We present this passage with this thought, that spirits are sometimes employed by God as his messengers ; and that this is a clear recognition of personality as an attribute belonging to spirits. We will now introduce a passage to show that the term spirit is applied to man before death: 1 John iv, 1, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God, for many false prophets are gone out into the world." It is here conceded, as inti- mated before, that the term spirit is not here applied to disembodied spirits, but to spirits united to the body before death, and means man. In the next place, we will give a scripture to show that the same term is applied to the dead : 1 Pet. hi, 19, 20, "By which he also went and preached to 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 preparing wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water." This is evidently spoken of the antideluvians, who are dead, and are indisputably spoken of as proper personali- ties. And as they are denominated spirits, and as we have shown that the spirit is separated from the body at death, they must be disembodied spirits. Again, having shown that the term spirit is applied to man while living, and that the spirit is separated from the body at death, and that the term is again applied to the dead, it follows that the spirit, whether in or out of the body, is the man proper ; for the term spirit is never properly applied to that which has no spirit, and consequently cannot apply to the body. STATE OP THE DEAD. 13 It is not contended that Christ preached personally to these spirits in the prison to which they are confined, but that, when they were in the flesh, he preached to them by the Spirit, through Noah, while the ark was preparing. Here, then, the term spirit is applied to men who were once alive — to men who lived before the prophets and before the flood, but are here spoken of as spirits in prison, in the days of the Apostle Peter. [ Time out.'] 14 DEBATE ON THE DR. FIELD'S FIRST REPLY. Brethren and Friends : — I am happy to find that my friend and opponent, considers the question we are about to discuss, both interesting and important. He thinks it worthy the attention of every lover of truth ; and hence, he can with propriety, contend for his proposition as embodying one of the great truths of Christianity. It is not often that we meet with gentlemen holding his views honest enough to admit that the question before us is Of any practical utility. On the contrary, they have treated it, or professed to treat it, as unprofitable and vain; — as a mere philosophical speculation, hatched in the imagina- tion of some moon-stricken visionary, whose object was to gratify a morbid appetite for the marvelous, or to acquire notoriety. How often has the state of the dead, and man's final destiny, been treated with contempt or neglect, as untaught questions beyond our grasp or comprehen- sion ? And yet strange to tell, the great leader and oracle of "the current reformation," so called, wrote an extra of forty pages on the Life and Death question. This extra, replete with sophistry, and as dogmatical as any of the decretals of the Council of Trent is regarded by him and his followers as an unanswerable and final settlement of the questions involved in the nature and destiny of man ! Every conclusion or opinion at variance with his own, is a vain and foolish speculation, a mere "notim" of no earthly value ! But when he discusses STATE OF TAE DEAD. 15 these untaught questions, he makes them as clear as a sunbeam ! I repeat, then, I am glad to hear my opponent say, that the question under discussion is one of great impor- tance. What can be more important, my friends, than the origin, nature and destiny of man ? How can we understand the plan of salvation without knowing who is to be saved, and what we are to be saved from ? How can we understand and apply a remedy, if we know nothing about the constitution of the patient or the disease ? In order, then, to understand the system of human redemption, we must understand man. We must study his nature, his constitution, his moral and physical condition. We must ascertain what he lost by the fall, into what circumstances and misfortunes it placed him, and what would have been the result, had not God provided a remedy for him. This knowledge, indispensable to a clear perception, and a proper appreciation of the gospel of our salvation, is what I desire to see developed in the progress of this debate. With these introductory remarks, I will proceed to no- tice my friend's definitions of the terms of his proposition. "Man," he says "is a being distinguished by reason, in whom matter and spirit are united." From what, let me ask, is he distinguished by these peculiarities ? I suppose he means from the inferior animals. But how and where does he learn this distinction ? That man is a being distinguished from the inferior animals by superior reason will not be denied, but to say that the attribute of reason is possessed by man only, is contrary to fact and scripture. I know, my friends, that according to the philosophy of this world, reason is denied to the inferior animals, and all their actions are ascribed to an attribute called instinct. 16 DEBATE ON THE But the difference between instinct and reason lias never been explained to my satisfaction. If observation and the Bible are to be consulted, it is evident, that the difference between man and other animals, is not in the exclusive attribute of reason possessed by man, but in the sujieriority of it. His organization is in every respect superior ; hence the superiority of his mind. In this respect, however, there is as much difference between men as there is between the lower order of animals. The gradations from a Homer, or a Newton, to an idiot, are as regular and well marked as they are from the orang- outang to the animalcule. Knowledge is attributed to the ox. and wisdom to the fowls of heaven, in the Bible, and it will be conceded I presume, that these are pecu- liarities of mentality. Facts are stubborn arguments, my friends, and you that have witnessed the astonishing feats of the inferior animals in obedience to the teachings of man, cannot doubt the fact that they are endowed with reason. Were it not so, how could they be taught to fear and labor for man ? Another item in this definition of man, is, that in him there is a union of matter and spirit. This is also considered by my opponent as a distinguishing peculiarity of his nature ! Suppose I prove from scripture that the inferior animals have spirits as well as man ? What then ? Why that in this respect there is no difference between them. My opponent will not deny that beasts have spirits. Why then does he assert that in this respect there is a distinction? His definition is as applicable to the horse as to man. What, then, becomes of his philosophy based on it ? His definition of spirit, if true, would be the proof of his proposition. If, in the course of this discussion, he prove that the spirit of STATE OF THE DEAD. 1 7 man is an immaterial and intelligent entity, when separated from the body by death, his proposition is fully sustained. But here we take issue, and await his proofs. Conscious, or consciousness, he defines to be "the power of knowing one's thoughts." Whether it is knowing, or the power of knowing our thoughts, is not material to the question. In either view of the attribute it is an evidence of rationality and of living personality. If he prove that the spirit of man after death possesses either thought or the power of thinking, he has gained his point. We need not, then, spend time in examining the metaphysical sub- tleties involved in this definition. Death, he defines to be the cessation of life, the result of a separation of body and spirit. This is a vague definition, but contrived so as to be in harmony with his proposition and the arguments to be adduced. Webster defines death thus : "That state of a living being in which there is a total and permanent cessation of the vital func- tions, when the organs have not only ceased to act, but have lost the susceptibility of renewed action." This definition, simple as it is, is in strict accordance with the laws of life, and the concurrent testimony of observation and facts. Then why not adopt it, as there is nothing in the Bible to contradict it ? In proof of the correctness of his definition of death he quotes Job xxxiv, 14, 15, which reads as follows : "If he 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." This, he assumes, teaches the separation of the body and spirit in death, and thence he infers the separate existence of the spirit after death. Now, I affirm, that this passage simply states the fact, that when the spirit is taken from man he perishes ; without so much saying one word about IB DEBATE ON THE the separate existence of the spirit after death. Notice particularly, my friends, the language of the text. " If God set his heart upon man, 7 ' who is man ? My friend says a compound of matter and mind. Who returns to dust ? Man — this compound of matter and mind. Then, what remains to think and to feel ? Besides, all scripture must be made to harmonize ; for we are taught that no scripture is of private interpretation. By which I under- stand that no one passage must be separated from its context or relation to other passages on the same subject, and interpreted without reference to its agreement or disagreement therewith. The context and other similar scriptures must be consulted, and especially all similar passages in the same author should be carefully compared with that under consideration. In other words, no single passage of scripture is to be so construed as to destroy the harmony