THIE
IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL
AND THE
FINAL CONDITION OF THE WICKED
CAREFULLY CONSIDERED.
BY ROBERT W. LANDIS.'AfOdvaroL 7rdaaa ac uvxai, cai rT6v a3efv'- alc  qipetvov'v!u  &Op-.ovg elvat. Kolac6/Ievat yap vWro rov aUjaarov rvpob a7repdvrqp rtuopi~t,
icat!7 OviaKovaEt rrC Kalctc, r-  avTriv'rTor 2ap3eZv bvs gXovat.
Sequutus sum arguentes icara r66ar. Nihil, sciens, omisi.
SECOND  THOUSAND.
Nrietu   Vork:
PUBLISHED) BY CARLTON &-PORTER,
200 M'U: I.r o1   S E E -  1T.
1859.




Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1859, by
CARLTON & PORTER,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Southern District of
New-York.




TO
THE LAT
EMMA CAROLINE BEARDSLEE,
MY BELOVED WIFE,
THIS, MY FIRST LITERARY PRODUCTION IN THE FIELD OF LABOR WHICH WE HAD
SELECTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF AIDING TO ESTABLISH THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE PRECIOUS GOSPEL OF CHRIST IN THE GREAT WEST,
HZ. mo0t.  afftttiofnattl1  it.itattb.
R. W. L.








PREFACE.
THE subject of the tractate here submitted to the public
has been, for several years past, specifically before the mind
of the author. While in the discharge of his pastoral
duties in the city of Paterson, New Jersey, he delivered a
course of sermons on the last judgment, and when treating
upon the issues of that event, he received a request from
a number of respectable gentlemen (to whom the Rev.
George Storrs was statedly preaching) to discourse upon
the immortality of the soul. I-He complied with the request,
and, as one of the results, the contemplated enterprise of.building a church for Mr. Storrs was abandoned. The author was then solicited to publish the three discourses delivered by him on the subject; but concluding that it would
be better to present a more-extended discussion of the theme,
he procured from the Annihilationists the works mentioned
in the subjoined catalogue, with the mutual and distinct
understanding that they should be considered as truly representing the theory in question; and every work which they
recommended for this purpose he was careful to procure.
These works he read and analyzed, and then carefully synthesized, studiously arranging, under every distinct feature
of the' system, all that was therein alleged in its support;
and thus having concentrated their whole force, he commenced the subjoined reply.
After writing about one hundred and fifty pages, however, his health failed, and he was obliged to desist utterly




6                     PREFACE.
from the undertaking; and on removing subsequently to
the West, the duties devolving upon him in his new- field of
labor seemed to require that he should relinquish all thought
of any further prosecution. of the design. But at the meeting of the General Assembly in Chicago, in May last, a
large number of valued brethren urged him with so much
earnestness to finish-the work, that he concluded to resume
it, and did so with as little delay as possible. The whole
subject and plan of the work were in his mind and thor
oughly digested, and, bating the prostrating effects of a long
and severe illness from typhoid fever, from which he was
just recovering, he had only to overcome a natural aversion
to writing. Should the style of the work, therefore, exhibit
traces of rapid composition, he hopes the reader will, at the
same time, remember that the thoughts presented are the
result of long-continued and matured reflection.
It was remarked by the learned editor of the Presbyterian, (the Rev. Dr. Engles,) in his notice of my work on
the Resurrection, that perhaps it was a defect that the
author, in treating the subject, was too anxious to demolish
every part of the theory of Professor Bush. This may
have been so. But though the judicious suggestion has
been constantly in mind during the preparation of the
present tractate, the appearance of being too particular in
meeting the recent assaults on the doctrine of immortality
could not' well be avoided. The theme, in its far-reaching
relations to theology, philosophy, tradition, and Scripture
exegesis, is most extensive. The writers to whom I reply,
moreover, are very numerous, and taken collectively have,
in one way or another, traversed the whole field of argument, pressing their assaults with great zeal and earnestness,
and their writings are widely disseminated both in this
country and Great Britain, and have made a deep impression on multitudes of minds.
I have reduced their speculations into systematic order,
and have, so to speak, retraversed in their company the whole
field, and in doing so have felt it to be necessary to bestow




PREFACE.                       7
specific attention upon those branches of their argument
which have most perplexed their readers, and I may add that
in no instance whatever have I attempted to conceal the full
strength of any of their positions.  So far from this are the
facts, that if the reader will take the trouble to examine, I
am assured he will discover many instances in which I have
expressed, much more strongly than they have done, the
arguments they offer. For I hold that there is not a more
pitiable object on earth than the writer who, while pretending
to give a full and fair presentation of an important subject,
purposely misstates or conceals the truth respecting it.
Still, in a work such as this purports to be, although it is
needless to refutes formally every opposing statement, it
yet is necessary to notice, and refute specifically, many which
might appear unimportant to persons who are not fully
aware of the real state of the question.  I design the work,
moreover, as a handbook on the topic of which it treats,
presenting fairly, and with all the fullness which the prescribed limits would allow, the merits and literature of the
subject in the entire range of the argument as pursued by
our antagonists; and hence I have adduced, likewise, the
statements and arguments of the older schools of Materialists, for example, those of the Polish Socinians, and of
Messrs. Hobbes, Blackburne, Priestley, Belsham, Kneeland,
as well as those of modern Universalists.
Most of the writers whose works have been  furnished me as containing a fair and proper expose of the
system of the Annihilationists are Materialists, but some
are not; the former holding that the soul is a result of corporeal organization, and the latter admitting its separability
from the body; the one asserting its utter extinction at
death, and the other its inactive, unconscious repose. Our
antagonists, it seems, would be fully satisfied, provided
they can only get rid of the conscious existence of the soul
after death, and hence, with a spirit of liberality in such
matters, of which, heretofore, only atheists have ventured
to furnish an example, they zealously disseminate works




8                    PREFACE.
which inculcate both ideas. Even Paul, with his enlarged
charity and magnanimous spirit, never attained to a liberacclity like this, nor does the Bible anywhere (except in such
historical statements as 1 Kings xii, 26-33; 2 Kings xvii,
28-41; 2 Chron. xxxiii, 3-10) even approximate it. In
meeting these conflicting views, however, I have not deemed
it necessary to separate the arguments into classes, but
have arranged them all under one general head.
As to the employment of such terms as " antagonists "
and "opponents," they are used only to avoid circumlocution, for, as men, I do not consider the authors quoted
and referred to as personally my enemies; and though I
have been obliged to speak of many of their statements
with point and severity, and to expose the pretensions of
some of them  to literature, I have not in the whole work
uttered a word or sentiment, however expressed, which
may, on such account, inflict pain on any of those gentlemen, without feelings of real regret, and which, could I
have done so, the whole circumstances being considered, I
would not gladly have spared. I do not, therefore, agree
with Dr. Johnson, that an antagonist in any important question of morals or of faith should be, if possible, personally
crippled or crushed, except so far as this must result from
a deserved exposure of unfairness, ignorance of the subject,
and the like. Nor can I, in this connection, omit noticing
a matter which has given Ine continued pain throughout the
preparation of the volume. I refer to the necessity, which
in now treating upon the subject is absolutely imperative, of
calling frequent and special attention to the position assumed
by Archbishop Whately. In connection with many, Ihave long
entertained a high regard for that distinguished prelate. But
his course in relation to the matter in hand is so inexplicable
and extraordinary, that it canmot be passed over in silence.
The use which our antagonists have made and are making
of his dogmatical but most unfounded utterances on the
subject, is such as requires that primary regard be had to
the princ.iples mainly involved in the discussion itself, what



PREFACE.                      9
ever may become of the man. And Dr. Whately must be
content to sustain the responsibilities of the position which
he has thus incautiously assumed, until he is willing to abandon it, or shows that he has discovered new facts, and developed new processes of reasoning on the subject, which entitle
him to regard the results of all previous investigation as
entirely superseded. Gladly would I have omitted all reference to this topic.  But such a procedure is, I repeat it,
irreconcilable with any honest or serious attempt to do
justice to the merits of the theme under discussion; and I
cannot doubt that Dr. Whately will frankly admit the accuracy of this representation.
The prominence given to the question (section 24) as to
the views of Socrates and Aristotle could not be avoided.
But I have stated the facts in the case as briefly as justice
to the subject would permit.  From  the representation
made of the views of those philosophers by Dr. Whately,
and on his authority, by the Annihilationists, and from the
conclusions attempted to be drawn therefrom, it became
necessary to go thoroughly into the matter.  It is, however,
at best but a side-issue, which Dr. Whately had no just
reason for dragging into the discussion.
In order to do justice to the Argument from  Reason and
Tradition, (presented in Part I,) I considered it my duty to
review what has been written on the subject by the English
deists and German Rationalists, for example, Hobbes, Tindal,
Wegscheider, et id genus omnne, and the discussions also of
Cudworth, Dr. Henry More, Grotius, Leland, Warburton,
Blackburne, and others; and on the Scripture Argumnent,
in Part II, to consult the best authorities of our antagonists,
such as the Fratres Polonise, Dr. Priestley, etc.; and having, as above stated, designed the work as a plain and useful handbook, both for the scholar and the unlearned inquirer after truth, I have presented throughout a compendium  of the literature of the whole question.  And in
order that any one may know where to find a given topic
more fully treated, and sometimes also to render a longer




10                    PREFACE.
discussion unnecessary on my part, I have made copious
references to works wherein a specific point is treated more
extensively.  I have endeavored to be very careful in this,
so that the reader may be able to pursue his inquiries
further, should he deem it desirable.
The connection of the grand theme of immortality with,
eschatology is brought forward in all the writings of the Annihilationists, and hence I have devoted Part'III entirely to
that subject.  The connection, moreover, is not only very
obvious, but it is that which imparts to the whole question
of immortality its intense and absorbing interest.  To treat
the subject as it should be treated at the present time, when
every shallow aspirant after notoriety sets up to be a' philosopher," it was requisite to proceed to the first principles which underlie the whole question, and I have done
so. It was necessary, moreover, to notice the exceptions
made to the evangelical view, not only by the Annihilationists, but by the Restorationists, Universalists, and such
superficial philosophers as " Thorndale." This gives the
appearance of reiteration to some parts of the discussion,
though, as the careful reader will perceive, they are not
reiterative.  For instance, it was necessary to consider
the subject of endless punishment, not only as presented
from the stand-point assumed by the Annihilationists, but
also from that of the Restorationists.  But I believe that
nothing of importance is left unnoticed which is urged by
either class in support of their views, or which can operate
as an opiate to the consciences of the impenitent and ungodly.
There has been but little, comparatively, written-at
least since the Reformation-directly on the subject of immortality, aside from the treatment of the question in systematic theology.  Calvin's Psychopanlnychia I have not
been able to obtain. Knapp has treated the question, but
not very profoundly, in his Scripta Varii Argumenti.  The
work of the excellent Dr. Henry MAore will not repay
perusal.  In our own day the Rev. T. AM. Post, D.D., has




PREFACE.                     11
published several essays of much excellence; and President
Campbell, of Bethany College, Va., has issued a little
manual in which his powerful intellect has elaborated an
argument of great force, and which (judging from  the
dissatisfaction which it has aroused among the Annihilationists) has done a good work in our Western and Southern
states. I regret that this tractate, and the last two essays
of Dr. Post, did not come to hand till after I had completed
the present treatise. The Rev. N. D. George and Rev.
Luther Lee have likewise written well on the subject. In
England the Rev. Mr. Hinton and Geo. Moore, M.D., (not
to mention Isaac Taylor,) have ably vindicated the truth
against the Materialists; but in no instance has the whole
theme been taken up and considered throughout, as is done
in the present volume.
If in dedicating the work to the memory of one of the
loveliest and best of women, and so associating it with a
private and personal interest, the author has erred, he hopes
the error may not be deemed unpardonable. Feeling that
the problem of our beloved country must be ultimately
solved in the West, my wife and I left our endeared Eastern
associations, and came hither to do what we could to preoccupy a portion of the great field for Christ' But though
she and our offspring were soon taken home to their rest,
she came not hither in vain. The hallowed influence of her
life, and example, and self-sacrifices, is still living and operative, and long will continue to be so. And with this, my
first publication in the West, I have fondly desired to associate the name so truly precious to my heart.
R. W. L.
IONIA, MICHIGAN,
August 27, 1868.




NOTE TO THE READER.
As I have had occasion in the ensuing work to refer very frequently to the recent publications of the Annihilationists, the
reader will please observe that, to save room, I have abridged
the references to them, according to the subjoined schedule. In
my references throughout this volume the letter which here
stands opposite to the work will stand for the work itself, and
the figures for the pages. For example, "A. 23," refers to " The
Unity of Man, by Anthropos," page 23, and so of the others..
A. The Unity of Man, by Anthropos, in reply to Rev. L. Lee.
B. Death not Life, or the Theological Hell and Endless Misery disproved, etc., by Jacob Blain.
C. The Age of Gospel Light, etc., by Z. Campbell.
D. The Scripture Doctrine of Future Punishment, by H. H. Dobney.
Third American Edition.
E. The Bible versus Tradition, by Ellis and Read. Second Edition.
F. Dialogue on the Separate Existence of the Soul, by a Friend of Truth.
C. F. A Debate on the State of the Dead. Louisville, Ky., 1854.
G. The Intermediate State, by Henry Grew.
H. 1. Life and Death, by J. P. Ham.
H. 2. The Generations Gathered and Gathering. Ibid. The pages of
these works herein referred to are those of Storrs's American Editions.
HAS. Pauline Theology, by H. L. Hastings.
HuD. Debt and Grace, as related to the Doctrine of a Future Life, by
C. F. Hudson. Boston, 1857.
J. Christ our Life; or, the Scripture Testimony concerning Immortality. Anonymous. Dublin, 1835.
J. T. Is Man Immortal? A Discussion. Hartford, 1850.
M. Dialogues on Future Punishment, by W. G. AMoncrieff, Scotland.
American edition.
R. The Immateriality of the Soul; or, Man dependent on his Organization for all his Mental and Moral Powers, by Thomas Reed.
S. An Inquiry: Are the Wicked Immortal? in six Sermons. Also,
Have the Dead Knowledge? By Geo. Storrs. Twenty-first edition.
There is an Appendix, also, to which we refer thus: S. App.
W. A View of the Scripture Revelations concerning a Future State, by
Richard Whately, D.D., late Archbishop of Dublin. Philadelphia, 1855.
These works, with the exceptions of HUID., J., and WT., have
been, as already stated, furnished me by the Annihilationists
themselves, as containing a correct exhibition of their doctrines,
and with the distinct understanding that.my reply should regard them as truly representing the system.




CONTENTS.
PART I.
IN WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENT FROM REASON AND
ANCIENT TESTIMONY.
CHAPTER  I.-PRELIMINA        RY REIARKS...........................  19
~ 1. Materialism and Spiritualism.............................  19
~ 2. Theories of Professor Bush, Dr. E. Beecher, etc...........  22
~ 3. Modern Spiritism and its Claims..........................  23
~ 4. Issue on the whole Subject stated........................  26
~ 5. Fundamental Principles of the Annihilationists............  27
~ 6. Their System is properly named Materialism..............  33
~ 7. Doctrine of the Evangelical Churches.....................  34
~'8. Position of Archbishop Whately.........................  35
CHAPTER II.-TIE  ARGUMlFENT FROM REASON CONSiDERED.........  39
~  9. Preliminary Considerations.............................  39
~ 10. The Question of "'Immateriality " not important.......... 40
~ 11. Points involved in the true Issue.......................  41
~ 12. Philosoplhical Arguments of the Ancient Greeks..........  42
~ 13. State of the Question in respect to the Theory of the Materialists.............................................  42
~ 14. AR GUMET I. —The Nature of the Soul...................  48
~ 15. ARGUMENT II.-H- uman Aspirations and Desires......  53
~ 16. ARGUMENT III.-Powers and Capacities of the Soul......  58
~ 17. Capacities of the Brutes considered......................  63
~ 18. ARGUMErNT IV. —The Existence of Conscience in M an.....    68
~ 19. ARGUMENT V. —Perplexing Anomalies of the Present State  71
~ 20. Conclusion of the Argument fioro   Reason...............  79




14                                CONTENTS.
PAGE
CHAPTER  III. —THE TESTIMONY OF THE NATIONS CONSIDERED.....  81
~ 21. Early Knowledge of the Doctrine (2 Tim. i, 10) explained. 81
~ 22. Specific Testimonies.............................   89
~ 23. Issue presented by this Argument.......................  99
~ 24. Objections considered.-The Facts denied............... 100
~ 25. Objections considered.-The Facts admitted............. 110
~ 26. Conclusion...................... 117
PARIT II.
IN WHICH THE ARGUMENT FROM THE SCRIPTURES IS CONSIDERED, AND ALSO THE VIEWS ENTERTAINED ON THE SUBJECT BY THE ANCIENT JEWS AND CHRISTIANS.
CHAPTER  I.-TERMS EXPLAINED: ARGUMENT FROM THE. OLD
TESTAMENT..........................................             119
~ 27. The terms Life, Death, etc., explained.................. 119
~ 28. Relation  of the Old Testament to the New............... 125
~ 29. The Old Testament Argument.......................... 128
~ 30. Examination of Particular Passages...................... 136
1. Gen. i, 26-28; ii, 7......7.............. 136
2. Gen. xxxvii, 35, and otherpassages....1............ 137
3. Eceles. iii, 21..................................... 145
4. Eccles. xii, 7...................................... 147
5. Haggai ii, 23....................................... 150
6. Zach. xii, 1....................................... 152
7. Enoch and Elijah............................... 156
CHAPTER  II.-ARGUMENT FROM THE NEw TESTAMENT............ 158
~ 31. Preliminary Remarks................................... 158
~ 32. Doctrines which infer Immortality...................... 160
CHAPTER III.-THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT CONTINUED...... 173
~ 33. Examination of Particular Passages..................... 178
1. Matt. x, 28......................:................. 173
2.  M att.  xvii,  3.....................................    181
3. Luke viii, 54, 55.................................. 186
4. Luke xvi, 19-31................................... 187
5. Luke xx, 28-38................................... 196
6. Luke xxiii, 43.................................... 201
7. Luke xxiv, 36-39........................................ 211




CONTENTS.                                          15
PAGE
8. Acts vii, 59....................................... 214
9. Acts xxiii, 6-8.................................... 216
10. 2 CorO v, 1-9......................................   217
11. 2 Cor. xii, 2-4.................................... 221
12. Phil. i, 21-24................................... 224
13. Heb. xii, 22, 23........................  230
14. 1 Pet. iii, 18-20................................ 232
CHAPTER IV.-THEE NEw TESTAMENT AGGUIMENT CONTINUED...... 238
~ 34. Miscellaneous Passages  briefly  considered:-Job  xxxiv,
14, 15, with Psa. civ, 29; James ii, 26; Heb. xii, 9; 2 Pet.
i, 13-15; Eph. iii, 15; Ieb. vi, 12; Rev. vi, 9-11; vii,
13-17; xiv, 13; xviii, 20.............................. 238
~ 35. Assumptions of our Opponents.......................... 246
CHAPTER  V.-OBJECTIONS ANSWERED............................ 249
~ 36. Objections Founded on Texts from  the Old Testament... 249
1. Psa. xlix, 12, 14, 15.....................  250
2. Psa. cxlvi, 4:......................... 250
3. Eccles. ix, 5, 10.................................. 251
4. IEceles. iii, 19-21.................................. 253
5. Job xiv, 10-15..................................... 254
6. Psa. xxxix,  13.................................... 257
7. Job vii, 9, 10...................................... 258
8. Psa. xxxvii, 10, 20; cxlv, 20....................... 258
9. Psa. lxxxviii, 10-12; xxx, 9; cxv, 17; Isa. xxxviii,
18, 19; Psa.  cxix, 175; vi, 5..................... 259
10. Ezek. xviii, 4, 20; Psa. xvi, 10..................... 261
11. Prov. xxi, 16; Jer. ii, 39; Dan. xii, 2.............. 262
12. (1.) Result of this Investigation.................... 263
(2.) RExamination of Gen. ix, 5, 6................... 264
CHAPTER VI.-THE SUBJECT CONTINUED......................... 266
~ 37. Objections derived from  the New  Testament............. 266
1. Objections based on Matt. xxvii, 52, 53.......... 266
2. Objections based on Acts ii, 34...................  267
3. Objections based on 1 Cor. xv, 16-18............... 270
4. Objections based on 1 Tim. vi, 16; i, 17; Rom. ii, 7.
On -which they base  the objections, 1. That God
alone is immortal; 2. That man is required to seek
immortality; and 3. That immortality comes only
through Christ.................................. 273
5. Prominence given to the Resurrection.............  278
6. Immortality makes the Dead to be judged twice.....   280
7. The Rommish Purgatory is based on this Doctrine.... 2S1
8. Annihilation is not necessarily an Evil............. 281




16                            CONTENTS.
PAGR
~ 38. Conclusion of the Scriptural Argument.  Further remarks
on Luke xx, 34-38; John viii, 56, considered and explained............................................. 282
CHAPTER VII.-JEWISH AND PATRISTICAL TESTIMONY-OBJECTIONS
ANSWERED..  v.................          v............. 287
~ 39. Jewish Testimony......~...................... 287
~ 40. Patristical Testimony.................................. 293
~ 41. Luther on the Sleep of the Soul......................... 308
~ 42. Plato's Connection with the Patristical Theology......... 812
PART III.
ON DEATH AND PENALTY, CONSIDERED IN THEIR RELATIONS TO
THE ARGUMENT.
CHAPTER I.-THE CONSTITUENT PARTS OF MAN-VARIOUS MEANINGS OF THE TERM DEATH-RELATION OF CORPOREAL DIsSOLUTION TO THE PENALTY OF THE DIVINE LAW......... 315
~ 43. Man consists of Body, Soul, and Spirit................. 316
~ 44. Import of the term Death............................... 319
~ 45. Death in the sense of Corporeal Dissolution.............. 324
I. Its Relation to the Penalty in Gen. ii, 17........... 324
II. It is not natural to Man.......................... 340
III. How designated in the Scriptures.                   348
CHAPTER II.-MAN's CONSCIOUS EXISTENCE NOT INTERNUPTED BY
DEATH-INFERENCES-CONCLUSION  OF THIS BRANCH OF
THE ARGUMENT....................................  349
~ 46. Separation of Soul and Body does not infer the Loss of
Consciousness.  Illustrations......................... 349
~ 47. Inferences from the foregoing........................... 362
~ 48. Conclusion............................................ 363
1. Statements of Lord Bacon, Cudworth, etc.......... 363
2. Misrepresentations corrected....................... 364
3. Why the Apostles refer to the Second Coming of
Christ rather than to Death as a Motive to Action. 364
4. State between Death and the Resurrection not disciplinary....................................... 365
5. The ultimate Issue stated..................... 365




CONTENTS.                              17
PAGE
CHAPTER III.-PENALTY, PUNISHMENT, AND UTILITARIANISM-THE
PRINCIPLES OF TRUTH AND JUSTICE IMMUTABLE-UTILITARIAN THEORIES-PUNISHMENT IS RETRIBUTORY-APPLICATION  TO THE ARGUMENT-OBJECTIONS ANSWEREDMORAL EFFECT OF THE DOCTRINE OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 366
~ 49. The term  Punishment-Definition of Plato-Utilitarian
Theory............................................ 366
~ 50. True Sense of the Terms Penalty and Punishmrnent....... 369
~ 51. The Principles of Truth and Justice are immutable and
eternal.............................................. 371
~ 52. Utilitarian Theory of Punishment and Legal Administration 378
~ 53. Punishment in its true sense is retributory.............. 382
~ 54. Application of the foregoing Principles to the Argument.. 384
~ 55. Objections considered................................ 391
~ 56. Future Punishment and "Natural Laws.' How Sin is an
I" infinite " Evil........................3.......... 394
~ 57. Future Punishment as a Motive......................... 398
CHAPTER IV. —FUTURE RETRIBUTION-THEORIES OF THE UNIVERSALISTS AND DESTRUCTIONISTS-FALSE ISSUES EXPOSEDTHE ATONEMENT CANNOT BENEFIT THOSE WHO REJECT IT
-THEIR  CONNECTION WITH THE RESURRECTION-THEIE
PUNISHMENT NOT DISCIPLINARY-THE RESTORATION THEORY DISPROVED...................................... 4.01
~ 58. The Point to which the Discussion is brought............ 401
~ 59. False Issues pointed out and considered................. 402
~ 60. The Atonement cannot benefit the Lost. Their Resurrection................................................. 409
~ 61. Their Punishment is not disciplinary.................... 411
~ 62. The Restoration Theory inconsistent with Scripture and
Reason.............................................. 411
~ 63. Subject continued-Future Punishment eternal........... 417
CHAPTER  V.-ANNIHILATION  IS NOT THE PUNISHMENT OF THE
WICKED............................................. 422
~ 64. Position of the Annihilationists stated and disproved..... 422
CHAPTER  VI.-THE ETERNAL SUFFERING OF THE WICKED CONSIDERED........................... 441
~ 65. Future State of the Impenitent.......................... 441
1. The Eternal Suffering of the Wicked is inconsistent
(1.) Neither with Divine Goodness and Equity...... 442
(2.) Nor with the admitted Principles of human Reason 442
2. Subterfuges of Infidelity respecting Liberty and Necessity resorted to by our Opponents.............. 442
2




18                            CONTENTS.
PAGE
3. Moral Agency.................................... 445
(1.) Its Relation to Divine Efficiency and Mediatorial
Intervention.................................... 446
(2.) False Inferences............................. 448
(3.) The Creator must treat the rational Creature as
responsible............................     452
4. Goodness and Omnipotence consistent with the Existence of Misery which they could prevent.......... 454
5. God will execute his Threatenings against the finally
Impenitent.................................... 458
6. Evasions exposed.............................  459
7. Admissions of Socinians, etc.........................465
CHAPTER  VII.-THE ETERNALLY'ISERABLE EXISTENCE OF THE
WIcKED IS FULLY ANNOUNCED IN THE WORD OF GOD.... 468
~ 66. Ultimate Condition of the Lost..........................   468
CHAPTER  VIII.-CoNcLusIoN....................... 499




DOC T RI NE
OF THE
IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.
PART I.
IN WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENT FROM
REASON AND ANCIENT TESTIMONY.
CHAPTER I.
PRELIMINARY REMARKS.
~ 1. Materialism and Spiritualism.
AFTER I had, as stated in the preface, resolved to undertake the preparation of a treatise on the doctrine of man's
immortality, I was somewhat at a loss to determine upon the
form which the discussion should assume. Two plans suggested themselves. The first was to present it in a purely
philosophical method; and the second, to give it the form in
which it is here brought before the public. As the material
philosophy has found some able advocates in our time, and
as the theory they adopt is the very basis of most of those
theological errors which it is important now to expose and
refute, the question occurred, whether it would not be more
advisable to take up the subject metaphysically, and demonstrate the futility and untenableness of that theory itself,
(for I am well assured that the whole scheme can be
metaphysically shoved out of existence,) than to descend
to the literary drudgery of historical detail and philological




20         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.                ~ 1.
investigation.  My own inclination and taste would have
preferred the former method; but the conviction that
greater practical utility would be secured by following the
latter, has induced me to adopt it. For on this plan alone
call that mass of works now before the public, and claiming
to establish the Materialist theory as a part of the teachings
of revelation, be'met and refuted, and their evil tendency
successfully counteracted. The question whether man is
immortal may well command our most serious consideration, for if our existence is not to be interrupted by death,
nothing is more important to us than the knowledge which
relates to our future state; and as we have the means for
prosecuting the inquiry to a successful issue, all indifference
to the subject cannot but be regarded as irrational and
criminal.
In the last age philosophy united her testimony to that of
revelation on this subject, and even uttered as oracular the
decision that the existence of mind or spirit is at least as
demonstrably certain as the existence of matter. But a
reaction has commenced in her schools; and M1. Comte,
who, in the present age, assumes to be her oracle, has, with
his numerous disciples, undertaken to reverse those decisions,
while many who profess to have adopted his philosophy
are endeavoring to prove that its enunciations in respect to
man are not contrary to those of the sacred Scriptures; in
other words, that revelation does not assert that man is
endowed with a spiritual nature. The result may be easily
imagined.  Doubt on the subject has taken possession of
the minds of multitudes; and. in proportion as such
doubts are entertained, and favored by authoritative
announcements,* indifference is felt in respect to a future
life, and the retributions of the world to come lose their
motive power; and as was the case when the Epicurean
philosophy took possession of the Roman republic, the pursuit of pleasure claimed precedence of everything else; so
* The deplorable effects of the writings of Archbishop Whately on the
subject'will be considered in the sequel.




~ 1.     MATERIALISM  AND SPIRITUALISM.              21
now, wherever the principles of the material philosophy are
received, the maxim is practically revived, " Let us eat and
drink, for to-morrow we die."
The principles of Materialism, therefore, have not only
taken possession of some of the schools of philosophy, but
the most strenuous efforts have been made to adapt them
to the popular mind, not even sparing the unrefined and
illiterate. And as no speculations on the subject are offered
with so much assurance and dogmatism as those of the Annihilationists, (who spare neither effort nor expense to
propagate their views,) no writer in treating the subject
now can possibly meet the existing desire of the community thereon, who does not thoroughly consider the arguments and statements which are set forth in their multifarious publications. The intelligent reader of their works
cannot fail to be struck by the anxiety which the authors
evince to make the impression, irrespective of all reason and
argument, that the current views on the subject of immortality are wrong; and also with their endeavors to supply
their deficiency of argumentative resources by means of epithet, denunciation, and misrepresentation, as well as by the
most solemn obtestations respecting the purity of their
motives in these assaults-asseverations, however, which are
by no means evidential of such purity when employed to
supply the place of argument.* And yet, as those works
have done, and are doing, incalculable injury, it would be
highly improper in a, discussion of the subject to treat them
as unworthy of notice; still, however, I have by no means
confined myself to a consideration of their arguments and
objections, but have endeavored to present a fair and full
view of the whole question in all its various bearings; and
to meet the exceptions to the doctrine of man's uninterrupted immortality from whatever source they have emanated.
But as one immvediate object of this work is to consider the
* They may be found, ad nauseam, in such writers as Tindal and
Paine. See likewise, S. 82; A. 44, 45, 83; E. 3, 10, 134, 230; H. 1,
pp. 118,133, and 136; H. 2, pp. 83, 85, etc.; C. 22, 23; B. 2.




22           IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 2.
numerous and recent assaults upon the doctrine by the Annihilationists, it is only fair and proper that, in delineating
their system, no works should be employed but those which
they themselves put in circulation for the avowed purpose
of disseminating their views, and accordingly I have followed
this rule.?
~ 2. Theories of Professor Bush, of Dr. E. Beecher, and
of the Annihilationists.
It is both interesting and profitable to consider how the
truth which was once delivered to the saints (though it has
been and yet is on all sides assailed) still holds on its way
steadily and unharmed, and, through the power of the
blessed' Spirit, continues its work of renewing, sanctifying,
and leading home to glory the redeemed of Christ.  On the
one side the theory of the mighty Swedish seer, through its
fearless and most accomplished champion, Professor Bush,
is arrayed against it, and man is substantially declared to
be only spirit, for the material body is to be laid forever
aside at death. On the other hand, the plausible Storrs and
Ham, with their coadjutors in England and in this country,
fiercely assail it, and maintain that man is essentially corporeal, and that what is called the soul or spirit is laid aside
at death, perhaps to be resumed no more; while Archbishop Whately comes forth to moderate the dispute, and
by his decision "more embroils the fray," and seeks to cast
doubt and uncertainty over the whole subject in question.
Then, from the putrid charnel-house in which it had long lain
entombed, comes forth into galvanic reviviscence the old
incarnate-devil theory, with its renewed assault, both in this
land and in Germany, maintaining that man when first
created had no material organism, but was a pure spirit,
which, having sinned, was subsequently embodied in flesh in
* Through the polite attention of Rev. Thomas Reed, himself a writer
of considerable prominence among the Annihilationists, I have been furnished with the preceding catalogue of works, for which I would here
repeat to him my obligations.




~ 3.                 MODERN  SPIRITISM.                         28
order to be admitted to a second probation.* What other
conception may yet seek to engraft itself upon the Gospel
of Christ remains  to  be  seen.   It will probably  be  a
resurrection  of the  doctrine  of  Hume-that  man  has
neither body, soul, nor spirit, but is merely an impression
or idea.
~ 3. Modern Spiritism.
The  so-called  "Harmonial Philosophy,"  or Spiritism,
(incorrectly  named  "Spiritualism,")  has  come  forward
in the present age with high-sounding pretensions to the
claim of having forever settled the question of man's
uninterrupted immortality. But from the proffered conditions of settlement the Christian community has been
compelled to say:
* It is difficult to imagine how a man of Dr. Beecher's confessed
ebility, after spending twenty years in the investigation of his theme,
should fail to see that he has so completely laid himself open therein that
a shrewd antagonist can sweep the theory utterly away, root and branch,
and leave its advocate without even the power of defense, except on
grounds which are wholly subversive of the revealed will of God. It
would seem, however, at all events, that Dr. B. has been somewhat partial
mn stating the problem which, according to his representations, requires
solution. In his statement he refers merely to the human race, and its
" new probation " in this world; (though multitudes evidently pass out
of this world before they personally enjoy any probation whatever;) but
the real.difficulty does not relate to man alone. For why shouldl brutes be
subject to so ncAch sjferinzy acnd misery as they are required to endure?
Have they, too, a state of probation? A sort of innocency is attributed
to them along with infants, (Jonah iv, 11,) and a sort of responsibility,
(Ex. xxi, 28,) and some have regarded them as rational creatures. See
~ 17,.iffra. Ought they not, therefore, to be taken into the account? The
following passage, also, might answer as a starting point: " What if we
should suppose that the souls of brutes are spirits who have misbehaved
themselves in aformesr state, and are impqrisoned in bodies by way of puznishmntet? You will say, perhaps, that punishment ought to be attended
with a consciousness in the intelligent agent that he suffers for past transgressions. But how do you know that they have not this knowledge?
And supposing that they have it not at present, yet they may in another
removal to another state retrieve their consciousness and reminiscence."
Sermons by Ds. Jortin, vol. 1, ser. 9, page 185. This is certainly as
plausible as anything urged by Dr. Beecher.




24           IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ U.
"' Non tali auxilio, nee defensoribus istis
Tempus eget."
But not to dwell upon these conditions, the whole subject,
in its asserted connection with the theme before us, may be
disposed of in a few remarks:
1. And first, the claim to novelty which is set up for the
demonstrations on which this pretentious "philosophy" is
based, is simply absurd; for in regard to their nature, and
even extent, there is nothing new belonging to them.  The
" new philosophy," therefore, is new, only in the sense that
the doctrine of the metempsychosis is new; and that it existed in the time of Moses can be successfully disputed by
no one who will examine the import in the original of the
words in which it is described in Deut. xviii, 9-14.  Its
practices were expressly prohibited to the Jews; and God
declares that it was because of them  that he expelled the
nations of Canaan, and gave them over to destruction.  Its
continued existence may be inferred from  many passages,
such, for example, as 1 Sam. xxviii, and 2 Chron. xxxiii, 6; and
no one acquainted with the New Testament can fail to perceive therein that in our Saviour's time there was a pretty
extensive " spirit manifestation."  As to its prevalence in
later times, the few following facts and statements may be
taken as representative. And as it is impossible here to go
into a thorough discussion of the topic, I would merely say
that it will hardly be prudent for any man of literary lreputation to question the accuracy of the subjoined statements.
In exact accorclance with the new revelations of this philosophy, old Porphyry asserts that those spirits which were
in his day consulted by men were a deceiving race; now
feigning to be gods, then demons, and then the souls of
the dead.  Albertus, who was born about A.D. 1193, anticipated our own Dr. Hare, of Philadelphia, in the construction of a machine for receiving communications from
the spirits. The same substantially is reported also of his
cotemporary, Roger Bacon.  In fact, in the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries especially, (not to mention previous




~ 3.             MODERN SPIRITISM.                  25
ages,) it was a very general doctrine that spirits teach the
liberal arts, and produce great wonders in nature; and multitudes of instances of each are specified. Petrus Aponus,
a celebrated Italian physician, and a Materialist, is mentioned
as having become convinced thereby of the existence of
spirits and of the immortality of the soul, and as having
become most prominent as a consulter of the dead. Spiritrapping was universally known, and the spirits purported to
clothe themselves with flesh, in the manner that our " new"
philosophers affirm is now done at Koon's Station, in Ohio,
and other places. It was moreover in ancient times a cus —
tom to consult them by writing the questions, as is common
now.  Dr. Hare in his book declares that he had " a familiar
spirit."  So did old Hildebrand and others; and Pomponatius avers that the spirits were consulted in respect to
curing diseases, and that often a cure was effected by means
of them. They were said to carry material objects through
the air, to assume the shapes of men and beasts, and to
make themselves visible. They purported then, as now, to
speak all languages, (though Balzac charges them  with
being grossly ignorant.)' They were subject to the call of
men then as now. In the latter part of the fifteenth century
there was a great spiritual demonstration in Italy, an account
of which was published in four dissertations by a celebrated
author of that age. And still later, the famous Antoinette
Bourignan, with any number of others, abandoned the revelation of God to follow the teachings of the spirits. The communication of men with spirits was asserted to be good and
useful to man; and Rev. Mr. Beeker, of Amsterdam, who derided the idea of holding such intercourse, was on that account,
in a still later age, deposed from the ministry, so universal
was the " new Hiarmonial Philosophy" in all past ages.
2. As to any demonstrable proof of the immortality of
the human soul, derivable from this source, it is all mere
moonshine. A single fact will make this apparent. All the
advocates of this "philosophy" are compelled to admit that
among the spirits there are numbers who delight in deceiv



26         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 4.
ing man, and who are perpetually practising such deception.
They personate men who have lived on earth, pretend to
come from superior spheres, etc. Now the simple fact that
man has no certain or available test by which to detect and
expose such attempted deception, involves the whole subject
of their communications, through " mediums," or any other
means, in uncertainty. How are we to know that a communication in any given case, even admitting its reality,
does not come from some mighty malignant spirit, who, in
order to deceive and lead us to ruin and death, personates
the soul we wish to consult. They are confessedly able
thus to deceive, and how know we that they do not? The
fact that they may utter some truth, and speak kindly of
man, and in some things seek to do him good, is not inconsistent with such a procedure, but is just what might be expected in the circumstances. The argument for man's immortality, therefore, from such a source, is worthless.
~ 4. The Issue stated.
The issue between the annihilationists and those who
maintain the current doctrine of immortality is thus stated
by the former:
"The question is not whether the soul can be immortal,
nor whether the souls of the righteous will be immortal, but
will the wicked who live and die in their sins continue eternally, or without end, in a state of conscious being? Or,
once more, is the punishment God has threatened to sinners
an eternal state of conscious being in misery?  This involves
the question of the immortality of the soul. For if all men
can be proved to be immortal, I conceive it follows from  the
Bible that the finally impenitent will be punished with eternal
conscious being in misery."  See S, pp. 4, 5. A careful analysis of this phraseology would not be very flattering to the
exorbitant literary pretensions of its author, but still the
ideas which he sought to communicate obviously lie upon
the surface and cannot well be misunderstood.  In like
manner speaks Mr. Dobney, pp. 82, 83, and 111. See also




~ 5.           ANNIHILATION THEORY.                  27
pp. 177, 182, 185 of "Whately's Future State" for language similar.
~ 5. The Fundamental Principles of the Annihilationists.
We shall now present an outline of the system in their
own words.  But where their views, as they sometimes
do, conflict with each other on the points presented, we shall
of course not attempt to decide which is the fair exponent
of the system, but shall merely present the fact as it is,
and leave it with the reader.
1. In respect to the SOUL itself, they teach that " there is
such a thing as a living soul, hence there must be such a
thing as a dead soul."  "If the soul is a part of the. man,
it also is of the dust of the ground; and if it is not a part of
him, it is not liable to sin or punishment, and it is of no
consequence to the man what becomes of it."  " No Scripture
or philosophy has ever yet been shown to prove the mind
anything more than an attribute of the living, organized
dust, and if so, it must cease with the life of the body."';
" Christ's soul was not left in the grave; then it must have
been in the grave, and dead. It did not die a spiritual
death, for that would be dead in sin. It follows, then, that
it died a literal death."  "Spiritual rapping and immortal
soulism are destined to run parallel to each other."  "Immortal soulism can be no longer sustained but at the expense of rejecting the word of God." (C., 14, 16, 20, 23.)
"A soul, in Scripture phraseology, means an animal, or
creature, or life."  "It is absurd and wicked to infer that
it is immaterial and immortal, to favor a pagan fable."
"Souls can be killed or murdered.'"  "The soul of man
can die, and does die.'  " It can be cut off and destroyed."
" Man has no soul nor spirit that can exist, as a living
thing, apart from his body; his whole nature is mortal."
" The soul has not and cannot have a conscious existence independently of the organized being animated."  "All the
dead are unconscious in their graves; if there be no resurrection they have perished like brutes; they have beets




28            IMMORTALITY  OF THE SOUL.                   ~ 5.
already blotted out of existence."  (E. 31, 41, 42, 43, 49,
233.)  " Man has no immaterial principle, or thing, or substance, or essence, or naturally immortal soul."  " Man is
entirely dependent upon his organization for all his thoughts,
feelings, sensations, and for all the developments of his soul
or life, and consequently, if the dead rise not, they have perished."  "Man resembles the animals in these particulars;
both are material, both are mortal; both having souls, both
have spirits; and both alike are entirely dependent upon
their organization for all their mental phenomena."*  "For
the production of any mental or moral action, there is required a body, brains, nerve-fibre, and bright-red arterial
blood;" (as in the case of angels, I presume.)  "The whole
man, save the breath, proceeds from the parents." (R. 4, 5,
12, 13, 14; and M. 24, 25.)
Thus man is body and soul created from matter, and is
dependent upon his bodily organization for his mental and
moral powers. The soul is merely the result of organization, and is so wholly inseparable from the body as to be
incapable of separate  existence.  The same doctrine was
taught by Epicurus, Lucretius, and many other ancient
atheistic philosophers; and also by Spinosa, Hobbes, Toland,
Voltaire, Volney, etc. A parentage worthy of its offspring.
2.  Their Ideas  concerning  -Death.   They  are  sadly
confused on the subject whether the soul sleeps at death
or is. utterly blotted out of being, and some of them,
like S., endeavor to blend both ideas in their theory.
Their generally avowed belief is, however, that as the
* Water, for example, is a constituent body, (our Materialist friends,
whose philosophy we quote above, must admit this,) and in winter it
assumes something of an organized form. May it not then possess a
sort of iztegligence? And may not that statement of an old philosopher
be, after all, true, who said, "The teaters of this' vorld are mnad, which
meakes them save and rese qsep and down so, as they do in the channels of
the earth." If physical constituency may impart intellectuality, (and this
is the principle which underlies this Materialism,) can our antagonists
give any reason for thinking that this old philosopher's notion is not the
profoundest philosophy? I know not who he was, but have taken the
quotation from Dr. Henry More.




~ 5.           ANNIHILATION THEORY.                  29
soul cannot exist separate from the body, it is annihilated at death. Thus D. says: " The death threatened to
Adam was the death of the entire man;"'; the extinction
of being;" pp. 135, 148, 152. " The existence of man from
that hour [the fall] became one of pain, sorrow, misery, and
is hastening to its wind qup, and will result in the utter extermination of his being, unless counteracted by eating that
bread that came down from heaven." (S. 61.)  "The Bible
teaches that man, THE SOUL as well as the body, dies," " and
that man is dependent on his resurrection from  the grave
for all future existence." (G. 7, 9.)  "Death is that state
of being in which there is a total and permanent cessation of
all the vital actions, when the organs have not only ceased
to act, but have lost the susceptibility of renewed action."
"Nothing can more clearly indicate the utter dissolution of
the finally impenitent than this oft-repeated declaration, they
shall die." (Has. 14, 19.) "I think I am fairly permitted to
affirm, that what has already been advanced under the preceding sections, is sufficiently definite and unmistakable to
justify the conclusion that both our Lord and his apostles
taught no such doctrines as that the disembodied soul is the
human personality, and that the soul or spirit exists after
death in a state of consciousness; but that, on the contrary,
they taught the state of death to be a complete decease of the
conscious being, and that the life will not be rekindled until
the period of the resurrection." (H. 2, p. 85.)
In respect to this matter, also, Voltaire and the other
French atheists, and the Robert Owen school of infidels, all
agree perfectly with our Annihilation friends. Their philosophy is the same. The former, however, oppose these
views to the Bible, while the latter attempt to reconcile them
with it. The former also aver that death is perpetual to
ALL our race, while the latter hold that the righteous will
live again.  We need not here adduce extracts to prove
the truth of these statements, for in another chapter we
shall have occasion to refer more particularly to the ancient
and modern advocates of the material philosophy.




30          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.                ~ 5.
3. Their Idea of the Penalty of the Law.-This idea is
so fully developed in the above extracts as to render further
quotation on the subject scarcely necessary. They make
annihilation to be a positive infliction of punishment by
God on account of sin, and of course, therefore, it is the
penalty of the law. A single passage may be given in
illustration: "Any torment or punishment that comes short
of terminating the very being of the sufferer, is not death,
and therefore is not the penalty of the law." (E. 235.)
They equivocate greatly, however, on the word annihilate,
pretending that we employ it in a sense altogether different
from that which they attach to the term. But this is puerile,
and they may here define it themselves. They say: "The
wicked shall be destroyed.  To destroy means to demolish,
to ruin, to annihilate."  "The Hebrew word tsomath, rendered destroy, means to annihilate."  On the same page annihilation is defined to be " the deprivation of life and
being."  "The souls that reject Christ shall be utterly exterminated. If these exceedingly emphatic expressions do
not teach the utter annihilation of the being of the wicked,
we ask how can any language possibly teach it 2" (E. 239,
241; and also pp. 243-257. See also D. 167; A. 96, 115;
H. 1, pp. 120, 142; S. 39; Has. 7-14 and 29-34.  See
also infra. ~ ~ 49-64.)
4. As to the punishment of sin, they all most emphatically deny that it is a mere natural result, and maintain
that it is a positive penal infliction. On this point some
of our own theologians may study their works with advantage. (See ~ 56, infra.)
5. They all insist on a distinction between fiutzure life and
immortality, and define immortality to be uninterrtupted and
unending life; while future life, being simply life in a future
state, is consistent with the interruption of life between
death and the resurrection.
6. The wicked, as well as the righteous, are raised from
the state of non-existence into which they pass at death. (C.
21, 22; Has. 25, 38; S. 14, 64; D. 111, 164, 165, 185,




~ 5.          ANNIHILATION THEORY.                   31
HI. 2. p. 93.) Some, however, appear to regard the resurrection of the wicked as rather doubtful. (E. 234.)
7. At the resurrection the same soul or animating principle is not restored to the body.  "Eccles. xii, 7, says
the ruah goes to the God who gave it. Now if God intends to restore this ruah to the man so that he may live
again, where does God bring this ruah from?  We shall
see that it is not the SAME RUAH, but ruah of the same
kind, though perhaps less diluted with atmospheric air."
And after quoting Ezek. xxxvii, he adds: " Thus we see that
the ruah in Eccles. xii, 7, went to the four winds, and at
the resurrection comes again from  the four winds.  Thus
we see that it is God's ruah, one universal principle pervading the atmosphere, and not many distinct ruah, as theologians teach, and is not a living thing, though the cause of
life, but which our honest translators have translated wind,
breath, spirit, and Spirit of God, so as best to favor the
pagan fable of the separate conscious existence of a spirit
belonging to man!!" (E. 89, 90.)
This idea is substantially a reiteration of the notion of
Dcisearchus and Epicurus, who, in like manner, maintained
that the soul was divisible into parts.  It is pagan and atheistic in its origin and tendency. It was also advanced in
the time of Leo X., who issued a bull against it.  In that
century the Anabaptist, Sebastian Francus, endeavored to
revive it, and subsequently Spinosa.. It is therefore peculiarly becoming in the advocates of this fable to stigmatize
as a "pagan notion " the doctrine of uninterrupted imnmortality.
8. After their resurrection the wicked are annihilated over
again, or blotted out of existence a second time.  See D.
167, and their writers passim.  This they denominate " the
second death." (C. 21, 22; S. 34; D. 166; E. 228; Has. 19.)
9. There is no hell now in existence. " Paul does not once
speak of there being a hell of fire in existence at the present
hour." (Has. 39.)  "We have now  examined all those
words which are translated hell, and all others that bear




32           IMMORTALITY  OF THE SOUL.                   ~ 5.
any relation to the word hell, and the result is the Bible
does not teach that there is any place now in existence
where the wicked dead are in torments." (E. 170, 171,
231.)  "It is too commonly taken for granted that place
and elements of torment are actually in existence, and that
the wicked, the morient of their decease, are transferred
thither."  " The agent of the future punishment is literal
fire.  The fire of hell is not yet kindled, and will not be
until after the wicked are raised from the dead, and the
processes of the great judgment are completed.  The future punishment will not be an endless preservation  in
misery, but a total destruction or annihilation." (H. 1, pp.
142, 143.) Of course, therefore, those of this sect who
deny the resurrection of the wicked, deny also that there
ever has been or ever will be a hell.
10. Angels and demons truly exist, (see E. 85, 136; S.
53; D. 72, 73,) though A. 108 regards it as doubtful,
and seems in a great quandary to know what to believe on
the subject.
11. The devil anid demons are, however, to be annihilated.
(Has. 26; S. 33, 34; H. 1, p. 144.)
12. They claim the Bible to be the ultimate ground of ap
peal, and regard it as written by inspiration of God. (D.
89, and all other writers passim.)  Some of them, however,
are clandestinely endeavoring to undermine its authority.
(E. 10.)
Such are the outlines of this theory. I do not say that
each one of their writers entertains every feature of the system; but only that the books which they have placed in my
hands with a view to this discussion, maintain the doctrines
here presented; and that the authors of those works regard
them as essential to the integrity of the system.*
* It is truly painful to find Dr. Whately attempting to sustain, by a
metaphysical speculation, the philosophy upon which are based the foregoing representations. In his'" Future State," p. 59, for example, he says:
" Whatever is actually seen or presented to any of the senses whether naturally or supernaturally, mntest of course be nmaterial; but a like ef'ct may
be produced on the zincd(as we experience in the case of imagination and




~ 6.                    MATERIALISM.                         33
~ 6. This System is properly named Materialism.
That it is not a misrepresentation of this system to pronounce it materialism, will be questioned by no intelligent
mind. I speak of it thus, however, not invidiously, but merely
to explain my use of the term in this treatise. But it is a
gross absurdity for its advocates to reject as offensive the
application of this term to their system. There is a great
deal of such miserable chicanery in the present age. Men
become advocates o~ certain views, which have always been
known by a definite and distinguishing name; and yet, with
a pusillanimity which is sadly in contrast with their professions of fearlessness and love of the truth, shrink from
the frank and manly avowal of their position, and then, with
no attempt to verify the charge, accuse every one of misrepresentation who, for distinction's sake, gives to their
theory the name by which it ever has been known, and by
which alone it can be intelligently distinguished. The time
is past when any sensible mind will suffer itself to be influenced by a mere name. When, therefore, a man comes
forward to assail the received doctrines of the Gospel, let
him  not shrink  from the responsibility of his position, on
the puerile and offensive plea that he otherwise will not be
candidly heard.  I have ever regarded this maneuver, and
must still regard it, as a discreditable ruse for awakening
an undeserved prejudice on the one hand, and for obtaining
a blind sympathy on the other, to which the author, at least,
dreaming, and as we read in the case of visions) without the presence, as far
as we know, of any material object." Of course, then, the appearance of
Jehovah to Moses, (Ex. xxxiv, 5-8,) who both saw and heard him, was
mateerial, or only imagined on the part of' Moses. So, too, in respect to
the angels who appeared to Zechariah and Mary, and to the soldiers and
women at the sepulchre.  They were material, or only imaginary.
To say these were visions is saying nothing to the purpose, unless by
vision, in this sense, is meant the soul or spirit perceiving. Disembodied
spirits and angels can and do see each other; and if so, why may not a
spirit embodied in flesh sometimes also perceive, independent of the corporeal organs of perception and sensation? Will Dr. Whately please
inform us!  See Addison's Speptator, No. 110.




34           I[MMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.                ~ 7.
of such a movement, can have no just title. Truth is frank
and fearless, and never can suffer in an encounter with error
in a fair and open field.*
~ 7. Doctrine of the Evangelical Churches.
In connection with the foregoing summary of the Annihilationist views, it will be proper here to state briefly the
doctrines of the Evangelical Churches on the subject of the
soul's immortality. The whole may, be presented in the
following passage, which forms the thirty-second chapter of
the Presbyterian Confession of Faith: " The bodies of men
after death return to dust, and see corruption; but their
souls, (which neither die nor sleep,) having an immortal
subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them.
The souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God in light and glory, waiting for the full
redemption of their bodies; and the souls of the wicked are
cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter
darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day.
Besides these two places for souls separated from their
bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none.  At the last day
such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed; and all
the dead shall be raised up with the self-same bodies, and none
other, although with different qualities, which shall be united
again to their souls forever. The bodies of the unjust shall,
by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonor; the bodies of
the just, by his Spirit, unto honor, and be made conformable
to his own glorious body." See also Larger Catechism,
questions 85, 86, and Shorter Catechism, question 37.
In chapter thirty-third it is stated also that at the day of
judgment "not only the apostate angels shall be judged,
but likewise that all persons who have lived upon earth
* The general reader may find in the Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, pp. 783-786, and in Buchanan's Modern Atheism, p. 192, and seq., a
sufficient justification of our application of the term Materialsm   to the
foregoing system,




~ 8.         DR. VWHATELY'S POSITION.                35
shall appear before the tribunal of Christ. Then shall
the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fullness of joy and refreshing which shall come from the presence of the Lord; but the wicked, who know not God, and
obey not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into
eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of
his power." See also Larger Catechism, quest. 87-90.
Such are the received views of the whole evangelical
Church: The Lutheran and the Reformed on the Continent; the Presbyterian, the Congregational, the Wesleyan,
and the Episcopal Churches in England; while in this
country all those denominations -entertain the doctrine also,
and as above expressed.*
~ 8. The Position of Archbishop Whately.
In consequence, however, of a turn which the discussion
has recently taken both in this country and in Europe, we
are under the painful necessity of here adverting to a
matter connected with one of those Churches. I refer to
the Episcopal. The doctrine of this branch of the Church
of Christ on the subject before us has never been doubtfully expressed either in the writings of her representative
sons, or in her standards.  And yet a primate of that
Church, and while remaining within her communion, has recently and repeatedly appeared before the public with a
studied and labored assault upon her cherished principles in
this matter.  I have no disposition to meddle with the
polity of the Church referred to; but as the procedure to
which we advert (as will be seen in the sequel) has given
an undue advantage to Annihilationists, it is our duty to
refer to the subject so far as is necessary in order to place
the matter in its true light before the public.  That Dr.
Whately has a right to assail, if he chooses, these or any
* "No article of any creed in Christendom is more universally or unhesitatingly held than that each individual enters, at death, upon aa
eternal state of retribution." (Bush on the Resurrection, p. 276.)




36          IMNIMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 8.
other doctrines whatever, no one will dispute; but that he
either has or can have a right to enjoy the revenues of the
Church, under the plea of receiving her doctrines, and under
the pledge to defend them, while at the same time he is endeavoring to effect their subversion, every upright mind
will most emphatically deny.  The fact that others may
have done the like before him, or that Paley's loose views
of subscription might justify such a course, is (as his own
"Logic" will tell him) neither excuse nor extenuation for
Dr. Whately.  If some have done the same thing, others
can be named also who, when they were led to depart from
the doctrines of the Establishment, and upon far less important grounds, have honestly abandoned her communion.
The senseless outcry may be raised that this is unfavorable
to freedom of discussion, (for "freedom of discussion" has
been  made to father many such proceedings;) but the
question relates not to free discussion, but to moral integrity. And such theologastricism ought to be banished from
among men.
Every book of the Annihilationists contains quotations
from, and laudations of, Dr. Whately; and just in proportion as his course herein is indefensible and humiliating, do
they laud him as one whose candor and fearlessness of con
sequences have gained the ascendant of all selfish considerations.* And all this is made the basis for the most invidious
insinuations against those who retain their principles and their
integrity.  In fact Dr. Whately has become their great
authority. But to complete the portrait they have.drawn
from imagination rather than from fact; for so far from the
love of truth leading Dr. Whately to disregard consequences, he stands before the world self-convicted, as one who
persisted in receiving and enjoying the revenues of a
Church whose avowed faith he was confessedly endeavoring
to subvert. Certainly it was scarcely to be expected that
in this age the humiliating example of Archdeacon Black* See, for example, S. I-VI, and in other places; D. 90, 96, 189, 190;
H. 1 p. 139 i M. 19, 25; H. 2, p. 65, 96; and B. 31, 65, 66, 74.




~ 8.            DR. WHATELY'S POSITION.                      37
burne should find a counterpart among the dignitaries of the
same Church.* I repeat the asseveration, that every man
who lays claim  to moral integrity  ought to frown upon
such a procedure. It is becoming of rather frequent occurrence; but the frequency can never divest the act of its
odious character.   The Socinians in  Harvard  might be
named in illustration, and some recent cases also in the
Presbyterian and  other  Churches.   Th'e  same  remarks
apply also to the Rationalists in Germany, who likewise
" dipped their hand in the dish" with the Church of Christ,
at the same time that they were seeking to blot out her
very  existence.   HQW  nobly do the examples of David
Simpson, Baptist W. Noel, and of thousands of others, contrast with that of such men?t  But we need not dwell upon the
* Blackburne was author of the anonymous volume entitled, " Historical View of the Controversy concerning an Intermediate State," etc.
London, 1772, (second edition;) a work from which the Annihilationists
copy, as from a common stock, without acknowledgment; and throughout which the merest partisan appears, as lusual, under the garb of an intolerant and proscriptive liberality, and with a fierce and almost ferocious zeal for moderation. Even the Socinians admit that his opposition
to the doctrines of the Church of England, and his continuance in its
connection, are " an anomaly not easily explained."  See Collection of
Essays, etc., by Dr. Jared Sparks, vol. i, p. 176. See also Robert Hall's
views of such proceedings, in Works, ii, 320-323, 327; and Doddridgc's,
aqlso, in the seventieth of his Lectures.
t The following remark of Archbishop Jiagee (a predecessor of D)r.
Whately in the See of Dublin) is well worth pondering in this connection: " It is indeed," says he, " scarcely conceivable how a person in
possession of a sane understanding can reconcile to himself subscription
to the Articles of the Church, and rejection of the doctrines which
those articles define."  Now that the survivance and continuous activity
of the human spirit of Christ between his death and resurrection infers
that of his members, will not be denied, (on this point see ~ 33, subsection 14, infra;) nor will it be denied that both the bzrial and descent of Chirist into lhades are expressly taught in the Thirty-nine Articles,
and also throughout the book of Common Prayer.  The phrase, "He
descelnded inzto hell," is therein explained by the phrase, "_le wet into the
placeof departed spirits;" and this very creed is not only repeated in the
daily service, but committed and recited by every catechumen previous
to confirmation by the bishop. It is, moreover, required to be repeated
in " The Visitation of the Sickl," and in the prayers offered on such occasions phrases like the following occur: " 0 Almighty God, owith whon




38           IMMORTALITY  OF THE SOUL.                    ~ 8.
subject. It is sufficient to add, in conclusion, that in proportion
to the elevation of the position of him who is guilty of such
a procedure, is the necessity for rebuke; for unreflecting
minds are more influenced by the exalted position of such
than by their arguments.  And it may be mentioned in illustration hereof, that the Annihilationists do not rely for effect
with the community so much upofn the shallow sophisms of
Dr. Whately, as upon his mere statements.  His argument,
of itself, carries but little weight, (and many  of these
writers far excel him in logical power and acumen;) but
hisi statements, on account of his position in the Church,
have an authority with the multitude, which the Annihilationists have shown that they well know how to make the
most of.
do live the spirits of just men made perfect, after they are deliveredfrom
their earthly prisons, wee humbly commend the solZ of this thy servant,"
etc. See also the Burial Service. How can any man entertaining the
theology of Dr. W. conscientiously perform those services, or join in
those sublime utterances of the Te Deum Laudamus: " The glorious
company of the apostles praise thee. The goodly fellowship of the
prophets praise thee. The noble army of martyrs praise thee'"




~ 9.       PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS.                 39
CHAPTER II.
TIHE ARGUMENT FROM REASON CONSIDERED.
~ 9. Preliminary Considerations.
THE discussion of the question respecting man's immortality, if limited to the announcements of Revelation, would
be greatly narrowed, and the issue facilitated, so far as those
are concerned who receive the Divine testimony. But as our
antagonists do not confine themselves thereto, we cannot
hope to do justice to the discussion without taking up the
whole line of their argument, whereby they have sought to
cast the shadows of uncertainty over the subject. Indeed
it is impossible to over-estimate the importance to virtue
and religion of the doctrine that the soul retains its conscious
existence after death, for the knowledge of God and the immortality of the soul are most intimately associated as the
primary foundation of all religion. Dissolve the connection
between the present and a future life, and let it be supposed
that after death man wholly ceases to exist, and that he
shall live no more until the immeasurably distant period of
the resurrection and general judgment, and a blow is at once
struck which gives tranquillity to the impenitently vicious,
and which at the same time robs the humble and faithful
believer of the prospect which had cheered his spirit amid
the sorrows of his wearisome earthly pilgrimage.* I admit
that such considerations alone are not sufficient of themselves
to set aside clear proof that the basis on which they rest is
* Dr. Whately labors to perplex this topic by mere metaphysical
sophisms, and to prove that it is really a question of no practical mlportance whether our existence is or is not suspended at death. See
Whately's Future State, pp. 74-78, 80-84, 88.




40          IMMORTALITY OF,_THE SOUL.              ~ 10,
unsupported; but they certainly furnish sufficient reason to
prompt a thorough examination of the claim by which that
basis is sought to be invalidated.
~ 10. The Question of Immateriality not important.
In treating upon the subject of immortality, not a few of
the defenders of the current views have perplexed both the
question and themselves by claiming, as essential to the
proper reception of the doctrine, that the soul should be conceded to be immaterial in the undefinable and so-called philosophical sense of that term.  But we really know nothing
of the essential properties of matter, and of course the term
immaterial can convey no determinate idea.  It is nowhere
used in the Bible, nor has the cautious and profound Butler
ever once employed it through his whole aryumeret.  The
idea philosophically associated with the term is of modern
origin, (for the ancient philosophers seemed to have no
conception of it,) and was originated as an offset to the debasing material philosophy of Hobbes, Toland, and others.
It is in no way required, however, in an investigation of the
subject before us.  Corruptibility and incorruptibility convey ideas which are not beyond our reach.. But the same
cannot be said of materiality and immateriality in their professedly philosophical sense.
If, however. in compliance with modern usage, the terms
must be employed in this discussion, (for most of the authors
to whom I reply are perpetually using them,) I wish it
understood that they are herein employed, not in a philosophical but theological sense.  By material, as applied toc
the soul, I mean corruptible; by immaterial, in the same application, I mean that the. soul is a spiritual, incorruptible
substance, of a nature similar to that of angels;* or, as
Dr. Abercrombie defines the term, it may not be objectionable: "All that we mean or can mean by being immaterial,
is that the phenomena of mind are entirely distinct from
* See E. 85, 133, S. 53, and D. 72, 73.




~ 11.               THE TRUE ISSUE.                     41
anything we know of the properties of matter." *  But along
with this explanation it ought to be repeated, that the doctrine of the soul's immortality neither depends on nor can\
be deduced from that of its immateriality, in the metaphysical
sense of that term.  And hence it is of no actual importance
to religion. The Bible nowhere attempts to define the soul's
essential nature and quality.  The body or flesh (aj/La,,'3)
is therein contrasted to the soul or spirit, and a different
origin attributed to each. It likewise always distinguishes
between them as different substances, attributes different properties and operations to each, and assigns to each a different destiny at death.  And here the question as to its nature
is left. For the things thus announced include all that it is
needful for us to know at present in order to realize the importance of living for eternity.
~ 11. Points involved in the True Issue.
Three things are necessarily involved in the true idea of
the soul's immortality: 1. The uninterrupted continuance
of its substance; 2. The continuance of its life and self.
consciousness; and consequently, 3. The lasting recollection
of the soul itself, that its state or condition after death results
from that state which preceded.  Or, in the beautiful language of Isaac Taylor: "That which Christianity requires
us to believe is the actual survivance of our personal consciousness embodied, and the perpetuity of our sense of good
and evil, and our continued sensibility of pain and pleasure,
and the unbroken recollection in another life of the events
and affections of the present state.  What Christianity decisiYely affirms is, that the LIFE-moral, intellectual, and
active, or corporeal-is not commensurate with, or dependent upon, animal organization; but that it may, and that it
will, spring up anew from the ruins of its present habitation.'Destroy this body,' and the man still lives; but whether
he might live immaterially is a mere question of philosophy,
* Inquiry, p. 35. Such appears to have been the idea, also, of Cudworth. See Intellectual System, B. 1, chap. 1, sec. 22 and 32.




4.2         IIMMORTALITY  OF THE SOUL.                ~ 12.
which the inspired writers do not care to decide. This doctrine, concerning what is called the immateriality of the soul,
should ever be treated as a merely philosophical speculation,
and as unimportant to our Christian profession." *
~ 12. The philosophical Arguments of the ancient Greeks.
In considering the argument from reason, therefore, I shall
pass without dwelling upon those philosophical arguments
invented by the Greeks, and drawn from  the ideas which
they entertained of the essence of the soul; and also those
metaphysical proofs upon which Plato and Cicero so abundantly and so beautifully expatiate.  There may be force in
them, but I shall not perplex the discussion with any such
refined speculations, for after all they seem  not to lead beyond the conclusion that the immortality of the soul is possible and probable, and in no way inconsistent with the
nature of things.
~ 13. State of the Question in respect to the Theory of the
_Materialists.
It is a point, however, which must in the nature of the
case be conceded by every one who is not a conceited sciolist, that reason cannot prove the soul to be corruptible or
mortal. This plainly transcends the limits of man's intellectual powers.  For how can any one go about to prove
what this supposition must logically and necessarily involve,
that the ultimate end for which man is here called into being
is or may be attained in the present life? t Even the atheist, who pretends to believe that chance gave him his present
existence, is compelled to admit that chance may make that
existence immortal.  Before we commence the direct argument, therefore, it may be well in this connection briefly to
* Physical Theory of Another Life, pp. 16, 17. See the subject of the
above section very forcibly presented and illustrated in that almost forgotten, but excellent treatise, Dilucidationes P7litosophicc, by G. B. Buelflinger, pp. 384-396. Tubingen, 1725. See also Buchanan's Modern
Atheism, chap. iv, sec. 3.
t See section 5, sub-sections 1, 2, and 7 above.




~ 13.        STATE OF THE QUESTION.                   43
glance at some of the arrogant assumptions of Arnihilationists on the subject.  They claim that man is entirely material, and solely dependent upon his corporeal organization
for all his sensations, feelings, thoughts, and mental developments.  That at death he passes utterly out of all conscious
being; and that in the resurrection not the same soul which
previously animated his body is restored to him, but only
a soul that is the same in kind; so that the soul as such is
incapable of an existence separate from the body, and is
never recreated nor returned to it again.  It is a result of
organization, and ceases to exist when the organism fails.
If these things be so the soul of course is mortal, and the
whole object of its creation or existence is attained in the
present life.
The attempts at proof from reason and revelation, by
which our opponents would establish this theory, we shall
for the present omit to notice.  But we would here, in passing, call their attention to a consideration or two which lie
in the way of their conclusion, but which they either have
not known, or they have thought it advisable to pass in
silence. For if the soul is not really distinct from the body,
then it is inseparable from the body, and of course essential
to it as a body, as what is not distinct from body, properly
speaking, is essential to it, and it is a contradiction in terms
to say that a thing is ever without its essence.  How then
can it be known that after death our volitions and sensations
cease? If a body of itself is susceptible of thought and
sensation, it is always thus susceptible. If, for example, an
atom of air, or of electricity, was ever destitute of sensation
or thought, it is clearly impossible that becoming connected
with something else should ever make IT of itself either
think or feel; consequently as men do possess thought, it
follows either that all bodies are thinking substances, or that
the substance which thinks is truly distinct from the body.*
* Since we are informed by our Materialist friends that the doctrine of
the soul's immortality is the foundation of spirit-rapping, and of all superstitions about ghosts, it may be of advantage for them to peruse the fol



44            IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.                        ~13.
We are therefore certainly warranted by all the principles of correct reasoning to affirm the absurdity of the
lowing from Bayle. After referring to the puerile fears of Hobbes, of
Malmsbury, about being alone in the dark, he says: " But you will say
Hobbes denied the existence of spirits; say rather that he believed there
are no substances distinct from matter. Now, as that did not hinder him
from believing that there are many substances which design or do good
or ill to others, he might and ought to believe that there are beings in
the air, or elsewhere, as capable of mischief as the corpuscles, which, according to his system, form all our thoughts in our brain. How came
these corpuscles to be better acquainted with the means of doing mischief
than those of other beings? And what reason is there to prove that these
other beings are ignorant of the manner of acting upon our brain, in order
to make us see an apparition?  These apparitions in dreams are very
frequent, whether a man believes in the immortality of the soul or not.
Suppose they should once happen to an incredulous man awake, as they
do frequently in his sleep, we allow that he would be afraid, though
he had ever so much courage. And therefore, for a stronger reason, we
ought to believe that Hobbes would have been terribly affrighted by it.
" I have often wondered that neither Epicurus nor any of his followers
should consider that the atoms which form a nose, two eyes, several
nerves, a brain, have nothing more excellent in them than those which
go to the making a stone; and therefore it is very absurd to suppose
that every collection of atoms, which makes not a man or a beast, should
be destitute of knowledge. He who denies the soul of man to be a substance distinct from matter reasons childishlly, unless he supposes that all
the universe is animated, andc that there are everywhere some particular
thinhking beings; and that, as there are some which do not equal men, so
there are others which exceed them. Onl this supposition plants and
stones would be thinking substances. It. is not necessary they should
have a sensation of colors, sounds, smells, etc., but it is necessary they
should have another sort of knowledge; and as it would be ridiculous
for these to deny that there were any such beings as men, who do them
a deal of mischief, wiho pluck them up by the roots, who cut and break
them in pieces; as, I say, they would be ridiculous to deny this, under
pretense that they do not see the arm or ax which smote them, so the
Epicureans are most ridiculous in denying that there are beings in the air,
or elsewhere, who know us, who do us sometimes evil, sometimes good,
or who are inclined, some to destroy, others to protect us. I say the
Epicureans would be very ridiculous to deny this, under pretense that
they see no such beings. They have no good reason to deny witchcraft,
magic, the larvm, the specters, the lemures, hobgoblins, familiars, and
other things of this nature. It is more allowable in those who allow t)he
soul to be distinct fron  matter to deny them, and yet I knozo not by what
Preposterous turn of mind they who believe the soul of man to be corporeal
are the readiest to deny the existence of demons."  (Crit. Dict.,.vol. iv,
articles Ilobbes and Lucretius.)




~ 13.          STATE OF THE QUESTION.                 45
supposition that any substance which is unintelligent and insensible previously to organization, can become intelligent
and self-conscious by organization, for organization alters
not the nature and essence of things; consequently it does
not at all follow that a. substance which is endowed with essential activity, intellect, and volition, should lose all intellect, action, and volition, merely in consequence of being
separated from another and utterly different substance to
which it had been united, and which is naturally destitute of
those attributes.  In whatever way we may suppose it to be
bound by the laws of that union- for a time, there is-no reason to suppose that it should still be subject to those laws,
and that it should be unable to act or to think at all after
such union is dissolved.
Should it be said, in answer to this, that the organization
referred to is only a combination of different substances
whose chemical affinities may, when brought into association,
develop the laws of life, this would be a ridiculous evasion
of the point; for according to this, those laws of life exist
in matter itself, and only need an organic association in order
to develop them. And yet, though in multitudes of instances the material organization, or combination aforesaid,
remains the same immediately after death as immediately
before it, all development of sensation and of the laws of
life cease to be exhibited the moment that death ensues.
The material philosophy can furnish no satisfactory answer
to this reasoning, and in view of it we may here advert to
the annihilation theory a little further. Its advocates, as we
have shown, frankly admit that the soul is wholly exterminated at death, and that the same soul is not necessarily restored to the body. The soul, they say, is merely the breath;
and of course it would be absurd to suppose that man is to
breathe over again after the resurrection the same breath
which he now breathes. All thought, sensation, and being,
therefore, utterly perish at death. How, then, is personal
identity preserved    This question is a vitally important
one in the discussion, and may be best viewed in the light




46         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 13.
of an illustration. An analogous illustration may be found
in the production of sound by a bell. Suppose that yesterday such a sound was produced, which, after existing a short
period, passed out of existence; then suppose further, that
to-day a similar sound is produced; would it be proper to
assert that the sound thus produced to-day is precisely the
same which was produced yesterday. It would not, of
course, be proper, for every child could see that they are
numerically distinct and different. And though there may
be points of resemblance, both numerous and striking, yet
in no conceivable way can they be regarded as the same.
Hence the sound produced to-day is an entirely new sound.
Now apply this to the case in hand. At death the soul goes
entirely out of existence. Its consciousness is extinguished,
and it is no more in any sense of the word. But suppose
that after it had been thus blotted out of being, God should
produce another, as much like it as possible, and breathe it
into the body at the resurrection? It is self-evident that
this new soul is no more the same with that which existed
previously than that the sound made from the bell to-day is
the same which was produced from it yesterday. Are we
to suppose then that a just God would, at the resurrection
of the body, create a new soul, with new thoughts, and then
hold it personally responsible and annihilate it for the acts
of an old soul which existed and had been annihilated centuries before, and with whose acts it could have no more
connection than Adam at the moment of his creation could
have had with the previous acts of the fallen angels?
Some, who have evidently felt the force of such like considerations, have sought to escape from the absurdity by
inventing the idea of the lethargic sleep of the soul, or the
suspension of its consciousness between death and the resurrection. But how can this help the theory in question? If
the soul thus sleeps, then of course it must sleep either in
the body or out of it. If it sleeps in the body, then it would
be well for our antagonists to make known the principle on
which they venture to pronounce the body to be dead. If




~ 13.         STATE OF THE QUESTION.               47
the soul is the life of the body, (as they affirm,) and if the
soul remains in the body, then the life is in the body, and
of course the body is not dead, for a human body cannot be
both dead and alive at the same time. Hence it is wicked
for our Materialist friends to bury their dead, inasmuch as
it is wicked to bury any one with the life in him. Moreover, how can the soul sleep in the body when there is no
body for it to sleep in? for instance, when the body, as in
the case of Wyckliffe and the martyrs burned at the stake,
has been utterly destroyed. The idea of sleeping in the
body, when there is no body to sleep in, is an inconceivable
absurdity. But if, on the other hand, the soul sleeps out of
the body, then, of course, it is sejparable from the body, and
consequently the whole materialistic theory, that it is merely
a result of organization, and inseparable from the body, is
unfounded and false.
There is an interesting corollary which here suggests itself, at which I shall just glance in passing. If the soul be
merely the effect of corporeal organization, it of course partakes of the qualities of the body. Hence it partakes of
the changes which the body undergoes in the attrition and
replacement of particles. The change consequent upon such
attrition and replacement is generally thought to be completed once in seven years. As the soul, therefore, is a
constituent part of the material of which the body is formed,
it changes along with the body, and of course its conscious
personal identity must likewise change. For no man could
rationally entertain the idea that a soul could be conscious
of the truth and reality of a personal identity which had no
existence whatever. If, for example, the aforesaid sounds of
a bell were endowed with self-consciousness, it would be inconceivably absurd to pretend that the sound which was
made to-day could be conscious of being the very same
sound that was produced yesterday. Hence, therefore, according to this theory, every man has an entirely new soul
once in seven years; and a man of fifty years has had seven,
and a man of seventy, ten. The topic is suggestive of many




48          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 14.
other equally interesting reflections, but we must pass on to
the positive argument.
~ 14. ARGUMENT I.-The Nature of the Soul considered.
Should we, for the sake of the argument, even concede the
assumption that the soul is material, it would by no means
follow from thence that it must necessarily be mortal, for
matter of itself is not necessarily destructible. The idea of
the nature of the soul, as presented in the traditions of all
nations, and as contemplated by the great mass of the people
in every age, is, that it is of a texture refined, ethereal, or
spiritualized, and that the death of the body does not interrupt its conscious existence. The universality of this idea,
independently of the sanction afforded it by the word of
God, is, as Dr. Good well remarks, no small presumption of
its being founded in fact.* As to the essence of the soul,
however, (which Cicero seems to confound with its nature,)
we shall say nothing, for on that subject we are willing to
confess our ignorance. But as to its nature and attributes
we may without presumption speak with confidence.
The soul is essentially active, and is therefore neither a
result of organization nor a function of the brain. For, as
already remarked, its attributes are entirely different and
distinct from all the known attributes of matter, in whatever
way matter may be supposed to be compounded or organized. Hence Dugald Stewart has justly remarked, that,
"of all the truths we know, the existence of mind is the
most certain." Our senses, so far as they relate to our
physical organization, are dependent for their exercise upon
impressions derived from external things. So that, for example, if light were annihilated, sight would necessarily be
extinguished.  But mind is not thus dependent on external
things. We can, in all the intensity and vividness of present
reality, recall the past, and anticipate the future; and there
is every reason to believe that the soul would still retain
* Book of Nature, p. 331.




~ 14.        NATURE OF THE SOUL.                  49
possession of its conscious existence, with the undiminished
activity of all its powers, if the whole material universe
were blotted out of being.
An illustration of this idea was some years since published
in the medical journals, and is referred to by Dr. Aber.
crombie.*
A gentleman in France, through an attack of illness, lost
every corporeal sense except feeling, and that continued only
in one side of his face; and yet his mind was manifestly unimpaired, and his family acquired a method of holding communication with him by tracing characters upon the part of
his face which retained its sensibility.  Another fact of the
same nature, respecting a youth in our own country, has
been recently published. And how, I ask, will our antagonists explain such facts on the principles of their theory?
How ineffably absurd would be the supposition that all the
intellectual powers, the mental activity and volition, were
dependent for their entire existence upon a piece of cuticle
some two inches in diameter, which, of all the body, alone
retained its sensibility, and that so soon as its susceptibility
of sensation ceased all those powers should of necessity be
blotted out of beings  The fact is, however, wholly destructive of materialism; and even this mode of explaining
it could not be resorted to without abandoning that theory.
But further. Agreeably to what are regarded as established laws of nature, we have, as already remarked, lost
several times over, a great part or even the whole of our
bodies, by that never-ceasinig attrition or wearing away
which is in every part.  We can also easily recollect when
our bodies were in bulk considerably less than now. Yet
we feel most fully assured that we are now the very same
beings that we were then; and if we look back upon any
action of our childhood we are perfectly assured that we, and
not another person, were the author of it. Hence it is clear
that there is an obvious distinction between a living agent
and a material body with which he may be associated or
* Inquiry, part ii, sec. 1.
4




50          II0MMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.            ~ 14.
connected. And if so, that material body may be removed
and destroyed without at all impairing the consciousness of
the living agent or any of its powers. The fact that in the
one case this removal takes place gradually, by the attrition
and replacement of particles, and in the other immediately,
(as in death,) does not in the least affect the question. For
we know that the loss of a limb, or even of all the limbs of
the body, may take place suddenly without any impairing
of consciousness. And in dying it often happens that the
warmth of life has ceased in the whole body, (except in the
region around the vitals,) which has become insensible and
inactive, and this without at all impairing the consciousness
or the intellectual powers. We find also within us a faculty
to perceive objects in as strong and lively a manner without
our bodily organs as with them, (things, too, which are
equally the object of our desires and aversions,) as, for example, in dreaming. Now what have our external organs
or our corporeal organization to do with this power? Plainly
nothing. They neither assist nor hinder its exercise. How
then or in what way could it affect this power, supposing all
our bodily organs to be paralyzed or destroyed?2   And
then further. A mortal disease which by degrees consumes
and prostrates the body, and finally destroys it, does not
necessarily affect our powers of thought and reflection.
While the body is thus consuming we can exert those
powers as fully as ever, and even up to the very instant of
death itself.
It were, easy to expatiate on these considerations, but it
is needless, for no candid mind that is capable of reflection
will deny their force as arguments against the theory of
materialism. But let us now consider the grounds upon
which our opposers attempt to invalidate them.
The foregoing considerations completely obviate the objections urged by M. 24, 25; S. 6; D. 93-95, (and in
other recent publications,) against this branch of the argument from reason, except in the instance of the attempted
* See Butler's Analogy.