of the whole. Bearing this rule in mind, let us proceed to notice some scriptures referring to the same subject as that under discussion, and see how they harmonize with my friend's interpretation. Job xiv, 10-12. "But 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." Does this look like a survival of the conscious and intelligent part of man ? Who lies down and rises not ? Man. Not his body merely, but the man proper, who my friend says, is the spirit, the intelligent and conscious thing. Is there any intimation here of an intermediate state of consciousness? None whatever. But this is not all on the same subject, by the same inspired writer. In chap, iii, 11-16,, he asks, STATE OF THE DEAD. lft "Why died I not from the womb ? Why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly ? Why did the knees prevent me ? Or why the breast, that I should suck ? For now should I have lain still and been quiet, I I should have slept, then had I been at rest with kings and counsellors of the earth, which built desolate places for themselves ; or with princes that . had gold, who filled their houses with silver, or as an hidden untimely birth, I had not been, as infants which never saw light." Does this look like living after death ? Certainly not. Had Job died at birth he would have slept. He would have been as though he had not been. This cannot refer to his body, for he uses the pronoun I, signifying himself i — the man proper. The passage quoted by my friend, from Ecclesiastes, xii, 7, " Then shall the dust return to the dust as it was, and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." If my friend intends to prove by this a separation of body and spirit at death, it is conceded ; but, if he understand it to mean that the spirit continues as a conscious, intelligent entity, I deny it. It manifestly does not prove that when the spirit returns to God, it there enjoys a separate, con- scious, and intelligent existence. It proves too much for the purposes of my friend ; for what it asserts, is true of the spirit of every man, or man in a general sense — the good and the bad, the just and the unjust. And does the gentleman affirm that the spirits of all men return at death to their Creator ? We should like to be informed on this point. As before remarked, however, the passage proves too much for his argument ; and therefore proves nothing at all. But as we shall have occasion to notice this passage again, we shall pass it by for the present. Again: Solomon says, Eccl. iii, 18-21, "I said in my 20 DEBATE OX THE heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see, that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleththe sons of men, befalleth beasts ; even one thinof befalleth them : as the one dieth, so dieth the other, so that man (in death) hath no pre-eminence over a beast; for all is vanity. All go to one place : all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knoweth the spirit of a man, that goeth upward, and the spirit of a beast that goeth downward to the earth ? It is the opinion of some critics, that there is an inaccuracy in the translation of the last verse. Martin Luther, I believe, translates it thus : " Who knoweth ivhether the spirit of a man goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast goeth downward to the earth ? " This agrees with the preceding verse, which declares that they all go to one place, and that place is the dust. Humiliating thought ! However mortifying it may be to the pride of man, in the matter of death, he is, in consequence of sin compelled, like inferior animals, to suffer and return to dust. But it is the glorious hope of the resurrection, that gives man a pre-eminence above them. That hope does not animate the beast. He dies to live no more forever. Not so with man. He has hope in his death of deliverance from the bondage of corruption. Again : Eccl. ix, 6, 6, " For the living know that they shall die : but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward ; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy are now perished, neither have they any more a portion forever, in any thing that is done under the sun." I suppose my friend will admit that love, hatred and envy are passions peculiar to the intellectual and moral constitution of man. If they perish, must STATE OF THE DEAD. 21 not that constitution perish also ? Besides, it is affirmed the dead know not any thing. Which cannot be true, if the intelligent and thinking part — the man proper — survives death. I come now to notice the remarks of my friend, on the dying words of our Saviour, and of Stephen — the former found in Luke xxiii, 46, and the latter in Acts vii, 59. The strength of the argument here rests upon the import of the word spirit, which will be examined in due time. Nothing, however, is here affirmed of the consciousness of the spirit after death, and during its separation from the body. Stephen said, " Lord Jesus, receive my spirit/' and then fell asleep. Who fell asleep ? Stephen's body ? No : but Stephen himself. The passage from James ii, 26: "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." This proves nothing, as it is here employed as an illustration, and not as an • evidence of the doctrine my friend advocates. He may, however, say, that its employment as a figure, implies that it represents an existing fact, and that the idea thus represented is the separation of spirit and body in death. This would be a fair conclusion, but it adds no strength to his position. And even suppose it granted, — what follows ? Why, plainly, no conclusion incompatible with the doctrines I advocate. I come, in the next place, to notice the gentleman's second position, which is that pe? sonality is applied to the spirit in the scriptures. In support of this position he cites Eph. vi, 12, which reads as follows : "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Now, I really desire to know 22 DEBATE ON THE if my friend believes that the spiritual wickedness here spoken of, really does mean the spirits of dead men. There is plainly no ground in the text for such an inference to rest upon, — not the slightest intimation of it in the Apostle's language. Nothing but a forced and unnatural interpretation could wrest such a meaning from the passage. Indeed, it is a mere assumption, supported by no shadow of proof. If we must go beyond the text for its meaning, why not assume that the powers here alluded to, are wicked angels ? That position would be much more reasonable than that of my friend. They are spiritual beings. But how or where do we learn that they are the spirits of dead men ? Not till after the resurrection do we find the term spiritual applied to men ; and it is then employed in direct relation to the preceding state of mor- tality. Thus, the Apostle speaking of man, says — ."It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body ; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power ; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory'* It is here manifest that after the resurrection, the subjects of that change will possess bodies purely spiritual, and wholly different from our present bodies, which are mortal and perishable. But all this is aside from the true meaning of the text now before us. The Apostle is plainly alluding to the opposition, which the church then encountered from evil disposed, wicked men who had been elevated to high places in the church, or in the civil goverments under which Christians lived, and under the evil administration of which they suffered. This view will be fully established if we take into consideration the fact, that the term spirit is often applied in scripture to persons and men. The passage to which our attention has been called, is 1 John iv, 1 : " Beloved believe not every spirit (person), STATE OF THE DEAD. 23 but try the spirits (persons) &c. Every spirit (person) that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God." The context shows that these spirits are false prophets and false teachers. In this passage the Apostle manifestly alludes to men when he employs the term spirit. He cautions the disciples, not to believe every spirit, — i. e. every one who might profess to be a prophet, — but to try the spirits ; for many false prophets had even then gone out to deceive and destroy the church. The passage which my friend introduces from 1 Pet. iii, 19, is explicable on the same principles of interpreta- tion, which I have applied to other texts. It reads thus : " By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison ; which were sometime disobedient, when once the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is eight souls were saved by water." Now it is not intended that the Saviour went to Hell to preach to these spirits. The gentleman will not take that ground. However fancifui and strange the doctrines inferred from this passage have been heretofore, he will not go that far. He has too much caution for that. Mr. Ferguson, of Nashville, Tennessee, has made it the foundation of some wonderful conjectures. With these examples before him, I trust my opponent will not fall into similar absurdities. The plain meaning of the passage seems to be this — that in the days of Noah, our Saviour, while the ark was preparing, preached to the spirits, or the persons who are now in prison. [Time out.] 24 DEBATE ON THE MR. CONNELLY'S SECOND SPEECH. Brethren and Fellow Citizens, The brother objects to my definitions. This is as I expected, for I well knew that the terms of my proposition in their common and accredited meanings, were at war with his whole philosophy. They are "more fanciful and metaphysical, than scriptural." You, my friends, will be better able to determine of that matter, after you see my success in establishing them by the scriptures. He doubts my definition of man, because he thinks it may apply with equal propriety to the inferior animals. But why does he call instinct reason ? Reason, according to Dr. Webster, is that faculty of the mind, by which it distinguishes truth from falsehood, good from evil, and souls too. Nor has he denied that they are said to possess wisdom and knowledge. Now, the difficulty with my opponent is this : He assumes that spirit, from its very nature, is intelligent and immortal ; and as it can and does exist separate from matter in a conscious state, if he admit that beasts have spirits as well as man, they must also be intelligent and immortal, and consequently exist con- sciously after death. I trust you all see the dilemma. Mr. Wesley and Adam Clarke, if I mistake not, perceived this result of my friend's logic, and in order to be consistent, honestly taught the resurrection of the inferior animals/ Why does he not do likewise ? He has given us a definition of reason and instinct. The former, he says, "is that faculty of the mind by which it distinguishes truth from falsehood, good from evil. The latter (instinct) is a power of mind by which animals are unerringly and spontaneous/?/ directed to act without deliberation or experience, and without having any end in view*" If this definition be correct, I apprehend he will have STATE OF THE DEAD. 33 some trouble in reconciling it with his proposition. For example : A being that cannot distinguish truth from falsehood, and good from evil, has no reason. Idiots, infants, and insane persons, cannot distinguish truth from falsehood, good from evil. In what respect, then, do they differ from the inferior animals, and how can they be immortal ? But he says, " Instinct is a power of the mind, (mark the expression, my friends,) by which the inferior animals act." So, then, according to my opponent and Dr. Webster, they have mind, and that mind possesses a power or faculty of acting unerringly in certain matters ! This is strange, indeed, especially when we learn from this sage definition that they have no end in view ! Now, my friends, I submit it to you, as common sense people, if this definition does not, in some respects, contradict facts that come under your daily observation ? Do you not, almost every day, see something in the actions of the inferior animals to convince you that the philosophy of this world, which denies to them any reason at all, is vain, and worse than vain. In his explanation of the difference between matter and substance, he says I confound the two together. He makes them quite different. My perception, I must admit, is too obtuse for such philosophical subtleties. Matter, he says, "is that which is visible, tangible, or appreciable by the senses." Substance, he says, "is understood to be that which really exists, and is applicable to both matter and spirit." This is certainly a very lucid definition of substance. The common sense understanding of it is, that matter is substance, and spirit is substance ; then, of course, matter, substance, and spirit, are essen- tially the same. Again, if immateriality is substance, and 34 DEBATE ON THE substance is an attribute of matter, then immateriality and matter, so far as his definition is concerned, are the same. For remember, my friends, he says that substa?icc is equally an attribute or property of spirit and matter. To sum this matter up, then, it will stand thus : Spirit is an immateriality, immateriality is substance, and substance is matter. After all, then, he is a materialist ! He says, I object to his definition because it is not in the Bible. This is a mistake. I object to it because it contradicts the Bible. I admit the Bible is not a dictionary, but nevertheless we can learn from it the sense in which words are used. If we cannot, then it is not a self- interpreting book. My opponent thinks that I am premature in my quotations of scripture, to show that the spirit has no conscious separate existence after death. But I did not quote the passages, I introduced for the purpose of raising that question now. My object was, to show that the doctrine for which he contends must be compared with all that Job and Solomon have written ; and his interpretation, of particular passages shown to be consis- tent with the whole, or rejected as untrue. Now, these writers show no difference between the spirit of a man and that of a beast, in death ; for it must be recollected that there is a great difference between the fact, that there is a separation between the body and spirit at death, and the assumed fact, that the latter exists consciously after that separation. The scriptures show, what we never denied, that the separation really does take place ; but the same authors and texts clearly rebut the suppo- sition that the spirit remains conscious after that event. How could I avoid, therefore, noticing the fact, that scriptures quoted by my friend, clearly refute his argu- STATE OF THE DEAD. 35 ments on the main question in controversy. That were indeed difficult. Allow me to call your attention again to Ecclesiastes, ninth chapter. Now here it is manifest, that not the body alone suffers death — goes to the grave and corruption — but the man, and there " is no hope for him." If a man survive, there is hope for him. His condition is not. utterly hopeless ; but Solomon speaks of the dead as having no hope. If the spirit existed separately and consciously, possessing the capacity to think and act, to suffer and enjoy, then there would be hope even in death. The plain inference from all this is, that at death all consciousness ceases to exist — that the dead sleep, and know not any thing. All the scriptures referred to by my friend harmonize with what I have said, and fully asrree, as I shall have occasion to show hereafter. I repeat, my friends, that when a passage of scripture is appealed to, as proof of a theory, if it contradict any material part of that theory, it proves too much. Suppose, then, that A should be summoned to prove that B killed C, and that C is concealed or buried in a certain place, and it should turn out that the body of C could not be found in the place designated, what would be the conclusion ? Evidently that he is a very doubtful, if not an incredible witness. Now my friend quotes Eccl. xii, to prove a separation of body and spirit at death, which no one denies. But at the same time it is an important part of his theory, that this spirit goes to a sort of prison called hades, and this the text contradicts. What is the inference ? Why that his theory, at least, is erroneous. He thinks my construction of Eccl. ix, 5, contrary to the context, and the design of the book. This context is the preceding verse, and reads as follows : '» This is an 36 DEBATE ON THE evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all : yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead. For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope." (Verses 3, 4.) How this conflicts with my interpretation of the fifth verse I cannot see. But my opponent asks, with an air of confidence, " How can madness exist where there is no consciousness ? " I answer, it cannot. But this is assuming that those who go to the dead carry their madness with them. The passage does not say so. It is in their hearts while they lice, and not after they are dead. For the fifth verse declares that the dead know not any thing ; and the next one says "that their love, and their hatred, and their envy, are now perished." How, then, can they have madness in their hearts, when all their knowledge and passions have become extinct ? He says the dead have hope of salvation, and hence he understands the declaration that " the dead know not any thing," to mean, " that after death there is no more preaching to them, and no knowledge of the way of repentance and salvation." But Solomon says they know not any thing. They have no knowledge of any thing else. Why not stick to the letter of the text ? How much better it would be for my opponent, and you, my friends, if he would just quote a passage that says, in plain and intelligible language, what his proposition affirms. It would save him and you a deal of trouble, if he would give usa" thus saith the Lord " for it. How quickly he would end this debate. Instead of this course of disputation, once the boast and pride of his party, he is compelled to rely on inferential reasoning to prove his doctrine ! A forced and unnatural meaning must be STATE OF THE DEAD. 37 given to certain passages of scripture, as silent as the grave in regard to his philosophical tenet. I come now to notice his remarks on the personality of the spirit. I presume, of course, he means the spirit mentioned in his proposition, that is to say, the spirits of dead men. I would notify him and you, my friends, that there is no controversy about the personality and intelli- gence of God and angels. It is about the spirit of man after its separation from the body. One of his positions, subordinate to his main proposition, is, that the spirit of man is a personality. That it is in reality the man proper. Here, then, we are at issue ; and as I have already said, this controversy could be abruptly terminated by producing a "thus saith the Lord" for this doctrine. I admit that in one sense of the word personality is predicated of spirit, but not of the spirit of a dead man. This I will illustrate hereafter. One of his proof texts is Eph. vi, 12, on which he has offered a Greek criticism. He insists that a proper render- ing of this passage proves, that there are wicked spirits in the heavenly regions, with whom Christians have to wrestle. But does it prove that