~ 14.           OBJECTIONS-LOCKE.                   51
reductio ad absurdum from the case of brutes;* but there
is another objection insisted upon, and which, calls for some
notice in this connection.  It is based upon a remark of
Locke, that the soul cannot be essentially active because
thought may be, and often is, suspended by sleep, swooning,
and other causes producing apparent death. But the remark is based upon a mere assumption.  Locke affirmed
that he seldom or never dreamed, and thence inferred the
suspension of his mental powers during sleep. The conclusion, however, confuses the very obvious distinction between dreaming and the remembrance of dreaming.  Had
he said, " I seldom have any recollection of having
dreamed," he would have said all that the facts warranted.
And he would, moreover, have avoided the confusion and
contradiction in which he involves himself by his speculations on this subject.  For example, he makes personal
identity to consist entirely in consciousness, so that if our
consciousness at any time ceases, our personal identity is
destroyed, and we cease to be the persons we were previously. And yet in his speculations on the subject before
us, he insists that consciousness ceases during sleep, and of
course it follows that our personal identity is suspended
every night.  Locke knew, however, that if he did not
dream, others did, and that, consequently, sleep does not
necessarily suspend the mental powers.
In respect to his reasoning on the subject, J which
prompted a careful examination of it in its application to
my own experience, I am forced to conclude, after more
than twenty years' close scrutiny, that the mind is never
really inactive during sleep. In no instance have I ever
been aroused, even from the profoundest slumber, without
a full consciousness that during the sleep the mind was
actively employed, and without being clearly cognizant of
the thoughts which were occupying it previous to and at
the moment of waking. But unless the dream itself aroused
* We shall consider this in the sequel.
t See Essay, B. II, chap. i, ~~ 10-17.




52           IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 14.
me, I have generally found in such cases that the first impression which entered the mind from the external world,
after I had become consciously awake, scattered those sleeping fancies so utterly that it was impossible even to tell
what they were. If the thoughts, however, had been of a
deeply interesting and exciting nature, their effect was in
various ways clearly perceptible; but what they were I have
frequently found it impossible to trace, and the remembrance of the fact that I had been thinking alone remained.
And so, too, if the waking were gradual, the fancies and
images would often vanish in the interval, leaving no legible
trace upon the memory after I had become fully aroused.
I thus refer to my own experience because I can speak positively in regard to it. But I have satisfied myself by conversation with numerous individuals that the same thing is
true in regard to others.
That Locke, notwithstanding all his protestations to the
contrary, did confound the distinction between thought and
the remembrance of thought, is clear and undeniable.  I admit that he did not remember the thoughts of his mind
during sleep, and that the same may have been true in the
other cases to which he refers; but I deny that their mental
exercises were then suspended.  I deny that any person
is warranted on such grounds to assert that during his sleeping hours his mental operations are ever wholly suspended.
Few men remember even what were their waking thoughts
an hour ago, and it is with them a matter of inference that
they did then think at all.  Are we warranted therefore in
the conclusion that at the time referred to they had no
thoughts, and that the mind's activity was then suspended,
because no perceptible traces of thought are left upon the
memory. The conclusion in the one case is as sound as in
the other.*
* Dr. Abercrombie (Inquiry, p. 218) says: "There can be no doubt
that many dreams take place which are not remembered, as appears from
the fact of a person talking in his sleep, so as to be distinctly understood,
without remembering anything of the impression that gave rise to it."
And were a somnambulist to deny that he ever walked in his sleep,




~ 15.           HUMAN ASPIRATIONS.                   53
*The same considerations will apply in reference to
asphyxia, coma, and "trances," and suspension of vitality
from drowning or from a stunning blow. There is under
this head the most undoubted authentic testimony of facts,
evincing that in these states the mental exercises are not
necessarily suspended. As I shall have occasion to refer
more particularly to the matter in another branch of the
argument, it is sufficient here to remark, that the fact is
established, beyond the power of any fine-spun philosophical
theorizing to explain away, that none of these conditions
necessarily involve a suspension of the activity or operations
of the mind. It is no answer to such an argument to reply
that in some such cases the powers of the soul appeared to
be suspended, or that the mind itself did not afterward
recollect its thoughts and feelings; for all this may be true,
and yet it may also be true that the activity of the mind
had not been suspended at all.  A well-established veracious and positive statement in the matter is of more worth
than a thousand that are merely negative.
~ 15. ARGUMENT II.-The Nature of Hzman'Aspirations
and -Desires.
The immortality of the soul may be clearly inferred
also from the nature of its aspirations and desires. These,
though now affected by sin, (for man has fallen from his
pristine state of holiness and peace with God,) were originally impressed upon our being by the Creator; for we
find them as universal as the race of man. It is the nature
of man to hope for and aspire after immortality, and many
of the innate desires of his soul can find nothing in the
present life which adequately corresponds to their nature,
or by which they can approximate a full fruition.
We need not confine the argument, therefore, to the
natural desire after immortality, for it is susceptible of a
far wider application.  Consider, for example, the desire
because he had no recollection of having done so, he would reason just as
conclsively as Locke has done; but what would his conclusion be worth 




54          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~15.
after' knowledge. It is perfectly insatiable; for no sooner
have we made one advance in science, or attained to one
discovery, than we find our appetite whetted for a still
farther advancement, and the desire for knowledge only
increased. It is renewed with an ever-increasing vigor as
often as it attains the object of its pursuit, while new wishes
likewise perpetually spring up within the soul at every
step of our advancement, and they thus accompany us from
the very dawn of our earthly life until its close.
Since, therefore, these desires never end in full fruition
here; since no object in this life can fully satisfy the longing
aspirations of the soul, and since man is perpetually looking forward to anticipated fruition, are we to conclude that
God has implanted them  within us with no intention to
gratify them, but merely to torment and make us miserable and discontented, as he must do if the theory of our
antagonists be true? or shall we conclude that the present
life does not limit the existence of man?
Can any one seriously suppose that of all God's creatures
on earth, man should be the only one who possesses faculties without the power of obtaining the end for which those
faculties were obviously given?  or that he alone should
possess an instinct without the power or opportunity of
satisfying its instigations? as must be the fact if at death
he passes out of existence. This indeed would be to render
his condition more deplorable than that of the brutes themselves.* The silk-worm, for example, by the force of instinct, will spin its cone and shut itself up therein, and the
moth, and butterfly, and dragon-fly, and myrmeleon formicaleo obey a similar instinct; but do we find the instinct
ever disappointed? No, in no instance; and we are assured
that a holy and good God would not give even to his
meanest creatures such an instinct if it were not designed
to be gratified. And would he thus care for the less and
disregard the greater? Who can believe it? If, then,
human existence is to terminate at death, why are there
* See Sturm, p. 197.




~ 15            HUMAN ASPIRATIONS.                     55
implanted within our souls desires boundless as infinity,
and inclinations which nothing in this world can gratify?
and why have we faculties which are ever grasping after
something not to be found on earth? Has God then endowed us with these that they may be our tormentors, and
so rendered our condition pitiable in proportion to our elevation above the merest insect in the scale of being? Atheism itself could suggest nothing more vile than this against
the character of our Creator.  Man therefore ceases not to
exist at death.
The manner in which this argument, in its analogies and
other branches, is attempted to be set aside by our antagonists, is not very favorable to their high assumptions of
candor and logical acumen.  They have labored the point
with much earnestness, but with a success which will be
apparent presently.*
At the outset these writers, in general, boldly deny that
all nations believe the soul to be immortal, and adduce the
testimony of Dr. Whately to sustain them in the denial, a
matter which we shall fully consider in our next chapter.
They affirm, likewise, that immortality is suspended upon
conditions which render it merely contingent.  This, however, is a fallacious attempt to connect metaphysics with the
testimony of revelation on a point where the very conditions
of the argument require that they should be separate. Such
efforts to perplex a plain question do not evince an overanxious desire to meet a fair issue.  When, however, these
writers come to present the argument itself, in order to give
it a professed refutation, they state it in the following terms:
"As employed by all who lay any stress upon it, it stands
thus: all men are immortal, because they desire immortality." (D. 97.)  In like manner S. 5 remarks: "This argument can avail nothing unless it can be proved that what
* See D. 95-99, 103, 104, and S. 5. As Mr. Dobney has labored the
argument from reason more fully than the other writers of this sect, and
as his work is their text-book, I shall throughout this branch of the subject bestow particular attention upon his lucubrations.




56          I}IIMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 15.
men desire they will possess." Such is their version. But
let the reader turn to the argument as we have plainly and
succinctly stated it, and then judge whether the above representation (unfair in the statement it presents, and false in
the issue) is the result of misapprehension or intentional
evasion.  Its glaring unfairness would justify us in passing
it without remark.  We shall not do this, however, but
proceed to meet the issue as they have presented it.
The whole corps of these writers concede that men universally desire immortality; but as an offset to this they
affirm that " all, by the very constitution of their minds, desire happiness, yet multitudes neither are nor tuill be hapopy."
And moreover, that as this desire of happiness proceeds in
like manner from the Author of the mind, if it of itself does
not prove that all will be happy, so neither does the universal desire after immortality prove that all will be immortal.
Such is their argument and analogy. But what is happiness? It is that state which is most agreeable to the nature
of man as God originally created it. This, by the overtures
of the Gospel to us in our probationary state, is put within
the reach of human attainment.  Of course, therefore, the
force of the foregoing objection is this: that because the attainment of such a state of being is placed within the reach
of man, and is the object of universal desire, (though " many
will not be happy,") therefore the continuance of our existence itself, being a like object of desire, is also conditional.
Such is the foggy atmosphere into which we are to be led in
order to see the connection between a premise and conclusion which have not the slightest relation to each other.
Does the human soul spontaneously shrink from the indulgence of its evil passions (the true and acknowledged ingredients of unhappiness) as it shrinks from the idea of the
loss of being? This will not be pretended even by our antagonists.  Why then should they attempt to perplex these
plain distinctions?
Mr. Dobney (p. 99) endeavors also to point out an inconsistency in the above argument, from  the fact cheerfully




~ 15.                OBJECTIONS.                         57
conceded by us, that the vicious would in general regard annihilation as a relief.*  But this is equal to the rest of his
logic. His argument, drawn out into a syllogism, would
stand thus: All men desire a continuation of existence, and
shrink from the idea of losing it. But the vicious, under the
apprehension of a just judgment to come, and of eternal retribution for their crimes, would regard annihilation as a relief, and the prospect of it as an encouragement to persist in
their sins. Therefore they contradict themselves who say
that such depraved beings have a natural desire after immortality. Such is the miserable logic by which no small num.ber of blood-bought souls have been led into the paths of
ruin and of death.
The attempt to meet the argument from  the analogies in
nature (to which we have referred above) is equally evidential of egregious unfairness, or of a most imbecile logic.
The real issue is this: God does not disappoint the instincts
implanted in the lower orders of animated nature, and therefore it is not to be supposed that he would disappoint the
native and instinctive aspirations of a higher order.  In
meeting this Mr. Dobney  remarks that there  are not
many  such cases in nature as the chrysalis, "while the
overwhelming preponderance of facts is on the other side;
and that, too, in reference to the higher orders of animals
which, when they die, never present themselves again upon
our path." (Pp. 103, 104.)  Now  does Mr. Dobney know
* They have always so regarded it. The profligate Catzllus, (a proper
representative of this class of character,) in writing to his mistress, could
comfort himself and her in their iniquity, with the consideration that
they should pass out of existence at death. He held precisely the Annihilationist psychology:
" Vivamuns, mea Lesbica atque camemsus.
Soles occidere et redire posnnt:
Nobis curm semel occidit brevis laXe,
Noxo una perpetua dormiendar est."
This was all the consolation they needed to encourage them to continue
in sin without apprehension of future consequences, and it is sufficient
for wicked men now; for such never trouble their thoughts with the question whether the  ktaghteous shall live again. They need only to be per



58          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 16.
that these " other animals" have an instinct similar to that
of those to which we have referred in the argument? If
not, what have " the facts" in their case to do with the argument?  And why will he persist to trifle in this manner?
He next objects that these analogies do not apply, for
the chrysalis remains undecomposed and retains vitality,
while the human body really dies and yields to corruption.
Now the chrysalis, Mr. Dobney being judge, does retain
its vitality until it " returns upon our path." And is it not
puerile to pretend to meet such an analogy by saying that
the human body does' not retain its vitality?  Who, pray,
has ever said that it did?
The last objection is, that after the butterfly returns to
life it comes to "a complete and final end."  Admitted;
but what has this to do with the argument or analogy?
Does this fact conflict with any instinct implanted within
the insect by its Creator? If not, in what way does the
remark bear upon the question? And yet these are the
best and most highly lauded specimens of Annihilationist
reasoning on the subject.
~ 16. ARGUMENT III.-The Powers and Capacities of
the Soul.
While we would not lay an undue stress upon the argument for immortality from the nature and reason of things,
it could hardly be expected that in presenting that argument we should overlook the considerations suggested by
the topic to which the present section is appropriated. The
capacities of the soul, as illustrated by the sublime discoveries and noble inventions to which mind has advanced the
arts and sciences, may surely be adduced in proof of its
immortality; for who can suppose that such powers were
conferred for the merely temporary use to which they are
appropriated during the present brief span of our existence?2
suaded that they themselves shall at length pass utterly out of being.
And the doctrine of our annihilation friends comforts them with the assurance that their hopes are well founded, and will be realized.




~ 16.        CAPACITIES OF THE SOUL.               59
Inferior animals, through their senses and instincts, may in
such a term of life fulfill the purpose of their creation. But
is it conceivable that the incomparably nobler powers of
man, and "those thoughts that wander through eternity,"
can have no higher design than the instincts of the brute?
and that in the same sensual world, and in a like groveling
manner, (for this is even so if Annihilationism be true,)
they are to fulfill the end or object of their existence? Can
this be supposed in relation to any of the family of man?
The supposition cannot be rationally entertained without
the assumption that the vast and apparently unlimited
capacities of the soul, and its capability for making a perpetual progress toward perfection, have been called into
being by an all-wise Creator without an adequate object to
be secured by means of them, and therefore that they have
been bestowed to all intents and purposes in vain.
To illustrate: Even in the present fallen state of our
nature, and when the soul is united to an unwieldy frame,
there is no end to its desires after knowledge, and no exhausting its powers in the acquisition.  Up to the very
moment of death it is found to be still as capable as ever
of augmenting its intellectual stores, and of pursuing those
ardent and still increasing desires after both mental and
moral perfection which hitherto had actuated it throughout
its course. Death might, with some little show of reason,
be deemed the end of those capabilities, if they were then
as perfect in their development and aims as they could be.
But who can seriously believe that such faculties, such transcendent capacities, found too in unimpaired and perfect
existence at the last moment of their connection with this
earthly life, should be called into exercise for no purpose
that might not be equally answered by the groveling instincts of the brute? that a thinking, rational being, whose
faculties have, till the moment of death, merely begun to
develop their capacity, and excellence, and who has just
begun to look abroad upon the handiwork of his Creator,
-that a being thus richly endowed, and capable of a con



60          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 16.
tinued progress in improvement, and of passing onward
without limit or end, from one degree of perfection to
another, should, at the bare commencement of its existence,
droop and vanish away into utter nothingness?  There is not
in all the works of God a single analogy to sustain a supposition like this, and it is rather too much to ask reflecting
minds to assent to it merely because it is demanded by the
exigencies of a gloomy, ill-digested, and atheistic theory.
The offensive manner in which Mr. Dobney and his associates (in their effort to rebut these considerations) perpetually repeat the assertion that the advocates of immortality employ mere rhetorical flourishes in lieu of argument,
merits a pointed rebuke. It is one of Mr. Dobney's frequently occurrent and very small attempts to enlist the
sympathy of readers on his own behalf, and to awaken their
prejudices against arguments which he is unable to refute.
In an issue of such transcendent interest as the present, a
course of procedure like this cannot be too strongly reprehended.
The true issue of the argument before us has been plainly
stated. Does not the possession of such intellectual powers
and capacities, they being moreover in the mere process:of
development, and before a thousandth part of theii riches
has been displayed, legitimately infer that the creature thus
sublimely endowed by a wise and good God is not to pass
from such a condition into nonentity?  But Mr. Dobney,
who has presented the strength of the negative side, (though
he misrepresents the point really at issue,*) raises the following exceptions to the conclusion:
1. That " if some men have exhibited great capacities, it is
an almost infinitesimally small proportion of mankind," and
consequently, " if stress be laid upon the intellectual capacity
exhibited by some, the same amount of stress may be fairly
laid on the incapacity of others, to prove the opposite." The
sophism here, however, consists in confounding the idea of
non-exhibition of capacity with that of destitution of capacity,
* D. 99-108.




~ 16.               OBJECTIONS                      61
and is but another instance of a logic arrogant and presuming
in proportion as it is helpless and imbecile. Are we to presume, then, that every characteristic tendency and potentiality of our nature must be everywhere efficaciously active, in
order that its existence may be known or verified? Suppose that all men do not exhibit the capabilities referred to,
what connection has this with the conclusion that man as
man does not possess them?  Were Mr. Dobney, for instance, to visit a manufactory of chronometers, in which he
saw some score or two of the instruments measuring time,
and some thousands of others lying upon the shelves in silence, would he be satisfied with the argument of an individual who might be present, and who should say to him,
that "if the few watches which are running prove that
watches in general are endowed with the capacity for measuring time, certainly the vast number of them which are not
running prove a fortiori that watches in general have no
such capacity?" The cases are parallel, so far as the point
in question is concerned; but would Mr. Dobney regard
such a conclusion as other than simply ridiculous 3 It is,
therefore, a perfectly legitimate conclusion, that because a
portion of our race has evinced the possession of the aforesaid high and noble capacities, therefore similar endowments
belong to all men. Man is a species; and God has made
of one blood all nations of men to dwell upon all the face of
the earth. Then, further, Mr. Dobney misrepresents the
argument itself to which he objects. That argument does
not assert that all men have equal capacities of the kind referred to; but all men have such capacities, while the lower
orders of animals have them not; all men are in some degree capable of progress in knowledge; of discovering, in
venting, and achieving progressively till death; and to object,
therefore, that some men only have exhibited extraordinacry
capacities, is trifling with the question.
2. His next objection is, that "it would be greatly more
reasonable to suppose that God would connect continued existence with moral excellency rather than with intellectual




62          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 16.
power," because an excellence which is merely intellectual
is conceded to be inferior to that which is moral. But we
may well ask, What has all this to do with the question relating to the capacities aforesaid? And how does the fact
that continued existence is connected with moral excellence
evince that it is not also connected with intellectual capacity?
Such exceptions have the appearance of trifling with the issue. I would, however, in this connection, most pointedly
deny the assumption of Mr. Dobney, that it is more reasonable, or reasonable at all, that continued existence should be
connected with moral excellence rather than with intellectual
capacity.  The reasonable thing is that God should connect
happiness with moral excellence in moral beings on whom
he has bestowed such rich and noble endowments. And
then further, as illustrating the vague and indeterminate conceptions with which Mr. Dobney has entered into the inquiry
before us, it may be remarked that, according to the theory
of himself and friends, God has not connected continued existence with either moral or intellectual excellence, or with
anything else; for they hold that the existence of all men is
interrupted, and that they pass utterly out of being during
the countless ages which may elapse between their death and
the resurrection.  This he professes to entertain as his matured belief. Why then speak of contin2ued existence being
connected with anything whatever?  This conscious want of
resources, apparent at almost every step of the argument,
must awaken astonishment in the reflecting mind that this
writer not only should have ventured, in such circumstances,
to assail the established belief on the subject before us,.but
that he should have presumed to call the attention of the religious world to his lucubrations.
3. The third objection of Mr. Dobney to the argument is,
that " the progress of a vast majority of mankind is downward,
and rather from the man to the brute than from the man to
the Divinity." Hence, if an upward progress proves a continuance of existence, a downward progress must prove the
contrary. This, however, is a mere evasion. Mr. Dobney




~ 17.                 OBJECTIONS.                      63
speaks of moral progress, while the argument itself is concern.
ed with intellectual.  And then, moreover, nothing is said in
the argument about progress upward or downward, but
simply of the capacity for an onward or continual progress intellectually. The question stated by Mr. Dobney, however,
resolves itself simply into this: whether God will have occasion under his government for the continuance in being of
such lost and depraved creatures as those who die impenitent. This question has no relation to the point now before
us; but we may have a word to offer on it in the sequel.
~ 17. Capacities of the Brute Creation, and the Relation of
this Topic to the Argument.
The last objection which is presented by Mr. Dobney, and
which all these writers perpetually and with no little assurance reiterate, is, that the foregoing argument proves too
much, because, if legitimately carried out, the conclusion
from it must be that brutes too are immortal, since some
of them, it would seem, are capable of acquiring knowledge
from instruction imparted by man, and also from their own
experience. And as we know not what may be the extent
of their capacity for such intellectual progress, if the aforesaid capacities prove the immortality of mind, they must
in like manner prove the immortality of all minds.
I am not unwilling to concede to the premise of this argument that it presents a difficulty which is made the most of
by our opponents.*  It is likewise presented with great
force, and for a similar purpose, by Voltaire,t and Bolingbroke,$ and by other infidels without number; while Socinus
and many of his followers took the ground that brutes are
rational creatures, and that they were destroyed in the deluge
for their own sins,~ so great was his hatred of the doe* See A. 109-114; D. 93-95 and 100-103; R. 9-12.
t Philosophical Dict., vol. i, pp. 29-32.
$ Works, vol. iii, p. 528.
~ See his Responsio ad Puccium, Opp., tom. ii, pp. 257-369. Many
of the ancient philosophers maintained that beasts have rational souls,
an opinion which I cannot see how our Annihilationist friends can reject,




64            IMMORTALITY  OF THE SOUL.                    ~ 1I.
trine of the imputation of Adam's guilt, as entertained by the
Reformed Church.  Nor can I perceive how Mr. Dobney and
his coadjutors can logically avoid coming to a similar conclusion (and the reader will, I hope, pardon my referring to
such a side issue in this connection) in respect to the moral
responsibility  of the brute  creation; for they  maintain,
and greatly insist upon the distinction, that the endurance
of actual pain or suffering is not essential to the endurance
of punishment.  In other words, that it is not necessary that
the subject of punishment should continue in existence during its infliction.*  Hence, say they, "when  the sinner is
annihilated, or everlastingly deprived of existence, he is everlastingly punished." And all this they aver in immediate
connection with the perpetually repeated affirmation that man
inasmuch as they strenuously assert the doctrine that there is no difference between the nature of the soul of a beast and that of a man, (though
Christ has said that a man is muzch] better than a brute.) Anaxayoraus
placed the difference in this, that men are able to explain their mnental
operations, and beasts are not.  Pythagoras and Plato held the same
views, while Pobphy'ry allowed them not only reason, but the faculty of
making their reasonings understood; and adds that A4potlonius Tyaneus,
Mfelampus, Tiresias, and Thiales actually knew and understood their ianguage. Stiato and Enesiemnzes may likewise be considered as advocating
the rationality of beasts, for they taught that sense could not subsist without understanding. We are told, also, that Parmesrides, Enmpedocles, and
Denocgritus taught that all beasts are endowed with the faculty of understanding.  Galen, too, seems to have been substantially of the same mind,
and maintained that they " possessed that reason which is attributed to
a soul;" while Xenocrates, the Carthaginian, supposed that they had a
religion, and were not without the knowledge of God.
At the late annual meeting of the Association for the Advancement of
Science, held in Boston, Mass., an interesting paper was read by Dr. Gibson on the language of animals. He stated that every variety of animated
being possesses some means of intelligible communication. Each creature,
by sounds or signs of correspondence, has a language understood by its
own kind, and sometimes learned by others. Emotions of caution, affections of fear, of joy, gratitude, and grief, are disclosed by single tones of
voice, or by impressive gestures, to signalize feelings strictly comlprehended and often answered. Insects and birds, fish and beasts, thus express themselves in distinct languages, signed, spoken, and sung, seen,
heard, and felt. See an interesting view of the subject in.Bayle, Crit. and
IGist. Diet., Art. Pirsei^ra and.Rora.rius.
* See M. 11, 12, 52; S. 83; H1. 1, pp. 136, 137; A. 105.




~ 17.                OBJECTIONS.                    65
is not naturally immortal, and that the sinner has no claim
whatever to live everlastingly.  HIence, it of course follows
that as brutes (possessing as they do, according to our antagonists, intellect of the same order as the human) are at
death forever blotted out of being, they too are everlastingly
punished, but whether innocently or otherwise we leave the
objector to determine.  I advert to the point, however,
merely to apprise our antagonists of what they are too
prone to disregard, that it would not be amiss for them
occasionally to make a homeward application of certain objections which they are rather fond of parading.
But what is the real force of the argument against the
immortality of man, derived from this source? " Suppose,"
as Butler remarks, "the invidious thing designed in such
a manner of expression were really implied, as it is not in
the least, in the natural immortality of brutes, namely,
that they must arrive at great attainments, and become
rational and moral agents, even this would be no difficulty,
since we know not what latent powers and capacities they
may be endowed with."  "We find it to be a general law
of nature, that creatures endowed with the capacities of
virtue and religion should be placed in a condition of being
in which they are altogether without the use of them for a
considerable length of their duration, as in infancy and
childhood, and a great part of the human species go out of
the present world before they come to the exercise of these
capacities in any degree at all. But then the natural immortality of brutes does not in the least imply that they
are endued with any latent capacities of a rational or moral
nature, and the economy of the universe might require that
there should be living creatures without any capacities of
this kind."*
A careful examination of the facts in the case will also evince
that, in the aforesaid objection,.much is taken for granted
that is wholly destitute of proof.  Some popular writers
denounce it as a shallow philosophy which denies to the
* Analogy, Part I, chapter i.... _




66          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 17.
brute an intellect the sanze in" hind as pertains to man,* and
assert that " the principle is of the samne kind, though under
a less active and elaborate modification."  But what are the
data which warrant asseverations like these?  W~hat is
meant by "kind of intellect?" and who has sufficiently
explored the intellectual world, and the essence of mind, to
justify the utterance of such a dogmatism?. or the assertion
that there is not between the mind of man and the minds of
brutes just that difference in kind which constitutes the distinction between a mortal and an immortal nature?  If
reference for proof be had to the attributes or manifestations of each, it is just on this ground that we affirm an
immeasurable distance between them.
The difference between instinct and reason is palpable
and universally admitted.  And facts alone, therefore,
which are supposed to indicate the existence of reason, are
all with which we are concerned in this discussion, for they
are the only facts to which intelligent men among our
opponents profess to appeal.
What then are those manifestations of mind in the brute
which are supposed to identify him with man in point of
intellectual capacity?  "He has reason," it is said, "and
memory, and is capable also of learning from experience
and from instruction, and therefore there can be no radical
difference between the mind of man and that of the brute."
Now, as it is confessedly beyond our power to explore the
essential nature of the intellectual world, there is but one
method by which to determine the point before us; we
must mark the phenomena of each of these orders of mind,
with their ascertained characteristics, and from these conclude respecting the nature and attributes of each, and their
likeness or unlikeness. And if this method evinces that
while brutes possess some qualities of mind in common
with man, they are utterly destitute of others, and those the
very ones which invest him with the grandeur, the responsibilities, and the destiny of a moral being, the conclusion
* See, for example, Dr. Good's Book of Nature, p. 331.




~ 17.               OBJECTIONS.                   67
is fair and legitimate, that the difference between the two
orders of mind is radical, and a difference, not in degree
only, but in kind and in nature.
Now in contemplating these orders of mind there is one
marked difference which will at once occur to the careful
observer, and which can indicate nothing less than a radical difference in kind between them.  The human intellect is of such a nature that, universally among men, there
is an aptitude or susceptibility of receiving like instruction,
and of making any attainments in theoretical and practical
knowledge which have been made by others of the race;
but the moment we cast our eye over the manifestations of
mind in the brute creation, we find an absence of everything of the kind. The wasp or hornet could never, by any
process, be taught to make wax or honey, or to construct
the honey-comb; nor the bee to manufacture the paper
which is made by the hornet or black wasp, or to construct
a nest like the hornet; nor, like the mason or blue wasp, to
form a cell of clay, and after depositing an egg therein, fill
up the cell with insects, and seal it at the top that the
young wasp might possess a supply of food until able to
provide for itself.  Illustrations of the same truth can be
adduced from all the tribes of animals, and they prove a
radical difference between the orders of mind referred to.
Then, further, that some of the tribes of animals, such as
the horse and cow, the dog and the elephant, are endowed
with a species of reason, is evident from the manifestations
they evince of possessing that attribute. The dog also gives
evidence of dreaming while asleep. But there are limits
obvious and marked beyond which this ratiocinative faculty
in them is incapable of being instructed. The horse, for
example, will give various proofs that in many respects his
mind is capable of a reasoning process, yet let him become
somewhat entangled in his harness, and though the bare lifting of a leg would disentangle him therefrom, he will yet
stand plunging and kicking till he has lamed himself or
exhausted his strength; and his reason, whatever may be




68           IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.                 ~ 18
its nature or quality, not only fails to suggest to him this
simple method of obtaining relief, but he is incapable of
being so instructed as to adopt it in like circumstances at
any other time.  Illustrations of a similar character may be
obtained fiom well-ascertained facts in the history of other
arimtals.  But the moment we pass from  these manifestations to contemplate the exercise of reason in man, we find
a radical and immeasurable distance between them.  Even
a little child, brought into circumstances analogous to those
in the case of the horse, could be easily taught to extricate
himself; not only then, but to apply the knowledge in all
similar circumstances into which he might be brought.
And this, moreover, is universally true of human nature.-*
It were easy to extend these and other not less foircible
considerations to any length in illustration of the question,
but the above are sufficient for the argument.  Brutes have
the faculty of sense, by which they perceive through its
bodily  organs (according  to the adaptation of each of
them ) the qualities of certain  objects in the material
world. They have feelings excited within them through
the perceptions of this faculty, and by the spontaneous
action of their organism, as in hunger, thirst, and the like.
They act under the impulsions of these feelings in refer
ence to the objects the perception of which impresses them;
but here their mental operations cease in respect to them.
The difference, therefore, between the mind or soul of a
brute and the intellectual capacity of man, is just what the
inspired writer declares it to be, (Eccles. iii, 21,) and is
sufficient to constitute the dividing line between the heirs
of immortality and the mere creatures of time.
~ 18. ARGUMENT IV. —The Existence of Conscience in Man.
Whether conscience (con and sci-re, to know, to be privy
to) be an original faculty of our nature, or only the general principle of moral approbation or disapprobation ap* See section iv of Isaac Taylor's Introductory Essay to Edwards on
the Will, for this and additional illustrations of the point,




1~ l8.            CONSCIENCE.                      69
plied to our actions and affections, or whether our ideas of
right and wrong are obtained through a single faculty, or
from the various powers of the understanding and will, is
a question of no practical importance to the argument.
Nor is it bf any importance thereto whether conscience is
regarded as either a faculty, or power, or feeling, or sentiment.  The admitted fact of its existence in mnqn is all that
the basis of the argument requires.
When a man has perpetrated what he feels to be wrong,
the consequent pain, grief, and indignation which are aroused
within him are altogether different from  what he experiences when he incurs unavoidable insults, misfortunes, or
calamities; for in that case he feels that he has brought upon
himself an evil which he might have avoided; and no mere
skeptical philosophy is able to override or even displace
this impressioi, unless the heart or moral nature itself has
become obdured by continued and voluntary persistence in
wrong.  If then the soul be merely the result of material
organization, (as the Materialists affirm,) the existence of
conscience becomes unaccountable, as in that case freedomr&
(the ro- avT're:ov'tov of the Greeks) can really have no
existence, since all our mental operations being indeed and
in fact necessarsy and unavoidable, it is impossible that there
should exist any consciousness that they are otherwise, as we
cannot be conscious of the actual existence of that which does
not exist.  Hence remzorse, in the proper sense of the term,
becomes an impossibility, as is indeed admitted and maintained by leading Materialists. It is obvious, therefore,
that the faculty referred to does not exist in matter, but
must be traced to some other source or basis in our being.
The fact, however, of the existence of conscience in man
is and has been admitted from the earliest ages.  And to
its existence is to be traced the idea of the Stoics, that virtue
and vice are their own reward.  Even infidels and atheists
are compelled not only to admit its existence, but to acknowledge its power.  Associated with the freedom of the
will, it is the very ground and center of man's moral




70           IMMORTALITY  OF THE SOUL.                  ~ 18.
nature. It is first occupied in ascertaining our duty before
we proceed to action, then in judging of the actions themselves when performed. It is one grand peculiarity of man,
ever pointing to and prophesying of the future. As Young
remarks:' Conscience of guilt is prophecy of pain,
And bosom counsel to avoid the blow."
A technical definition is of no consequence, therefore, so
long as the actual existence of the thing itself is admitted
and its power felt and  acknowledged.   The very  etymology of the word imports a double or joint knowledge,
a knowledge of a Divine law or rule, and also of a man's
own action, and so is properly the application of a general
law  to a particular instance of practice.*-  In its offices,
therefore, conscience appertains to the subject of right and
wrong, merit and demerit, obligation, etc., and of course
its peculiar province is the action of the will in respect to
the idea of right and wrong, praise and blame.
The fact that it is more or less under the control of our
faith, and that in some instances it has become obdured or
perverted, so as to decide erroneously, does i'ot in any way
affect the issue of the argument. That issue is based upon
the admitted fact of its existence, and that in its nature it
is anticipatory both of reward and punishment.  Its greatest
power is often felt in the hour of death.  Fearful forebodings then harass the guilty  soul.   Hence the question
arises, Are these anticipations or forebodings (based as they
are in man's moral nature, and owing as they do their very
existence to the Almighty Creator) to be regarded as false?
as they must be if the soul at death goes out of existence.
We shall advert to this again in the next argument.
* We have referred to this etymology above. It is, moreover, worthy
of remark that conscientia is a literal translation of avveir/8at, and that
both terms plainly imply something more than sinpfle knowledge, sc8ientia, Eid1tfL.  The prepositions con, and cov, signifying with, imply
here, as above stated, a conjoint knowledge, or, as the full word means,
knowledge in common vwitth anothecr.




~ 19.        PERPLEXING ANOMIALIES.                 71
Our opponents do not trouble themselves with this
argument, though Dr. Chalmers has presented it with much
force in his works, (vol. xi, p. 62,) and M'Cosh has admirably elaborated it in his "Method of the Divine Government, Physical and Moral."
~ 19. ARGUMENT V.-Perplexing Anomalies of the Present
State of Things.
The last argument which we shall present on this branch
of the subject is taken from the disordered state of the
moral world, and the unequal distribution of good and evil
in this life, all of which evince the absurd consequences of
denying the soul's immortality, and of asserting that a future
state of existence is conditioned on the conduct of the
rational creature itself. That God is the moral governor
of the world can be really denied by none but atheists.
Even Paine not only admitted the fact, but affirmed that
there is a particular Providence over the affairs of men.
Now it is obvious that the present state of things does
not accord with a perfect moral administration, unless we
regard it as merely a part of a great whole, and only the
beginning of what is to be fully developed in a future state
of being.  All moral distinctions seem to be confounded
by the manner in which men of different characters are
treated; "all things come alike to all; there is one event
to the righteous and to the wicked; to him that sacrificeth
and to him that sacrificeth not; to him that sweareth, and
to him that feareth an oath." Eccles. ix, 2. There are also
"just men unto whom it happeneth according to the work
of the wicked. Again, there be wicked men to whom it
happeneth according to the work of the righteous." Eccles.
viii, 14. The lot of the righteous is often such as we are
assured the lot of the wicked shall be, and vice versa.  Nor
can this matter be explained and justified on the assumed
principle (see D. 106-109) that virtue and sin are their
own reward, for what then becomes of the truth that sin is
pleasant to the depraved heart, and that its pleasbures may




72            IMMORTALITY  OF THE SOUL.                    ~ 19.
be enjoyed? (Heb. xi, 25,) and that self-denial is required
to abstain therefrom    (Psalm  lxxxiv, 10; Luke ix, 23;
1 Cor. xv, 19.)  But further: How would such secret retribution  answer the public ends or design of God's moral
government, and vindicate his character and uphold the
authority  of his law?  And let it be remembered, also,
that much of that which is thus called the recompense of
virtue and vice arises from  the conviction that there is a
future state.  Take away that idea, and many a wicked man
would cease to be troubled on account of his crimes.?
Hence, therefore, as there is no regular or adequate distribution of rewards and punishments in this world, and as
the moral character of God requires that there should be
such a distribution, so it follows that there is a future state
of being in which such distribution shall be recompensed,
both to the evil and the good; and not only may the aspirations of good men be referred to in support of this conclusion, but also the fearful apprehensions and anticipations of
the wicked, when a sense of guilt or, remorse for any evil
action has taken hold of them.  There is a realization of
moral responsibility in such cases, and an apprehension that
the soul shall, in a future state, eat the fruit of its own
doings,.and reap what it has sown.  No man can divest
himself entirely  of all apprehension of future retribution,
* An instance of what frequently occurs in this respect is related by
the Rev. Warren G. Jones, and. nmay serve as an illustration of the truth
of the above statement. "An aged Sabbath-breaker, when I (says Mr.
Jones) asked him one Sabbath morning what he expected would become of him, replied,' Why, I hope to be arnnihilated!' and in that hope
he went on sinning till he died, and thus obtained (according to Annihilationism) the accomplishment of his wicked desire."  See J. T. 38.
So too, Iiierocles, in his commentary on the Golden Verses of Pythagoras, says that " the wicked man would not have his soul to be immortal,
(diOdvarov elvat nrvv avrro  3bvXflv,) that so he might not abide under
pulnishment."  And Socrates says: "' If death be extinction, or freedom
from all evils, this will be good news to the wvicked.l.    (irb Phledone.) I)ionysius Halicarnasseus, the celebrated historian, also observes that, " if
the soul, when separated firom the body, perishes, it is not easy to discern how gooct men can be happy, who receive no fruit of their virtue
here, but often perish by it." (Antiq., lib. viii, p. 539.)




~ 19.         PERPLEXING  ANOMALIES.                 73
or of that anticipation of something after death which leads
men
" To rather choose to bear those ills they have
Than fly to others that they know not of."
They themselves, therefore, are conscious that they do not
meet the full recompense of their crimes in this world.
These anticipations are common alike to the pagan and the
Christian world.  And as God has not implanted them
within the soul merely to delude and deceive us, so they
are a proof that it shall pass into another state, where those
apprehensions shall be realized, and where exact justice shall
be done to the evil and the good. Such distribution, therefore, according to the innate conviction of all men, is merely
deferred until man shall have passed through his present
state.  This conclusion cannot be avoided, and hence it is
manifest that there is a future state for both the righteous
and wicked. This is the only solution that presented itself
to the mind of Asaph, (Psalm lxxiii,) and the only satisfactory solution that can present itself to the mind of any man.
Mr. Dobney, though he has not by any means stated the
argument in its real strength, yet confesses that it is the
strongest and most satisfactory argument that reason can
adduce, (p. 105,) and is willing that the conclusion, " there
remains therefore another state in which all shall be adjusted," shall stand as a logical conclusion from  "good reasoning."  He justly concedes this to the argument, for
what man of but moderate intelligence and reflection can
concede less.  Let us therefore now attend to the methods
by which he endeavors to obviate its application to the point
we are maintaining.
His first exception is based upon the distinction which he
makes between a future state and immortality; as man may
live in a future state and yet not live forever.  He therefore
admits that the argument renders a future state "probable,
even in a high degree," but claims that it does not show that
man must live forever, in order that the anomalies of threescore years and ten might be rectified. (Pp. 105, 106.)




74          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.                 ~ 19.
As my design here is to consider the theory of our Annihilation friends, I shall not stop to claim for this argument
more than is thus conceded. How, then, does this concession
bear upon the theory of Mr. Dobney and his friends?  They
maintain that the wicked are to be annihilated.  This annihilation takes place at death, from which, some of them say,
the wicked are not to be raised, though the majority maintain that while the wicked are annihilated at deati they are
to be hereafter raised from  the dead in order to be annihilated over again.* Now, let it be here observed, 1. That
while the argument confessedly renders a future state of retribution in the highest degree probable, there is not the
least principle in nature which would lead to the supposition
that in that state of being our existence is to terminate. A
future state of existence being granted, therefore, the burden
of proof is with those who affirm  that our existence will
then terminate.  Then all analogy is against it.  If in this
world our existence is not terminated, but survives all the
changes through which we pass, and~to which we have referred above, it is fair to infer that it will continue in that state
upon which we confessedly enter at death.
Further, experience teaches that matter is imperishable.
No process is known by which it can be annihilated, nor can
the least conception be formed even of the possibility of its
annihilation. It is still imperishable, though undergoing
unnumbered changes in the processes of solution, evaporation,
rarefaction, decomposition, and combustion, for these processes themselves are merely the effects resulting from' the
changes which have already taken place, and which indicate
that the new combinations have been completed. "' And this
being so, how infinitely more probable is it that the mind,
which directs and controls the activities of matter, and confessedly survives the strolce of death, is likewise imperislhable?  To affirm  of the less that it is imperishable, and of
* A few references will suffice. D. 111, 164, 165, 185; C. 21, 22; Has.
25, 38; S. 14, 64; E. 234, 239; H. 2, p. 93, note; H. 1, p. 120, 142;
A. 96, 115.




~ 19.                 OBJECTIONS.                    75
the greater that it is perishable, would be to array one's self
against all the dictates of reason.  Mr. Dobney's attempted
distinction, therefore, between a future state and immortality, is od no consequence here.
But, 2. This very distinction, as made and applied by Mr.
Dobney, is based upon an equivocation.  He maintains that
something less than eternity (by which he means unending
duration) would be sufficient to rectify all the anomalies of
the present state, thus confounding the idea of rectification
with that of the non-existence itself of the subject who is to
receive it.  He moreover assumes (and this is the basis of
the objection) that time may be compared to eternity.
But suppose, for illustration, that man's probationary state
in this world should continue a thousand, or a thousand million years, that period would still bear no more proportion
to the eternity which shall succeed than the period of seventy
years would bear to it, and the objection, therefore, would
be equally plausible in that case as in this. If the objection
proves anything, therefore, it must prove that rational
creatures can never be justly placed in a state of probation.
3. The aforesaid argument, as already remarked, is conceded to teach a future state for the reward of virtue and the
punishment of vice.  Now the theory of Mr. Dobney and his
friends logically denies, save by a vain disclaimer, a future
state to the wicked; for to call that a future state which consists merely in being raised from the dead in order to be
deprived of future existence, is an abuse of language. hMr.
Dobney and his friends affirm that man passes from conscious
existence into nothingness at death, and that the doom of
the wicked is privation of existence (if, indeed, they are
raised from the dead) after the resurrection; so that if they
are not raised from the dead, the argument which is admitted
to teach a future existence is falsified; and if, on the contrary, they are raised merely to be deprived of future life,
where is there any future existence for them? They have
no existence between death and the resurrection, and after
the resurrection they have none; for these writers, una voce,




76         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 19.
teach that immediately after the Lord accepts the righteour
at judgment, he sweeps the wicked into the process of utter
extermination.  Mr. Storrs, indeed, says that he does not
know how long they may be in undergoing annihilation; but
as the Annihilationists maintain that not torment but privation of being is the penalty of sin, it is plain, on their own
showing, that the wicked, in strictness anid propriety of language, are wholly deprived of a fututre state of existence; for
to call that a state of existence which consists in undergoing
the process of extermination by consuming fire is simply
theologastrian.
I need say but little as to the character which these
views attribute to God. The penalty of sin, say our opponents, is privation of being, and not suffering or torment,
and the wicked are utterly deprived of existence at death.
Why not let them remain then in non-existenceQ? They sin
not, if annihilated, between death and the resurrection; and
why bring them into being again merely to make them perish over again? What should we think of a ruler who,
after hanging a man, would resuscitate him merely to hang
him over again? And then, if the anomalies of the present
life are rectified, as these men assert, by the salvation of the
righteous and the annihilation of the wicked, and if not suffering but privation of existence (mera annihilatio, as some
of the Socinians express it) is the design of God in inflicting
the penalty, then of course those anomalies would be wholly
rectified by raising from death the righteous and rewarding
them, and permitting the wicked to remain annihilated. The
idea that these disorders would be better rectified merely by
annihilating the wicked over again is sheer absurdity.  And
hence the foregoing admission of Mr. Dobney is fatal to his
whole theory.  He admits that the argument fairly proves
a future state of the wicked, and his theory denies that there
is substantially any such state for them.
4. In this same connection he throws out an intimation or
two which evince a consciousness on his part that the theory
of which he is the advocate is only in the process of its prae



~ 19.                OBJECTIONS.                     77
tical development.  I can, however, notice them but briefly.
And first, he denies that God is under obligation to inflict
upon the wicked all the evil that justice would allow him to
inflict, and denounces the idea that infinite or perpetual suffering can be due to a finite agent, however vile he may be.
The parentage of this sentiment it is not difficult to trace.
Well has Isaac Taylor remarked: " Every one who has reflected maturely upon. the workings of the human mind, perceives that, whether the fact be confessed or concealed, the
stress of the controversy concerning the divine mission of
Christ pends upon the doctrine of future punishment.  The
affirmations of our Lord and his apostles on this subject,
though they fall in with the smothered forebodings of
conscience in every man's bosom, give a distinct form to apprehensions from which the mind strives, by all means, if
possible, to escape, and which it will never cordially admit,
until the moral faculties be rectified.  The quarrel of the
world with Christianity comes to its issue 2upon this doctrine
of future retribution."'*
Now it is only from the word of God that we know what
the claims of Divine justice are against the sinner.  Those
claims are made known not only by the law directly, but by
the threatenings of God against sin; and if God is not
obliged to execute what he has threatened, but may remit
as much as he pleases of the punishment thus denounced, it
is plain that he is really under no obligations to execute his
threatenings at all; so that if annihilation be the penalty
against sin, he is not bound to execute it, and Mr. Dobney
and his friends have therefore no real grounds of assurance
that the wicked shall be annihilated.
That God may remit his threatenings in relation to man
in the present world is most certainly true; for here they
are mostly conditional, and mean no more than this: I will
punish you if you do not repent. (See Jer. xviii, 7, 8;
Ezek. xviii, 32; xxxiii, 8-11.) This is as it undoubtedly
should be in a state of probation. But to extend the idea
* Saturday Night, p. 219.




78          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 19.
from a probationary to a retributory state, is at war with
all the principles of reason.  The cases, so far from being in
any way analogous, are as opposite as hell and heaven.
Now it will be conceded that God's threatenings against
the finally impenitent are but the expression of his justice
against unrepented sin.  As we are not therefore to suppose
that those who die impenitent will repent and be converted
after death, so if their punishment, as denounced by justice,
be remitted either in part or in whole, we must conclude
that either God has changed, or that when he uttered the
threatening he did not design to inflict it.  Mr. Dobney and
his friends may take either alternative.
I shall not here pursue this topic further than to remark,
that either God may justly inflict upon the wicked what he
has threatened, or it is unjust for him to do so.  If he may
justly do allwthat he has threatened, then Mr. Dobney's declaration is false; but if it be unjlist, then we are of course
either under no obligation to believe the word of God, in
which those threatenings are recorded, or we are obliged to
believe that God will act unjustly. Should it be said by these
men that the finally impenitent deserve more than God will
inflict upon them, I should like to learn by what rule their
desert is ascertained, if it be not by the law of God.  And
if the law of God is to settle it, then the exception is a mere
quibble, for God will certainly execute the penalty of the
law.  And let our antagonists likewise remember that the
wicked are to have " judgment without mercy." Jas. ii, 13.*
5. The other intimation of Mr. Dobney presents an equally
striking exhibition of his theological sympathies.  In such
terms as the following he lauds the men (and their doctrine)
who taught that virtue and vice are their own reward:
" Some of the loftiest and purest minds of antiquity," " men
of noble spirits," " the elevated doctrine," "1 such noble spirits,"
"the conclusion would have been nobly denied by some of
the very best men that antiquity can produce." And all this
* See Part III, infra, in which this whole subject is thoroughly considered.




~ 20.         OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.                  79
on two pages! This "elevated doctrine" which teaches that
depraved and polluted men may indulge in whatever iniquity
they choose, provided they are willing to endure the qualms
of an obdured conscience, has found " noble" advocates also
in our own day, who, on this basis, have contended that all
men, without exception, are received at death to the pure
bliss of heaven. They will doubtless be pleased with Mr.
Dobney's eulogy.
~ 20. Conclusion of the Argument from Reason.
The manner in which our antagonists treat the argument
from reason for the immortality of the soul, is a fair subject
for animadversion.  They at the outset adopt the material
philosophy, with its endless concatenation of unimaginable
absurdities, and assume that its principles are consistent with
and based upon the dictates of reason. This assumption we
of course deny, and sustain the denial by a thorough investigation of the real facts in the case. When this is done they
thereupon vary their ground of assault, quote eminent
writers who have asserted that the immortality of the soul
cannot be demonstrated by the light of nature alone, and
then accuse us of being conscious that revelation does not
clearly teach the doctrine, as otherwise we should care nothing about the argument from reason. If, on the contrary,
however, we consent to dispense with the argument from
reason; and appeal to revelation alone, they thereupon assume that we are conscious that reason does not sustain the
doctrine, as otherwise we should not have abandoned an appeal to her decisions. Thus, whether we employ or dispense
with the argument, our antagonists pretend to find ground
fbr triumph in this controversy. To give such a procedure
a name would be a work of supererogation in the estimation
of an intelligent reader.
Now let us understand the matter fully before we proceed. I care but little, intrinsically, for the argument from
reason in its positive relation to this inquiry. But it is of
use in other important relations to it. For example, the




80         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 20.
Materialists (those who reject the Bible as well as those who
profess to believe it) assume that reason is silent on the
subject, and from that assumption infer that the doctrine in
question is false. We meet them here and disprove both
their assumption and inference. But in every case where
they are willing to rest the decision of the question on the
testimony of the Word of God, we are willing to dispense
entirely with the argument friom reason. Written revelation
is abundantly clear. and to it we of course make our ultimate
appeal. The reader will not therefore misunderstand our
design in this chapter in employing the argument from reason, or in our contemplating it under a somewhat varied
aspect in chapter iii, for the unfair procedure of our antagonists in this controversy renders it necessary; and to them
we now commend its issues, (in its relation to their own
theory,) as fairly presented by us in the foregoing pages,
while we proceed to consider, in its relations to the subject,
the next great division of the argument.




21.    EXPLANATION OF 2 TIMOTHY I, 10.           81
CHAPTER III.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE NATIONS CONSIDERED, AND
OBJECTIONS TO THIS PORTION OF THE ARGUMENT
ANSWERED.
~ 21. Early'Knowledge of the Doctrine-Explanation of
2 Timothy i, 10.
IT will be of course admitted by all who believe the Bible,
that God in the beginning made known to our first parents
the principles of moral and religious obligation. Religion,
as Butler remarks, could only have entered the world by
revelation, for nothing could. have rendered man so enlightened hereon as the Scriptures represent him to have been
in the first ages of the world, but such a revelation, or divine communication, teaching him  what was his original,
whither his end, the duties demanded of him, and the terms
on which God would proceed with him in justice or mercy.*
Such being the undisputed fact, we may fairly conclude
that whatever we find on this subject among the nations
which answers to the written revelation of God's will, must
owe its origin not to human speculation, but to the aforesaid
original communication from God to man. Before the flood
he conversed with Adam, Abel, Enoch, and Noah; and after
it with Abraham, Jacob, etc. (Heb. i, 1; Jude 14, 15.)
With Adam he conversed immediately after his creation.
The first words of the serpent to Eve prove her knowledge
of him; and Cain, after his sin, " went out from the presence
of the Lord."  Nor could Enoch and Noah have walked
with him without a distinct and accurate knowledge of
his will.
* See on this subject also the works of Dr. Ellis on the Knowledge of
Divine Things, and Whence cometh Divine Knowledge?
6




82         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 21.
It is usual with our antagonists, however, to represent as
in conflict with this statement, the declaration of the apostle
in 2 Tim. i, 10, that "life and immortality are brought to
light through the Gospel."  They attempt no thorough exegesis of the passage, but dissever a part of it from its proper
connection in the paragraph, and deduce from that part of it
their unwarrantable conclusions, and so attempt to array an
inspired declaration directly against the clearest possible
array of undisputed facts. A signal instance of such procedure is found in the recent work of Archbishop Whately.
In pp. 13-27 of his "Future State" he speaks as follows:
" We are told by the Apostle Paul (2 Tim. i, 10) that it is'our Saviour Jesus Christ that hath abolished death, and
brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel;'
that it is to him, and to him alone, that we owe this revelation-' the bringing in of this better hope'-(as it is expressed in the Epistle to the Hebrews.)  That neither Jew nor
Gentile had, or could have, an assurance of a future state but
through the Gospel, is a truth so plainly taught in Scripture,
and so filly confirmed by what we read in other books concerning the notions formerly entertained on the subject, that
its having been doubted or denied by any Christian is to me
a matter of unfeigned wonder. There are, however, not a
few who do deny or overlook this truth, I mean who maintain, or who take for granted, that the doctrine of a future
life was revealed to the Jews, and was discovered by the
ancient heathens, and consequently (for there is no avoiding
that consequence) that Jesus Christ did not'bring life and
immortality to light,' but merely gave men an additional
assurance of a truth which they already knew." "It was
then Jesus Christ who brought'life and immortality to
light,' and founded the doctrine, not on ingenious philosophical arguments, nor on obscure traditions of which no one
can tell the origin, but on the authority of his own assertions,
established by the miracles he wrought, and especially by
that splendid one of rising himself from the dead, as the'first-fruits of them that slept,' to confirm his promise to his




, 21.      EXPLANATION  OF 2 TIMOTHY I, 10.             83
disciples that he would raise up also at the last day his
faithful followers.  On the nature of that future state which
he then revealed and proved," etc., etc.  The same substantially is repeated in D. 167-176, and others.
That a celebrated scholar should, in this age of philological
and critical learning, hazard a criticism  like the foregoing,
and deduce such conclusions in the very face of the most
undeniable facts, is truly a matter of astonishment.  Had
Dr. Whately only consulted the Apocrypha, he would have
found, in its clear and unequivocal announcements of immortality and of a resurrection, that his conclusions were
utterly fallacious; or had he reflected that these doctrines
were familiar to the Jews when Christ first appeared among
them,-  he might have been led to spare his expressions of
surprise. In the passage on part of which he offers the foregoing comment, there is a clear reference to the fact that
from  the  earliest ages (as the phrase means in Greek
usage) God had given us grace in Christ Jesus, (v. 9,) and
also that this grace was manifested by Christ, " who abolished death, and' brought life and immortality to light through
the Gospel."  The term  death here refers to Gen. ii, 17,
and means the penalty of the Divine law. It was incurred
by Adam, and through him brought upon all the race. The
record of its abolishing is also given in Gen. iii, 15, the
proto-evangeliunm, as it is rightly  named.  And by this
abolishment our forfeited life and immortality were brought
to light, or brought again within our reach, and hence we
read that the people of God, under all the former dispensations, were justified by faith and died in faith. Compare
John i, 9.
The attempt to restrict the term  Gospel to the period of
* See John v, 39. So, too, Tacitus, speaking of the Jews, says: "They
think that the souls of those who perish in battle or by punishments are
eternal. Hence their contempt of ldeath."  Numenius, also, who flourished underAntoninus Pius, (in his lib. 1. De Bono,) places the Brahmins,
Jews, and Egyptians among the nations who entertain the doctrine of
Plat6 on the Immortality of the Soul. See the note of Grotius on Matt.
v, 20.




84              IMMORTALITY  OF TiHE  SOUL.                  ~ 21.
our Saviour's advent, and subsequent thereto, must furnish
matter of surprise to any one conversant with the Bible.
The mere quotation of a passage or two, and a rference to
a few  others illustrating  the subject, are all that will be
necessary to set this subject in its true light.  "And the
Scripture  foreseeing  that God  would justify the heathen
through faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham."
Gal. iii, 8. Paul, likewise referring to the rebellious Jews
who perished in the wilderness, expressly says: " For unto
us was the Gospel preached as well as unto them." Heb. iv,
2, 6.*':  Compare also Gen. xxii, 18; Heb. xi, 13, 39, 40;
I Pet. i, 10-12; John viii, 56; Luke ii, 29, 30; x, 24;
Gal. iii, 7-9, 14-18.
The Gospel in its true and proper sense is a revelation of
the grace  of God  to  fallen  man  through  a mediator.t
Hence the original, Evayy&tov, signifies good news, or glad
tiidings.
In its true as well as technical sense, therefore, it imports
* The peculiar idiom in this passage is of frequent occurrence in the
Scriptures. See, for instance, Psalm  Ix, 5; Mark xvi, 6; Acts v, 30;
x, 19; xv. 11; 2 Cor. viii, 21; Heb. xi, 40.
t The truly profound Pascal, speaking on this subject, says: "That
religion which consists in the belief of man's fall from a state of glory and
communication with God, into a state of sorrow, humiliation, and alienation from God, and of his subsequent restoration by a Messiah, les aldacys
bee  in t1/e toorhll. All things else have passed away, but this, for which
all other things exist, remains. For God, designing to form for himself a holy people, whom he would separate from all other nations, deliver
from their enemies, and lead to a place of rest, promised that he would
do this, and that he would come himself into the world to do it; and he
foretold, by his prophets, the time and manner of his coming. In the
mean while, to confirm the hope of his elect through all ages, he continually exhibited this aid to themn in types and figures, and never left them
without some assurances of his power and willingness to save; for at the
creation of man Adam was made the witness and depository of the
promise of a Saviour to be born of woman. And though men, at the
period so near to their creation, could nothave forgotten their origin, their
fall, and the Divine promise of a Redeemer, yet since the world in its
very infancy was overrun with every kind of corruption, there were. however, holy men, as Enloch, Lamech, (Gen. v, 25-31,) and others, who
with patience waited for that Savionr who had been promised from the
beginning of the worldt." (Thoughts, chap. iv, section 5.)




21.    EXPLANATION OF 2 TIMOTHY I, 10.           85
the whole scheme of mercy and salivation toward man from
the moment of its first announcement. Christ is its author,
and by it he has brought life and immortality to light.
He brought it to light first to Adam, then to Abraham and
others, and finally appeared on earth incarnate, and more
fully declared and confirmed its truth by his teaching and
miracles, and death and resurrection; and this is just
what Paul asserts in the passage under consideration.
And the rays of this Gospel, thus originally announced to
our first parents after the fall, continued for many ages to
give light to the nations, until wholly obscured by sin, and
sensuality, and materialism.
The statements of revelation on this subject ought certainly to be sufficient for any serious mind. They inform
us that when Adam, our covenant head and representative,
proved unfaithful to his trust, and by obeying the suggestions of Satan became his servant, (see Rom. vi, 16,) and
thus virtually surrendered to him that government of this
world which had been entrusted to him, (Psalm viii,)
Satan usurped the dominion, and so erected his own kingdom here. Matt. xii, 26; Luke iv, 5-7; Col. i, 13; Acts
xxvi, 18; Heb. ii, 14, 15, (where Kqd1-ro, translated
power, means kingdom or dominion. Compare Matt. xxii,
32,) and is thereafter recognized as the prince or " god of this
world." John xiv, 30, and xvi, 11, and 2 Cor. iv, 4; Eph.
ii, 2. The original constitution provided for the continuance and propagation of the human race irrespective of
their obedience, (Gen. i, 28; compare also iii, 16;) and thus
the world and its inhabitants, being severed from God and
his favor, were brought under his displeasure, and became
slaves and instruments of Satan. Hereupon, and in accordance with the covenant of redemption, the world with all its
interests was immediately placed in the hands of the Son of
God, who became our Mediator and second Adam, for the purpose of abolishing all these operations of Satan, (1 John iii, 8;
Isa. xlix, 24, 25; liii, 12,) and to subvert his kingdom and
restore earth to its pristine state; and this he will ultimately




86         IIMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 21.
accomplish, (Rom. viii, 19-23, and 2 Pet. iii, 9-17,) and then
render it back  to the immediate government of God.
1 Cor. xv, 24-28.
This work he at once commenced by denouncing Satan,
and promising a deliverer to man. (Gen. iii, 14-24.)  Thus
life and immortality were, through him, brought again to
light, and within our reach. The world is therefore Messiah's world, and all its interests are at his disposal. The
offer of deliverance could come only through him, and in
consequence of his intervention on our behalf. And all
revelations and dispensations previous to his advent were
only preparations for his manifestation to men as their
Prince and Saviour, God manifest in'the flesh.
In exact agreement with this representation we find, even
according to the admission of learned infidels themselves,
advocates, too, of the material philosophy, the doctrine of
the soul's immortality known and believed by mankind in
the earliest ages of the world. Lord Bolingbroke, for instance, declares that "the doctrine of the immortality of
the soul, and a future state of rewards and punishments,
began to be taught before we have any light into antiquity.
And when we begin to have any, we find it established
that it was strongly inculcated from time immemorial, and
as early as the most ancient and learned nations appear to
us."' Volney, too, who maintained that "the soul is but
the vital principle which results from the properties of
matter," admits that all the earliest nations taught that it
survived the body and was immortal.t "This doctrine," says
he, "was taught in India, Siam, Ceylon, Japan, China, etc.,
by Beddou (Zoroaster) 1027 years before Christ; it is
found in Orpheus, Pythagoras, and the Indian gymnosophists. Pythagoras lived in the ninth century B.C.," and
Orpheus much earlier; and the Egyptian priests recite that
Hermes, as he was dying, said: " I have hitherto lived an
exile from my country, to which I now return. Weep not
for me. I ascend to the celestial abode where each of you
* Works v, 237.  t Ruins of Empire, pp. 157-160, 162.




2~ 12.      INCORPOREAL SUBSTANCES.                87
will follow in his turn; there God is; this life is only death."
Volney avers that Hermes lived upward of a thousand
years before Christ. These admissions are important in
this connection, and their number could be increased almost
indefinitely from the writings of both ancient and modern
opposers of the doctrine of immortality.
Another point, which demands a brief notice in this stage
of the argument, is, that the doctrine of incorporeal substances was clearly understood and announced by the ancients. This is most amply demonstrated by Cudworth,-* and
it is unnecessary here to do more than merely refer to it.
The opinion that there was no other substance than that
which is palpable and material, was directly opposed by
the best of the ancient philosophers, and " condemned for a
piece of sottishness and stupidity." Plato expressly asserts
the existence of a substance distinct from body, and which
he sometimes names incorporeal substance, oi.viav aviua-.rov,
and sometimes intelligent substance, obaiav voqr7-v, in opposition to the other, which he names sensible, aiaOrri7iv; and
in this matter Aristotle plainly agrees with his master, and
asserts that there is another substance besides sensibles.  In
some of their schools it was a sort of maxim that whatever
is incorporeal must be destitute of perception and pleasure,
(as having no sensuous organs,) a maxim which Epicurus
endeavors to make the most of, and which Aristotle seems
to have sometimes  admitted; and hence that declaration in his Nicomachian Ethics, so often referred to by
Dr. Whately, who endeavors to deduce such unwarrantable
conclusions from it as we shall see on a future page.  How
extensively this doctrine of incorporeal substances was entertained by the philosophers both before and after Plato,
may be seen in the passages of Cudworth mentioned
above.
It has been asserted, and the Annihilationists have made
the most of it, that with the ancients the doctrine of the
* Intellectual System of the Universe, chap. i, sec. 18-22, 41, 42,
Works, vol. i, pp. 70-76, 110, 111.




88          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 21.
soul's immortality was always associated with that of its
pre-existence and transmigration. This however is untrue.
In the later schools of philosophy these ideas became associated, and the one was regarded as implying the other;
but it was only after they had adopted the notion that the
soul was sempiternal, being a part or particle of the Divine
substance.  Now Pherecydes Syrus, as Cicero plainly informs us,* was the first who taught that the souls of men
were eternal: Animos hoiminum esse sempiternos.  He was
the master of Pythagoras, and from this sentiment was
evolved the doctrine of transmigration.  In the same sense
also LaertiusI intimates that Thales (who was cotemporary
with Pherecydes) was thought to be the first who held that
the souls of men were'immortal, using   Oa6varof in the
sense of sempiternus, employed by Cicero, and also as related to the Divine nature. But previous to this we never
find immortality associated with transmigration. A single
fact will illustrate this: Homer, who so fully expresses the
popular idea of the immortality of the soul, yet never
in any way, either directly or by implication, intimates anything concerning transmigration.  There is not the slightest
trace of it in his works. But Virgil, his copyist, who
lived after this idea had gained entrance into the schools of
philosophy, gives it a full expression; and hence, therefore, we may see why our blessed Saviour, and his apostles
and evangelists, who address themselves not to the philosophers, but to the popular mind, always in their teachings
take for granted that the doctrine of the soul's immortality
is true, and that those to whom they in the main addressed
themselves recognized it as true. And whatever may be
the explanation of the strong. fact that all nations entertained the firm conviction that this doctrine is true, whether
they obtained it from tradition or from reason, or from a
consciousness of its truth, the fact itself is undeniable, as
we shall now proceed to show.
* Tusculan Quest., lib. i, cap. 16.  f Lib. i, sect. 24.




~ 22.           SPECIFIC TESTIMONIES.                  89
~ 22.'Specific Testimonies.
D)iodorus Siculus, cotemporary with Julius Caesar, declares
(lib. 18, cap. 1) that Pythagoras and others of the eminent naturalists, (Ovcrtwuv,) taught that the souls of men are immortal.
Lactantius, speaking of Zeno, the founder of the Stoic philosophy, says that he taught that," the abodes of good men
in Hades (inferos) were distinct and separate from those of
the wicked; the former inhabiting pleasant and delightful
regions, while the latter suffer punishment in places horrid
and dark!"*
Tertullian also remarks that the Egyptian Hermes taught
that the soul, when departed out of the body, still retains its
distinct and separate existence.t
Emspedocles also (according to Clement of Alexandria,t)
taught that " if we live holily and justly we shall be happy
here, and more happy after we have departed hence: ftalcaL?(TEqOL do 6  yes-ra R-Ejv &vO4 v&e JTrauXayljv: having our
happiness not necessarily confined to time, but being able
to rest in it permanently forever; enjoying intercourse
with other immortal beings," etc.
The Meheshtazi, who were disciples of Zoroaster, believed
on the immortality of the soul, in rewards and punishments
after death, and in the resurrection of the body; at the time
of which resurrection all the wicked would be purged.by
fire, and associated with the good."~
The philosophical Xenophon, who was born B. C. 450,
thus expresses the sentiments of Cyrus, when dying, as addressed to his sons: " Do not think that when I have finished
my life among men I shall cease to exist. During my past
life you saw not my soul, but by its actions you learned that
it existed. I never, my sons, was persuaded that the soul
lives only while inhabiting a mortal body, and dies when it
has departed thence."'
* Divin. Instit., lib. vii, cap. 7, page 369.    t De Anima, cap. 33.: Stromatum, lib. v, page 722.
~ Zend Aivesta, as quoted by Jahn, Arch., sect. 314. ~ Cyropaedia,lib. viii.




90. IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 22.
Socrates, the father of Grecian wisdom, and the greatest
of all the philosophers, taught in the fullest manner the same
doctrine. As he was about to drink the fatal draught which
the executioner had given him, he expressed his unwavering
conviction of this truth, and his full expectation of meeting
the souls of the mighty dead of former times. His words
as recorded by Plato, (Phcedo,) and addressed to Simmias
and Cebes, are as follows: "If indeed I had no expectation
of going to those gods who are both wise and good,* and
then to men who have died, but who are happier now than
those who still live on earth, I had done wrong in not viewing with anxiety the approach of death; but now, believe
me, I hope to arrive among good men. This, however, I
would not positively affirm. But be assured that I would
affirm (if I may affirm anything of this nature) that I shall
go to gods who, as rulers, are truly good. For these reasons I am not therefore concerned as I otherwise should have
been, but fully expect that there remains something for
those who have died, and something much better for good
men than for the wicked, as has been said of old:" &a7rrep
~y icat rrdRai  Xye'-rat.  Dr. Whately's remarks on this
testimony will be noticed in the sequel.
The views entertained on the same subject by Plato are
too well known to require to be specified.  Cato the
Younger, (a Stoic,) after reading with great attention his
book on the soul's immortality, committed suicide in order
to rid himself of the burden of the present life, and to enter
upon the life to come..Elian, another pagan philosopher of a later date, narrates that a person who was sorely tormented by a disease,
being asked if he were willing to die, replied: " Why not?
I indeed delight in the thought of being separated from the
body; for then I shall be with Pythagoras and Homer, and
all the great and virtuous men who have gone before me."
C'cesar, speaking of the Druids, or ministers of religion
* Such undoubtedly is the force of the words 7rapa 6eovb da2Love aooovif
re, etc., as employed in such a connection.




~ 22.       TESTIMONY OF THE NATIONS.                   91
among the ancient Gauls and Britons, says: ".Among their
leading doctrines is this, that the souls of men do not perish
at death, but pass from one body to another; thus they inspire the people with courage, and raise them above the fear
of death."*
Lucan the poet (who was slain by Nero) says of the
Druids:
" Thrice happy they, beneath their northern skies,
Who that worst fear, the fear of death, despise.
Hence they no cares for this frail being feel,
But rush undaunted on the pointed steel;
Provoke approaching fate, and bravely scorn
To spare that life which shall so soon return." t
Plutarch taught also that "it is absurd to imagine that
souls are made only to blossom and flourish for a day in a
tender and delicate body of flesh, and then to be immediately
extinguished on every slight occasion." And that "the same
reasons confirm the providence of God, and the permanency
of the human soul, and *that the one of these cannot be
maintained if the other be denied; and that since the soul
exists after death, it is probable that it partakes of rewards
and punishments."T
Dionysius Ha licarnasseus, the historian already referred to,
says: "If, along with the dissolution of the body, the soul
also, -rt  /bvX,~, whatever it may be, is dissolved, I know not
how those can be supposed to be happy who have enjoyed no
advantage by virtue, but have perished on account of it."~
Maximus Tyrius also says: "What the multitude call
death is but the beginning of immortality, and the birth
into a future life."  "The soul having put off this earthly
body becomes a demon," datlizvtov;~e a word which, though
employed only in an evil sense in the holy Scriptures, signifies among the Greeks an intermediate being between
men and the gods, and may be either good or evil.
Hierodotus also, (the father of history,) who flourished
* De Bell, Gal., lib. vi, 13.   t Pharsalia, i, 806. Rowe's Translation.
tOpp., tom. ii, p. 560. Francof, 1620.
~ Antiq., lib. viii, p. 539.  ~ Dissert, 27.




92           IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.                ~ 22.
B.C. 450, referring to the same subject, says: " The Egyptians, who first taught that the soul of man is immortal, say
that when the body is dead the soul enters into some other
living creature, as it is born in that succession which is
continually coming into existence; but when it has gone
through creatures of land and sea, and through birds, it returns into'a human body, newly born."*
Strabo, who lived at the beginning of the Christian era,
speaking of *the ancient Brahrnins, says: "According to
Megasthenes, they discourse much on death, for they regard
our present life as merely the state of creatures fully conceived, and death as a birth to that which is really life; a
life of happiness to those who have cultivated wisdlom.
Hence they are studious to prepare for death."f
Cicero also strongly maintained the doctrine of the soul's
immortality, and its separate existence after death, asserting,
too, that such was the belief of all nations. He regarded
the doctrine of future retribution as consequent upon that
of the soul's immortality, and as deducible from the attributes of God, and the condition of man's life on earth. A
brief passage or two will suffice from  his writings.  In his
Tusculan Questions, after referring to and condemning the
views of the old materialist philosophers, he adds: "But
the views of the others may afford hope, (if perohance this
pleases thee,) that souls when they have passed out from
their bodies, can enter into heaven as their dwelling
place."}  Then in his tract on Old Age, he says: " But if
I err in believing the souls of men to be immortal, I am
willing to err,~ nor while I live would I wish to have the
delightful error removed. And if I shall feel nothing whefi
dead, as is thought by some minute philosophers, I am not
afraid that dead philosophers shall laugh at me for the
error." In connection with the foregoing positive testimonies, we may here adduce facts also of another descrip* Lib. ii, sect. 123.   f Lib. xv.       I Lib. i, c. 11.
~ LZbentere rro. Wily is this always preposterously translated "I erv




~ 22.       TESTIMONY OF THE NATIONS.                  93
tion, and which furnish a further illustration of the same
point. For example, the testimony incidentally afforded
by the ancient and universally practiced art of magic has
no little weight. Of course, this art presupposes the existence of spiritual agents; though, in its widest sense, magic
is the art of performing something which surpasses the
natural powers of men, by the aid of superior spirits.* Its
first inventor, according to Pliny, was Zoroaster, who practiced it among the Persians;t and its practitioners professed to hold converse with the dead, and even to make
them appear, all of'which supposes, of course, the universality of the belief that man ceased not to exist at death.4
The same remarks apply also to necromancy, the art of
learning the secrets of the future by conjuring up the dead.
This too was generally practiced among the Orientals.~
The intelligent reader will not misapprehend the point
which these facts are designed to illustrate.  For the question is not how these processes may be explained, or whether
they were not sheer " humbucggery," (to use a very expressive Americanism,) for all this may be admitted without
in any way affecting the issue. The true point is this:
These arts were universally practiced, and flourished greatly
among all the ancient pagan nations; but as the very existence of those arts depended upon the recognition of the
soul's immortality, so the fact that they universally prevailed and flourished clearly infers the universal belief of
that doctrine. Then, again, the whole system of heathen
mythology is based upon the same doctrine. Take, for example, the sacrifices and divine honors paid to heroes and
great men after death, a practice so prevalent in every
nation of antiquity except the Jews. Prayers and sacrifices
were offered to them, which of course presupposes the full
Knapp. Theol., p. 205.     t Nat. Hist., lib. xxx, c. 1.
$ See IIomer, Odys. de Circe; Virgil, Eel. viii, 69, seq., and AEn. iv,
487, seq.
~ See Homer, Odys. 11. Comp. also 1 Sam. xxviii, and Psalm viii,
19, along with Lev. xx, 2.7, and Isaiah xxix, 4. The Jews always practised it when they fell into idolatry.




94          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 22.
conviction that their souls still existed. So too the descriptions and allusions to the subject in their approved writers
evince the universality of the same belief. But on this
topic it is needless to enlarge, and I shall proceed to cite a
few more specific testimonies.
Sir William Temple, speaking of the ancient Goths, Vandals, Lombards, Huns, etc., says: "It is certain that an
opinion was fixed and general among them that death was
but the entrance into another life; that all men who lived
lazy and inactive lives and died natural deaths, by sickness
or by age, went into vast caves under ground, all dark and
miry, full of noisome creatures, usual in such places, and
there forever groveled in endless stench and misery. On
the contrary, all who gave themselves to warlike actions
and enterprises, to the conquest of their neighbors and the
slaughter of their enemies, and died in battle, or of violent
deaths upon bold adventures or resolutions, went immediately to the vast hall or palace of Odin, their god of war,
who eternally kept open house for all such guests, where
they were entertained in perpetual feasts and mirth," etc.*
Hyde, in his learned History of the Rleligion of the
Ancient Persians,f says: " Some of them  believe that the
souls of the blessed were translated to the sun.  Such was,
the opinion entertained  by the Manichseans and other
heretics. But the orthodox, as appears by the inscriptions
in their cemeteries, asserted  that after death the soul
ascended to God, where it enjoyed a state of quiet repose
until the resurrection; that it was then reunited to a body,
and returned to this earth, which would at that time be
renewed and purified; for the Indo-Persians profess to
believe that the earth is to be formed anew at the general
judgment.  Upon the ju.dicial bridge which extends over
the gulf of hell, two angels were always stationed, having
a pair of scales, in which the merits and demerits of men
* Essay III, Heroic Virtue.
t Cap. xxxiii, p. 491. See this and other testimonies in Abercrom-:
bie's Sermon on the death of Alexander Hamilton.




~ 22.      TESTIMONY OF THE NATIONS.                95
were carefully weighed; if the latter preponderated, they
were cast down into the regions of misery'; but if the
former, they proceeded onward to Paradise."
Sir Williamn Jones, speaking of the modern Persians,
states that from time immemorial that numerous sect
whose teachers are now known by the name of Stifis, held
that the human soul is an emanation from  the Divine
essence, which for a time is separated therefrom by its
union with matter, but will return again to its original
source; and that the chief good of mankind in this transitory
world consists in as perfect a union with the Eternal
Spirit as the incumbrances of a mortal frame will allow.*
The doctrine of the modern Brahmins concerning the
nature of the soul is, according to Mr. Wilkins, thus delivered in the Bhagvkt-Geeta: "Thou grievest for those who
are unworthy to be lamented, whilst thy sentiments are
those of the wise men. The wise neither grieve for the
dead nor for the living. The man who believeth that it is
the soul which killeth, and he who thinketh that the soul
may be destroyed, are both alike deceived; for it neither
killeth nor is killed. How can a man who believeth that
this thing is incorruptible, eternal, inexhaustible, and without birth, think that he can either kill or cause it to be killed! As a man throweth away old garments and putteth
on new, even so the soul, having quitted its old mortal frame,
entereth into others which are new. The weapon divideth
it not, the fire burneth it not, the water corrupteth it not,
the wind drieth it not away, for it is indivisible, inconlsumable, incorruptible, and it is not to be dried away; it is
eternal, universal, permanent, immovable; it is invisible,
inconceivable, and unalterable; therefore believing it to be
thus, thou shouldest not grieve."
Putrchas, a most laborious researcher, gives the following
account (which he published in 1625) of the belief of the
Africans on' the coast of Guinea in relation to the same
subject: "We asked them of their belief, and what opinion
* Asiatic Researches, vol. ii, p. 62.




96         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.                ~ 22.
they had of divers things, as first, when they died, what became of their bodies and souls? They made us answer that
the body is dead, (dies;) but they knew not what any resurrection at the latter day meant, as we do; but when they die
they know that they go into another world, but they know
not whither, and that therein they differ from brute beasts;
but they cannot tell you to what place they go, whether
under the earth or up into heaven; but when they die
they used to give the dead body something to carry with
him, whereby it is to be marked that they believe that
there is another life after this, and that there they have need
of such things as they have here on earth."*
In like manner Edwards, in his History of the West
Indies, speaking of the negroes brought from the Gold
Coast of Africa, says: "They tell me, likewise, that when.
ever a considerable man expires, several of his wives and a
great number of his slaves are sacrificed at his funeral.
This is done, say they, that he may be properly attended
in the next world., This circumstance has been confirmed
to me by every Gold Coast negro that I have interrogated
on the subject, and I inquired of many."t
Dr. Robertson, speaking of the American Indians, says:
" With respect to the other great doctrine of religion concerning the immortality of the soul, the sentiments of the Americans were more united. The human mind, even when least imra.
proved and invigorated by culture, shrinks front the thought
of dissolution, and looks forward with hope and expectation
to a future state of existence. This sentiment, resulting
from a secret consciousness of its own dignity, from an
instinctive longing after immortality, is universal, and may
be deemed natural.  Upon this are founded the most
exalted hopes of man in his highest state of improvenllent;
nor has nature held from him this soothing consolation in the
most early and rude period of his progress.  We can trace
X Purchas's Pilgrims, Part II., lib. vii, e. 2, sec. 4, p. 943.
t IHist. of West Indies, B. IV, c. 3. See Dr. Abercro:nbie's excellent
sermon referred to above.




~~.i2.     TESTIMONY OF THE NATIONS.                97
this opinion from one extremity of America to the other;
in some regions more faint and obscure, in others more
perfectly developed; but nowhere unknown.  The most
uncivilized of its savage tribes do not apprehend death as
the extinction of being; all hope for a future and more happy state, where they shall be forever exempt fromn the calamities which embitter human life in its present condition."'
Peter Macrtyr, speaking of the arrival of Columbus on the
shores of Cuba, mentions that an old Indian chief, aged about
eighty years, came forward and addressed him thus: " We
have been told that with your powerful army you have
made a rapid progress through all those lands with which
heretofore you were unacquainted, and that you have greatly
terrified the people who inhabit them.  Know then by my
exhortation and admonition, that for the souls of men departed from their bodies there are two different ways of
destination: the one dark and horrible, prepared for those
who disturb and annoy mankind; the other pleasant and delightful, appointed for those who, during life, have loved the
peace and tranquillity of nations. If you will remember
that you are mortal, and that future retributions are reserved
for every person, proportioned to his present actions, you
will make no one unhappy."f
Captain Cook, in his account of the Friendly Islands, says:
"The inhabitants have very proper sentiments about the
immateriality and immortality of the soul.  They call it
life, the living principle; or, what is more agreeable to their
notions of it, an Otooa; that is, a divinity or invisible being.
They say that immediately upon death the souls of their
chiefs separate from their bodies and go to a place called
Boolootoo, the chief or god of which is Goolcho.  As to the
souls of the lower sort of people, they undergo a sort of
transmigration."1
fMr. Anderson, in his account of Otaheite, says: " The in* History of America, B. IV, c. 7. Works, p. 842. London, 1831.
$ Lib. iii, Dec. 1, p. 43, anno 1574.
$ B. IT, cap. 11, vol. i, p. 405, anno 1785.




98            IMMORTALITY  OF THE SOUL.                    ~ 22.
habitants  believe  the  soul to  be  immaterial  and  immortal."'
It were easy to add indefinitely to these testimonies; the
foregoing are, however, sufficient.
But we are told that the doctrine of the soul's immortality
could only have arisen from the speculations of men of
genius; and that it was introduced by legislators to console
mankind under oppression, or deter them from crime by
motives drawn from  future retribution.  If this be so, how
happens it that the doctrine has been universally held by all
nations and in all ages. How happens it that it has found
its way into the deserts, and has been diffused alike over the
South Sea Islands and those of the Pacific; over Lapland
and Asia, and the nations of benighted Africa? The nations
of the Society Islands entertain it, and those too of the
Friendly Islands; the New Zealanders also, and the inhabitants of the Pelew Islands, with the wild tribes of Kalmuc
Tartary, and all the wandering tribes which have peopled
and do still people the continent of America.'" E'en the poor Indian, whose untutor'd mind
Sees God in clouds, and hears him in the wind,
Whose soul proud science never taught to stray
Far as the solar walk or Milky Way;
Yet simple Natnre to his hope has given
Behind the cloud-topp'd hill an humbler heaven,
Some safer world in depths of woods embraced,
Some happier island in the watery waste,
Where slaves once more their native land behold," etc.t
To what then is all this to be ascribed?  The idea that
legislators or philosophers originated the doctrine is sheer
absurdity.1 The belief of it by these untutored tribes can* B. III, cap. 9, vol. ii, p. 164.  1 Pope.: See the latest attempt to justify this puerile conceit in a work recently
published by Mr. C. F. Hudson, called "' Debt and Grace." (Pp. 276-282.)
A learneld work this! It informs us that Achilles commanded the Greeks
at Troy, or else that Trhersites was a myrmidon, (p. 273;) that Seneca the
moralist and Seneca the tragedy-writer were the same person, (pp. 281282;) and that the celebrated reformer, David Pareuss, was a Romanist,
(p. 258.) It misquotes Aristotle, and misconstrues him most ridiculously-,
(pp. 24-5;) shamefully misrepresents YWitsius, (see title-page, and compare




~ 23.    ISSUE PRESENTED  BY  THESE FACTS.                   99
not thus be accounted for. While they every day see their
companions and neighbors die, they never see the pale corpse
revive from its corruption. Is it pride that cherishes the
fond anticipation? But is it pride that leads the unhappy
African to plunge into the waves during the middle passage,
or take his life when on the plantations, that he may return
to his country only to be captured a second time? Is it
pride, when in other nations (for example, in the Islands of
Otaheite) the hope is restricted to a renovation of the same
life that they had already led on earth? Can any reflecting
mind entertain such a sentiment 3 No; there is no sufficient
solution of the problem presented by these masses of universal testimony but the admission of the fact that the soul
is immortal, and that there is in the breast of every man a
consciousness of this truth.* In no other way can that vast
array of facts in the case be fairly and candidly met, and
rationally explained.
~ 23. Issue presented by this Argument.
I will now briefly state the issue which this argument
presents, and then the exceptions taken to its conclusions by
our antagonists.
All nations have received the doctrine of the soul's immortality.  This universal belief, therefore, had some adequate
origin; I will not say that mere unassisted reason taught it,
p. 420;) repeats the blunders of Blackbucrne in accusing Luther of holding
the sleep of the soul, (pp. 258, 259;) falsifies the views of the' German
theologians, (p. 353;) and performs a vast number of other gyrations
equally remarkable, and which it would take a pretty large volume to
expose. The book has some good points, but the material is utterly in a
crude and undigested state. It is entitled to little or no authority on the
question before us, for no dependence can be placed upon the accuracy
of its averments.
* The learned reader will be pleased to see in this connection the following: "Omeni acter in re conseesio omniuMn  geentium LEX NATURuE
putanda est."  "Natura ipsa de animorum immortalitate tacitajudicat."
(Cicero, Tusc. i, 13 sq.) So too even Seneca: " Quumn de animarum oeternitate disserimus, non leve momentum apud nos habet consensus hominum,
aut timentium inferos, aut colentium.' (Epist. 117 )




100        IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 24.
but I do say that if mere reason did not, then either it originated from a convincing universal consciousness of its truth,
or it was originally revealed to the human race, and has
been handed down in the traditions of all nations. If pure,
unassisted reason taught it, then of course it is not contrary
to, but consistent with reason. If a universal consciousness
of its truth originated the belief, then of course the conviction is based in nature itself, and is the impress of the seal
of the Creator; and if it was originally revealed to mankind,
as it undoubtedly was, (see ~ 21,) then of course God is
its author.  These are the facts, and here is the issue which
they present.
But let us now turn our attention to the exceptions taken
to this argument by our adversaries. As we may suppose,
it has greatly perplexed their ingenuity, and they are even
divided sadly as to the principle upon which it should be
met. Some of them, for example, deny the facts ins toto,
while the others freely admit them all, and in view of them
claim that the doctrine is thereby proved to be of pagan
origin. We shall attend to each of these objections, for
each has an important bearing upon the general result.
~ 24. Their Denial of the Facts.
We might naturally suppose that it would require no
trivial amount of courage to come forward and deny the
very existence of any such facts as those which we have so
fully presented in the fore-cited instances; and in view of
such denial we might be tempted to draw a very obvious
conclusion as to the intelligence or honesty of the individuals
who assume this position; but here at the outset we shall
say nothing on the subject, but permit our antagonists to
speak for themselves.
iMr. Storrs says: "There is no evidence that all nations
and people believe it. There is evidence to the contrary;"
and then referring to a passage from Socrates, in which he
is represented as saying that most men believe that the soul




~ 24.      OBJECTIONS —THE FACTS DENIED.                 101
will be annihilated as soon as it parts from  the body, he
adds: "Here the fact is brought out that, so far from  its
being a general belief that the soul is immortal, the exact
reverse was true in Socrates' day." And then, after referring to the Sadducees, he adds: " Hence there is no truth in
the argument that all nations and people have believed in
the immortality of the soul." (S. 5.)
Another of their writers thus speaks: " I question the assertion on which the argument stands.  As far as my knowledge reaches there never was, in the absence of revelation,~ a
general belief in, much less a desire for, immortality. In ancient classic lands no such belief existed," and in evidence he
adduces Mr. Storrs's quotation from Socrates. t
In the same train Mr. Dobney follows thus: "I must
profess my conviction that the only proper answer to the
present argument is a denial of the premise, for surely if
there were no such universal belief in the heathen world,
and in the absence of revelation, it were a little too much to
expect me to account for it." 
All these writers quote Dr. Whately " as a witness
eminently entitled to profound respect,"~ and the unfortunate  "Essay  on a Future  State," by that celebrated
prelate, is made to sustain unassisted the whole burden of
annihilation authorship touching this question.  We shall
therefore permit the archbishop to speak for himself, for
in showing the inaccuracy of his statements we shall of
course show the inaccuracy of all.
" When we find Socrates," says Dr. Whately, " and his
disciples represented by Plato as fully admitting, in their
* But if revelation does not teach the doctrine, how is the universality
of its prevalence among Christian nations, and the Jews, to be explained
by the presence of revelation? Will our opponents answer this question a
f M. 25, 26.        $ D. 97.
~ D. 96. Mr. Dobney quotes Dr. Leland as saying that Cicero admitted
that in his day the doctrine was denied by philosophers and learned men;
but Mr. Dobney's optics alone can discover what this has to do with the
fact that originally, and before the Epicurean philosophy came into
vogue, all nations entertained it.




102           IMMORTALITY  OF THE SOUL.                    ~ 24.
discussion of the subject, that' men in general were highly
incredulous as to the soul's future existence,' and as expecting that it would at the moment of our natural death'be
dispersed,' as he expresses it,' like air or smoke, and cease
altogether to exist, so that it would require no little persuasion and argument to convince them that the soul can
exist after death, and can retain anything of its powers and
intelligence;' when we find this, I say, asserted, or rather alluded to, as notoriously the state of popular opinion, we caln
surely entertain but little doubt that the accounts of Elysium
and Tartarus were regarded as mere poetical fables, calculated to amuse the imagination, but unworthy of serious belief."  "So far, indeed, were the promulgators of Christianity from finding the belief of a future state already well
established, that they appear to have had no small difficulty
in convincing of this truth even some of their converts."
In the same style Dr. Whately continues, and denies that
the doctrine was ever generally admitted among the ancient
philosophers.   He specifies Aristotle, also, as utterly  rejecting it, and as treating it with pointed contempt. Such is,
in all its strength, the objection to the foregoing argument,
and we shall now proceed to consider to what extent it may
be regarded as strengthening the hands of our opponents.*
As to the attempt of Dr. Whately thus to drag Aristotle,
* Dr. Moore, of England, in one of that popular series of his works
recently republished by the Harpers, thus refers to Dr. Whately's connection with the Annihilation theory: " A name famous in the subtleties of
logic is associated with the defense of this notion, but it appears as if it
had been with a total abandonment of his accustomed acumen, and in a
desperate hope of modifying the objections of Materialists to the broad
and unaccommodating language of revelation. It is a grief of soul to see
the benevolent efforts of a lordly spirit so completely defeated by the extravagance of his ready accommodation to those spiritual _pauapers uwho so
sturdily ask charity because they have no faith. Not being able to discover the least glimmering of reason to infer from the words of the
Bible, or its spirit, that man dies with his body, the gifted writer referred
to met the smiling skeptic half way, with a surmise that as the body
seemed so essential to action in this world, it might be the appointment
of Omnipotent Wisdom to keep the soul in a sound sleep somewhere
until the resurrection, when it would find itself suitably provided with




24.   OBJECTIONS-THE FACTS DENIED.    103
the pupil of Plato, into such a connection, and to represent
him  as treating the doctrine of immortality with pointed
contempt, the reader may know what to think of it presently.
Had he said that the views of that prince of philosophers
were not at all times logically consistent on the subject, he
would have asserted the utmost that facts will even appear
to justify. It is apparent to any reflecting mind, that in
the topics on which Aristotle treated, in the works which
have come down to us, there was little  call or occasion
for him  to  present his own  views of the  doctrine  in
question; and a. single illustration will show the egregious
unfairness of Dr. Whately in this whole procedure. Sir
Robert Boyle, a philosopher but little inferior to Aristotle
himself, has, like him, treated in his philosophical works*
on a vast range of topics under the general heads of physics,
pneumatics, natural history, medicine, etc., furnishing him
with frequent occasion to refer to or remark upon the subject in question; anid yet, unless I greatly err, there is but
a single mention of his views on this subject, (except in two
or three theological tracts, in vol. ii, 229-280,) throughout
the whole of his three volumes.  Suppose, now, that an individual should undertake to prove from that fact that this
pious and warm-hearted Christian philosopher disbelieved
the doctrine of the soul's immortality, he would act as fairly
as Dr. Whately has acted, and merit the same consideration.
In this illustration, however, it is admitted, for (argument's sake, that Dr. Whately's statement on the subject
is correct.  But this is not the fact, for in the treatise
De Anima,t after remarking that the powers of the mind
a machinery to work with. But this purposeless slumber of the soul served
only to excite the greater ridicule of the unbelieving and profane, ovhile
deepening the sorrow of the devout; for the notion seemed to imply that
the Maker of all worlds, being deficient in materials to employ human
and departed spirits, laid them by in dormait idleness until a new organization could be conveniently arranged for their use, which might be
after indefinite ages had rolled over their transmuted dust." (See "Man
and his Motives," by George Moore, M.D., pp. 41, 42.)
* I refer to Dr. Shaw's edition, in three volumes, quarto. London,
17388.               t Lib. iii, cap. 5.




104          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.                 ~ 24.
and body are very different, Aristotle proceeds to illustrate
the statement by referring to the senses of smell, hearing,
and sight, " which," says he, " may be so overwhelmed and
confused by too intense a manifestation of their objects as to
be unable to act; while, on the contrary, the mind call as
easily, and even more easily, from the elevating influence
of the object, conceive of and contemplate the greatest objects,
as those which ae less.  It would appear, therefore, that
while the sentient part of man is not capable of being separated from the body, the mind itself is separable," ob Agv
yap aioOrlwlc6v oov  arivev owutaTo  6~ d6 vo~S XWptor9T6; a
plain sanction of the doctrine of his master, Plato. In the
third book of the same treatise he also extols Anaxagoras
for designating the mind as something pure and unmixed
with anything, (voiv Sd/yil.)  It is true that both Atticus
and Origen accuse him of doubting or denying Plato's doctrine; but Plutarch, a true philosopher, and a far more
competent witness, represents him as teaching that " Death
pertains not to the soul, but to the body alone, for there is
no death to the soul." Odvaov ElvaLt j6vov TOV awma,T og, v
%bvyfSg, rav1Tgrf yap oivX vtraqpxet OdvaTo.-o'
In exact accordance with this, he, when elsewhere speaking of the necessary qualifications or pre-requisites of the
body, in order to its occupancy by the soul, says: " Men
are as careless on this subject as if it were even so that, according to the Pythagorean fables, any soul might enter into
any body; on the contrary, every animal as it has its
proper species, so it has its appropriate form; but those
who teach otherwise speak as if one should affirm that the
skill of a carpenter entered into a flute, for every art must
have its proper instruments, and every soul its proper
body."t While he here, therefore, allows the doctrine of
pre-existence, he repudiates the fable of Pythagoras, that
X De Placit. Philos., lib. v, cap. 25. The remark of HI-ippolytus,
charging Basilides with "1teaching the doctrine of Aristotle, the Stagyrite,
respecting the immortality of the soul," likewise deserves attention.
Basilides taught the doctrine of the soul's separate and continued existence.        1 De Anima, lib. i, cap. 3.




~ 24.     OBJECTIONS —THE FACTS DENIED.             105
the soul of a beast might enter a human body.  Then, in
another part of his works,* wherein he treats the question of the pre-existence of souls, and also whether both the
sensitive and rational souls pre-exist before they enter the
human body, he concludes by saying: " It remains therefore
that only the rational or intellectual soul enters from without, as being of a nature purely divine."
Such are the deliberate and matured views of this philosopher in respect to the nature of the soul; and what then
is the amount of the declaration in his Nicomachian Ethics,
to which we have referred already, and of which Dr.
Whately and the Materialists endeavor to make so much 3
In the chapter in which it occurs,t Aristotle is treating of
courage, and the passage referred to reads as follows:
" What sort of fearful things, then, has the courageous man
to do with? the greatest: for no man is more able than he
is to undergo terrible things; but death is the most terrible
of all things, for it is a limit, and it is thought that to the
dead there is nothing beyond, either good or bad," Oo6-eslr-arov
6' 6 Odva-of: rapaf yap ICai obv6v  -rt r, rEO0vEj-rt doE,
ovire ayaOov, ovr-e alcov eivat.
This, then, is a fkir rendering of the famous passage
which, according to Archbishop Whately, is to reverse all
the other statements of Aristotle, and at once turn over to
the Materialists and Annihilationists the prince of philosophers, who held that the human soul was particula animce
divince.  He moreover gives an import to the language
which the words will not bear, when he charges Aristotle
with here affirming that " death is the complete and final
extinction of existence, beyond which there is neither good
nor evil to be expected," words which belong to Dr. Whately,
and not to Aristotle.  But in precisely the same manner in
which he here refers to the opinions of others respecting
death, he likewise, in this same ethical treatise,: refers to
the subject again as follows: "For if there is some good
* Generat. Animal., lib. ii, cap. 3.    t Nicom. Eth., lib. iii, cap. 6.
X Lib. i, cap. 10.




106         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 24.
and evil to the man who is alive and who is not aware of it,
there may be supposed to be some to the dead man also,
as honors and dishonors, and the good and evil fortunes of
children generally." Let the whole paragraph, however, be
carefully read.
It seems, however, impossible to obtain from the former
of these passages any idea as entertained by Aristotle
himself respecting the soul. The word translated "it is
thought" may refer to his own view, but does not necessarily refer to it; but even should it be so regarded, nothing
would be proved more than an inconsistency-a Homeric
nod-making little against his more full and elaborate
declarations elsewhere given. And it is simply absurd to
attempt, by this questionable interpretation, to offset, not
only those fuller statements, (see also those found in his
Ethics, lib.. i, c. 8 and 10,) but also the emphatic declaration of Plutarch, above given, or that of the author of the
life of Pythagoras, quoted by Photius, and in which he expressly affirms that "with one consent both Plato and Aristotle agree that the soul is immortal, though some, not
fathoming the profound mind of Aristotle, suppose that he
held the soul to be mortal." tcav'tvveq E~ -rOv'AptLroTrovg voI5v oiXc  l6aOvov're, Ov7-iv vorittovutv av&r7v?8yetv.
And now, with respect to the much insisted on argument
from the case of Socrates, and which, on Dr. Whately's
authority, is, and long has been, doing its evil work in the
minds of men, I' shall not pause to inquire how, or on
what principle the meaning of a passage which obviously
refers not to the common people but to the philosophers,
and not to the world at large but to Attica, and not in the
remotest sense of it to previous ages, but to Socrates' own
times, has become so extended as to constitute a valid objection to the foregoing argument, and to include not only the
Athenians, but mankind at large; not only Greece, but all nations; and not only the age in which Socrates lived, but all
preceding ages. The inquiry might be interesting, and the




~ 24.      OBJECTIONS  THE  FACTS DENIED.                     107
topic itself would furnish a fair theme for pointed animadversion, especially in such a case as the one before us, where
a writer professes to have examined a subject de novo, and
under that assumption, and by a most partial and distorted
view  of facts, undertakes to effect a change in the minds of
men on subjects deeply affecting their welfare through
eternity.
As to the expressions quoted from Socrates and Cebes, I
had intended to lay them before the reader, and to show, by
a thorough criticism, how utterly unfair is the construction
put upon  them   by  Dr. Whately  and  our opponents.*
But admlitting fir the argument's sake that they refer, not to
the generality of those philosophers with whom Socrates
was conversanlt, but to the generality of the men of Attica,
upon whom  he had so assiduously labored to inculcate his
philosophy, how does this possibly touch the issue of the argument before us? In what way can it be made to affect at
* Dr. Whately will, I have no doubt, fully believe me when I say
that it is inexpressibly painful to my feelings to be compelled thus to
refer to a gentleman and a writer for whom I have, through the most of
my life, entertained a high admiration and regard. In reference, however, to the matter here in discussion, I would ask him in all earnestness
whether there either is or can be any grammatical or rhetorical propriety
in attempting to construe, according to a strict literality of the words,
that common phrase of Socrates-" as most persons think," or " as nost
men believe'"-and of every body else, and on which the Doctor's statement
is based? It occurs, unless I greatly err, several times even in the Pficedo
itself, and such expressions are common to all nations and times, and no
one ever dreams of understanding them  literally. In familiar conversation we say, for instance, of any given statement, " everybody believesit,"
"allpersons think so," at the same time that we know that not one person out of a thousand of mankind believes or thinks anything about the
matter, and we mean no more by it than that most of our acquaintances
who have expressed themselves on the subject think or believe so.
Socrates, in this familiar and cheerful conversation with his friends,
could have meant nothing more, and I am persuaded that his words
would never have been regarded as meaning anything more, or as presenting an offset to his deliberate and serious asseverations above referred
to, had it not been for a total misapprehension of the real import of
2 Tim. i, 10. But let the reader consult Grotius, in Matt. v, 20, and the
Harmolnia Apost. of Bishop Bull, Dissert. Post., cap. x. Compare, likewise, Grotius De Veritate 2Rel. Christ., lib. i, cap. xix, usque ad xxiv.




108         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 24.
all the testimony of preceding ages, and of other nations 
and how then does it in any way conflict with the truth of
the statement that all nations originally entertained the
doctrine of immortality? Few works on the art of reasoning can be studied with more advantage than Dr. Whately's
Logic, and few men in their reasonings have more fully
than he set at defiance all its principles.  But a heavier
charge than that of employing an infirm logic lies against
Dr. Whately in this matter. I-Ie certainly knew of the
frank and full declarations of Aristotle himself, and of
Socrates, and of others of the very philosophers referred to,
that previous to their own times, and from the earliest ages,
this doctrine was universally received by mankind: why
then, in a professed discussion of such a topic, should he
thus keep it in the background  The subject is an extremely painful one, and I shall not dwell on it. I submit
a few facts to the reader, and appeal to his judgment in the
matter.
Socrates, for example, says, in a passage which we have
quoted above, that he fully expects that there is something
to be enjoyed by those who are dead; and that, as has been
taught in ancient times, a7rtep yT ical rrdJat Xyeraa, "it is
much better for good men than for bad."  So, too, in his
apology to the judges, he thus refers to the same doctrine:
" If the things which are told us are true," iEtrep 7-a 2slyoeva
dgxO710r  artv; wherein he evidently refers to some ancient
traditions which were regarded as sacred or divine.  And
Plato, in writing to Dion, says: " We ought always to believe the ancient and sacred words, which teach us that the
soul is immortal, &Odvarov /vX7v eLvat, and that it hath
judges, and suffers the greatest punishments when it is separated from the body;" and in his Timceus also, where he
speaks of " those endless punishments which attend the remains of unhappy men; and all those torments, which I
highly applaud the Ionic poet for recording from ancient tradition, in order to cleanse and purify the mind. from vice."
Aristotle also, as cquoted by Plutarch, speaking of the hap



~ 24.     OBJECTIONS-THE FACTS DENIED.              109
piness of men after their departure out of this life, represents
it as a most ancient doctrine, so ancient that no man knows
when it began, or who was the author of it, and which had
been handed down by tradition from the remotest ages.
Plutarch also, in his consolation to Apollonius, declares that
it was "so ancient an opinion that good men should be recompensed after death, that he could not reach to either the
author or original of it."  Polybius also states (lib. vi,
cap. 54) that " the ancients with great wisdom propagated
the doctrine of a future state, and particularly of future
punishment;" while Cicero also says of the immortality of
the soul, that "it has been held by the best authors; and that
all the ancients (omni an tiquitate) agreed to it who were
more worthy of credit, and the more likely to know the
truth the nearer they approached to the first rise of mankind, and to their divine original;" and he argues from the
consent of all nations concerning it: consensuz nationum omnium.  Seneca also, in a passage cited above, (sect. 23, note,)
admits the same universal consent, and states that it is of no
small importance in the argument. And now, in view of all
these facts, I would merely ask, What are we to think of the
aforesaid denials of Dr. WThately and our antagonists, that
there is any evidence of the existence of such universal
consent?
It is related in the Hindoo mythology that Bistnoo, having
created a large serpent and a tortoise, placed the earth upon
the head of the serpent and stood him erect upon the tortoise, (see Theol. et Philos. Indica, by A. Duperron, tom.
i, 657, 683.)  The resting-place of the tortoise, however, was
found to be by no means answerable to his responsibility.
So with the present annihilation theory.  It rests upon the
serpent, and the serpent leans for support upon Dr. WhatelS,
(who represents the tortoise,) and Dr. Whately, as we have
seen, rests, if the Hibernicism  may be pardoned, cupon nihility.  His whole statement and argument on the subject
before us are utterly destitute of foundation; and I trust
he will have the candor and Christian principle to arrest




110         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.            ~ 25.
the evil which they still are effecting, by promptly retracting
both.
We shall now proceed to consider the other ground of exception to the foregoing argument.
~ 25. Their Admission of the Facts.
I have, in the beginning of this chapter, briefly pointed
out the manifest origin of this universal belief in the immortality of the soul. In later ages the doctrine became greatly
obscured by philosophical speculation. Until, anterior to
the time of Christ, the prevalence of the Epicurean philosophy had well nigh, among the learned men of the Greeks
and Romans, blotted it out of existence. The rest of the
nations however continued to receive it.
It is of no consequence how the nations and people whose
testimony we have cited above defined the soul or spirit of
man, or what they thought of its materiality or immateriality, (in the philosophical sense.) It is enough for our argument that they held it to survive the body, and that it is immortal. It is not at all necessary that they, any more than
we, should know precisely how to describe and define its
essence; and all objection to the argument therefore on this
ground is puerile.
In reply to our argument, while some of our opponents,
as we have seen, totally deny the facts on which it is based,
others frankly admit them to their fullest extent, and on the
ground of this admission denounce the doctrine as of pagan
origin. Their books are filled with such denunciations, and
we shall here present a specimen of them. They have had,
from the bold impudence with which they are made, considerable influence upon the minds of the illiterate, and
hence the importance of giving them a particular notice.
One of the writers referred to, in his reply to Mr. Lee,
says: "(Mr. Lee) has proved, overwhelmingly and incontestibly proved, the PAGAN ORIGIN of thepopular doctrine of
immortality! He has triumphantly sustained the very po



~ 25.    OBJECTIONS —THE FACTS ADMITTED.              111
sition we have long maintained, namely, that the immortality of the soul is pagan in its origin, and was generally believed among pagans."  "If he receive the pagan idea of
immortality, he must take along with it the pre-existence of
souls."'" The pagan tradition of the soul's immortality not
only renders null and void the resurrection," etc.*  Again:
"The notion that there is life in the soul of the wicked, or a
principle that cannot die, was taken from the Platonic philosophers, and was introduced into the Church as a Scripture
doctrine in the third century."  "It originated in heathen
philosophy, and was grafted on to Christianity to its immense
injury."t So, too, in another work, extolled by our opponents as a wonderfully learned production,: we have the following polite remarks:   " The pagan philosophic theology
of the present day."   "It is absurd and wicked to infer
that it (the soul) is immaterial and immortal, to favor a
pagan fable," etc.  "The pagans originated the idea of the
immortality of the soul."  " Christians have adopted these
fables, and inserted them into their creeds."~  This writer
is peculiarly gross and indecent in his vituperation of the
doctrine on the same assumed ground.  But we have presented a sufficiency of such wretched stuff.
The avowed basis of all these vituperative scurrilities is,
that the doctrine referred to was received and taught by the
nations (as above shown) who were not favored with a written revelation. We have sufficiently explained how the
doctrine originated among them; but we shall not trouble
our readers by exposing the fallacy of the inference, that
because the nations entertained the doctrine they therefore
originated it.  We shall merely invite our antagonists to an
application of the principle to their own theory. It is a
poor rule, says the proverb, that will not work both ways;
and if the recognition of the doctrine of immortality by the
* See A. 44, 45, 55.    t S. 82.
f " A David to slay Goliath,":" a standard work," " three years were
spent upon it," etc., etc.; see B. 44.
~ See E. 3, 10, 39, 42, 43, 134, 230, etc. See also H. 1, pp. 118, 135;
and H. 2, pp. 83, 85, 91.




112            IMMORTALITY  OF THE  SOUL.                    ~ 25.
best and purest minds of antiquity proves it to be of
pagan origin, what conclusion shall we draw from  the.fact
that the very doctrine of our opponents respecting the mortality of the soul originated with the ancient Epicureans
and Atheists, and has ever since been maintained by
Atheists, Infidels, Socinians, Universalists, Nothingarians,
etc.  But let us here briefly refer to its paternity, and trace
its genealogy down to the present time.  A  Hfistoria Dogmatis may be of no little service to our antagonists, for
their works generally afford the best of evidence (notwithstanding their prodigious pretensions to the contrary) that,
believing " much study to be a weariness to the flesh," they
are inclined to get along with as little as possible.Early, in the Grecian states, philosophy began to array
itself against the universally received doctrine of the soul's
immortality.   The professed  and  distinguished  tenet of
some sects of philosophers was, that the soul was mortal
and died with the body. Such were Democritus and his
followers, the Cynics, etc., and especially the wide-extended
* In the preceding section we have had several interesting specimens or
illustrations of this in the case of D., MI., and S., and the writings of the sect
contain many more equally interesting. S., for example, evinces his familiarity with Rabbinic lore, by always calling the Gemara the Germzara; see no
less than four such instances on a single page in his Appendix, p.. 15,
21st edition. The manner in which they quote Hebrew is truly edifying, see E. passim; and their quotations from the Greek, and especially
their use of the letters in spelling the words, may yet revolutionize Hellenistic orthography. See, for example, F. 17, and J. T. 36. The old
philosopher, l Hobbs," is also uniformly divested of one of the letters of
his name, (pp. 30, 36, etc.) And in one of their latest publications,
Locke, the metaphysician, is uniformly transformed into "'Di. J. Lock,
Esp., the great mental philosopher and Christian,'" "' Dr. Loclk," " Dr.
John Lock's Question," etc. B. 36-38. In the same work'; The Calde,
or Babylonian Targums," are referred to, (p. 62;) while the first President
Edwards is occasionally mentioned, who, as appears from this bookl
wrote a reply to Dr. Chauncey some thirty years after his own death.
Hlow they will reconcile thisfact with their denial of the separate existence of the soul, is not for me to say.  But the above specimens, and
thousands of others that can be adduced, evince that these writers are not
disposed to over-estimate the importance of literature; and who can tell
but that they are preparing to renounce formally all connection with it,
on the ground that it is a " relic of barbarism."




2 05.    OBJECTIONS-THIE FACTS ADMITTED.    113
sect founded by Epicurus.  Plutarch, in speaking of the
sentimoents of these two philosophers, mentions that they
"taught that the soul is corruptible and perishes with the
body," precisely the doctrine of our Annihilationists.
Eplicurus was the most determined foe to the doctrine of
ilnlortality. He taught that the soul was a subtile elastic
gas, composed of the most sublimated parts of the atmosphere. and introduced into the system  in the act of respiralion, and hence that it must be material and mortal.  It'omes, says he, firom a material source, exists in a material;ystem, is nourished by material food, grows and is matured
with the material body, and declines with its decline, and
hence must die when it dies.
The atheist Lucretius, his follower and fervent admirer,
taught the same doctrine in his celebrated poem, De Rerumrn
_Ratura.
Bayle* portrays their theory briefly a~ follows: "Death
disunites the parts of these bodies, but destroys nothing of
their substance. Those that the earth supplied are restored
to the earth, and those which descended from the regions of
the ether ascend thither again."  These very terms are employed by our Annihilationists in depicting their theory.
(See ~ 5.)
Diccearcheus also, an  eminent Peripatetic, to  whom
Cicero so frequently refers, (in Tuscul. Qucest, lib. i,) wrote
several books to prove that the soul is mortal and dies with
the body. Pliny the naturalist also thus teaches the same:
"All men are in the same condition after the last day of
their life as before the first, nor have they, after they are
dead, any more sense either in body or soul than before
they were born."t  Seneca, too, teaches that death is alike
the end of, and release from, all our pains and sorrows; for
the evils of this life do not extend beyond it. It replaces
us in the same tranquil state in which we were before we
were born."t It will doubtless be very gratifying to our
* Crit. Diet., Art. LucRETIUS.   t Hist. Nat. lib. vii, ssp. 55., In Consol., ad Alarciam, c. 19.




114         IMMAORTALITY OF THE SOUL.            ~ 25.
opponents, to see how thoroughly their fundamental principles were discovered and reasoned out without the aid of
revelation by these eminent philosophers. We might in like
manner quote Galen, who declares that he " violently suspects that the essence of the soul is corporeal, because in all
its powers and operations it depends upon the dispositions and
temperaments of the body;" and in like manner wecould
adduce the high authority of' 1obbes, Toland, etc., but we
shall present an instance or two from more modern times.
The profound Voltaire has defined and illustrated the
same doctrine in his usually convincing style. The following are a few extracts from his writings on the subject.*
He says: "My being rewarded or punished after death,
requires that something which feels and thinks in me must
continue to subsist after me; now, as no part in me had
any thought or sense before my birth, why should it after
my death? What can this incomprehensible part of myself be? Will the humming of the bee continue after the
end of its existence? Thus the soul itself, which signifies
our memory, our reason, our passions, is only a bare word."
Then, after employing sundry of the very same illustrations
which we find in the works of our Annihilationists, he thus
proceeds: "': How can I be rewarded or punished when I
shall cease to be myself, when nothing which constituted
my person will be remaining?"
The equally profound Volney, the atheist, also denounces
as " profane inventions" the immortality of the soul, its
transmigration to places of pain or pleasure, its resurrection, the final judgment, good and bad angels, etc.; and in
reference to the first of these he reasons as follows: " The
soul is but the vital principle which results from the properties of matter, (see ~ 5 above,) and from the action of the
elements in those bodies where they create a spontaneous
movement. To suppose that this product of the play of the
organs, born with them, matured with them, and which
sleeps with them, can subsist when they cease, is the
* Philosophical Diet., vol, i, pp. 42-48. London, 1775.




~ 25.   OBJECTIONS-THE FACTS ADMITTED.                  115
romance of a wandering imagination."   "Solomon, who
lived one hundred and thirty years before Pherecydes,
treated it as a fable."*
Such then is the paternity and development of this interesting speculation which our Annihilationists now advance
as the teachings of the word of God. Let it not be supposed, however, that they are so vain as to imagine themselves to be the first who have attempted to engraft it
upon Christianity, for they do not claim this honor. The
Socinians of the sixteenth century for a long time strenuously persevered in making the same experiment, and
in fact, as we shall hereafter see, our Annihilationists are
indebted to them for many of the criticisms on the texts of
Scripture which are urged against their theory. They
taught expressly that " man by death undergoes such a total
dissolution (annihilatio) as to be altogether nothing, except
that his spirit, as a kind of wind or breath, returns to God,
for that breath is a kind of virtue or efficacy derived from
him. Hence, souls after death have no sensation, and really
do not in themselves subsist."  Like our Annihilationists,
they did not all entirely agree in their views, but'such was
the prevailing doctrine. Their modern disciples also advocate the same. Dr. Priestley's views are sufficiently
known.  And Mr. Belsham, with his peculiar and characteristic modesty, speaks upon the subject as follows:
"No well-informed observer of the phenomena of human
nature can believe that the soul is capable of perception
and activity in a state of separation from the body. To
maintain this would be to maintain a doctrine contradicted
by reason, by  analogy, and  by uniform  and universal
experience."t
The modern Universalists have made similar attempts to
* Ruins of Empires, pp. 122, 162, 163, 227. Dublin, 1811.
t " Summary View," etc., p. 178. Boston, 1808. Mr. Belsham had apeculiar way of illustrating the truth of the maxim, Omne tulit punctuum, qui
miscuit utile dulci. But whose " uniform and universal experience" does
he refer to in the above extractS Perhaps our antagonists may try to
tell.




116         IMMORTALITY OF THIE SOUL.              ~ 25.
engraft the theory on Christianity.  For example, Abner
Knneeland, (who subsequently adopted it in its full development, and became an atheist,) while pastor of a Universalist church in Philadelphia, thus taught: " Although the consequences of death would have been eternal had it not been
for eternal life, yet the consequences would not have been
eternal misery, but an eternal extinction of being; for
death is an extinction of life. Hence natural death puts an
end as much to moral death as it does to natural life,
because a man cannot be even carnally minded in a state of
natural death."  Hie adds also in  a note: "It will be
perceived here that the author does not believe in an intermediate state of conscious existence between death and the
resurrection, and of course death to him is an extinction of
being, and all his ideas of a future state of existence are
predicated on the glorious doctrine of the resurrection.
This point will not be labored in these lectures; but if any
one thinks otherwise, he is requested to read attentively Dr.
Priestley's Disquisition on Matter and Spirit."*   So too
_ir. Ballou says: " The doctrine of a future state of retribution must owe its origin to some other source than the
Holy Scriptures, and to some other wisdom than that which is
from above."t  Their great critic Balfour also says: " No
sacred writer mentions an immortal soul."  "There is no
immaterial, immortal soul which lives in a conscious state of
happiness or misery in a disembodied condition. This
doctrine has been the fertile source of much error and
human misery."'" The doctrine of the immortality of the
soul seems to have had one common origin among the
heathen."  "But it may be asked, Is not the doctrine of
the soul's immortality revealed in the new Testament?
No; for if it was taught there, it would be no revelation
from God to the world, for it was a popular doctrine among
the heathen nations many centuries before the Christian
era. With more propriety it might be said, the heathen
* Lectures, p. 48. Philadelphia, 1824.
t Collection of Valuables, p. 304. Montpelier, 1836.




~ 26.                CONCLUSION.                          117
revealed this doctrine to God, than that God revealed it
to them.'-xBut it is not necessary to continue these references and
quotations.  Let the reader consider, however, that such
is the doctrine (heathenish and atheistic in the highest degree) advocated most strenuously by the Annihilationists,
who at the same time denounce the precious truth of God
as pagan, popish, and what not, and who  are scattering
through this country and Europe their crude productions,
assailing in the most scurrilous manner the doctrine of immortality, and  all wlho  entertain  it, while the doctrine
which they themselves advocate is the miserable offspring
of heathenism and atheism.
~ 26. Conclusion.
The following fact, while it serves to conclude the foregoing argument, may also appropriately introduce the argument from  Scripture upon which we enter in the next
chapter.
The apostle, in Titus i, 2, refers to a very ancient revelation of the doctrine of immortality. His words are very
remarkable:  "God promised  eternal life, wp8 XQ6vov
atv[iov, before. the endless ages," a phrase on which we
shall have occasion to remark more fully in the sequel.
A similar phrase occurs in 2 Tim. i, 9, where it is said
that God " gave us grace in Christ before the- world began,"
not'" on account of Christ," as some shallow critics would
* Inquiry, pp. 143, 146, 342, 343. Boston, 1832. The reader will observe the beautiful consistency between the above statement and that
of Dr. Whately. The argument from the Testimony of the Nations
must, at any rate, be " squelched e" in some way, but these writers cannot exactly agree upon the mode. Dr. W. says: " The doctrine of the
soul's immortality was not known to the heathen, since if it was known
to them thLe IlTew Testa/ment does not reveal it." Mir. B. says: " The doctrine was a popular belief amlong the heathen, and therefore the Nelv Testarneet tdoes not reveal it."  So that the argument is answered on the ground
that the New Testament both contains, and does not contain the doctrine.
Q5(ery. Would it not be an improvement of this reasoning if the conclunsion of the argnunentq were employed as the premises, and the premises as
the conclusion!




118         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 26.
render it, (for &v never has that sense in connection with a
proper name,) but by Christ. The promise was to us, fallen
creatures, by Christ. It was a promise of the immortality
which we had forfeited, and of course it contemplates the
period of time subsequent to the fall,.and at the very introduction of the Gospel (Gen. iii, 1.5.) And hence Chrysostum, Theodoret, and CEcumenius seem to express the exact
idea, dvoO0ev 4& (arr') apX~qg, from  the beginning.  The
grace devised for us in the eternal covenant was thus at
the very beginning made known to us by Christ.  Here
then was the origin of the aforesaid universal belief. And
how beautiful and interesting is the illustration of its universality and antiquity, which' is, as above remarked, presented by those wonderful productions of Homer, the earliest of the Greek writers!  He lived before the Greek
philosophy was cultivated, and of course before the atheistic
notions of Protagoras and Epicurus were dreamed of.
And hence in his doctrine respecting the soul there are no
metaphysical speculations; nothing respecting its materiality, past eternity, pre-existence, transmigration, or of its
being a portion of the soul of the world, or an emanation
from the Deity. His ideas of it were obviously not the
result of reasoning or speculation, but the remains of this
early and universal tradition; a tradition so emphatically
referred to by Socrates and Aristotle, and still later by
Cicero and Seneca, as above shown.




PART II.
IN WHICH THE ARGUMENT FROM  THE SCRIPTURES
IS CONSIDERED, AND ALSO THE VIEWS ENTERTAINED ON THE SUBJECT BY THE ANCIENT JEWS
AND CHRISTIANS.
CHAPTER I.
TERMS EXPLAINED: ARGUMENT FROM  THE  OLD
TESTAMENT.
~ 27. Terms Explained.
IN treating the Scripture argument, our opponents uniformly endeavor to attach a sense peculiar to themselves, and
which the exigences of their theory demand, to several important Scriptural terms; and as this is a subject which radically concerns their exposition of texts, it will be proper, before we proceed with the argument itself, here at the outset
to notice a few of the more important of those terms, and
the use which they endeavor to make of them. From the
positive dogmatic tone of assurance with which they treat
the topic, it is apparent that our'opponents think themselves wiser than the rest of mankind, simply because they
differ from them in their views of these and other topics.
What they profess' to offer in justification of their own
strange use of the terms, will be fully considered when we
come to examine their argument from the use of words;
all that is necessary here is that, in connection with the
Scriptural argument, we present also a brief exposition of
these terms as employed in the Bible.




120          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 27.
1. Death is a term which is perpetually occurring in their
sermons and writings. Their manner of using it is as follows: The law of God denounces the penalty of death for
sin, and as death is a cessation of existence, and as the
penalty of death is inflicted upon man, so man is mortal,
soul and body, and soul and body alike must cease to live.
I shall not here remark upon the strangely illogical character of this argument any further than its use of the term
death is concerned. And, first, this usage confounds all those
clear and obvious distinctions which the Gospel makes on
the subject of human salvation.  If the penalty of the law
is death, in the sense of annihilation of both soul and body,
let it be remembered that those who believe in Jesus and
receive him'as their Saviour., are saved from the penalty of
the law, in strictness of speech, for "there is no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus." Rom. viii, 1.  And
certainly Enoch, Elijah, and Moses, at least, were not annihilated. But this usage necessarily confounds the believer
with the impenitent, and utterly annihilates the existence of
both between death and the resurrection.
But, seconclly, death, in the Scriptural sense of the term, and
as related to the subject before us, does not imply an actual
cessation or even suspension of existence; and our opponents ought not to theorize on the subject, but confine themselves to the clear representations of the word of God. Let
us briefly consider a few examples of the use of the term;
and to give our opponents all the advantage they could desire, we shall select also one or two instances of its use when
applied to subjects which confessedly are not endowed with
immortality.  Take then the example of the seed-corn sown
in the earth.  Our Saviour says:'" Except a corn of wheat
fall into the ground AND DIE, it abideth alone; but if it die
it bringeth forth much fruit." John xii, 24. And in referrilg
to the same matter, Paul, addressing a skeptic, says: " Thou
fool! that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die."
1 Cor. xv, 36. Now in these passages the term death is used
in its obvious and ordinary import; and yet it does not




~ 27.            TERMS EXPLAINED.                 121
imply even a suspension of vitality, for through the whole
process of death the living germ retains its vital power unharmed. The outer coat molders away, but the principle
of life is still there, vital and active. So too in the case of
the devil and his angels; the curse of God, or the penalty
of the law, has been inflicted upon them, but they still live;
that death has not suspended their existence, for they believe
and tremble, and are reserved in chains of darkness until the
judgment of the great day. Why then should the existence
of the spiritual part of man's nature be suspended by an infliction of the same penalty?  But it is not; for Christ expressly
asserts the fact when ht said that Lazarus died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom, and that the rich
man died and was buried; and in hell he lifted up his eyes,
being in torments.  Now it is of no consequence to the argument whether this be a parable or not; for, be that as it
may, the language here employed by Christ evinces that the
term death, as applied to man, does not even suppose a suspension of conscious existence.  Why then should these men
attach to that term a meaning which is wholly foreign from
the Bible, and then apply their unfounded and false definition to prove that the soul of man shall be blotted out of
being? In the whole Bible there is not an instance in which
the term death, as applied to either human or angelic nature,
imports a loss of conscious existence. See also ~~ 44, 45,
46, infrca.
o2. They employ similar equivocations respecting the term
life. The Holy Spirit employs the term often in the sense
of simple existence, and also uses it to signify well-being, as
when Christ is said to have brought life and immortality to
light. In the former of these senses it is used in such passages as the following: "The moving creature that hath
life." Gen. i, 20. "God did send me before you to preserve
life." Gen. xlv, 5. " The breath of the Almighty hath given
me life." Job xxxiii, 4. See also Job iii, 20. The same
usage obtains in the New Testament.  Christ says: " Take
no thought for your life." Matt. vi, 25.  Can this possibly




122          IMArIORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 27.
mean that men are to take no thought for their salvation?
So also says Peter: "The time past of our life may suffice
us to have wrought the w-ill of the flesh," I Pet. iv, 3. This
use of the word is of frequent occurrence.
In the latter of these senses it is employed in such passages
as the following:' I have set before thee life;" that is, God's
favor, blessing, etc. Deut. xxx, 15, 19.'Thou wilt show
eme the path of life." Ps. xvi, 11.  " Righteousness tendeth
to life." Prov. x, 16; xi, 12; xix, 23.  "The fear of the Lord
is a fountain of life." Prov. xiv, 27.  So, too, all through
the New Testament.  "If thou wilt, enter into life." Matt.
xix, 17.  "' Ye will not come to me that ye may have life."
John v, 40.  "Narrow  is the way that leadeth to life."
Matt. vii, 14.  "' That believing ye might have life through
his namle." John xx, 31.  " Shall reign in life by one, Jesus
Christ." Rom. v, 17.  " To be spiritually minded is life."
Rom. viii, 6.  " Christ, who is our life." Col. iii, 4.  "' He
that hath the Son hath life." 1 John v, 12.  Now our ope
ponents are compelled to admit that in all these passages
the term  life is employed to signify salvation, or eternal
happiness.  And yet in all their discussions they never once
even allude to the fact that the term  is employed in the
Bible in these two senses.  The point is a most vital one in
this controversy, and enters into the very heart of the great
question as to what the Scriptures teach respecting the soul's
immortality; and yet, without exception, the teachers of annihilation keep in the background the truth that the word
in the Bible is employed as it is in common. conversation
in these two distinct senses.  And on the ground of their
most unfiair and garbled presentation of the matter at issue,
they quote passages in which the term  life in the sense of
eternmal lchap)iess is employed, and apply them as though the
term had no other meaning than that of simplz2e existenzce itself. Now -why should men thus conceal the truth from
their readers or hearers, and in a matter, too, of such immense importance to their eternal welfare z  What can they
hope to gain either for themselves or others by such shame



~ 27.            TERMS EXPLAINED.                 123
less perversions of the word of God? It is a striking truth
that these two terms alone, when understood in their Scriptural sense, sweep away utterly from all its muddy moorings the whole annihilation theory. In fact, it is actually
based upon a most shallow perversion of them.
3. There is a similar equivocation in their use of the term
immorntality. They perpetually repeat that immortality
came by Jesus Christ alone, and that therefore those who do
not receive Christ as their Saviour cannot be partakers thereof, and consequently must be blotted out of being. Now
this is trifling with the use of language; and the whole argument is based upon a confounding of mere existence with eternal well-being. I have above pointed out the clear distinction
which the Bible makes on this subject, and need not here repeat it. We owe our entire existence to Christ as our Creator; but to say that we owe it to him as our Redeemer is
an abuse of language. It might with the same propriety be
said that man's mortal and material body came by Christ, as
our Redeemer, as to say that the immortal spirit thus came
by him. It is impossible to imagine how a serious and
thoughtful mind can confuse such obvious distinctions.
4. In their management of the Scriptural argument there
is another procedure on the part of our antagonists which
should be here noticed, and by which they endeavor to perplex the plainest testimonies. For example: where a plain
spoken text is adduced by us, and which leaves no tangible
ground of escape for the Annihilationist, he endeavors to bedim the luster of its testimony by referring to some of those
expressions in Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Job, relating to
the dead and death, taken from  the popular language of
the Orientals; thus sanctioning the preposterous absurdity
of endeavoring to explain the clear announcements of the
New Testament revelation by the confessedly obscure teachings of the Old, and making the Old Testament the key to
the New, instead of the contrary. And thus all their proof
texts, with two or three exceptions, are derived from the
Old Testament; and all this, at the same time that no peo



124          IMMORTALITY OF TEE SOUL.               ~ 27.
ple on earth are louder in their professed attachment to the
Gospel as a clear, and full, and glorious revelation. To see
persons with such loud-sounding professions perpetually
going back to the confessedly most obscure book in the
Bible, (Ecclesiastes,) in order to obtain light that they may
explain the clear revelations of the Gospel, is certainly a
most edifying spectacle.  But to the point.  In the Old
Testament the dead are said to be inactive, and to know not
anything, etc. It is an Oriental idiom, simple and beautiful,
by which things are described from their appearance.  Neither the Jew nor Arabian ever misunderstands such language. The man, to all appearance, in death becomes inactive;
ceases to mingle any more in the affairs of this life; all his
thoughts and plans in respect to this world have perished;
he knows not anything; all appearance of sense and knowledge is gone. Such is the appearance presented by death;
and hence death is described in language which presents this
idea and expresses this appearance.  So, too, the dead. are
said to sleep, because there is a striking apparent resemblance between death and sleep.*  Not only the Orientals,
however, but every nation has adopted such language on the
subject, notwithstanding their belief in the soul's uninterrupted immortality.  Even our American Indians employ it;
although in speaking of one who is dead they say, "He will
now see his father, his grandfather," etc.  We, too, in our
popular language, employ the same terms on the same subjects, and speak of the sleep of death, and of the destruction
which it brings.  Such language is found even in our devotional hymns:
"Their hatred and their love are lost,
Their envy buried in the dust;
They have no share in all that's done
Beneath the circuit of the sun."
Suppose, now, that hereafter a person should undertake
to prove that the evangelical denominations of this age held
the doctrine of the soul's mortality, and in proof of his as* See section 36, sub-section 11, il;f$'a.




~'28.         TERMS EXPLAINED.                125
sertion should cite such language as the above, how much
would his argument be worth?  Why: full as much as that
of the Annihilationist, derived from similar expressions in the
Bible. Even the unlettered savage would scout such argumentation; and every man would at once see the folly of
attempting to make mere popular language, which is often
expressive of only the outward appearance of things, the
foundation of any such assertion or argument.
The entire procedure of our antagonists in this matter is
singularly unfair and disingenuous. They pretend to have
great reverence for the Gospel and to value its clearness,
and yet go to the most obscure book in all the Bible, and
one which they are totally unable to explain, in order to
elucidate the clear announcements of the New Testament,
and then attempt to erect, on mere popular language and
Oriental idioms, an argument which is to neutralize all the
clearest declarations of the Gospel itself. Such is Annihilationism.
~ 28. Relation of the Old Testament to the New.
But let us now proceed to consider the Scripture argument itself.
That the Jews possessed a knowledge of a future state
will be questioned by no candid and intelligent mind; but
that the Old Testament contains an announcement of this
doctrine, equally full and clear as that which is contained in
the New, will not be pretended. This doctrine was undoubtedly conveyed, though in terms of comparative obscurity, in numerous passages of the law and of the prophets.
" Still, it must be admitted as natural to suppose that the doec
trine declared by Christ on this subject would be, in the main,
a fuller and clearer enunciation of the very doctrine so darkly
intimated in the Jewish Scriptures; or, in other words, that
the fundamental truth which enitered into his disclosures on
this head would be that of the immortality of man; that
death was not a complete victory over life; that notwith



126           IMMIORTALITY  OF THl-E SOUL.               ~ 28.
standing the trium2ph of the grave, that which constituted
his real, essential being, survived the dissolution of the body,
and subsisted forever in a state of happiness or misery in
anot/her world.  This would form  the burden of his teachings."-  To infer, however, that because the ancient Church
possessed not the clear knowledge of all that the New Testament has revealed on this subject, she therefore had no
knowledge on the subject, is the fatuity of imbecility.
The relation which the Old Testament sistains to the
New seems to be, in the general, but inadequately appreciated. There is clearly an aspect in which, as a religious
constitution, or as a full and complete revelation, it is represented as imperfect, (2 Cor. iii, 6, seq., and Heb. viii, 6,
seq.,) as first rudiments, (Gal. iv, 3-9,) or as a stage in
religious education which the Christian is supposed to have
passed over, (Gal. iii, 23, seq.,) and as relating in some
particulars to matters which have formally (or as relates
to the mere letter) ceased to be obligatory. (Heb. viii, 13;
2 Cor. iii, 11.) And all this, moreover, in perfect consistency with the fact that Christ and his apostles refer to
its precepts, ordinances and prophecies, as the basis of their
arguments, (Luke x, 26; xvi, 29; xx, 37, 42; xxiv, 25-27,
44-47; John v, 39, 46; Acts ii, 25-31; xxviii, 23; see also
the Epistles;) regard its teachings as those of God himself,
(Matt. xv, 4-6; Acts iii, 18, 21; iv, 25; 1 Cor. ix, 8; Heb.
i, 1; iii, 7; x, 15; 1 Pet. i, 10-12;) and establish its validity, and recommend its use, (Matt. v, 17; Luke xvi, 17, 29;
2 Tim. iii, 14-16; 2 Pet. i, 19.)  Hence, therefore, the
religion of both Testaments is one.t
* Professor Bush, Anastasis, p. 141.
t Bishop Bull, after treating this topic with his usual ability, remarks:
" Verbo dicam: Lex carnaliter et secundum literam spectata nee spiritualem justitiam exegit, nee vitam  eternam promisit: Spiritualiter vero
consxiderata erat ipsissimum Evangeliwnus; nee cle en hoc modo sumpta,
controversiam hlc ullam movet Apostolus." ]Hrarmoaia Apost. Dissert.
Post, cap. x, sect. 8.  " Prseterea floruerltnt singulis seculis in populo
Judaico Viri Dei ac Prophetee ccelitus edocti, quos, inter tot arcana ipsis
patefacta, Mysticum hunT Legis sensum penitus ignorisse, nihilqne de
futura vitt intellexisse, nemo prudens snspicabitur." Ib., sect. 10. And




~ 28.         THE SCRIPTURE ARGUMENT.                       127
They differ in this: that the  former points to  Messiah as yet to come, while the latter proclaims that he
has come; and consequently the New  is the key to the
Old, and must open for us the true import of its teaching.*
And if, as our opponents, with pretended exultation, affirm,
but little is said therein of the separate state of the soul, it
might be useful for them  to remember, also, that as little
is said of the resurrection. But even placing the question
on a historical basis, it were idle for them  to deny that the
Israelites, after sojourninug so long in Egypt, had a knowledge of the immortality  of the soul; for Herodotus expressly affirms that the Egyptians, from the earliest times,
maintained that doctrine, and that they were THE FIRST who
defended it.t Compare Acts vii, 22.
In our references to the views entertained of the soul's
immortality by the nations, we made no allusion to Christians, Jews, and Mohammedans, for they all have had access
to the word of God. It however devolves upon those who
deny that the Bible teaches that doctrine to explain how it has
thus always and universally been regarded as announcing the
soul's uninterrupted immortality.  There have been, it is
true, sects among Pagans, Mohammedans, Jews, and Christians, that have attempted to explain away the doctrine, but
Grotius, likewise, after referring to 2 Mac. vii, as illustrating the sentiments of the Jewish nation on the subject of a future life, remarks:
" Statum piarum animarum post mortem ab horto illo in quo Adam initio constitutus fuerit, rl')  1:, Hebraic; Graece rapoddedtov appellarunt,
ut apud Philonem etiam Josephurn videre est: At statum post resurrectionem  excellentiori vocabulo dixerunt Hebraic6  sIN  rnq 5~  aut
t:1 ~  L5,  Greece {actLeiav -ro3 Oof ant fapc-.eiav ri)v od'pavdv,
quo pertinet inter coetera locus ille Sapientie, Aicatoi', etc. (He quotes
Wisdom v, 16, 17.) And that the Jews in the time of our Saviour regarded their Scriptures as revealing the doctrine of eternal life, cannot be
questioned. See John iii, 39.
* See that admirable little tract of iFrancis Juniuzs, entitled De Politice
Mosis Obser~vatione, in which that most learned and truly great theologian
has treated the question as to what should be'observed and what not
observed therein by the people of God after the formal proclamation of
the Gospel. Leyden, 1602. See sonfe excellent thoughts also in Am.
Biblic. Repos., xi, p. 234.           t Lib. ii, sect. 123.




128         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 29.
such exceptions only confirm the rule, and render it necessary for those who deny the soul's immortality to meet the
argument derivable from this source. The fact, moreover,
that this doctrine was universally, and from the earliest
ages, received by the nations, evinces also why the Scriptures do not announce it in the form  of a positive and
direct affirmation, but on the contrary everywhere proceed
upon the assumption that it was believed and acknowledged.
Such announcements, under such circumstances, were unnecessary, and the absence of them evinces, in the clearest
and most pointed manner, that no such theory as Annihilationism was entertained (except by the Sadducees, whom
the Saviour refuted by a reference to the Old Testament)
by those to whom the prophets and apostles addressed
themselves. But let us now proceed to consider
~ 29. The Old Testament Argument.
That the ancient Jews, and also the patriarchs, had a
knowledge of the doctrine of immortality is evident:
1. From the distinction which is made between the subterranean residence denominated Sheol, 5%qt., and j-1,  the
grave, or place fi)r the body, denominated'i?. (Gen. xxviii,
5; xxxvii, 35; xlix, 33; 1, 2-10; Numb. xx, 24-26; Deut.
xxxiv, 7; xxxi, 16; 1 Kings ii, 43.)  The writings of our
antagonists teem with idle and illiterate discussions of Sheol
and Hades, but they carefully avoid any mention of the
obvious and forcible argument deducible from  this distinction.
2. That the Jews believed in the existerice of the spirit
after death is evident from the credit which they, in common with other nations, (see ~ 22,) were disposed to give to
the art of necromancy, by means of which the spirits of the
dead were thought to be summoned back to the present
sphere of existence. (Levit. xix, 31; xx, 6, 7; xxvi, 27;
2 Kings xxiii, 24; 1 Chron. x, 13; Isaiah xix, 3; xxix, 4;
lvii, 9. Compare Zach. xiii, 2-6.) Moses enacted laws




~ 29.     THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.               129
directly against this art.  "There shall not be found among
you a consulter with familiar spirits, a wizard, or a necromancer." Deut. xviii, 9-12.  How  fully it was entertained in Saul's time appears in 1 Sam. xxviii, 3-10.  Now
it would be sheer absurdity, as Jahn remarks, (to whom I
am much indebted in this section,) to suppose that persons
who did not believe that departed spirits continued to exist,
should invoke them, and give full credit to the ability of
non-existing spirits to reveal the mysteries of the future.
The belief of the ancient Hebrews on this subject, therefore, was that the spirit at death is received into Sheol, (]drlg,)
their name for the kingdom of the dead, and which is represented as a large subterranean abode. (Gen. xxxvii, 35.
Compare Numbers xvi, 30-33, Deut. xxxii, 22.)  The term,
as we have seen, is carefully distinguished from that byv which
they designate the receptacle for the body, except in cases
where the former sense includes also the latter, and means
simply the receptacle for departed spirits without reference
to their state. Thus, for example, the rich man and Lazarus
were both represented as in hades. And into this abode the
wicked are said to be driven suddenly, their days being cut
short, while the righteous descend into it tranquilly and in
the fullness of their days.
This spacious dwelling-place for the departed is sometimes
described as dark, sorrowful, and inactive, (Job x, 21; Psa.
vi, 5; lxxxviii, 11, 12; cxv, 17; Isaiah xxxviii, 18;). and
then again as full of activity, (Isaiah xiv, 9, seq.,) and
its inhabitants are represented as possessing more than
human knowledge. (Job xxvi, 5, 6; 1 Sam. xxviii, 7.) In
this abode the departed spirits rejoice in that rest so much
desired by the Orientals, (Job iii, 13,) and there the living
hope to see once more their beloved ancestors and children.
(Gen. xxxvii, 35. Compare Gen. xxv, 10; xxxv, 28; xlix,
29; Numbers xx, 24-26; 1 Kings ii, 10, 11.)  And there,
also, the slave is at length freed from his master, and enjoys
a cessation from his toil. (Job iii, 13-19.)
3. The same truth is also apparent from that often-occur9




130         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 29
ring phrase translated "being gathered to his fathers," or
"to his people," or, more correctly, "entering into their
habitation or abiding-place." (Gen xxv, 8; xxxv, 29; Numbers xx, 24, etc.) Take now, for illustration, the first of
these: " Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and was gathered
to his people." What, then, is this gathering? Does it
relate to the body or the soul?  It cannot refer to the body,
for while his body was buried in the cave of Macpelah, in
Canaan, his fathers were buried afar off; Terah in Haran,
in Mesopotamia, and the rest of his ancestors far off in
Chaldea.  Of course, then, this gathering relates not to the
body, but to the soul; he was gathered to the assembly of
the blessed, and thus entered his habitation.  In precise ac
cordance with this idea Job, speaking of the ungodly rich
man, says: "The rich man shall lie down, [that is, in the
grave,] but he shall not be gathered." Job xxvii, 19. So,
too, says Jeremiah, (chap. viii, 2; xxv, 33,) " They shall not
be gathered nor buried," making this obvious distinction
between being buried and being gathered to the good.
There are other expressions, which are employed both in
the Old and New Testaments, which it may be important to
consider here. They properly belong to the Old Testament
argument even though they may be employed or referred to
in the New also. We shall adduce some of them, therefore,
in this connection, before we proceed to the critical examina
tion of particular passages. For example:
4. The word spirit is frequently employed in the Old
Testament in such a sense as necessarily to convey the idea
of the separate existence of the vital principle in man. A
single instance must here suffice, for we shall have occasion
to refer to others hereafter. In Psa. xxxi, 5, David says:
"Into thine hand I commit my spirit."  This is uttered in
view of the separation of soul and body, and may be illustrated by Psa. xxiii, 4: " Though I walk through the valley
of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with
me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me."  Now, in the
New Testament, we find the same expression used by our




~ 29.     THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.    131
blessed Redeemer, when just about to enter the same dark
valley: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit."
Luke xxiii, 46. (Compare 1 Pet. ii, 23.) In the same
manner the proto-martyr Stephen, when in similar circumstances, addressed Christ: " Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."
Acts vii, 59. (Compare also Eceles. viii, 8; xii, 7.)
Now who will doubt that these words have a meaning,
or that they express the truth, or that they who employed
them knew what that meaning was? One who used the
expression was an inspired prophet, another was Jesus
Christ himself, and the other was Stephen, " a man full of the
Hioly Ghost."  I ask, therefore, Do the words refer to the
body? No man can entertain such a thought. What then
do they refer to? What was it that the inspired prophet
and our dying Redeemer besought God to receive?  What
was it that the expiring Stephen committed into the hands
of the Lord Jesus? (Compare 2 Tim. i, 12; iv, 7; 2
Pet. i, 14.) Was it the breath? Can any one suppose
that they wished to commend to God the last portion of the
air they breathed? No serious mind could trifle thus with
these affecting and solemn expressions. What was it then?
The mere life which passed into nonentity at death? And
can any one suppose that they would have commended to
God a nonentity? This would be a shameless trifling with
sacred things.  There is therefore but one answer to the
question: they commended to God just what they express,
their spirit, ( ri.mn, -r  7rvei-ja jLov. See Luke viii, 55,)
when it should leave the body and enter into Sheol the
world of spirits. Hence the existence of the spirit is not
interrupted by death.  The spirit of man is therefore not
annihilated, but survives the dissolution of the body.
5. An equally forcible expression, conveying the same idea,
is also frequently employed in both the Old and New Testaments, in which the death of any person is called " a giving
up of the ghost."  Our Annihilationikts consider this a " very
awkward expression,"* and certainly it fits their theory very
* See H. 2, p. 65, and A. 93.




132         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 29.
awkwardly. The phrase, however, exactly expresses the idea
of the original. Thus of Jacob it is said, "He yielded up the
ghost." Gen. xlix, 33. Job also says "man giveth up the
ghost." Job xiv, 10. Jeremiah also employs the same idiom
to express the idea that spiritual life had departed from the
ancient Church: "She hath given up the ghost." Jer. xv, 9.
It is frequently employed also to express the precise idea of
what takes place at the death of mankind. See Job iii, 11;
xi, 20; xiii, 19; Gen. xxv, 8, 17; xxv, 29. So too in
the New Testament, "Jesus cried with a loud voice, and
yielded up the ghost," or dismissed his spirit, ad'i/e r8
7rvevlaa. (Matt. xxvii, 50; Mark xv, 37, 39; Luke xxiii, 46;
John xix, 30.) So too of Ananias and Sapphira, (Acts v, 5,
10,) and of Herod, (Acts xii, 23,) it is Paid, they gave up the
ghost. The idea is found expressed almost in every variety
of form throughout the Scriptures, and the phraseology is that
which has been chosen by the Spirit of God. It can therefore,
confessedly, convey no false idea, when taken in its plain and
obvious import. And now, in connection with this expression, place one or two passages which shall be the subject of
critical remark hereafter; for example, Gen. ii, 7: " God
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became
a living soul;" or the following, which, like the above quoted,
are descriptive of what takes place at death.  " Then shall
the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall
return unto God who gave it." Eceles. xii, 7.  " Who
knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, or the spirit
of the beast that goeth downward to the earth." Eccles. iii,
21. Here, then, the idea in the foregoing passages is not
only expressed, but the import of the language is made
known by the God who cannot err.  At death the body, the
ja, the ca4d, the ao/ta, is separated from the l3n the Uib,
irve/va, ~bvX-, the soul and spirit; (for in the Hebrew and
Greek these words are often used interchangeably, as
they are in our own language;) whereupon the body, which
contains all that was taken from the dust, is given back to
the dust, or the material elements, and consequently, if the




~ 29.   THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.    133
soul were mortal it too would be given up to the dust, it
would return also to the earth.  But God affirms that it
does not return  to the earth; and therefore it is distinct
from  the mortal and perishable part of man.
6. The same truth which is found thus didactically expressed, shines forth gloriously also in innumerable places
in the devotional comnpositions of the Bible. A single illustration will suffice to suggest to the attentive reader a multitude
of others which it will be unnecessary here to adduce:
"Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel and afterward receive
me to glory.  Whom  have I in heaven but thee? and there
is none upon earth that I desire besides thee.  My flesh and
my heart faileth; but God is the strength of my heart, and
my portion forever." Psa. lxxiii, 24-26.*
That reference is here made to a future state, none
will deny who can understand the language and scope of the
Psalm. (See vs. 16, 19; compare also Psalm xvi, 5, and
Job xix, 25-27.) Now when do heart and flesh fail in the
sense here expressed? It is of course at death, for the ex* The distinction referred to above may serve to explain a matter upon
which many critics have evinced more wit than wisdom. For a century
past, whenever a critic upon the Psalms would wish to make a formidable
appearance of liberality, he begins by saying: " Cocceins found Christ
everywhere in the Psalnms, but Grotius found him nowshere."  This remark
of course affords the critic a fine opportunity for making a display of his
ownjudiciousness in avoiding both these extremes, and of adding a few
words also on the subject of fanaticism and unbelief. It is time, however, that this senseless tirade should cease. I am no admirer of Cocceius,
but every one can see that in the notes referred to he is speaking not only
of Christ as the Redeemer or Prophet, but of the doctrine respecting him,
and which has ever been the basis of all vital godliness. Every expression of
true piety, therefore in the Psalms, (and elsewhere in the Bible,) must'elate directly to Christ, (comp. Heb. xi,) and of course where such an expression occurs, it is perfectly proper to regard it as a reference to Christ,
(See my work on the Resurrection, pp. 143, 144.)  It is just as proper to
say that such passages refer to Christ, as to say that the righteous under
the Old Testament were justified. and saved by Christ. In the case of
Grotius the matter was different. He was looking for formal predictions
of Christ, and not for expressions which implied a practical recognition
of him as man's Redeemer and hope.  Had he sought for the latter there
would not have been so much apparent difference between Cocceius and
himself.




134         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 29.
pression, "Spent is my heart and my flesh," (see Heb.,) is
an idiom importing the failure which then takes place.  Of
course, then, when (or if) these fail, says the Psalmist,
"God is still my strength and my everlasting portion."
Now can any one reconcile this declaration of the Psalmist
(whose heart and flesh have failed) with the Annihilationist
idea that God was not then his support and portion, and is
not now his portion, and will not be his portion through the
myriads of ages which may intervene from the present time
until the resurrection?  Can any supposition more directly
contradict the passage than this?
7. The plainness with which the doctrine is announced in
the Old Testament appears also from the fact that Paul
argues from Gen. xlvii, 9, and other places, in which the
patriarch calls this life a journey, that the pious men of the
former dispensations expected to enter upon a happier state
at their dismissal from the body. (Heb. xi, 13-16.) This
idea was constantly present to their minds. So with Abraham, (Gen. xxiii, 4;) David also, (Ps. xxxix, 12;) and
so, too, referring to the Jewish nation, he says: "We are
strangers before thee, and sojourners, as were all our fathers."
1 Chr. xxix, 15. See also Levit. xxv, 23, where God ad
dresses them "'as strangers and sojourniers." Ps. cxix, 19.
The Jews always entertained this idea. Thus, for example,
Philo (De Confus. Ling.) says: "According to Moses all
the wise men are strangers, who look upon heaven as the
city wherein is their dwelling-place, and the earth as the
place of their pilgrimage."
The expression ~-zr EhrayyeXiag, the promises, (Heb. xi, 13,)
which these patriarchs had not received, cannot relate to
temporal good.* The term, by a metonymy of the adjunct,
is employed for the things promised; and those things they
had not received, but saw therein in all their fullness afar off.
Those only who died in faith are here referred to, and not
such as died in unbelief, (see chap. iii, 18, 19; iv, 2, 6, 11.
Comp. Ps. xcv, 7-11;) and of course others are included be* See Whitby, in loco.




3 29.    THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.              135
sides Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, (see ver. 39,) as, for example, Abel and Enoch, to whom no temporal promises
are said to have been made; and yet they all alike departed from  this world in faith, Enoch retaining his body,
and the rest separated from theirs. The promises, therefore,
relate to the glories of the world to come, and shall be manifested in all their fullness at the resurrection, (ver. 35,) at
which time the victors shall all alike be crowned, (ver. 40,)
and in the presence of the assembled universe.'The same idea of the present life being a pilgrimage is
also occasionally referred to in the New Testament. See
1 Pet. i, 17; ii, 11.
Such then has ever been the view of the Church of God.
The idea that life is but a journey cheered the early patriarchs in all their lonely wanderings; and hence, at their
journey's end, the Holy Spirit taught them to expect the
resting-place for which they were contented to resign their
all on earth. And now I ask: Have they not arrived at their
journey's end?  Are not their journeyings over?  Yes, and
they have been ended for thousands of years. Is then their
journey concluded, and has it been concluded for thousands of
years, and they not yet arrived at home? Can any serious mind
believe that such is the meaning of the Spirit of God? I know
it has been asserted by the old Socinians, and repeated by Dr.
Whately and the Annihilationists, " that as those who are annihilated are not conscious of the lapse of time, it is all the
same to them." But can any sober mind entertain the
thought that these faithful followers of God, after performing their wearisome pilgrimage, their sad and toilsome journey through this wilderness, are not yet arrived at home?
and that instead of the blessed light of a Father's smiles, and
the sweet companionship of kindred spirits, they have found
a universal blank, and have been blotted out of existence?
Are such the expected joys, such the hopes, by which the
precious Gospel is to cheer us amid life's crushing sorrows,
and persecutions, and bitter tears?
8. But not only does Paul argue from such passages that




136         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 30.
the pious patriarchs entered their rest at death, but our
blessed Redeemer, in reply to the Sadducees, also refers to
the Old Testament as teaching the saine great truth.  He
quotes Exod. iii, 6, and pointedly censures his adversaries for
neglecting to perceive the true import of that passage. In
this passage Jehovah says: "I am the God of Abraham, of
Isaac, and of Jacob;" that is, I am their protector and the
object of their worship and adoration. Now these words
were spoken to Moses long after the death of those patriarchs. How, therefore, was Jehovah then their God, and
the object of their worship, if they were blotted out of existence at death? Could their dust and ashes worship him?
If not, then they still were living, though their bodies had
moldered away ages before. And hence Christ, in his argument against the Sadducees, (who were the Annihilationists
of that day,) referring to the fact of the continued existence
of those patriarchs, adds the impressive words, "for God is
not the God of the dead, but of the living;" who still live to
him, (as all the dead do,) though they have ceased to live
among men. (Matt. xxii, 23-33; Luke xx, 27-38.)  So
too our blessed Saviour is said to live to God after he ceased
to live among men. (Rom. vi, 10. See the Greek in both
places.)  The passage, however, in Matthew and Luke will
be the subject of critical investigation when we come to consider the New Testament argument.
~ 30. Examination of particlular Passages.
We shall not detain the reader any longer by these and
similar considerations, but shall at once proceed to the examination of those proof-texts of the doctrine of immortality
which are found in the Old Testatnent, the testimony of
which our opponents endeavor to neutralize. We shall
confine our attention mainly to these, without attempting to
enumerate all the passages in which the doctrine is inculcated.
1. In Gen. i, 26-28, we have a statement of the fact that
God created man; and a declaration of man's superiority to




~ 30.                GENESIS II, 7.                 137
other living creatures in the fact that he was created to have
dominion over them. Such was his state before the fall;
but since he became a sinner, and has rebelled against God,
he no longer has this pre-eminence over them. His authority
has disappeared, and is, in effect, renounced by them.
(Eccles. iii, 19.) All alike are called to endure pain, and
misery, and death.
In Gen. ii, 7, however, we have the fact described, the
existence of which is simply declared in chapter 1: "And
the Lord God made man out of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became (or was thereby constituted) a living soul." rnt Wt.i  5,
el'g bvxWv 4;raav. See also ver. 18, 19, and Psa. viii, which
relate to his pre-eminence over the creatures.  Here, then,
it is distinctly stated that after God had created from the
dust of the ground the corporeal part of Adam, the soul was
added, which was, of course, not produced fioom the earth or
elements as the body was.  If, therefore, the soul was not
formed from the same material as the body, on what principle can it be said that it shall perish with the body? That
it does not, however, is plainly stated, for, referring to this
very fact of man's original creation, the Spirit of God says
that at death " the dust returns to the earth as it was, and
the spirit returns to God who gave it." Eccles. xii, 7. And
that the soul or spirit, the mi, is not the result of organization, as the Annihilationists pretend, (see ~ 5, supra,) is clear
from the fact that in such a case it would, of course, be as
much the product of the dust of the ground as the body itself, and that the body itself would be in the same sense as
the spirit, given by God; but the inspired writer here makes
a clear distinction between the forming of the body and the
giving of the soul. Of course, therefore, the soul is separable
from the body, and the annihilation theory is consequently
false. But let us now hear our antagonists on the subject.
They come down upon this passage in a perfect avalanche
of snow, ice, stones, sticks, mud, and noise. And if the




138         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 30.
reader desires to see in full what they offer, he may find it
in,C. 14-16, 44, 46; D. 112-120; E. 32, seq.; G. 3, 4;
H. 1, pp. 115-117; J. T. 11-14; M. 17-20. They advance
not one new idea, and their criticisms, if they may be called
such, have been answered a thousand times. Mr. Dobney,
as usual, leads the van, and, in common with most of them,
considers the passage in connection with Gen. i, 26, 27.
In collocating these passages his first aim is to prove that
man was not created immortal; and all these writers reiterate the assertion that "immortality was contingent upon
obedience," as though they were uttering some important
proposition which involved the real issue in the controversy.
Thus, while Mr. Dobney explains the image of God in man
to be "intelligence, self-consciousness, and a moral nature
capable of rational happiness, and of ruling over the inferior
tribes (the irrational creatures) as their lord," he denies
that he was created immortal, and the rest of these writers
all reiterate the denial. There is here, however, an equivocation which is unworthy of a Christian teacher. I know
of no approved theological writer who denies the above proposition. All with one voice declare that our first parents
were created amenable to law, and that exemption from its
penalty was contingent upon their obedience. And I am
persuaded that Mr. Dobney and his friends can produce no
instance among such writers in which this is questioned.
Why then should he represent us as entertaining views the
reverse of this?
Now, the penalty of the law is death; that is, the curse,
wrath, displeasure of God, separation from his gracious and
sustaining influences, (Gen. ii, 17; Ezek. xviii, 20; Rom. vi.
23, and Gal. iii, 13;) and thus our first parents died the very
moment they sinned, for they thereby at once incurred the
displeasure and curse of God. Consequently man lost his
immortality. Death seized upon both body and soul, and
God subsequently ordained (Gen. iii, 19) that the body
should return to dust and the soul pass into the eternal
world. (Eccles xii, 7.)  Thus as man he truly died, and his




~ 30.            GENESIS II, 7; I, 26, 27.                139
nature as man was dissolved.*  He would have been immortal as man had he obeyed, but he disobeyed, and thus forfeited the favor of God, and should forever have lost it had not
the intervention of Christ prevented.  Such is and ever has
been the doctrine of the Christian Church, and any attempt
of our adversaries to make a contrary impression should
be met, not by argument, but by a pointed reprimand.
The equivocation of the Materialists in their use of the
term  immortality  in  this connection  is obvious.   We
employ it in relation to man as man, and say that as man
he lost his immortality. They, on the contrary, while professing to use the term as we do, apply it specifically to the
component parts of man, and claim  that each part lost its
immortality.  Now  is this an honorable procedure?  We
grant that man as such lost his immortality, while they
claim  that his spirit lost it.  Their proof is, first, that he
died.  But death, as we have shown above, (~ 27, 1,) is
perfectly consistent with the continuance of the conscious
personality.  The fallen  angels, moreover, incurred  the
penalty of death, and their conscious existence is not interrupted.  Man died; but this proves not that his conscious
existence has been interrupted.  As man he has ceased to
exist; but this proves not that his spiritual nature has ceased
to exist.  Their second proof is that he returned to dust; in
other words, the nature given him became dissolved.
Death, so to speak, brought him back to his original state
when God completed his work by endowing it with a spirit.
As mall his nature was dissolved. He returned to dust, and
the spirit returned to God who gave it.t
* We shall hereafter treat upon corporeal death in its relation to the
penalty in Gen. ii, 17.
1 Rev. J. Panton Ham, of Bristol, England, fully sustains this remark.
In his " Life and Death," p. 120, he thus speaks: " When I say that the
human mind is dissolved, I neither affirm nor imply that the components
of man's compound being are annihilated. All that I state in the text is,
that since neither the body nor the soul, but the zunion of both, is the man,
therefore the disunzion of these constituent parts of the man, is the dissolution of the maci, neither of these constituent parts, that is, neither the
soul nor the body, is separately the human personality: their separate des



140          IMMORTALITY  OF THE SOUL.                   ~ 30.
In the same sense the dead are said to sleep in the dust,
(Dan. xii, 2,) and to be in their graves, (John v, 28, 29,)
because they cease to be men at death; their nature is dissolved, nor'shall they be men again until the resurrection.
Hence, too, David has not ascended into the heavens, (Acts
ii, 24,) and the proof which the apostle adduced of this was,
that his sepulcher still retained his body. The spirit of
David was not David, (in the sense in which the apostle
used the term,) and David, soul and body, had not ascended
as Christ had.  I arn aware that in some instances, as we
shall see hereafter, the term  soul is employed for the person, and in others that the term  body alone is thus employed; it is so in all languages. But I now refer to language as used in its strict philosophical import, and nothing therefore can justify the aforesaid equivocations of our
antagonists on the term immortality. But let us now hear
their attempted explanation of Gen. ii, 7.
Mr. Dobney thus professes to represent the strength of
our argument from this passage for the immortality of the
soul: "He, it is said, has emphatically the breath of life,
and he alone is made a living soul."  Mr. Ham follows his
tiny is therefore of no practical interest to our race." This preposterous conclusion may evince to the reader how much it must have cost Mr. H. to adnit
the premises. I may here remark, that the arrangement of God respecting
man's return to dust, (Gen. iii, 19, andIHeb. ix, 27,) being subsequent to
the abrogation of the Edenic dispensation and the covenant of works,
and also to the appointment of a Saviour, it is perfectly gratuitous to
assert that this return to dust is exegetical of'"(lying thou shalt die," in
Gen. ii, 17. I shall refer to this matter again in a future chapter. But
for aught that appears to the contrary, the infliction of the penalty
threatened in Gen. ii, 17, is perfectly consistent with the uninterrupted existence of man as man, (that is, soul and body united,) for he could as properly have then endured that penalty (which is the curse or displeasure of
God) as the sinner can endure it in his proper personality after the resurrection. And his exclusion from the tree of life (Gen. iii, 22, 24) was
designed, not to prevent his recovering thefavor~ of God, (which it were
absurd to suppose,) but that he might not, by partaking of it, perpetuate
his present existence, and so frustrate God's gracious arrangement for
terminating his new probationary state in a world of suffering and sin,
and for furnishing him with the renewal of his physical nature by a
resurrection.