they are the spirits of dead men ? Not at all. Admitting, then, for the sake of the argument, that there are "wicked spirits" in the heavenly regions — in the air if you please, what of it? Does it follow that they are human spirits ? He says I gain nothing by supposing that they are lapsed angels, unless I admit that all spiritual nature is the same ! Here, then, he asserts by implication that all spiritual nature is the same. Therefore, the spirits of the inferior animals are in the same condition as those of men after death ! Just think of it, my friends, the air you breathe is full of the spirits of men and beasts ! ! The countless millions 38 DEBATE ON THE of quadrupeds and birds on "which the human family have subsisted, had immortal spirits, and are now swarming in the air ! ! ! But as I shall have occasion to notice his criticism after he shall have fully Offered his reasons for it, I will dismiss this passage with the remark, that I have lying on the stand, the new translation of the New Testament, by Alexander Campbell — I call it his, because he has made so many emendations of the transla- tions of George Campbell, Philip Doddridge, and James Macknight, that it is really his translation. I do not, however, object to it on this account. It is unquestionably superior to any translation extant. Now why not appeal to it, and thus supersede the necessity for an appeal to the Greek ? Is his translation incorrect ? Will neither the common version nor Mr. Campbell's answer his pur- pose ? Are we never to have a reliable translation of the scriptures, and must we forever appeal to the Greek in discussions before a popular assembly ? I am willing to risk this question on either of the translations before us. Mr. Campbell translates this passage almost verbatim as it is in the common version. He makes the adjective jmeumatika qualify the noun rendered wickedness. Having given you a definition of the word death accord- ing to Webster, I will now give his definition of the word life. u Life — in a general sense, is that state of animals and plants, or of an organized being, in which its natural functions and motions are performed, or in which its organs are capable of performing their functions." True, Dr. Webster has given the various applications and uses of the term, philosophical, theological, civil, and metaphorical, as adopted and allowed by the popular writers and speakers of the English language ; but with these uses and applications of the word, we have but little 8TATE OF TI1E DEAD. 39 to do. In many instances they are fanciful and unwar- rantable. There are properly but two uses of words — the literal and figurative, and it is thus that we must employ them in studying the Holy Scriptures. The con- text and nature of the subject, and other circumstances, will always suggest to the reader when he should abandon the literal and adopt the figurative meaning of a word. It, is necessary to remark, however, that words when used in a purely literal sense, often have various significations ; that is to say, primary, secondary, tertiary, &c. They are applied to various things. This can always be ascer- tained by their usus loauendi in the Bible. In support of this view, I beg leave to introduce an authority of great weight and respectability, especially with the party with whom my friend is identified. I allude to Alexander Campbell. He speaks thus in his preface to the Gospels, in his new translation, sixth edition, page 11 : "The reader will please consider, when God spoke to man, he adopted the language of man. To the forefathers of the Jewish nation he spoke in their mother tongue. By his Son, and his Son by the Apostles, he spoke to every nation in its own language. When he spoke to any nation, he uniformly adopted the words of that nation, in expressing his will to it. And that he used their words in the commonly received sense, needs no other proof than this, that if he had not done so, instead of enlightening them in the knowledge of his will, he would have deceived and confounded them : than which no hypothesis is more impious. For example, were God to speak to us in Englis7i, and select from our vocabulary the word death, punish- ment, perpetual, and wicked; were he to use the last term as we use it, and annex to the others a signification differ- ent from that we affix to them, such as to mean life by the 40 DEBATE OX THE term death, happiness, by the term 'punishment, and a lim- ited tune by the word perpetual ; and. without apprising us jf such a change in their meaning, say, " Perpetual death shall he the punishment of the wicked," what a deception would he have practiced upon us ! " I heartily subscribe to these views, and insist that, as reformers, you started with them, you shall abide by them now. Allow me now to give you the orthodox definition of the term spirit, which will serve to exhibit the vast difference between that sense of the term, and its primary and literal signification. It is as follows : '* The spirit is simple, uncompounded, immaterial, indivisible, indissoluble, indis- tructible, intangible, without exterior or interior surface ; is not extended, and can never come in contact with mat- ter. That the spirit, from its essential nature, is immortal and independent of the body, and, therefore, that it can exercise the functions of life, of the understanding, affec- tions, and will, without the concurrence of the body, and does indeed perform these functions while the body is mouldering in the dust. That the spirit is in a state of conscious enjoyment or suffering between death and the resurrection — the good going to paradise, or heaven, where Christ is, and the wicked to hell. That the resur- rection refers only to the body, the spirit having never died. That the wicked, as well as the righteous, from the necessity of their own immortal natures, will never die." After this highly philosophical definition of spirit, allow me, my friends, to give you the various meanings of the term as it occurs in the Bible. 1st. Its first and primary signification is breath, air, wind in motion, in which sense it should always be construed, if the context will permit. 2. The vital principle, or animal life. 3. Thoughts, affec- tions, temper, or disposition of mind. 4. It is used for STATE OF THE DEAD. 41 the mind of man. 5. It is used for one's self, periphras- tically. 6. In a few instances it is used synonymously with person. Now, I here affirm that, in every instance in which it occurs in the Bible, it is in one of these senses. Numerous passages of scripture might be quoted illus- trative of these diversified meanings of the term, but I shall not consume time in reading them unless my oppo- nent calls this statement in question. Should he do so, they shall be forthcoming. [Time out.'] MR. CONNELLY'S THIRD SPEECH. Brethren and Fellow Citizens : — It would be well before we advance further, to review the ground over which we have already gone, that we may ascertain what we have gained. First, then, it is conceded by the brother that, at death, there is a separation between the body and the spirit ; and, secondly, that per- sonality is attributed to the spirit in the scriptures. Thus far we are agreed. And thus, as I humbly conceive, two- thirds of the whole propositon is established and conceded. But the brother says he did not intend to concede that personality is applied to the spirits of dead men. I have no idea that he desired to make the concession. But he will be utterly unable to extricate himself from it unless he can show some authority for calling that spirit which has no spirit. We have asked for this several times already, and as he passed it by in silence, we again ask 42 DEBATE OX THE where is the authority for applying the term spirit to the body from which the spirit has departed ? Will it be forthcoming ? "We will see. We will turn our attention again, for a few moments, to definitions. My friend has been pleased to favor us with what he calls the orthdox definition of the term spirit, as a contrast with the true primary meaning. But he does not tell us from what orthodox author he gets it. We would say to the brother, however, once for all, that we are responsible for no definitions but our own, and that we regard nothing as orthodox in definitions, that does not agree with the standard authorities. He next gives us some five or six definitions of spirit, claiming the authority of the Bible, which we will now examine. First, wind, air in motion, hence breath. In this sense, he insists we should always use the term when it will possibly do. But Webster says "this sense is unusual." Here the doctors are at issue. Again, we need only substitute the word breath in the various scriptures we have cited, to see what utter nonsense it would make. Second, life or the vital principle. With reference to this definition I remark, that Webster gives no such definition! He defines spirit by] life only in the sense of resemblance. His fifteenth definition reads thus : life or strength of resemblance. But to see how ridiculously absurd Dr. F.'s definitions are, and how confused are his thoughts upon the whole subject, let us substitute the definition of life quoted by himself, from Dr. Webster, in those scriptures where he supposes it has that meaning. Luke viii, 5b : And her state of animals and plants, in which its natural functions and motions are performed, came again, and she rose straightway ! Eccl. : " Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the state of animals and plants, or organized being, in STATE OF THE DEAD. 43 which its natural functions and motions are performed, shall return unto God who gave it." Luke xxiii, 46 : " Father, into thy hands I commend my state of