3~ 0.           GENESIS II, 7; I, 26, 27.         141
footsteps closely, and even copies him largely without acknowledgment.  M. follows in the same course, and asserts
that "man in Eden was a candidate for immortality," and
that "after his sin he was debarred from the tree of life,
lest he should eat of it and live forever;" that is, of course,
live forever in his then state without a separation of body
and soul. And he quotes Archbishop Whately as denying
that man "was originally created of an immortal nature."
S., on the same subject, with his usual decency, says that the
devil preached the immortality of the soul when he said,
" Ye shall not surely die," intimating that we deny that
Adam did die. In like manner E. represents us as basing
our whole argument from this passage on the expression
that man had a living soul, and that therefore his soul was
immortal.  So, too, of the other writers above referred to.
Then, after having thus stated the argument, they proceed to
answer it by showing first, that all other animals are called living soiuls; and secondly, that all other animals have the breath
of life.  And having with great parade effected this, they
triumphantly announce that the passage in question furnishes
no ground for supposing the spirit of man to be immortal.
It seems out of character to enter into thorough philological criticism with such men, for they cannot understand
it. But we shall endeavor to make the subject as plain as
possible, and not refer to the original oftener than is absolutely necessary. The expression   Uri th tJ.   bl t:-2 ~?- is
literally, and the man was for a living soul. The Chaldee
translates it, "and it (that which God breathed into his
nostrils) was in man for a speaking spirit."  The idea in
the original is sufficiently obvious: God had made the body
of the man out of the dust of the ground, as the animals had
been made. But as yet man was only their equal. But
more than this was needed; an intelligent governor over
them was required; and hence something was to be added
to the mere animal life, derived from the dust of the ground.
Had man remained as he then was he would have been as
unfit to be their governor as the orang-outang. Hence in




142         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 30.
his case God did what was done in no other instance of all
the animal creation. He imparted to him directly (breathed
into his face, countenance) a principle of intelligence.  Then
his creation was complete, and he, too, took his place as a
living, moving creature upon the earth. It seems impossible
to mistake the obvious sense of the passage.
It will be apparent to all, therefore, that the emphatic
word, as discriminating man from the other animals, is ~te
he breathed-breathed into him this vital principle endowed
with intellect and intelligence.*  The attempt made by these
writers at the reductio ad absurdum, pretending that we are
compelled to take the word as employed in this instance as
we do when it is employed of a creature, and that therefore
we are to suppose that God has lungs, etc., can influence
none but grossly ignorant minds.  God, in speaking to men,
must employ human language, for man can understand no
other. And shall we therefore attribute to him everything
which the same language imports when applied to man2
and so conclude that God has arms, feet, nostrils, hands, etc.
These men know better.  Why, then, do they attempt thus
to impose Upon the illiterate?  And now I ask, What have
the objections of Mr. Dobney and his coadjutors to do with
this argument? They reply to our criticisms that other
animals are said to have the breath of life, and that they are
called living souls, all of which we most freely admit, for
we have always taught the same thing. But let our adversaries show a solitary instance in which it is said that God,
in creating other animals, constituted them living creatures
by breathing into them the breath of life. If Mr. Dobney
can do this, let it be done. If he cannot, then we must
charge upon him and his friends a culpable equivocation in
pretending to meet the issue which is presented by the aforesaid argument.
The usage of the word (at:) cannot be mistaken. As used
in the text it is descriptive of imparting the immortal spirit;
so elsewhere it is employed to express its departure from
* See in this connection our remarks on Zech. xii, 1, in ~ 30, 6, infra.




~ 30.          GENESIS II, 7; I, 26, 27.            143
the body at death, as in Jer. xv, 9: " She hath breathed out her
spirit."  In the one case the body receives that which in
another case it upyields.  The word (except sometimes perhaps in Pual and Hiphil) has always reference to some abtual
substantial existence; as, for example, imparting, dismiss.
ing, bringing it to bear upon something else, etc., and never
in the sense of merely developing, without such agency,
qualities already possessed by the object. Thus, Ezek. xxii,
20: "To blow the fire upon it." Ver. 21: "I will blow upon you in (with) the fire of my wrath." xxxvii, 9: " Come,
O Spirit, and breathe upon these slain."  Hag. i, 9: "I will
blow it away;" that is, with the blast of my indignation.
Isa. liv, 16: "The smith that bloweth the coals;" that is,
kindles them by an increase of air. Jer. i, 13: " I see a pot
which is blown upon;" or, under which the fire is kindled by
a blast of wind.  Job xx, 26: "A  fire not blown [not
kindled by being blown upon] shall consume him."  Job
xxxi, 39: "If I have caused the soul of the owners to breathe
out;" that is, if I have made them to grieve or caused them
to die. But the usage cannot possibly be misunderstood,
and it is utterly subversive of the idea that imparting the
soul to man was merely the starting of his corporeal organs
into operation. (See ~ 5.) Such a criticism would indeed
(as Luther says, in loco) lead one to suppose that there is no
difference, inter hominem  et asinum.  In fact even this is
asserted by J. T., 33-35, and others of our antagonists.
And if politeness should require that we admit the proof to
be conclusive in their own case, and to accept as analogous
the instance recorded in Numb. xxii, 30, (to which, however,
they do not refer,) we must protest against their attempt
to extend any further its application to the human race.
Now the Bible is a unit, and its testimony is to be taken as
a whole in relation to the subjects on which it treats. Whatever is obscure in one part of its great moral teachings is
always made clear in other parts. And I conclude these re
marks by requesting the reader to consult for himself a por
tion of its testimony on the fact announced in Gen. ii, 7.




144         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 30.
See, for example, Job xxxiii, 4; Eccles. iii, 21, xii, 7; Isa.
lvii, 16; Zech. xii, 1; (with Psalm xxxiii, 15, Heb.;) lieb.
xii, 9; Matt. x, 28; Numb. xvi, 22; xxvii, 16.
2. There are several other passages sometimes referred
to in this discussion, as, for example, Psa. xc, 10, (where,
however, the phrase "it is soon cut off" cannot be sustained
by a thorough exegesis;) Gen. xxxv, 18, where, speaking
of Rachel's death, the phrase occurs: " While her Soul was
in departing;" Job xviii, 18, where it is said of the wicked
that he shall be "chased out of the world;" and of man,
Job xiv, 20: "Thou changest his countenance and sendest
himr away,"- referring to death.  It is impossible to imagine
that these and a multitude of similar phrases could ever
have come into existence and use, except on the supposition
that the soul or spirit is really separable from the body.
Certain it is that our antagonists, with their view of the
matter, would never have originated them,  for no ingenuity
can make them  fit the materialist scheme.  There is one
passage, however, upon which I shall offer a remark. It is
Gen. xxxvii, 35, in which Jacob says: " I will go down in
to the grave (sheol) mourning for my son."  The LXX here
render sheol, ardjf, and the Latin Vulgate, infernus; and such
is undoubtedly its import here, and not grave. Jacob had
not the slightest idea of having his body laid side by side
with that of Joseph, which he believed to have been devoured
by wild beasts.  Hence, says he, " I will go down into sheol
to my son."  Nor can it be successfully denied that this is
the true rendering of the Hebrew phrase.  Consequently
this passage clearly intimates the separate existence of the
soul after death.The objection to this, that the term sheol sometimes
means the grave, is a mere evasion, for how does the fact
that this is sometimes its import prove that such is its
meaning here?  In ~ 29, 1, I have referred to this matter
briefly, and I would here add a word respecting the usage
* See Wolzogenius, p. 684; Knapp, Theol., p. 458; Bretschneider's
Dognatik, II, 372, 373.




~ 30.           ECCLESIASTES III, 21.               145
of the term among the Hebrews. It is sometimes, as
above remarked, employed to designate the grave, as in
Gen. xliv, 29, 31; Job xxiv, 19; Psalm  cxli, 7, and perhaps some other places.  Its more general import, however, is the receptacle for the living intelligence, or
immortal part of man, after death. Hence it is distinguished from  the grave, (see ~ 29, 1,) as in Job
xxvi, 6; Prov. xv, 11; xxvii, 20.  "Sheol and destruction
(the receptacle for the body, in which it perishes or is destroyed) are before the Lord," and " are never full."  And
hence it is represented as a kingdom, full of life and activity, (Isaiah v, 14; xiv, 9-20; Ezek. xxxii, 21, 27;) into
which all the living are also represented as passing at death.
See 1 Sam. ii, 6; Job vii, 9; xiv, 13; xvii, 13, 16; Psalm
xxx, 3; Eccles. ix, 10; Isaiah lvii, 9; Ezek. xxxi, 15, 17;
Hosea xiii, 14; and also Psalm lxxxvi, 13, which is an instance of ellipsis: "Thou hast delivered my soul from [going
down into] the lowest hell;" and hence, finally, the phrase
to descend into sheol is applied to both the good and evil,
though not in the same sense: to the good, Gen. xxxvii, 35;
xlii, 38; Psalm xvi, 10; xlix, 15; Isaiah xxxviii, 18; to
the evil, Numb. xvi, 30-33; Psalm xxxi, 17; iv, 15; and
in relation to the wicked it is moreover expressly stated
that they are visited with retribution, or enter a world of
woe in sheol. (Job xxi, 13; Psalm ix, 17; Prov.. v, 5; ix,
18; xxxiii, 14; Ezek. xxxi, 16.)
These things will render apparent why whole generations
are spoken of as sleeping with their fathers, (Judges ii, 10.)
They all pass into the kingdom of the dead.
3. We shall therefore omit noticing a number of other
passages in the Pentateuch, and historical books, and Psalms,
etc., and pass on to consider Eccles. iii, 21: "Who knoweth
the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the
beast that goeth downward to the earth,"
The Hebrew term for spirit in this verse is rn_ in both
instances; and unless I greatly err, this is the only instance
sin which rcach is predicated of the interior nature of a
10




146          IIMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 30.
beast.  The writer, as.is evident from verse 18, is, in this
whole passage, describing the state of doubt and perplexity
through which he had formerly passed in relation to the
whole subject here specified, (verses 18-21,) and which then
led him to say, " Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing
better," etc.  The verse before us (21) should undoubtedly
be translated as a question,* and the doubt here expressed
as it relates to the spirit of man, is of course not answered
at once, as the writer is here describing the perplexities
through which his mind had been passing. In this perplexity he attributes to both man and beast a ruach.  When,
however, his mind is at length relieved, he answers the
question in relation to man, and tells what became of his
ruach at death, (chapter xii, 7.)  But he never again attributes a ruach to beasts, as he had done in his season of
doubt, and never mentions.the matter again.  He gives no
answer to the question as it relates to them, (see also Job
xxxiii, 28, 30; xxxiv, 14;) for as he confirms the statement
that the ruach of man goeth upward, so we may regard him
as tacitly confirming the statement also that what he called
the ruach of the beast goeth downward.  See the word as
used in Deut. xx, 20; xxviii, 43, 52; Isaiah xxxii, 19;
xxxiv, 7; Zech. xi, 2.
The term rill is of extensive application in the Hebrew,
as also its corresponding term  in Greek, rrvesua.  It frequently is used in the'sense of wind or air, (Gen. viii, 1;
Numb. xi, 32; 2 Sam. xxii, 11; Job xli, 16.)  Hence it
signifies also breath, (Gen. vii, 15; Job ix, 18; Psalm civ,
29; Eccles. iii, 19.) It is also used in the sense of animal
life, (Job vi, 4; x, 12; Psalm lxxvi, 12;) and of man's
spiritual nature, as in Eccles. xii, 7; Zech. xii, 1; and in
innumerable places. So too it is often a designation of God
himself, (Gen. vi, 3; Numb. xi, 29; 2 Sam. xxiii, 2;
1 Kings xviii, 12; Job xxxiii, 4.) In like manner it is frequently used in the sense of personal agent,t or intelligent
* See Stuart, in loco.
+ We shall treat upon this more fully in Part III, chapter ii.




~ 30.             ECCLESIASTES XII, 7.                   147
creatures.   Of the evil spirits, for instance, (1 Sam. xvi,
14-23; xviii, 10; xix, 9; 1 Kings xxii, 21-23; Zech. xiii, 2;
Matt. x, 1; Luke x, 20;) and of angels, (Psalm  civ, 4;
Heb. i, 14;) and also of disembodied  human spirits or
ghosts, (Job iv, 15; Luke xxiv, 39; Acts xxiii, 8, 9; Heb.
xii, 22, 23; 1 Peter iii, 19.) This of course settles its import as applied to creatures endowed with intelligence; and
its application to man in the text evinces the separability
of the spirit from the body, and the uninterrupted continuance of its self-consciousness. We shall have occasion to
refer to this passage again in the sequel.
4. The next passage which we shall examine is Eccles.
xii, 7: "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was;
and the spirit shall return to God who gave it."
It is impossible to mistake the import of this passage.
At death all of our nature which is dust returns to the
earth as it was, but the spirit, which consequently is not
from the earth, "goes forth," as the Psalmist expresses it,
(Psalm cxlvi, 4,) and returns to God, that is, passes out of
a state of probation, into a state of retribution, (comp.
Luke xvi, 22-23,) and is disposed of by him  according to
its moral condition and desert. (Verse 14.)  That returning
to dust is not the same thing as returning to God, will be
admitted. by all, and therefore the spirit does not perish
with the body, but is separable from it, and survives the
stroke of death.
There is also in the verse itself a striking intimation of
the object of this return.  Of the body it is said, 1" The dust
returns to the earth as it was." But the spirit does not so
return. It has acquired a moral character, and so is changed
from  what it was when first created, and given to man.*
It therefore returns to God, not as it was, but to receive
according to that which it has become.
It may well be supposed that this passage is rather a per* The reader may find some striking passages from Homer, Euripides,
and others, on this subject, in Grotius on Gen. iii, 19, and in his De
Jure Belli ac Pacis, lib. ii, cap. xix, sec. 2, p. 279.




148         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 30.
plexing one to the Annihilationists, and the reader will perhaps be gratified to see their ehucidation of it. It is as
follows: "Eccles. xii, 7, says, the ruah goes to God who
gave it.  Now if God intends to restore this ruah to the
man, so that he may live again, where does God bring this
ruah from? We shall see that it is not the SAME RUAH, but
ruah of the same kind, though perhaps less diluted with atmospheric air." (E. 88, 89.)  The light which this profo;und psychological remark sheds upon the passage is so
great as to render the object of vision  altogether invisible.
The proof by which he sustains the point is Ezek. xxxvii,
5-13: " Prophesy unto the wind," and " Come, 0 wind,"
phrases in which Jl)I refers to the Holy Spirit, according
to Job xxxiii, 4. Their other expositions are as follows:
" The spirit (breath, life, for so the original word signifies)
shall return to God who gave it.  This is as true of the
wicked man as of the good, and it just as truly proves universal salvation as it proves that a man is alive when he is
dead." " Let me ask, was it [the spirit] in a conscious state
before it was given   If not, how can it be proved that it
was in a conscious state after it returns?' I do not see but
we might as well argue that because the body has feeling
while we have life, it must have feeling after it returns to
dust." (S., Append. 17, 25.) In other words, if the soul had
no consciousness before it was created, why should it have
after it leaves the body? And this remark, silly as it is, is
constantly repeated by these men. See H. 1, p. 120, and
11. 2, p. 86.
Another of their writers thus explains the passage:
" When man dies, that which came from the earth returns
to the earth, and that' breath of life' which God'breathed
into his nostrils,' returns to him in the expanse of heaven."
(A. 32.)  And again on page 73: " The fact of the spirit returning to God who gave it, does not prove its consciousness or happiness.'He gathers to himself the breath of
all flesh;' but must we thence infer that the breath is conscious V" It is not a new thing for these writers to invent




~ 30.            ECCLESIASTES XII, 7.               149
Scripture, and then quote and apply it, as in the foregoing
instance.  If A. has no Bible, he ought to apply to the
Bible Society and get one. We may next expect to have
them quote that other passage: " He tempers the wind to
the shorn lamb," and then criticising it as follows: " Wind
here is ruach in the original.  Lambs therefore have ruacts
tempered, that is, adapted to their nature. Hence, if men
are immortal, lambs must be." This is a far better argument than many which they urge.
C. 35, 36, criticises the passage as follows: "If the spirit
here spoken of means the immortal spirits of men, it
proves too much for the advocates of immortal soulismn
generally; for it proves the spirits of wicked men go to
the same place [is God a place?] at death that the spirits
of the just do."  " If any man is Christ's, then he has the
spirit of Christ, which returns to God who gave it; this is
a never-dying spirit."  I hope the reader will not require
of me to explain these profound observations.
H. 1, p. 120, after quoting the text, thus comments upon
it: " But this language is rather confirmatory of the opposite view, that in the disjunction of the constituents of
man's conscious being he ceases to he such a being.  The
body, or the dust, returns to the earth as it was, and the
spirit in like manner returns to God as it was before he
gave it." HIere is another instance of a gross attempt to
manufacture Scripture. The idea expressed in the phrase,
"as it was,' as applied to the spirit, is in no way suggested
either directly or by implication.  Why should these
writers thus trifle with sacred things, and with the souls of
men! The inference, too, that because the soul separates
from the body at death, it therefore loses its consciousness,
is a fair specimen of Annihilationist logic, the premise
being in no way connected with the conclusion.
The same writer, in his other work, thus refers again to
the passage. After quoting and commenting on Gen. ii, 7,
he says: " God breathed into man, and so kindled the
human mechanism with life; and when man dies/ this gift of




150         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 30.
life-this breath-returns to God who gave it." (H. 2, p.
86.) And he here repeats also the puerile remark above
referred to respecting the consciousness of the soul previous
to its creation.
M. 23, after quoting the passage, thus speaks: "It contains no proof of the soul's immortality. Certainly it establishes the doctrine, to which I fully subscribe, that the
human spirit survives the stroke of death, as you see illus
trated in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus."
Such is the exposition of these critics:* contradictory,
subversive of each other and of all correct principles of
hermeneutics, and of a character which would disgrace a
freshman.  I have presented them thus fully that it might
be seen with what weapons and with what success these
men endeavor to set aside the plain testimony of God's
word on the subject before us. As to their dominant exposition that the breath returns to God who gave it, what
does it mean?  The breath is the air we breathe, a material
substance. In what sense then does the air we breathe return to God at death? But it is a waste of time to press
the matter further. That the soul not only survives the
stroke of death, but still lives, understands and feels either
the favor or displeasure of God, is clear from this text and
the context; for immediately after uttering the former, the
writer makes, in verse thirteen, an application of the truth
to men, and then, in verse fourteen, gives the reason why
the soul must at death return to God: to wit, that it may
be judged.
5. Another passage which announces the doctrine of
immortality is Haggai ii, 23: "In  that day, saith the
LORD of hosts, will I take thee, 0 Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the Lord, and will make
thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee, saith the LORD of
hosts."
It is conceded that Zerubbabel may have been a type of
* Mr. Dobney has not favored us with his views of the passage, if he
had any in relation to it.




~ 30.              HAGGAI II, 23.                 151
Christ. The word " son " here stands for grandson.  Coinpare Daniel v, 2; xviii, 22.  TIe returned from the captivity to Jerusalem at the beginning of the reign of Cyrus,
who committed to his care the sacred vessels of the temple.
(Ezra i, 11.) He laid the foundations of the temple, and
restored the daily service. (Ezra iii, 8, 9; Zech. iv, 9, etc.)
In consequence of his faithfulness, God addresses him in the
above-cited passage, in which he promises to take him to
himself, and make him as a signet, when desolation should
sweep over the earth during the coming centuries, and
while the thrones and kingdoms of the heathen should be
subverted and destroyed.
The passage may be illustrated by Zech. iii, 7, in which
God thus addresses Joshua, the companion of Zerubbabel:
" If thou wilt walk in my ways, and keep my ordinance,
then thou shalt also judge my house, and shalt also keep
my courts, and I will give thee places to walk among these
that stand by."' (Comp. chapter i, 9-11; iv, 14; vi, 5;
Luke xxi, 36; John xiv, 2; Heb. xii, 22, 23; Rev. v, 9-14.)
This last expression, " among these that stand by," as illustrated by these references, is very striking, but its import is at
once settled by a reference to the original, ItI:I= A, with
those who stand in my presence. Thus the seraphim are
said to stand in the presence of Jehovah, (Isaiah vi, 2;) and
the angel in Isaiah lxiii, 9, is called the angel of his face.
So also Gabriel is said to stand in the presence of God.
(Luke i, 19.) See also the Hebrew usage in 1 Kings x, 8,
and 2 Kings xiv, 11. And according to their mode of
speech, to see the face of the king, and to stand in his presence, mean the same thing (comp. Matt. xviii, 10; 1 Sam.
vxii, 6, and also xxv, 27) in the Hebrew.
The figure employed (in Haggai ii, 23) to evince to
Zerubbabel how highly God regarded him, is that of a
signet, thrn,  (a seal, especially one set in a ring,) from
~U, to seal, to confirm.  (See Daniel vi, 17.)  And a
striking illustration of the force of this figure is given in
Jeremiah xxii, 24: "As I live, saith the Lord, though




152          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ so
Coniah, [for Jeconiah, the yod being dropped, to signify the
diminution of God's regard for himn, the son. of Jehoiakim,
king of Judah, were the signet upon my right hand, yet
would I pluck thee thence."  (See Solomon's Song viii, 6,
and Luke xv, 22.)  Nothing therefore could more forcibly
express the idea of favor or regard than such a figure as
the one employed in our text; and thus at death was Zerubbabel to be received into God's everlasting favor, and
like Joshua, be admitted among those, who stand in the presence of God.
This exposition is in no way affected by any theory respecting Zerubbabel's typical character.  Adam himself was
a type, and so was David. But this interferes in no way
with their own proper personality, or with the promises
made to them as individuals.  And if Zerubbabel's faithfulness in the discharge of his duties renders: him  in any
sense a type of Christ, how should this prevent his faithfulness from  receiving its promised reward~ The overthrow and punishment of the kingdoms referred to, moreover, took place previous to the advent of our Saviour, and
during all those political convulsions Zerubbabel was to be
as the signet on Jehovah's right hand; and as be could be
such in no sense if he were blotted utterly out of existence,
it is clear that he still existed after he had passed away from
earth.  And that the ancient Jewish Church regarded the
passage as teaching this great truth, will not, I think, be
questioned.*
6. The last passage which I shall adduce in this branlch
of the argument is Zech. xii, 1: "The burden of the word
of the LORD for Israel, saith the Lord, which stretched forth
the heavens, and layeth the foundations of the earth, and
formeth the spirit of man within him."  The burden of
the word, as it is literally, is, by hypallage, the word o0'
the Lord concerning the burden; a sorrowful word, or
* In a future chapter we shall dispose of the cavil of our antagonists,
that the early Jews had no adequate conception of the doctrine of immoltality.




~ 30.            ZECHARIAH XII, 1.                153
address concerning the destruction or utter overthrow of
the enemies of the Lord.
The author of this prophecy, and the protector of his
pedple, (of whom the prophecy speaks,) is Jehovah, whose
power to protect them  is here illustrated by three exhi.
bitions of it, evincing both the power and the will of God:
He stretched forth the heavens, laid the foundations of the
earth, andformed the spirit of man within him, and therefore as he is willing to protect his people, and able also to
protect them, they may fully rely upon his protection.
The manner in which he will protect them is also stated
particularly in verses 2-9.
That there is here a direct reference to the operation
described in Genesis ii, 7, will be questioned by no one.
The three great operations of the Creator are here enunciated: The stretching forth of the heavens, the creation of
the earth, and of man.  He himself enumerates them as
those signal displays which evince his power to be such,
that every one whom he promises to protect may with the
fullest confidence trust in his protection.  What then, according to his own statement, is- the signal feature about
the creation of man which thus wonderfully displays the
Creator's omnipotence    Is it the formation of the body
from the dust of the earth, and starting it, like a machine,
into operation? as our Annihilationists assert. No, by no
means; but it is, as he himself avers, the formation of the
spirit within man.
Here then we have the inspired record, or God himself,
explaining the meaning of the phrase "breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life." God declares this to be thie
formation of the spirit within him, and to be such a work
of almighty power as to be worthy of being classed with
the production of the heavens and earth. It was therefore
the creation of a new substance, a spiritual existence, a
greater work than the production of the visible creation,
(for this specification is the climax of the period,) and is as
much more glorious a work than the creation of matter, as




154         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 30.
a spiritual, immortal substance is more glorious than that
which is only material.
By what word then does he explain this operation called
breathing into his nostrils the breath of life? Is it a word
which may be interpreted as the mere starting into operation a machine already manufactured? or is it a word which
imports the bestowment of existence? This question the
reader shall decide. The word is ~_h, and he may consult it in Genesis ii, 7, 8, 19, (rrodaaw, lxx,) and in Psalm
xciv, 9, "formedthe eye;" also Psalm lxxiv, 17, " made;"
Isaiah xxii, 11, "fashioned it," tcr-iro; Isaiah xxvii, 11,
"He that formed them."  It is also employed in the sense
of Creator of all things, (Jer. x, 16; li, 19; Isaiah xliii, 1;
xliv, 2, 24.)  It is also used to signify a mental creation,
or a plan formed in the mind, (2 Kings xix, 25; Psalm
xciv, 20.) These things can leave no doubt as to the import of the word when used as it is in the text; for, as applied to the production of the spirit of man, it has the
same force and significance as when applied to the creation
of an angel, or of the human body itself' And I repeat it,
that nothing can be a more preposterous contradiction to
the idea here presented than to suppose that the climax,
the antecedents of which are the creation of the heavens
and the earth, should express no more than the mere starting into operation a piece of machinery already formed and
prepared. Such an act would be no proof of omnipotence
at all; yet such an anti-climax must be supposed, or the
Annihilation theory respecting the creation of man is utterly
false.
The formation of the spirit of man is thus rendered prominent among the works of Omnipotence, says Hengstenberg,* "because this is the ground of the absolute and
constant influence exerted upon it by Him who turns the
hearts of kings as waterbrooks; " and the argument in its
application here is, Surely the Creator of the spirits of men
(Numbers xvi, 22, and xxvii, 16) is able to strike with
* Christology, ii, 202.




~ 30.            ZECHARIAHR  XII, 1.              155
madness the hostile cavalry, (verse four,) and to inspire
his people with courage, (verse six.) In the same manner
precisely is the omnipotence of God predicated on his being
the former of the hearts of men. (Psalm xxxiii, 15.)  With
the Hebrews the heart,!5, is the seat of the feelings,
affections, and emotions. See Judges xvi, 15: " Thy heart
is not with me;" and Deut. iv, 29; vi, 5; Psalm civ, 15;
cix, 16. Hence the prayer of David, Psalm li, 10, (comp.
1 Kings iii, 6; ix, 4.)  Thus does God regard his creative
operations in respect to man's spiritual nature as furnishing an incomparably grander display of his all-sufficient
power than that furnished by the creation of the whole material universe; an idea which utterly annihilates the philosophico-theology of the Materialists.
A single other passage is all that we shall adduce in
further illustration of the idea here presented. In Isaiah
xlii, 5, we have thet same three predicates joined together
as in the text, the enunciation of which is, in like manner,
intended to accredit the assurances which Jehovah has given
in the context: " Thus saith God the Lord, he that created
the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth
the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth
breath (st:, rrvoi, LXX) unto the people upon it, and
spirit (nr, Trvevma) to them  that walk therein."  Here
then is the same idea as in Zech. xii, 1, and the same remarks apply to it. And as though to guard us against the
pagan theory of our Annihilationist antagonists, who make
the breath and spirit the same thing, God here makes a
plain and pointed distinction between them.
Thus then Zech. xii, 1, must ever stand as God's own
eternal protest against the soul ruining errors of our antagonists. It is utterly destructive of their whole theory respecting the inseparability of the soul from the body, and
the soul being merely the result of organization. In fact,
the word translated within him, i.=.. (from n~, medium,)
is of itself sufficient in this connection to sweep away the
whole fable. The remark of Calvin expresses its sense




156         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.            ~ 30.
precisely: " When he says in the midst of him, he teaches
that the spirit dwells within; for we know that our body is
as a tabernacle."
This passage, and Haggai ii, 23, our antagonists are in the
habit of passing in silence; hence we cannot edify our
readers by any speculations of theirs on the subject.
7. I shall here offer but a single remark respecting the
translation of Enoch and Elijah, though I had designed
to treat it more extensively. Our antagonists admit that
these holy men were removed from earth without suffering
death, and no Christian can call this in question.  See
2 Kings ii, 11; Matt. xvii, 3; Gen. v, 24; Heb. xi, 5.
The impression respecting the immortality of man, which
their translation has ever made upon the ancient Church, is
also well known, for the Jews understood thereby that man
continued to live after his removal from this world. The
question then is, Were these facts calculated to originate
and foster such an impression?
The ancient Church of course knew that man was created
immortal, and that sin brought the displeasure of God upon
him, and that instead of continuing immortal he returned
to dust. See ~ 30, 1. But here were men who, though
they had sinned as other men, left the earth without returning to dust. It was seen that all ceased to live on earth,
but these two were removed in an unusual and wonderful
manner. Other saints died in faith of a coming Saviour;
these were translated by faith. They were translated, not
for any merit of their own, but for Christ's sake. It was a
benefit they received for his sake alone. If on this last
point the ancient Church had not the clear views possessed
by the Christian Church, it is sufficient for the argument that
we know the statement to be true.
Wherein, then, would it be likely to occur to the pious
Jew or Patriarch, was the difference between the condition
of the pious dead and'the translated? Could it be that one
had his existence perpetuated, while the other was for
myriads of ages utterly blotted out of being? the one to




~ 30.           ENOCH AND ELIJAH;                   157
continue to exist, and the other to be deprived of existence? That they did not receive such an impression we
know; but the question is, not what impression they did
obtain, but whether such an impression was more rational
under the circumstances than the one they did receive?
Could they have possibly believed that men who were
alike dear to God, and alike saved by the intervention
of his Son, (to whom they had all alike been given in
covenant, as the reward of that intervention,) should receive such different treatment at his hands?  It is no answer to this to say that the question might be asked why
all were not alike translated; for the difference between
being thus translated and being blotted out of existence, is
by no means to be compared to the comparatively slight
difference between such translation, and the separation of
soul and body, in order that the soul might enter upon its
rest. The question then returns, and our antagonists may
well consider it.
I have in this statement referred to the ancient Church.
But whatever force these considerations had upon the minds
of good men then, no one can doubt their real force when
contemplated by the fuller and clearer light of the New
Testament. And the plain inference is, that no such difference can be made by God in the treatment of his redeemed,
leaving the great mass of them  (though pardoned, regenerated, and accepted) to endure for myriads of ages "the
full penalty " of a law from whose curse they had been delivered, and delivering others from the curse utterly and
forever.* But we shall now proceed to consider the teachings of the New Testament respecting the uninterrupted
immortality of the soul.
* The reader will perceive that I employ here the phrase " full penalty of the law," ex concessu. Our adversaries affirm that extinction of
being is the full penalty.




158         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 31.
CHAPTER II.
ARGUMENT  FROM   THE  NEW  TESTAMENT: DOCTRINES WHICH INFER IMMORTALITY.
~ 31. Preliminary Remarks.
I DEFER to a future chapter the consideration of those
passages (chiefly derived from  the Old Testament) on
which Annihilationists profess to rely in support of their
views, and shall now proceed to examine the statements of
the New Testament on the subject under discussion. With
respect to the testimony of the Old Testament, all the
attempts at argument of our opponents have failed to
invalidate it in the slightest degree; and they have not
even undertaken to meet fairly the issue which that testimony presents, so that the texts hitherto examined unite in
arraying themselves in direct hostility to their speculations.
Yet these are the men who perpetually denounce the doctrine of the soul's immortality as " a pagan fable," and who
scruple not to assert such things as the following in relation
to the view of it entertained by the Church at large. I
give a few extracts from one of their most popular writers,
and ab urno disce omnes. He commences his book with an
extract from Archbishop Whately, in which it is denied that
"the immortality of the soul, as a disembodied spirit, is
revealed in the word of God," and asserted, also, that "no
such doctrine is revealed to us."  And feeling thus encouraged in his aspersions of the received doctrine, he remarks: " Here philosophy has for many ages usurped the
chair of the Great Teacher, and her voice has prevailed
above the voice of Him that speaketh from heaven. Here




~ 31.         PRELIMIINARY REMARKS.               159
the authority of Plato transcends the authority of Christ,
and the dogmas of the Academy the doctrines of the Bible."
" The separate existence of the human soul, its immateriality, immortality, and conscious personality, are, I believe,
the labored cogitations of human reason, unblessed with, and,
alas! despite of the teachings of revelation. They are, in
my humble opinion,' neither more nor less than the perpetuation of Platonic theories in the Christian Church,"
etc. (H. 2, p. 66.)  We are accused also of relying on
" dubious portions of the sacred writings, which looks, to
say the least, very suspicious." (P. 75.) "That system,
however, can have but little support, and must be of very
doubtful merit which clings so tenaciously to ambiguous
texts," (p. 90;) " and therefore the charge of our Lord is
painfully applicable to every advocate and promulgator of
the popular theory:'Ye do make void the law of God
through your traditions.'" (P. 91; see also p. 85.)  But
on p. 83 we have the following, which concentrates into a
focus all the invectives of this advocate of the Annihilation
scheme:
"The popular presentation of Christianity is defective
and unintelligible; a system of detached and incongruous
doctrines, which necessarily fail to produce an enlightened
and vigorous piety. The great bulk of most evangelical
congregations is composed of persons who are totally unable to explain the relations of the several articles of their
inherited creed. There they exist, stored up in motley
group in a tenacious memory-a doctrinal mosaic-an
awkward complication of the teachings of God and the
traditions of men. The understanding can make nothing
of them; its attempts have been so often baffled that it
has foreborne to attempt.  By the interpolation of these
traditionary dogmas, every cardinal truth of revelation
has been displaced, or put in a false light. The landscape
of infinite love is blotted by dark and unnatural shadows;'men' appear' like trees walking;' indistinctness and disorder are everywhere introduced. Some cardinal truths,




160         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 32.
and among them the first and chief, immortality, the gift
of God through Jesus Christ, is entirely rejected!  The
central sun of the doctrinal system being gone, all other
truths have lost their orbit, and move in eccentric and confused course. Divines have labored again and again to reduce this wild confusion to order, but in vain. The ancient
regime can only be restored by the reinstation of the sun
of the system, life in Christ, and the abandonment, once
and forever, of the presumptuous claim to the soul's immortality."
The foregoing extracts are specimens of the style of these
writers in the premises, and express the views which they
perpetually advance in relation to the doctrines which they
assail. The reader will have them in view while we proceed to consider also the argument from the New Testament Scriptures.
The whole of the New Testament is to be regarded as
containing the express teachings of Christ on the subject as
delivered either in person or by his apostles. But before
we proceed to a formal examination of specific passages,
which have been the subject of dispute between us and our
opponents, we shall invite attention to a few considerations
bearing upon the doctrine itself, which the materialistic
critics find it very convenient to lose sight of.
~ 32. Doctrines which infer Immortality.
1. All the passages in the Old and New Testaments
which speak of the present existence of a hell for wicked
men infer the doctrine of the soul's uninterrupted immortality; for it is not to be supposed that hell should be
created, and exist for thousands and myriads of years without an object. Hence the doctrine of the Annihilationists
necessitates, in those who receive it, the denial of a hell;
and of course every passage in the Bible which proves the
present existence of a hell for wicked men, proves likewise
the Annihilation theory to be false.




3 82.  IDOCTRINES INFERRING IMMORTALITY.   161
Should it be replied to this, that hell may have been created for the fallen angels, I admit that it may have been;
and I am willing that our opponents should avail themselves of this reply, for this is conceding the present existence of hell. It is conceding also that it is not inconsistent
with God's goodness to punish sinners before the day of
final judgment; that is, during the ages which intervene
between the fall and the judgment, and that, too, without
any design. of bringing them to repentance or to mercy.
And further, if the present existence of hell is conceded,
the fact of its being created for sinful angels is not inconsistent with the doctrine that the spirits of wicked men may
also be banished thither at death. (Luke xvi, 23, 24.)  So
that, even admitting the above reply, the argument would
still stand thus: every passage of Scripture which proves
the present existence of a hell for wicked men, proves
likewise the Annihilation theory to be false.
Now in the Old Testament the fact of the present existence of such a place of retribution is repeatedly asserted.
A fair and candid exegesis of the following texts cannot
develop any other signification: Job xxi, 13: "They spend
their days in mirth, and in a moment go down to sheol;"
that is, suddenly pass into a state of retribution. So, too,
Psalm  ix, 17: " The wicked shall be turned into sheol."
Of course retribution is here referred to; for if sheol
meant the grave, and did not import something peculiar
and specific in relation to the wicked, the discriminative
designation here made would be inappropriate; for the
righteous, no less than the wicked, are turned into sheol, in
the sense of grave, or mere state off the dead. The original
term translated turned, =J, (&rroa-7pq~w, LXX,) cannot be
explained to mean " hurried with violence, as by desolating
judgments," etc., for it has no such meaning. The English
word exactly expresses its import; so that there is no way
to escape from the obvious conclusion that the wicked at
death enter into a state of retribution.
Another passage, teaching the sane truth, is Prov. v, 5,
11




162         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 32.
where, speaking of the lewd woman, it is said: " Eer feet
go down to death; her steps take hold on sheol."  In this
place, as in the last, our translators have properly rendered
sheol by hell; for the phraseology expresses distinctly the
idea of retribution, by the discrimination of character which
it marks, and which is the basis of the admonition given in
the context.  The objection of Universalists, that the language is employed to " express the premature or sudden
death of a lewd woman," is ineffably preposterous.  For
to whom is it addressed?  Not to the woman herself, nor
to women at all.  It is an admonition of Solomon to his
son to shun all intercourse with bad women.  The same
idea is expressed in Prov. ix, 18:'i But he knoweth not that
the dead are there, and that her guests are in the depths
of sheol." The word translated dead, ves.vn, is very remarkable in this connection.  In its general import it means
living beings, mighty ones; and there seems to be here a
striking reference to the mighty fallen spirits which the
penal infliction of the law had cast down to Tartarus.
(2 Peter ii, 4; Jude 6.) They are there, and thither, too,
is the destination of all the guests of the adulteress. See
also the Hebrew of Prov. ii, 18; xxi, 16; Isaiah xxvi,
13, 14; xxx, 33; xxxiii, 14; Psalm xxi, 9.
The same doctrine is taught also in Prov. xxiii, 14:
"Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his
soul from sheol." Parental faithfulness cannot deliver from
the grave, but it may deliver from hell. Sheol therefore
here refers to the retributions which overtake the wicked in
the state of the dead, and forever.
The same truth is brought very fully and frequently
to light in the New Testament.  The present existence of
hell is affirmed in every way by which such an idea can be
conveyed, as in 2 Peter ii, 4; Jude 7; Luke xvi, 23, 24,
already referred to., So too in the phrase, "Is hewn down,
and cast into the fire." (Mat. iii, 7-12; vii, 19.)  See
also Rev. xx, 10: "The lake that burneth with fire and
brimstone,"  Mark ix, 43: " Where the worm  dieth not,




382.  DOCTRINES INFERRING IMMORTALITY.   163
(and the fire is not quenched."  Jude 13: " To whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever." (Comp. 2 Peter
ii, 17.).'" In danger of hell fire." Matt. v, 22.  The
same idea of a present hell is conveyed also by metaphorical language; as, for example: " Set on fire of hell;" (James
iii, 6,) an expression which would be without meaning if
hell had no existence."'
In view of these passages, I repeat therefore the question, Is hell now in existence?  If it is, (and they prove it
to be,) then what is the use of it?  Where is there any
more difficulty in admitting that wicked men should, before
the day of judgment, suffer its torments, than that sinful
angels should. If the one reflects against the goodness and
compassion of God, does not the other equally?  How
then does the theory of Annihilation relieve, as it pretends
to do, the character of God? But I would advise our opponents not to be troubled about the character of dod.
He is able to take care of it, and will do so.  Every text,
therefore, which announces the present existence of hell, is
a proof that the Annihilation theory is false.
I might remark here further, that this theory necessitates
the denial of a hell either now or hereafter.  For since
mankind pass out of existence at death, the wicked of
course have nothing to do with hell between death and the
resurrection; neither have they anything to do with it after
the resurrection; for immediately after the conclusion of the
process of judgment, they undergo the process of being annihilated over again. So of course this theory utterly obliterates the doctrine respecting hell in its relation to impenitent man, and thus proves itself to be false.
2. All the texts which speak of the present existence of
heaven, (the region of the blessed,) in like manner prove the
Annihilation theory false. For if this theory be true, then
Christ is now and ever has been, and ever will be, until the
resurrection at the last day, without his redeemed. In his
intercessory prayer (John xvii) he prayed that his suffering
* In Part III this subject will be more fully considered.




164         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 32.
followers might be with him in glory; but that intercession,
it would seem, has not been regarded. When he was
about to be taken away, he comforted them with the assurance that it would be but a little while, and promised that
he would come again and receive them to himself; told them
not to let their hearts be troubled, for that he would come
and take them to the mansions in his Father's house. But
nothing of all this has yet been done if the Annihilation
theory be true. Instead of being gathered home to their
Saviour's arms, they have been blotted otlt of being, and
of all the many mansions in heaven which he at such a cost
obtained for his redeemed, none are inhabited except by
those of them mentioned in Matt. xvii, 3; xxvii, 52, 53;
Heb. xi, 5; and though his grievous sufferings for their redemption were endured so many centuries ago, the first note
is yet to be struck in heaven by the blood-washed throng.
Can any sober man, with the Bible before him, believe these
things to be taught therein?  The bare supposition would
seem like an insult to any candid and intelligent mind; and
yet these things are so, or the Annihilation theory is false.
The present existence of heaven is asserted in the clearest
manner, both directly and by implication.  It is plain from
the translation of Enoch and Elijah, and of those who arose
with Christ. These writers, at least some of them, make
a distinction between Paradise and heaven, and assert that
these translated and raised saints are in Paradise.  I shall
not stop to dispute this point, so long as they admit also
that it is a place of happiness; nor have I the slightest objections against employing the termn' Paradise to designate
Abraham's bosom, or the state of the righteous dead antecedent lo the resurrection. The existence of such a place
of blessedness is all that I claim, and the name by which it
is designated is of comparatively small account.
The fact that there is an angelic heaven will not, I suppose, be disputed; (see Isaiah vi; Luke i, ii; x, 13; Matt.
iv, 11; xiii, 39, 49; xxiv, 36; xxvi, 53; Acts vii, 53;
1 Tim. v, 21; Heb. i, 14;) nor can it be denied that the




~ 32.  DOCTRINES INFERRING IMMORTALITY.   165
righteous among men stand related to heaven as a dwellingplace. (Luke xvi, 22; Rev. vii, 15, 17.)  Hence also we
have such expressions as the following: "Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven." Matt. vi, 20. "Our citizenship ( vroXii-evlja, civitas cujus jure fruimur) is in heaven;
from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus
Christ." Phil. iii, 20.  "Your names are written  in
heaven." Luke x, 20.  " Ye have in heaven a better and
an enduring substance." Heb. x, 34.  " The first born
which are written in heaven." Heb. xii, 35.  " Provide
yourselves bags which wax not old; a treasure in the
heavens that faileth not. For where your treasure is, there
will your heart be also." Luke xii, 33, 34. So too in all
those passages in which the Lord speaks of our death as
the time in which he comes to call us to account, and in
view of it urges us to be prepared for that event. See
Luke xii, 35-48; Matt. xxv, 13; Mark xiii, 37; Acts
xx, 31; and so in passages almost innumerable.
When Jesus therefore says, " In my Father's house are
many mansions," (John xiv, 2,) and again, that these mansions, or this kingdom, was prepared for the righteous from
the foundation of the world, (Matt. xxv, 34,) he affirms
directly the present existence of heaven as the- dwellingplace of the righteous.  Hence the patriarchs recognized
its present existence, "and sought a city which hath foundations whose builder and maker is God." Heb. xi, 16. It
is in this heaven, and among these many mansions which
had been prepared from the foundation of the world as the
kingdom of the redeemed, that Jesus went to prepare for
the reception of his faithful disciples, that they might be
with him when they had passed away from earth.* And
the very fact that he specifies this as an immediate reason
for his going away, proves the immediateness of that preparation, whatever it consisted in, and consequently that it
was for his disciples when death should close the scene of
their labors on earth.
* Comp. Luke xxii, 28-30.




166         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 32.
HIence too the clear distinction between the Church militant and triumphant, the Church on earth and in heaven,
which is observed in many passages, (some of which we
shall critically examine presently,) and also in the Apocalypse, where reference is made to periods of time antecedent to the resurrection, and in which the redeemed are
represented as before the throne, with harps in their hands,
and singing a new song. (Rev. iv, 8; v, 9, 12; vii, viii,
etc.)  And in Rev. xviii, 20, the departed spirits of the
prophets and apostles are thus addressed in relation to the
destruction of mystical Babylon: " Rejoice over her thou
heaveu, and ye holy apostles and prophets."   Of course,
then, they were able to rejoice, which they could not have
been, had they at death ceased to exist. Paul also thus refers to both parts of God's ransomed Church: "Jesus
Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is
named." Eph. iii, 14, 15.  And in Col. i, 20: "And having
made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to recon
ciue all things to himself; by him, I say, whether they be
things in earth or things in heaven."  See also Gal. iv, 26.
Now what things in heaven are they for wholn peace has been
made by the blood of Christ, and which have been by him
reconciled to God? They certainly are not angels.  Who
then are thev that are now in heaven, whom Christ has
thus redeemed and reconciled, and who receive from him,
as the Saviour, their name?  They of course are from
among men, for he died for man alone, and not for other
intelligences. (Heb. ii, 9-18.)  "The whole family" of the
redeemed, who have died on earth, are consequently there,
and therefore the soul does not perish at death. See also
Heb. xii, 22-24.
3. The same truth is announced also in all those passages
which declare of the faithful believer that he shall never perish. See, e. g., John x, 28: "I give unto them eternal life.
and they shall never perish," (Ncat oi' [r aTro62o)vrat eia 7o1v
alwva.) It is impossible to employ a stronger expression
than is here used to signify the very opposite of the Anni



~ 32.  DOCTRINES INFERRING IMrMORTALITY.   167
hilation doctrine, which teaches that man does utterly perish
at death. The two ideas are in perfect antithesis to each other.
See also John iii, 15, and iv, 14. The same idea is also expressed in such passages as John v, 24: "Verily, verily, I
say unto you, he that heareth my word, and believeth on
him  that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not
come into condemnation, but Is passed from death unto life."
Now everlasting life is of course an uninterrupted continuance of life. And this life is here begun; the believer here
hath it, and is passed from death unto life. But the Annihilationists affirm that the life here begun does not thus continue,
but is wholly interrupted and abolished between death and
the resurrection, and that the believer does come into condemnation, and suffer the penalty of the law during that
period as fully as the unbeliever himself, for that penalty
takes as full effect upon the one as upon the other. This is
also directly the reverse of Paul's statement, that " there is
no condemnnation to them that are in Christ Jesus." Rom.
viii, 1. In like manner says John: " We know that we have
passed from  death zunto life."  1 John iii, 14.  Nothing
can be stronger than the original expression here used.
4. The same conclusion follows also from the fact that
the believer is regenerated, or receives a new  spiritual
nature in this world. (John i, 12, and iii, 3-8.)
With this nature the law has nothing whatever to do in
the way of penalty, because the believer who is thus renewed is quickened together with Christ, (Eph. ii, 4, 5,)
and is begotten againm by God the Father, (1 Peter i, 3;
James i, 17, 18;) and the old man, to which alone the penalty applied, is crucified and destroyed. (Rom. vi, 6.)
Hence they are dead to sin, but alive 6~unto God through our
Lord Jesus Christ. (Verse 11.)  They have put off the old
man with his deeds, and put on the new man, (Col. iii,
9-11,) and old things are passed away, and all things are
become new, (2 Cor. v, 17.)  Hence also God's image is
re-enstamped upon them, and they are made partakers of a
divinze and heavenly nature. (Eph. iv, 24; Col. iii, 9-11;




168         IMMORTALITY  OF THE SOUL.                ~ 32.
2 Peter i, 4.)  Now as the penalty of the law cannot reach
this renewed nature, (Rom. viii, 1,) it cannot, if retained,
suffer death; therefore it is called the incorrqptibTe seed,
"being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible." I Peter i, 23.  The word is  0~0dp-rof, which is
translated incorruptible in I Peter i, 4, and 1 Cor. ix, 25,
where it- relates to the heavenly inheritance. The same
word, with the same import, is moreover applied to the
renewed nature of the believer in I Peter iii, 4, and to the
body of man when hereafter raised from  the dead, I Cor.
xv, 52, and also to God, Rom. i, 23.
Such then is the nature begotten in the believer at his renewal or regeneration.  It is of immortal seed, and this
seed remaineth in him, (I John iii, 9,) and is itself expressly affirmed to be immortal, as immortal as the body
itself shall be after the resurrection, as immortal as heaven
itself, and it shall exist while God himself endures.  The
bare attempt to reconcile all this with its annihilation woulc
be the extravagance of folly. The penalty of the law cannot reach it, for it is not under the curse; death cannot
affect it, for it is in the fullest sense immortalc
5. The same conclusions follow also fromn the believers'
justification.  It takes place in this world, and relieves him
from the penalty of the law; for this justification is a release from  condemnation, and an acceptance of the sinner
as righteous, through and for the sake of Jeseis Christ.
They are therefore absolved from  sin, condemnation, and
death, on account of that perfect satisfaction which he rendered to the justice of God, "being justified freely by
his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."
(Rom. iii, 24.)  See also Isaiah liii, lI; Rom. v, 9, 19
x, 4; 1 Cor. i, 30; 2 Cor. v, 21.
That they are absolved from sin and death appears from
such passages as the following: " Through his name whosoever believeth in him  shall receive remission of sinlls.'
Acts x, 43.  "There is no condemnation to them." Rom.
viii, 1, 34; Col. ii, 14.  "By him  all that believe are"




~ 32.  DOCTRINES INFERRING IIMMORTALITY.   169
(not, shall be hereafter, but now are) "justified from  all
things," etc. Acts xiii, 39.  On the contrary, those who
are of the works of the law, and reject the Gospel offer of
salvation, are now under the curse. (Gal. ii, 16; iii, 8-12;
Phil. iii, 9.)
Now  is it conceivable that the children of God, after
being thus finally freed from the curse of the law, should
endure it, nevertheless, by being utterly annihilated between
death and the resurrection?  Such a supposition confounds
their condition with that of the condemned sinner, and is
contradicted by every passage which proclaims their full
and free justification in this world.
6. The same conclusions follow from what is said in the
Bible respecting their adoption, which is that act of God by
which he adopts as his children all who are justified. Hence
it is said of them: " Ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." Rom. viii, 15.
" Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit." 1 John iv, 13.
Thus they become the sons of God as truly as by an
original creation in righteousness and true holiness, (Luke
iii, 38; Job xxxviii, 7;) and being accepted through Christ,
it is obvious that the penalty of the law has no more to do
with them than it has to do with Christ, or than it had to
do with angels and men before they had sinned. Death, in
the sense of the penalty, can never reach them, and they
are of course delivered from the wrath of God. (Gal. iv,
4-64; Heb. ii, 10.)
Hence they are expressly named' the sons of God,"
(Phil. ii, 15;) " Behold what manner of love the Father
hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the
sons of God," (1 John iii,, 1;) "h. eirs of God," (Romans
viii, 17; Gal. iii, 29; iv, 7; Tit. iii, 7;) and the " household or family of God," (Eph. ii, 19;) and subjects of
angelic ministration. (Heb. i, 14.)  And all this takes place
in the present world. In this world they become sons and
heirs of God, the household of God, and are delivered from




170         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 32.
the curse or penalty of the law, all of which is utterly irreconcilable with the idea that they suffer the curse of the
law, and perish at death in the sense of being blotted out of
existence; for if they are thus annihilated, they of course
cease to be the sons of God, and the Spirit's work is wholly
interrupted.
Here it will be in place to notice one of the multitudinous errors of our opponents, which result from their odd
conceptions of the teachings of God's word. If, for example, as we have shown, they find words used in two senses
in the Bible, and their theory requires that those terms
should have but one sense attached to them, they are careful to refer only to passages in which the usage seems to be
favorable to their theory, and represent this as the only true
sense of the term.  So too in relation to the subject before
us: they find the word adoption used in connection with the
resurrection, and therefore endeavor to keep out of view
all such passages as the above, in which we are taught that
in the present life the believer is adopted into the family of
God.  They quote, for example, 1 John ii, 2, "When he
appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him  as he
is," as though it taught their doctrine, though in the very
clause preceding this we have the words, " Now are we the
sons of God." Then, too, they quote Rom. viii, 23: " But
ourselves also, which have the first fruits of the Spirit,
groan within ourselves, WAITING FOR THE ADOPTION, to
wit, the redemption of the body;" firom which they reason
that the adoption is yet future, and will not take place
until the resurrection, a most lame and impotent conclusion. Paul here expressly explains what he means by
the future adoption: "The adoption, TO WIT, the redemption?
of the body."  The soul (when the body is in the grave) is
already redeemed, and the redemption will be consummated
when the body shall be released from the grave.  Hence it
is the body alone to which he thus refers as being then redeemed. And this passage itself, therefore, is a full proof
of the falseness of the Annihilation scheme, which would




~ 32.  DOCTRINES INFERRING IMMORTALITY.   171
have the soul likewise to be then redeemed out of the
grave.
As I have shown on pp. 294, 295 of my little treatise on
the Resurrection, the New Testament announces a twofold adoption or filiation. The one takes place here, the
other at the resurrection.  So Christ our Head was the
Son of God when he came into this world, and yet he was
powerfully manifested to be such by his resurrection from
the dead. (Rom. i, 4.)  Thus, too, the manifestation of the
believer's adoption will take place at the resurrection, when
the body is " loosed from the bands of death." The obvious distinction, therefore, between adoption, and the manifestation of adoption utterly destroys the argument of our
opponents.
7. The same conclusions follow from what is said in the
Bible respecting the believer's union with Christ.  It is as
intimate as that of the vine and its branches, and as that
which exists between the body of man and his head.
(John xv, 1-5; Eph. iv, 15, 16; v, 30.) Hence they are
denominated " those that are alive from  the dead." (Rom.
vi, 12, 13.) They partake of the living bread and never die;
never see death. (John vi, 50; viii, 51; xi, 26.)  And yet
they do suffer death' in the sense of a separation of soul
and body. But they never die in the sense of enduring the
wrath of God, or the penalty of the law. See Ezek. iii, 18;
xviii, 4; xxxiii, 18. (Comp. ch. iii, 21, and xviii, 9, 17, 19,
21, 22.)  But as they do suffer the aforesaid death, that
death is not the death threatened by the law, and consequently it can in no way interfere with the continuance of
that life which they derive from Christ. They die, and yet
in the higher sense of the term they never see death.  Their
union with Christ is therefore never interrupted by death,
for they are alive from the dead; they are the members of
Christ's body, the branches of the vine, and while he lives
they shall never cease to live, (1 Cor. xii, 27; Eph. i,
22, 23;) and of course, therefore, to say they are blotted
out of being at death is false.




172         IMMORTALITY OF TIE SOUL.             ~ 32.
The same train of remark may be pursued in respect to
many other particulars, but it is needless. Every doctrine
of the Gospel arrays itself against the theory in question;
and there is not even one passage of Scripture which its
advocates attempt to produce in their favor which, if fairly
interpreted, does not bear directly against them.  Even
those expressions so often pleaded by them, in which death
is spoken of as a sleep, refute their theory; for it is irnpossible to predicate sleep of that which has no existence.
If therefore the person sleeps in death, he of course still exists. We shall not, however, pursue this line of argument,
but proceed at once to the consideration of those passages
whose testimony our opponents have endeavored to neutralize.




33. EXAMINATION OF PARTICULAR PASSAGES. 173
CHAPTER  III.
THE NEW  TESTAMENT ARGUMENT CONTINUED.
~ 33. Examination of Particular Passages.
1. THE first passage in the catalogue is Matt. x, 28:
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able
to kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."  These words of our
Lord he repeated on another occasion, as follows: " And I
say unto you, my friends, be not afraid of them that kill
the body, and after that have no more that they can do.
But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: fear him,
which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell;
yea, I say unto you, fear him." (Luke xii, 4, 5.) This
clear announcement of the separability of the soul from the
body, and of the fact that the death of the body does not
involve the extinction of the soul, has perplexed our opponents not a little, and we shall now proceed to notice
what they have to offer in view of it. Their comments
may be found in S. 50; D. 209, 210; H. 2, p. 87; A.
74-76; G. 21, 22; M. 39; E. 38, 39, 170, seq., and 224,
225; F. 16-21, andJ. T. 71. And so completely does it
haunt the imagination of these writers, that one of them
(E.) gives it no less than three distinct and formal explanations in his book, at each time repeating the same ideas,
and seeming to be wholly unconscious that he had uttered
them before.  Let us therefore hear him  first: "Matt.
s, 28, has been often quoted as favoring the separate existence of the soul; but when properly translated, and compared with the parallel account of Luke. it does not furnish




174           IMMORTALITY  OF THE SOUL.                   ~ 33.
the shadow  of a shade of support to the pagan fable."
Then after quoting Luke he adds: " The meaning undoubtedly is, that wicked men can only destroy the present being
of the righteous, and that God could raise them up again;
but if they apostatize to save their present lives, that God
was able (which implies that he would do it) to destroy
their entire being in Gehenna."  Then after quoting a silly
rendering of the passage by some obscure, illiterate blunderer, he adds: " It is evident that Luke understood a man's
soul to be himself, nothing more, nothing less; and although
he was a doctor, he evidently had not graduated into the
pagan philosophic theology of the present day."'
Mr. Dobney pursues substantially the same train of remark. He says that Christ here teaches that it is in the
power of God to kill or destroy the soul, as the body is
destructible, and that on this very account we are to fear
God more than persecutors, who are not able to kill the
soul, but could only destroy the body. In other words, he
* In respect to this handsomely printed volume, ("Bible versus
Tradition,") which the Annlhilationists are zealously endeavoring to
circulate through the country, I would here add a single remark. Two
men claim its authorship, and its production is said to. have cost them
three years of incessant labor. It is however one of the grossest instances of deception ever palmed upon the public.  Its authors claim a
thorough knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, and pretend to quote them
with a vernacular fluency; but the ignorance of the matter which they
perpetually exhibit is so palpable and gross and ludicrous, as to leave
not a particle of doubt that they'are unacquainted with even the veriest
rudiments of those languages. Their style is one perpetual strain of low
ribaldry, and is throughout so like the pot-house indecencies of Paine's
" Age of Reason," as to remind one constantly of it, and awaken the
impression that these men must have selected that work as their model,
or beae ideal of what a work like theirs ought to be. As to their literary
claims, it is not too severe to remark, that had they studied ignorance as
a profession their book could be presented as furnishing triumphant evidence that they had graduated with the highest honors. Yet these are
the men who perpetually assail, in language that would disgrace a
savage, the precious truths of the Gospel, and glory in it, when they
succeed in perplexing the unlettered believer, or in sweeping away the
consolation of the aged and infirm poor, or in crushing the cheering
hopes of the Christian when his spirit is about to wing its way to the
eternal world.




~ 33.              MATTHEW X, 28.                   175
sets before his hearers, as a fearful warning, the idea of an
entire destruction of their whole conscious being, a motive
which he would not have set before them if no such thing
could be justly apprehended.  Such, in brief, is his exposition, the entire force of which rests upon an equivocation
on the word destroy, a matter which we shall fully consider
hereafter.  It will be observed, however, that D. here contradicts E., who, as above shown, denies. that this passage
teaches the separability of the soul from the body.
We shall next hear Mr. Ham.  He quotes the passage
with the following remark: "The following passage'has
been urged in proof of the separate state of the soul as a
conscious and indestructible being;" after which, in his
usual style of evasion, he proceeds to play upon the word
indestructible, intimating that we teach that the soul is indestructible even by God himself. I shall not attempt to
designate by its appropriate cognomen such puerile trifling.
He then adds: " Nothing more is implied than that the soul
is distinct from  the body," and at the same time denies
that "the disembodied soul is the conscious personality of
the being man."  "Such a distinction as that which is commonly claimed for it is purely gratuitous.  How can it be
logically affirmed from  the above words, that the soul of
man is the personality of man, capable of existing and
acting distinct from the body?".In reply to this attempt
at ratiocination, I would here remark, 1. This writer
admits that the soul is distinct from  the body.   2.
That man possesses conscious personality.  3. He admits
that this conscious personality does not belong to the body
as such, for it ceases at death though the body may continue to exist.  We come therefore to the conclusion that
this self-consciousness either appertains to the soul or spirit,
which is admitted to be distinct from the body, or that it
vesults from the simple union of soul and body. If it does
not belong to the spirit or soul, (for I employ both words
in this connection to signify the same thing,) then of course
it results simply from the union of soul and body; and by




176        IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 33.
consequence, the union of two impersonal unconscious
things results in conscious personality; an absurdity too
preposterous for even our opponents seriously to maintain.
But on the contrary, if conscious personality be not the
result of such union, and does not appertain to the body,
then it does, as Christ here teaches, appertain to the disembodied spirit.  And of course the annihilation theory is
false. But let us hear Mr. Ham further.
He next proposes to ascertain the meaning of soul, and
cites for this purpose the passage which we have above
quoted from Luke xii, 4, 5, and then adds: " In this record
of our Lord's words, the peculiarity of the expression in
Matthew's Gospel, upon which so much stress is laid, is
altogether absent, the word soul does not appear."  He
evidently wishes here to make the impression that Luke and
Matthew refer to the same occasion, when in filct they refer to two separate occasions on which Christ spoke these
words. Ile distinctly uttered each expression as reported by both the evangelists.  The remark of Mr. Ham,
however, that the word soul does not appear in Luke's
record, is worthy of the theory which requires such aid.
Admitting that the word is not expressed, it is implied in
the plainest possible manner. The term kill, as it relates
here to the power of both man and God, has reference to
the body, as even our adversaries must confess; for they
do not hold that the soul is first killed by the Lord, and
then cast into hell, but that it is killed by being cast into
hell. This being so, therefore, what is the import of these
words from Luke?  " Fear him which, after he hath killed
[that is, the body] hath power to cast into hell." Cast what
into hell?  The body? But that has been disposed of, and
this casting into hell is to take place while the body is slain.
Of course then it can refer only to the soul. And this
proves, moreover, that the soul is the conscious personality.
For if it were not conscious it would of course be but like
the body after death. And if so, why fear its being cast
into hell? To cast a dead body into hell would matter but




~ 33.              MATTHEW  X, 28.                  177
little, so far as feeling or sensation is concerned; and if the
soul too were senseless or unconscious after separation from
the body, it would matter as little where it was cast; and
the fact, therefore, that Christ admonishes us on this ground
to fear God, evinces that after the death of the body the
soul is susceptible of happiness and misery, and that there
now exists a hell for impenitent men.
Our author next quotes Matt. xvi, 25, 26; to prove that
the word soul in the above texts means simply life.  " Whosoever will save his life shall lose it; for what is a man
profited if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own
soul," etc.; upon which he remarks that it is the same word
in the Greek which is here rendered by both life and soul,
and then with some low flings at our English translators,
this writer exclaims: "Why not preserve the same rendering throughout. There is evidently no reason why one
Greek word, occurring four times consecutively, should be
translated by two different English words."  This is the
language not of the scholar, but of the pretender to scholarship.  I need, however, spend but little time upon it here,
for the passage will conle up in another connection.  Any
one who will open his Greek Testament at John iii, 5-8,
for instance, will find the word:rvevf/a employed five times
consecutively, and yet it is translated by two English
words, spirit and wvind, and who ever dreamed of faulting
the translation on that account. Even Dr. G. Campbell,
whose claims to uniformity in his' translation are presented
and insisted on ad znausean?, so renders it.  So too Castalio,
Beza, Piscator, the German and French versions render it,
without ever dre-aming of Mr. Ham's profound principle of
criticism.  As to the word  IvX?', in Matt. xvi, 25, 26, it'is of little consequence to the argument how it is rendered.
It does not, however, become such scholars as Mr. 1Ham
and his adherents to sneer at the venerable authors of the
best translation of the Bible that ever was made.  Luther,
in the passage referred toj translates Avxid as they do, though
our opponents pretend that he believed in the sleep of the soul.
12




178        IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 33.
The word rrveila has two meanings, spirit and wind, and
to prove that it means spirit in twenty places, does not
prove such to be its meaning in the twenty-first. So, too,
vxy may mean both life and soul. And now suppose
we admit it to mean life, in Matt. xvi, 25, 26, and how
does this prove it to mean life also in Matt. x, 28?  The
bare idea of drawing such a conclusion is ludicrous, and
such precisely is the miserable equivocation of Mr. Ham.
It is followed also by an attempt to paraphrase the verse
upon these principles; but we think we have given the
reader quite enough of this author on this passage.
F., A., G., S., (as above referred to,) follow in the same
train of remark, and need no separate notice. J. T. and
IM., however, suggest and insist on another exposition, (recommended also by G.,) which, as it is the last and most
lauded effort of the criticism of this school, we must lay
before the reader. J. T. shall state it, as he expresses it,
in the most forcible manner: "Although wicked men and
devils can extinguish this life, and reduce the being of man
to dust, they have no more that they can do; they cannot
prevent the resurrection, and therefore cannot destroy our
being or life. In consequence of the provision made in
Christ for the resurrection of every human being from the
Adamic death, those who can kill the body, take this life,
ONLY SUSPEND OUR BEING UNTIL TIE RESURRECTION; THE
DEAD IN ADAM ARE NOT DESTROYED."  (The italics and capitals are the author's.)
By such a method therefore is this plain-speaking text to
be silenced: man cannot destroy our being but only suspend it until the resurrection. But how does such a criticism help the matter in respect to their theory? They
teach that to kill the body is to kill the soul. What then
does our Saviour mean when he says: "Fear not them
that kill the body, but cannot kill the soul? "  Even on
their own principles, persecutors cannot kill either body or
soul, save only till the resurrection; and in the same sense
precisely, therefore, in which they kill the body, they like



~ 33.             MATTIIEW X, 28.                179
wise kill the soul. This criticism therefore is simply foolish, and renders the Saviour's language unmeaning.
And here I would take occasion to explain a procedure
adopted by all these authors. It may be called the introduction of the democratic 2principle into criticism. For example, a few of the texts are produced in which the soul is
declared to be immortal. But instead of attempting to explain those texts in accordance with their theory, our opponents go to work and collect twice the number of passages in which the word soul is employed to designate the
body, or the natural life, etc. And having done this, the
texts which we adduce as teaching the doctrine of immortality are considered as outvoted, perhaps by two to one.
Such a procedure may do very well at an election, but it
does not answer in the interpretation of language. I know
not which of their critics originated this profound principle
of hermeneutics, for they all adopt it.
The efforts of our opponents, therefore, to neutralize the
testimony of our Saviour in Matthew x, 28, and Luke xii,
4, 5, have not rescued their scheme from the death-blow he
there deals against it. The import of his words cannot be
mistaken. He expressly asserts that man consists of both
soul and body, icas bvi icat  aokiLa, and that the soul survives the body, and continues in a state of consciousness
when separated from the body; for while he admits that
men can kill the body, he denies that they can kill the soul,
which could not be true on the theory of our opponents,
that both soul and body perish together at death, and therefore their theory is false.
The Saviour's argument is, Know therefore that ye possess immortal souls, which come not under the power of
men, but are subject to the power of God alone. Let not
your faith therefore fail at the threats of men.  Their
power extends to the body only, and not beyond the present
life; therefore, I say unto you, fear God, who, when the
body is killed, can cast the soul into hell-the God who has
power to destroy both soul and body in hell. Even Slich



180          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 33.
tingius can' obtain no other meaning from these words. He
says: " God is much more to be feared than men, if they
commlland anything contrary to God.  He can hinder them,
and they can do only what he permits.  And if he permits
them to kill the righteous, they cannot affect their interests
after death.  But God has power, not only in respect to
the body and the present life, but also over the soul after
the death of the body, (sed etiam inl animas post corporis
mortem,) and can afflict them with a much more grievous
death than that of the body."*   Grotius, too, remarks
that " Christ, in chapter five, spake of the punishment of the
body in hell, but now he adds that God is able to destroy
the soul also.  By the word soul we are not to understand
the life of the whole man, of which allny one may deprive
us, but that more noble substance which, in connection with
the body, constitutes the man, and which in other places is
called  rrvevga, or spirit."  CAzhiist "does not repeat the
word kill, which he made use of in the first member of the
sentence, but employs the wordc destroy, which has the
signification of tornment, (quod cruciatus habet signiylcationemr.")  See Grotius in Matt. x, 28.
That the Jews thus understood the language of our
Saviour is perfectly obvious.  Their own writings evince
it.  In the Apocrypha, for instance, we find such words as
these: "Thou, O  Lord, hast the power of life and death.
Man may kill through malice; but when the spirit is gone
forth it shall not return; neither shall he call back the soul
that is received; but it is ilnpossible to escape thy hand."
(Wisdom  xvi, 13-15.)  So too in the work D)e Rationis
Inzperio, attributed to Josephus, one of the sons of Eleazar
says: " We do not fear him who appears to be able to kill
the body, -rb acua; for Abralham, Isaac, and Jacob receive
those who die for the law; but great danger of eternal torments is the allotment of the soul, -Tf ~bvXrl', who violates the commands of Gocl."'  Again, in a quotation by
Buxtorf, they say: "Man ifears that an earthly ruler, who
I 1 Peter iii, 15.            t Cap. xiii.




~ 33.            MIATTHEW  XVII, 3.                 181
may die to-morrow, should punish him: why then does he
not fear Him in whose hands his soul is, both in this life
and in the life to come? "'
This text, therefore, must continue to stand as the testimony of the Son of God in Lavor of the soul's immortality, and his solemn condemnation of the soul-ruinin-rg errors
of the annihilation and Sadducean doctrine.
2. The next passage to which we invite attention is Matt.
xvii, 3: "And behold there appeared unto them Moses and
Elias, talking with Him."  (See verses 1-9, and Luke ix,
28-36.)  The passage refers to Christ's transfiguration.
Moses and Elijah appeared to him  in the presence of his
three disciples.  Elijah had been translated, and of course
appeared in the body in which he left the earth; but Moses
had died and was buried, and as his body had never been
raised from  the dead, he of course appeared as a disembodied spirit.  This being so, the theory which teaches
that the soul perishes with the body, or that it is not possessed of conscious personality, and is incapable of happiness and misery, is false.  What then have our opponents
to say to this argument? for they must meet it, or renounce
their theory. Let us hear them.
S., App., pp. 10, 11, says: "It is said- Moses and Elias
appeared with our Lord at his transfiguration, and therefore
they must have been in a conscious state.  That I admit.
Elijah was translated and did not die.  As to Moses, it
seems likely that he was raised from the dead;" and to
prove this to be "likely," he refers to Jude 9, and to the
fact that Moses was an eminent type of Christ. (Deut.
xviii, 15-18.)  And to prove that Christ was not the first
born raised from the dead, he refers to the widow's son,
raised by Elisha, and to those raised by Christ.  D. 137,
passes it with the remark that " Moses died and was buried,
yet he appeared on Tabor with Elijah, and he was visible,
or embodied."  This is most uncandid.  Why not meet
the question honestly?  To predicate embodiment of this
visibility would prove that the disciples thought Christ to




182          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 33.
be an embodied spirit when he walked on the water, and
when they saw him after his resurrection; and that the
chariot of fire and horses of fire mentioned in 2 Kings
ii, 11, were embodied; and the angels which appeared to
Zacharias and Mary, and to the shepherds, and to the
woman at the sepulchre, were embodied. But it is needless
to pursue this further. One thing however is to be observed, namely, both these writers admit the reality of the
appearance of Moses on this occasion. I. 2, pp. 90, 91,
reasons on the case as follows: "The appearance of Elijah
in this memorable scene can cause no surprise, since we are
informed that his, like Enoch's, was an exception to the
common lot of men.  And the presence of Moses is no
proof that he still exists, or that he ever existed as a disembodied spirit, for in that scene he appeared as a glorified
body.  He died in the land of Moab; God buried him;
and if it could. be shown from the Scriptures that he still
lives, it would contribute nothing to the popular faith.  I
would, however, simply remark on this event; that there
is no inconsistency in supposing that Moses should be raised
from death, in his spiritual body, in order that he might be
present on this august occasion."  "There is no reason why
Moses should not put of his glorified form, and return
again, to the quiescence of the grave, until the resurrection
of the saints, since Christ only assumed temporarily his
glorified form, and divested himself of it when he left the
mount. The case of Moses is materially different from
that of the prophet Elijah. The former, unlike the latter,
died and was buried, and it seems necessary on this account to suppose that Moses returned again after this event
to the state of death," etc. If this theory be true, then of
course Moses has suffered death twice, once in a mortal,
and then in an immortal body, an idea which I shall leave to
speak for itself.  Then again, this writer speaks of Moses
himself putting off his form, his glorified form.  Now according to his own expressed doctrine, there is no such
thing as self-consciousness separate from  the body.  The




~ 33.              MATTHEW  XVII, 3.                  183
form of Moses was therefore Moses himself, and consequently a form inay divest itself of itself.  It is perfectly
absurd therefore for our opponents to pretend to use such
language. It must be entirely abandoned by them, or the
theory of annihilation must be given up. I need scarcely
pause to point out the strange error into which Mr. Ham
has lapsed, in endeavoring to trace an analogy between the
case of Moses and that of Christ.  He would have us believe that Christ's body was glorified, and that he divested
himself of that glorified body when he descended from
the mount. The chief objection which I have to this statement, however, is that it is not true.  The shining pOf, our
Saviour's face on this occasion (Matt. xvii, 2; Luke ix, 29)
no more proves that he had "put on" a glorified body,
than the same thing in the instances of Moses and Stephen
(Exod. xxxiv, 30-35; Acts vi, 15) proves that they were
invested with such bodies.  Mark distinctly refers the
transfiguration, or LeTaltop9x3(0, to the raiment.  His face
shone as the sun, and his raiment,  ttd-rta a)-rov, became
white as snow. Mark ix, 2, 3. (Comp. Matt. xvii, 2; Luke
ix, 29.)  Even the phrase Ev Erp'a ytca'ps, in another form,
(Mark xvi, 2,) is to be referred solely to his raiment, as
Grotius remarks: Habitu alio qunam quo uti solebat; and
Piscator: alio habitu seu vestitu.
The aforesaid writers, S., D., and H., therefore admit
the reality of the appearance of Moses on this occasion.
The following, however, take different ground. A. 76, after
quoting the words that Moses himself appeared, says: "It
follows, therefore, either that lMoses was raised from the
dead, or that the whole affair was merely a vision, in which
absent things or persons were represented as being present."
J. T. 59, reiterates this idea. E. 162-169, repeats the assertion, and denies that Moses personally appeared.  He
says: "Moses was not there, except in vision."  "Moses,
Elijah, and even Christ, were glorified at that time, only in
appearance, for special objects."  "Moses might have been
raised for this special occasion, but not in his incorruptible




184         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 33.
or immortal nature, which he could only have in appearanice; and if such were the case, which we think not, then
he died again."'   C. 34, 35, is so pressed with the
argument that he thus speaks: "In the first place, this
account furnishes us no' evidence that either Moses or
Elias was ever on that mountain."  "The whole was a
vision."
WVe might properly leave these writers to settle. the
matter as to the reality of this transaction between themselves.  I would remark, however, that such equivocations
on the word vision are contemptible.  Is vision always
opposed to  reality?  And did Zacharias then only izagine that he saw and conversed with the angel of the
Lord in the temple. (Luke i, 22.)  Did the women at the
sepulchre only inzagine that they saw the angels?  Did
Paul only imagirqne that the Lord met him on the way to
Damascus? (Acts xxvi, 19.)  It may be easily supposed
where such a principle must lead.  It is true Jesus said
" Tell the vision to no man, till the son of man be raised from
the dead," (Matt. xvii, 9;) but this language is fully explained in Mark ix, 9: " He charged them that they should
tell no man what things they had seen; " and in Luke ix, 36,
also.
But in order to constitute this a mere representation of
unreal things, how shall we draw the' line between the real
and the unreal?   Christ and his three disciples certainly
ascended the mountain.  He certainly prayed, andcl while at
prayer his countenance was changed.  Does the reality
then stop here?  If so, how were the disciples placed, so as
to witness the representation?  We read that they slept.
1)id they then witness it in their sleep?  On the contrar[y,
it was after they awoke from their sleep th'at they saw the
glory of Christ, and the two men who talked with him.
(Luke ix, 32.)  And did Peter desire that three tabernacles
should be erected, two of which should be for the accommotation of unreal appearances? And was the great fear of
the three disciples based upon a mere shadowy, unreal repre




~ 33.              MATTHEW  XVII, 3.                   185
sentation?  Blut it were a waste of time to purosue this
matter.'
Such then are the efforts of these men to get rid of the
testimllony of this passage, which, like the preceding one, is
utterly fatal to their theory.  Their evasions are of not the
slightest account, and do not in the least relieve the system.
The argument stands thus: -Moses was present on the occasionl referred to.  He was present therefore either as a disemllbodied spirit, or he had been raised from  the dead, and
was in possession of a glorified body.  He had died and
was buried, (Deut. xxxiv,) and in the time of Christ he
was still dead. (John vi, 49, 58.)  If he had been raised
from the dead in a glorified body, then it cannot be true
that Christ is the first-born from  the dead, (Col. i, 1;) or
the first-fruits of them  that slept (1 Cor. xv, 20, 23;) or
that his resurrection from  the dead proved him  to be the
Son of God, and the true Messiah. (Rom. i, 4.) The evasion
that others had been raised from the dead by Elisha, and
by Christ before he suffered, bears not upon the point. They
were not glorified as Moses was, if he were raised; they
were raised again to this present and mortal state of beilg.
So that Christ was the first-fiuits of those wrho shall be
raised to immortality, to die no more. (See Rom. vi, 9;
Acts xiii, 34.)  Therefore the body of MiVoses had not been
raised when he appeared in glory with Elijah; and consequently he appeared as a disembodied spirit, the representative of the happy state of those who die in the Lord.
Again: so far as the express testimony of inspiration is
concerned, the assumption of Professor Bush, that Elijah
had lost his body, and appeared on the mount with Moses
as a disembodied spirit, (that is, so far as a material body
is concerned,) is equally rational with the assumption Qf
our opponents, that the body of Moses had been raised and
restored to hi n.  The one is just as good as the other, and
just as fi'ee from all rational or Scriptural support.  And by
* One of these writers, (A. 76,) asserts that doseph7is denies that lIoses
dicd. This is false. See his Antiquities, b. iv, chap. viii, see. 49.




186        IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 33.
way of offset to the statements of those who have supposed
that Moses was thus raised from the dead, I will conclude
these remarks with a quotation from the "Gospel History"
of Mr. Thompson, the Unitarian: "These are called men,
as if the sacred writers would guard us against the false
notions of some, that they were angels or aerial phantoms.
Many are inclined to believe that the spirits of men are
some indescribable things, or nothings, between death and
the future general resurrection; but all antiquity believed
in a corporeal form, and existence obtained immediately
after death, which Paul, in 2 Cor. v, expressly affirms to be
his own faith and hope. The appearance of Moses and
Elias confirms the doctrine of an intermediate state, and
refutes the fable of the soul-sleepers." "The impenetrable
barrier is passed; a light seems to dart from heaven to disperse the thick clouds that hang over the valley of the
shadow of death, and we are admitted into the presence of
the Judge of the world, and see with the eye of faith the
spirits of the just made perfect, before we are called upon
to resign this corruptible body to the shroud and to the
tomb. Where the spirits of the departed exist, what their
condition, or what their laws of consciousness or means of
happiness, man must die before he can ascertain. But it is
not improbable that the invisible world is so mysteriously
connected with this visible, diurnal sphere, that the cessation of our consciousness as to present things, is but the
commencement of our consciousness of all those unknown
realities of the other world." See pp. 200, 201.  Mr.
Thompson, however, should have credited this last passage
to Rev. Mr. Townsend, Harmony of the New Testament,
"Notes," p. 115.
3. Our next passage is Luke viii, 54, 55: " He took her
by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise!  And her
spirit came again, (Kar 8e'aTQp8e  TO- rrvsevta a~v'S,) and
she arose straightway."  Now that the maid was really
dead, in the true sense of that term, will not be disputed.
See verses 49, 53.  Nor was the language of Jesus, in




~ 33.             LUKE VIII, 54, 55.              187
verse 52, designed to convey any other idea, as is clear from
John xi, 11, 14; and therefore to attempt to explain this
language by expressions which import only the restoring of
a living person to his vigor, as in Judges xv, 19, is simply
absurd, and merits no notice. A similar passage occurs
also in 1 Kings xvii, 20, 22: " Let, I pray thee, the soul
of this child return unto it; and the soul of the child returned, etc."  I shall not weary the reader therefore by
quoting the Annihilationist criticisms on the text, as they.
are all based upon the shallow sophism above referred to.
Grotius, commenting on the passage, says: " Luke adds
the phrase,' and her spirit returned,' that he might, en passa.nt, teach that the human soul was not a mere result of
corporeal organization, (icpdest,)'nor anything which might
perish with the body, but something subsisting by itself,
(av;Ovr6oararov ii,) which after the death of the mortal life
is elsewhere than where the body is." And even the Socinian, Wolzogenius, himself a soul-sleeper, is so pressed
with these considerations that he comments on the passage
as follows: "The spirit, that is the soul, (anima,) which
had been separated from the body, again entered into the
body.  Hence it may be seen that the human soul is a
substance, or a thing subsisting by itself, (rem per se subsistentem,) which after death exists in another place than
in the body." It is unnecessary to add anything to these
remarks.
4. We next invite the reader's attention to'the statements
of Christ respecting the rich man and Lazarus.  We need
not quote it all, as the passage can be easily referred to, and
the following verses present the main issue: " And it came
to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels
into Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died, and was
buried; and in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments,
and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."
Luke xvi, 22, 21  By Abraham's bosom the Jews (to whom
of course Christ addressed these words) understood the
resting-place of the righteous dead. The word translated




188          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 33.
hell is,Sdi/, a term eqi.ivalent to sheol, and means the place
of cleparted spirits without reference to their state.  Consequently it may be employed to designate, in connection with
a qualifying term, either the place of future happiness or of
torment: as in these verses, " He lifted up his eyes, (in
hades,) being in torments."
There has been much dispute as to whether the Sayviour
here spoke a p1arable or related a matter of fact.  The dispute, however,.presents no true issule, for many of his parables are relations of actual occurrences; and in fact all of
them are taken from things as they then existed.  That this
was an actual occurrence seems certain from his imianner of
introducing it: "'There was a rich man,... there was a
poor 7man (r-xcoX f) named Lazarus;,' and from  the filct,
moreover, that he never employs a proper nagme in fictititious
narrative, or in any of his narratives which are conceded to
be'parables in the true sense of that term.  The question,
however, is one of no practical importance, though our opponents pretend that everything depends upon it, to this
extent at least, that if they can only prove it to be a parable
they have divested it of all its impressive significancy in relation to a future state.  Now it is a just rule of interpretation, in reference to the practical parts of the sacred Scriptures, that whatever impression is thereby uniformly Imade
upon the minds of unsophisticated and pious readers is the
impression which was designed to be conveyed by the Spirit
of God.  And this rule applied to the passage before us can
leave no doubt as to its true import.  Admitting, therefore,
that it is a parable, the question for our opponents to settle
is this: Whether Christ wotcld, by a parable, teach what evidently intimates, and supposes, and irresistibly conveys to
the pious, unsophisticated mind, the impression that the existence of the soul is not suspended at death, when in fiact death
does really suspend it?  Or, in other words, Is it proper to
regard him who is Truth itself; as conveying hillse impressions to mankind undler the guise of a parable?  But let us
now hear what our opponents have to offer on the subject.




~ 33.              LUKE XVI, 19-31                  189
It may be found in full in C. 25-34; S. 20-22; App. 1417, and 27, etc.; D. 137, 239; H. 1, pp. 139-141; II. 2,
p. 74; A. 82-84; G. 18, 19; HAs. 40; M. 23; E. 214,
125; B. 61-64, and J. T. 66-70.
Some of them go very far back to find a starting-point for
their exposition.  Thus C: " By reading the 15th and 16th
chapters of Luke it will be seen that this parable was spolken
in reply to an accusation made by the Pharisees and Scribes
against our Saviour.  The, accusation was,'This iman receiveth sinners, and eateth with them."' Luke xv, 2.  "Now
any one can at a glance see that it was spoken in direct reference to what is mentioned in Luke xvi, 14-18, and as an
admonition against the conduct there condemned."  C. next
gives his exposition thus: The rich man represents the Jews;
the beggar represents sinners who "came begging a few
crumbs of the bread of life."  The death of the beggar is
the sinner's dying to sin, and he lives in Abraham's bosom,
that is, becomes an heir to the promise through faith.  The
great gulf fixed, which no one can pass over, is the gulf between Jew and Gentile, which neither can pass to the other,
etc., etc.
S. explains it three several times, and with more actual
ability than all the rest of them  put together.  He says:' its design is, to illustrate the folly and danger of seekingl
our good in this life.  There are other points, namely, 2. To
expose the deception common among the Jews, that they
should be sacred because they were the children of' Abraham.' 3. That this life is the only time to secure salvation,
and the certainty of perishing without hope if this period is
neglected. 4. The sufficiency of the means now employed
to turn men to God, and hence the folly of supposing that
some other means would be more effectual.  They would
not be persuaded though one rose from the dead.  But does
this prove what is to be the punishment unto which the rich
man is reserved?  Certainly not."  Both he and C. and H.,
however, translate the expression &irrOavte    s icai 6 rtov'urtloQ,
Kae e'r-cr1.  Kai v riO &6q elrdpa9 TO-So  o00aitto'S a'-roi,




190         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 33
thus: "The rich man died- and was buried in hell, (the grave;).and he lifted zup his eyes."  The reader may guess from this
what Grecians these critics are.
Mr. Storrs also says that the rich man refers to the Jews,
and Lazarus to the Gentiles; and this allegorical sense
most of them put upon it in the general.  But even if this
were admitted, it would not affect the real merits of the
question, as to the actuality of the facts selected for illustration, any more than the fact that the parable of the
sower illustrates the preaching, etc., of the word, would
prove that the things mentioned in that parable were not
in accordance with actual occurrences.
D. does not seem disposed to trifle on the subject, and in
reference to the passage thus remarks: "Our Lord shows
an ungodly man in a state of wretchedness after death.
How long it would last is not estimated. It is true there
was no hope for him. He could not buoy himself up with
the prospect of restoration to enjoyment. But whether that
torment should endure forever, or would ultimately destroy
him, the parable does not intimate. It teaches a terrible
and hopeless state for the wicked after death, and that is
all."  But this "all" is considerable for a man to admit
who elsewhere perpetually denies a conscious state of existence between death and the resurrection.
H. "readily admits that we have here some apparent
countenance of the popular doctrines;" and he gives the
same exposition substantially as S., above, and like D.,
denies that the fact of the rich man being in torments,
proves those torments to be eternal. A. makes the rich
man represent the Jews, and Lazarus the Gentiles. G. says:
"It must be admitted that a part of our Lord's representation of the state of the rich man and Lazarus seems to favor
the opinion of conscious happiness and misery immecdiately
after death, especially the request of the former, that Lazarus should be sent to his father's house. The entire representation, however, is far from sustaining such an opinion." " By
what process Df reasoning do we infer the conscious misery




~ 33.              LUKE XVI, 19-31.                  191
of a disembodied spirit from  the declaration that a mal' lifted up HIS EYES' in hell, and felt'HIS TONGUE' tormented in the flame?2 "  Such is the objection perpetually
harped upon by these men, and its fairness is on a par with
the rest of their criticisms.  No one ever drew such an inference as G. here represents.  The premise is this: The
rich man died, and was buried; his body had lost all sensation; and yet in hell and in torment he lifted up his eyes.
Therefore he was still alive, though his body was dead.
He was in a world adapted to his spiritual nature. Fire
in hell need not be earthly fire; (nor the water in heaven
earthly water; see Rev. vii, 17;) and as it did torment
him, we are taught that there is a fire adapted to spirit as
well as to matter. So the rebel angels find it, and those
who deride the declarations of the Son of God, and trifle
with his language, may yet find to their cost, if they repent
not, that such is indeed the fact. (Mark viii, 38.)  And as
to tongue, eyes, etc., they are perfectly proper in such a
connection, as the spirit or soul of man retains its proper
human form  after it has left the body, as is clear from
Matt. xvii, 3. In Revelation, passim, also, the same idea
is presented in every form. The redeemed are refreshed
with living waters, have crowns of glory, and palms in their
hands; they stand round about the throne, and also sing
the praises of redeeming love. Whatever, therefore, these
terms may import as applied to a spirit, they of course
are sufficiently appropriate to justify the use of tongue,
water, eyes, and finger, as applied to the departed spirits
of both Dives and Lazarus, as the passages referred to in
Revelation i-xviii, all relate to events which are to transpire
antecedent to the general resurrection.
M., speaking of Eccles. xii, 7, says: " It establishes the
doctrine, to which I fully subscribe, that the human spirit
survives the stroke of death, as you see illustrated in the
parable of the rich man and Lazarus."  While E. makes
the rich man represent, not the Jewish nation, but the
priesthood, and Lazarus the Gentiles, B. makes the rich




192           IMMORTALITY  OF THE SOUL.                  ~ 33.
man "denote the Jewish nation, or the priesthood, or both
comlbined;" his death, the destruction of the political and
ecclesiastical state; tormzent in Jiamcze, the misery they endured as a nation; their lookinzg to Abrahac n  for relief
is their relying on the law instead of Christ, etc.  Lazarus
symbolized the Gentiles and publicans, who were looleld on
as " dogs" by the Jews.  Abraham's bosom  is the Gospel
Church, into which Peter and Paul were special angels to
transport them.  J. T. repeats the same view; thus making
Lazarus to be both dogs and beggar, and lick his own sores.
Such are the vain struggles of our opponents with this
impressive portion of God's truth.'  They are wholly subversive of each other, and yet all alike maintain the'"parable"
to be plain and obvious in its import.
The objection which they and the Universalists are perpetually repeating, that this same " parable " is found substantially in the Gemara of Babylon previous to the time of
Christ, may evince, though not necessarily, that it is not an
actual history; but that objection is fatal to their theory.
Its import in the Gemara (and that it was understood by
all the Jews as teaching  a separate state and punishment
between deatl and the resurrection) will not be queslioned
even by our opponents.  If, therefore, Christ adopted it,
and -employed it without any implied or expressed dissent
from  their explanation, then that explanation is the true
one beyond doubt.  He and the Gemara both relate it as
an actual occurrence, and of course intended distinctly to
convey the doctrines which facts so presented irresistibly
teach.
That it is susceptible of an allegorical explanation (and
* I had intended also to lay before the reader the spectacle of the
Universalist struggles with the same passage, as contrasted with those
of the Annihilationists, but have neither leisure nor space for it.
The reader nmay, however, do it for himself by turning to Ballon and
Whllittemore on the Parables; Smith's Universalism, pp. 106-110; Kneeland's Lectures, p. 202; Balfour's Inquiry, pp. 74-4-. Both sides deduce
conclusions which destroy each other, aind yet both unite in virulentlh.
assailing the evangelical view.




~ 33.              LUKE XVI, 19-31.                    193
this is the amount of what our opponents can offer in favor
of their expositions) proves nothing at all, for there is not
a passage in the whole Bible which may not be allegorised.
And what should we think of the individual who from this
fact would conclude and insist npon it that such allegorical
meaning was consequently the true one? On this principle
all the foregoing expositions of our adversaries must be
true, though destructive of each other.
Such then is their exposition of this passage, and we shall
conclude with a brief review of it.
The question whether it is a parable or a veritable history was early discussed in the Church.  Justin Martyr,
Eucherius, and Theophylacq; and, in later times, Lightfoot
and Whitby, asserted that it is a parable; while Iremeus,
Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Chrysostom,*
and more lately Calvin and others, maintain that it is a history.  Tertullian (De Anima, c. vii,) says: " You will perhaps say, It is parabolical and fictitious.  But why then is
the name Lazarus therein employed if it were no real
thing?  Et quid illic Lazari nomen, si non in veritate res
est? But even though you believe it to be a parable, it
must still be in accordance with  the truth; testimoniurm
veritatis."   So too speaks Irenaeus, (Adv. Haer., lib. ii,
c. xxxiv:) "In the -narrative which is written concerning
Dives and Lazarus;" in enarratione qume scribitur de Dirite et de Lazaro.   So too Origen speaks of "The rich
man punished and the poor man refreshed in Abraham's
bosom before the end of the world, and. therefore before
the resurrection;"  rp' riq avv-re7Xiag -ro0v atovog, gat' 6da
ToiTo rTpo -T-r aJvaTardeuf.  But these extracts are sufficient.  In later times Grotius and Rosenmuller adopted the
view of the author of the Responsio ad Orthodoxos, that it
is a hypotyposis, or narrative in which something real is de* Euthymius, one of the fathers, expressly affirms that the narrative
is historical, and that he had the rich man's name, Nineusis, from a traditiou of the Jews; that he lived in the time of Christ, who therefore
does not mention his name.'1




194           IMMORTALITY  OF THE  SOUL.                   ~ 33.
picted in colors of probability. But the matter simply
comes to this: If it be historical, then it is a narrative of
what has been; if a parable, or hypotyposis,'then it is an
illustration of what does occur, ajnd of what may therefore
be regarded as an example.*
The same narrative, as above remarked, is found in the
Talmuds, both  of Jerusalem  and Babylon, with a slight
variation.  As therein presented it is as follows: " There
was a good man and a wicked man, both  of whom  died.
The good  man had no funeral rites celebrated, but the
wicked man had.  After their death, one in a vision saw
the good man walking  in the midst of gardens, and near
pleasant fountains; and  the wicked man, with his tongue
In Dr. Whately's criticisms on this narrative we have a further illustration of his wholly inadequate preparation, in a literary and critical
point of view, for entering thoroughly and intelligently into the discus —
sion of those weighty themes upon which he has undertaken to speculate. He asserts, without any qualification whatever, that " al allow that
the narrative is a parable, that is, a fictitious tale formed in order to teach
or illustrate some doctrine; and although such a tale may chance to
agree in every point with matter of fact, with events which actually take
place, there is no necessity that it should." W. 56. The parables of our
blessed Lord are therefore " fictitious tales," according to this dignitary!
Paine was equally fobnd of using the word "tale" in reference to the
Gospel narratives, and it would do Dr. Whately no harm to read the
severe but merited rebuke given hilmn by Bishop Watson for employing
such a term  in such a connection. But what shall be said of Dr.
Whately's assertion that all allow the narrative to be a parable? Let
the reader consider it in the light of the facts presented in the foregoing
exposition, and then make up his own mind in view of it. Dr. Whately
had either examined the subject or he had not. If he had, he knew of
thefacts above stated. If he had not, why did he venture upon such an
assertion, and then make it the basis for an insinuation that nothing canl
be certainly known from parabolic illustration? On p. 58 he likewise
thus speaks on the subject matter of the narrative: " Indeed, the very
circumstance of the torturing flames implies, literally, the presence of
the body, and therefore cannot be literally true of a state in which the
soul is separate from the body."  That is, in other words, because there
are -" torturing flames " adapted to a material body, " therefore it cannot
be literally true " that there are also torturing flames adapted to the
spirit. To call such argumentation puerile would be to eulogize it. It
would be bad enough on any subject; but to introduce it on the topic
before us is egregious trifling.  See in Matt. xxv, 41; Rev. xx, 10,
whether there is not a fire adapted to spirits.




~ 33.             LUKE XVI, 19-31.                195
hanging out, at the bank of a river, endeavoring to touch
the water but could not."   From  this the reader may
judge how perfectly idle is all the talk and noise of our
opponents, based upon the fact that "this parable is found
in the Gemara."
We need not hesitate, says the profoundly learned Storr,*
"to found an argument on the phrase vi ro iv yyteu'ov, he
was carried by the angels, since there is nothing in all the
structure of the narrative to render that addition necessary,
the narration being perfectly complete without it. There
could therefore be no reason why our Lord should have
mentioned the conveyance of the soul of Lazarus to Paradise by a company of angels, except a design to signify
some circumstance of the blessedness of the pious dead.
Nor can his intention be to convey a general notion by
this special illustration; for that it was by the providence
of God that Lazarus was brought to Abraham's bosom, is
so evident that the phrase vrob rijv dyyOaov, if designed
to convey that meaning, would have been perfectly needless. Hence we may believe (nor does any objection arise
from the nature of the thing itself, as certainly the ministration of angels (Heb. i, 14) is of all things least incredible in that most important change of our condition) that
our Saviour intended to point out, in the example of the
dying Lazarus, the manner in which the Divine providence
is exercised toward the good in the hour of death." The
truth of these admirable remarks appears to be self-evident.
It was the doctrine of the Jews that God employed
angels to convey to Paradise the souls of the righteous at
death. Thus they relate respecting Moses, that at the
moment of his death God said to Gabriel: " Go and bring
to me the soul of Moses! "  And it is added: " God took
hold of him, and put him under the throne of glory; nor
is the soul of Moses alone treasured up under the throne
of glory, but there also aire placed the souls of other just
persons." Comp. Rev. vi, 9.4
* De Parabolis Christi, sec. 20.  t See Lightfoot, in Luke xv!,




196         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 33.
By Abraham's bosom they meant Paradise. The three
names, Garden of -Eden, A4braham's bosom, and Paradise,
were employed by the Jews as synonyms, to express the
condition of the blessed between death and the resurrection.l.  Wetstein, from  the Chaldee paraphrasts and other
Jewish writings, shows that it was a tradition of the ancient Jews, that the souls of the pious are at death carried
by angels into Paradise. See Wisdom iii, 1-3; and comp.
Luke xxiii, 43, and 2 Cor. xii, 1-4.  They also say: "On
the day that the Rabbi died, R. Ada ben Ahava said,'This
day he sits in Abraham's bosom."'  " God took Abraham
and planted him  in Paradise."   " When our master,
IMoses, departed into Paradise, he said unto Joshua," etc.,
Then again say they: "He (Moses) is in heaven ministering unto God."  So too in the Jerzusalem Talmud, it is said
of Rabbi Judah, when he died, that " he is carried by
angels;" but the Babylonian has it, "He is placed in Abraham's bosom."  They also represent the mother of the
noble martyr (2 Mac. vii,) as saying to him just before
his death, "Go thou, O my son, to Abraham thy father,
and tell him," etc. (Comp. Matt. viii, 11; John i, 18;
xiii, 23.) But it is needless to detain the reader any longer
on this passage.
5. The next passage to which we invite attention is the
following: " But as teaching the'resurrection of the dead,
have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush
God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and
the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?  God is not the
God of the dead, but of the living; for all live unto him;
ye therefore do greatly err." I give the whole statement,
as presented by the three evangelists.  See Matt. xxii,
23-33; Mark xii, 18-27; Luke xx, 28-38.
When we come to consider the Annihilationist "arguments," we shall take occasion to refer again to a part of
this passage. My object at present is to view it in a single
aspect. The Sadducees believed that man ceased utterly
to exist at death, and consequently they denied his resur



~ 33.             LUKE XX, 28-38.                  197
rection.  Their denial of the resurrection was of course
based upon this belief. Hence, if this could be disproved
*they must give up their doctrine, as the foundation on which
they denied the resurrection would be utterly swept away;
for, granting that the soul continued to exist after death,
they had no conception that it would forever remain separated from the body, the body being a part of the man, and
of course belonging to him as man. If death was not annihilation, therefore, and if man must live forever, they
saw that he must live forever as man, and consequently
that a reunion of soul and body must at some time take
place.
Hence our Saviour pursued the line of argument that he
did. Had he designed merely to establish the revival of
the body,' he could have referred to the case of Enoch,
whose translation clearly announced that man was not destined to lie forever in the cold obstruction of the grave.
But he aimed at something more; for had he simply
proved a future resurrection, the Sadducees would still have
objected, as the Annihilationists now do, that there was no
such thing as a spirit. (Acts xxiii, 8.)  While if the ex
istence of the spirit after death is proved, the resurrection,
as they viewed the matter, followed of course. Our Saviour therefore, in order at once to disprove their views on
both these points, refers to Exodus iii, 6, 16, (comp. also
Acts vii, 32, and Heb. xi, 16,) which affirms that God was
still the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, though they had
been long dead, and upon which he also remarks that "God
is not the God of the dead," (in the sense in which the Sadducees used the term dead, for how could he be the God
of that which had no existence?) "but of the living;'" and
then, directly in the very face of their theory, he adds,
"for ALL live unto him;" that is, So far is man from ceasing
to exist at death, as ye Sadducees pretend, that, even though
they have ceased to be seen on earth, all that are dead still
live to Him.
The import of the expression, "I am the God of Abra



198         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 33.
ham," etc., can hardly be mistaken: I am their protector,
and the object of their worship.*  And as this was spoken
long after the death of these patriarchs, he could not then
be their protector, and the object of their worship, if at
death they had ceased to exist. For to claim to be the
protector of that which has no existence is as complete an
absurdity as it would be for a man to proclaim himself the
protector of a house which had been destroyed by fire.
Hence, as He was still their protector, they still existed.
And hence too, in the narrative of the rich man and Lazarus, Abraham, who also was dead, is introduced as in full
possession of his conscious personality; a representation
which would never have been made, if the annihilation
theory be true, as it must necessarily lead to serious error.
The remarks of our opponents on this passage are, from
first to last, beneath criticism. They may be seen in C.
36; S. app. 12; D. 153-160; H. 2, pp. 73, 74; A. 77-82;
E. 152-154.  There is not one attempt to grapple with
the argument, except by evasions and equivocations of the
most puerile character. I will refer to those however which
have an air of plausibility.
And first: It is claimed by them that the clause in Luke,
"Fir all live to Himn," (rravre9 -yap avr-w 4o atv,) is the key
of the whole passage; meaning, as they say, that though
these patriarchs are dead and extinct, they yet live in the
purposes of God, who calleth things that are not as though
they were. Thus E. says: "They are alive in the purpose
and in the vision of God."  " Mark, God is not the God of
the wicked dead, but of the living saints."  But if the
wicked are raised, even if only to be annihilated over again,
how is it that they are not as much alive in "the purpose
and vision of God" as these patriarchs themselves?  But
it is obvious that for ("yap) is here explanatory, and denotes
how God is the God of the living and not of the dead; they
all are alive to him, (av-rw,) though they be dead to men.
He could not be their God if, in the Sadducean sense, they
* See Knapp's Theology, p. 458, and section 29, sub-section 8,.svpra.




~ 33.             LUKE XX, 28-38.                 199
were dead or extinguished. They are withdrawn from human
sight and observation, but yet they live. Thus too it is said.
of Jesus, even after his resurrection, that he "liveth unto
God." Rom. vi, 10. And of course, therefore, those who
are said to live to God are not supposed to be less alive
than they were when they lived to men.* Then further:
In what were these  patriarchs distinguished from others if
they all were extinguished at death? Relationship is expressed in these words:t for as there cannot, in the proper
sense of the term, be a father without children, nor a king
without people, so neither could God be the God of these
patriarchs unless they were then existing.. (See Rev. vi,
9, 10.)  And so too, if God intended to say to Moses what
the annihilation theory makes him say, it of course would
have been, "I was the God of Abraham," etc., and not " I
am," etc. (Comp. Exod. vi, 3.) The same idea is illustrated also by the language which God employed in relation to the Abrahamic covenant. (Gen: xvii.) He promises
not only to be Abraham's God, but that he will be the God
of his seed.  Now it is just as true that this seed "lived
in the affections and purposes of God," as it could be true
that the patriarchs thus lived if they'ceased to exist at
death. And yet God does not say, I am the God of thy
seed after thee, but, I will be their God.  See also Gen.
xxviii, 13-15, in which, in the address to Jacob, God emnploys the emphatic language, "I am the God of Abraham
thy father, and the God of Isaac."  Isaac had not yet died,
and yet in precisely the same sense that God was his God,.he was also the God of Abraham; whereas, if the annihilation theory were true, the only appropriate language would
have been, I was the God of Abraham thy father, and I am
the God of Isaac.  But the verb of existence is not expressed in the Hebrew, thus evincing'that in the same
sense he was the God of both.
Mr. Dobney remarks that " a modern teacher would
find no argument at all for a resurrection, as we commonly
* See Cudworth, ii, 238.    t See Calvin in Luke xx, 37.




200         IMMORTALITY -OF THE SOUL.              ~ 33.
understand it, in the phrase quoted by Christ, but only for
the continually conscious existence of the patriarchs." But
when Mr. Dobney made this assertion he knew that modern
teachers do find such an argument in those words, and that
they rely on those words as teaching irrefragably the doctrine of the resurrection. Had the Sadducees, moreover,
known of that modern  theory of Swedenborg, which
teaches that the separate state of the soul is the perfect
state for which God created man, they might have objected
that the argument did not establish the resurrection. But
as this theory had not been broached among the Jews,
they were silenced by the argument.
Mr. Ham remarks that the only states referred to in the
language of our Lord are the present and the future resurrection state; thus, in his peculiar style of logic, asuming'
the point to be proved.  Now the intermediate state, as I
have shown above, is clearly referred to in the words, " I
am the God of Abraham," etc., and " God is not the God
of the dead, but of the living; for all lire to him."  But
having thus assumed the point, he thus reasons: Had our
Lord taught the doctrine of the conscious disembodied soul
existing in a state intermediate between death and the
resurrection, it would have been more to the purpose of the
Sadducees to have inquired, What relation does this woman
sustain to her seven husbands now?  In other words, Mr.
Ham has so clear a conception of what Christ taught respecting the state and condition of the disembodied spirit,
as to perceive that marriage pertains not only to persons
in the body but also to separate souls! The Sadducees
were incapable of such folly.  From their question, Whose
wife shall she be? and from our Lord's reply, In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, their
true sentiments appear.  They supposed that the resutrrection of the body must necessarily infer the continuance of
the marriage relation as it here exists.  Hence their attempt at the reductio ad absurducm.  But Mr. Ham turns
that into an inquiry for information, which was merely de



~ 33.             LUKE XX, 28-38.                 201
signed to convict of absurdity a doctrine which they despised. But suppose they had even inquired, Whose wife
is she now? how would this have proved the doctrine absurd which they were endeavoring to subvert-the doctrine
of the resurrection of the body?  It is difficult to characterize such criticism. And yet such are the quibbles of
this body of critics on the passage in question.
To conclude. The immortality of the soul being demonstrated, the resurrection of the body clearly follows, because the word of God deduces the latter from the former
and immediately conjoins them. The Jews regarded the
question relating to the two as one, in this sense, that
the one being granted the other necessarily follows; then
the justice of God demands that the soul should receive, in
connection with the body, its desert. The works of God,
also, (that is, creation, redemption, and sanctification,) respect
not only the soul but the body.  Hence, therefore, the
argument in this passage stands thus: God is not the God
of the dead, but of the living; but he is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; therefore Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob are not dead in the sense in which ye Sadducees
employ the term, but living; and consequently they shall,
at some future time, arise from the dead, and with them
the rest of mankind.*  Thus is the doctrine of the sesurrection invincibly established upon the basis of the soul's
immortality.
6. Our next passage is Luke xxiii, 43: "Jesus said unto
him, Verily I say unto thee, to-day shalt thou be with me
in paradise." The Greek, which I purposely present without pointing, is EL7TVe avri-@I o4Ijacroig &ajlv aZywo n t ao4aEPov
E-r' EyLov saqV -E i' 7TapaSdeta.
The struggles of our opponents with this passage may
be witnessed in C. 38-40; S. app. 8, 9; H. 2, pp. 75, 76;
A. 84-86; G. 21; E. 159-162; F. 21-23; J. T. 66. Mr.
Dobney seems to have wisely concluded to say nothing on
the subject.
* See Schmidtii, Colleg. Biblicum, ii, p, 380.




202         IMMORTALITY O1' THE SOUL.             ~ 33.
The text itself requires not much commentary to elucidate its import, and I shall therefore merely call the
reader's attention to the efforts of our opponents to divest
it of its significancy, for this process will sufficiently elicit
its true sense. Theirfirst objection is the following criticism
on the word " to-day."
C. remarks: " Luke xxiii, 43, is often quoted as conclusive evidence that the righteous, at death, go immediately
into heaven to dwell with Christ. But strange as it may
appear, this evidence hangs on the position of the little
comma placed before the word to-day, making the word today qualify the verb shall be in the second member of the
sentence. Now, suppose we move the place of the comma,
so as to make it read, Verily I say unto thee to-day, shalt
thou be with me in paradise. This destroys the evidence
that good men go to heaven at death. Now the location of
the comma is no part of inspired testimony, but a thing of
modern invention.  But, says one, if the word to-day is
made a part of the first member of the sentence, and qualifies the verb say, instead of shall be, it is not good sense, for
the thief could not think Christ was saying it yesterday or
to-morrow. This leads us to examine more closely the
word. It is not a noun in the original, but an adverb,
semeron, and does qualify the first expression, "I say," and
is the same in other instances translated now, [where is the
proof of this in the New Testament?] which is frequently
used without the least regard to definite time. As if I should
say to my opponent, Now you are mistaken with regard
to what the Saviour said to the thief.  Here I do not use
the word now to let my opponent understand he was not
mistaken yesterday, to-day, or to-morrow, but to give a
force to that indicative form of expression. This appears
to be the use of the word snmzeron in the text.' Now, verily,
I say unto thee shalt thou be with me in paradise.' When?
Listen to the thief's prayer:' Lord, remember me when thou
comest into thy kingdom.' Not when thou goest into thy
kingdom at death, but when thou comest into it."  The




~ 33.             LUKE XXIII, 43.                 203
same pointing is insisted on by S. and by A., who also
add: " The Lord has not even yet come into his kingdom,
and consequently the thief's desire has not been realized;" which G. also asserts, and expresses a doubt
whether the passage is genuine.  E. further denies that
paradise has now any existence, or that it will have, until
it is located in the new earth, and consequently that neither
Christ nor the thief could then have entered it.  "How
could either Christ or the thief be in paradise that day,
when paradise does not yet actually exist?"  But of this
more presently.  F. and J. T. speak in the same strain,
whom H. follows, by denying that there is any congruity
between the request of the thief and the reply of Christ,
if that reply means that he shall go immediately to heaven;
and he explains the passage thus: " As if Christ had said,
I will remember you when I come in my kingdom, for
this day you shall be among those of whom it is written,
Blessed are the dead which die in, or with, the Lord." Mr.
Ham does not say, however, where this passage was then
written. See note in ~ 37, sub-sect. 2.
The reader will have perceived how these writers contradict each other in their criticisms on the word "' to-day."
But as we shall have occasion to refer to this again, we shall
now confine our remarks to those who assert that this word
qualifies the verb "say," instead of " shall be."  And in
support of this they quote such passages as Deut. xi, 1,
and Gen. ii, 4, 17, in order to prove, what no one will
deny, that the term day does not always mean a natural
day.
These objections, the learned reader is aware, have been
copied from critics of former times, and are still occasionally insisted on by one or another who might know better.
The reply of Grotius and Wolzogenius, which I here subjoin, has never been met, however, as it ought certainly to
have been, before any man laying claim to common
honesty should undertake to repeat the objection. Grotius
remarks as follows: "?,tueQpov, (to-day.) They have acted




204         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 3.
most basely (pessime) who have joined this word with
a?/yo, (I say,) or have explained it to mean after the resurrection.  Christ promises more than had been asked.
Thou askest, says he, that I may remember thee hereafter,
when I shall receive possession of the kingdomn; i shall not
postpone so long the answer to thy prayer; but within
this very day I shall bestow upon thee a part of the first
fruits of the hoped-for felicity.  Die then without apprehension, for divine consolations await thee immediately after
death. The word to-day is emphatically spoken, (iF/atrtlOv,)" etc.  These positions are fully sustained in his
admirable note on the passage, in which also he remarks,
" that no one can deny that the thief, as he was a Jew,
having heard the name ]:..t (Garden of Eden, or Paradise) thus emphatically connected with the designation of
time, to-day, death too approaching, understood that state in
which it was the persuasion of the Jewish people that the
souls of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob then existed."  The
remarks of the celebrated Wolzogenius are equally unanswerable, and in his case the more remarkable, as he was
a strenuous advocate for the sleep of the soul. He says:
"'To-day. This adverb is not to be connected with the preceding, thus, I say to thee to-day; (which the Syriac version
also expressly repudiates;) neither is the sense, To-day, that
is, after my resurrection, (post resurrectionem meane,) thou
shalt be with me in paradise. But Christ promises to the
thief more than he had besought; as if he had said, You
ask that I will at some time remember you when I shall
receive my kingdom. But I affirm to you that I shall not
delay so long the fulfillment of your supplication; but today, that is, in this very day, so soon as you have passed
from this life, you shall be with me in paradise. There is,
according to Jewish usage, a singular emphasis in this adverb to-day," etc.  He also proves by invincible arguments
that the Jews distinguished "the state of paradise, into
which pious souls enter at death, from the resurrection
state," and adds: "As Christ therefore here wished so to




~ 33.               LUKE XXIII, 43.                   205
speak as that the thief understood what he said in accordance with the meaning attached to such language by the
Jews, why surely since he made mention of paradise,
and had also named the time, to-day, and as he was even
then with him in the agony of death, it is certain that the
thief could have understood nothing else by paradise than
that state or place into which the Jews believed that the
souls of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and of the rest of the
pious, were conveyed at, death. This therefore is what
Christ would say:' Not only when I come in my kingdom
will I remember thee, but even now, to-day, thy soul shall
be with me in the place, and with the congregation of the
righteous.' For Christ did not vainly, and without cause,
add the word to-day."
These criticisms, substantiated as they are by irrefragable
proof, cannot be gainsayed. I would add, however, in reply
to the remarks of our opponents on the pointing of the
text, that o-IL, that, is obviously always understood in such
a connection, if it be not expressed. The plain construction is, Verily I say unto thee, that to-day thou shalt be,"
etc.*
"O'rt is frequently expressed where such a collocation of
words is found; as, for example, in Mark xiv, 30; Luke'
xix, 9; but it is, as every tyro knows, f-ill as often understood as is the Hebrew  ~, the German dass, and the
English that, especially after verbs of declaring. See, in
the Greek, Heb. iii, 7; iv, 7; James iv, 13. Hence, too,
though expressed in the Greek text, it is often omitted in
translation, as in Luke iv, 21, and xix, 9. In fact not one
instance can be found in the inspired Scriptures of any such
usage of the word a  SipQov as these Ihen so arbitrarily and
ignorantly attempt to fix upon it in this instance.
The attempt to justify their procedure by the remark
* The old Syriac version, which appears to have been made previous
to the death of the Apostle John, expresses the particle: " Verily, I say
unto thee that to-day thou shalt be with me in paradise." This of itself
is sufficient to demonstrate the relation of aitrsepov to ea,.




206          IMMORTALITY  OF THE SOUL.                ~ 33.
that the " pointing is not inspired," amounts to nothing;
for surely that fact does not give them liberty to turn the
Scriptures into nonsense by placing points anywhere.   I
will here present two or three analagous instances, and let
any competent reader take his Greek Testament and examine them.  We will first take Luke xix, 5: "Zaccheus
make haste and come clown for to-day, I must abide at thy
ho2use."  The collocation of words is just as it is in Luke
xxiii, 43.  Is, then, the idea that Zacecheus must come down
to-day, and then go up and stay there the rest of his life.
or to-morrow? So too in such passages as Heb. iii, 7:
"The Holy Spirit saith to-day, If ye will hear," etc.; and
HTeb. iv, 7: "As it is said to-day, If ye will hear," etc.
Now it would be just as senseless to insist that these passages should be thus translated and pointed, because " pointing is not inspired," as it is to say, for the same reason,
that the analagous passage in Luke xxiii, 43, may  be
pointed as our opponents pretend.  See also James iv, 13:
"Ye who say to-day or to-morrow, we will go," etc.  The
above instances however are sufficient.*
The reference to the passages in Deuteronomy, where
Moses says: " I command thee this day," etc., as illustrative of the term to-day, as here used, evinces the extremity
to which our opponents are reduced by this text.  For in
his prayer the thief had expressed a time: "Remember me
when thou comest," etc.  And in Christ's reply the term
to-day responds to the when: you ask me to do it hereafter, but I do it now.  It is true the poor penitent did not
ask to be remembered that day, as our opponents assert;
but does this hinder that Christ should give him more than
- Several writers of the Romish Church adopted this criticism, to
whom Betlarmine replies as follows: " This exposition is perfectly ridicLulons, for why should the Lord say,' Verily, I tell you to-day?' Could
not the robber see that he was speaking to him that day; and besides,
who does not see by the adverb to-day, the reply is given to the adverb
when? The true exposition, therefore, is that of Theophylact, Ambrose,
Bede, and others, who by paradise understand the kingdom of heaven."
De Beat. Sanct., lib. i, cap iii.




~ 33.             LUKE XXIII, 43.                 207
he asked?  Did the poor publican ask to be "justified,"
and made a child of God, with all the fullness and promptness with which his prayer was answered? Did the prodigal son ask to have a ring on his finger, and shoes on his
feet, and to be clothed in the best robe his father possessed? And was his prayer therefore not answered because he got more than he sought? Was there "a want of
congruity between the prayer and its answer?"  But such
objections are purely theologastrian.
Our opponents also ask: "Why, if the thief believed
the doctrine of the soul's immortality, did he not ask to be
remembered by Christ immediately after death?"  But this
is merely an objection ab ignorantia.  He asked to be one
of the subjects of Christ's kingdom, and surely this included
everything.  Paul affirms of himself that he labored and
toiled so that he might "'attain to the resurrection of the
dead."  Yet he does not consider this as at all inconsistent
with an earnest desire to depart and be with Christ. If,
from a deep sense of unworthiness, the thief thought himself unfit to be associated with Christ, this has nothing to
do with the import of the Saviour's language. We know
not fully what were the thief's theological views previous to
this, his conversion, though he of course was familiar with
the figures, etc., of the Jewish language; he may have been
a Sadducee, or a " Nothingarian."  But it is not his language, but that of the Saviour, with which the argument
before us is concerned.
Another objection which they bring is on the very verge
of blasphemy, and well nigh charges the Saviour with
uttering a falsehood.  C. denies that the thief died on the
same day with Christ, and asserts that Christ died on
Thursday, and was in the grave all of Friday and Saturday.
Others repeat the same idea. It is needless, however, to
notice these reckless assertions, except by remarking that in
Mark xv, 42, and xvi, 9, it is emphatically stated that he
was crucified on Friday. It is evident also from the fact
that the Jews themselves would have put him to death, as




208         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.            ~ 33.
they did Stephen, had it not been the day of the passover,
when it was not lawful for them to put any man to death.
The blunder of C., and others of 6ur opponents, arose from.
their being ignorant of the fact that while Matthew, Mark,
and Luke, who wrote mainly to Jews, calculated the time
from evening to evening, according to the Jewish method';
John, who wrote long after the Jewish believers ceased to
be a majority in the Church, calculated his time by the
Roman or Asiatic method, from midnight to mid-day, and
from  mid-day to midnight.  But it is useless to spend
more time upon this objection. Mr. Ham, and others of
the chief writers of this sect, assert that Christ and the
thief died on the same day.
Their third objection is that paradise is an ambiguous
term, and consequently the language of Christ to the malefactor is ambiguous, "on account of our ignorance of the
precise sense to be attached to the word paradise."  So
speaks Mr. Ham, and he further denounces the argument
as based upon a " dubious portion" of Scripture. An
equally able writer, (F. 22,) however, says in the most
emphatic manner, "paradise, remember, is where God
resides."  "The thief died that day."  E. also says that
the word is used but three times in the Bible, (Luke
xxiii, 43; 2 Cor. xii, 4; and Rev. ii, 7,) and that paradise
does not now exist. Thus they hallucinate.
The question, however, is ndt whether the term is ambiguous to these writers and their coadjutors, but whether
it was ambiguous to the Jews in the time of Christ? That
it was not, any one can satisfy himself by merely referring
to the quotations from the Talmuds, as given by Grotius
and Wolzogenius in loco. The Jews understood by it, as
employed in this connection, the resting place of the souls
of the righteous between death and the resurrection. And
as to the term being used nowhere in the Bible except in
the places above named, the reader may judge for himself
what profound critics these are, when I assure him that
~ta  is found in Neh. ii, 8; Eccles. ii, 5; and Cant. iv, 13.




~ 33.              LUKE XXIII, 43.                  209
The remark that paradise does not exist, in the sense in
which the word is employed in the New Testament, is equally
profound.  Luke xxiii, 43, asserts its existence in the clearest manner, as Christ and the thief were both in paradise on
the day they died.  Paul also asserts that he was caught
up into paradise, (either in the body or out of the body,)
and none but an Annihilationist can imagine that the
Apostle could have been conveyed into a place that had no
existence. And Christ also expressly declares that the tree
of life is in the midst of the paradise of God, (Rev. ii, 7,)
language which can convey no other idea than that paradise
has a present existence.
Their last objection is that Christ was not in paradise, or
heaven, until after his resurrection.   See E. 159, 160;
G. 21; A. 85; J. T. 66; and S., App. 8, 9.  Here too they
are expressly contradicted by others of their writers: F.
22; IH. 2, pp. 75, 76. Those, however, who maintain the
first proposition quote, to sustain them, John xx, 17:
"Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father,"
a passage which we shall therefore briefly examine.
This exposition is directly contradicted by the words of
Christ in John xvi, 16, in which he tells his disciples that
at his death (comp. verses 17-28,) he should go to the
Father.  Even Archdeacon Blackburne is compelled to
admit that these words teach that Christ ascended to heaven
in the interval between his death and resurrection.  The
same idea in substance, as we have seen, he expressed to
the dying malefactor.  Mary, to whom he speaks in John
xx, 17, doubtless knew of his words in both these instances,
and that in the former instance he expressed his intention
of returning again to the Father after his resurrection, and
that then his disciples should meet him on earth no more.
Now the words translated I am not yet ascended, are oVertw
avaf3B3yca, the preterite for the present, according to the
usage illustrated by Glassius, Philol. Sac., lib. iii, tract iii,
can. 46, 47; also by Viger, De Idiotis. Grac, c. v, sec. 3;
(see also Annotationes Hermanni, in Vigerum;) and by
14




210           IMMORTALITY  OF THE SOUL.                 ~ 33.
Winer, p. i, sec. 41. Now every tyro knows that in composition &iva has very frequently the force of again. Baitro
alone means simply to ascend; dv&d adds a shade of meaning.  Thus, Matt. iii, 16, "'Christ went up again, or returned."  Matt. xiii, 7: The thorns which had been cut off
in order that the seed might be sown sprang up again.  In
referring also to our Saviour's frequent ascent into mountains, the same word is used.  "He went up again into a
mountain."  Matt. v, 1; xiv, 23; xv, 23.   It is in like'
manner employed in referring to his frequent visits to
Jerusalem.   "He went up again to  Jerusalem." Matt.
xx, 17, 18; John v, 1.  "We go up again." Mark x, 32.
See also Mark vi, 51; Luke ii, 42; ix, 28; x, 31; xix, 28;
John vii, 8, 10, 14; and so too in multitudes of instances,
where the idea, though not expressed in the translation, as it
is in the Greek, is clearly implied. Now this same composite
term is used in our text.  And as Mary had doubtless heard
of his remarks above referred to, no term can be more
proper: "Touch me not, for I do not yet ascend again to
my Father."*
These words, therefore, clearly imply such an ascent between his death and resurrection, according to chap. xvi, 16,
and so teach the very doctrine which our opponents endeavor to disprove by quoting them.
The import of the phrase touch me not, itO pov drrov, is
sufficiently plain. "Arrrogat refers to the method of evincing respect among the Greeks and Orientals. It was to fall
down before a superior and embrace, or even kiss his feet.
* Or if the perfect tense be contended for, it will amount substantially
to the same thing. " I have not yet ascended again (that is, since my
resurrection) to the Father; but I am now about to ascend." There is
no impropriety in admitting that during the interval of the forty days
between his resurrection and final ascension, in the presence of his disciples, the Saviour may have frequently ascended to the abodes of the
blessed. (See my work on the Resurrection, pp. 336-338.)  1 have
translated the idiom literally, merely to exhibit the precise shade of
meaning conveyed by the original; though, of course, as every one
knows, an idiomatic expression can seldom be felicitously tlmsferred
from one language into another,




~ 33.             LUKE XXIII, 43.                211
See Luke v, 8; vii, 38; 2 Kings, iv, 27; compare also
Josephus, Antiq., vi, c. xiii, sec. 78, and vii, c. xi, sec. 2.
The idea therefore is, Do not cling to me as though you
supposed that I shall now at once depart from earth; I do
not yet ascend again to the Father. But go and tell my
brethren that, having' now arisen, I shall [the present for
the future] ascend again to my Father, etc.  I have here
translated the alva, though the'sense is sufficiently clear, even
in our own idiom, without it.
As the Jews therefore employed the terms Abraham's
bosom, Garden of Eden, and Paradise, as synonymous, and
were accustomed to say of the good man when dying,
"To-day he shall rest or sit in the bosom  of Abraham,
(whence arose also the Chaldaic saying: "Seek Paradise,
the glorious country of the soul,") and as Christ used this
language in that sense in which the thief, who was a Jew,
could understand him, so Luke xxiii, 43, must ever stand as
a clear announcement of the uninterrupted immortality of
the soul. The assurance given to the expiring penitent was
also backed by that most solemn form of asseveration, ad/qt,
(from  the root ~:[, to be true and faithfle,) which the
Scripture employs when it would affirm anything in the
most direct and earnest manner. It is even employed also
as one of the names of Christ: "The Amnen, the faithful
and true witness." Rev. iii, 14. Well therefore might the
dying but penitent thief rely on the assurance thus given;
nor is the hope misplaced which now cheers the expiring
saint, that when' the agony of death is past, he too shall
meet his faithful and beloved Redeemer in paradise.
7. The next passage to which we shall invite attention is
Luke xxiv, 36-39: " And as they thus spake, Jesus himself
stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be
unto you. But they were terrified, and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them,
Why are ye troubled? and why do [such] thoughts arise
within your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that
it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not




212         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 33.
flesh and bones as ye see me having." See also Job iv,
13-17; Matt. xiv, 26; Mark vi, 49.  That the basis of
the fear here mentioned, as associated with this sudden appearance of Christ, was the belief of the Jewish doctrine
of the immortality of the soul, will not be questioned, for
they saw and recognized his form.
I refer to this passage particularly to illustrate the
manner in which our opponuents openly falsify the Scriptures in order to get rid of their testimony. E. 100, for
example, thus quotes and remarks upon it: " Luke xxiv, 37:'They supposed that they had seen a spirit.' Verse 39:'It is I; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones.' In this
place Griesbach puts phantasma in the margin, which doubtless is the true reading." This is one of the many false
statements which this illiterate production is scattering
through the country. The same assertion is also made
by A. 60, an equally reckless andlilliterate work.  Griesbach, on verse 37, notes that acdvzraaFla, though suggested
as a reading in that verse, is yet without authority, and is
to be repudiated; while in respect to verse 39 no such
reading had ever been suggested, so that in both these verses
rrvel-a (spirit) is the undisputed reading.  No censure can
be too severe upon men who can thus falsify the express
declarations of God's word in order to deceive the unwary.
S., App. 13, supposes that spirit here does not mean the
spirit of a man, and adds: "Angels are spirits, but have
not a body of flesh and bones."  H. 2, p. 88, with his
usual learning, maintains that the reference " is not to the
human spirit, but merely to spiritual existence;" and as
Christ does not use the " possessive pronoun," and say " my
spirit hath not flesh and bones," he cannot admit that here
is any proof " of the theory of disembodied human existence."  Such passages, says he, merely imply " the existence of other beings, who are called spirits."
That the Jews believed the soul survived the body and
might become visible, (1 Sam. xxviii,) no one acquainted
with their theology will deny; and such was their belief in




33.             LUKE XXIV, 36-39.                213
the time of Christ.  The disciples retained this doctrine
during the whole time of their intercourse with Christ, and
though early expressed by them, (see Matt. xiv, 26,) he
never corrected "the Pagan fable," and "false and pernicious delusion," and "wicked superstition," as our opponents name it, but permitted them to entertain it fully.
And even now, after his resurrection, their minds are still
influenced by the same ideas, and yet he gives not the
slightest intimation that they are inaccurate. A fact which,
of itself, fully demonstrates the annihilation theory to be a
false and pernicious delusion.
In the passage before us he appeared to the eleven, and
addressed them with his usual and well known salutation,
"Peace be unto you."  They saw him distinctly and clearly
before them.  They had entertained doubts, however, as
to whether he were really risen from the dead; and as he
now appeared in their midst after they had fastened the
doors, they supposed that his material body could not
come thus amongst them unperceived. Their doubts as to
his actual resurrection were revived, and in their fear they
cried out, supposing that, after all, he was only a spirit.
The reader can decide whether, under such circumstances,
it is supposable they could have believed that what they
saw before them  might have been any other spirit than
his own. He replies to the thoughts which were rising in
their hearts by saying, "Handle me and see." Of course,
therefore, they had recognized the form, and needed only
to be assured of the reality of his corporeal presence.
In his reply the Saviour confirms their belief in the
reality of the disembodied state of the human spirit, from
the fact that he did not, by assuring them that all such
fears were ungrounded, correct the impression which they
entertained.  Our Annihilationists, with the views which
they profess, would doubtless have done so at once, for they
are continually asserting this in every variety of form.
They would have corrected it at the fountain head, especially if they had known, as Christ did know, that multi



214          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 33.
tudes of his most devoted followers, in every age, would
rely upon this fact as conclusive evidence that the human
soul exists when separated from the body. Why then did
not our blessed Saviour thus correct it, as they would
certainly have done?  There is but one satisfactory answer
to this question, namely, the views which these meen entertain
and advocate are the reverse of the truth; for it would be
the most infamous blasphemy to pretend that they are more
zealous than Christ or his apostles were in removing error
and inculcating the truth.
8. I have already referred to the language of Stephen in
Acts vii, 59: " Lord Jesus receive my spirit;" and to the
similar language of our blessed Saviour when dying. (Luke
xxiii, 46.)  I here introduce it again, merely to expose the
manner in which our opponents endeavor to evade the testimony furnished by those passages.
C. 44 says: "On a careful examination of the text, it
does not appear that he [Stephen] prayed to the Lord to
receive it [his spirit.]  The record states: Then they [the
Jews] ran upon him, [reviled and ridiculed him,] and cast
him out of the city, and stoned him. Now it seems it was
the same they that ran upon himn, and calling upon God,
and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. But it may be
asked why the Jews should say, Lord Jesus, receive my
spirit?  Only by mocking the confidence of Stephen in the
Saviour," etc. In that profound treatise, the " Bible versus
Tradition," E. 98 says: "The grammar of the text charges
the saying,' Lord Jesus, receive my spirit,' upon the wicked
Jews, and afterward records what Stephen did and said."
To justify this criticism, the authors of this book make a
show of quoting the expression itself in Greek.
The original here has no various readings in MSS., and
is as follows: icKat EALOo66Xovv rO-v 1r7~avov, E7rrucaovp.e~vov tcai:uyov-ra.  KiLpte'Inaoi, etc. This language is of
the plainest and simplest form  and character; nothing
therein is in any way involved. The word for they stoned
is plural, and expresses the act of the Jews; while the




~ 33.                  ACTS VII, 59.                      215
word for invocating, or calling upon God, is singular, and
relates directly to Stephen; nor is there the remotest possibility of mistake in the matter by any one who understands the language sufficiently to distinguish a plural form
from a singular. What then is to be thought of the assertion that " the grammar of the text charges upon  the
wicked Jews " the calli~ng upon God?  One of two things
is true in relation to it; either it is another instance of
those reckless misstatements of  which the  book  "Bible
versus Tradition" is so full, and which appear.to be designed to deceive the unwary; or it is declarative of the
real amount of knowledge possessed by the authors of that
book, who, while they profess to quote Greek and criticise
it as though it were perfectly familiar to them, do not even
understand the merest rudiments of the language.  Whichever of these alternatives be chosen, the public will be at
no loss how to appreciate the claims of such writers to be
intelligent and conscientious advocates of truth.*
Wolzogenius thus comments on the passage: "Receive
my spirit: even that nobler part of the substance of man,
now about to be separated from the body."  One meaning
alone couldcl'have been by the Jews attached to the words
of Stephen, (see Wisdom iii, 1, 2,) and that is apparent upon
the very surface of the expression.   He, too, by  being
filled with the Holy Ghost, was secured from error. Now
he could not have commended his spirit to Christ, if he believed either that he had no spirit, or that it was annihi* I am the more particular in calling attention to this work because it
is regarded by many of this sect as their ablest production, and it is
well calculated to deceive the unwary and ignorant.,They call it "a
two-edged sword; " it is recommended ill the most laudatory terms, and
circulated by their agents through the length and breadth of the land.
They assert that the evangelical clergy are afraid to read it, and that if
Dr. Beecher had only possessed a copy of it, his mind would have been
so fully relieved by its perusal that he would probably not have published
his " Conflict of Ages." They affirm too that the editors of our religious
press are afraid to notice it; yet I hesitate not to repeat, that a more
grossly illiterate publication has not been issued from the press in
modern times.




216          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.                 ~ 33.
lated or perished with the body at death, and never revived
again except in conjunction with the body itself; for in this
case the soul is of no more importance than the body, and
it is even of less value, according to E., who asserts that
it is of no consequence what becomes of it.  See' ~ 5,
supra.  The fact, then, that Stephen, under these circumstances, did discriminate between soul and body, and that
his anxiety in the hour of death related to the former instead of the latter, establishes beyond cavil itself the separate existence of the soul.
I add here a single remark in reference to the language
relating to our blessed Lord in the hour of death. Our
opponents take no notice of the different terms in which
the Holy  Spirit has recorded the idea thus presented.
Mark and Luke both say E8rrvsevos, he expired, or died.
John (xix, 30) says, rrap~6w)ce r- ivev-fa, he yielded up his
spirit; while Matthew (xxvii, 50) expresses the idea in the
most emphatic manner: 6d0irie -oB 7rvevga, he dismissed his
spirit.  The intelligent reader will know how to appreciate
the fact here presented as connected with the question of
the soul's separate existence.
9. I have but a single remark to offer on our next passage, (Acts xxiii, 6-8,) in which it is expressly mentioned as
one of the errors of the Sadducees that they denied the existence of human spirits: "For the Sadducees say that
there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit, ilS7e6
dyye.2ov Fttre -rvevtLa.  Now that the Sadducees did not
deny that man before his death possessed a vital and intellicgent principle, which is called the soul or spirit, all will
admit.  What then was their error?  They denied the existence of the human spirit in a separate state; for by
spirit, as here distinguished from angel, is beyond question
meant the departed spirit of man. Our opponents meddle
not with this text, and therefore we need offer nothing
further upon it.*
~ "Paul said he was a Pharisee, in the midst of an assembly of
Phlrisees and Sadducees. He intended to save his life by it. Did he




~ 33.            2 CORINTHIANS V, 1-9.                    217
10. The next passage to  which we invite attention  is
2 Cor. v, 1-9: "For we know that if our earthly house of
this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God,
a house not made with hands, eternial in the heavens.  For
in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with
our house which is from heaven; if so be 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 earnsest of the Spirit.  Therefore we are always confident,
knowing that while we are at home in the body we are
absent from  the Lord, (for we walk by faith and 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."
The paragraph of which this passage is the conclusion
commences at chap. iv, 17, and its connection therewith is
so obvious that nothing but carelessness in dividing the New
Testament into chapters could have occasioned the separation.
If this passage contained all that the word of God hag
taught on the subject under discussion, one might suppose
that it was of itself sufficient to settle the question of the
soul's conscious existence after the dissolution of the body.
A few remarks upon it therefore are all that can be here
required.
lie? He was, in the sectarian sense, a Pharisee and not a Sadducee.
This was solemnly affirming for them in all the points designating their
peculiarity on the Sadduceean hypothesis. I offer it now in confidence
as a conclusive argument against destructionism, against Saddnceeismn,
against materialism in every formf of it. The resurrection of the dead,
the existence of angels and spirits, and the everlasting existence of man,
either in happiness or misery, were the whole constituents of a Pharisee.
Paul affirmed these to be true when he solemnly declared that he was, in
opposition to the skepticism of the Sadducees, a Pharisee in faith and
by descent; not merely the son of a Pharisee, but a Pharisee himself."
See "Life and I)eath," by President Campbell, of Bethany, Va.




218          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 33.
I have remarked that the passage is, by an arbitrary
division, severed from its proper connection with verses 17
and 18 of the previous chapter.  In verse 1 the apostle
directly refers to the afflictions mentioned in those verses,
and the obvious connection is the following: "But even if
those afflictions should come to the worst and destroy our
life, yet we know that when this tabernacle, this earthly
tent, is taken down, we have an eternal mansion in the
heavens which shall receive us." And in enlarging upon
this thought, he adds that the desire' of the soul is not so
much to be unclothed as clothed upon with its house from
heaven, (and to which he had referred in his former epistle,
I Cor. xv, 35-55,) that so it might neither be* unclothed nor
continue naked.  "Hence," says he, "we groan and desire,
not so much to be unclothed as to be clothed upon with
that heavenly body, that so mortality may be absorbed
(not by death, as some think it to be, but) by life." In
other words, while death, though it unclothe us, is desirable
amid our afflictions, (Phil. i, 21,) as it will bring us into the
visible presence of our Lord; yet, as the soul in its separate state is unclothed, we still more desire our final
triumph over death and the grave; and to this we look
forward steadily, for we have received the Spirit as a
pledge or earnest that it shall be achieved. (See Rom.
viii, 23; 1 Cor. xv, 54; Rev. vi, 9-11.)   Both ideas,'
therefore, are here advanced: first, that the soul, when
its earthly body dies, shall enter the heavenly mansion,
(John xiv, 2;) and secondly, that it looks forward notwithstanding to its reunion with the body, when that
body shall have been raised and glorified, or when it
has become a spiritual body.  For the separate state
of the soul, however blissful and perfect, is still, in a
sense, an unnatural one; as it was not created for a
separate existence, and it is not in accordance with that
of our Redeemer, and hence'the soul still looks forward
* That iptialco has this sense is plain. See Matt. i, 18; Luke ix, 36;
xvii, 18; Phil ii, 8; iii, 9; Heb. 11, 5.




~ 33.              2 CORINTHIANS V, 1-9.                       219
to  it, and desires the period when it shall be fully like
him.n
In this passage, as in Phil. i, 23, there is an obvious antithesis: to be with Christ is contrasted with our continuance
iz, this  world.   And  hence, while we are  at home, or
sojourn in the body, we are absent from the Lord. But how
* " The Church now in heaven is not in its fixed and ultimate, but in a
progressive, subordinate, and preparatory state.  The state in which
they are in is in order to another. In the employments in which they
are now exercised, they look to that which is still future, to their consummate state, which they have not yet arrived at. Their present happiness is, in many respects, subordinate to a future, and God in his
dealings with them has a constant and perpetual respect to the great consummation of all things. So it is both with respect to the saints and
angels; all things in heaven and earth, and throughout the universe, are
in a state of preparation for the state of consummation; all the wheels
are going, none of them  stop, and all are moving in a direction to the
last and most perfect state. As the Church on earth is in a state of preparation for the resurrection state, so is that part of the Church which
is in heaven. It is God's manner to keep things always progressive, in
a preparatory state, as long as there is another change to a more perfect
state yet behind. The saints in this world are progressive, and all
things relating to them are subordinate and preparatory to the more
perfect state of heaven;' which is a perfect state, in that it is a state of
freedom from sinful and uneasy imperfections; but when the saints are
got to heaven, there is another great change yet behind; there is yet
another state, which is that fixed and ultimate, and most perfect state,
for which the whole general assembly both in heaven and earth are
designed, and therefore they are still progressive. Not but that I believe
the saints will be progressive in knowledge and happiness to all eternity. But when I say the Church is progressive before the resurrection,
I mean that they are progressive with a progression of preparation for
another and more perfect state; their state is itinerary, viatory; their
state, their employments, their glory and happiness, are subordinate and
preparatory to a future, more glorious state." (President Edwrards,
Works, vol. viii, p. 539. New York. 1830.)  See also the remarks of
Muiller, in " Doctrine of Sin," ii, pp. 333-337; and Calvin Instit., lib. iii,
cap. xxv, sec. 6. And for the earlier view see Tertullian, De Anima.
cap. lviii; Chrysostom on Philippians, and Augustine De Civitate Dei,
lib. xx, cap. ix, and also xv. See also his De Genesi, lib. xii, cap. xxxv.
lie sometimes carried his view of the subject almost to extremes, as in
De Civ. Dei, lib. xii, cap. ix; and in Enarrat, in Ps. 36, Cone. I, sec. 10.
But his object here was evidently to free himself from the imputation of entertaining the doctrine condemned by JuStin Martyr and
others, to which reference will be made in another chapter. See also
Ambrose, De Cain et Abel, lib. ii, cap ii, sec. 9.




220          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 33.
can we be absent from him when " to live is Christ? "' and
when every true believer walks with him, and enjoys a consciousness of his presence?  To this inquiry, which could
not but suggest itself in this connection, the apostle answers
substantially, that though this is even so, yet while in the
body, we being absent from  the Lord, it is by faith that
we thus walk and enjoy his presence, and not by sight,
(2 Cor. iv, 18;) but when absent from  the body we shall
enjoy his visible presence; we shall walk by sight and not
by faith.+  And thus clear is it that the soul in its separate
state shall be in the full possession of its native powers.
In the application of the argument furnished by this passage against the theory of our opponents, it is sufficient to
remark that the apostle affirms that what he here announces
is matter of absolute knowledge.  "For we know that if
our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we
have a building of God, a house not made with hands,
eternal in the heavens."'  For the pious soul, therefore,
there is not only this earthly tabernacle, but a heavenly
mansion, and when the former is dissolved, the latter shall
be its dwelling-place. (John xiv, 2; Heb. xii, 22-24.)
Nothing can be more directly contrary than this, to the
notion that the apostles and primitive believers expected
no happiness until the day of the resurrection. For why,
long to put off this earthly tabernacle, wherein they could
be so useful in doing the work of Christ, when they knew
that by dying they could be brought no nearer the fruition
of future bliss?  For in that. case death, so far from being
gain, as Paul calls it, (Phil. i, 21,) would, on the contrary,
be inestimable loss, depriving the believer of opportunities
for usefulness, and of making still higher attainments in the
divine life, all of which every Christian feels to be truly
dear to the heart. And it may be further remarked, that
according to the theory of our opponents there is no such
thing as beihg, in any sense, absent from  the body.  The'* See " Essays on the Second Advent," etc., by Rev. J. W. Brooks,
Essay viii, p. 87.




~ 33.         2 CORINTHIANS XII, 2-4.            221
soul is inseparable from the body, and of course perishes
with it, and exists not again until the body is reconstructed
at the resurrection.  There cannot be a more direct antagonism than this to the language of the apostle in the
foregoing passage.
The expositions which our opponents give of this text are
not only contradictory to each other, but absolutely beneath
criticism and unworthy of notice.  The reader, if so disposed, may consult them  in C. 40; D. 160-164; H. 1,
p. 116, and H. 2, pp. 78-80; A. 87-89; G. 19; F. 2-6,
and 8-11; J. T. 31; E. 156; W. 115-119; and Hud.
255-256.
11. The next passage is 2 Cor. xii, 2-4: "I knew a man
in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body,
I cannot tell, or whether out' of the body, I cannot tell;
God knoweth;) such a one caught up to the third heaven.
And I knew such a man, (whether in the body or out of the
body I cannot tell; God knoweth;) how that he was
caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words,
which it is not lawful for a man to utter."
That the statements in this passage inevitably imply, in
the mind of their author, a full belief of the separability
of the soul or spirit from the mere corporeal frame or
body, no serious mind will venture to call in question. A
man who believes that the soul is only the result of corporeal organization, could not employ such or similar language in conveying his views; and the passage must stand
as an eternal protest against the attempts now being made
to harmonize Divine revelation with the material philosophy.
The apostle here distinctly avers that he was caught or
snatched up to (7p'rTrdyy/ ho) the third heaven, and into (elf)
paradise. On this point he is direct and positive, and expresses
no doubt whatever. He knew the man (that is, himself)
who was so caught up. He does, however, express a doubt
whether it were in the body or out of it; and hence it is
obvious that he might have been conveyed thither in either




222         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 33.
of these methods, or as well in one way as in the other.
And he further affirms that during this rapture or transportation he heard unspeakable words, which plainly infers a
full consciousness on his part while the rapture continued;
and it is, moreover, implied in the phrase, " which it is not
lawful for a man to utter," that he still retained those unspeakable words in his remembrance.
The effort of Slichtingius and others to represent this
vision (see Matt. xvii, 9, for the import of this word, and
~ 33, sub-sec. 2, above) as of the same character as that
of Ezekiel (xi, 24; xxxvii, 1) and John, (Rev. xvii, 3;
xxi, 10,) is without the slightest reason, as a mere perusal
of those passages will show. In these instances all is expressly said to be done sv 7rvevtlaat, in the spirit; but
nothing of this kind is intimated in the case of Paul. In
verse 1, he indeed speaks of "visions and revelations of
the Lord," but he refers them to what he saw during this
rapture. And then, further, he confesses that he cannot tell
whether he was then in the body or out of it; whereas in
all mere visions, properly so called, the soul continues in
the body; and he moreover avers that he heard there, that
is, in paradise, unspeakable words.  Of course, then, he
was there, as above remiarked.*
The question has been raised whether the apostle here speaks
of more than one rapture. The opinion of all the ancients,
as Whitby remarks, seems to be that he was taken up at
different times into different places.  Irenceus says that
"he was caught up into the third heaven, and was again
carried into paradise."   Tertullian speaks in the same
manner; and Epiphanitus asks, " Who can endure the notion
of Origen, -which placed paradise in the third heaven?"
That the raptures were distinct seems probable  from
verses I and 7, in which the apostle speaks of visions and
revelations.  Methodius inferred the same also from the
repetition of the phrase " whether in the body," etc., which
would have been unnecessary concerning one and the same
* See Dr. Whitby's commentary on this whole passage.




~ 33.         2 CORINTHIANS XII, 2-4.             223
vision.  "For hence," says he, " the apostle intimates that
he had seen two great visions, being twice caught up, first
into the third heaven, and then into paradise." This point,
however, is of but little moment to our argument, one wellestablished instance of the kind being as good as a thousand.
It is obvious, therefore, from this passage, that the soul
may exist separate from the body, and that in the separate
state it may retain its capacity to witness and understand
celestial things' since, were the soul inseparable from the
body, the apostle never could have entertained a doubt
whether, during the rapture, he was in the body or out'of
the body.
Our opponents do not seem disposed to meddle with this
passage. Dr. Whately and Mr. Hudson pass it in silence,
and the Annihilationists touch it only currente calamo, and
offer nothing which calls for reply.  A. 89 seems out of
patience with it; and S., Append. 13, utters childish nonsense. H. 2, p. 89, says: " It will suffice to remark that
Paul could not mean that his soul was his conscious personality, capable of a separate existence apart from his body,
and that in this disembodied state he might have been'caught up to the third heaven."'  And E. 154 says nothing that has not been fully met in the foregoing exposition.
As to the rest of the Annihilation family now existing, they
follow the example of Dr. Whately, and preserve silence on
the subject. Nor have the Materialists and soul-sleepers of
former times fared any better in their attempts to set
aside this testimony.
Dr. Priestley, however, assails it with his usual intrepidity, and says that the apostle here refers to a vision, I" in
which he was in paradise, which is the place of the virtuous
dead; " but that " it by no means follows from this representation that there is any such place as this paradise, or
general receptacle of the dead." This truly is to interpret
Scripture with a sledge hammer.
Archdeacon Blackburne, a " soul-sleeper,' and the last of
our opponents to whom we need refer, says, in reference




224           IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.                 ~ 533
to the passage: " St. Paul was taken up into paradise, but
whether in the body or out of the body he could not tell.
Paradise, therefore, for anything this apostle knew, might
be a receptacle for bodies as well as souls.""   This vulgar
sneer, to which I refer, however, only to show to what extremities our opponents are driven in their efforts to set
aside'the inspired testimony, will have but little weight
with those who reflect that Enoch and Elijah, and our
blessed Redeemer, and those mentioned in Matt. xxvii, 53,
had all, in their bodies, preceded the apostle to paradise, or
the third heaven.  Had Dr. Blackburne read only the
candid note of Slichtingius onl the passage, he would have
blushed, if that were possible, at this abortive attempt at
ridicule.
12. The next passage to which we shall call attention is
Phil. i, 21-24: " For to me to live is Christ, and to die is
gain.  But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labor;
yet what I shall choose I wot not.  For I am  in a strait
betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ,
which is far better.  Nevertheless, to abide in the flesh is
more needful for you."
In the verse which immediately precedes this passage,
Paul had expressed his earnest hope and expectation that
Christ should be magnified by him, whether through life or
through death.  He adds, in verse 21: "' For to me to live
is Christ, and to die is gain;" or, as it would be better
rendered: "For to me, in both life and death, Christ is
gain;"t that so Christ may be, as he truly is, the subject
of each member of the passage, and not merely an attribute
of the first. It were easy to establish the justice and propriety of this criticism on purely philological grounds, as
well as from the analogy of faith; but it is not required in
* Intermediate State, p. 283.
t Since writing the above, I perceive that the old English translation
named " The Geneva Bible,"' sustains the criticism. It renders the passage: " For Christ.is to me, both in life and in death, advantage." Sev-.
eral good MSS. support the following reading: "For to mne, either life
or death is a desirable gain."




~ 33.            PHILIPPIANS I, 21-24.             225
this connection; for so far as the present discussion is concerned, we are willing the passage should stand as it does
in our most excellent version.  The reader, however, who
may feel interested in the inquiry, can consult the note of
Calvin in loco.
Christ is, therefore, says the apostle, "gain to me while
I live; and this is the fruit of my labor.  For if I live,
what else is my life but Christ, that I may hope in him,
preach him, honor him, serve and worship him; that is,
express Christ in all my actions, and say and do all things
to the glory of his name. He is gain also to me when I
die, for then I shall be absent from the body and present
with him, and shall rest from my labors; and hence I amn
in a strait between the two; for I have a desire to depart
and to be with him, which for me is far better; and yet I
am willing to remain here, or abide in the flesh, and labor
for Christ, and to do you good; for this is more needful for
your welfare. And I am willing to forego the bliss of
heaven for a season in order that I may be a benefit to you.
Thus life and death being good, and each to be desired, I
know not which to choose."  Such is the plain and natural
import of the paragraph.  But we shall now notice the
manner in which it is treated by our opponents.
H. 2, pp. 68, 78, in explaining it, shows how death was
gain to the apostle; and yet, on p. 70, quotes many texts
to prove that death is the penalty of the law, and the most
terrible of all things to man.
G. 20 says: "The apostle does not affirm that he expected to be with Christ immediately on his departure,
though such would be a fair construction of' his words, if it
were not a violation of the general tenor of Divine truth
on this subject."  F. 11-14 explains it thus: "Between
living and dying on one hand, and departing on the other,
Paul was in a strait, and not between living and dying."
By departing he means going to Christ after the resurrection; so that, according tQ this writer, Paul was in a strait
whether he should now live or die, or now depart some
I5




226         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 33.
thousands of years in advance of the march of time. The
reader will judge whether such an idea were likely to entel
the mind of an intelligent man.  E. 139, however, says:
"Mark, reader! he was perplexed  between the TWO,
whether to choose life or to choose death; they were both
equally indifferent to him."  Thus they hallucinate. Several of them likewise endeavor to show, in utter violation
of all grammatical usage and propriety, that the gain refered to in verse 21 is gain to Christ, and not to Paul.
A. 91, E. 145, and Hud. 256, 257, endeavor to render
verse 23 as follows: " For I am in a strait betwixt two,
having a desire to return, and be with Christ, which is far
better."  But to return whither?  How is this to be explained unless on the principle asserted in the " Conflict of
Ages?" and surely these men do not entertain that idea, as
it would utterly destroy their materialism.'Ava2ivo is employed only in one other place in the New Testament, (Luke
xii, 36,) and though there translated "return," it properly
means depart; they wait till their Lord shall depart from
the wedding, and come and knock to be received.  And so
the noun &vav3atg, used only in 2 Tim. iv, 6, means simply
"departure," since our opponents can hardly suppose that
Paul there says, "the time of my return [that is, of my
resurrection] is at hand."  But Jva, in composition, is not
always to be translated, as every one knows; (see, for example, Matt. ii, 14; iv, 1; xiv, 19; Luke ii, 22; xiv, 10;
Acts xx, 3; xxii, 13;) though it may impart a shade of
meaning in most cases.
The above-named writers, however, and all the others,
(see A. 90; C. 40; S., App. 9, 21, 22; W. 84, 85, 89,)
unite in assuming the position on the subject which is presented as follows by its two ablest advocates, John Crellius
and Dr. Priestley. Crellius says, in almost the very words
of Archbishop Whately:' Because the time between death
and the resurrection is not to. be reckoned, therefore the
apostle might speak thus, though the soul has no sense of
anything after death."  Priestley says: "The apostle, con




~ 33.              PHILIPPIANS I, 21-24.                  227
sidering his own situation, would naturally connect the end
of this life with the commencement of another and a better,
as he would have no perception of any interval between
them.  That the apostle had no view of any state short of
the coming of Christ to judgment, is evident from the
phrase that he makes use of, namely, being with Christ,
which can only take place at his second coming.  For
Christ himself has said that he would come again, and that
he would take his disciples to himself, which clearly implies
that they were not to be with him before that time."*
Now the strait in which the apostle felt himself to be was,
whether he should then choose that life which would still
enable him to do many things for Christ and his suffering
members, or that life which was consequent on a departure
from the present life, and which would bring him to be with
Christ.  It was a present strait in which he stood, and a
choice of then existing alternatives. And the contrary idea
asserted by our opponents, that the choice was whether he
should now live on and toil and suffer, or now depart and
be with Christ after the resurrection, when the resurrection
was yet thousands of years distant, is simply absurd.  For
so far from these presenting an alternative, the one does not
in any way conflict with the other, since his living on earth
any length of time could in no way affect his being with
Christ after the resurrection, and could neither hasten nor
retard that event.  And for the same reason the alterna* The assertion in this last sentence is thoroughly demolished by Dr.
Knapp, as follows: Speaking of John xiv, 1-7, he says: " Neque est,
quod nos offendant verba, wratLv, ipXoftal. Quo enim sensu hec dicantur, id vel ex commate 23, intelligi potest; si Yuis me amat-eunm Pater
meus amabit; atque ad eum venierns, et apud eum Ihabitabimus. In
eandem quoque sententiamI idem ille vs. 21, dicit; "'Et1avtao a6re
/tavrov, prcesentem me esi exhibeo. Vid. Es. 57, 15. Nempe saeri Scriptores, eque ut exteri, Deum us appropinqeuare vel adesse, Deum ad eos
venire vel redire porhibent, quibus propitius est, quos adjuvat, aut singulari aliquo benevolentie suse documento dignatur.  Comp. Exod.
xx, 24; Psa. lix, 20; lxiv, 4; Hos. vi, 3; Zach. ii, 10, 11; Matt.
xviii, 20; 2 Tim. iv, 17; Apoc. iii, 20." —Scr'ita varii Argumenti, tom.
i, p. 286.




228         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 33.
tive could not be whether he should still live, and labor,
and suffer for Christ, or depart into unconscious, joyless
nothingness; for, first, he always esteemed it a high privilege to live and suffer for Christ, (see verse 29,) and
secondly, he who so loved his brethren that he could wish
himself accursed that he might thus save them, would never
have felt himself in a strait if' called to choose between
living.? and laboring for them, or abandoning their service
for a condition in which he could neither do them good, nor
enjoy the presence of his Saviour. And of course the oft
repeated remark of Dr. Whately and the rest of this school,
that the soul would be unconscious of the lapse of time,
has no bearing on the question.  The point is, simply,
could a lman of Paul's self-sacrificing spirit, and of his intense love for souls, and for the promotion of God's glory,
be in any strait whether to choose* a continuance of life
with those glorious privileges, or an utter extinction of
being for all coming time.
The same truth is evident from many other considerations.  1. It is evident from the fact that he could say,
"for me to live is Christ;" and if during the long term
elapsing between death and the resurrection (whether he
should feel it or not) his conscious union with Christ was
to be interrupted and broken; then, as already stated,
death, so far from being gain to him, must prove to be inestimable loss, by depriving him of all opportunity for
serving, and glorifying, and enjoying Christ. To be thus
deprived of that sweet communion and intercourse which
he possessed while here, and to receive nothing in lieu of
it save what a stone would possess, could this be gain to
him, a gain to be greatly desired? If so, on what principle? The same argument which would prove it gain in
such a case, would prove it gain on the supposition that the
-extinction of being should continue for billions of ages;
for he would be no more conscious of the lapse of time in
the one case than in the other.
2. Why then, we ask, did Paul and the primitive Chris



~ 33.            PHILIPPIANS I, 21-24.              229
tians view death with pleasure?  Why were they willing
to be absent from the body, if their happiness were deferred
till the last day? Why wish for death, and consequently
to be deprived of all their privileges and blessings, when
death could bring them no nearer to bliss, since they had
nothing to expect till the consummation of all things?  For
a man to wish to be deprived of great privileges and blessings, without the possibility of obtaining through the privation any manner of advantage, either for himself or others,
would be evidence of sheer insanity.
3. A further remark, which evinces the folly of the Materialist notion that Paul here refers to his being with
Christ after the resurrection, is, that he places the expressions continuing in the body,. and abiding longer in this
world, in- antithesis to the expression, to depart and be with
Christ. But his abiding in the flesh could in no way delay
his being with Christ, according to this theory, even if he
had lived a thousand years longer on earth.
It is obvious, therefore, that if the apostle had regarded
death as suspending his opportunities for glorifying and enjoying Christ, he would, so far from desiring it, have been
loth to depart on that very ground; and as he did desire
death, he consequently entertained no such notions as those
of the Annihilationists.
The same considerations apply also against the doctrine
of the soul-sleepers, and they also effecttfally dispose of the
objections from the cases of Hezekiah, Lazarus, Epaphroditus, etc., who viewed death as forever cutting off all
further opportunity for usefulness in this world of probation.  Hezekiah, it is true, grieved at the thought of dying
at the time specified.' But this makes as much against the
idea that annihilation may be desirable to a good man, as
that it may be otherwise.  But the child of God would
choose to abide in the flesh for the good of men, and to
promote the glory of Christ, quite as much as to seek his
own enjoyment in heaven, and must often, therefore, realize the very strait which Paul here describes.