animals and plants, or organized being, in which its natural functions and motions are performed.' ' Could any thing be more absurd ! And so we might show with all the rest, but you are doubtless satisfied, my friends, with this specimen. Third, " It is used for the mind of man." This definition affords him no assistance, as it only removes the difficulty one step further back. For mind, as we shall show hereafter, is an essential property of the spirit. Fourth, That the term is sometimes used for temper or disposition of mind, is not disputed. But this again only shifts the difficulty. Fifth, It is used for one's self periphrastically. Sixth, For persons. This is what we have been endeavoring to show, and as it is applied to the dead, as we have before shown, it must be to the spirits of men separated from the body, and hence only proves what my friend says he did not intend to concede. But more of this hereafter. But let us consult Dr. Webster a little further, and see if we are without any authority for our definition of spirit. His fifth definition reads thus : u The soul of man ; the intelligent, immaterial, and immortal part of human beings." And cites Eccl. xii, 7 : " The spirit shall return unto God who gave it." Sixth definition, " An immate- rial, intelligent substance." Seventh, "An immaterial intelligent being." And cites 1 Pet. iii, 19 : " By which he went and preached to the spirits in prison." You can now see, my friends, whether the standard authorities are with me or my opponent. We will next call your attention to Dr. Webster's defi- tion of the verb die. I cannot account for brother Field's reading so much of the learned doctor's definition as he 44 DEBATE ON THE did, and his stopping where he did, on any other ground than that he felt assured it was against him. For he read every thing but that he should have read. Die — " To be deprived of the circulation of the blood, and other bodily functions, as animals, either by natural decay, by disease, or by violence ; to cease to live ; to expire ; to decease ; to perish. " Thus far he read, and thus far it relates to animals in general. But mark what follows; "and with respect to man, to depart from this world." This, you see, is the only clause in the definition applicable to the question in debate. Why, then, was it omitted. The gentleman has told you that we must take terms in their primary and natural signification, whenever we can do so, without violating good sense. With this rule I agree ; and insist that we shall abide by it. What then, I ask, is it that departs from this world when a man dies ? Is it his body ? Does that depart from the world ? No ; it returns to the earth as it was. Yet death is a departure from the world. If, then, the body remains in the world after death — and to die is to depart from the world, does it not follow that this departure must be predicated of something else than the body ? And of what else than the spirit can it be ? That leaves the body, as before shown and conceded, at death ; the body remains behind in the world ; hence the spirit is the being — the person^- that departs from this world. This, as I have before said, my friend admits. In commenting on the third chapter of 1st Peter, he informs us that the term spirits in this scripture is equiva- lent to ]>ersons. If so, then, it follows that that something which has departed from the world is the person; and as it cannot be the body, which we have shown does not leave the world at death, it must be the spirit — the immaterial^ intelligent part of those antediluvians. STATE OF THE DEAD. 45 Our attention is again called to Eph. vi, 12. He informs us that spiritual here qualifies wickedness. It is made to do so in the King's version, I know, but it does not in the original. Pnuematika is of the neuter gender, accusative case, plural number, and hence cannot qualify ponerias* which is of the feminine gender, singular number, and genitive case, without violating some of the plainest rules of the language. Hence we do not, as the gentleman asserts, make an adjective bestow personality upon a noun ; but simply show that an adjective is here used for a noun, as Greenfield states on this passage, and, as we have already shown, is the case with Rom. ii, 4, and 2 Cor. viii, 8, to which we might add many other similar cases. The gentleman seems to regret exceedingly that an appeal should be made to the Greek. Does he mean by this to endorse the common version as correct ? It would seem so — he says it will suit him very well ; and then we have Mr. Campbell's version, with which he is well pleased, and asks, with some astonishment, shall we never have a reliable version ? Shall we never have any thing settled ? That that is a mere appeal, "ad captandum," for effect, to prejudice your minds against a fair investigation, is evident from the fact that the translation of the text does not please him, and hence this appeal to Campbell's ver- sion. Had he not better appeal at once to the original ? Why does he not, instead of such " ad captandum " appeals, show that my criticisms are not correct ? It follows, then, as we have shown, that the spirit is separated from the body at death, and that personality is applied in the scriptures to spirits thus separated ; that spirits exist after death, distinct from the body. We shall proceed, then, in the third place, to show that consciousness or intelligence is an attribute of the spirit. 46 DEBATE ON THE Iii support of this position we cite Matt, xxvi, 41, " Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation ; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." A plain distinc- tion is made in this scripture between flesh and spirit. And an unmistakable recognition of intelligence as belong- ing to the spirit. Again, Luke i, 46, "And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour." That the term spirit does include the body and soul is evident from the fact that the term soul occurs in the same sentence. But I quote this scripture merely to prove consciousness of the spirit, which it clearly shows. To the same effect is Romans i, 9, "For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers." Here the Apostle regards the spirit as that with which he served God, or as that which serves God, and it must, therefore, be intelligent and conscious. Again, 1 Cor. ii, 11, '-What man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him ; even so the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God." In this passage the Apostle declares that the spirit of man, resident in the body, is the intelligent knowing principle ; yea, more, the only intelligent principle — no man but the spirit knows the things of man. Just as no man knows the things of God but the Spirit of God. I regard this passage as conclusive. And had I no other proof to this point, I might rest the question here in the fullest assu- rance of success. To say spirit here means mind, affects not my argument, as I have shown it removes the difficulty only one step back, unless it can be shown that the mind is not inherent in the spirit. Hence the gentleman may call it mind, or whatever else he pleases ; it is the only STATE OF THE DEAD. 47 conscious, knowing principle in man, and it is distinct from the body — and the Apostle calls it the spirit. And besides this, intelligence is never attributed to the body. Again, 1 Cor. xiv, 14, "For if I pray in an unknown tongue my * spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful." In this scripture, the Apostle regards the spirit as praying, and, therefore, as intelligent and con- scious. The thought before the Apostle's miiid we under- stand to be simply this. If lie prayed in a language that was not understood by those who heard him, it could communicate no knowledge to the hearer, though his own spirit being engaged in prayer, might profit by it. Again, Gal. v, 17, "The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would." Here, again, a clear distinction is made between the flesh and spirit. They are placed in distinct contrast with each other, and their different tendencies pointed out. I now call attention to Phil, i, 21. But before I read, that I may fix your mind on the point in the text, I ask leave to submit the following question: Who is the " I " of whom the Apostle speaks, as living in the flesh ? But let us read, "For to me to live is Christ, and to die gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labor : yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and be with Christ, which is far better. Nevertheless, to abide in the flesh is more needful for you. And having this confidence, I know that I shall abide, and continue with you all for your furtherance and joy of faith : that your rejoicing may be more abundant in Jesus Christ for me by my coming to you again." Here the Apostle speaks of an intellectual, intelligent identity — personality — that may either reside in the flesh or depart out of it. 48 DEBATE ON THE And further, his language evidently shows that to abide in the flesh was to remain with the brethren ; and, conse- quently, to depart from the flesh was to leave them — to be absent from them. Now, if this intellectual identity is not the spirit, there is no meaning in the passage. This text, then, embraces my whole proposition — the separa- tion, personality, and consciousness — all. The argument from this text I regard as irrefragable, and one my friend will never be able to refute. The same fact is taught in Job xix, 26, "And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh I shall see God." Here, again, an intellectuality — personality is regarded as residing in the flesh, which is unquestionably the spirit. [ Time out.] DR. FIELD'S THIRD