230         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 33.
13. Another passage, and one on which we need offer
but a few remarks, is Heb. xii, 22, 23: " But ye are come
to Mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the
heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of
angels, to the general assembly and Church of the first-born,
which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all,
and to the spirits of just men made perfect."
By consulting the whole paragraph, it will be seen that
the apostle here is comparing the privileges and enjoyments
of the believers, under the new economy, with those of the
Jews. The Jew approached and contemplated material
and earthly forms, the types of what was to come; but
the Christian approaches, contemplates, and enjoys the
spiritual and celestial. We are come to Mount Sion, the
heavenly mount, the heavenly Jerusalem, or the city of
the living God, of which the earthly Jerusalem was but an
obscure type; and to the innumerable company of angels;
to the Church of the first-born, whose names are enrolled in heaven;' and to God, the Judge of all, (that is, of
both the living and the dead;) and to the spirits (not to
men in the flesh, who are never so named, but to the spirits)
of the just made perfect.
The apostle, therefore, here asserts the delightful truth
that the kingdom of Christ exists both on earth and in
heaven, and that to enter it by accepting the offer of life
through " Jesus the Mediator," brings us into connection,
not only with the people of God on earth, but with the
angels and ransomed spirits who are already gathered home
into heaven. For that the departed saints do dwell with
angels in heaven is evident from Eph. iii, 15: "The whole
family in heaven and earth;" in exact accordance with
the passage before us, which teaches that angels and departed spirits are of the family of God in heaven; and
penitent, believing men are of his family on earth. The
spirits of the departed saints are called spirits of the just
* See the very remarkable notes of Crellius on this passage, both in
his Commentary and Paraphrase, in Pol. Frat., tom. iii.




~ 33.           HEBREWS XII, 22, 23.                231
made perfect, because they appear in the robe of Christ's
righteousness, and are justified, (see Rev. iii, 18; vi, 11;
vii, 14; xix, 7, 8,) and are freed from the body of flesh
with all its infirmities, and from the guilt and pollution of
sin. And hence it is obvious that the soul or spirit still
lives when the body is dissolved, otherwise it could not be
said, in any sense, that believers here are " come to them,"
or brought into union with them; for how could there be
any union with them  if annihilated?  And it is further
evident from the fact that these departed spirits are said
to be made perfect; for how could a living, acting, perceiving spirit be made perfect by dropping into either a
sleep of insensibility, or into annihilation?  Can a soul
which has been living a life of faith, and advancing in holiness, be said to be brought into a state of perfection by
being utterly extirpated or annihilated?  The idea is monstrous.
Our Annihilation friends prudently say but little on this
passage. Priestley's remark is inane and not worth quoting,
while of all the late Annihilation authors none refer to it
save H. 2, p. 88, A. 36, and G. 22.
H. finds the passage "highly oratorical," and not to be
treated with "critical severity."  And whatever may be the
meaning of the passage, he finds that " it is sufficiently clear
that in it is no declaration that'the spirits of just men are
their conscious personalities.' " "The phrase' the spirits of
just men made perfect,' is obviously an example of the figure
synecdoche, in which the entire nature of the human being
is expressed by a term which signifies only a part."  "All
the particulars referred to are future and not present."  So
that when the apostle here says (v. 2-4) Christians are come
"to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the
blood of sprinkling," he means not that they have already,
in this world, come to Jesus and received forgiveness
through his blood, but that they shall do this after their
resurrection. But enough of this. A. says that he apprehends that the phrase " the spirits of just men made per



232         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.                 ~ 33.
feet," "applies to persons raised from the dead, and not to
men in the flesh;" which is substantially the same idea as
the above. G. also repeats the idea. In fact this is all that
their theory will permit them to say on the subject. Calvin's note in loco is well worth consulting.
14. The next passage to which we shall call attention is
1 Pet. iii, 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 sometimes were disobedient, when once the
long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the
ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were
saved by water."
The connection of this passage with the subject under discussion will be seen by a critical examination of its principal words and phrases.
And, first, the reader will please to observe that in the
phrase "put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the
Spirit," OavaraO'icg Ftev oaptt,'(7rolr65oef H  [-&  7TrvEsuar-t, the assumption that spirit here refers to the Holy
Spirit is unfounded, and entitled to no consideration whatever.  The article (ri) before spirit is, moreover, spurious.
Let it be noticed, too, that the prepositions in both branches
of the clause are supplied by the translators. The prepositions to be employed, therefore, in transferring the import
of the clause into any other language, are purely a question
of exegesis.  The idea simply is, that "Christ had indeed
suffered the stroke of death in the flesh, but survived that
stroke in the spirit.7"  The word " quickened" gives a sense
which is not supported by the language of the apostle. The
old word "quick" (as Horsley remarks, Ser. in loco) presents the exact sense. "Being put to death in the flesh,
but quick (alive) in the spirit, in which he went and
preached," etc.*
* An effort has been made to sustain, by a criticism of (oolrogote, the
idea that Christ, in the present case, preached through Noah, " because,"




~ 33.                 1 PETER  III, 18-20.                     233
Tolg ev OvXaatrc  wrve1ltaot, to the spirits in prison.  The
remark of Calvin on frvevirta here is just: " Peter says here
that Christ came to spirits, by which name he signifies souls
separated from bodies; for living men are never called spirits.
He likewise repeats it in the same sense in chapter 4, and
therefore these words properly refer to the dead."   They
were, of course, the spirits of men and not demons, v. 20.
(it is asserted,) "this word does not mean to keep alive, but to give life,
to reanimate. (See Biblic. Repos. for Ap., 1845, p. 268.) Now the word
is used but twelve times in the New Testament, and a professed critic
ought not to appeal to lexicons, but to usage, to learn the meaning of
terms. The very etymology of this word suggests something more than
a mere isolated bestowment, and its usage is in strict accordance with that
idea: for example, in 1 Tim. vi, 13, the phrase occurs, ro~ OeoC To
roworotovroV  r7 rr'dvra, translated " God who quickeneth, all things;" but
in the Hebrew mind precisely equivalent to the oepGav ra  rdivra, " bearing uxp of all tLings," (HIeb. i. 3,) or the -r 7rdvra,v earV   ovvir rzC71e,
(Col. i, 17,) literally, " all things stand together through hrim."  I suppose
that at the present time no intelligent man will question the truth of the
great principle so patent to the whole Hebrew intellect, that cupholding or
preserving ien being is the same as a conztinually new creation of being; and
that " the giving of life to all things," as our critic would read 1 Tim.
vi, 131 means nothing different from sustaining them in being, as in the
other places referred to. In this case sustaining life is giving life.
So also in the other passages, giving and sustaining are both implied,
though in some instances the one idea is foremost, and in others the other.
Thus in Johl vi, 63: 1" It is the Spirit that quickeneth." 2 Cor. iii, 6: " The
letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." Gal. iii, 21: "A law which could
have given life."  Rom. iv, 17: " God who quickeneth the dead."  Rom.
viii, 11: " Quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit." John v, 21::" The
Father raiseth and sustaineth the dead; so also does the Son."  1 Cor.
xv, 22: " In Christ shall all be restored to a life no longer mortal." V. 45:
1" The last Adam was a quickening spirit." And even in its application
to the seed-corn in v. 36, the word retains its signification. " The existence of that which thou sowest is not continued, except it die." Its life
could never be re-manifested in any other circumstances. The only other
passage in which the word occurs is the one before us: "' Christ being
put to death in the flesh, but continued to exist in the spirit." To multiply words here were useless.
Another equally profound remark is made in the same connection, to
wit: that if this verb here "refers not to Christ rising from the dead,
then no mention of this event occurs at all in the passage."  It would be
pleasant to know how often this writer would have an event to be announced in the Scriptures. My impression is that there really is, in several other places, a mention made of the fact referred to.




234         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 33.
The word preached, ryp9Vaao, does not necessarily mean
to preach good news, but simply to announce, or proclaim
openly. What our Redeemer here announced or proclaimed
we know not. We shall refer to this again. In respect
to 4pv2air;, prison, Turretin (ii, 315) remarks that "it is
never employed in the Scriptures to signify a place for
happy spirits," and an examination of the passages in which
it occurs will show this to be so. It is used nearly fifty
times in the New Testament, to say nothing of the LXX.
Still, as the word may mean a state or condition of " reservation," without regard to the design of such reservation,
there is some ground for the remark of Horsley, that "the
invisible mansion of departed spirits, though certainly not
a.place of penal confinement to the good, is nevertheless in
some respects a prison. It is a place of seclusion from the
external world, a place of unfinished happiness, consisting
of rest, security, and hope, more than in enjoyment."* It
is true the state of the unregenerate and impenitent is represented as one of bondage, chains, captivity, etc., but this
bears not on the subject, for, 1. The passage refers to spirits,
and not to men in the flesh; and, 2. The fetters and chains
of sin and lust do not thus bind or imprison the good.
Its should be likewise noticed that the particle 7rore,
(verse 20,) rendered " sometime," has no such definite sense
in such a connection.  The idea which it conveys is " some
time or other," or simply "formerly," in the general, unrestricted sense of that word.
Tittman, after Crellius, (Pol. Fratres iv, 328,) to whom,
however, he expresses no acknowledgment, suggests that
5'-e, in the same verse, is put elliptically for W'  T-e, (as
when,) the &g being left out, as is often done in comparison. (Compare 2 Peter iii, 4; Psalm xi, 1.)  The verse
would then read: " In which also he proceeded and preached
to the spirits in prison, which formerly were disobedient;
as when once a long-suffering God waited in the days of
* See Muiiller on the Doctrine of Sin, ii, 333-337, and the quotation
from President Edwards, in No. 10, above.




~ 33.            1 PETER III, 18-20.               235
Noah," etc. And in fact Wakefield has so rendered 3-re
in his version: " In former times as when the patience of
God continued waiting in the days of Noah."  Glassius,
also, justly observes that the term once, arra:, here declares
the limit- of the divine patience to those antediluvians.
(Philol. Sacra, p. 969.) See also verse 18.
The participle 7roQevOeig (went) is the same as that employed in verse 22, where it is rendered " is gone," and
means that Christ "having gone into heaven is at the right
hand of God." In both places, therefore, it refers to a
period subsequent to his death. And hence the import and
proper connection of this word in verse 20, are sufficient to
evince the absurdity of representing this preaching of Christ
to have been through Noah, or previous to his incarnation.
See also Acts i, 10, 11; John xiv, 2, 3, 12, 28; xvi, 7, 28;
in all of which instances it refers to his own personal act,
ahd not to anything performed through an agent, or by an
instrument.  And such alone can be its meaning here.
Hence Winer, the accuracy of whose judgment in a question of grammatical construction or usage will scarcely be
questioned, arranges the words as expressive of their true
sense, as follows: -ro7 Ev 0v2taKcI -rrvev'baat rropevOe~9 bkcnpvsev: "Having proceeded to the spirits in prison, he
preached," etc.  See Idioms of the New Testament, Append., sec. 67.
All the supposed difficulty in the passage, however, is
embraced in the question, "Why should Jesus preach to
the spirits of the damned? They have passed from probation to retribution, and cannot now be converted." But
while we know not what our blessed Redeemer did announce to them, we do know that he preached neither repentance nor faith. (John ix, 4, with Eccles. ix, 10.) Flacius
Illyricus, in his Clavis, pp. 457-462, has given a very extensive theological (not exegetical) exposition of the whole
passage; and supposes that Jesus, while in Hades, anuounced to all the lost, rebellious spirits there, that his
work, which they had slighted and disregarded, was now




236         IMMORTALITY OF TlE SOUL.              ~ 33.
finished, and all the ancient promises fulfilled. Ilis remarks
are learned, able, and suggestive. Glassius, likewise, seems
to favor that view. (Philo. Sac., lib. iii, tract. iii, can. 16.)
Horsley, however, remarks, in accordance with his view
above given, that the souls of those who, though they had
perished in the deluge, repented during the forty days of
rain, but who, though with the saved in paradise, felt still
uneasy on account of their having perished under a divine
judgment, were now assured by Jesus that their repentance
had been accepted. These suppositions are of no actual
importance to the argument itself, whatever weight may or
may not be allowed them. And the remarks of J. D.
Michaelis in this connection are worthy of consideration.
See his Theol. Dog., c. viii, sec. 105; Goet., 1760; and also
the note of Calvin in loco.
The application of the passage to the subject before us is,
however, very plain and obvious, and in no way affected by
our not being able to tell the purport of Christ's announcement to the spirits in prison; for the apostle expressly declares that he went thither and preached. The fact that we
know not what he preached, will in no way justify us in
refusing to believe the apostolic testimony that he did as
there stated, or in attempting on such ground to turn the
passage from its plain grammatical import, and to impose
upon it another meaning.
The inferences therefore are plain, and apply directly to
the subject in hand. The passage teaches the uninterrupted
immortality of the human spirit of Christ, and by consequence that of his redeemed.
It teaches, likewise, the uninterrupted immortality of the
spirits of wicked men, and of course that they do not cease
to exist at death.
The disembodied spirit of Christ, and the disembodied
spirits in prison, possessed and exercised active powers, and
of course, therefore, death is noti the extinction of the life
of the whole man, nor does the soul sleep between death
and the resurrection.




~ 33.             1 PETER III, 18-20.               237
Our opponents have ventured to say but little respecting this passage.  Priestley's remarks are below criticism.
Blackburne (Int. State, pp. 262, 263) is not willing to have
it teach anything, because he cannot understand why Christ
should preach to the spirits of the lost.?  W. 63 thinks it
" a very unlikely interpretation" of the passage, to regard
it as teaching ": the conscious state of departed spirits," and
that Christ " visited, in the interval between his death and
resurrection, the souls of those who perished in Noah's
flood."  He finds the passage " extremely obscure," and
has never met with any explanation of it that is " free from
objection." He attempts in no way to reconcile it with
his theory. H. 2, pp. 89, 90, finds it difficult, and says:
" What its precise meaning is I do not pretend to say, and
I shall only make a few remarks rather by way of pointing
out some of its difficulties."  He then, after repeating the
inanities of Blackburne and Priestley, says that "the time
when Christ preached was not before his incarnation, nor
was it between his death and resurrection, but after his
resurrection." "For my own part, I have not the least
doubt that the phrase' spirits in prison' refers not to men,
but to certain spiritual beings who were disobedient in the
days of Noah in some such way as to bring them within
the reach of Christian redemption." And he refers to the
" sons of God" and their progeny, mentioned in Gen. vi, in
illustration of this notion.  G. 22 says: " The spirit of
Christ in Noah, preached to those who were in the grave
when Peter wrote. 2 Peter ii, 5."  F. 25-28 adopts the
same idea, and in like manner J. T. 24 turns the spirits into
human carcasses, and finds their prison in the grave. Such
wretched stuff is not worth remarking upon.  Mr. Dobney
and the rest of the fraternity conveniently forget that there
is any such passage in the word of God.
* See also the pretentious but inane criticism on the passage in the
Biblical Repository for April, 1845, pp. 266, 267.




238         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 34.
CHAPTER IV.
THE NEW  TESTAMENT ARGUMENT CONTINUED.
~ 34. Miscellaneous Passages considered.
THE foregoing catalogue of Scripture passages from the
Old and New Testaments is quite sufficient for extended
critical remark on this subject, nor are we willing to tax
further the reader's attention to such lengthened exegesis.
It is, however, not necessary, since we have already treated
what are regarded as the chief passages which bear upon
the question. There are, nevertheless, many others which
may justly claim to be adduced in the same connection, and
to a few of which we shall now briefly refer; for as Knapp.
justly remarks: "It is most truly the constant and perpetual doctrine of Christ and the apostles, that all who confide in Christ are, inmmediately after death, (statim post
mortem,) blessed, and associated with Christ.  Nor is any
one known to us who would dare so to limit the sense of
the words 0'rov elti esy, icat vetf ESaeaOe, (where I am,
there ye shall be also,) John xii, 26, and. xvii, 24, and in interpreting restrict it into so narrow an import as to convey
only the idea of that union with Christ which is expected
after the return of the dead into life."* Of course, therefore, we cannot pretend to cite here all the passages which
bear upon the topic, and our references must be mainly
to those which are representative of classes.
In such places, for example, as Job xxxiv, 14, 15, an
actual separation between soul and spirit is declared to
take place at death: " If he set his heart upon man, if he
* Scripta Varii Arg. in Joan., xiv, 1-7, page 287.




~ 34.        MISCELLANEOUS PASSAGES.                239
gather unto himself his spirit and his breath, all flesh shall
perish together, and man shall turn again into dust." (Comp.
Eccles. xii, 7.) The spirit (not the mere breath, for here
is a plain distinction made between the two) is taken from
man, and he perishes.  In C. F. 17 it is admitted that this
fact is here stated.  But how can the spirit be taken fromn?
man if it is only the result of organization, as is so roundly
asserted in ~ 5, above? In Psalm civ, 29, God's providential agency in the death of animals is also described in
language somewhat similar; but in this passage there is no
distinction observed between spirit and breath, as in the
other, which refers to man alone. Breath only is specified.
Hence too the language of James ii, 26: "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."
Now if the spirit is merely the result of corporeal organization, it is inseparable from the body while the body remains
organized; but in these passages we are taught that the
body is dead only as separated from  the spirit.  The
apostle's employment of this expression as a figure of
speech, and as a familiar illustration of faith, proves clearly
what must have been the views entertained on the subject of
death, as a severance between soul and body, by the first
Christians; since, if they had held that the spirit was inseparable from the body, James would not have employed
an illustrative phrase which implied the contrary; or, if he
had, it is impossible that they should have understood him.
In like manner Paul, in Heb. xii, 9, contrasts in antithesis
the fathers of our Yfesh, and the father of ouzr spirits.
He refers to our parents as the authors or propagators, instrumentally, of course, of our bodies, and to God as alone
and directly the author of our spirits. We receive the one
from our earthly parents, and the other from God. Of
course, then, the spirit is not a result of material organization, but is separable from the body.  On any other supposition the antithesis, and consequently the sense of the
passage, is destroyed. Our opponents forget this passage
also, or at least remain silent respecting it.




240         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 34.
Another text evincing the same is 2 Peter i, 13-15:
"Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle,
to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; knowing
that shortly I muest put off this my tabernacle, even as our
Lord Jesus Christ hath showed me; moreover, I will endeavor that ye may be able, after my decease, to have these
things always in remembrance;" that is, the things to
which he calls their attention in the epistle itself.
Here then the apostle speaks, not of a living tabernacle,
but of living in a tabernacle, and he employs the phrases
putting off this tabernacle, and my decease, as meaning one
and the same thing.  Now it will not be denied that he employs the word tabernacle (rrcOvwjla) here for his body, and
in the true sense of a temporary residence of the spirit.
(Comp. Acts vii, 46.)  It has the sense of aniqvoq, as in
Wisdom  ix, 15; 2 Cor. v, 1, 4.  It was a familiar term
with the old Greek Pythagoreans, and is of course in this
sense agreeable to classical usage, for in their sense of it
the term could only mean the body. The Doric poets use
it also in the same sense, and as equivalent to  mcqrvpri,
though their dialect spells it alcdvor.
To lay aside this tabernacle, therefore, can only mean to
die-death, for any other sense would be not only inadmissible but absurd. The word for laying aside is properly
employed to signify a putting off the garments, (see Acts
vii, 58,) and hence its use in 1 Pet. iii, 21; and the sense
is, " For I know that in a little while there will be a putting
off of this my tabernacle."  Paul, in 2 Tim. iv, 6, utters a
similar prediction respecting himself, and no one can doubt
that he too refers to death as his departure. And hence
the import of naked, in 2 Cor. v, 3, is plain.  It means the
spirit that is unclothed by putting off the tabernacle or body.
Hence too in the following verse Peter uses, as equivalent
to the foregoing phrase, and in apposition with it, the word
departure, S~odoc, (properly rendered decease.) And that
the Greeks used this word to express the idea of death, or
departutre from the present life, will not be denied.  In the




~ 34.        MISCELLANEOUS PASSAGESo              241
same sense the Latins also employ its etymological equivalents exitus and also excessus. The idea too was perfectly
familiar to the Jews. For as their exodus from Egypt was
a deliverance, and the commencement of their liberty, so
in their view the departure of a good man from this life
was a deliverance from bondage, and an entrance into the
happy life to come. (Luke ii, 29.)  Hence too the first
Christians regarded death in Christ (Rev. xiv, 13) as the
way to glory, and loved to call death "the departure," or
" exodus."  This gave rise to the phraseology of Peter
here, and of Paul in 2 Tim. iv, 6; Phil. i, 23, etc. Irenseus too, and Clement, and others, use the same word to express the same idea, as Grotius remarks on Luke ix, 31,
where Jesus employs the term in respect to his own death.
This passage, therefore, completely subverts the notion of
the Materialists and Annihilationists; for in their sense
death is not a laying aside of the tabernacle, but an utter blotting out of existence of both tabernacle and inhabitant.
F. 7, however, makes the tabernacle to be "the active
service of God in the house of Christ-the house of this
tabernacle-' for the dead praise not the Lord.' "  The only
other one of their writers, so far as I remember, who refers
to the passage is C. 41, who is willing to admit that the
tabernacle is " the human body," but he adds: " Observe,
it is not the tabernacle which is about to die, but something in the tabernacle." That is, it is not the tabernacle
which is about to putt itself of, but something in it. Such
is the amount of their criticism.
It is on the same basis of eternal truth that such expressions as that in Eph. iii, 15 are found: "The whole
family in heaven and earth," (Comp. Phil. ii, 10.  See
also sub-sections 10, 13, of section 33, and Knapp's Scripta
Var. Arg., p. 249,) and in which we are also assured that
the already departed saints do now inherit the promises.
Heb. vi, 12. The passage refers to the patriarchs among
others, as the context shows.  Of course, then, they were
16




242         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 34.
living in their departed or separate state, they being in the
possession of a present inheritance. (See the Greek.)
H. 2, p. 88, is the only one of our Annihilation friends, if
I remember rightly, who has ventured to grapple with this
passage. He objects to the sense of it above given, on the
ground that it is inconsistent with Heb. xi, 13: "' These all
died in faith, not having received the promises,' that is, the
fulfillment of them."  He likewise quotes to the same effect
verses 39, 40. These passages assert that the saints under
previous dispensations died without having during their life
on earth received the fulfillment of the promises, for Mr.
Ham will not suppose that any other life than that on earth
is here referred to. And this being so, how does that statement conflict with another statement, which assures us that
since their death they do inherit them? But aliquando bon-us
dormitat flomerus.
Omitting other passages, however, we shall conclude this
examination with a reference to a few in the Apocalypse.
The first eighteen chapters confessedly refer to events which
transpire before the resurrection of the body; and the allusions to man and his condition or state, must of course be
to him as he is previous to that event. There is neither
sense nor propriety in objecting that the import of the book
is dark and uncertain, since it is by no means necessary that
we should understand all that is in the book in order to
understand and practically employ certain of its allusions
and expressions. Do not our opponents thus make use of
Ecclesiastes, the most difficult and obscure book of the Old
Testament, and often deduce therefrom their conclusions and
proof-texts?
The first passage is Rev. vi, 9-11: "And when he had
opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them
that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony
which they held: and they cried with a loud voice, saying,
How long, 0 Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and
avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And
white robes were given unto every one of them: and it was




~ o,.        MISCELLANEOUS PASSAGES.                 243
said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season,
until their fellow-servants also and their brethren, that should
be killed as they were, should be fulfilled."
The prayer here is in the true Hebrew form, one which
the spirit of God has prompted in many of the Psalms, and
refers to events which must transpire before the end or
blessing sought can be obtained. Christ must triumph over
all his foes, and a prayer for his triumph, therefore, is a
prayer, in effect, for their overthrow; that is, for the fulfillment of his own promises and threatenings so far as they
relate to the matter. Sometimes the one idea is expressed
and sometimes the other.  So here these souls of the martyrs, knowing that Christ would accomplish the overthrow
of his enemies and the renovation of earth, and raise his
people from the grave to dwell with him forever, refer to
the great event by a specification of the avenging judgments
which must then occur. They are represented as looking
forward to that day and waiting for it; and hence, in answer to their prayer, they are told to rest yet for a season,
till their brethren, etc., are gathered home, and that then
the happy day of their final triumph should occur; that is,
the day of their resurrection.
Here, then, is the condition of the separate spirits or souls
of the ransomed delineated, for that they were such is clear
from the distinction referred to between themselves and
" those that dwell on the earth."  They still look forward to
the day of resurrection as the completion of their bliss.
See also Rev. vii, 13-17.  This passage, therefore, is destructive of soul-sleeping and Materialism.
But few of our opponents refer to this text, and even
they say but little. S., App. 14, says that if such were the
feelings of the martyrs after they left earth they were not
happy; but this is nonsense, as above shown. C. 42, A. 91,
G. 21, pretend that it is a parallel case to that of the blood
of Abel crying out of the ground. And this is all they have
to offer.  The rest are silent.  Requiescant in pace.
So too in Rev. xiv, 13, we have the following: " And I




244        IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 34.
heard a voice from heaven, saying unto me, Write, Blessed
are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea,
saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors, and
their works do follow them."
Griesbach rejects /MoL (unto me) here as unauthorized in
the text. Still, it is undoubtedly implied or understood;
for the command to write was certainly to no other than the
apostle. In our version, however, the words rm-E' av-r&iv
have not their proper force. The idea is not merely that
" their works do follow them," but "follow with them."
And if they follow with the believer, they go when he goes,
and not at some vast distance of time afterward. But he
departs at once when he leaves his earthly tabernacle, and
so do they. And then, moreover, the word follow,'roXkovOsL,
has here the import of following with their reward.  As
Bretschneider (sub voce) has exactly expressed it: "The
blessings or benefits accompany them to God the Judge;
that is, that they may immediately after death receive their
rewards;" statim post mortem accipient prcemia sua.  This
writer will not be suspected of partiality for evangelical
doctrine. It needs no words to show how utterly repugnant to all this is the annihilation theory; for in what
sense could these rewards be said "to follow with them"
immediately, if they pass at death into utter extinction of
being? It is equally repugnant to the soul-sleeping theory;
for the believer cannot be said to receive his reward immediately after death, if he then pass into a state of unconscious existence. This reward supposes actual enjoyment.
On the contrary, " they rest from their labors "-their toils
and sufferings, and struggles against corruption, sin, and
Satan.  And the Holy Spirit here pronounces them to be
blessed in that rest and by means of it. Now if they at
death cease to feel or to exist, they are therein and thereby
no more blessed than a block or a stone. And how absurd
is the supposition that would make us believe that an utterance so deeply solemn and impressive as this might be
given forth from heaven as an announcement of precious




~ 34.        MISCELLANEOUS PASSAGES.                245
interest to man, that a stone or a clod was blessed in its
repose.  The word translated from henceforth, (dcrrd-pr, or
adr' aQ7rt, as Griesbach reads it,) whether it be referred in
point of time to the period when John heard the utterance,
or to the one immediately contemplated in that portion of
the prophecy, clearly announces that this blessedness commences previous to the time of the resurrection.  This text
therefore furnishes a full refutation of the doctrine of our
opponents.
The last passage to which we shall refer is Rev. xviii, 20:
"Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and
prophets, for God hath avenged you on her." The text as
given by Bengel and Griesbach (and which is undoubtedly
correct) differs from the Received Text as follows: e8opIalvov iTr' avbr-  oipavE gat o a`ytot iait o ad7r-roa ot maait oi
7rQolrp'at,'-rt, etc., " Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye
saints, and apostles and prophets! for," etc. The context
shows this to refer to scenes which transpire previous to the
resurrection; for it calls upon those persons herein referred
to, to rejoice' over the fall of Babylon, which had just occurred.  Who then are the persons thus called upon?  Let
us consider the language.
1. Thou heaven.  This is not an unfrequent Hebraicism
(at least in the plural) for angels; though it may here
stand as simply including what are named in the following clauses: " Rejoice over her, thou heaven, even ye
saints," etc.
2. And ye saints. This term may include the angels; but
if so it also includes all the redeemed who are not specified in the verse. They are called saints, or holy ones; as
in Heb. xii, 23, "perfect."  Of course their separate state
is here asserted in every form. They are inhabitants of
heaven, or are such at all events when the occurrence referred to takes place; and that occurrence does take place
anterior to the resurrection.
3. Ye apostles; that is, their spirits, of course; for they,
too, must have died previous to this event, and they were




246         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 35
not yet raised from the dead. See also chap. viii, 9, 10'
xi, 15-18; xiv, 2-5; xv, 2-4.  And that the names of mei
are given to them as spirits, see Luke xvi, 23.
4. Ye prophets; that is, those who had foretold these
events, and were now departed from this life.
Such, then, is the import of this passage, and the reader
will judge whether it is not sufficient of itself to explode
the whole theory of the soul-sleepers and of the Annihi.
lationists.
Our opponents do not trouble themselves by attempting
to explain this text. But should it be said that these saints,
prophets, etc., are called on to rejoice only in retrospection, this would be very absurd; for the call is to them to
rejoice at the time of the occurrence, and over the effects
resulting  therefrom  to  the kingdom  of Christ.  And,
moreover, the saints after the resurrection will not need
to be thus apprised of the past triumph of our glorious
Redeemer.
Before passing to the next great division of the subject,
we must here pause a while in order to notice the objections
of our opponents to the Scripture argument.
~ 35. Assumptions of our Opponents.
Their assumptions are numerous, and would be offensive
were they not ludicrous.  H. 2, p. 66, accuses us of not
relying on the Bible, but on philosophy, in support of our
views, and of following Plato rather than Christ, and (on
p. 90) of " clinging tenaciously to ambiguous texts;" and as
a climax, he adds on p. 91, that " the charge of our Lord is
painfully applicable to every promulgator of the popular
theory:'Ye make void the law of God through your traditions.'
Such unfounded accusations are perpetually brought by
this whole school of writers, and have considerable effect
upon the illiterate and thoughtless. The reader may however learn what to think of such a procedure by recurring to




~ 35.    ASSUMPTIONS OF OUR OPPONENTS.             247
sect. 25, above, in which the parentage of their own theory
is sufficiently demonstrated.
In all their exceptions to the Scripture argument they
employ mnuch equivocation in the application of terms. We
need not here, however, dwell specifically upon this point.
We shall be obliged in the following chapters to refer to it
occasionally, but for the present sufficient has been said in
relation to it in sect. 27.
They likewise abound in very positive denials and asseverations, which they employ in the place of argument.
H. 2, p. 95, for example, says: "It is beyond all reasonable contradiction that the Bible nowhere teaches that deceased believers enter upon their reward, nor that deceased
unbelievers experience their recompense, either in part or
wholly as disembodied spirits." And then again on p. 66,
in order that his own profound scientific attainments may
bear with their full weight of influence in support of this
idea, he says: "We are not acquainted with any species of
organized being whose individuality survives disorganization."  But did he never know that the vital principle
even in the seed-corn survives that very disorganization
which is called death?  We commend to these writers the
perusal of John xii, 24, and 1 Cor. xv, 36. They abound
likewise in such statements as the following: "There is in
the Bible no mention of disembodied felicity," (see H. 2,
pp. 77, 79, 83;) that man is dependent on the resurrection
for future existence, (G. 9, 10;) that body is necessary to
thought, (R. 13-22; see also ~ 5, above,) and ask, "How
can an immortal being die?" (H. 1, p. 120, and A. 38, a
question which we shall answer in another chapter;) and
assert "the evil tendency of the doctrine of innate immortality." C. 22-24.  And in their usual style of perversion,
it is asserted that "the whole truth" on the subject is in
Paul, (Has., passim;) and that we will find it in the discourses of Christ, (D. 186.) The object of these representations, however, is sufficiently apparent. But we are
willing to leave all these assumptions, asseverations, and




248         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.            ~ 35.
denials to be considered in the light of the passages which
we have cited and examined in sections 27-33 and this
chapter. It is needless, however, to occupy more space
with them here, and we shall now proceed to a specific consideration of those passages of Scripture which our opponents are in the practice of adducing in support of the views
they advocate.




~ 36.         OBJECTIONS ANSWERED               249
CHAPTER V.
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
~ 36. Objections, founded on Texts from the Old Testament,
answered.
WITH respect to those texts, with the arguments founded
upon them, which, in the subjoined catalogue, are taken
from the Old Testament, we have already, to some extent,
remarked upon them, as the reader may perceive in sec. 27,
sub-sec. 4; and though we design to give them a thorough
and critical examination, (for justice cannot be done to
the Biblical argument without it,) it will not be amiss, in
this connection, to cite the following passage from a late
work of one of the more prominent of our opponents. We
refer to Mr. Hudson, who, on page 262, thus adverts to the
point: "The argument to prove unconsciousness is often
based on the expressions'the dead know not anything;'
their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished,
and' there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave whither thou goest.' Eccles. ix, 5, 6, 10.
But these expressions are evidently (verses 2, 4) the conclusion of an Epicurian argument, including the denial of all
future life, which the'Preacher,' had taken up. And when
Hezekiah says:'The dead cannot praise thee,' (Isaiah
xxxviii, 18,) the language is rather that of despair respecting any future life. (Verse 11.) The same may be said
of the expressions in Job iii, 11, 16; xiv, 10, 14; Psalm
vi, 5; xxx, 9; lxxxviii, 10-12; cxv, 17; with which compare I Cor. xv, 18, where the argument evidently shows
that those who are fallen asleep in Christ are not perished,




250         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 36.
since Christ has risen." Still, as these passages are greatly
insisted on by many of the writers opposed to us, we shall
now proceed to their examination, after which we shall take
up and consider those which they adduce from the New
Testament, and also the other objections which they urge
against the doctrine we are defending.
1. The first objection is from the following passages:
Psalm xlix, 12, 14, 15: " Man being in honor abideth not;
he is lilke the beasts that perish. Like sheep they are laid
in the grave; death shall feed on them; and the upright
shall have dominion over them in the morning," etc. On
this C. 46, 47, remarks: " How do the beasts perish? does
the whole beast perish, or only a part of him? If the
whole beast perish, the whole sinner must." This, however, is based upon a misapprehension of the sense of the
passage.  The Psalmist is speaking of a rich fool, (see
Luke xii, 20, for the word honor has reference to wealth,
and means price or value,) and refers to his pride of station.
The idea strictly is: "He shall not lodge therein; he has
become like the brutes; they are destroyed, silenced,
hushed in death; they mingle no more with men in this
world." It requires some boldness of conception and execution to represent such passages as opposed to our views.
2. Psalm  cxlvi, 4, is a passage of somewhat similar
character: "His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his
earth; in that very day his thoughts perish."  They assert
with great vehemence that this furnishes a full proof of
their doctrine that man becomes extinct at death.*  In fact
they are never weary of repeating it.  C. asks: "How
can a thing. be tormented that has no thoughts? " E. says
that it teaches that "all which belongs to man, as man,
must perish."  And H. asks: "Will our antagonists explain how it can harmonize with their theory of a state of
consciousness after death, that in the day of death a man's'thoughts perish?'"
All this looks like being pressed rather hard to find
* See C. 49; A. 95; E. 109, 115; H. 2, pp. 70, 71.




~ 36. OBJECTIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT. 251
matter of objection against the evangelical doctrine; for
it would require no very deep reflection to perceive that in
such a connection the word thoughts means simply expectations or desires connected with the present life; for in multitudes of cases this is the meaning of the word. Take, for
example, Isaiah lv, 9: " Let the unrighteous man forsake
his thoughts."  He could not, of bourse, be enjoined to
forsake his thinking. The meaning is, let him forsake his
purposes, designs, or expectations, and return to the Lord.
So also in such passages as the following, in which we shall
substitute the one word for the other: Psalm  xlix, 11:
"Their desire is that their houses shall continue forever."
Isaiah xxvi, 3, (see margin:) "Keep him whose expectation
is stayed on thee." Job xvii, 7, (margin:) "All my expectations are as a shadow."  Acts viii, 22: " If the desire
of thy heart may be forgiven thee." In fact, so common
is this usage, that, as though to prevent its being misunderstood, we find the one term used as exegetical of the other,
as in Job xvii, 11: "My purposes are broken off, even
my thoughts." Now this meaning of the word, so plain
and obvious to all, at once divests the passage referred to
of even the shadow of antagonism  to the doctrine of the'uninterrupted immortality of the soul.
3. Another passage is the following: Eccles. ix, 5, 10:
"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." " Whatsoever thy
hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no
work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave
whither thou goest."' This passage is likewise perpetually
quoted and insisted on as justifying the views of our opponents; yet, though they often refer to it, they attempt no
explanation of its phraseology. And perhaps this is the
wiser plan.*  The passage speaks, of course, of all the
dead, without distinction of character; and with the same
solemnity with which it announces that they "know  not
* See C. 47; E. 116; A. 95; H. 2, pp. 70, 72.




252         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 36.
anything," it likewise assures us that "neither have they
any more a reward."  If, then, the words are to be taken
literally, as our opponents insist, it is certain that there is
to be no future resurrection or retribution for mzankind.
The one declaration is just as full and explicit as the other.
Why then do these men thus trifle, and insist upon objections
based on such a passage, when confessedly, and on their own
principles of literal construction, it makes as much against
their views as against our own?  Is such a procedure
honorable? But the passage has reference to the present
world and life, (and not to the future,) and to things as
they appear to the eye of sense; and in view of the fact that
we must soon lose all our interest in relation to these things,
it gives the solemn admonition to improve our probationary state while we may. And is not this wholly consistent,
with the doctrine of the soul's immortality?
That such is the import of the fifth verse, at least, is
further manifest from verse 6, where the expressions,
"their love and their hatred," etc., refer to the dispositions
which they might have here indulged, and hence the writer
adds: " Neither have they any more a portion forever in
anything that is done under the sun."  Should it be thought,
however, that the term translated grave, in verse 10, has
reference to the future state of man, there is nothing in
the verse which at all militates against the doctrine of immortality.  "Do with thy might all that is required at thy
hand, for in the unseen world (55[$z) whither thou art
going, there is neither work, nor planning, nor knowledge,
nor wisdom;" nothing to remedy the neglect of which
men are here guilty; no work that can in such a case benefit thee; no planning or contrivance by which to escape
thy doom; no knowledge of any help to be obtained, and
no wisdom that can comfort and support thee in such circumstances. The very repetition of the idea, according to
the genius of the Hebrew tongue, gives a fearful intensity
to the meaning. See the excellent note on the passage in
Clarke's Commentary.




~ 36.  OBJECTIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT.  253
4. Eccles. iii, 19-21, (which we have considered in
sect. 30, sub-sect. 3,) likewise is perpetually quoted and
insisted on by our adversaries: "For that which befalleth
the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth
them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have
all one breath; so that a man hath no pre-eminence above a
beast.: for all is vanity. All go into one place; all are of
the dust, and all turn to dust again.  Who knoweth the
spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast
that goeth downward to the earth 2"
Here, too, our opponents are quite unwilling to make a
thorough application, at least to themselves, of a literal construction; for they do not believe that in strictness of speech
" a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast." Yet should
they insist on believing it, we must, with all due deference,
insist on their believing it only in relation to themselves;
for our Saviour certainly taught the contrary when he said,
"How  much then is a man better than a sheep." Matt.
xii, 12.  See also Matt. vi, 26, and Luke xii, 24.  Judging
from their comments on the passage,* we might suppose
they had been studying in the school of the philosopher
mentioned by Berkeley,F who made a threefold partition of
the human species into birds, beasts, and fishes, being of
opinion that the road of life lies upward, in a perpetual
ascent through the scale of being. Their remarks on the
passage are of no account whatever, being pedantic and
illiterate. We pass them, therefore, and proceed to its
explanation.
Le Clerc, in loco, remarks that " the very doubt to which
the passage refers appears at least to intimate that certain
wise men in the East were then teaching the doctrine of
immortality, and that others would deny it." And that
Solomon is here really referring to some notions which
such discussions had developed in the minds of those men, is
quite apparent upon the very face of the passage. The as* See E. 116, 117; J. T. 13, 27, 35; H. 2, p. 86.
t Minute Philosopher, Dial. V., sect. 33.




254         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 36.
serted reason for the doubt or question here expressed, is
stated as follows: "Both men and animals spring from the
dust; they inhale the same vital breath rrf.,; they die alike
and go to the same place, the place from which they sprang,
and to which they again return." Then, having thus spoken
of their bodies, the questioner goes on to refer to the vital
principle of each, and continues thus: "Who knoweth the
spirit of man whether it ascendeth, and the spirit of beasts
whether it descendeth to the earth?"  This question, so far
as the spirit of man is concerned, he proceeds to answer in
due time by saying that " it shall at death return to God,"'
Eccles. xii, 7, and annexing thereto the practical application
in verses 13, 14; but as to the spirit of the beast, inasmuch as
the question relating to it is of no real concern to mankind,
he drops all further remark in relation thereto, and so leaves
the inference to be naturally and reasonably drawn, that as
the spirit of man does thus ascend to God and is judged,
(v. 14,) and of course survives the dissolution of the body,
the spirit of'the beasts must of course descend to the earth,
and, along with their bodies, return to dust. Compare Job
xxxiii, 28-30, and xxxiv, 14, with Psa. civ, 29.*  And it is
obvious, therefore, that the asserted resemblance between
man and beast refers only to that which is visible and strikes
the eye of sense, since man equally with the brutes is deprived of that life by which the pleasures of sense are
enjoyed. The passage thus clearly sustains the doctrine of
man's immortality, though it does bear hard against that of
beasts, since they are formed solely from the dust; and, of
course, it bears equally hard against the immortality of those
persons whose spirit is "merely the result of corporeal organization;" for our opponents affirm that there are such,
and many of them profess even to be of the number.
Surely they will not object to the argumentumn ex concessis.
5. The next passage is Job xiv, 10-15: " 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 de.
* See ~ 34.




~ 36. OBJECTIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT.  255
cayeth 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. O that thou wouldst hide me in
the grave, that thou wouldst keep me secret until- thy wrath
be past, that thou wouldst appoint me a set time, and remember me! If a man die, shall he live again? all the
days of my appointed time, will I wait, till my change come.
Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee: thou wilt have a
desire to the work of thine hands."
In their proof-texts our opponents perpetually forget the
good old maxim in all sound reasoning, Qui nimis probat,
nihil probat. In fact, in adducing their texts they seem to
care nothing as to what becomes of other doctrines of the
Bible, provided they are able to rid themselves of that
thought, so terrible to the vicious and impenitent, that man,
in respect to his spiritual nature, shall retain a conscious
existence after death. There is not one passage in all God's
word that even implies, much less announces, the idea of
annihilation in respect to man, unless it be in respect to
man as man, and not in respect to his constituent parts. As
to those parts neither the body nor spirit is annihilated,
although man, viewed as a composite being, ceases at death,
and continues thus till the resurrection. Such a cessation
as this we ever have asserted, for it is plainly announced by
most of the passages urged against us by our adversaries.
But this amounts to nothing i for it concedes nothing that
is in dispute, and presents no issue on the question whether
to man's spiritual nature there is a conscious survivance of
the stroke of death.  The body sinks under that stroke,
and ceases to exist. There is no question therefore on that
point. But does the spirit likewise cease to exist? This is
the issue. And to pretend to decide that issue by bringing
texts to prove that man, as man, ceases to exist in this world
and shall be here no more, is only trifling with the subject.
Now if the phrase in v. 12, " till the heavens be no more,"
means, as many critics suppose, " forever," then if the assertion of our opponents be true, that the passage is to be lit



256         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 36
erally interpreted, it follows that man is never to be raised
from the dead; an idea which these men utterly repudiate.
And equally apparent is the folly of endeavoring to reconcile the idea. of "sleep" (v. 12) with that of extinction
of being. How  can that which has no existence sleep?
And so too in v. 13, the patriarch prays that God "would
keep him secret."  Now how can that which has no actual
existence be kept in any way, secret or otherwise?  How
can the "me" here mentioned be annihilated and yet be
kept?  When a person utterly destroys a thing, can he be
said to keep it? The ideas of keeping and annihilating are
in perfect antithesis to each other. The passage therefore
is utterly subversive of their theory.  Their critique upon
it may be found in H. 2, pp. 66, 67,70, and A. 93. It con
tains not one idea that is worthy of notice.
The import of the passage is obvious. Job, in consider
ing the calamitous condition of our fallen nature, remarks
that man, when he dies, (unlike a tree, whose root being left
in the ground may still live and grow,) passes forever from
this state of being, and is no more.  He does not in reality
exist, and never shall till the heavens pass away. For man,
being compounded of body and spirit, as above remarked,
is utterly dissolved when soul and body are separated.
The spirit is not man any more than the body itself is man.
Man is therefore dissolved into his constituent parts, as the
question " Where is he?" plainly intimates. He can mingle
no more with the sons of men. He has done with earth and
the scenes of time.
Of his better and immortal part, however, the patriarch
is not here unmindful, and in view of death he prays, "O
that thou wouldst hide me in sheol, (5qR't, see on Eccles.
ix, 10, above,) that thou wouldst keep me in secret, until
thy wrath be past."  He prays here for that relief from
his sufferings which he should find with the happy spirits in
the invisible world, who are there kept in the secret place of
the Almighty, (Psalm  xci, 1,) until that time when God's
wrath shall cease to go forth in judgment upon earth, and




~ 36. OBJECTIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT.  257
that God would then remember him, and have a desire to
the work of his hands. Then " thou shalt call," that is, by
the voice of the archangel. (1 Thess. iv, 16,) " and I will
answer thee." (Comp. chap. xix, 25-27.)  Could Job have
said this if he had expected then to be extinct? But according to the Amnnihilation theory, the patriarch did not expect
to hear this call until after he had obeyed it and come forth.
Scultetus and other eminent expositors maintain that the
phrase in verse 12, "until the heavens be no more, they shall
not wake," is designed to intimate that when the heavens
do pass away mankind shall be raised. (See Luke xxi, 33;
2 Peter iii, 10; Rev. xxi, 1.) Nor has any really sufficient reason been given for disregarding this conclusion, for
the meaning of the phrase in its later usage proves nothing
as to its earlier import with the patriarchs, for even the
preaching of Enoch announced a universal judgment and
resurrection of the dead.*
6. The same remarks substantially apply to such objections as our opponents derive from passages like Psalm
xxxix, 13: " O spare me, that I may recover strength before
I go hence, and be no more." (See also Jer. xxxi, 15.)
The language is perfectly intelligible on the principle of the
soul's uninterrupted existence, for in this case there is a real
departure, a real "going hence and being no more" among
the sons of men. But what going hence is there, according
to the idea of the Annihilationists? since the soul is inseparable from the body and is extinguished at death.
And then, further, do our opposers believe that man "will
be no more" after he dies?  They do not, for they hold
that he will live again. Why then adduce this passage, and
parade it, as though it refuted our views and sustained
theirs? If it prove not that man will not live again at the
resurrection, neither does it prove that he does not, in his
spiritual nature, exist between death and the resurrection;
but it does prove that, as man, living and acting in a probationary state, he shall be no more.
* See Bush on Gen. v, 21-.24.




258         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 36.
As an illustration of the manner in which our opponents
employ such and similar passages, let us suppose that one
of that school should undertake to prove the extinction of
Enoch, (a not unlikely supposition,) and should, in proof of
his notion, quote Gen. v, 24, "He was not, for God took
him," we should have the same kind of proof that Enoch
has ceased to exist, that we have of the annihilation of the
spiritual nature of Rachel's children, (an instance often
pleaded by our opponents in this connection,) or of the annihilation of the spirit of any good man whom God takes
away from this world of sorrow, and suffering, and death.
7. It seems hardly necessary to criticise those other passages of the foregoing character, on which they so greatly
insist; as, for example, Job vii, 9, 10: "He that goeth
down to the grave shall come up no more;" (comp. Dan.
xii, 2; and Obadiah 16;) or Psalm xc, 3: "Thou turnest
man to destruction;" * for it is perfectly obvious that
if such language prove a literal annihilation, then annihilation is not inconsistent with the continuance of existence, and if so it must be a very harmless matter after all.
That this is so is plain from  passages like Job xix, 10,
where, speaking of God, the patriarch says: " He hath destroyed me on every side, and I am gone."  Now Job,
when he used this language, was of course still alive, and
he lived many years afterward; so that if destroy means
annihilate, Job, while still living, was destroyed, annihilated,
and gone; that is, after he ceased to exist he was yet alive.
And why may it not be that the annihilation of all the
dead has affected them in the same manner? Will our adversaries tell us?
8. There are, however, other classes of passages which
are pertinaciously insisted on, and we ought not therefore
to pass them without notice.  See, for example, Psalm
xxxvii, 10, 20: " Yet a little while and the wicked shall not
be;" "they shall perish."  Psalm  cxlv, 20: "All the
wicked shall he destroy."t  They quote these and other
* See C. 49, A. 92, E, 124.  t See J. T. 64, C. 48, E. 124,




~ 36. OBJECTIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT. 259
passages, which refer to God's treatment of the wicked in
this world, and so grossly misapprehend their import as to
refer them only to the world to come.
9. They employ likewise such passages as the following: Psalm lxxxviii, 10-12: "Wilt thou show wonders to
the dead?  Shall the dead arise and praise thee?  Shall
thy loving kindness be declared in the grave? or thy faithfulness in destruction?" etc.  And Psalm xxx, 9: "What
profit is there in my blood, when I go down to the pit?
Shall the dust praise thee?  Shall it declare thy truth? "'
Psalm cxv, 17: " The dead praise not the Lord, neither
any that go down into silence."'  Isaiah xxxviii, 18, 19:
"For the grave cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate
thee, they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy
truth.  The living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I do
this day."  Psalm  cxix, 175: "Let my soul live, and it
shall praise thee." Psalm vi, 5: " For in death there is
no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee
thanks 2"'
It is scarcely conceivable that, with the Bible open before
them, men should so misconstrue the import of language
like the foregoing, when the context indicates, in every instance, that the very expressions which our opponents here
dwell upon as justifying their treatment of the doctrine of
immortality, relate to a matter altogether the reverse of
mere corporeal death. In the sense of the penalty of the
Divine law, death is the displeasure of God, and the soul
that suffers that penalty is cut off from the source of spiritual life and happiness; and if it remain under his displeasure during the term of its probation here, that same
death must be its portion forever. The children of God in
all ages have been fearful of incurring this death, knowing
that if they received according to their personal deserts it
must be their portion. This apprehension prompted many
fears, and bitter tears, and earnest prayers, and the assurance of deliverance therefrom filled the heart with thanks* E,114, 115, 120, 121; C. 47, 48; H. 2, pp. 68, 70; A. 94; S., App. 25.




260           IMMORTALITY  OF THE SOUL.                  ~ 36.
giving and joy. And well might even Hezekiah apprehend
that the sentence of corporeal death which had been uttered
against him was evidential of a displeasure which might
rest upon him forever.* Hence, therefore, it may well be
said of death, (in the sense of Gen. ii, 17,) the true penalty
of the law, "In death there is no remembrance of thee."
Psalm vi, 5; Isaiah xxxviii, 18, 19.  See too Job xxviii, 22,
where, in this sense, destruction and death are associated.
Even in spiritual death during the present life, God is not
remembered, but forgotten and disregarded, and how much
more shall it be so ifn the world to come!  The Jews of
course derived their idea of death, in its proper sense, from
Gen. ii, 17.  (Compare Psalm  xxx, 9; lxxxviii, 10-12;
cxv, 7.)  The people of God, then, knowing their sin and
frailty, perpetually feared that they might, in justice, be
given over to death, the penalty of the law, and therefore
pleaded with God to protect and deliver them from it, and in
their supplications they refer to the fact that it is their heart's
desire to serve and praise him, and that those only who live,
that is, who are rescued from this penalty, can praise him.
It is strange that a careful reader of only the Old Testament should so egregiously misunderstand its import, but
* The remarks of Mr. Greenham on Psalm cxix, 175, refer to this subject. After adverting to Luke i, 46; Psalm ciii, 1; civ, 1; cxv, 17;
vi, 5; and Isaiah xxxviii, 19, in illustration, he adds: " How grievous a
thing it is now every man may judge, that a man should go out of this
world, or ever he knew wherefore he came into the world, and this is
that which maketh us so loth to die. This was it that made'the saints of
God, in former times, so unwilling to leave life; not that they wanted
any hope of the life to come, or had not the joy of a blessed resurrection;
but either they had some special sins heavily pressing their consciences,
whereby they had dishonored God, or else they desired to live in greater
measure to glorify God, either in entering into the way of repentance,
or else growing in the same, after they had entered; because as yet they
could not say in truth, I have fought a good fight, Ihave run a good race,
I have kept the faith, fsrom henceforth a crown of glory is porepared for
me. For they knew that, whereof we are willingly ignorant, that we
shall never incessantly praise God in heaven, unless we carefully serve
God on earth; and we shall never praise God in the congregation of
angels, which praise not God in the congregation of his saints." Works,
page 689; folio, 1601.




36. OBJECTIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT.  261
much more remarkable is it that this should be the case
with any one who has ever perused the New Testament.
The remark of S. 60-62, that " spiritual death cannot be
the penalty of sin," is a mere equivocation.  The penalty of
the law, as we shall show more fully in a future chapter,
is death-a severance from the source of spiritual life and
happiness, a breaking up of all harmony between God
and the creature. The soul that sins is thus at once severed
from God, and consequently, on the very day and hour that
Adam transgressed he died. The consequence of this was
suffering, misery, and the incurring of spiritual death to
himself and posterity, a death which Redeeming Love alone
can prevent from  being eternal, and from  which Christ
alone can arouse the children of men.  Hence the unregenerate are properly called dead, and it is expressly declared that the voice of God alone can awaken them  to
life. (1 John iii, 14; 1 Tim. v, 6; John v, 25.)  And in
this last passage this death is carefully distinguished from
death in the sense of corporeal dissolution, verse 28. See
also Eph. v, 14. And hence the regenerate and justified,
though they die corporeally, are said to have passed from
death unto life. The connection between them  and the
source of life has been restored. (John iii, 5; i, 12, 13;
Eph. ii, 5, 10; iv, 32. Compare also Rom. vii, 6; viii, 1, 2.)
And this is in perfect accordance with the promise which
follows the twofold repetition of the threatening in the Old
Testament, (Ezek. xviii, 4, 20,) for immediately thereafter
it is added that "if the wicked turn he shall not die."
Verse 21. These thoughts, obvious as they must be to the
reflecting mind, evince the futility of the objections to immortality, based on such passages as the preceding.
10. These considerations will throw light upon another
class of texts on which our opponents are in the habit of
basing objections; for example, where the soul is spoken
of as suffering death.  But death, as we have shown
already, does not infer extinction of existence. In this connection they quote Ezek. xviii, 4, 20: "The soul that sin



262         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 36.
neth, it shall die," which we have explained above.  And
also Psalm xvi, 10: " Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell,"
(sheol,) which passage refers to our blessed Redeemer,
(Acts ii, 31,) and proves that he suffered the penalty of the
law for his people; but to infer from it that his human
spirit was annihilated between his death and the resurrection is an appalling idea. (C. 46, E. 115. See our remarks on 1 Peter iii, 18-20, in a preceding section.) C. 46
ludicrously quotes, in the same connection, "He spared not
their soul from  death, but gave their life over to the pestilence."  E. 12, 43, 75, likewise makes a great effort to
prove that souls can be killed, and that " there are such
things as dead souls."  He makes no attempt, however, to
reconcile this with his materialistic notion that the soul is
merely the result of physical organization, and inseparable
from the body.
11. The only remaining passages alleged by them which
call for notice are these: " The man that wandereth out of
the way of understanding shall remain in the congregation
of the dead," Prov. xxi, 16; and, " I will make them
drunken, that they may rejoice, and sleep a perpetual sleep,
and not wake, saith the Lord." Jer. li, 39.  But surely we
may again inquire here, What is to become of the resurrection, if they "are to remain in the congregation of the
dead, and sleep a sleep which is perpetual, and knows no
waking?" In the same connection, also, they quote Dan.
xii, 2: "Many that sleep in the dust of the earth shall
arise;"* by which it seems that this perpetual sleep is after
all to have a waking.  It seems like trifling with the
reader's patience to dwell upon such exhibitions of logic,
and we should not do it were we not aware that all these
instances have been successful in the hands of our opponents in deceiving the unwary and illiterate.  With a single
remark or two, however, we shall dismiss the point.
The expression "deep or perpetual sleep," which occurs
in the passage from Jeremiah, and refers to the doom of the
* See C. 49; H. 2, p. 70; S. 63; B. 74-76.




~ 36. OBJECTIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT. 263
wicked Babylonian oppressors, had quite a familiar application among the Jews. A single instance will illustrate this.
Asaph says, (Psa. lxxvi, 6,) "At thy rebuke, O God of
Jacob, both the chariot and the horse are cast into a deep
sleep."  The expression was employed in relation to anything which, having had visible existence, had lost its form
or activity, (as, for example, the horse and chariot when
rushing into action,) and had been laid aside or become
invisible to human observation.
By a familiar figure, common among all nations, death is
referred to as a sleep. The soul may be still active, as in
dreaming, but the exhibition of life, or vital power, has
ceased to be apparent. In fact, so like in appearance are
sleep and death, that the poets have spoken of them as
brothers; an idea, I believe, first suggested by Homer.*
Among the Jews, however, this figure of death as a sleep
became transferred to that death which was known as the
penalty of sin, and is spoken of in the New Testament as
the second death, so that it too was called a sleep. A single instance will suffice for illustration.. In Psa. xiii, 3,
David prays, "Consider and hear me, 0 Lord my God;
lighten mine eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death." Now
David expected not to escape corporeal death, and never
prayed to be exempt from it. The remedy for the death
against which he prays was spiritual illumination.f By that
alone can any one escape, or be delivered from sleeping that
sleep which knows no waking, and from which none ever
arise to praise God. If they have spent their term of probation in sin, they arise to shame and endless infamy.
12. And now, in conclusion of this examination of the
passages adduced from the Old Testament by our opponents, I have a brief remark or two to offer.
1.) It is obvious from the whole examination that the principles which they adopt in interpreting the foregoing passages
make it perfectly plain that " God destroys both the perfect
> So too the aphorism: ol 6apOdvovr7e ve6polGtv /OtLo Esiiev.
t I am indebted for this to the Clavis of Flacius, sub voce DORAIRE.




264          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.    ~     36.
and the wicked; that all flesh shall perish together; that the
Babylonians are to sleep a perpetual sleep and not wake;
that those who are in the grave God remembers no more;
that the dead shall not arise and pi-aise God, and that he
that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more; that
Job shall return no more, and shall see no more good. Or,
in other words, we are thus taught that death is an eternal
sleep,"* and therefore their principles of interpretation are
false.
2.) I have remarked above that we were under the necessity of omitting many positive proofs from the Scriptures
that the soul survives the stroke of death. But in concluding this list of passages adduced by our adversaries, I
will briefly refer to one proof of the doctrine of future re..
wards and punishments, and of the soul's immortality, which
learned Jews complain has been overlooked by Christiani
writers in treating the subject. God, speaking to the human
race through Noah, says in Gen. ix, 5, 6, "And surely the
blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every
beast will I require it, and at the hand of man," etc. The
first clause contains the general announcement, and the others
are explanatory of its import, which is a very common form
of expression in the Hebrew tongue. In respect to the
second clause, however, the word rendered beast, -Rr, canDot possibly have that import according to the genius of the
language.  For that word, as Rev. J. F. Denham remarks,
is never applied to the brute creation unless in conjunction
awith that of cattle, reptile, or bird; or if none of these accompany it the expression is, either beasts of the field, or
forest, or of the earth, or wild bearst; and whenever, as in
this instance, it stands without an adjunct, it inrara6lBy relates to the soul of tman.  The best Hebraists allow this
rule, and that there is no exception to it in all the Scriptures,
unless this is claimed to be one, in which our translation
refers the word to the brute creation. But now let the rule
hold good in this instance, for there is no sufficient reason
* See the little tract by Rev. N. D. George, pp. 14, 15).




~ 36.  OBJECTIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT.  265
why it should not, and the verses read as follows: " Surely
your own life-blood will I require; of every soul will 1
require it; (that is, of every one who sheds his own blo6d,
or perpetrates suicide,) and at the hand of man, yea, at the
hand of every man, will I require the life of man his brother.
WThoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be
shed, for in the image of God made he man." If this be so,
then of course the meaning of the second clause must be
"from the soul of the suicide will I require his blood;" and
so we have in the Scriptures this early and perfect indication of a punishment to the soul after death, and, consequently, of its immortality.*
* See Kitto's Cyclopedia, under the word Soul, which contains also the
rfaerences to the Jewish authors sustaining the above.




266         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 37.
CHAPTER VI.
THE SUBJECT CONTINUED.
~ 37. Objections derived from the New Testament.
THE passages adduced in the form of objection from the
New Testament are " few and far between," and our opponents have evidently been hard pressed to find anything
therein which could be so construed as even to seem to favor
their old epicurean notions and atheistic philosophy, as the
subjoined examination will evince.
1. The first passage which we find them insisting on is
Matt. xxvii, 52, 53: "And the graves were opened, and
many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out
of their graves after his resurrection," etc. And to this
they annex also the following: "The hour is coming in the
which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and
shall come forth." John v, 28. These passages are cited
by H. 2, p. 79, and S. 64, but as they do not favor us specifically with their object in adducing them in this connection, we must be left to conjecture. It is, however, perfectly
idle to pretend that these passages in any way conflict with
man's uninterrupted immortality, or favdr the notion of our
opponents. As respects the latter passage it is sufficient
to observe that Jesus, just before uttering it, had said that
the spiritually dead should hear his voice and live. And
then, to distinguish the corporeally dead from them, he adds
in this verse, that " all who are in the graves should hear his
voice and come forth." By the phrase "all that are in the
graves," therefore, he meant, (in accordance with the usage of
the Jews, who held to the survivance of the soul,) all who




~ 37. OBJECTIONS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 267
are corporeally dead. As respects the former passage, as I
have shown, in referring to it in my work on the Resurrection, p. 263, the remarkable change of gender in the Greek
evinces a reunion of soul and body. It is not said that the
bodies (Sa~arTa) were raised and came forth, but that the
bodies being raised, the persons, the saints themselves, came
forth, (i&e2X06vere,) an idea wholly subversive of the notion
of the Materialists that the soul is a result of corporeal
organization.
2. The next passage is Acts ii, 34: " For David is not
ascended into the heavens." The apostle had just stated
(v. 29) that "David was both dead and buried," and in this
passage he affirms that he had not ascended into the heavens.
Of course then, say our opponents, David must have perished body and soul at death. Their literature on this point
may be found in B. 40, C. 47, E. 115, and H. 2, pp. 70, 71.
They certainly make the most of this argument, and we
shall, therefore, listen to what they have to offer. C. says,
David "was not so fortunate as some modern professors,
who expect to ascend into heaven immediately at death,
and give their souls no opportunity to be redeemed from the
power of the grave." B. says, referring to those who believe that the soul is immortal: " These men say,' David is
not dead, and has ascended into heaven."' E. is somewhat
more full, and, after quoting the passage, says, "Yea, his
soul has been left in (sheol, hades) the state of death, and
has seen corruption, and therefore he can no longer praise
God till he awakes in the likeness of the Saviour, and his' corruption puts on incorruption,' and'when Christ, who is our
life, shall appear, (in the clouds of heaven,) THEN shall he
also appear in glory' with him." Col. iii, 4. H., however,
is very full and emphatic, and has presented the strength of
the argument both analytically and synthetically. Let us
hear him, therefore.
In presenting his argument he shows most conclusively
and satisfactorily that Peter could not have here i-atended to
say that the body of David had not ascended into the heavens,




268           IMMORTALITY  OF THE SOUL.                  ~ 37.
and also that for the same reason he could not have
meant to say that his soul had not thus ascended, for neither
the soul nor the body of David could be regarded as the man
David.  And then further, that David in Psalm xvi (quoted
here in the context) did not speak of himself, but of Christ,
is conclusively proved by Peter, from the fact that David
was not only dead and buried, -but that he had not ascended
into the heavens.  Mr. Ham then concludes the argument as
follows: " It is, I think, apparent, that Peter's argument requires us to understand that David himself, the' Patriarch
David,' not simply his body, was' dead and buried,' and
that David in no sense had ascended into the heavens.
Therefore, if the Patriarch David has no conscious life in the
intermediate state, but is awaiting the manifestation of the
life which is at present hidden in Christ, (Col. iii, 3, 4,) the
life and the light of men, and which shall take place at the
resurrection, when Christ shall come to be glorified in his
saints; if this, we say, be the case of the sweet Psalmist of
Israel, we may fairly presume that the case is the same with
all others.  Then the Scriptures teach that although in the
midst of life we are in death* -in the midst of death we are
not in life."ft
Now a very little reflection might have suggested to Mr.
Ham and his brethren several things of importance in this
connection: and, 1. That as Peter does not say that the soul
of David had not ascended into the heavens, his language
* The italics here are our own; but it is sometimes really difficult to
know what these writers mean by  "thte ScriPtures.l"  We have found
them, as shown on a former page, quoting as such, passages not in the
Bible, and then reasoning from them as inspired testimony; and -here Mr.
Ham, though a Congregationalist, quotes an expression from the book of
" Commnon Prayer" as " the Scriptures."  To say that they do these
things from ignorance would be impolite. How is it, then? They certainly need another'Bible to sustain their system, and perhaps they have
one. But if so, why not bring it out frankly and openly, and not be
quoting from it in this sly manner, as if incidentally only, and not designed? There is an unfairness about such a course, and we protest
against all proceedings of that sort. See ~ 33, sub-see. 5, above.
t Pp. 70, 71.




~ 37. OBJECTIONS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT.  269
cannot be adduced to prove that the soul of that Patriarch
had not so ascended; and, 2. That Moses was as perfectly
"dead and buried" as David was, (Deut. xxxiv, 5, 6,) and
had continued so according to the language of Christ (John
vi, 49) and the asseverations of the Jews. (John viii, 52,
53.) Nor could he have been raised from the dead previous
to the resurrection of Christ, for then Christ would not have
been "the first-fruits of them that slept," and "the firstbegotten from the dead." (1 Cor. xv, 20; Rev. i, 5. Compare Rom. vi, 9.)  And yet, before the death of Christ,
Moses appeared on Tabor along with Elijah. (Matt. xvii, 3.)
(I say Moses, for, as already shown, it is the custom of the
inspired writers to give to the spirit of man the name of
man himself. Luke xvi, 23.) Of course, then, it was just as
proper' to say of Moses at this very time (and the words of
Christ in John vi, 49, were spoken about the time of the
occurrence recorded in Matt. xvii, 1-9,) as it was to say of
David, that he was "dead and buried," and "had not ascended into the heavens," and this though his spirit still
survived in a state of conscious blessedness; and, vice versa,
it is just as correct to say of David as of Moses that, although he was "dead and buried," and had " not ascended
into the heavens," his spirit still existed. These things are
so obvious as to need no further illustration. Of course,
then, the passage can in no sense be brought into antagonism
with the doctrine we teach. And, finally, in support of this
view, we here offer an authority which Mr. Ham and all our
opponents must respect, and ought to regard as conclusive
in the matter.  We refer to Mr. Ham himself. In referring
to and exposing the Pagan notion, that man is immortal as
to the soul only, and not as to the body, he remarks as follows: " Where is this anomalous breaking up, so to speak,
of the unity of man's nature to be found in the Bible? It
is not a religious doctrine, but a philosophical refinement,
which started into existence when Platonism meddled with
the simplicity of the Scriptures.  NEITHER THE BODY NOR
THE SOUL SEPARATELY IS THE MAN, BUT THE UNION OF BOTH.




270         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 37.
To borrow the illustration of a living writer,'as the union
of oxygen and hydrogen produces water, so the union of
body and soul constitutes a man."' (See H. I., p. 119.)
Now all this is plain, and therefore the soul of David (though
it might, as in the instances of Moses, Abraham, and others,
be called by his name) was not David. And what Peter
here asserts is that the man David, the constituent man, soul
and body, had not ascended into the heavens, and that,
therefore, he was not the promised Messiah referred to in
Psa. 16. But Jesus had ascended, and therefore he is the
Christ.  We have in our Reply to Professor BBush, p. 279,
criticized the original of this passage, and need not repeat
the criticism here.
3. The next and only other passage presented by our opponents as containing a direct impeachment of the doctrine
of the soul's uninterrupted immortality is I Cor. xv, 16-18:
"For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised.  And
if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain, ye are yet in your
sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are
perished." These verses contain the gist of their ground of
objection, though the reader had better turn to the whole
context in verses 12-32. The literature of the subject, as
presented by our opponents, may be seen in D. 147-151;
H. 2, pp. 81, 82; S., App. 20; M. 21, 22; C. 54; E. 124-131.
Add also Priestley in loco. There is no passage either in
the Old or New Testament on which they so much insist
as this; though in reading them one is often reminded of
the saying of old Scultetus,  Ut vacca vaccam, ita autor
autorem sequitur.
M. explains it thus: "' They also which are fallen asleep
in Christ are perished;' THAT IS, ARE NOW TOTALLY EXTINCT."
But how is this? Paul says that if Christ be not risen then
they are perished; implying, of course, that since he has
arisen they are not perished. And if they are not perished,
how can they have become " totally extinct?" It is hardly
doing justice to the reasoning powers of the apostle to make
him say that whether Christ has risen or not, those that




~ 37. OBJECTIONS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 271
"are fallen asleep in him  are perished."  E. likewise explains perish here as extinction; but S. is very emphatic.
He says: "How could Paul say,' If the dead rise not, then
they that have fallen asleep in Christ are perished?' if the
saints go into a conscious state of blessedness the moment
they die? If it be said, Paul means their bodies are perished, I reply,... It seems to me that Paul intended to
teach that our entire future existence depends on a resurrection from the dead; and if there be no resurrection, then
at death, man ceases to have existence, and will live no more
forever."  H. remarks that "the apostle, in his concise
piece of reasoning, distinctly affirms that if there be no resurrection of the dead then there is no future life;" after
which he asks: "Can the orthodox of the nineteenth centuryagree with Paul in his affirmation that if the dead rise not,
Christians who have departed this life are perished?  No,
they say,'if the dead rise not,' the soul lives on-its life
does not depend upon the resumption of the body." H. is
usually great at making a display, but on this text, however,
he must yield the palm to D. He extends his criticism,
and without offering a new idea, arranges the arguments in
rank and file; and after speaking to the reader in the following modest and peculiarly distinctive style, announces
the conclusion, which we subjoin likewise: "'For my own
part, I have not the presumption to disagree with an apostle, and always rest satisfied with either the argumentative
processes, or the authoritative assertions of inspired men.
[See Luke xviii, 11, 12.]  And I therefore receive with
implicit faith the apostolic doctrine contained.in the conclusion:' What advantageth it me, if the dead rise not?'"
"And this'perishing' would have been as complete and
final as that, had it been the prospect before him, Paul
would himself have said,' Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die.'"  Such are the decisions of this corpus criticorum on the passage.
In order, however, to see the utter futility of all this, it
is only necessary that the reader should examine the argu



272          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.                ~ 37.
ment of the apostle.* It is briefly as follows: "' I have testified to you, ye Christians of Corinth, that Christ died for
our sirns, was buried, and rose again, according to the Scriptures of the former economy; and moreover, that he was
seen, after his resurrection, by multitudes of witnesses, who
are still living, and lastly by myself. So we preach, and
so ye believed. Here, then, is the evidence that he has
arisen, and that he consequently is the promised Saviour;
the Scriptures declare that it SHALL be so, and multitudes of
still living witnesses testify that it has been so. But if Christ
be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among
you that there is no resurrection of the dead? For if there
is no resurrection, then Christ is not risen; because, as I have
already shown to you, (v. 3,) he died, was buried, and rose
again, not for himself, but for us-for our sins-according
to the Scriptures.  And therefore if he has arisen we must
arise, and, on the contrary, if we rise not, then is he not
risen; and consequently our preaching is false, and your
faith in the Scriptures and in him is vain; and we who profess to have seen him after his resurrection are proved to
be false witnesses, because we have testified that God raised
up Christ, whom he raised not up; and consequently you
are yet in your sins, (for, if he has not arisen, then he is not
our Saviour from sin, ver. 3, 4;) and those too who have departed this life trusting in him as their Saviour have trusted
in one who cannot save them, and have therefore perished,
or failed of salvation." Such is the argument, lying upon
the very surface of the language, and plain, one would
think, to the capacity of a child.  And it is really inconceivable how these men could so egregiously have mistaken
it. The question of consciousness or unconsciousness after
death is in no way here connected with or involved in th9
apostle's argument. The term perished has reference merely
to the hypothesis that these persons on entering eternity
* If I may venture again to refer to my little work on the Resurrection,
I would remark that the reader will there find, on pp. 188-244, a thorough
analysis of the argument in 1 Cor. xv.




~ 37.  OBJECTIONS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 273
were found to be destitute of a Saviour from their sins.
How preposterous is it, therefore, for our opponents thus
to attempt to draw into the apostle's argument an element
with which it cannot possibly have the slightest connection,
and then to undertake to build up a theory on. such a
foundation.
And then, further, this egregious blunder of Mr. Dobney and his friends, whether intentional or not, is characteristically ludicrous.  For, as above intimated, a moment's
reflection would have shown them that if "perish" means
extinction of conscious being, not perishing must mean a
continuance of conscious being.  Now the passage avers
that those who are fallen asleep in Christ are perished if he
is not really the promised Saviour.  But since he is the
promised Saviour, they, of course, have not thus perished,
but continue to exist, our adversaries themselves being
judges.  All this is transparently obvious from  the very
ground assumed by Messrs. Ham, Dobney, and friends, in
their objection founded on this passage.
I may here remark, in passing, that the import of the following verse (verse 19, which has perplexed many) is perfectly easy when considered in this, its proper connection.
Paul there says that "if in this life only we have hope
in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."  That is,
if we go into the world of spirits relying on Christ to save
us from sin, and there find ourselves disappointed in respect
to all the bright hopes and expectations which the Gospel
has awakened within us, (as we must be if he is not the
promised Messiah,) there are none of the damned who
shall be so truly miserable as we, for none had such hopes
and prospects as those which through life have cheered our
hearts.
4. There are other objections urged by them, however,
but which are presented less in a textual, and more in a
doctrinal form. For example, they maintain that the attainment of immortality by man is purely'conditional; in
support of which they urge three points: first, That God
18




274        IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.                  ~ 37.
alone possesses immortality. (1 Tim. vi, 16; i, 17. On
which passages see their views in D. 112; M. 13-15;
Has. 34; E. 131-133; G. 16; C. 63.) They urge, secondly,
that man is required to seek immortality, which could not
be if it were inherent, and not conditional. On this point
they plead Rom. ii, 7, where it is stated that they who
seek for immortality shall have eternal life.*  In support
of the same idea they plead, thirdly, that immortality is
affirmed to come only through Christ the Saviour, and is
dependent solely on the resurrection.t
In maintaining it, however, our Annihilationists are not
quite as careful in their statements as they ought to be.
For instance, both S. 12 and C. 63, roundly assert that
" the term  immortal occurs but once in the Bible, namely,
1 Tim. i, 17, and is applied to God."   Has. 34 likewise
asserts that " Paul is the only writer in the whole Bible who
makes use of the word immortal or immortality." These
three men lay claim to pretty considerable knowledge; but
how they will attempt to reconcile these statements with
such claims, and with truth, the reader must be left to determine, in view of the following facts. The word immor.
tal, (JdbOapTrog,) besides being employed in 1 Tim. i, 17, is
used in Rom. i, 23; 1 Cor. ix, 25; xv, 52; 1 Peter i, 4, 23;
iii, 4.  The word immortality (aqOapaia) is employed, in
addition to Rom. ii, 7, in the following places: I Cor. xv,
42, 50, 53, 54; Eph. vi, 24; Titus ii, 7; 2 Tim. i, 10.
Compare also Dan. vi, 24; and in the Apocrypha see
Wisdom xii, 1; xviii, 4. I refer to these instances not
merely to correct the blundering of our opponents, but that
the reader may have at hand the facts in the case.
In section 27, sub-sections 2 and 3, I have referred to,
and briefly exposed, the equivocations of our opponents in
* See what they offer on this passage: D. 98; M. 13-15, 36, 37; C. 63;
I. passin; Has. 34; H. 2, p. 92.
f See H. 1, pp. 128, 129, and H. 2, pp. 92, 93. They all take this ground.
It was maintained likewise by Dr. Chauncey, "Universal Salvation,"
p. 132; Abner Kneeland, "' Lectures," p. 48; Dr. Priestley, in his Notes
on the New Testament; and by Taylor of Norwich, and others.