REPLY. Brethren and Friends : My friend seems to attach considerable importance to certain concessions which he says I have made. Now, suppose, I have conceded that there is a separation of body and spirit at death, does it hence follow that the spirit after death is a living, intelligent, personality ? Certainly not. If it will help his cause any I will also concede that at death there is a separation between the body and the sight, hearing, its vitality, its sensibility, — does it follow that they are personalities too ? I have said that in some instances the word spirit is synonymous with the word person. Now for the proof. " Beloved believe not every spirit, (person) but try the STATE OF THE DEAD. 40 spirits (persons) whether tlieyareof God : because many- false prophets are gone out into the world — every spirit (person) that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God : and every spirit (person) that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God." 1 John iv. 1-3. In this passage it is evident that the false prophets who had gone out into the world were called spirits. We often use the word in a similar sense in our common parlance. Such expressions as " turbu- lent spirit," "refractory spirit," "restless spirit," and "ambitious spirit," are of frequent occurrence. But I will give you another example of the import of this word in the scriptures : "Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind or be troubled, neither by spirit (person) nor by word, nor by letter as from us as that the day of Christ is at hand." 1 Thess. ii, 1, 2. The apostle cautioned the church of Thessalonica not to believe what certain persons might teach on the exciting subject to which he referred. In this sense of the word spirit, personality is predicable of it. So of the word soul, which in a number of instances means person. I presume my friend will not deny that dead bodies are sometimes called souls. For example: — "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell (dead body in the grave) neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption." See Ps. xvi, 10. There is a pretty general agreement among commentators that this is the sense of this passage. My friend has admitted that living persons are called spirits. Now, the question is, do the scriptures furnish any authority for calling dead people spirits ? If they do, then the difficulty about the "spirits in prison " vanishes at once. Bear it in mind my friends, that I have adduced examples of the use of the word spirit in 50 DEBATE ON THE the sense of person — a living person. My friend assumes that spirit can be predicated only of personality. Then, it follows, that whatever is a personality may be called a spirit. Is, then, a dead man, or a dead body if you please, ever spoken of in the Bible or treated as a personality? Let us see. In the 11th chapter of John we have an account of the raising of Lazarus after he had been dead four days. When our Lord approached the dwelling of his bereaved sisters he asked "Where have ye laid HIM ? They say unto him, Lord, come and see. Jesus wept. Then said the Jews, behold how he loved HIM. And some of them said, could not this man, who opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even THIS MAN should not have died? John xi, 34-37. Here we have an illustration of the personality of a dead man — that part of him too which lies in the grave. Though a mass of putrefaction, he is still called a man. What will my opponent say to this ? But again : Acts ii, 29, " Men and brethren let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that HE is both dead and buried, and HIS sepulchre is with us unto this day." David himself, not a fart of him, is here said to be dead and buried — in HIS tomb at Jerusalem. Many other examples might be given going to show that dead bodies, just as we see them after the breath has left them, are personated by all the personal pronouns in our language. Even in the very first chapter of the Bible we are told that Adam was a man before he was endowed with vitality. After lie was formed God breathed into HIS nostrils the breath of life and MAN (mark the expression) became a living soul or living person. So it seems he was really and truly man before he drew his first breath or saw the light. According to the doctrine of my opponent, Adam was no man at all until the breath of life was imparted STATE OF THE DEAD. 5] to him, at which time the man proper entered the body ! Neither was Lazarus in the grave, but in the heavenly regions perhaps : hence if his doctrine be true our Lord should have said " Where have you laid his body *' ? ' These points being established, we are better prepared to examine minutely my friend's proof texts with regard to the spirits in prison and also in the heavenly regions. 1 Peter 3, 18-20, " For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the spirit — by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison ; which sometime were disobedient, when once the lon^-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, wherein few, this is, eight souls, were saved by water." These spirits, my friend says, are the disembodied spirits of the antedi- luvians. Then they cannot be the wicked spirits mentioned in Eph. vi, 12, with whom the Apostle wrestled, for they are, according to my friend, in the heavenly regions-— going at large. There is something here I wish him to notice particularly. Spirits in prison cannot annoy the living — they cannot be flying about in the air — or engaged in pugilistic contests with men in the flesh. But who are these spirits in prison ? In order to decide this question, let us look at another passage in this epistle of Peter. In the next chapter he says : " Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. For, for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." 1 Pet. iv, 5, 6. This is acknowledged by commentators to be a text of considerable ambiguity. But Avhatever may be its meaning, it certainly does not mean that the class of persons referred to are now living. 52 DEBATE OX THE On the contrary, the Apostle asserts that they are dead. They were dead when he wrote ; but they had heard the gospel in their life- time. When ? In the days of Noah. There cannot, I think, be a rational doubt that these dead persons are the antediluvians who resisted the preaching of God's Spirit through Noah. And when we take into consideration the fact that the inspired writers use words with great latitude, there is nothing absurd in supposing the phrase " spirits in prison " to mean dead men in tlieir graves. I say this is neither absurd nor unnatural. I have shown that dead men are personalities ; and that the word spirit is used in scripture in the sense of person. Hence there is no difficultv in reconciling the text with the unconscious sleep of the dead. Let us now examine Eph. vi, 12. My friend is deter- mined to draw us into the Greek. He is not satisfied with either the common version or Mr. Campbell's, so far as this text is concerned. Neither of them exactly favor his theory. Very well. If we must appeal to the Greek, let us have the Greek without addition or modification. Before we end this discussion, he will find the Greek fatal to his cause. What if I admit the correctness of his criticism ? Will it prove his point ? Suppose that " ta 'pncumatika tes ponerias en tois epouraniois" is properly translated "wicked spirits in the heavenly regions" — how does this rendering tally with his doctrine ? Does he not teach that the disembodied spirits of wicked men, aye, and of saints too, are in hades ? Are they not, according to his faith, down in the earth — in a sort of prison ? How, then, can they be in the heavenly regions ? Is hades above as well as below the earth ? It is a little strange that these wicked spirits have so much liberty — seeing they are in prison. It would seem that they had STATE OF THE DEAD. 53 liberty to roam over the earth and to obstruct the ministry of the gospel. Paul had to contend with them as well as the rulers of this world. Upon the hypothesis that my friend is correct in his critique on this passage, it is a little singular that it is not so rendered by Mr. Campbell, in his new translation. The phrase " ta pneumatika tes ponerias" is literally the spiritual of wickedness. Pneumatika being an adjec- tive, qualifies some noun understood. What noun is the most suitable and most in accordance with the sense of the original, is a question for translators. You may supply the sense by the noun things if you please, or any other noun of the neuter gender ; because as my friend has shown pneumatika is of the neuter gender, plural number. Of course, then, the noun understood should be neuter gender also. For the adjective being of the neuter gender cannot qualify a noun in the femenine, such as ponerias. You see then, my friends, into what difficul- ties he involves himself by an appeal to the Greek. The adjective does not and cannot qualify a personality at all, and the translators of the King's version well knew it. So did Mr. Campbell, and, therefore, his rendering is the same as theirs with a slight difference. Mr. Campbell uses the word "regions" and the King's translators the word "places" as the noun understood and qualified by the adjective epouraniois — neither of which are in the original. As already remarked, the sense must be inferred by the translator, and the noun most in harmony with the subject should be selected. There is a fact in connection with the matter that should be borne in mind, that words in all languages are often used in a figurative sense. Heaven being above us naturally enough suggests to the mind the idea of height 64 DEBATE ON THE or elevation, hence the rendering in our common version of epouraniois — high places. But, waiving this consid- eration, there are some parallel passages that will aid us in coming at the meaning of the text before us. I shall quote, first, Eph. i, 3, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ — culogia jmewnatikc en tois epouraniois Christo — in the original. Here, then, is a passage illustrative of what is meant by heavenly places — church places, privileges, membership, communion and such like are evidently meant. But, lest this should not be satisfactory, I will give you another — see Eph. ii, 6, " And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places (tow epouraniois) in Christ Jesus." I would remark that the Kind's version and Mr. Campbell's coincide perfectly in the translation of these texts. There is as good reason for rendering the word epouraniois in these instances by the words u heavenly regions," as for the rendering in Eph. vi, 12. But the translators well knew that it would not do to make the Apostle say what is not true — thai ice arc sitting together in the air or above the clouds ! But suppose, for the sake of the argument, I should admit that ta pneumatika tes poncrias means wicked spirits, what would he gain by it ? Nothing at all. I have proved, and he has conceded, that spirit is sometimes used in scripture to signify a person, a man in this life. There would be no difficulty, then, in explaining this passage to mean wicked persons in the Church — in such places as ice are said to occupy. The Apostles not only contended with human governments, and wicked rulers in the State, but with dishonest and hypocritical men in the Church — in its offices and places of trust. STATE OF TUE DEAD. 55 To prove the personality of the spirit after death, my friend quoted in his first speech Heb. i, 7. I must confess that I am somewhat surprised, that one professing to be a Greek scholar should introduce this scripture for such a purpose. A correct rendering of the original will show how irrelevant this text is to the matter under discussion. It is as follows: "Whereas concerning the angels, he says, who makes winds his angels (messengers) and flaming fire his ministers." My friend asks me to state from what author I obtained what I called an orthodox definition of spirit. In reply I would remark, that although it is not found in any lexi- cographer, yet it is the metaphysical and popular under- standing of the word. Such are the ideas attached to it by the philosophers of the day. Will my opponent deny that I have fairly stated the orthodox faith in regard to its nature and properties ? I think not. He has tried to make one of my definitions of spirit appear very ridiculous, but when the fact is noticed, that it is not the definition, but one of the definitions of the defining word that he has held up to ridicule, the fallacy will be easily detected. One of my definitions of spirit, is life in its common acceptation ; not in all its different significations. Apply this meaning to it in the passages he quoted to exemplify its absurdity, and see if it is not appropriate. Luke viii, 55: "And her spirit (or life) came again and she arose straightway." Is there any thing absurd in this ? Again : Ecc. xii, 7 : " Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit (life) return unto God who gave it," Luke xxiii, 46 : "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" (life.) Of like im- port is the language of Stephen. Paul says, we are dead, and our life is hid with Christ in God. There is nothing 56 DEBATE O.N" THE more natural than that a dying saint should commend his life to God, who has promised to restore it in the resur- rection, henceforth to continue forever. My friend complains that I did not read all of Webster's definition of death ; but omitted the very part which should have been read. Before we proceed any further in this discussion I must make a remark or two in regard to lexicographers, whose definitions my friend seems to regard as infallible. As etymologists or philologists they may be trusted ; but when they undertake to give you the various conventional meaning of words among the popular writers of the day, orators, poets, theologians, and philosophers they cannot be depended on. Words, in the lapse of time, change their meaning; and therefore the necessity of recurring to their history in order to ascertain in what sense they were originally employed. This, my friend knows, is the proper way to arrive at the primary and biblical meaning of words. The Bible is a book of great antiquity, and it will not do to settle its doctrine by the loose and latitudinous meaning of words as defined in our modern dictionaries. The' right way, my friends, is to trace the word through the scriptures, and ascertain its usus loquendi, or the use the inspired writers made of it. This is a reliable mode of coming at the mind of the Holy Spirit. It is making the Bible explain itself — just what my friend and his party once said ought to be done. [Here the doctor read from Webster's definitions of the word spirit, immateriality, die, , r THE then ? why that the personal pre/nouns apply to the man proper, and not to a part of him or an attribute of his nature." Will he inform us what he means by an "attribute of his nature ? " His position then stands thus, the personal pronoun stands for " the man proper;" the man proper is Paul, and Paul is the body ; for he says "this is what he maintains, and that it corroborates his argument on the personality of the body after death, (a clear concession that he believes man is all body). Hence the doctor thinks that when Paul departed from the body he took the body with him ! How can such logic and philosophy be resisted ! But he is still greatly troubled with personal pronouns. He knows of no way by which personality can be distin- guished but by their use; and how could he when he knows of no distinguishing characteristics of person. I hope, however, that my remarks on the use of these pronouns will be of some use to him. To which I will now make an additional observation. The pronouns, as well as the nouns for which they stand, sometimes apply to the whole being in its present organized state ; while by the use of other terms the writers show the nature and use of the distinct parts ; note Luke i, 45 ; 1 Cor. ii, 1 1 ; 2 Pet. i, 14 ; which have already been quoted, as examples. This fact will at once remove all the difficulties, the doctor has labored so hard to involve them in, and will also show their relevancy to the question in debate ; the doctor's declaration to the contrary notwithstanding. For in these scriptures, the inspired writers have shown, that the body is merely the tabernacle or dwelling place of the spirit and that the spirit is the intellectual intelligent part. Hence where- ever intelligence is found we know the spirit is alluded to. With these facts before us, we will call your attention again to Phil, i, 21-23. Here are three things clearly pre- STATE OF THE DEAD. 69 sented : first, something to depart from, which is the flesh or body ; second, something to be present with when away from the body — that is the Lord ; third, something to be thus present and absent at the same time ; that is evidently the spirit, and alike intelligent and conscious whether in or out of the body. Consequently a clear proof of my proposition. To the same effect is the following scripture : " For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven ! If so, that being clothed we shall not be found naked. "For we that are in this tabernacle do groan being burdened : not for that we would be unclothed but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. Now he that hath wrought us for the self-same thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the spirit. ** Therefore we are always confident, knowing that whilst we are at home in the body, Ave are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith not by sight.) We are confident I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. " Wherefore we labor, that, whether present or absent we may be accepted of him." [ Time out.~\ 70 DEBATE ON THE Dr. FIELD'S FOURTH REPLY. Brethren and Friends — I wish you to remember that I am the respondent in this discussion, and am under obligation, by polemic rules, to follow the affirmant, in his course of argumen- tation. He has undertaken to prove a certain proposition, and my business is to test the soundness of his arguments. Logically speaking I have nothing to prove myself, but rather to disprove what my friend may adduce in support of his doctrine. There is, therefore, no propriety in his calling my views — "philosophy" I did not come here, my friends, to build up or defend any system of philoso- phy, moral or natural ; but to see that my friend does not make void the word of God by his traditions. If there is any thing in the range of our conceptions, entitled to the name of philosophy ', it is a theory of human nature unknown to scripture. As I have repeatedly said, no " thus saith the Lord " can be produced for the doctrine advocated by my friend. He is arguing a question outside of the Divine Record. It is truly an untaught question; hence, it must be sustained by inferential reasoning, and not by positive declarations of scripture. I do not, as my friend has stated, reject the authority of dictionaries, and dispute all the definitions which conflict with my views. By no means. He misunder- stands me on this point. 