~ 37. OBJECTIONS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 275
regard to these words, and I beg leave to refer the reader
to those paragraphs. But we shall now proceed to consider
their proofs that the attainment of immortality is conditional.
In their argument they employ the term immortality in the
sense of actual being, or existence, in distinction from that of a
state or condition of existence, and so infer that it does not mean
merely a state of existence, either happy or miserable, but
existence itself. They claim that those who obtain this immortality, or existence, will be, of course, ineffably happy,
but that all others shall not only forfeit happiness, but be
deprived of existence itself.
Their first proof, as above remarked, is 1 Tim. vi, 16:
"God only hath immortality;" and they infer from it that
man possesses no immortality, unless conferred thiough grace
by Christ. But the absurdity of this inference is plain from
the fact that in this passage the word means underived and
eternal existence, and surely no one pretends that a creature can possess immortality in that sense; and I hardly
believe that our opponents would maintain either that man
should seek such an immortality, or that it can be conferred
by grace, or in any other way. And then further, that
such must be the meaning of the word here is apparent from the fact, that in the sense in which immortality is
to be sought by man, and is conferred by Christ,'it was
already in possession of a considerable number of the race
at the very time when the apostle declared that " God alone
has immortality."  Besides Enoch and Elijah, who had
long been in possession of it, there were the " many saints"
referred to in Matt. xxvii, 52, 53, and who were already in
full possession of the same immortality which shall pertain
to all true believers after the resurrection.  Of course,
then, Paul could never have employed the term in the
sense in which our opponents pretend. A further reason
may be stated if it should be deemed necessary, namely:
in the sense wherein Paul here declares that " God alone
has immortality," the statement will remain true to all




276          IMMORTALITY  OF THE SOUL.                ~ 37.
eternity. But it will not, after the resurrection of the
dead, be true of him in the sense in which our opponents
apply the term; for, on their own admission, the resurrection will confer a final and everlasting title to immortality
upon the saved. This text therefore proves nothing but
what we have always emphatically maintained, that God
alone possesses inherent, that is, underived and eternal, immortality. And yet no text is so often quoted by the Annihilationists as this, to prove that man has no derived immortal nature; a point to which it does not in the remotest
way refer.*
It is obvious that in 1 Tim. vi, 16, and as related to God,
the term  immortality (aOavaaia, from  d~ava-rog,t immortal,) is employed in a specific and restricted sense. In its
general import, however, and as applied to the creature, it
simply means that which is not obnoxious to corruption or
decay. (See the word as applied in 1 Cor. xv, 53, 54.
Compare the usage also in Wisdom  iii, 4; viii, 14, 18;
xv, 3.) In the specific sense God alone possesses it; in the
general sense the creature may. The one refers to underived immortality, the other to that which is derived.
In the other text, however, which they quote to sustain their
objection, (1 Tim. i, 17,) the term, though different, is in
usage equivalent.  It is da'0aprog, and, as employed in the
above-cited instances, evinces what is the import of both
in their general usage.  In 1 Cor. ix, 25, it is used to express the idea that the crown which the believer shall receive at the last day is incorruptible; (compare 2 Tim.
iv, 8;) and in 1 Cor. xv, 52, it is applied to the resurrection body, and in 1 Peter i, 4, 23, to the inheritance to
which the believer is begotten by the grace of God; and
finally, in 1 Peter iii, 4, to the regenerated nature of man
* The reader must pardon the particularity with which we dwell upon
the points of this objection. It forms the very nucleus of the tbeory of
our opponents, and whole volumes have been written in defenee of its
baseless assumptions.
t'AOdvarof is not employed in the New Testament.




e 37. OBJECTIONS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT.  277
in this world, that nature which is here pronounced immortal or incorruptible, (see also Rom. viii, 1,) but which our
opponents thoughtlessly affirm is not so, inasmuch as it is
to become extinct or annihilated when man dies.  Such,
then, are the usages of these terms.  In the sense of the
everlasting inheritance, and crown of life and glory, we
always have maintained that immortality is conditional.
But this of course refers not to being or to simnzle existence,
in itself considered, as our opponents pretend, but to something the possession of which is offered to man, and which
he may possess, and become thereby ineffably happy, but
which he also may refuse, and so render his being unhappy
through the wasteless ages of eternity.
As respects their second point, we admit, and always have
affirmed, that the text which they employ to sustain it (Rom.
ii, 7,) represents immortality as something to be sought by
perishing man. The foregoing remarks, however, apply to
this passage also. In fact the words referred to, and which
are employed in this and the forecited passages, are equivalent in import, and as such are employed in 1 Cor. xv, as
may be seen by referring to the instances of their use above
given, wherein they refer to the resurrection body. Now
there is a sense in which the resurrection itself is to be sought,
(Phil. ii, 7-11,) and yet we are expressly assured that the
resurrection will be universal, comprehending both the just
and unjust. (John v, 28, 29; Acts xxiv, 15.)  And so, too,
there is a sense in which everlasting or immortal life is to
be sought, and another sense in which all mankind are to
possess it. In the one case it means mere existence, without
reference to state or condition, and in this sense all possess
it.  In the other case it means a happy state or condition of
existence; and in this sense none are to possess it who refuse
the offer of Christ. The same word, moreover, is employed
in Eph. vi, 24, to designate the true believer's love of Christ;
and in Tit. ii, 7, to express an uncompromising adherence
to the doctrines of Christ; and finally in 2 Tim. i, 10, for
immortal life; for here  woi'v gcai doOapaiav is plainly a




278         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 37.
hendiadys for 6on)v a'00aprov. This, too, is its meaning in
the text referred to, (Rom. ii, 7,) a condition of perpetual
or unceasing happiness, " a glorious and honorable immortality," as opposed to that state of sin and misery which
must be the undying portion of those who do not seek happiness through Jesus Christ.
In their third point they likewise plead, in support of thie
objection, that immortality comes to man only through
Christ, and therefore is neither natural nor inherent, but a
gracious gift to those who accept Christ as their Saviour, and
is dependent solely on the resurrection.*
In their reference to the reszurrection, they do not, of
course, mean to exclude from immortality Enoch and Elijah,
and those other saints referred to by Paul, who are never to
be raised from the dead, (see 1 Thess. iv, 15, 17,) and
whose immortality, therefore, does not depend upon their
resurrection; and yet, from the positive and wide-sweeping
character of their statements, one might be led to suppose the contrary. What we have offered above, however,
applies equally to this third point, for our opponents can
scarcely believe that immortality, in the sense of underived and independent existence, is to come to any creature through Christ; and in the other sense of the term we,
of course, maintain that it can come alone through him. As
to the resurrection, we have always maintained that the immortality of all men who die must depend upon that event.
BMan, that is, as consisting of body and soul, is not immortal
as man, when the body is severed from  the spirit. His
spirit is immortal, but the spirit is only a part of man.
And as man, in the true and proper sense of the term, the
immortality of all who die is dependent upon the resurrection of the body.
5. Their next objection, and one on which they labor considerably, is of the same character as the foregoing. It purports to be based on the prominence given to the resurrection in the word of God, and from which they infer that
* See H. 1, pp. 128, 29, and H. 2, pp. 92, 93. They all take this ground.




~ 37. OBJECTIONS FROM  THE NEW  TESTAMENT.  279
there can be no immortality for man without the resurrection. To this, however, as above remarked, we assent, so
far as all who die are concerned. But the design of our opponents in urging the matter is to endeavor to deduce the
inference that therefore there is no intermediate or self-conscious state for man's spiritual nature, no interval of conscious
existence between his death and resurrection.*  But until
these men point out what possible or conceivable connection
exists between their premises and conclusion, we shall not
occupy either our own time or the reader's patience by
dwelling upon a specimen of such egregious nonsense.t  The
doctrine to which this idea is thus attempted to be brought
in antagonism  gives to the resurrection equal prominence,
as the reader may perceive by referring to our remarks on
2 Cor. v, 1-9, and Heb. xii, 22, 23, above, (section 33, subsections 10 and 13,) and we dismiss their objection therefore, with the following passage, quoted and adopted by Mr.
Hudson, one of their own writers, from the work of Dr.
Nevins, on the "Mystical Presence:" "The doctrine of
immortality in the Bible, is such as to include always the
idea of the resurrection.  It is an davdraat  /ec TiV?rv vepIQV.
The whole argument in the 15th chapter of First Corinthians,
as well as the representation in 1 Thess. iv, 13-18, proceeds
in the assumption that the life o? the body, as well as that
of the soul, is indispensable to the perfect state of our nature
as human. The soul, then, during the intermediate state,
*See D. 151-160; G. 10-16; H. 1, p. 28.
1 It may be proper here, however, to add a brief paragraph from Edwards:
" The reasonableness of the doctrine of the resurrection will appear, if we
suppose that union with a body is the most rational state of perfection of
the human soul, which may be argued from the consideration that this
was the condition in which the human soul was created at first, and that
its separation from the body is no improvement of its condition, being an
alteration brought on by sin;" "from whence we must conclude that the
former state of union to the body was a better state than disunion, which
was threatened. It introduced that death that consists in the separation
of body and soul. The state of innocency was embodied; the state of
guilt was disembodied. Therefore, as Christ came to restore from all the
calamities which came from sin, it is most reasonable to suppose that he
will restore the union of soul and body." Vol. vii, p. 240.




280          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 37.
cannot possibly constitute, in the Bible view, a complete man 
and the case requires, besides, that we should conceive of
its relation to the body as still in force; not absolutely destroyed, but only suspended. The whole condition is interimistic, and by no possibility of conception capable of being
thought 6f as complete and final.  When the resurrection
body appears it will not be as a new fralime abruptly created
for the occasion, and brought to the soul in the way of outward addition and supplement.  It will be found to hold in
strict organic continuity with the body, as it existed before
death, as the action of the same law of life, which implies
that this law has not been annihilated, but suspended only,
in the intermediate state." 
6. Another objection is, that the doctrine of immortality,
as maintained by us, makes the dead to be judged twice
once immediately after death, and then, a second time, at
the general judgment of' the great day. See H. 1, p. 140,
and others. This would be plausible, to be sure, if the point
we insisted on were merely hypothetical. But the reader
will doubtless be inclined to do full justice to the exemplary
modesty of, our opponents in producing this objection. It
has a peculiarly beautiful aspect, as coming from those who
assert that the sinner is literally to suffer the penalty of the
law twice.  That penalty;, they aver, is annihilation; it is
inflicted upon the sinner once when he dies, and then, as they
inform us, he is to be raised from the dead, not to continue
in existence, but merely to be annihilated over again.
In reasoning, however, it is a fair maxim  that retorquere
non est respondere; nor do we design the foregoing remarks
as a reply to the objection itself, which at best, however, is
a mere equivocation on the word "juldged."  The spirit,
when it has departed from the body, must, in the very
nature of the case, be either in a happy or a miserable condition. and take its position accordingly either among the
happy or unhappy.  Its very existence and moral nature itself, of course, involve such a necessity. And the attempt
* See i' Debt and Grace," by AMr. Hudson, pp. 262, 263.




~ 37. OBJECTIONS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT.  281
to confound this necessity of its nature with the formal
judgment which must be passed upon all at the last day, in
the presence of the assembled universe of angels, men, and
devils, is the fatuity of inanity. But then again, if the doctrine of the uninterrupted immortality of the soul did actually infer a twofold judgment, this would furnish no valid
objection against it in the view of any believer of the
Bible; for, that man should be judged twice constitutes no
more a valid reason against the continuity of his existence
during the interval which elapses between those judgments,
than it would form a valid reason against the uninterrupted
existence of the fallen angels during a similar interval. Now
we read expressly that when angels sinned they were inmediately condemned and adjudged to hell; and not only
this, but that they are reserved in everlasting chains of darkness unto the judgment of the great day. (See 2 Pet. ii; 4,
and Jude 6.)  Suppose then that the sinner is judged and
condemned at the last day, (as all admit he will be,) and
what reason does this furnish for denying that he is likewise
condemned and adjudged to hell immediately after his
death?
7. Another objection frequently repeated by them, and
equally the result of ignorance or misconception, is, that the
Romish purgatory is based upon the doctrine we are defending. But, even admitting the statement to be true,
what would it prove? Is not transubstantiation built upon
the expressions which our blessed Saviour used at the last
supper? And are we, therefore, to throw aside those words,
and never employ them in the communion service? Or,
should we not rather retain them in use, and show that they
have been perverted by the Romish priesthood? In another
chapter, when we come to speak of the separate state of the
soul, we shall, upon a historical basis, show that this objection is false both in its statement and conclusion.
8. The last objection which we find our opponents insisting on is, that annihilation is not necessarily an evil, and
consequently that there is no actual necessity for supposing




282         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 38
that the conscious existence of the soul is continued betweek
death and the resurrection.*
It is not very extraordinary that men who endeavor to
maintain that the Apostle, in Phil. i, 21, meant to say that
"annihilation is gain," should assert that it is no evil, for
this is not really coming up to what they make Paul himself
aver. Their statements on this subject, however, are so
preposterous that we need here take up no time with them,
as we shall in another chapter have occasion to treat fully
the question of annihilation in its relation to the whole subject before us. Let it, therefore, suffice here to remark, that
though they thus assert that annihilation is not necessarily
an evil, they yet maintain in other parts of their writings that
to the sinner it is a more terrible punishment than endless
misery itself. They moreover maintain that annihilation is
the veritable and proper penalty of the divine law, as enunciated in Gen. ii, 17, and Ezek. xviii, 4. And is not then
the penalty of the divine law necessarily an evil to those
who suffer it? But such nonsense may very well be passed
without further remark.
~ 38. Conclusion of the Scriptural Argument.
In concluding our remarks on the catalogue of objections
brought by our adversaries from the Old Testament, we
adduced a single passage out of -many which we had omitted,
and offered an observation thereupon. We shall do the same
here likewise after we have briefly noticed a clause in a passage applied to the subject in ~ 33. Jesus, in speaking of
the deceased saints and of their condition anterior to the
resurrection, says that they are like unto the angels; that is,
their disembodied spirits are like them, for, when re-embodied in flesh, that likeness is not, of course, so apparent.
And in the context, referring to the ancient patriarchs and
others of the pious dead, he says they all live to or with
God, for God is not a God of the dead, (since he could not
* See D. 242-244, and others.




~ 38.   SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT CONCLUDED.    283
be such to them, if, in the Sadducean sense, they had ceased
to exist,) but of the living. Any man who will take his
Greek Testament and read Luke xx, 34-38, (or Matt. xxii,
29-32,) will see that the grammatical construction imperatively requires this selse of the passage. Our Saviour's language there can allude only to the state of the saints referred
to anterior to the resurrection.  He names them expressly
"sons of God," (in reference mainly to their prospective
public adoption at the last day,) "being sons of the resurrection," — I avaa-raaeog vto Iov-eg. Thus, "sons of the
kingdom" (Matt. viii, 12,) were those to whom the kingdom
was appointed or destined; "son of death" (Psa. cii, 20,)
was one who had been appointed to die; " children of wrath,"
(Eph. ii, 3,) namely, destined to wrath. (See also Psa. lxxix,
11, and Alexander's note.) And as the saints and patriarchs here referred to by Christ were destined to receive
this public adoption by God, as his sons, at the last day, so
they were, of course, appointed to be raised from the dead,
and were sons of the resurrection.  The Hebrseism, or rather
Orientalism, cannot be misunderstood.  Hence, therefore,
Jesus says they are (not shall be, but are) like the angels of
God. It is impossible otherwise to construe the words, according to the rules of language and the fair principles of
interpretation; and to make them refer to a period subsequent to the resurrection. Every term looks to that event
as still future, and that the reader may at once perceive this.
I quote here the two verses bearing directly on the point:
" But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that
world, and the resurrection from  the dead, neither marry
nor are given in marriage; neither can they die any more,
for they are equfal unto the angels, and are the children
of God, being the children of the resurrection." Luke xx,
35, 36.  I would not attach undue importance to any
mere nicety of verbal criticism; this, however, is not
such.  For does not the phraseology, "they who are accounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection,"
include the pious dead of the past ages, as well as those of




284           IMMORTALITY  OF THE SOUL.                 ~ 38.
the future.* And does not the phraseology referred to
clearly announce that those who had departed this life were
yet to obtain the higher inheritance of heaven and the resurrection 2 In any other sense, according to, the idiom, could
they be "the sons of the resurrection?" In fact, in this
whole dispute with the Sadducees, (the Annihilationists of
his day,) Jesus deduces the doctrine of the future resurrection of the body from  the present existence of the soul,
(ver. 27-38,) as we have largely shown elsewhere.t And
as the separate state is necessarily incomplete, and as the
separate spirits of the ransomed dead look forward to the
resurrection as the completion of their bliss, they are, by
virtue of their union with Christ, through whom all are
made alive, regarded in this sense as in the resurrection
state; that is, they have safely passed through all their bitter sorrows and conflicts on earth, and a happy reunion with
the body is now secured to them  through atoning blood.
That this is no new view of the passage quoted by Jesus,
may be seen from the subjoined extract from Menassah Ben
Israel: "When the Lord first appeared to Moses we read
that he said,' I am the God- of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of' Jacob.'  But God is not
the God of the dead, who are not, but of the living, who do
exist. Therefore it is a just conclusion therefrom that the
souls of the patriarchs are even now living."I
The other passage, however, to which I would call specific
attention, and one to which we have not referred, is John
viii, 56: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day:
and he saw it, and was glad."
* Cudwolrth, ii, 238, fully sustains this view. And Calvin, in his note on
Luke xx, 27, says very forcibly: " Qui fit ut mortuos potius, quam vivos,
respiciat Deus, nisi quia primnum honoris gradum Patribus tribuit, apud
quos foedus suum deposuerat?  Quomodo autem prxecellerent, si morte
essent extincti? Hoc etiam clare exprimit relatio; nam sicuti pater nullus
esse potest absqve liberis, neque rex absque populo, sic proprie Dominus
nisi vivorum vocari Deus non potest."
t In reply to the Anastasis of Professor Bush, pp. 253-259. See also
section 33, sub-section 5, above.
J De Resul r. Mort., lib. x, cap. 6,.




~ 38.   SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT CONCLUDED.    285
Franzius, De Interpret. Script. Orac. 67, (as quoted by
Glassius,) speaking of this passage, says that no one can
doubt that there was presented to Abraham, in a very clear
Divine vision, the person and face of Jesus Christ, as he
was born of a virgin of the seed of Abraham, and began
the performance of his official labors, and was exalted
through suffering to the right hand of the Father, etc. But
Calvin suggests another interpretation as adopted by some,
to wit: that Abraham, in his state of separation from the,
body, beheld the presence of Christ when he appeared on
earth. He justifies the sentiment, but is not fully satisfied
that it is taught here. Mosheim, however, in his "Meditatio de die Christi ab Abrahamo visa," (Hamburg, 1751,)
has, as it appears to me, placed the matter beyond doubt,
that Christ refers to the present existence of Abraham, and
to the fact that he in heaven had witnessed the fulfillment
of the promise made to him respecting the coming of the
Messiah. See his paraphrase of the passage itself in sec. 10.
of the work above referred to. J. D. Michaelis, in Theol.
Dog., cap. xiv, sect. 157, gives it the same exposition, and
says in view of it: "Aliam (interpretationem) actem, quce
ferri possit, prodi ab interpretibus non video."  And I am
well satisfied that a thorough criticism of the passage would
show this to be the only correct view: "You slight and
reject me, O ye Jews, and profess to be sons of Abraham.
But your father Abraham rejoiced to see my natal day; and
he saw it and was glad."
Tholuck (in loco) remarks that "the narrative in Matt.
xvii, 4, also leads to the assumption that the great men of
the Old Covenant partook in the redemptive work of
Christ." And Maldonatus thus reasons on the import of
the passage before us: "When Christ says that Abraham
saw, he doubtless means that he saw in that way in which
he had declared that he so greatly desired by faith alone to
see; for after he did believe, and when he had no knowledge
of Christ, he could not desire to behold his day, but after
he had that knowledge, he desired indeed, but not by faith




286         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 38.
alone, because he already did behold the day of Christ by
faith. He therefore saw the day of Christ actually and
really (re ipsa) as both he and all the fathers had desired
to behold it." This conclusion is abundantly supported by
the premise, and until it is fairly invalidated the passage
must be regarded as containing a clear announcement of the
doctrine that the soul in its state of separation from the
body is in the full possession of its consciousness.




~ 39.           JEWISH TESTIMONY.                287
CHAPTER VII.
JEWISH  AND  PATRISTICAL TESTIMONY-OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
As the argument derivable from the views entertained by
the Jews and early Christians is not intrinsically of any
strictly logical force, I should be willing to pass without
remark the topic suggested in the heading of this chapter.
The state of the controversy, however, in relation to the
whole question of man's uninterrupted immortality, is, at
present, such as would prevent the possibility of doing justice to the whole matter should this point be passed over in
silence. Our opponents unite in making the most unwarrantable assertions in relation to it, and appear to copy
indiscriminately, and even without remorse, the exploded
"Corruptions" of the well-meaning, but (in this department
of literature) superficial Dr. Priestley. We shall treat the
subject as briefly, however, as is possible in doing it the
justice which the state of the case requires.
~ 39. Jewish Testimony.
Our references to the Jewish testimony must of course
be independent of the canonical Scriptures, since what
relates to that point has been presented on the foregoing
pages. (See sect. 30.)  It may to a considerable extent,
however, be learned from the Apocrypha. See particularly
Ecclesiasticus xv, 18;-xxxiii, 14, 15; li, 9; Wisdom iii,
1-11; ii, 23, 24; viii, 13; 2 Mac. vii, 9-38; xii, 43, 44.
And also from Josephus, Antiquities, Book i, chap. i, section 2, and Book xviii, c. i, sections 3-5. In his work on




288         IMMORTALITY OF TiE SOUL.              ~ 39,
the Jewish War likewise, B. ii, c. viii, sections 10, 11, 14.
As these works are easily accessible by all, we shall not
occupy space by citing their testimony.
The testimony of Philo is equally explicit.  In his book
on Rewards and Punishments he says: "' For some indeed
adopt the notion that death is the end of punishments,
7rrspa9 TrLtQipt  esvat Odvarov; but in the view of the
divine Judge this is scarcely the beginning.  Hence, therefore, when, for instance, a new crime has been perpetrated
by any one, it is proper that a new punishment should be
appointed for him. But what is that? Why that he should
live a perpetually dying death,;1jv arroOvijtcovra ade, [suggested perhaps by the r.:h  hniM  of Gen. ii, 17, and which
the LXX. express by Oavd-ro adroOaveTaOe,] and sustain, as
it were, a death that is interminable." He speaks of the
soul, too, as a sacred depositum committed to the keeping
of man by his Creator.  For example, in his book respecting Abraham, he says: " No wise man will be displeased
when any one calls for that which he has intrusted to him;
why then should we be offended that God or nature requires what they have committed to our keeping2?"  The
same term  (j r7raqatcaraOeicl, deposit) is employed in the
same sense by Josephus, in his De Bello Jud., lib. iii,
cap. viii, sect. 5, in the following manner: "The immortal
soul, which has its original from God, dwells in the body;
now, if any one embezzles or evilly entreats that which is
committed to him by man, he is regarded as wicked and
perfidious. If, therefore, any one casts out of his body by
self-murder the depositum of God, r-v 7rapaica-raO 1qYv Tro
Oeo, can he hope to conceal himself from him that is thus
injured?" The survivance of the soul is here so plainly
taught that it need not be dwelt upon. And on the question whether it be the conscious and acting personality of
man, the Jewish testimony is uniform.  Rabbi Simeon, for
example, (in Berachot, fol. 10,) referring to the expression.
in Psalms ciii and civ, "Bless the Lord, O my soul," observes that "it refers to God and the soul. For as the




~ 39.           JEWISH TESTIMONY.                 289
blessed God fills this whole universe, so does the soul
occupy the whole body.  As God sees, and yet is himself
invisible, so the soul sees, and is not seen. As God sustains or nourishes the universal world, so the soul nourishes
the whole body." See Wagenseil, Sota, p. 1017; and also
the story of Rabbi Meir, respecting the work which treated
of "the seven (planetary) worlds and the seven heavens,"
the abodes of departed spirits of good men.  Mantissa,
p. 1163. Nor will it be questioned that they believed both
in Gehenna and Paradise as the abodes of human souls between death and the resurrection of the body, which, they
held, would take place at the coming of the Messiah. See
Wegscheider's Dogmat., ~ 191, and Bretschteider's Handbuch, ~ 166, vol. ii, p. 378, seq.
The testimony of the Book of Enoch likewise ought not
to be overlooked in this connection. Prof. Stuart (Biblic.
Repos. for July, 1840) has given an interesting account of
it, and of its testimony respecting future punishment.  It
was undoubtedly written during the first century of our
era, and by a serious man for serious purposes, for his great
theme is the reward of the righteous, and punishment of
the wicked, in the future state. He moreover seems evidently to have been a Jew.  Now he speaks in the clearest
manner of the separate state of the soul or spirit, ra'
rrveviga-ra?v ~bvXv ir-v drroOav6vri5v dvOQp3rSrv. And,speaking of the wicked he says: "Never shall they obtain mercy, saith the Lord of spirits."' " Henceforth I will
not have mercy upon them, saith the Lord of spirits."
"Their evil deeds shall become their greatest torments,
when their souls shall be made to descend to the receptacle
of the dead."
Of their later writers who profess to give the earlier
and traditional testimony, the following may suffice.
In the Tanchuma it is said: "Our dead (that is, those of
Israel,) are not dead; as says the Psalmist,' Let the saints
be joyful in glory."'" In Jalkut Simeon: "' There is no difference between the liviny and dead righteous; they differ




290         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 39.
only in name." In Synop. Sohar: " Jacob our father, and
Moses our teacher, upon whom be peace, are not dead;
and so of all who are in perfection, for upon this true life
depends. And although it is written of them that they are
dead, yet this is to be understood only in respect to us, and
not in respect to them."  And Menasseh Ben Israel, (in his
De Resurrect. Mort.) speaking of Gen. xvii, 7, 8, says:
" It is plain that Abraham and the rest of the patriarchs
did not possess that land; it follows therefore that they
must be raised in order to enjoy the promised good, as
otherwise the promises of God would prove vain aLnd false.
Hence, therefore, is proved not only the immortality of
the soul, but also the essential foundation of the law, the
resurrection of the dead."
It is not necessary that we should multiply citations, for
the fact alleged will scarcely be doubted.  An endeavor has
been made, however, to neutralize the force of this testimony by maintaining that the Jews obtained their ideas of
immortality from intercourse with other nations after the
Babylonian captivity.  Le Clerc, I believe, originated this
notion, and our opponents strenuously assert it _per fas, per
nefas.  And even those who deny that those nations ever
had any such knowledge, scruple not to solve the problem
in this way, unless I err. In like manner they strenuously
deny that the Scriptures teach the immortality of the soul,
and yet defy us to show an instance of "any nation which
had not some knowledge of revelation" entertaining that
doctrine. One might see, if disposed to look, that if there
be any truth in such representations, the difficulty must
logically be, to find any nation, possessing a knowledge of
revelation, which entertained the doctrine referred to. But
as to the Jews deriving this knowledge from the Gentiles,
the reply of the excellent C. E. Weissmann* is complete:
"As to what he (Clericus) says, that after the Babylonian
captivity this matter became more clear, we ask, Through
whom  was such knowledge communicated?  Where are
Institutiones Theologie, loc. xv, page 1082. Tubingve, 1739.




~ 39.           JEWISH TESTIMONY.                 291
those prophets who taught the Jews more clearly?  Perhaps Clericus thinks that the Jews learned this truth more
fully from the Babylonian mystics and the philosophers of
the Gentiles.  But in such notions there is not even one
particle of salt."
That subsequent to the captivity some of the later Jews
became divided into sects, and in their disputes had recourse
to pagan philosophy to solve the doubts engendered, is
true. The little but opulent sect of the Sadducees adopted
the Materialism  of Epicurus, and maintained that it was
not inconsistent with the only portion of the Scripture
which they recognized-the Pentateuch.  And that in meeting the statements of the Sadducees some of the Pharisees
resorted to the Pythagorean notion of transmigration, is
clear.  From  the same source arose also that diversity
which is noticed in their writings respecting the resurrection of the dead. The Sadducees maintained that the soul
was material, and died with the body. The rest of the
nation disclaimed the idea. But in' reasoning on the topic,
some of the Pharisees and others entertained doubts
whether there would be a resurrection of the Gentiles as
well as of the Jews; and still further, whether all the Jews,
both good and evil, were to be partakers of the resurrection. This brought up the question, likewise, whether the
wicked, who were not partakers of the resurrection, were
not destroyed?  And here too there was a division; though
Menasseh Ben Israel, in his treatise on the Resurrection,
(cap. iv,) gives the caution that, in the sense in which they
there use the word, "destroy does not mean a total annihilation, but only a ruin;" a caution which it would be well
for such writers as Mr. Hudson and the Annihilationists
to regard. And then further: by immortality, in multitudes of instances, those Jewish writers meall not existence,
but perpetual happiness, and with such the loss or extinction of immortal life was simply the forfeiture of everlasting bliss.
In illustration of these statements we shall here offer a




292          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.                 ~ 39.
few brief references and quotations. David Kimchi, in remarking on Psalmh i and civ, says: "As regards the wicked.:
there shall not be to them a resurrection;" and that the soul
is destroyed or perishes when the body -dies.  Rabbi Bechai
says that "the resurrection pertains to the Jews only, and
in no sense to the Gentiles," but that the Israelites who
depart from the law shall be raised from the dead, and
suffer eternal torment in both soul and body.  But Rabbis
HIiggaion, Saadia, and Aben Ezra, say that all " the Israelites
who are not raised from the dead to a state of glory, shall
remain in a state of ignominy, which shall never have an
end." Kimchi, in 1 Sam. xxv, 29, says that such likewise
was the idea of Rabbi Eliezer.  So that the wicked Jews
and all the Gentiles, according to this notion, suffer the punishment of eternal ignominy in a state of separation from
their bodies, since they are not partakers of the resurrection.*  As Professor Bush, in his forcible and impressive
style, remarks: "Though they continue to exist, yet having
no participation in that principle of Divine life of which
Christ is the sempiternal source, and the only bestower,
their existence, though perpetual, is penal, and no deliverance ever reaches them from the fearful bondage of their
doom."t  And the Chaldee Targum  on Dan. xii, 2, says
expressly: "The souls of the wicked shall never die."
That some, however, in polite compliance with what they
regarded as the reasonable claims of the Material and Epicurean philosophy of the Sadducees, did entertain the notion
that the soul would finally die, may be, perhaps, conceded;
* Those learned Jews who so admirably defended the religion of their
fathers against the cavils of Voltaire; say, in reference to this matter:' The Pharisees believed that the souls of good men went into a state of
the highest happiness, from which they might return to this world and
animate other human bodies. But at the same time they held for certain
that the souls of the wicked were forever shut up in dark dungeons,
where they suffered, to all eternity, punishments proportioned to their
crimes. These ideas, if we are not mistaken, do not square well with
the Metempsychosis,' which was brought from the Indies by Pythagoras,
and sung by Ovid.'" Letters of Certain Jews, etc., p. 212.
t A.&natasis, p. 313.




~ 40.         PATRISTICAL TESTIMONY.                293
(though our opponents, in treating upon the subject, have
confounded all the forenamed distinctions;) but in those
cases the notion had the same origin as the same conception
now has-an unwarrantable desire, at the expense of eternal truth, to reconcile the holy utterances of God with those
notions of "reason" which are claimed by a fallen, depraved,
and, of course, selfish and prejudiced nature; the same which
in its outgrowth has developed itself in Socinus, De Servatore; Bush on the Resurrection; Beecher's Conflict of Ages;
WVhately's Future State; Hudson's Debt and Grace; Tindal's Christianity as old as the Creation, and hosts of works
of similar aim and tendency.
~ 40. The Patristical Testimony.
It is frankly admitted by our more learned opponents
that the immortality of the soul, and its conscious existence
between death and the resurrection, was believed by the
first Christians and clearly taught by the early fathers;
though many of them disclaim  the idea that the soul goes
immediately to the highest heaven at death, but hold that
it remains in an intermediate state till after the resurrection of the body.  See, for instance, Priestley's Notes on
2 Cor. xii, Phil. i, and 1 Pet. iii. True, these concessions
are of small literary importance; but it is certainly proper
to refer our opponents to their own authorities.
The idea of' Hades, (,d&g~, k5~,) known to both Hebrews
and Greeks, was prominently developed by Christianity;
and quite early in our era it was maintained that the full
happiness and the final misery of the departed do hot commencee until after the general judgment and the resurrection
of the body. This assumption seemed to involve the idea
of an intermediate state, and the soul was regarded as tarrying in Hfades from the moment of its departure from this
world, until it should become fully qualified for the higher
bliss of heaven itself through reunion with the body, which,
though sown in corruption, must be raised incorruptible.




294          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 40.
So strong, moreover, was this conception, that Justin Martyr
and others not only utterly discarded the idea that souls
went imniediately to heaven, but they refused the name of
Christians to those who entertained it, and regarded the idea
as assimilating Christianity to Paganism  on this point.
(Comnpare Cicero's Tusculan Questions, lib. i, cap. 9,10,ll1,
12.) And the disputes existing in the Jewish schools, or
between the sects, as referred to above, were to some extent
likewise transferred to the Christian Church, and somne of
its theologians entertained doubts as to whether the soul
itself were not corruptible.  They did not deny its immortality, or entertain doubt as to the possibility of the thing.
But such writers as Justin and Tatian suppose the soul to
have no inherent immortality; while the more systematic
and able theologian, Theophilus, of Antioch, states, in reply
to the question, Was Adam created mortal or immortal?
that "he was fitted for both, though neither mortal nor immortal." Adam contemplated as man, that is, compounded
of spirit and matter, was of course in this condition; and
therefore, as man, immortality as well as lasting happiness
depended upon himself. This distinction is confounded in
their speculations, and our modern German scholars, with
all their attainments in literature, have, by their decisions,
made the " confusion worse confounded," and seem unable
to comprehend these plain distinctions.  With great parade
of learning they often talk upon the subject in the most undiscriminating manner, mistake one idea for another, and
advance theories which are as unsubstantial as the figures
formed by the curling smoke of their pipes. We love them,
and are deeply indebted to their vast learning, unwearied
patience, and con amore industry; but some of them seem
to have forgotten that there is, after all, such a thing as logic
in the world, and that there ought really to be some connection between the premise of an argument and the conclusion.
It cannot be doubted, however, that several of the fathers
did entertain the idea (referred to by David Kimechi onl




~ 40.          PATRISTICAL TESTIMONY.                  295
Psalms i and civ, as held by some of the Jews) that the
soul was mortal in such a sense, that the wicked at death
might perish soul and body forever. They made no attempt
to elaborate the view systematically, and therefore it commanded but little attention comparatively.  Clement of
Alexandria, and Origen likewise, held the Oriental idea of a
purifying fire; rather in sympathy, however, with our opponents than with ourselves, for this fire was not to perform
its work in the intermediate state of the soul, but stood in
some connection with the resurrection of the dead and the
conflagration of the world.  Their ideas on the subject are
expressed in a very general and indefinite manner. Arnobius, (A. D. 300,) however, was the first to introduce into
the Christian Church the positive doctrine (derived from the
Jewish fables) that the wicked would be annihilated.  And
the efforts made to find traces of this doctrine in Justin and
Irenaus, though ingenious, are not very flattering to the
literary pretensions of their authors.* The idea of Arnobius,
however, seemed rather designed as an antagonism to the
notion which Athenagoras (A. D. 160-181) was first to
introduce from the Pagan philosophy into the Christian
Church; and his expressions ought to be considered from
this standpoint.  Athenagoras taught the natural immortality of the soul, by which he meant that it was sempiternus,
(see ~ 21, above,) eternal, in the true sense-pre-existent and
self-existent. This was purely a Pagan conception, as we'have seen, and opposed to the whole theology of the Church.
And here had our German cousins remembered that the
question which was now started was in relation to the traduction of the soul,t and that the manner in which it was
* After referring to the views of Tatian, Justin, and Theophilus,
HIagenbach remarks: "On the contrary, Tertullian and Origen, whose
views differed on other subjects, agreed' in this one point, that they, in
accordance with their peculiar notions concerning the nature of the soul,
looked upon its immortality as essential to it." See History of Doctrines,
vol. i, ~ 58.
1 See some of their reasonings on this point in Lactantius, De Opificio
Dei, cap. xix; Theodoret, Sermon 4 and 5; Curat. Grsec. Affect. Hilary,
(Pietav.) De Trinit., lib. x; and Jerome, Epist. ad Pammachium.




296           IMMORTALITY  OF THE SOUL.                    ~ 40.
decided by any one was regarded as determining his views
of its mortality or immortality, (OvqrTp  or aOd rarog,) they
might have avoided much of the confusion into which they
have fallen. All who held that it was not, along with the body.
derived from  the parents, were regarded as holding (in the
philosophical sense) its immortality, while those who taught the
contrary were deemed as holding it to be corruptible and mortal.*  The former idea involved its pre-existence with manly
of them, and favored the notion of transmigration, (which?
among the Pagans, was originally built upon it,) while the
latter was of course antagonistic to such ideas; and, the
common ground taken against its innate immortality was,
that it may be begotten, since, if immortal, dOdvarof, it is
unbegotten.  Hence you find that those who are thus con* It will be in place to furnish here for the general reader an illustration
which will present the point referred to in a light that will render it perfectly apparent. In a work on Justification, by the Rev. Dr. George
Junkin, President of Lafayette College, that learned and venerable theologian, in referring to man's condition of dependence upon God? employs
the following language: "In reference to our bodies, we have no selfsustaining power. Is his hand withdrawn? We return' to dust. Equally
dependent uipon the sustaining power oq God is the soul of man; its irrnmortality is not a matter of physical but only of noral necessity; it ~an no
more exist without God than the body can. If any man ask,how God keeps
us in being, the answer must be, We know not. The fact only is known.
Modes of existence are among the secret things that belong unto the Lord
our God." (Chap. i, ~ 2, pp. 15, 16.) These sentiments, so excellently'
expressed, and which now are but an announcement of the feelings 
convictions of every Christian mind untinctured by the gross super,:: i:.:i
of pantheism, had become so perplexed by the disputes of the philosophers that for a long time they were with difficulty apprehended even by
some of the early Christians. Thus the dOdvaro0 of the soul was its
eternity; and hence Cicero remarks that Plato not only taught the eternity of souls, animousn ceternitas, but was the first that proved it by bringing reasons for it. See his Tusculan Questions, lib. i, cap. xvii. The soul
they held was a parte ante as well as a parte post, or sempiternus. The
opposite sentiment, so justly expressed by Dr. Junkin, which only taught
that all creatures are dependent for their' continued existence -upon God,
was regarded as teaching that the soul was not'dd0varof, but vairor; not
immortal, but mortal; and with how much reason, the reader can now
judge for himself. Yet this is the main foundation on which our adversaries rest their imputations against the theology of the early Church in
this particular.




~ 40.         PATRISTICAL TESTIMONY.                 297
structively accused of teaching its mortality and dissolution
along with the body, utterly disclaim the figment of its annihilation between death and the resurrection, while they
hold as we do, that, (in the case of the unregenerate,) being
severed wholly at death from the source of spiritual life, it
sinks into a wretched, degraded state", to which, indeed, some
of the fathers added the idea of unconsciousness until the
resurrection; nor did this conflict with their idea that it was
oO'aprog, incorruttible.  The advocates of this view, moreover, assert the resurrection of all the deadl, both good and
bad, from which standpoint not only the reunion of the soul
Fwith the body was -maintained, but also the continued existence of the soul after death.  Nor do they ever anywhere
intimate such an idea as that the soul at the resurrection of
the body is.created anew.  But a brief reference to the views
of TatiaT,, (A. D. 150,) who in histurn of mind was quite
speculative, will illustrate the point.  He says that " originally man had immortality in himself, being created in the
likeness and image of God, which image consisted in a close
relation between the spiritual nature of man and the Spirit
of God."  Then, after refining on this idea, he adds: "The
soul is not (now) in and of itself immortal, but is capable
of dying, though it may never die. If it has not received
the truth (as taught and exemplified by Christ) it will perish
with the body; yet at the end of all things it will be raised
again, and, along with the body, endure everlasting punishment. On the contrary, if it has attained the knowledge of
God it will not die, even should it become unconscious for a
time." Upon this theory was subsequently based the doctrine of the repose of the soul between death and the resurrection; but it is preposterous to attempt in any manner or
form to identify it with the materialist notion of annihilation.
But dropping these philosophical subtleties, we shall proceed to adduce the well-nigh concurrent testimony of the
earlier fathers respecting the condition of the soul subsequent to the death of the body, for this is the great practical
point before us. I admit, as Uhleman (Bib. Repos., x, 411,




298         IMMIORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 40.
to whom I am somewhat indebted here) remarks, that the
religious opinions, especially of ancient writers, should be
always viewed with their system  and whole manner of
thinking; but unless we should expand this chapter into a
huge volume, we cannot pretend to follow out literally this
excellent suggestion.  We shall endeavor, however, to present such abstracts as cannot well be mistaken, in regard
to their true sense, by the reader, and this of course is all
we can do in the circumstances.
I shall not encumber the pages with references, except in
the case of the more voluminous writers, for the quotations
can be very easily verified.  Occasional references will
be found among them to the subject of future punishment,
which cannot be regarded as out of place in their present
connection.
Polycarp, when perishing in the flames, declared that he
should that day stand in spirit before God. The attempt
to divest this testimony of its force by asserting that it
comes to us at second hand, is worthy of no consideration.
Justin MaJfrtyr in his " colloquy" with Trypho, and referring to our blessed Lord's dying words, ("Father, into
thy hands I commit my spirit! ") says: " Thus also may
we, when we come to the end of life, entreat the same favor
of God, who is able to turn away from us any malignant
angel, lest he should seize upon our soul." (Compare Wisdom iii, 1-3.) And referring also to evil kings who were
dead, he adds that " if death should lead to insensibility, it
would be gain to such." He likewise asserts the eternity
of future punishment, in express opposition to the doctrine
of Plato, who taught that it would continue for only a
limited term. In the same colloquies he maintains that the
souls of the righteous take up their abodes in a better, and
the souls of the wicked in a worse place than here; but
denounces as heresy the doctrine that the soul, in its separate state, is at once admitted to the highest heaven, and to
that bliss which it can only possess in the resurrection state.
Hence he most pointedly denied that souls are admitted to




~ 40.          PATRISTICAL TESTIMONY.               299
heaven immediately at death, and held that they remained
in paradise till the resurrection.
Athenagoras.taught the natural immortality of the soul,
and that at the resurrection man's first body will receive
the same soul which tabernacled in it here, since, says he,
God is destitute of neither efficiency nor will to resuscitate
the same body.
Irenceus (lib. v, cap. i) says:," There are three things of
which man properly consists, the flesh, the soul, and the
spirit; the one that is the spirit, which communicates form;
the other the flesh, which receives form; that however
which is between these two is the soul, (anima,) which
sometimes following the spirit is thereby elevated, but
sometimes consenting to the flesh it sinks into earthly concupiscences." In c. xxxvi, he makes a distinction between
ovqavo6, wtapdetaog, and 7r6olg, and endeavors, fromi Matt.
xiii, 8, and John xiv, 2, to prove the existence of different
mansions for the just.  See also lib. ii, cap. lxii, "Plenissime," etc.
Tatian says that after the consummation of the world,
the souls of the wicked, together with their bodies, shall endure punishment that has no end. In fact most of the
fathers, as Hagenbach (Hist., ~ 78) remarks, regard the
punishment of sin as eternal.
Tertullian (De Resurrect., cap. xvii) says: " For even now
souls, although naked, as we see from the reference to Lazarus, are in hades, and are tormented." In his De Anima,
c. xxvii, he says: "Death is the disjunction of body and
soul; life, their conjunction."  In c. lv: "No one on leaving the body appears immediately before God, unless perhaps that privilege is allotted to martyrs."  In the same
chapter he mentions a treatise of his, not now extant, in
which he asserts that he proved that every soul remains in
hades until the day of judgment.  In c. lviii, he utterly repudiates the notion that the soul sleeps in its intermediate
state. See also the quotations from him in Bretschneider's
Handbuch, ii, ~ 167.




300          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 40.
2lfinucius Felix opposes most decidedly the Pagan objections to the Christian doctrine of the immortality of the soul
and the resurrection.  He likewise affirms that there is neither measure nor termination to the torment of the damned.
Origen held that spirits existed before the visible creation, but were mutable, and might either forfeit or retain
the favor of God.  Some obeyed and others disobeyed, and
they were all treated accordingly.  He says, moreover,
that when Christ had departed from life, having put aside
his body, he went in his disembodied spirit and held
converse with disembodied spirits.  (Cont. Cels., lib. ii.)
In his De Princip., ii, he further says that the blessed
dwell in the aerial regions, and that immediately after
their departure from this earth they first go to paradise; as they grow in knowledge and piety, they proceed
from paradise to still higher regions, etc. And as Eusebius
informs us, (Hist., lib. vi, cap. xxxvii,) Origen was present
in a synod assembled in Arabia, and in a discussion which
occurred he prevailed with those to change their minds who
had thought that " the human soul died and was dissolved
with the body, and would be restored along with the body
at the resurrection."
Clement of Alexandria denied utterly the traduction of
the soul.  He held that it was sent from heaven and infused
into the body, which thereupon became conscious. At the
same time, however, he utterly denies the philosophical
notion that the soul is sempiternal, or a part of the Divine
nature. In a fragment from his lost work on the soul, he
says: "The souls of all, as they are breathed forth, have
the faculty of life, and though separated from the body, they
are found to possess a love for it."  He held to something
like a purgatorial fire, and when accused of adopting that
notion from  the Pagans, replied that the Pagans stole it
from the Jews.
Cyprian often in his works expresses a hope that those
who perish from the visitations of pestilence shall be admitted immediately to the presence of Christ. See espe



~ 40.         PATRISTICAL TESTIMONY.              301
cially his tractate De Mortalitate; and from which see also
a long extract in Hagenbach, ~ 78, containing his views of
the present happiness of the departed patriarchs, prophets,
apostles, etc.
IHilary, on Psalm  cxxxvii, says: "It is a human law of
necessity that our bodies being buried, our souls should proceed into hades;" and on Psalm cxx, he says that " souls
are detained there until the resurrection of the body, and
cannot, previous to that event, proceed to celestial glory."
See also on Psalm ii, inzfine.
Lactantius also says that the souls of the martyrs are
privileged to proceed at once to paradise.
Jerome, on Mark xiv, says: " Before Christ suffered on
the cross, Abraham was in hades; after he had suffered, the
thief was in paradise."  See also on Isaiah lxv, 4.
Peter the Martyr, (A.D. 295-312,) in his first discourse
on the soul, says: "It is not to be admitted that souls
sinned in heaven before they had bodies, nor that they ex
isted at all before their bodies, for this doctrine belongs
to Grecian philosophy, and is foreign and contrary to thoss
who would live godly in Christ."  The title of this discourse is, " 1On the soul as not having previously existed,
nor being placed in the body in a sinning state."
Didymus, (A.D. 340-395,) a fervent admirer 6f Origen,
entertained iome sort of idea that souls had pre-existed.
He says that " the soul suffers from the body."  He held
that after death the souls of believers are conveyed to
Abraham's bosom, which he supposed to be some lofty
etherial region.  He avers that the wicked shall be led
away to endure everlasting torment, having no more any
opportunity for repentance.
Gregory Nazianzen  says: "When the souls of the
righteous are freed from their bodies, they joyfully hasten to
the Lord, and enjoy inconceivable pleasure in his presence."
Augustine.  We need not bring this investigation below
the period in which he lived. His views are very fully
given in his Enchiridion: "During the interval which




302          IMMORTALITY  OF THE SOUL.                ~ 40.
elapses between the death of man and the last resurrection,
souls remain in their unseen receptacles, which are adapted
either to repose or suffering, according to what they did in
the flesh while alive."  In his Tract. x, in Epistola Joan.lis,
not far from the end, and also in his De Origine Animae,
(lib. ii, cap. iv,) he likewise remarks: "Were you then so
unacquainted with this solid and most wholesome article of
faith, that souls are immediately judged upon their departure out of the body? and that, too, before they are brougyht
to that other judgment whereat they must be judged when
raised from  the dead, so that they are either tormented or
gloriously rewarded in those very  bodies wherein they
lived?  Who has, with such obstinacy of mind, been so
deaf to the Gospel as not to hear, and upon hearing, not
to believe, these things," etc.  See also his De Civitate
Dei, lib. xiii, cap. xvi, and references to him in section 33,
sub-section 10, above. In exact accordance with this, Bernard heldthat the souls of the righteous are received into
the society of angels as soon as they are separated from
their bodies.
We here conclude this catalogue of patristical testimonies.  And as we are perfectly aware of the manner in
which our opponents.will endeavor to set aside its force, by
representing it as not in all points consistent, we desire to
call their attention to the fact that on the real issue involved
in this discussion-the separability of the soul from the
body, and its conscious existence between death and the
resurrection-the testimony is well nigh uniform. The men
to which we have referred are, moreover, nearly all representative men; so that here we have the real sentiments of
the Church of Christ on the questions involved in. this issue,
during the centuries in which they lived.*
* I append here the following passage from the industrious and truly
learned Limborch: "' Hlec sententia naturm tmun animne separatse, turn
ultimi judicii, tum testimoniis S.S., in quibus hominum defunctorunl,
seu animse separatn mnentio fit, maxime est comsentanea: fuitqu.e ea communis Patrum sententia, Iremei, Tertulliani, Cypriani, Ambrosii, Augustini, aliorumque; quorum licet phrasiologia sit diversa dum alii animae




~ 40.          PATRISTICAL TESTIMONY.                 303
The reply offered by our opponents to this branch of the
argument may be found in S. 46; A. 61-71; E. 73, 74;
H. 1, pp. 118, 135; H. 2, p. 83.  Mr. Ham  has likewise written a tractate purporting to be "A History of
the present Popular Opinions concerning the Doctrine of
Human Immortality."  It is republished in E. 287-309,
from which let the following extracts suffice: "In the estimation of those early writers, [the. apostolical fathers,]
death was the absolute decease of the conscious being
man."  He copies implicitly from the worthless treatise of
Blackburne, already referred to, and gives a most dishonest
representation of the patristical theology, and of the views
of Luther and the early Reformers.
The grounds of exception taken by all these writers are
the following: 1. Some of the reputed patristical writings
are spurious, though others of them quote from those very
writings.  This charge cannot, however, be brought with
fairness, unless I greatly err, against any referred to or
quoted in the foregoing catalogue. 2. Popish priests invented the doctrine. 3. The Church held no such doctrine
respecting the immortality of the soul and the punishment
of sin until the second or third century. These two grounds
of exception are beneath notice, as the reader can see from
the above summary and preceding remarks. 4. Justin
Martyr and others said that those were not Christians who
entertained this doctrine of immortality.. This too has been
sufficiently disposed of already. 5. Luther held the sleep
of the soul.  Suppose he did: I cannot see what this has to do
with the issue. But as this is perpetually repeated by all our
opponents, and has done injury to the cause of truth, we
shall notice it before concluding the chapter. 6. Their last
exception is, that this doctrine of the separate existence of
in cuelo collocant, alii in inferno in re ipsa summus est consensus: alnimas piornlm esse in statu securo ac felici, ac proxima felicitatis prornissse
contemplatione frni; nou tamen plene esse consummatas: sed in resurrectione plenam promissi prsemii consecuturas consuimmationem." Tlheol.
Christ., lib. vi, cap. x, sec. 8.




304         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 40.
the soul, was obtained from Plato. This too is perpetually
repeated, and we shall notice it presently.
These cavils are all easily disposed of, and the illiterate
writers above referred to, who, without either learning or
discrimination, assume to instruct the public, may be passed
without remark, for to no truly well-informed mind can
their works do any injury. There is, however, an author
who, with pretensions to real learning, has recently come
before the public, claiming to have gone over the whole
ground de novo, and to announce reliable information respecting it.  He repeats the most of these petty cavils, and
endeavors also to sustain them, and hence we cannot pass
on without a remark in relation to his extraordinary procedure. We refer to Mr. Hudson, (whose work has already
been named in these pages,) who, on pp. 288-309, has
assailed the patristical testimony on the subject before us in
a way that should not be passed in silence.
To illustrate the egregious and criminal misrepresentations of this gentleman, the reader will notice that in the
later schools of Grecian and Roman philosophy the terms
dalvarog, ceternus, and sempiternuvs, were employed as
equivalents to designate the immortality of the soul. Previous, however, to the time of Pherecydes and Thales,
aOavarof had never the sense of semnpiternus, or eternal (in
the strict import) attached to it when connected with?lvxi,
and was therefore never employed to mean, when used in
such connection, what the later schools meant by it, who held
that the soul was immortal because it was a part of the
Divine nature, and that it never began to exist, and thereIore its existence never could end.  It was "semnpiternus;"
"a particle of God's own being."  Plato and Aristotle, to a
considerable extent at least, entertained this view; and
such was the idea they all in later times attached to the
word connected with the term soul.*
* I have already remarked that the sacred writers never employ
i.6evaro7 to designate the doctrine, as the Pagan philosophy had renderod the import of the term dubious in such connection.




~ 40.        PATRISTICAL TESTIMONY.                305
Now the Christian Church!never received this doctrine, at
least not until long after the Alexandrian school of philosophico-thleology was established, and then a few did adopt
something that resembled it in appearance, though the
resemblance was more apparent than real. If it were that
doctrine it was in an extremely modified form. But the
Church as such already repudiated the idea, and never in
any sense of the word received it; and when any of the
Pagans who had entertained: it became Christians (as Justin,
Arnobius, and others,) they abandoned it utterly, and when
they refer to the matter speak of having done so. The
Christian Church, therefore, never attached to the term
Oaciva-ro, as applied to the human soul, and to express their
own views, the sense which was attached to it in the later
schools of the philosophers, though they did employ it as
therein used when they spoke of the Pagan sentiment on the
subject; hence there were two obviously distinct usages of
the word, the one having a philosophical and the other a
theological sense.  When the fathers employed it to designate their own views as Christians, they used it in a
sense entirely diverse from what they attached to it when
employing it in the then popular sense to designate the views
entertained by them  while Pagans.  There is nothing
remarkable in this, for instances of similar usage may be
found in all languages.  And as there was no convenient
substitute for the term gOdvarog, they could speak (without
danger of being misapprehended) both of believing, and of
having rejected the doctrine of the soul's immortality.
They had rejected it in the Pagan sense, and had adopted it
in the Christian sense. Hence, too, the term Ovr-6ef came
into vogue; cand though not expressive of their own theological idea as attached to the soul, it formed the only direct
contrast to the pagan import of cOdvaror or &?Oaqatia, and
was sometimes adopted as expressing therefore the Christian idea.
In like manner you find them using the term immortality
to convey the idea of underived existence, and the term
20




306        IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 40.
mortal for that which is derived, and in which sense man,
(both body and soul,) angels, and every created thing is mortal.
Their very method of argument is an illustration of this
usage. as where Justin says " the soul either has life in itself,
or derives it from something else;" or Tatian: "The soul, 0
ye Greeks, is not in its own nature immortal, but mortal;
yet it is able not to die."  In many of their references to
man, moreover, in this connection, when they refer to him
as not endowed with immortality, they refer to his comnposite nature, and not to body or soul exclusively. They say
that as man he was not created immortal (using this word in
the theological sense,) but mortal, etc.
Another and very familiar use of the term then as now (see
~ 37, sub-section 4, supra) was to employ it as equivalent to
salvation; a man seeking to be saved was said to be seek
ing immortality. The Gospel offer of mercy to man was
spoken of as the offer of immortality; its rejection the rejec
tion of immortality; and those who did reject it were, in
the same connection, assured that they should, to all eter
nity, feel the consequences of such rejection, by being made
to endure misery without end.
Now is it conceivable that any reader should perpetually
mistake the import of such expressions, provided he had
knowledge enough to understand the words, and sense
enough to consider them in their connection? If the thing
be in any supposed case conceivable, I must say that in the
case of any really honest mind and heart, sincerely and ear:
nestly endeavoring to know the truth and to make it known,
it is utterly inconceivable. The idea of intelligence and
honesty of purpose being associated with perversions of that
sort, is not to be entertained.  A series of such blunders
must, in the nature of the case, impeach a man's intelligence or moral honesty. To illustrate: Mr. Hudson, in
treating upon this subject, takes the word immortality, in
its present popular import, to mean continuance of being.
In reading the patristical writings, however, he meets the
word immortality frequently occurring, one writer denoune



40           PATRISTICAL TESTIMONY.                307
ing the doctrine expressed by this term, another maintaining it; one asserting that it was a Pagan notion, and
that when he became a Christian he repudiated it utterly;
and another that immortality is a gratuity, and that men are
commanded to seek it through Christ. Mr. Hudson, I say,
finds the term employed in this or similar phraseology; he
attaches to the term  itself a uniform  sense, the sense in
which he himself employs it, and then comes before the
public with the prodigious and astounding discoveries which
such an interpretation of that term cannot fail to develop
in their pages.  One man says he renounces immortality,
referring to the old philosophical idea attached to that term,
and meaning, I renounce the notion of man's eternal or
underived being; but Mr. I-Iudson learns from the expression that he renounces the idea of uninterrupted continuance of being. Another says, I am seeking for immortality, meaning everlasting life, happiness, salvation.  Mr.
Hudson informs us that the man here avows his purpose of
seeking an existence itself. I deny, says a third, that man is
either in soul or body immortal, meaning to affirm his belief
that neither body nor soul pre-existed from eternity, or was
a part of the Divine nature; but Mr. Hudson learns from
the expression that the man denies the doctrine of the uninterrupted conscious existence of our spiritual nature, and
consequently holds that the soul has no conscious existence
between death and the resurrection. And these perversions
are steady and uniform, and in the very face of abundance
of counter statements and representations in the very books
which he professes to have consulted.  It is hard, very hard,
to believe that this man could purposely and designedly
have thus perverted facts so patent and obvious to all;
and yet, if it were not with intention or design that it was
done, this writer is, by his own showing, and on the score
of the grossest incompetency, disqualified from presenting
any adequate discussion of the subject on which his book
professes to treat, or to furnish any reliable information
respecting it. He lays the highest claim to general literature,




308          II0MORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 41.
and to a thorough acquaintance with the specific literature
of his subject, and his book is, so to sneak, almost disfigured
by the mnasses of ambitious refereces which crowd its
pages. As respects literary execution it is written in an
apparently frank and scholarly mananer, and its style is quite
a model for controversy. These things, when, as in this
instance, associated with misrepresentations, either in fact
or theory, reach and impress an order of minds wholly unapproachable by such writers as Messrs. Storrs, and Moncreiff, and Reid, and Ham, and therefore, in a case like that
of Mr. Hudson, it is necessary that such perversions should
be pointed out and thoroughly exposed.
There are two things which require to be noticed likewise
in this connection, namely, the above-mentioned assertions
respecting Luther and Plato.  We shall briefly refer to each.
~ 41. Luther and the Sleep of the Soul.
The assertion that Luther entertained and taught the
doctrine of the unconscious repose of the soul in its state of
separation from  the body, is made by these writers without restriction or qualification.  (Hutd. 258, 346-350; S.,
Pref. vi; A. 67, 68; and TI. in the tractate mentioned
above.) Hud. quotes with approbation the following passage from  Feuardentius on the sub ject: " I call most
-Lutherans new Sadducees, who, when they read in Luther's
comments that the dead so sleep as to know and feel nothing,... say that the soul of man dies with the body."
A. represents him  as denying the natural immortality of
the soul; and H. says that he did not conceive of the soul
as an immortal substance, and did not believe in its continued consciousness between death and the resurrection.
He embraced and taught the doctrine of the sleep qf the soul,
and continued in that belief to the close of his life.' These
men are mainly indebted for these representations to the
anonymous work of Blackburne on the" Intermediate State."
The following passage from  Bayle may be taken as a




~ 41.      LUTHER —SLEEP OF THE SOUL.               309
sufficient corrective of a portion of these misrepresentations:
" I was amazed to find that Cardinal du Perron durst say
that Luther believed the mortality of the soul.  Should
Francis Garasse vent a thousand such calumnies I should
not wonder at it; and if I had found it in Luther's life, published at Paris in 1577 by the monk Noel Talepied, or in
Nicole Grenier's book, or in the books of such like writers,
who have no reputation to lose, I should not have been surprised; but I could not but think it strange that a cardinal of
so great a name should be guilty of so muchl rashness." Mr.
Bayle also referred the matter to a Lutheran divine, who in
reply states that " Luther never taught that the soul died with
the body, and was to rise with the body. His works very
clearly show that he believed the contrary. The origin of
the. calumny is in a letter he wrote to Amsdorf, in 1522, in
which he appears much inclined to believe that the souls of
the just sleep till the day of judgment without knowing
where they are."  " He rectified this opinion in process of
time, and though in his later writings he seems to attribute
rest to the souls of the predestinate, he does not mean
thereby a rest which is a profound sleep, and deprives them
of the vision and conversation of God and the angels." See
Bayle's Diet., Art. Luther, and note DD.
My own copy of Luther's commentary was published at
Wittenberg in 1544, only a little while, therefore, before his
death, and contains his latest revisions.  In his note on
Gen.- ii, 7, he says: "After infinite perils and afflictions, we
are reemnoved by death from animal to spiritual life." He
explains the word paradise, as used in the New Testament,
to mean a condition in which the soul is in full possession of peace, security, and all those blessings which are
found where sin does not exist.  "As Adam lived in paradise, secure from sin, death, and the curse, and yet lived in
the hope of future and unending spiritual life, so the bosom
of Abraham is employed in a like figure for that life which
they possess who have died in faith.' They have peace and
rest, and in that rest they expect future life and glory."




310         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 41.
(P. 25, col. 2.) On Gen. iv, 9, he says, referring to Abel:
"Therefore God is the God of the dead; that is, even the
dead live, and have God caring for and preserving them in
another life, far different from this corporeal life, in which
the saints suffer affliction."  "The dead Abel lives, and by
God himself is canonized in another life, a better and more
true canonization than ever they received whom the pope
has canonized.  His death was indeed horrible, but it was a
truly salutary death, since he now lives a better life than
before. For in this his corporeal life he lived in a sinful
state, and was obnoxious to death; but that life is immortal,
and without any sorrows, corporeal or spiritual." (P. 72,
col. 2.)  So, too, in Gen. v, page 101: "But if the holy
patriarchs so anxiously desired the life to come on account
of Abel and Enoch, whom they knew were living with God,
how much more does it become us," etc. So also in the
next two paragraphs, and in chapters xxiii and xxv, and
places without number.  In his Table Talk, speaking of
death, he says: " When Christians pray for a long life and
for tranquillity, they do it not for their own sakes, for death
to them  is gain, but for the sake of posterity and the
Church."  When his little daughter Magdalene was dying,
he said: " She is very dear to me; but, dear Lord, if it is
thy will to take her hence, I shall know with joy that she is
with thee." When she had expired in his arms, he said:
" I have sent a saint to heaven; yes, a living saint."  And
to his sorrow-stricken wife he said: " Bethink thyself, my
dear Kate, where she has gone; it is well with her." When
he perceived himself to be dying, he said, just before he
breathed his last: "Into thy hands I commend my spirit,
O heavenly Father, although this body is breaking away
from me. I am departing from this life; yet I certainly
know that I shall be forever with thee, for no one can pluck
me out of thy hands.  O take my poor soul to thyself!"
No one who is aware of the use which our opponents endeavor to make of their perversions of the views of this
great Reformer, will think that we have been too particular




~ 41.      LUTHER-SLEEP OF THE SOUL.                311
in laying the facts in the case before the reader. In all previous disputes on the point I know not that this has ever
been done. That Luther or any of the Reformers believed
in what has been called the natural immortality of the
soul; that is, that God created the soul to live, as an angel,
without the body, and to enjoy in a separate state the
highest and most perfect bliss of the resurrection state, (a
view which so favored the pernicious delusions of popery,)
no man of sense believes, so far as I know.  But that he
and all his brethren held to its separability from the body,
and to its separate and conscious, and happy or miserable
state, between death and the resurrection, no man of reputation as a scholar will venture to deny.
As to the notion itself of the soul's sleep, the first that
was known of it as openly advocated was in Arabia, as
early, at least, as the time of Origen, who died at Tyre,
A.D. 254, aged 69, and who, as Eusebius records, so satis.
factorily refuted that notion in the presence of a synod convened in that country, that those who were entertaining the
speculation abandoned it utterly. The doctrine, in its
original form, was that the soul ceased to feel or to be conscious at death, and died, and was corrupted with the body,
but that both soul and body will awake at the judgment
day. This idea originated, of course, in the material philosophy of Epicurus; but as received and taught in Arabia,
it is the origin of the notion now entertained by those
Materialists who claim that the idea is consistent with the
teachings of revelation.  The doctrine truly and properly
is, that the soul, as well as the body, is extinguished at
death; but to call an extinction a sleep is certainly a preposterous abuse of terms. Taylor of Norwich, who, with
Blackburne, endeavored to revive the notion, under the
softer appellation of the "sleep of the soul," expressly
adopts the material philosophy (so also does Archbishop
Whately) as the basis of his reasoning in its defense. He
denied, in fact, that the soul could exist independent of the
body, and says: "All our present experience shows the con



312         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 41.
trary.  The operations of the mind depend constantly and
invariably upon the state of the body, of the brain in particular.  If some dying persons have a lively use of their
rational faculties to the very last, it is because death has invaded some other part, and the brain remains sound and vigorous." See also p. 5 of the supplement to his " Original Sin."
Warburton, to whom  I am  indebted for the foregoing
quotation, after referring to these notions, concludes by
saying: "But their sleep of the soul is mere cant, and this
brings me to the last consideration, the sense and consistency of so ridiculous a notion. They go, as we observed,
upon the Sadducean principle that the soul is a qTuality of
body, not a substance of itself, and so dies with its substratum.  Now sleep is a modification of existence, not of nonexistence; so that the sleep of a substance hath a meaning;
the sleep of a quality is nonsense.  And if ever this soul
of theirs re-exerts its faculties, it must be by means of a
REPRODUCTION, not by a mere AWAKENING; and they may as
well talk of the sleep of a mushroom turned again into the
substance of the dunghill, from whence it arose, and from
which not the same, but another mushroom  shall in time
arise., In a word, neither unbelievers nor believers will
allow to these tmiddle mnen that a new existing soul, which
is only a quality resulting from a glorified body, can be
identically the same with an annihilated soul, which had
resulted from an earthly body.  But perhaps, as Hudibras
had discovered the receptacle of theghosts of defunct bodies,
so these gentlemen may have found out the yet subtler
corner where the ghosts of defunct qualities repose."*
~ 42. Plato's Connection with the Patristic ThLeology.
The replies of our opponents to the argument from the
patristical testimony, that the doctrine was derived from
Plato, require a, brief notice here, with which we shall conclude the chapter. They insist most emphatically upon the
* Divine Legation, Book V, sec. vi; Works, iii, p. 27.




~ 42.  PLATO  AND  THE PATRISTIC THEOLOGY.   313
connection of his philosophy with the early theology of the
Church, (see the foregoing references to S., A., E., Hi., etc.,
in ~ 41;) and in fact there are but few of the so-called " corruptions of the Gospel doctrine" which have not been, at
one time or another, fastened upon him; although Aristotle,
who by these writers is claimed as a Materialist, has always
had, beyond comparison, a higher authority in the Church
when it had confessedly departed from the simplicity of the
Gospel.  How  much influence Plato had, however, upon
the earlier theology, may be learned by comparing the foregoing catalogue, of patristic testimonies with the views
which he affirms on the same points; a work which we
should be happy to perform in extenso, but in the present
connection it is impossible.
That the Pythagorean and Platonic notions respecting the
soul's purification suggested and originated the doctrine of purgatory, subsequently incorporated with the papal theology,
can scarcely be questioned; and that the Gnostics adopted
substantially Plato's idea of purification, must be admitted,
and also that to some extent several of the theologians of
the Alexandrian school, as Clement and Origen, were tinctured with the same philosophy; but to say more than
this is to m.ake assertions without any historical basis to
sustain them, unless I greatly err.  And so far as these admissions go, they in no way affect the issue in question;
for laying aside the testimony of Origen and Clement, etc.,
it could be more than: replaced in power by that of Ambrose  of Milan, and  numerous others whom  we have
omitted to cite.*  So that in no way whatever do the ex* See Ambrose comment, in Luc. vi, 20. Let the reader also turn to
Qunest. et Resp. ad Orthodoxos, ad Quaest. 75, MEt& DSE rnTv ei/c ro)e 6ouanof i5o6ov, etc., a work of the second century, which, though strictly
speaking anonymous, has ever been of high authority. See also Philastrios, (Brixiensis,) Catalogo Hsereseon, etc., Hleres., 73. Cassiodorus, (M.
Aurel,) De Anima, cap. xix; Chrysostom, Homil. iii, de Lazaro, (circa
imediumn,) and also in Homil. v, in Genesin.  See also Tractatum De
Rectitud. Cath. Conversat, (paulo antefinem,) published in tom. ix of
the works of Augustine. The author is not known, though to him is
likewise conceded high representative authority.




314        IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 42.
ceptions of our opponents either touch the true issue, or
affect the argument.
Then further.  It is a fact which no one acquainted with
the subject will venture to deny, that the most eminent of
the earlier fathers and others denounced pointedly and directly the doctrines of Plato on the very theme where, according to our opponents, their views became corrupted
through the adoption of his philosophy; an example of which,
pertinent to the very issue respecting the soul's separate
existence, may be found in Augustine, De Civ. Dei, lib. xiii,
cap. xvi. The matter, however, is not of sufficient importance (as the main facts in the case are already before the
reader) to occupy in its present connection any more of
either our space or time.
It is really, however, somewhat amusing to notice how,
from Socinus downward, every errorist and his school who
have assailed the fundamentals of the orthodox faith, begin
by asserting that the doctrine to which they take specific exception, is an error which owes its origin and development
to the philosophy of Plato. The Socinian and Arian assert
that the Trinity thus became an article of faith. The Universalist and Restorationist find that future and endless
punishment have had the same origin. The Anti-Satisfactionist finds in Plato the germ of the Church doctrine which
he assails. And the Materialist and Annihilationist have
discovered that the doctrine of the separate state of the soul,
as taught by the evangelical Church, was derived from Plato.
What will next be ascribed to him remains to be seen. But
Plato was celebrated for his broad shoulders, and our opponents, doubtless from this circumstance, in the utter absence
of evidence to sustain them, believe that he can bear up
under all these imputations.




PART III.
ON DEATH AND PENALTY, CONSIDERED IN THEIR
RELATIONS TO THE ARGUMENT.
CHAPTER I.
CONSTITUENT PARTS OF MAN-VARIOUS MEANINGS OF
THE TERM DEATH-RELATION OF CORPOREAL DISSOLUTION TO THE PENALTY OF THE DIVINE LAW.
IN the remaining topics which require to be treated in this
argument, and which may be represented briefly under the
general heads of DEATH and PUNISHMENT, (each of which in
this connection might easily be expanded into a bulky volume,) a more thoroughly metaphysical and philosophical
form of discussion seems to be necessary, from the fact that
they involve philosophical and metaphysical problems with
which the mightiest intellects of every age have grappled,
and which still in some respects demand solution in their
own suggested relations to the subject. And then, too, there
are other circumstances which clearly indicate the profound
importance of the theme. Among these are the relation of
death and punishment, in the past and present, to the whole
doctrine of sin and redemption; their deep and soul-absorbing connection with eschatology, coming into view as they
do in the very beginning of our race, and affecting its existence in one form or another through its whole course of
})robationary being; and the stupendous interests involved
in their connection with our future, while the eternal ages
shall roll onward. Rare qualifications are demanded of him
who would venture to traverse this field, though his object




316         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.                ~ 43.
might be to find merely its relation to the districts which
lie on either side of it.  He needs not only candor, and
earnest heartfelt piety, and constant prayer to the Father
of lights for wisdom  and guidance, but a grasp of intellect, a pervading intelligence, accuracy of judgment, and
depth of scholarship.  He requires not only a knowledge
of the specific literature and science mainly involved in the
inquiries, but also a correct acquaintance with the principles
of human knowledge generally.  The contemplation of such
requirements might well make the most athletic spirit
shrink  from  the pressure of its responsibilities.  The
task, however, has been devolved upon myself, and I shall
attempt its execution in the best way I can, though the bare
idea of endeavoring to do justice to a subject of such f:ar-extending relations to the theme before us, and that, too, within the compass of a few chapters at the conclusion of an
argument, is really appalling.  It is obvious, however, that
what is offered in such circumstances (that is, if presented
intelligently and in its true relations to the subject) mlust
claim to be, in the main, only suggestive.  But, even though
in unfolding the relations existing between these topics and
our theme, and vice versa, we are thus under the necessity
of being brief, I trust that we shall not, with just reason, be
regarded as either time-serving or obscure.
~ 43. Man consists of Body, Sonl, and Spirit.
Agreeably to the inspired record, (1 Thess. v, 23,) man
consists of body, soul, and spirit, oJaha,  vX?%', irvelma.
This distinction is perfectly consistent with that in Matt.
x, 28, where it is made according to the visible and in4isible.  And the whole dispute, therefore, whether man
consists of two or three parts, is, so far as relates to Christians, a piece of absurdity, the one division being not really
inconsistent with the other.  The visible nature is the a/uma,
body; the invisible  is the  bvxi", soul.  The  invisible
may likewise be subdivided into soul and spirit, -rvevia.




~ 43.                   DEATHI.                     317
The remark of Grotius, (who evidently paid no attention to
this,) that spirit in 1 Thess. v, 23, Tneans the Holy Spirit, is
laughable, as a bare examination of bX6OVi/pog would show.
That man consists of three diferenet parts, 7PL/Le[Pg 3i 7 rj6-7aeig,
(an expression friom the old Christian philosopher, Nemesius,
which is quoted by Whitby on I Thess. v, 23,) was a doctrine so early known that it seems to have been communicated to man in that early revelation to which we have referred in sections 24, 26, and 28, above.  It is wholly subversive of Materialism, and therefore the advocates of that.
theory hate and repudiate it; but it cannot be go't rid of
in this way. As illustrative of its early reception, I may
remark that traces of it are found in the teachings of Zoroaster, and that Jamblichus (the pupil of Porphyry) declares
expressly that Pythagoras received and taught it.  That
Plato did so no one will dispute.  The same remark may
be made in reference to the Stoics; and Antinonus states
that the constituent parts of man are g&lla, ~vXr%, and >ovc,
body, soul, and intellect, or mind.  Josephus and his school
taught the same.  See Antiq. i, cap. i, ~ 2, where he
observes that God made for man a body from the earth, and
supplied it with a V/vxq1 and rvevbma. (Compare Heb. iv, 13.)
Justin, in his fragment on the Resurrection, and Irenmus,
ii, 6, 2, and v, 9, 1, likewise taught it, and also Clement and
Origen, though Tertullian's more practical mind was content
with the simpler division made in Matt. x, 28.
The 7pvX% is properly the connecting link between the aJlta
and -veE-La, and the fountain of our sensual appetites and
desires, and hence perpetually associated with the aap$,
flesh, and when it ceases to act death supervenes.  The
struggle between the higher aspirations which spring up
within the spiritual nature, and those lower propensities and
desires suggested by its connection with the bvx1, is often
mentioned in the references made to a religious life. See
Rom. vii, 14-25; Gal. v, 16, 17; Rom. viii, 4-10. By following the low promptings of this sensual appetite the man
is said to become ~fvXucKd, animal, and his body (and in fact




318         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 43.
the bodies of all men in a state of nature) is called aiola
bvXtcKov, a mere akimal body, (1 Cor. xv, 44, 45;) but whch
brought fully under the dominion of the spirit it is called
a&i4Ta rrvevFartKc6v, a body adapted to the uses of the spirit.
See 1 Cor. xv, 43, and note particularly ver. 44.
The same division, substantially, is observed in the Hebrew:' -izi,.n, ri3; calpf, PvXr, rrvevta; carnis, anima,
spiritus; flesh, soul, slpirit.  The Greek  has two terms
referable to the corporeal frame, u&4aa and cap:, the former,referring to the building itself, the latter to the material of
which it is built.  The Hebrew has but one term,  t,
and this is answerable to the term ca9p. In Hebrew usage,
however, it may be regarded as clearly suggesting the idea
conveyed by apoila. See Psa. xvi, 9; Acts ii, 26, 27; Heb.
x, 5. Originally these constituent parts of' human nature
were harmoniously united under the dominion of the high
and noble rrveivua, or spirit in man. And in his perfect
original state, man, having been created in the image of God,
was, in respect to the three parts of his nature, immortal;
but by the introduction of sin this bond of union was
severed, and now the heterogeneous and conflicting parts of
it are subject to various conditions, unless they are brought
into a more exalted union under the dominion of the Holy
Spirit. (See Biblic. Repos., vol. x, p. 413.)
I had designed to illustrate this topic more fully, but our
subject will not permit it here, though we may recur to it
briefly hereafter.
Such then are the constituent parts of man; nor does the
fact that either of the terms referred to may be in a figureo
employed to designate the whole man, at all affect the
question as to his constituent parts. They may be used
metaphorically, as o&c4/a in 1 Cor. xii, 14-27; Luke xvii, 37;
Rom. vi, 6; and ad4p in Rom. vii, 5, and vi, 6; or even interchangeably, as in Heb. x, 20; Phil. i, xxiv; 1 Pet. iv, 1;
Acts ii, 26; but an examination of such passages will lead
to no perplexity as to the true meaning. Comp. John
i, 14; Heb. ii, 14; x, 5, 10; Phil. iii, 21; Rom. i, 3;




~ 44.                   DEATH.                      319
Acts ii, 30.  In treating upon the subject of this chapter,
we shall not, however, attempt to keep up a metaphysical
distinction between soul and spirit, but employ both terms
indifferently, to express the idea of man's interior nature, as
distinguished from the corporeal or visible.
~ 44. —Import of the term Death.
The term  death is employed in Various senses, both in
the Scriptures and in popular usage; and here the nature of
our subject requires that we explain those usages, and
accurately define the meaning of the term as we propose to
employ it, so that any application which we shall make of it
may not be misunderstood.
1. That the term death, (aOvai-og, thp:, ht,) as applied to
man in the Scriptures, ever means utter annihilation or extinction of conscious existence, is a mere assumption, and is
entitled to no respect whatever, (see ~~ 36, 37;) and yet
upon this baseless assumption the entire theory of annihilationism is built; and the Annihilationists, against all reason,
persist in attaching this meaning to the word.
2. In a very frequent use of the term it means the separation of the interior and incorporeal of our nature from
that which is exterior and corporeal; though in strictness
of speech, as Knapp remarks, death does not consist in the
separation, but this separation is the consequence of death.
As soon as the body loses feeling and motion, it is henceforth useless to the soul, which is therefore separated from
it. In this sense, though not with strict theological propriety, it is called natural death, and the term  in this sense
is used in many places, as Jonah iv, 9; Matt. ii, 15; x, 21;
Mark v, 23; Luke ii, 16; John xi, 4, 13; Phil. i, 20;
Heb. vii, 23.  Compare also Gen. ii, 7, and Eccles. xii, 7,
with Gen. iii, 19, and v, 5. Hence, too, it is spoken of as a
dissolution of this tabernacle, a departure from the body,
an absence from the body. 2 Cor. v, 1-9; Phil. i, 20-23;
2 Tim. iv, 6; 2 Pet. i, 13, 14. See our remarks on these
passages in section 33.




320          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 44.
3. In another and very common use of this term it means
a severance between the creature and Creator, as the source
of true life or happiness.  This is sometimes called spiritual
death, because it is the antithesis of spiritual life; this life,
however, is only another name for true happiness. It is not
the life of the spirit of man in the sense of the existence of
the spirit, but in the sense of a happy state or condition.
This severance is also spoken of as eternal or everlasting
death. For though the word eternal is not mentioned in
the law, or in the threatening, (Gen. ii, 17; Ezek. xviii, 4,
20,) it is simply because such mention was needless.  For
any one who will reflect a moment, can see that if a
rational creature, by a direct act of choice, separate himself
from God, the source of life, he never can, by his own
strength or resources, reunite himself therewith, so that
unless the infinite mercy of God interpose and prevent, that
severance must continue forever.  Hence there was not the
slightest necessity for employing the word everlasting in the
threatening, and none but a theologastrian would ever pretend that the word not being there furnished evidence in
favor of Universalism.
It is important to the right understanding of the position
which our opponents sustain in relation to our whole theme,
that this sense of the term death should be fully illustrated,
for their scheme utterly confounds these two senses of the
word in their application to man's present state or condition.
Now in such passages as the following the word is used in
this sense: "The wages of sin is death." Rom. vi, 23.
See also Rom. vii, 5, 8, 13; 2 Cor. iii, 7; 1 Cor. xv,
56.  And so too in the language of James i, 15: "Sin
when it is finished bringeth forth death."
It may be illustrated also by the fact that regeneration
restores the aforesaid connection, which sin had Interrupted
and broken, between man and the source of life. (John, i, 12,
13; iii, 3-8; Eph. ii, 5, 10; iv, 32.) And hence they who
are renewed, though they are not exempted from death in the
second sense named above, are said to have passed from




~ 44.                    DEATH.                     321
death unto life, and are assured that they shall not come into
condemnation, and shall never die, (John v, 24; iii, 36;
1 John iii, 14; John vi, 50; viii, 51; xi, 26;) and yet
they do die in that very sense which our opponents affirm to
be the penalty of the law. In such passages too as the
following death is employed in the sense of severance from
the source of life. 1 Tim. v, 6; Eph. v, 14; John v, 25.
"The unregenerate-the dead-hear his voice and live,"
or are renewed.  In the context of the last passage too
(see ver. 28) the same word is used for corporeal death:
and in direct contrast with the sense of it in the other verse.
I-lence, too, the law is said to be the mzinister of death, not of
the body, but of the man.  The penalty is brought upon him,
being a sinner, by its administration, (2 Cor. iii, 7,) and in
contrast with it the Gospel is said to minister life, (ver. 8, 9.)
in the same meaning it is used very often in the Old
Testament; and it would be strange indeed, as Edwards
remarks,* if when the law of God was first given, and enforced by the threatening of a punishment, nothing at all
had been mentioned of that great punishment ever spoken
of under the name of death, (in the revelations which God
has given to mankind from age to age,) as the proper punishment of the sin of mankind.  And it would be no less
strange if, when the punishment which was mentioned and
threatened on that occasion was called by the same name,
even death, yet we must not understand it to mean the
same thing, but something infinitely diverse, and infinitely
more inconsiderable.
Now by referring to the Old Testament Scriptures we
find them speak of death, in this sense, as the proper end
and recompense of sin.  Ezek. iii, 18: "When I say unto
the wicked man thou shalt surely die." (In the Hebrew the
same expression as in Gen. ii, 17.) See also chapter xxxiii,
18. So too in Ezek. xviii, 4, 20: " The soul that sinneth
it shall die."  And that what is called corporeal death is
not here meant, is clear from the fact that it is said of the
* Origi!nal Sin, Part II, chap. i, sect. 2.