1 have said, and I here repeat it, that as philologists or etymologists, the student of the Bible may depend on them. They are authority, but not to the extent that my friend supposes. If I wish to, ascertain the modern import of a word, as settled by the STATE 0¥ THE DEAD. 71 popular writers of the day, conventional agreement, or custom, I appeal to lexicographers. In such cases, and for such purposes, they are trust-worthy. But in a theological discussion, when it becomes necessary to ascertain the meaning of a word, two or three thousand years ago, we cannot rely on our English dictionaries. The word must be traced through the Bible, and its meaning decided by the context, and various other circumstances connected with its use. It is admitted by my friend that it is a common practice to speak of dead men as dead persons. So it is, and it is this common practice that obtains in the Bible, which speaks of things just as ice speak of them. If it is a common practice noiv, why may it not have been so then ? But we are again reminded that Dr. Webster is against this use of the word. This is unfortunate, but still it does not follow that the writers of the New Testament were as restricted and punctilious in the use of words as Dr. Webster. He asks me where I find in the Bible an example of a dead body being called a person. I might answer this question by asking another. Where in the Bible does my friend find an example for calling the spirit of a dead man a, person ? I have showed that dead men are addressed as persons — all the personal pronouns are applied to them — more than can be said of the spirit — either before or after its separation from the body. Take the case of Jairus' daughter, to which my friend has referred. Luke viii, 55, "And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway." Here this maid while dead is personated by the appropriate pronouns ; but not so of her spirit. That is not mentioned as a personality at all ; but as something different from her. If this is not proving that dead bodies are personalities, i% DEBATE OX THE then there is no meaning in the words her and she. At all events it proves that the spirit was not the maid — neither her nor she. I do not see how my friend could have inferred from anything said by me, that I consider the common version faultless. That it is imperfect no scholar will deny. But that every item of Christian faith may be deduced from it, is acknowledged by all sects and parties. True, there are many inaccuracies in the translation, but in the main it is correct and reliable. So far as the present controversy is concerned, it is sufficiently plain and perspicuous. If, however, my friend, Mr. Connelly, is not willing to risk his cause on it, let him take Mr. Campbell's new translation. In the discussion of the question before us, our appeals are mostly to New Testament authority, and I should suppose that he would greatly prefer this translation to the common version. But we are told that Paul did not wrestle with flesh and blood ; hence, I am mistaken in supposing that wicked spirits in high places, were bad men in the church ; because, says my friend, men in the church are flesh and blood ! This apparant difficulty is easily solved. The apostle alluded no doubt to the Grecian games, from which he drew the illustration. The Christian warfare is not carnal or fleshly — it is not a bodily or physical contest in which we are engaged — but a moral contest. On the side of the gospel was arrayed the apostles and all the saints throughout the world. On the side of the opposition, the civil rulers and powers of this world, and even wicked men in the most elevated and important places in the Church. All this is plain and intelligible to one not biased by a " spiritual system " at war with the simplicity of the gospel. Principalities, earthly STATE OF THE DEAD. 73 powers or governments, the ignorant and benighted Pajran rulers of this world and wicked men in the church are all in the same category, and were terrestial in their nature and location. Our attention is again called to Phil, i, 21-24. This is one of the strongest passages in the Bible in support of my friend's doctrine. It should, therefore, be carefully examined. In morals as well as physics, if a well ascertained fact contradicts a theory it must be false. Suppose for example that I were to frame a theory of the earth, and teach that it is a plane — instead of a spheroid, and from its edges the waters on its surface rolled off in a vast cataract. I might reason very plausibly in support of this theory, and even make converts to it. But suppose the fact is discovered that the earth has been circumnavigated — what would my theory be worth? Just so in morals or religion, if one passage of scripture positively and unequivocally contradicts a theory it is false and worthless. Let us then look at a few facts which must be harmonized with my friend's interpretation of the text under consideration. First — It must be har- monized with a well known fact in the typical institutions of the Jewish religion. The high priest of the Jewish nation, once a year went into the most holy place with the blood of the offering, and made an atonement for the people. The subordinate priests officiated in the first tabernacle, but never entered the second. Neither priests nor people were permitted to enter its sacred precincts. But into this second tabernacle went the high priest not without blood which he offered for himself and the errors of the people. See Hebrews ix, 2-7. While the &jgh priest was within the second vail — in the holiest of all, the Jewish congregation stood without waiting for his 74 DEBATE ON THE return. He was required to be properly attired before approaching the mercy seat. After having performed his sacerdotal functions, he came out of the most holy place, and blessed the waiting congregation of Israel. Now, carry out the analogy in the antitype. Jesus Christ is the high priest of the Christian congregation. He has gone into the most holy place of the true tabernacle — into heaven itself to appear in the presence of God for us. Paul speaks of us as " waiting for the Lord from heaven." A member of the great Christian conqreofation can no more go where he now is, than a member of the Jewish congregation could approach the high priest while within the second vail in the performance of his duty. Here, then, is the first difficulty in the way of the popular mistake that we go to heaven at death. The old Jewish tabernacle with all its accompaniments, priesthood, worship, &c, was " a pattern of things in the heavens " — a figure of the true tabernacle ; and while Christ continues a high priest within the vail, we cannot personally approach him. I invoke the special attention of my friend, Mr. Connelly, to this fact. Secondly — It is positively declared by our blessed Lord himself, that "no man hath ascended up to heaven but the only begotten Son of God, who came down from heaven." Again, he said to his disciples before his death, that whither he went they could not come, that so far from their going to him at or before death, he assured them as the ground of their comfort, that he would come again to them. That his absence was neces- sary that he might prepare a place for them, and come again and take them to himself. In the second chapter of the Acts, Peter stated that David had not ascended into the heavens, but was there in his sepulchre at Jerusalem. STATE OF THE DEAD. 75 Thirdly — God has highly exalted his Son, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principalities, thrones and dominions. See Eph. i, 20, 23. In 1 Tim.vi, 16, "That God only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto ; whom no man hath seen nor can see." Fourthly — Our Lord himself says, Rev. iii, 21, "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. " Notice the fact, my friends, that Christ is seated on his Father's throne, not on his own. The saint cannot, then, hope to be 'personally with him while he continues in that relation to his Father. Here, then, are four facts presenting, as I conceive, insuperable obstacles in the way of my friend's theory. I hope he will meet and dispose of them scripturally and logically. If he do not, all his expositions of other parts of scripture, not explicitly affirming the doctrine of his proposition, must be regarded as erroneous, and that they admit of an interpretation in unison with these facts. Having premised these things, let us now analyze this controverted text. In the first place, let it be noted that the apostle does not affirm that death would be gain to him. Secondly — He does not say that he expected to be present with the Lord immediately on his demise ; and Thirdly — He says nothing about his spirit at all. And certainly a cause must be hard pressed for support, when it has to depend on proof texts, in which the thing to be proved, is not even mentioned ! There is another fact worthy of notice in connection with this subject, and that is, that Paul represents himself as being in a strait — undecided as to which would be preferable, to depart and be with the Lord or abide with the brethren. Now, if 76 DEBATE ON THE death was gain to him, in that it placed him immediately with Christ, then it would seem that there would have been no hesitancy, or indecision in the case. To under- stand what the apostle meant by his death being gain, we should read the whole chapter, and especially from the twelfth to the twentieth verse, from which you will learn, my friends, that his death would have been gain to the cause of Christ. He was willing either by life or death to magnify Christy or to promote his cause. I would further remark that such expressions as " present with the Lord," do not necessarily mean a personal presence with him. We are told that " we are buried with Christ in baptism wherein also we are risen with him." Col. ii, 12. We are also said to "suffer with him," to be dead with him,