322          IIMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.            ~ 44.
righteous that they shall not thus die, and to the wicked
also that if they turn they shall live and not die; (see
chapter xviii, 9, 17, 19, 21, 22, and iii, 21;) and yet all of
them did die corporeally. And Solomon also says: "In
the way of righteousness is life, and in the pathway thereof is
no death." Prov. xii, 28. So too says Moses: "I have set
before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;"   I
call heaven and earth to record against you this day, that I
have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing."
Deut. xxx, 15, 19.  He employs life here in the sense of
eternal life, as in Levit. xviii, 5, with which compare Rom.
x, 5; Gal. iii, 12.
And here too it may well be said of this death, (that is,
in the sense of the penalty of the law, Gen. ii, 17,) that " in
death there is no remembrance of thee," "no praise to thee,"
etc. See Psa. vi, 5; Isa. lviii, 18, 19; Job xxviii, 22;
and so too in the sense of Gen. ii, 17, those passages which
speak of death are to be understood, which our annihilation
friends produce to show that the soul, or interior life of
man, ceases to exist when the body dies. The Jews, of
course, obtained their idea of death in its most true and
proper sense from  that passage.  Comp. Psa. xxx, 9;
lxxxviii, 10-12; cxv, 17. The saints then, (as we have
already remarked,) well knowing their sin and frailty, perpetually feared that they might be given over to death, or
the full and lasting penalty of the law, and so they prayed
against it, though they knew they must die in the sense of
losing their present earthly life. See Psa. cxviii, 17-19;
I Sam. ii, 9.
Before concluding this point, it is important in the present connection to have a strictly accurate idea of what constitutes the penalty of the law, as denounced in Gen. ii, 17.
On no point is there more of wretched shallow theologizing
than on this. Instead of a careful discrimination, which, it
needed anywhere, is needed here, there is the greatest conceivable lack of it.  Augustine, in his De Civitate Dei, lib.
xiii, cap. xii, has wholly confounded the penalty with its




~ 44.                  DEATH.                     323
consequences, and vice versa; and no one since his time
seems to think that there is any necessity for doing otherwise. His words are adopted as a text, and there the matter is left; * and the result of such a representation of the
matter is seen in its obscuring effects through the whole
science of Christian theology, and most sadly and lamentably in its bearings upon the doctrine of the atonement, and
the whole work of our blessed Lord. But in its present
connection I can offer only a few brief remarks upon the
subject.
In the strict and proper sense of the term, by the penalty
of the law, as denounced in Gen. ii, 17, is not to be understood anything that is merely a consequence of incurring it.
Hence it is improper, in point of reason and fact, to say that
remorse of conscience, or what is called corporeal death, is
a part of the penalty, or even that eternal misery itself is
such. The word eternal, as we have remarked already, is
not in the law, and there was no necessity for its being
there. The penalty is simply the wrath, displeasure, or
curse of God; and this comprehends the whole idea. The
voluntary perpetration of sin by our representative, Adam,
brought the displeasure of God upon him, and at once severed him, and of course all who should descend from him
by ordinary generation, from the source of life, and left him
and them in an utterly ruined, condemned, and helpless condition; a condition in which they must have remained
forever, (since neither Adam himself nor any creature
could ever reunite him to the source of life and procure for
him the forfeited favor of God,) unless the grace and mercy
of God interpose to bring relief. The moment therefore
that he sinned the penalty in its true sense overtook him,
and he died; for such a severance was death in its most
appalling form.  Christ has brought and proffers to us relief
from this condition; and all who accept the proffer are
rescued, and restored to the favor of God. Those who refuse
it must have the wrath of God continue to abide upon them,
* He speaks more intelligibly however in cap. xv.




324         IMMORT'ALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 45.
and for that rejection (since God commands that we receive
the deliverance which he has thus provided) will be doomned
to everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
It is not necessary therefore that, in order to speak of a sinner as damned, or under the penalty, we should regard him
as having passed from the present life; for he is already
under the curse and dead; and every one who sins suffers
this penalty. The soul that sinneth dies, and none but
Christ can awaken and restore him to life; and if Christ do
not in this world, then the separation which sin has made
between the soul and God must continue, with all its increasing consequence and horrors, through the wasteless ages
of eternity.  But this matter cannot be here further dwelt
upon.
In concluding this point I remark, therefore, that in the
second and third of the aforenamed senses, the term death
is frequently applied to man in the word of God, but never,
in a single instance, in the first.
~ 45. Death in the Sense of Corporeal Dissolution.
We shall now proceed to consider the subject of death,
in the second of the foregoing senses, as meaning the loss
of this present life, or the severance of the soul from the
body, and the manner in which this is referred to in the
Scriptures, and as relating to man's condition in the state
between his departure from this world and the resurrection.
A point, however, occurs here at the very outset which it is
necessary to consider, and to it we must devote the following sub-section of the argument.
I. What relation has death, in this second sense of the
term, to the penalty of the Divine law, as mentioned in
Gen. ii, 17, and Ezek. xviii, 4, 20?
It is a very serious error, into which many theologians
and critics have fallen, to explain the phrase h.trh  hiz,
thou shalt surely die, or dying thou shalt die, in Gen. ii, 17,
by the statement in Gen. iii, 19: ".Dust thou art, and unto




45. CORPOREAL DEATH AND THE PENALTY.  325
dust thou shalt return.'"*  This has no real authority from
reason, theology, or exegesis to support it.   Symmachus,
(A. D. 200, circiter,) who was but a semi-Christian, (or
Ebionite,) and whose authority is of no account, undertook
to depart from the LXX, (whose rendering is true to the
Hebrew, Oavar, ad7roOaveslOe,) and to translate the phrase
by  the words Ovqrbgf  aT, Imortalis eris, thou  shalt be
mortal.   Theodoret l and  Jerome  likewise  thoughtlessly
favored the corruption, though the Latin Vulgate still retains
the  true idea, morte morieris, thou  shalt die  the death.
Knapp, also, to speak of no others, favors the rendering of
Symmachus, and in fact the whole exegesis of Gen. ii, 17,
by Gen. iii, 19. I repeat it, however, that there is not the
* I dislike much to raise any exception to our English translation of
the Bible, the very best translation, doubtless, that was ever made; but
in rendering this verse (Gen. iii, 19) the translators have not observed
an important idiom of the Hebrew language, and by a literal rendering
of the words have failed to give the true shade of thought in't7ahda  R'1?s"5E 1  Shi, for dqut thou ar t, endg ~unto dust thou shalt retiur n.
Were it not, however, for the use which Annihilationists attempt to
make of the passage, it would scarcely be worth while to refer to it. The
expression as given in our translation destroys all antithesis, for how
can the fact that a thing is dlst be given as a reason why it should return
to dust? and how can it retu.rn unto a condition in which it already is?
But with the Hebrews it is usual to omit the preposition t, ex, of, ozut
of, in respect to the material of which a thing is being made, or has been
made, (as Schmidt observes,., Colleg. Biblic. i, 390.) Gen. ii, 7: "God
formed man [out of] the dust of the earth."  Exodus xxv, 19: " Thou
shalt make the mercy seat [of, or out of] pure gold;" and verse 18:
"Thou shalt make the two cherubims [of] gold."  Exodus xxxvi, 30:
"And there were eight boards whose bases were [of] silver."  Exodus
xxxvii, 22: " The whole of it was one beaten work [of] pure gold."  So
too in the passage above quoted: " For [of] dust thou art, and unto dust
shalt thou return."  And another in the context, verse 21: " The Lord
God made for Adam and his wife coats [of] a skin, and clothed them;"
a passage miserably mangled by Shuckford (Creation and Fall, chap. xii,)
from not attending to this idiom. It is a metonomy of the material for
the thing made.
- Theodoret thus paraphrases the rendering of Symmachus: "'Tihou
shalt be mortal, and every day. shalt thou expect death,' which the Jews
are accustomed to express by the words, sonr of death."  Nothing can
more clearly show the absurdity of the translation of Symmachus than
this paraphrase.




326         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 45.
shadow of any sufficient reason for trifling thus with the import of the passage.  It is a mere unsupported, arbitrary
assumption, and is therefore entitled to no serious regard.
Pareus, (ina loco,) after quoting the exposition, denounces it
in these words: Hcec Sadducceorum et Epicurceorum   hominuem est sententia. The reader may find in Glassius, whose
theology however is a little confused on the point, an excellent exegetical illustration of the import of the phrase,
(Philol. Sacra., lib. iii, tract iii, canon 37,) though in
canon 21, he adopts the rendering of Symmachus.
There is, moreover, a great inconsistency on the part of
the critics who adopt this exegesis; for if Gen. iii, 19,
refers to Gen. ii, 17, as its proper solution or explanation,
why isolate and specify, as the threatened penalty,. only the
dissolution of our physical bodies, or their return to dust,
and not all the particulars mentioned in the same connection? for example, all the sorrows of Eve, the unfruitfulness of the ground, the thorns and thistles wvhich it brings
forth, the toil and sweat of man, the eating of the herbs of
the field, instead of the fruits of paradise. But this is not
done for the obvious reason that these things are seen to be,
not the threatened penalty itself, but the consequences or results, matters which ought not to be thus confounded
together. And then the theology of many of these critics
forbids such an idea, as they hold that such labor as is here
specified is a blessing instead of a curse.  But there is
neither logic nor propriety in thus commingling causes and
consequences. Toil and corporeal dissolution are not the
threatened penalty, nor any part of it. They have, under
the Divine arrangement, resulted from the introduction of
sin into the world, and so far, and in this sense alone, can they
be regarded as penal. I am aware how great authorities
can be pleaded for the view that death, in the sense of corporeal dissolution, is threatened in Gen. ii, 17, and is actually a part of the penalty of the law; and the names of
Calvin and Turretin, not to mention a host of others,
would lead me to hesitate, could I willingly suffer myself




g 45. CORPOREAL DEATH  AND THE PENALTY.   327
to be influenced in  Divine things by human authority.
They are names which I love and venerate, and which every
year become dearer to my heart. But I do know, and
after the most careful examination I affirm, that they have
in this matter confounded things which are radically different, and concerning which the word of God makes a radical
distinction, and that the confusion into which this great subject has thus been brought has been most injurious in its
effects upon the whole science of theology. I should not
here, however, refer to it, were it not that the line of arguinent pursued by our opponents on the subject of immortality requires it. But I shall refer to it as briefly as possible, and
defer the fuller consideration of the whole matter to another
occasion.* I do not attempt to set up my authority in this matter against that of the great and venerable names above referred to, but merely ask the reader's attention to the reasons
which I offer for coming to a different conclusion from theirs.
1. At the outset of the inquiry we are met with the objection that Paul avers that " by man came death." 1 Cor.
xv, 21. But a moment's reflection will evince that this presents no real issue. We freely admit the truth stated. It
is again excepted that death is an enemy, and is so repreX Let ally one, however, take Calvin, or Turretin, or good old Witsins, (whose confusion here is really ludicrous;) or the later theologians,
such as Dwight, Dick, and Knapp, who sustain the foregoing exegesis
of Gen. ii, 17, by Gen. iii, 19, and attempt to follow out their view into,
its remoter relations to their systems, and the effect will be a vagueness
ahd indistinctness of perception in relation to some of the most important doctrines of theology in their deeper import. On the contrary, how
admirably is all this avoided by our own excellent summary of Christian doctrine: "All mankind by their fall lost communion with God, are
under his wrath and curse, and so made liable to all the miseries of this
life, to death itself, and to the pains of hell forever." (Quest. 19 of
Shorter Catechism.) In the Larger, Quest. 27, the same distinction is
made: " The fall brought upon mankind the loss of communion with
God, his displeasure and curse; so as we are by nature children of wrath,
bond slaves to Satan, and justly liable to all punishment in this world
and that which is to come." In another section, however, from strangely
assuming that corporeal death is referred to in Rom. vi, 23, the aforesaid
indistinctness and confusion of ideas on the subject are immediately appxrent. See Quest. 84, 85.




328          IMMORTALITY OF TEE SOUL.                ~ 45.
sented in the Scriptures: " Death, the last enemy, shall be
abolished or destroyed." I Cor. xv, 26. But if it be an
enemy, (kX0p~S,) how can its being let loose, so to slpeak,
upon man be other than a penal infliction? I remark that
it is an enemy, or penal infliction, as above stated, in the
same sense that the othe- results of our having severed ourselves from  God are enemies; the pains and sorrows of
parturition, the toil, food to be gained by labor, and the re.turn of our bodies to dust, are all in direct contrast to our
paradisaical state, and so far are enemies to man regarded as
in his primal state.  In the same sense, too, death is called
"' the king of terrors," (Job xviii, 14,) and may be regarded
as the enemy of God not less than of man, for it is represented as undoing his own work here on earth. The language,
however, is merely popular; men feel death to be their
enemy; and the Apostle refers to it in the language of men.
it is to be abolished and wholly destroyed, however, along
with spiritual-, and eternal death in the case of the elect of
God, and this is what Paul directly refers to here.  Turretin repeatedly avers that death to the pious is not penal,
(vol. ii, 390, and iv, 557,) and both he and Calvin aver that
after our blessed Lord had assumed our nature he he  as not
mortal, and that there was no reason, aside from his own
will, that he should suffer corporeal dissolution,* which
is undoubtedly true, though in utter conflict with their exposition of Gen. ii, 17, by iii, 19. His corporeal death was
truly necessary as a testimony to earth, that he had borne
the full curse; but in strictness of speech the separation between soul and body is not necessary in order to endure that
curse, for the impenitent are to be raised from  the dead
(their souls and bodies to become reunited) in order tnat
they may endure the penalty in its true and lasting import.
This death, therefore, though an enemy, is not penal in the
sense of being threatened in Gen. ii, 17.  For that penalty
Jesus did strictly and literally endure,'[ and yet the necessity
* See Turretin, opp. iv, 557; and Calvin's Note. on Matt. xvii, 3.
1 This point, I am persuaded, can be established beyond all controversy, and I hope hereafter to be able to give my reasons for thinking so.




~ 45. CORPOREAL DEATH AND THE PENALTY. 329
which called for his endurance of this is confessedly not the
same as that which called for his endurance of corporeal
death.
2. Christ has satisfied thqlaw, and endured its full penalty
for his people, and thus saved them from the curse of the
law. Of course, then, that from which he has not saved, and
does not save them, is no part of the curse. But he does not
save them from corporeal death, and therefore corporeal
death is no part of the threatened penalty. In reply to this
Turretin, (iv, 556, 557,) though he, in a manner most strange
for him, confounds sanctification with justification, (an illustration of the forementioned vagueness resulting to theology
from the above explanation of Gen. ii, 17, by Gen. iii, 19,)
does admit corporeal death to be, so far as relates to believers, not really penal, but a blessing to them, an arrangement of divine compassion, and that it is not to them the
punishment of sin.  But what is it then? for they do die.
And how can this death be a part of the threatened penalty? 
And further, what proof is there that it is the punishment
of sin to any, except so far as it is a consequence of sin's
entrance into the world?
3. Then, too, it is affirmed, in every form of expression,
that the justified are freed from  all condemnation, as remarked above.  They are passed from death into life, and
yet they physically die.  In what sense then can corporeal
dissolution be a part of the penalty or curse threatened in
Gen. ii, 17? It cannot be unless it is a part of the condemnation of the law. But the just are so fully delivered fi-om
the threatened curse that to them  " there is no condemnation." Rom. viii, 1.
4. We have already remarked that the penalty of the
law, in its full import, and without any restriction, as threatened for sin, is most directly and pointedly distinguished
from corporeal death. The sinner, though he must at all
events die in the physical sense, and no repentance or anything he may do can prevent this, is yet threatened with
death if he persist in sin; and a promise is moreover made




330          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 45.
to him that he shall not die if he turn. (Ezek. iii, and xviii,
and xxxiii.) Now this threatening is a threatening of the
true penalty of the law, as is admitted by all. That penalty
shall be inflicted beyond hope if he persist in impenitence,
but it shall be remitted if he turn and repent. In what
sense, then, can that death which he mulst suffer, whether he
repent or not, be a part of this threatened penalty?  In no
sense whatever, for if it were a part of the threatened penalty
how could the promise be fulfilled to him that he should not
endure it if he would turn? The pretense of Turretin, that
the promised deliverance contemplates the future resurrection, is an evasion unworthy of that illustrious theologian.
The point in question relates to the endurance of temporal
death.  And does it prove that a man shall not die a temporal death because he is to be raised from the dead in the
general resurrection? The question simply is, how temporal
death is under these circumstances a part of the threatened
penalty of the law.
5. Death is spoken of as the end of suffering to the good,
a passing (ETerd6aa6t) to a better life, (John v, 24;) a departure from this world, (2 Tim. iv, 6; and in this sense is
Enoch said to have died, Heb. xi, 5, 13;) also a sleep,
(Matt. x, 24; John xi, 11;) a deliverance from the body of
death, (Rom. vii, 24;) a desired dissolution, (Phil, i, 23;
Luke ii, 29;) an entrance into rest from labor, (Isa. lvii, 2;
Rom. xiv, 13.)  It is therefore to the believer not the penalty of the law, but a part of the remedy for the disease of
sin.  How then can it be a joy to the righteous, and yet a
curse? as it must be, if truly and properly a part of the
penalty.
6. The justified in heaven are surely delivered from all
the threatened penalty of sin. Yet they are dead. Now
can any one suppose that the spirits of the just made perfect
in heaven are enduring the penalty of the law in any sense?
That they are not in that,perfect state in which they would
be if united to a glorified body is admitted; but this is the
result not of wrath, but of that redeeming mercy which has




~ 45.  CORPOREAL DEATH AND THE PENALTY.  331
ordained the separation between soul and body, in order to
prepare in the best way the redeemed for their final triumph.
It was the most appropriate way of terminating man's probationary state, after our blessed Lord undertook to secure
for us a second probation.
7. Paul says, moreover, that to die is gain, (Phil. i, 21;)
and desirable, (ver. 23; 2 Cor. v, 8.)  Now can it be to any
one gain, or desirable, to endure the curse of the law in himself and on his own account?
8. He says too that " death passed upon all men," (Rom.
v, 12,) showing it to be as universal as sin. The death or
curse here referred to, therefore, no more admits of any exception than sin, in respect to mankind.  And yet corporeal
death has exceptions.  Enoch and Elijah, and the great
multitude who are alive at Christ's final coming, shall never
suffer the pains of this dissolution. And yet not one of
them in any way escapes the death threatened in Gen. ii, 17;
Ezek. xviii, 4; and to which Rom. v, 12 refers. This death
has passed upon all of them who have yet lived, and shall
pass upon the others when they shall live. They shall die
in that sense; though mercy, through our Lord Jesus Christ,
shall so arrest the curse in their case as to prevent its becoming final. The death threatened in the law, therefore,
neither knows nor can know any exception among all the
race of Adam. And yet not one of these persons shall suffer
corporeal death. How then can this death be the penalty
of sin?
9. Even to the wicked the separation of soul and body,
or corporeal death, is not necessary in order to the endurance of the penalty. In fact it is rather a prevention, so far
as the endurance of the full penalty is concerned. And
hence the full endurance of it is reserved till soul and body
are reunited at the resurrection. In what sense then can
this arrangemenit be a part of the penalty for sin 2?*
* Dr. John Taylor, with his usual profundity, says, in his " Original
Sin," that if the curse had been at once inflicted Adam and Eve would
have had no posterity. This seems like claiming a' Key " not only to




332           IMMORTALITY  OF THE SOUL.                 ~ 45.
10. Corporeal death therefore has been appointed by God,
(Heb. ix, 27; Psa. xc, 3,) in consequence of the introduction
of sin and disorder into this once happy creation. But if it
were the penalty of the law, then the law would demand
that the finally impenitent should never arise from the dead.
Now the resurrection is of both the just and unjust, (1 Cor.
xv, 21, 22; John v, 28,) and is through Jesus alone as Mediator. All shall hear his voice and come forth. But the
resurrection is in no sense a salvation from the penalty, since
all are raised; and the wicked are in no sense saved either
thereby, or in any other way, from the penalty.  Therefore
the separation of soul and body, the antithesis of which is
the resurrection, is no part of the penalty, but, as above remarked, an appointment or arrangement made in consequence of sin's introduction into the world, and of God's intention to redeem mankind.
11. In fact the separation of soul and body was an arrangement subsequent to man's incurrence of the penalty,
and after the curse had come upon him. It pertains not to
the covenant of works, but to the mediatorial intervention,
(and hence Messiah himself announced it,) and was entered
into after the promise of redemption was made, that the seed
of the woman should crush the serpent's head. All things,
all men, and all power, were at once committed into the
hands of the second Adam, our Mediator, immediately when
the first Adam  proved unfaithful to his trust; and though
"o Romans," but to the secret purposes of God. He bases the announcement, however, on the assumption that the death of the body is, at least,
part of the penalty of the law. But why may not man have continued to
suffer the real penalty without this separation of soul and body? The
~wicked must thus suffer it after the resurrection. And if Adam and Eve
were to live on the earth, why not have posterity? God had said, " Be
fruitful and multiply;" and the same injunction is assumed as continuing
in force after the fall, (Gen. iii, 16;) and the death threatened has really
passed upon a  meen. (Rom. v, 12.) Andrew Fuller expresses the true
idea of the matter as follows: " The original constitution of things provided for the existence of every individual that has since been born into
the world, and that whether man should stand or fall." Works, p. 350.
London, 1848.




~ 45.  CORPOREAL DEATH AND THE PENALTY.  338
he does not deliver all from the curse, he does deliver them
from corporeal death, by the reunion of soul and body at
the resurrection; and so presents them to receive, on the
original legal ground, their final reward, whether they have
accepted him or not.
12. As respects the righteous, therefore, death, as above
stated, is only a merciful contrivance of mediatorial love to
prepare them for the thorough new creation which awaits
them. The soul is renewed in the present life, and the body
shall be at the resurrection. God could indeed renew both
body and soul without this separation. But this would not
comport with the altered condition of things in this sinstricken world, wherein everything (and in a certain sense
the heavens likewise, see Rom. viii, 16-21; Heb. i, 10-12;
2 Pet. iii, 10-13) has been rendered corruptible, and needs
to be purified. This purification shall take place when Christ
comes, and the living saints shall share in the result without
suffering death.  Hence, though God is said to turn man to
destruction, (Psa. xc, 3,) the death of his servants is declared
to be precious in his sight, which it could not be in any
such sense if that death were the penalty or curse for sin,
And they are said to die in the Lord, (Rev. xiv, 13;) and
is not the bare idea of their thus enduring the curse or penalty
of sin an absurdity? To the wicked, however, this arrangement must become a curse, as do all the other consequences
specified in Gen. iii, 16-19, (and hence we read that even
their cultivation of the soil is sin, Prov. xxi, 4;) and especially must it become a curse to them, because it ends their
probation, and ushers them into the unchanging retributions
of eternity. But surely all this proves not that it is the
penalty of the law even to them, for it is an admitted truth
that they so abuse all the provisions of mercy as to turn them
into a curse.
13. Hence, too, when Adam  sinned, he was debarred
from the tree of life. We know nothing about this matter
more than is revealed; but we are informed that the reason
of this exclusion was, lest he should eat of it and live for



334          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.                 ~ 45.
ever; that is, live forever in his then fallen and ruined
condition.  But God had a better arrangement to make
respecting him, to wit: the severance of the soul from the
body, which would prepare the way for the renovation of
the body through its return to the dust and subsequent
resurrection, the soul having been renewed by regeneration.
How  then could this better arrangement be part of the
curse of the law?
14. I repeat it, therefore, that corporeal death was an
arrangement which grew out of redemption, and not in`
wrath but in mercy to man. Theophilus of Antioch;
(A. D. 168-181,) in his Apology, addressed to Autolychus,
(lib. ii, cap. xxiv,) referring to this matter, says: "' Death was
bestowed by God as a great blessing upon man, lest he
should remain for all time in sin; but he banished him for
his transgression from paradise, that being in exile, he might
through this punishment (his sin having been expiated) be
reinstated therein."  (Referring doubtless to  Rev. ii, 7.)
" It must break him into pieces, that he may be rebuilt in
the resurrection and be restored to righteousness and immortality." And yet, as all the other results of the introduction of sin into the world, it is to be viewed in the light of
a chastisement, and so far penal (if theologians insist upon
using that term) as being a result of the introduction of sin.
Nor is it, I repeat, in this connection, necessary in order to
the endurance of the penalty, since before the sinner can
fully undergo that penalty, he must be raised from  the
dead. (See how the word body is used in this connection in
such passages as 1 Cor. v, 10; Isa. lxvi, 24.)  And the
fact that this corporeal dissolution comes to be called death
subsequently, proves nothing, even though the very expression, as in 1 Kings ii, 37, be employed for this purpose.*
* Edwards, referring to this point, says: I" It is wholly without reason
urged that death properly signifies only the loss of this present life, and
that therefore nothing else was meant by that death which was threatened
for eating the forbidden fruit." (Orig. Sin, Part ii, sec. 2, p. 423.)  The
whole section deserves a careful perusal in this connection. But the
remtarks of Gulssetus (in his comment, Ling. Hmb., p. 463) on this subject




~ 45. CORPOREAL DEATH AND THE PENALTY. 335
The Socinians argue that the plural terms in which God in
the beginning of creation speaks of himself, do not prove a
plurality  in  his nature, because  kings who lived some
thousands of years afterward employ the same style, and the
argument and inference in the one case are as good as in the
other. Adam had already incurred the penalty and had died,
was severed from the only source of life, and had God's displeasure and curse resting upon him  when the arrangement
specified in Gen. iii, 19, was made respecting him. He died
the very moment he sinned; and the same death must in the
very nature of things rest, and does rest upon every one who
is a partaker of his fallen nature.  They are all severed from
the source of life; and Ezek. xviii, 4, 20, is true of every
soul of man, and is fulfilled in them, and must continue to be
to all eternity unless where sovereign mercy interposes and
rescues those who accept of salvation through Jesus Christ.
Witsius*  is exceedingly confused on this point; and
though so mighty elsewhere, he here talks at random and
without point, denouncing the opposite view as heretical, and
giving no reasons for regarding it as such; and in section 5
he ascribes to the Socinians the sentiment that the death, of
the body is not the penalty of sin, and undertakes its refutation; and then, in section 12, he quotes from  " their theology
as adopted by the Arminians," the statement that Adam
was not threatened with eternal death, but only and directly
are so excellent that we must lay them before the reader: I" Cseterum, A't:.
primario et ex vocis institutione, antiquissimoque usu, designat puenas
seternas totius hominis, constantis corpore et anima, eas scilicet, quas
discimus aliunde sedem habere in abysso, nam sic Deus intelligebat in
comminatione, Gen. ii, 17, nt patet ex parallello, (Rom. vi, 23,) utque satis
annuit absoluta locutio. An vero potuerit Adam ita sumere, cur dubites l
cum enim nullo usu nulloque exemplo, n6sset mortemn corpoream magis,
quam, illam absolutamn, neutra ei in mentem venire ad huec verba potuit,
nisi eadem vi, qua ei, linguee cognitio infusa est, at certe statuendum est,
Deum ipsi illam infudisse juxta verum ejus intellectum, et ita, ut verba
Dei eodem sensu intelligeret, ac' Deus dicebat. In tamen hsec altera
significatio synecdochica, et partem corpoream solum spectans, promanavit hsecque quia de rebus sensibus subjectis frequentius loquimur,
frequentior fuit in usu."
* C(Econ. F'Icd.. lib. i, cap. v, and ii, eap. vi.




336        IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 45~
with that which is corporeal, or a separation between soul
and body, and pronounces it rank poison. His vehemence
is imitated by Dr. Dick,* and also his absence of argument
on the subject. They utterly confound causes and results,
(as Dwight also, ser. 28,) and involve themselves in inextricable confusion. As an instance: Witsius weakly argues
(and it is about the only fair attempt that he makes at argunent on the point) that " it would be very unbecoming in a
divinely just and good Being to inflict anything on man by
a sentence of condemnation, zwhich had not been threatened
previously as a punishment for sin."  Hence he infers that
as corporeal death is inflicted, it must have been threatened
in Gen. ii, 17.  But he here uses the words " sentence of
condemnation" in a sense in which it is not used in the
opposing argument.  Neither the death of the body, nor
any of the inconveniences resulting to man from the introduction of sin into the world, and as specified in Gen. iii,
16-19, are sentences of condemnation in that sense of the
term as above shown. They are results of man's sin and
departure from God.
In order to the infliction of the curse, it was in no way
necessary that God should have any such intercourse with
man as is there narrated. He might have left the race in
that darkness and horror which at once came over our progenitors when they sinned, and which increased, impelling
them to screen themselves from the presence of their Maker,
and which would have gone on increasing amid blackness
and darkness forever. The sinning angels were thus left in
chains of darkness as the penalty for aspiring to get beyond
their primal position, and so might man have been left.
As Andrew Fuller remarks: " Had there been no provision
of mercy through the promised seed, there could have been
no more communion between God and man any more than
between God and the fallen angels." (Works, 619.) This
intercourse with him, therefore, after the fall, was a matter,
not of strict justice, but of compassion, and to prepare the
* Lee. 46, vol. i, p. 466.




~ 45. CORPOREAL DEATH AND THE PENALTY.  337
way for his redemption from the thrall into which he had
been taken. It was therefore not of law but of grace, and
this is the only proper way to view it. And let it be particularly noted, that this whole arrangement respecting the
serpent, Eve, Adam, the ground, etc., was made after the
promise had been given of a Saviour, and after the Saviour had commenced his work of redemption.  And this
being so, what idea would the opposite construction compel
us to form of the Ruler of the Universe?  He first promises redemption from the penalty, and grants a Saviour, and
then goes back of this promise and inflicts the penalty
itself!  This cannot be, and therefore this whole matter is
related to the covenant of grace and not of works.
And this is evident still further from  the fact that the
toil, labor, etc., here enumerated are all really blessings
in a sinful world to all who are willing to serve God.
How then can they constitute any part of the curse of the
law? Is the curse of the law disciplinary, as this would
infer?  Why then object to universal restoration?  If disciplinary, in any instance, where is the principle of limitation?  There is none, if causes, results, and consequences
are thus to be confounded together.
But not to dwell upon this point needlessly, let me here
advert to an approved sentiment of all our best divines.
It is expressed as follows by' Andrew Fuller: " While its
[the earth's] fruitfulness is withheld, this has a merciful
tendency to stop the progress of sin; for if the whole earth
were like the plains of Sodom in fruitfulness, which are
compared with the garden of God, its inhabitants would be
as Sodom and Gomorrah in wickedness.  The necessity of
hard labor, too, in obtaining a subsistence, which is the lot
of the far greater part of mankind, tends more than a little,
by separating men from each other, and depressing their
spirits, to restrain them from the excesses of evil.  A 11 the
afflictions of the present life contain in them a motive to look
2upward for a better portion, and death itself is a monitor
to warn them  to prepare to meet their God." (Works,
22




338         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 45.
p. 354.)  And hence, says Isidore, quoted by Bernard:
"O mors, quamn dulcis es miseris! quam suavis es amare
viventibus! quarn jueunda es tristibus, atque lugentibus!"
And he adds: "It puts an end to all the evils of this life,
and a period to all the miseries of time, removes every calamity, and ends all our troubles."  Such language is common with all Christians.  Why then claim that these provisions of mercy are the curse of the law.  I repeat it,
that such an idea may well lead the impenitent to hope that
mercy will thus interpose in relation to the execution of the
penalty also in the world to come. And I know not why
such a hope may not be indulged, if disciplinary chastisement is to be thus made a part of the threatened penalty of
the law.
15. In conclusion, therefore, I remark that theologians
generally have perplexed this whole subject by insisting that
the severance of body and soul is a part of the penalty in
Gen. ii, 17, instead of permitting the matter to stand in the
relation wherein God has placed it; that is, as not connected with the covenant of works, but with the work of
the Mediator, Christ Jesus.  To say that the results,or
consequences, of the Divine arrangements which followed
the introduction of sin into the world, are the threatened
penalty of sin, is not to speak with logical precision, nor
as the Scriptures themselves speak on the subject; for all
that God has done in mercy for the world may be thus
brought into the same category, as it is, in fact, substantially, by not a few who have written on the subject. Such
speculations have, moreover, favored the Annihilationist
scheme, and have involved in confusion the whole subject
of the Divine penalty in its relation to the expiation of sin
through our adorable Redeemer, till we now see mea on
precisely the same principle maintain the silly notion that
remorse of conscience is part of the penalty, and on such
preposterous grounds assert that Jesus did not endure the
legal penalty for sin because he did not suffer remorse!
I shall conclude with a passage or two from  Dr. Hop



~ 45. CORPOREAL DEATH AND THE PENALTY. 339
kins, who has evidently given much thought to the subject.
"It farther follows," says he, "that separation of soul and
body is no part of the punishment threatened. The death
threatened was quite of a different kind, and not only does
not include, but necessarily excludes, separation of soul and
body. Had the punishments taken place and been executed without any mitigation, or had there been no reprieve
and redemption for man, this separation of soul and body
could not have taken place; because the punishment deserved, and therefore the punishment threatened, was evil
to the whole nman, or the man made up of soul and body.
This creature, consisting of body and soul, which were
essential constituent parts of the man, was threatened, and,
if he sinned, was to be punished; and not one part only,
while the other is taken down and annihilated. Therefore
this could not take place consistent with the full execution
of the threatening. It is not so great an evil for the mind
only to suffer, as it is to be miserable, or to suffer evil, in
body and soul. The man is capable of suffering unspeakable evil, or pain, in his body; therefore this suffering
must be included in the threatening. And this proves that
separation of soul and body could not be the subject of a
threatening, that is, could not be threatened; for this would
not have been an evil, in that case, but a negative good,
which cannot be the subject of a threatening, but rather of
a promise; for evil only can be threatened, and not good,
negative or positive. Separation of body and soul would
have been a mitigation of punishment, and would have rendered man not capable of suffering so much as ini body and
soul united; therefore it could not be threatened as a punishment, it being no part or kind of punishment, but the contrary.
And under that constitution under which the threatening was
made, there was no provision for a reunion, if a separation
once took place; nor was it indeed possible there should be
a reunion, if a separation was threatened as a punishment,
and had the threatening been executed. Is it not hence
evident to a certainty that separation of soul and body




340         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 45.
could not have taken place had man been punished for disobedience according to the true threatening; and therefore
this was not included in the threatening, but on the contrary, was necessarily excluded? "  "They therefore must
have been greatly mistaken who have taught and asserted
that this was all that was threatened (that is, corporeal
death) in the Divine law, or as the penalty of eating the
forbidden fruit; and they have made as real a mistake who
have supposed that turning the body to dust is included in
the threatening, or any part of it, since the contrary is evidently true, namely,. that the threatening necessarily excludes it." See Hopkins's Divinity, vol. i, pp. 275, 276, 280.
II. There is another idea in this same connection which
calls for remark before we pass oln: it is the assertion frequently made, though the Annihilationists  profess to  dissent from it utterly, that corporeal death is natural to man;
that is, that it is a debt of nature, and not a result of sin.
While the Socinians, and along with them  the semiPelagians generally, maintained that corporeal death was
the penalty of the law, they were strongly inclined to
take under their protection that precious bantling of Pelagius that death is natural to man, and that God really created him mortal, that is, sub necessitate nmoriendi; a notion
which some claiming to be evangelical assert at the present
time. The logic by which these two ideas are divested of
their mutual antagonism to each other, and brought into a
peaceful and harmonious relation, has thus far remained concealed from the knowledge of the uninitiated, though from
other abundant evidence that with the Socinian school logical consistency is not regarded as a jewel, we are led to infer the existence therein of a principle of doctrinal sympathy, or assimilation, which lies far back of all the acknowledged principles of ratiocination, at the same time that none
have ever put forth higher claims to be guided by pure
reason in all such matters than they.
Now if death is natural to man, that is, if man were created under the necessity of dying, it can need no words to




~ 45.    CORPOREAL DEATH NOT NATURAL.              341
convince any person of common sense that it can be neither
the result nor the penalty of transgression; and vice versa,
if it be the result of sin it can be in no sense regarded as
natural.  To dwell upon so obvious a truth seems quite
unnecessary.  Dr. Hodge, in his commentary on Romans,
has, however, inconsiderately countenanced the inaccuracy
by employing the phrase'" natural death," a phrase which,
unless I err, is never found in the Commentary of his great
exemplar, Dr. Gomar.
When men permit themselves, however, to lose sight of
the fact that all the proceedings of God in respect to this
world are regulated by the consideration that we are fallen
beings, having departed from our original position in the
scale of moral intelligence, their speculations may well be
expected to run into hallucination, and to develop many
such preposterous notions as the aforesaid. A signal example of such extravagance is furnished by the well-intended
treatise of Dr. Combe on the " Constitution of AMlan," which,
while it enunciates with the air of a profound discoverer in
philosophy facts and principles of which any intelligent
school-boy would blush to be thought ignorant, its author
undertakes to arraign, without giving himself the trouble to
understand it, the principle asserted by the venerated Dr.
Wardlaw, that the world in its present fallen and sin-cursed
condition does not present a fair representation of the
principles of its original constitution, a statement which,
one might well suppose, could scarcely be objected to by
an intelligent mind. And any attempt to account for the
evils and miseries, and apparent disorders of this world, on
principles which do not recognize as a starting point the
depravity of man or his voluntary departure from God,
must be not only futile and abortive, but in their logical
sequence produce skepticism, and eventually the denial of
God. The fall of man alone furnishes the key to the mysterious proceedings of Providence in relation to our world.
The idea that in man's pristine state the natural elements
were at war with him as now, is perfect folly. (See the




342         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 45.
note of Calvin on Gen. iii, 19.) To pursue this point would
lead us from the immediate issue; but it may be proper to
remark, that since the fall God's creative power even has
been called into operation for man's chastisement as a consequence of sin, and produced " thorns and thistles," which
previous to the entrance of sin had no existence in this then
lovely universe. Junilius beautifully remarks: " Ex eo,
quod Deus dixit: Ecce dedi vobis omnem'J  herbam, patet
quod nihil noxium terra protulit, et nullam herbam venenatam, et nullum arborem sterilern." And our best divines
have ever affirmed that noxious plants, insects, reptiles, etc.,
were the result of sin's introduction here. It is needless
to dwell upon the' point, or to give numerous references.
Let the reader consult Basil, in lib. de Paradiso; Luther in
Gen. i; Polanus, Syntag: Theol., p. 975; and Pareus in Gen.
i. and iii. They present not only their own, but the approved
views of the Church of Christ in relation to the subject.
It would therefore be as proper to plead that these disorders, and all antagonisms to the pristine and happy condition of the earth, are in accordance with the original constitution of things, as that sickness and mortality are. And
the objections of Socinus, Pye Smith, Sturm, and others, are
of no weight, since they all illogically take for granted the
baseless assumption that sin has produced no change in the
nature of things. See some of the speculations of Socinus on
this subject in Opp., tom. ii, pp. 305, 308. His opposition
to the doctrine of imputation brought forth such utterances.
It is scarcely proper to omit noticing in this connection
the mistaken views of that truly great and good man, the
late Dr. Emmons; in relation to the same point. He has
in his speculations partially ignored the effects of the fall,
and the views to which he was logically led in consequence
appear to me to be impious in a high degree. His language on the subject would better befit a real atheist
than a Christian divine. (See, for instance, his sermon on
Gen. xlv, 5.) His favorite argument to prove God the
efficient author of sin was this: "' Sin takes place according




~ 45.    CORPOREAL DEATH NOT NATURAL.            343
to the usual laws of nature; and as, according to Newton,
the laws of nature are the established modes of the Divine
operation, therefore God is the author of sin." And in
exact accordance with this, he says: "When Moses called
upon Pharoah to let the people go, God stood by him and
moved him to refuse; when the people departed from his
kingdom, God stood by him and moved him to pursue after
them with increased malice and revenge."  He thus utterly
confounds the idea of sustaining in existence a voluntary
agent, with the idea of acting through the will of that agenta distinction which is perfectly obvious. But I refer here
to this unintentional but intolerable blasphemy, as an illustration of the consequences which must flow from any attempt to reason from the present disordered state of the
world, to its primitive condition; that is, to lose sight of
the fall, and to regard the present condition of the earth
and mankind as their original constitution. And I shall here
add a few words showing the mistake which Dr. Emmons,
and those who agree with him, have made in consequence
of this assumption.
In the foregoing argument Dr. Emmons has included,
without distinction, both physical and intellectual nature,
and reasons from one to the other. This is correct on his
principle, that sustaining in existence is not to be distinguished from actuating; a principle, however, which, if true
of material nature, is by no means necessarily true of the
intellectual and moral.
A distinction is therefore here made by others; and it is
maintained that the laws of material nature are nothing
more nor less than God operating, as when a stone is cast
into the air the attraction of gravitation, called a law of
nature, is only God drawing it down again.  Such is the
philosophical idea, and even Tholuck says: " The life in the
universe cannot be regarded as absolutely distinct from the
life of God. God continues and supports the world by a
continual creation, for such in fact is preservation. The life
of the world is the breath of Jehovah, its active powers the




344          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.    ~     45.
working of his omnipresence; the laws of nature are
not therefore fixed once and forever." And  he quotes
Augustine as saying, " Lex qaaturce est voluiztas Dei," etc.,:nud then adds: "The laws of nature are mere abstractions
w-hich men make from the usual operations of God.  It can
therefore by no means be said, that his usual operations, as
in immediate revelation and miracles, are violations of the
laws of nature.  There is no essential difference between
immediate and mediate operations; it is merely the difference between the unusual and usual." e
Such is a fair presentation of this philosophical theory as
regards material nature; and while something in the representation may be properly admitted, the adoption of the
whole involves, by fair consequence, an admission of the
substantial truth of Pantheism.
But other theologians, as above remarked, have, with Dr.
Emmons, advanced a step farther, and carried these speculations into the world of mind; and by thus assuming that
man, acting agreeably to the existing laws of mind, is God acting, God is irresistibly made the author of all moral evil, and
of all the disorders of this fallen universe, in the very worst
and most offensive sense that can be attached to the terms.
I have remarked above, that to sustain or continue in
existence a moral and intellectual being, does not by any
means infer an authorship of the acts of that creature; and
to affirm (for this whole argument is built on the assumption) that God cannot form an intelligent creature who shall
be wholly dependent upon him for the endowment and continuance of all its powers and faculties, and for rendering
them  fit and apt for their most natural movements and.
operations, and yet who shall not be dependent upon him
for its volitions, or for the manner in which it uses its
powers,t is, to speak plainly, an assumption which is as
nonsensical as it is arrogant.  Who  dare lay claim  to
knowledge sufficient to justify an asseveration so audacious?.
* Princeton Essays, 1846, p. 606, 607.
t We shall refer to this more fully in another chapter.




~ 45.    CORPOREAL DEATH NOT NATURAL.               345
Now in contemplating the matter in its relation to man,
we are ever to bear in mind that God created him  to
endure, that is, endowed him with an immortality of existence. And while we despise and throw back upon its
authors the pitiful imputation of "' making God a machinist,"
we will suppose, for illustration, that a man were able to
construct and give operation as well as rational powers to a
complex piece of mechanism, which at all events he designs
should exist and operate for a long period of time, say fifty
years; but a portion of the work soon becomes disordered
and produces confusion, yet, as by a specific arrangement
he has formed it for continuance of action during the period
of timle above named, he continues to preserve it in existence.  Now for all purposes which are actually involved in
the issue, this analogy (though imperfect, as all analogies on
such a subject must be) is precisely in point; and in view
of it I ask, Will any man who can make a distinction,
pretend that this inventor is the cause of the conflusion
referred to?  Will any one pretend that he is the author of
the continued confusion, simply because he fulfills his
arrangement to keep the machine in being?  It is obvious
that such reasoning would be false, and not even touch the
point of the question raised, because, when he gave existence
to the machine, its continuance for fifty years was to be
irrespective of the question whether it would for that time
continue to move correctly or incorrectly. By hypothesis
it is endowed with rationality, and with the power to move
correctly.  Should it choose to move otherwise this does not
oblige the author to cease to supply it with sustaining power,
nor does it infer that because he does not cease to do so, he
is therefore the author and contriver of its evil operations.
So too with the universe. God originally created it "very
good," and established good and supremely excellent laws
in relation to its operation.  None of these laws worked
pain, or disease, or death, but they have become disordered
now by the voluntary act of the creature, and against the
wish of the..Ureator, (for this is Scripture and common sense,




346         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 45.
however metaphysical subtlety may labor to perplex the
point,) and they do now  work pain, and disease, and
death; and therefore it is as sheer folly to say that the
operation of those laws in this disordered state of things is
God operating by his original constitution, as it would be, in
the case supposed, to say that the confusion working in the
aforesaid machine is the skill of the artist in operation, or
that he is the author and contriver of all the ill-working of
his design. While the work continued to move correctly,
it is fair to say that its results were the operations of the
artist; but when they ceased to operate thus, it is a shameful
perversion and abuse of language to say that its ill-workings
are the operation of its author. So too with respect to God;
his primary plans, his unknown purposes and laws, have
nothing to do with the question in its relation to us; and
according to what is known and revealed, we affirm that
while nature continued in its original constitution, that is,
as he called it into being, it is fair to say that its operation
was the operation of God; but to assert this, especially of
mind now  in its disordered condition, is the fatuity of
imbecility.
The fall of man, therefore, and the voluntary perversion
of his powers, and the consequent perversion of all the
powers of nature in this world, are ever to be taken into
the account in treating upon this subject.
To return to the point immediately at issue, therefore, I
remark that corporeal death is not a debt of nature, but a
result of sin.
The true idea on this subject is thus presented by Parcezus
(in Gen. ii, 17)- in reply to the allegation of Socinus, that
death is natural to man: "God did not create death; how
then can it be natural to man? And how can death be
called natural to man when it is, per se, the destruction of
his nature?  How  shall that be natural which is against
and not according to nature, and which is totally abhorrent
from nature? and which, with such great sorrow and suffering, is conjoined to nature? and of which nature, previous to




~ 45.    CORPOREAL DEATH NOT NATURAL.               34T
the fall, was free, and shall be also free after the final judgment.  Death is therefore not natural because it destroys
nature." And Schmidt (Colleg. Biblic., ii, p. 375,) with equal
force remarks: "Certainly  that which is congruous to
nature, and which pertains to it in its integrity, cannot be
called an enemy and hostile, as death is here expressly said to
be by the apostle." 1 Cor. xv, 26. I make these quotations
not as authoritative, but as carrying their own weight in
the argument, and as representing also the views of the
Church of Christ in the matter. And that they do this is
further apparent from the following extract from a sermon
(" On the State of Mlan before the Fall ") by the learned
Bishop Bull: " That Adam should not have died if he had
not sinned,' is so manifestly the doctrine of the Scriptures
and of the Church of God, both before and since Christ our
Saviour's appearance in the flesh, that Pelagius of old, and
Socinus in this latter age, are justly to be esteemed the
in ost impudent of mortals for daring to call it in question."
And accordingly we find in the first four centuries of the
Church an unbroken testimony on the subject.  For example, Gregory Nazicanzen (De Creat. Hom., c. xi,) says:
"For if God had created man mortal from the beginning,
he never wouldhave condemned sin by death; for in no
conceivable way could he condemn a mortal by inflicting
upon him mortality."  Augustine, too, (De Civ. Dei, lib.
xiii, cap. xv,) says: "It is agreed upon among Christians
who truly hold the catholic faith, that corporeal death is not
by a law of nature, but deservedly inflicted on account of
sin; because God, in avenging sin, said to the man in whom
we all then were, (in quo tune omnes eramus,)'Dust thou
art, and into dust thou shalt go."' And accordingly, when
the Pelagian notion called for particular attention in the fifth
century  the Church uttered her voice in the following
canon of the council at Milevia in Numidia, A. D 416:
"Whoever shall say that the first man, Adam, was created
mortal, so that whether he should sin or not sin, he would have
died corporeally, not from desert of sin, but by a necessity.




348        IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.                 ~ 45.
of nature, anathema sit." Cap. i.  I trust that even theologastrians will not mistake my object in adducing these testimonies, as my intention is thereby to present a fair expression of the views of the Church of Christ on the subject.
III. We shall now proceed to consider death in the sense
of a severance of soul and body, and also the manner in
which it is referred to in the Scriptures; though, as we
have been in the course of our argument already necessitated
to refer to this matter so frequently, it will be needless here
to go into any lengthened details respecting it.
The terms by which death, in the sense of a severance of
soul and body, is designated in the Scriptures, evince the
idea which the Spirit of God designed that man should attach to it.  Some of those terms have been referred to above
and explained. A brief enumeration of them is all that we
shall here attempt:
1. It is spoken of as a return to dust, (Gen. iii, 19,) which
of course imports a dissolution of that part of' our nature
which was originally derived from the earth, and of that
only.  See Gen. ii, 7; Eccles. xii, 7; Hag. ii, 23.
2. It is also a giving back of the spirit, (Gen. xlii, 13,) au
idea which is sometimes expressed also by referring, to the
visible effect-a ceasing to breathe. (Psa. civ, 29.)
3. It is also a departure from the earthly body when that
is destroyed. (2 Cor. v, 1.)  Hence, too, it is called a going
away. (Job. x, 21; Psa. xxxix; iv, 13.)
4. It is also named a sleep, (Psa. lxxvi, 7; John xi, 13,)
and hence is also described by the term " lying down."
5. It is called a gathering to one's people, or a going to
one's fathers. See sect. 29, sub-sect. 3, above.
6. It is an entrance into rest. (Rev. xiv, 13.)
This enumeration is sufficient for the argument, and we
proceed to the subject of our next chapter.




46.      CONSCIOUSNESS AFTER DEATH.              349
CHAPTER II.
MIAN'S CONSCIOUS EXISTENCE NOT INTERRIUPTED BY
DEATH-INFERENCES-CONCLUSION OF TIHE ARGUMENT.
THE proof that man retains his conscious being after corporeal dissolution has been in general exhibited on the preceding pages. It is not our design, therefore, to present
here a recapitulation of that proof, but to consider and illustrate the fact itself from various points of view, analogical
and otherwise, in which it is not therein contemplated.
~ 46. Se9paration of Soul and Body does not infer the loss
of Consciouzsness.
The severance of the interior of our nature from the exterior and visible in no sense infers either the extinction or
unconsciousness of the former. To employ (without indors
ing all the phraseology) the impressive language of a writer
quoted in the little work of Professor Bush on the soul,
"Into the spirit-world man enters at death. While in this'lower world his spiritual body was within his natural body,
giving it life, and power, and sense. It was always his
spiritual eye which saw, his spiritual ear which heard, his
spiritual sense which took cognizance of all things about him.
But while he lived in the material body it was only through
the material organs of that body that the eye of his spiritual
body could see and its ear could hear; and for that purpose
these natural organs were exquisitely fitted to the spiritual
organs, which they served as instruments. But when these
material organs or coverings fall off the spiritual eye, the




350         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 46
true and living eye does not lose the power of seeing. It
loses the power of seeing the material things for which it
once possessed a material organ, and acquires the power of
seeing the spiritual substances and forms which this material
organ had vailed." P. 113.
In the soul, as is conceded by all, dwells the conscious
personality, the principle which gives life and animation to
the body. On what ground, therefore, is it to be inferred
that the dissolution of a material organism infers also the
dissolution of the power which employed that organism as
the instrument of its perceptions? The man who should
infer in respect to another person, that the faculty of vision
was utterly extinguished in him, because he had lost or mislaid his spectacles, would support his position by as good
reasoning as our antagonists herein support theirs.
1. That the soul may exist separately from the body is
conceded even by many of our opponents who claim to be
materialists. Ab uno disce muultos. E. 85 says: " Some beings
seem to live by the pure ruea, or spirit, without the intervention of the atmosphere; such are called spiritual beings."
"Demons are called spirits, by which we understand spiritual beings, beings that live by means of the pure or unadulterated spirit, or principle of all life."  According to this
admission, then, the only question to settle is, whether man's
interior life is spiritual. And that such is its nature, and
that it can exist in a state of separation from the body, is
evident from the fact that its conscious existence is not necessarily suspended by swoon, coma, drowning, etc.
The facts are so abundant which establish this point that
it were idle to attempt to specify all, or to enlarge upon
them.  Let the reader refer to the well-known treatise of
Rush on the Mind, or Abercrombie's " Inquiry into the Intellectual Powers," or Nelson's "Cause and Cure of Infidelity," especially chapter lvii, for facts on the subject. The
well-attested case of Rev. William Tennent, of New Jersey,
and also that of Thomas Say, are in point.* Dr. Adami Clarke
* See Life of T. Say, by Dr. Say, of Philadelphia. 1796.




~ 46.      CONSCIOUSNESS AFTER DEATH.              351
also stated to Dr. Lettsom, of London, that during the
period of his apparent death or unconsciousness from drowning he felt " indescribably happy, and did not for a sinyle
moment lose his consciousness."  Similar and equally wellattested facts have been abundant in all ages, evincing the
separability of the soul from the body. The same is shown
by the case of Clazomenius, mentioned by Pliny, Hist. Nat.,
lib. vii, cap. iii, and that of Cornelius, mentioned by A.
Gellius, Noct. Attic., lib. xv, cap. 18, and the similar one of
Apollonius, mentioned by Philostratus, lib. viii, cap. xxvi.
See also section 14, supra.
The phenomena of Mesmerism may be likewise here referred to in illustration of the same point.  We have nothing to do with any theory on the subject. We advert
merely to the well-established facts, which may be found,
for instance, in the work of I. P. F. Deleuze, or in the Psycodunamy, by Theodore Leger, (New York, Appleton & Co.,
1846,) in which treatises there are many facts given, (whatever may be said or thought of the others,) the truth of
which cannot be set aside except on principles which must,
if applied, unsettle the basis of all history; facts, too, which
are utterly subversive of the whole theory of materialism.
The favorite objection by which the Materialist endeavors
to sustain his system against facts like those above referred
to is, that pressure on the brain produces unconsciousness.
By unconsciouzsness he means a total suspension of thought,
or intellectual exercise.  But this is a mere assumption.
All that he is entitled to claim is, that in specific cases, pressure upon that organ has produced such an effect as prevents
the remembrance of our mental exercises in the interval.
And this we are willing to admit; nor does it at all conflict
with the facts alleged above in the case of Tennent and
others. (This point has likewise been considered in sect. 14,
supra.)  And in the same connection we may refer our Materialist friends to such facts as the following. In the fourth
volume of the Memoirs of the Literary and Philosophical
Society of Manchester, Dr. Ferriar has fully established the




352          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 46.
fact that every part of the brain has been injured without
affecting the act of thought.  The facts therein presented
have shaken the whole theory of Materialism to its foundation; nor have its advocates attempted a reply.*  The same
may be said of the remarkable occurrence which took place
at Cavendish, Vermont, September 13, 1848, and which has
been fully reported by Dr. H. 1. Bigelow, Professor of Surgery
in Harvard University, and attested also by Drs. Harlow
and Williams.  By an accidental explosion of powder in
blasting a rock, an iron bar, weighing thirteen and a quarter
pounds, (three feet and seven inches in length, one inch and
a quarter in diameter,) was projected directly upward, passing entirely through the head of Mr. Gage, (who was holding it,) and was picked up some rods distant from the place,
besnmeared with his brains and blood.  There was no perceptible suspension of consciousness, or of thought, and he
ultimately recovered his health.  The testimony throughout
is positive and complete, and is of such a character that no
intelligent man would imperil his reputation for sense and
candor by attempting to call in question the truth of any of
the details respecting it.  The theory of Materialism can no
more sustain itself against the testimony of facts like these,
than (to use a simile of Isaac Taylor) a citadel of rooks can
sustain its integrity against a volley of musketry.
2. The subject may be illustrated likewise by the ancient
ideas of the soul, as preserved by tradition.  The idea of its
divine origin is presented, for instance, by Seneca, Epist. xcii;
LEpictetus, Dissert. i, cap. xiv; Cicero, Tuscul. Qumest., lib. i;
and De Divinatione, lib. i, not to name the other and earlier
philosophers referred to in part i, chapter iii, above. But on
these things it is unnecessary to enlarge.
In all languages there is a clear distinction made between
the soul and body, and to the soul is attributed a separate
name.f  Now original terms, according to the unvarying
* See Wood on the Mosaic Creation, pp. 387, 388; and also Abercronmbie's Inquiry, pp. 121, 122.
I' See in Biblic. Repos. for Oct., 1850, an article on the "'12,ames of the




~ 46.       CONSCIOUSNESS AFTER DEATH.                353
laws of language, always indicate a distinct belief of some
corresponding entity; for men do not thius invent words as
original and distinguishing names, without such belief; and
hence the mere fact that in all languages there are names
for soul as distinct as those for body, evinces that man has
always believed as much in the independent entity of the one
as of the other.
In the Scriptures we find this idea exemplified in every
form, and the terms tar:, bvyXq, employed to designate the
idea expressed by our English word soul.  The origin of
these terms (and in fact of all through which they are supposed to be derived) seems in some way to convey the idea
of air in motion, as in breathing and blowing.  The same
may be said of the corresponding Latin terms, animus, anima,
spiritus. And Grimm has traced our Saxon term soul to a
similar origin so far as etymology is concerned. The word
ghost likewise has the same origin?.  There is, however,
another term, often used interchangeably with soul in the
Greek and Latin, and in modern European tongues, which
has no such origin, the Greek vofig, from viseo, to know;
the Latin correspondilg term is mens, and the English mind.
Originally these terms signified that which knows, or understands, and they are derived from the root mnea, to know,
an etymon which, though now lost in the European lanTguages, is preserved, like many of their common roots, in the
Sanscrit.t
The former of these etymologies has been made the foundation of an objection by the Materialists to the separate existence of the soul, which should be here noticed.  It is claimed
that men originally could have had no other idea of the soul's
existence than that it was evanescent, like the breath. But
this appears to be a very frivolous objection; certainly
Soul," by Dr. Tayler Lewis. It displays his usual masterly ability, but
is disfigured by his use of the term immateriality, and by a captious objection to the phrase "' man's interior life," as applied to express the idea
of the soul's existence within the body.
* Trenchs explanation of this term is pedantic and unauthorized,
t See Bush on the Soul, p. 26.'aft




354         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 46.
it does not evince a very profound view of the subject.
Breathing, as thus associated with their idea of the soul, referred not to the act of inhalation, but to the thing inhaledto wit, the air.  Now the body of man being visible, and
his soul or inner life invisible, though active and power-:I'l, they, in giving expression to this idea, chose that object
in nature which to them seemed to express it most nearly.
Hence the air, atmosphere, wind, was selected as being an
invisible and yet active and powerful agent, and as giving,
as near as could be, expression to their ideas. The objeeo
tion, therefore, only confirms the position which it aims to
subvert.
3. That the term soul in the Scriptures is employed in the
sense of personal hypostasis no one can question.  See tj.p
as used in such passages as the following: "My soul (that is,
I myself) shall live because of thee." Gen. xii, 13. See
also xix, 20; xxvii, 4; xix, 31; xl, 6. So too in Exod.
xxx, 15: "To make an atonement for your souls;" also,
xi, 43, 44; Deut. iv, 15; Judges v, 21; 16, 30; Esther
iv, 13; Job vii, 15; and in other places. So too in Psa.
iii, 2; vii, 5; xxxi, 7.  But it is unnecessary to specify
other instances. In the same manner also %bvxy is employed
in the New Testament. (Luke i,-46; Rom. xiii, 1; 2 Cor.
xii, 15; James v, 20; 2 Pet. ii, 14.)
It is proper to observe likewise in the same connection, that
6Pn; nt,~ and bvxi) and rrvetma, are employed indifferently
in the sense of person or personal agent.  Let, the following
examples suffice: Gen. xiv, 21; xvii, 44; Exod. i, 5; Lev.
xvii, 12, 15; xxiii, 30; Deut. ii, 30; Job xv, 13; Psa. xxxii,
2; Prov. xiv, 25; xvi, 32; Luke i, 46, 47; Acts ii, 41;
vii, 14-27, 43; Rom. ii, 9. And let the reader compare
this usage also with that which occurs in such passages as
the following: 1 Sam. xvi, 14; 1 Kings xxii, 21, 22; Job
iv, 15; Zech. xiii, 2; Matt. x, 1; Luke xxiv, 39; Heb. i,
14; xii, 22, 23.
To save space, I make these references merely instead of
quoting the passages. Every reader can easily turn to them




~ 46.      CONSCIOUSNESS AFTER DEATH.             355
and verify the truth of the representation which we have
made. The interior, living, acting principle of man is thus
as fully recognized as a personal agent as angels or devils
themselves. It is always recognized as the ultimate agent
of thought and feeling in man; and it is scarcely necessary
to add, this recognition comports entirely with human consciousness. What man ever felt that his body, or any part
of it, is'this ultimate agent or personality? And I may
add, in conclusion of this point, that the Bible everywhere
affirms that it is to this soul, or spirit in man, that all
human thought, feeling, and consciousness should be and
must be referred. See Psalm vi, 4; xxxiv, 18; li, 10;
lxxvii, 6; Prov. xi, 13; xv, 13; Eccles. i, 14; vii, 8, 9;
Ezek. xi, 5; Dan. ii, 1; Matt. v, 3; xxvi, 41; and other
passages almost innumerable.
4. The diligent inquirer into the truth on the grand subject before us will here be led, doubtless, to ask, If these
things are so, on what principle, either of Scripture, reason,
or common sense, is it to be inferred that this conscious
personality is to cease upon its being divested of a mere
material instrument for holding intercourse with a material
sphere? In nature itself there is no reason for such a supposition, and all analogy is against it. And the only ground
which, with any degree of plausibility, has been pleaded
from  the Scriptures, is that death is therein sometimes
spoken of as a sleep. And this we grant. The question,
however, is, what is the import of this language?
It is a fact acknowledged in philosophy, that sleep does
not necessarily suspend our intellectual operations; on the
contrary, we are assured that God has often chosen this as
the period to commune with the souls of his people. There
is, however, one thought on the subject which it would be
well for those to remember who, on such ground, hope for
impunity after death. Sleep generally suspends only those
intellectual operations which depend on volition, (though
sometimes these are by no means suspended, as facts
abundantly show,) and hence all such operations as depend




356         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.    ~     46.
not on the will may continue during sleep.  Those which
depend upon association, for instance, continue; and the soul
may, and often does, suffer during them as much as during
wakeful hours. Take then the idea in its literal import,
and death, while it suspends the power of choice, leaves
memory awake, and the soul must, by association, dwell
upon the past, while conscience still prophecies of the future.
For the sinner in hell, therefore, volition can accomplish
nothing. (See Luke xvi, 23-31.) He will be, so to speak,
beyond that; but memory, the power of association, conscience, will still live, and perform their terrible and effectual work. (Mark ix, 43-49.)  If our opponents, therefore,
claim that death is literally sleep, it will bring no relief to
their theory.
But that the term sleep, is often employed metaphorically
none but a theologastrian will dispute, for what else can be
made of it in such passages as Psalm  xliv, 23: "Awake,
why sleepest thou, 0 Lord?" (Compare Psalm cxxi, 3, 4.)
See also Psalm lxxiii, 20, and lxxviii, 65. As applied, too,
to the dead in sin, it implies no suspension of consciousness.
See Eph. ii, 1, with v, 14. And as applied strictly to the
corporeally dead, it is but a metaphorical euphemism which
may be found in all languages, and (whatever may be the
popular belief respecting death) is derived from the resemblance which a dead body bears to the body of a person
asleep.* But to dwell upon such a matter here is needless,
and I will merely add a remark or two evincing what has
always been the view entertained of it by the Christian
Church.
The excellent reformer Andrew Hyperius, in his commentary on 1 Thess. iv, 13, 14, after remarking that the
word sleep does not mean, as some dream, that the soul
will be unconscious until the day of judgment, or become
extinct, adds: "The death of the righteous is truly nothing
* See section 27, sub-section 4, above; also the excellent remarks of
Limborch, Theol., lib. vi, cap. x, sec. 8, and Flacius, Clavis, Art. Dormire, p. 258, and Campbell's Prelim. Dissert., vi, part ii, sec. 23.




g 46.       CONSCIOUSNESS AFTER DEATH.                    357
else than a sweet repose, whence they shall be aroused at
the coming of Christ to enjoy a far higher felicity."   And
Calvin, in his Psychopannychia, (as quoted by Henry,
vol. i, p. 45,) says: "We would now  say somewhat respecting the peace of pious souls separated from the body.
Holy Scripture, by'Abraham's bosom,' intends us to understand nothing more than the state of rest. In the first
place, then, we call rest that which those masterly theologians call sleep; and by rest we understand, not a state of
stupor, torpidity, or drunkenness, as they do, but a state of
conscious, happy security and trust, which faith indeed
already, in some degree, bestows upon us, but which cannot be perfected until after death."  And Augustine, the
Calvin of the early Church, says: (De Civit. Dei, xiii,
cap. viii:) "For the souls  off the righteous, being separated from  the body, are at rest; but the souls of the
wicked are punished until the time when the bodies
of those shall be awakened to eternal life, and of these
to eternal death, that death which is called the second
death."
5. Nothing can be plainer, therefore, even from these
considerations alone, (not to speak of the long catalogue of
proofs in the foregoing part of this volume,) than that the
soul continues its conscious existence when the body dies.
There are, however, several points of illustration on which
we might dwell; for example, its activity when the body is
dying,* and the plain fact that extinction is inconsistent with
* What does Dr. Post mean by proposing to " dismiss all arguments
from the phenomena of the soul at or near the death of the body?"
(See New Englander, xiv, p. 115.) The expression, however explained,
was wholly uncalled for, and the reasons offered to justify it are, to say
the most that can be said for them, simply puerile, and evince that Dr.
Post has no just appreciation of the facts in the case. In other branches
of the argument he has evinced consummate ability; but as a chosen
representative of the evangelical sentiment, (and as such he wrote,) he
had no right, by a vapid attempt at rhetorical flourishing, which will not
even bear analysis, to ignore the argument referred to. Butler, in the
"Analogy," has stated it with his usual felicity and power, and it is
illustrated by many facts of overpowering interest in that truly remark



358           IMMORTALITY  OF THE SOUL.                   ~ 46.
identity, which no reasonable person can deny. But omitting these, I shall briefly illustrate the point that separation
does not involve extinction of consciousness or of vital
power on the part of the soul. We cannot pretend to add
anything to the force of the Divine testimony on the subject, but yet it may be perfectly proper to illustrate the
point by analogies derived from nature; for, as Butler
remarks, (Analogy, chap. i,) death removes the living creatures from our view. It destroys the sensible proof which
we had before their death of their being possessed of living
powers, but does not appear to afford the least reason to
believe that they are then, or by that event, deprived of
them.
I have remarked that all the analogies in nature are
against the supposition that tile disappearance, through death,
of the manifestation of the living powers possessed by our
fellow-creatures infers the extinction of those powers, however intimate we may conceive the relation to be which
able work of Dr. Nelson on "The Cause and Cure of Infidelity;" a
work, major omni non soumn vituperatione, sed etiawn laude. Now what
does Dr. Post mean by the assertion that " those phenomena are too
various, and too much associated with doubtful or occult causes, to
authorize any Sure inferences from them?' It looks very much like
taking a step in the direction of Dr. Whately. But he adds that " they
[the phenomena] of necessity cease when the organ of their manifestation-the body-perishes; " a statement intended, doubtless, to correct
the misapprehensions of such persons as may think that " the phenomena" do not then cease. He adds likewise that " the battle between the
soul and the terrible foe which has conquered its material companion,
now withdraws into an awful mystery, where mortal vision cannot follow
it." And yet he insists that death is simply a severance between soul
and body! The soul, then, has its battle with death after the body
perishes? What does Dr. Post mean by this? It is quite a step toward
the Annihilation theory, to bring death into battle with the soul after
the soul has left the body. He ought to know that the human mind
never has associated any such idea with physical death, and that it is as
false in the light of reason as of revelation. But if Dr. Post intended
only a rhetorical display, (and this is the most rational way to explain
the egregious trifling,) he should look at the sentiment as well as the
figures of his rhetoric, and select a topic of less importance to the eternal
interests of man. Let his Pegasus fly, but there is no necessity why
it should il its course brush out the stars.




~ 46.      CONSCIOUSNESS AFTER DEATH.             359
may subsist between soul and body. Take for instance a
piece of silver, and immerse it in diluted nitric acid, and
the affinity of the acid and the metal will cause them to
unite, a brisk action will ensue, and in a short time the
silver will be entirely dissolved, and yet the liquid will
remain as limpid as before. What then has become of the
solid piece of silver l Its hardness, luster, tenacity, specific
gravity, in a word, all the characteristics which distinguished
it as a metal are gone, its very form has vanished, and the
hard, splendid, opaque, ponderous metal that we saw existing but a few moments before is apparently annihilated.
Shall we conclude then that the metal is really destroyed,
because its presence is no longer appreciable by our senses?
We must so conclude on the principles of our adversaries,
But stay; place a piece of copper in the solution, to which it
has a stronger affinity than to silver, and the latter will be
disengaged and fall to the bottom in brilliant metallic
crystals, and the quantity thus deposited will correspond
exactly with the weight of the metal dissolved, and the
particles may be melted and the piece reproduced in its
original form.
We can scarcely conceive a greater change than that
which takes place on the decomposition of water, and the
conversion of its tasteless and salubrious liquid particles
into all inflammable, invisible, and noxious gas, and into a solid
body combined with iron. No annihilation could appear to
be more complete than that of the water in this process, to
those who are ignorant of the nature of the phenomenon,
and yet when that is known it affords one of the strongest
proofs of the indestructibility of matter. The changes that
occur on death are not greater, nor do they present a more
decided appearance of annihilation than the decomposition
of this fluid.
When we find too that the active and intimately connected subtile agents, light and heat, can be separated, and that
the balance of evidence warrants the supposition that they
are really distinct essences or forms of matter, all objec



360         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 46.
tions to the separate existence of the soul from the body,
founded upon their intimate connection with each other, appear futile; for in the instance before us we perceive two
subtile essences, of whose nature or of the minuteness of
whose particles we can form no conception, united so intimately as to appear one and the same, and yet capable of
being severed, and of having separate existences, The
union between the sentient principle and the human frame,
it must be borne in mind, is a union of two principles that
are manifestly distinct; and whether or not we admit that
the mind can exist without the body, we -must allow that no.
two conceivable things can exhibit greater dissimilarity than
gross substantial matter and the subtile essence, or incorruptible principle, which directs and ecatrols it. in the
case of light and heat, however, the two subtile essences
possess so close a resemblance that it becomes doubtful
whether they are identical or not, and yet those closely
connected properties of matter may be separated, and exist,
apparently at least, in separate and independent states;
and numerous experiments might be adduced to show that
heat is never annihilated, and that, when it is brought from
a latent into an active state, it is again diffused by radiation
and by conduction to other bodies.
But it w'ere endless to specify all the analogies which suggest themselves in view of this point, and it is time to
think of drawing this chapter to a close. There is one illustration, however, which 1may be adduced as a complete
offset to the reiterated asseverations of the Annihilationists,
that the destruction of the corporeal structure through
which the mind or soul manifests itself must. necessarily
infer the extinction of the soul itself.
If, for instance, a ray of the sun's light be admiitted!
through a small hole in the shutter of a darkened room, and
be permitted to fall upon a piece of black cloth, which reflects none of the light, the room will appear to be in darkness, notwithstanding the ray of light from the sun passes
directly through it.  If however an orange, or other bright




~ 46.      CONSCIOUSNESS AFTER DEATH.               361
object, be placed in the ray, the reflection of the light from
its surface will not only render the object distinctly visible,
but will diffuse light to all parts of the room. Now in this
case no more light actually enters the room when the reflecting substance is placed in the ray, but5 owing to the
peculiar conformation of the surface of that body, it is
enabled to decompose the light, and to absorb all the colored
rays but the one which gives to it its peculiar color, and that
ray it reflects with inconceivable velocity in every direction.
If the reflecting substance be destroyed the room will again
become dark, for there will no longer be any object to reflect the ray. But are we to suppose, in accordance with
the theory of our Annihilationists, that with the destruction
of the reflecting substance the light it emitted is also destroyed?  The presence of light is indeed no longer apparent,
nor is the substance that reflected it capable of re-exerting
the same power, but nevertheless the light exists with equal
force, and possesses the same properties, though the form of
the object that caused the previous sensation of light and
color is destroyed.  That object was only the medium
through which the presence of light was manifested to the
senses, but the light still exists and streams onward, unseen,
indeed, but possessing the same energy as when rendered
sensible to the visual organs by the agency of a body competent to reflect it. Now if we were ignorant of the source
whence the light is derived, would not the supposition that
the light and color are still existing unaltered and undiminished, and that the substance we had beheld was not the
cause of the light, but was merely endued with properties
capable of rendering them apparent, be deemed utterly incredible? Assuming, therefore, that we were ignorant whence
the light originated under such circumstances, it would
be equally difficult to imagine the continued presence of
light and color in the midst of darkness, as it is, in our adnitted ignorance of the principle of life, to conceive that it
should continue to exist after the dissolution of the body;
and skeptics might raise even more weighty arguments




362           IMMORTALITY  OF THE SOUL.                   ~ 47.
against the former hypothesis than any they are able to
raise against the continued and conscious existence of the
soul.*
~ 47. Inferences from  the foregoing.
Thus, then, by the united testimony of tradition, the light
and analogies of nature; and the word of God, we are led
to the stupendously important conclusions:
1. That the life after death is an immediate continuation
of the present life. The soul is not altered in death, but
takes along with it its dispositions, its habits, and whole tendency, into the future world., The life to come, taken in
connection with the present, make together one whole, even
as manhood is only the continuance of youth.
2. That our state in the life to come is to be regarded as
the consequence of the present, since the consequences of all
our present dispositions, inclinations, and actions continue
here. Death determines the destiny of men in the future
world. It is here that man lays the foundation either for
his future happiness or misery; this is the state of probation,
that of retribution.t (See Luke xvi, 25; Heb. ix, 27; Rom.
ii, 5-12; 2 Cor. iv, 7; v, 10; Gal. vi, 7, 10; 1 Tim. iv,
18, 19.)
* See the foregoing, and many other illustrations and analogies. in
" Natural Evidence of a Future Life," by F. C. Bakewell. London, 1835.
I have made many efforts to procure a copy of this work, but in vain, and
my acquaintance with it is only through an able review in the Quarterly
Christian Spectator for 1836.
t See Knapp, Theol., sect. 148. In stating the foregoing inferences
I have adopted the language of this calm and philosophical, but devotedly
pious tbeologian. Let those words be seriously pondered by every reader.
And I lmay be permitted also to refer to the impressive remarks of J. D.
Michaelis, in Theol. Dog., sect. 157, De Statu Piorum, etc. With all his
propensity to trifle and play the fool, his great intellect could not approach
the contemplation of this theme without being manifestly aroused to deep
and earnest reflection. In my little work entitled "Rabbah Taken,"
chap. iv, sect. 5, I have illustrated at large the proposition that the soul
of man preserves its vital power unharmed through the whole process of
corporeal dissolution.




~ 48.                CONCLUSION.                    863
~ 48. Conclusion.
In our preceding allusions to the subject we have mentioried the received doctrine that the souls of the pious do
not at death enter upon the enjoyment of the highest bliss
of which they shall be capable after reunion with the body.
(See, for example, sect. 33, sub-sect. 10, above.) But let
no one infer from hence that there will be any absence
of heavenly felicity. It is only their imperfect state (a state
in which they are not possessed of their full being as men)
which necessitates this arrangement. At the resurrection
their public adoption, as the sons of God, and their joy and
happiness, will be complete.  Hence the children of God on
earth, and those in their disembodied state, look steadily
forward in expectation of that glorious consummation. And
I allude to the subject again here, in order to present a few
brief extracts from eminent moderns, and also the explanation given of the whole matter by the early Church, whose
views are so grossly perverted by our opponents.
1. Lord Verulam, referring to the subject, says: " I believe
that the souls of such as die in the Lord are blessed, and
rest from their labors, and enjoy the sight of God, yet so
as they are in expectation of a farther revelation of their
glory in the last day, at which time all flesh of man shall
arise and be changed, and shall appear and receive from
Jesus Christ his eternal judgment."  The great Cudworth t
says: "The complete salvation of man consisteth in the
perfection and happiness both of soul and body; for though
our salvation consists chiefly in the former, in the victory
over sin, and in the renovation of the mind, yet without the
latter, which is the victory over death, and the immortalizing
of our bodies, it would be a lame and imperfect thing."
Leland, too, I says: " Man is, in his original constitution, an
embodied spirit. Though the rational soul is the noblest
part of our nature, yet it is not the whole of it.  Nor could
* Works, i, 339. London. 1838.    t Vol. ii, p. 607.
X Necessity of Revelation, part iii, chap. ix, vol. ii, p. 404.




364         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.                ~ 48.
the whole man be properly said to be made perfect in bliss,
if the body, which was from the beginning a constituent part
of his frame, in which he lived and acted during his abode
on earth, were left utterly to perish in the grave. Eternal
life, therefore, as it signifies the happiness of our entire
nature, takes in not merely the immortality of the soul,
when separated from the body, but the resurrection of the
body too, and the immortal existence of the whole man,
body and soul united, in a state of felicity and perfection."*
2. The misrepresentations which our opponents make of
the sentiments of Justin Martyr and others of the early
fathers, (referred to by us on a former page,) to the effect
that the primitive Church held that in the intermediate state
the souls of the pious did not enjoy the presence of God,
may be seen in their true light by the following passages,
which we shall quote without remark.  Polycarpt says:
"Paul and the rest of the apostles are in their appointed
place with the Lord," rapg -(6) icvpti. Irenceus $ says: "Our
Saviour shall be seen, not in heaven only, but in Paradise,
by those who are worthy (d~aoe) to behold his face."  And
in the Qucest. et Respons., 75, it is said that the " souls of the
righteous go to Paradise, and there hold intercourse with
Christ by vision." See also 85, in which the author speaks
particularly of those saints mentioned in Matt. xxvii, 52, 53.
3. Hence is apparent the reason why the apostles do
not so frequently and emphatically, as we might otherwise
suppose they would, refer to death as the motive to diligence
and faithfulness, but rather to the appearing of our Redeemer
in the clouds of heaven. See some of the allusions to it in
the following passages, which a careful and serious reader
will be pleased to have the facility for considering in connection with the whole theme: Matt. xvi, 27; xxv, 13;
Luke xii, 35, 37; Acts iii, 19, 20; 1 Cor. iv, 5; Phil. iii,
20, 21; iv, 5; Col. iii, 4, 5; 1 Thess. i, 4-7; iii, 13; v, 4-6;
* See likewise the excellent observations of Witsius, (Econ. Foecl., lib.
hi, cap. xiv, sections 33-41.
1- Epist., ~ 9.          $ Lib. v, cap. 3@.




~ 48.                CONCLUSION.                    365
2 Tim. iv, 1, 2; Tit. ii, 11-13; Heb. ix, 28; James v, 7, 8;
1 Tim. vi, 13, 14; 1 Pet. i, 6, 7; iv, 12, 13; v, 1-4; 1 John
ii, 28; iii, 2, 3; Rev. xvi, 15; xxii, 7.
4. As a severance from the body, therefore, does not in
any way interfere with the conscious existence of the soul,
the great practical question of course is, What is its destiny
in this its next stage of being?  That it is not disciplinary, is evident from the fact that at the day of judgment all
sinners are found to sustain unaltered the same character
which they possessed on earth. Nearly two thousand years
ago Jesus said: "Whosoever is ashamed of me in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him shall the Son of Man be
ashamed when he cometh in his glory," etc. Mark viii, 38.
And, speaking of Sodom and Gomorrah, which were destroyed nearly two thousand years before his time, he
avers that they shall appear with their original characters
unchanged at the judgment. (Matt. x, 14, 15; xi, 21-24.)
Of course, then, the separate state of the soul is not a state
of discipline. And as the soul cannot at death pass out of
being, it must live, and in the nature of the case be happy
or miserable.
5. In treating of its ultimate destiny, however, and in
order to join issue with our opponents, we shall omit further reference to its separate state, and consider the question
formally at issue between us.  Shall the sinner after the
resurrection be blotted out of being, or continue to suffer forever in conscious misery the penalty of the law?  Preliminary, however, to this discussion, it is important to consider
the subject of punishment itself, and this shall be the theme
of our next chapter.




366         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.            ~ 49.
CHAPTER  III.
PENALTY, PUNISHMENT, AND UTILITARIANISM.
~ 49. On the term Punishment-Defienition of Plato —The
Utilitarian Theory.
1. TNE terms penalty and punishment have been employed with great vagueness and latitude of meaning, and in
our own times very important practical inferences are attempted to be drawn from certain usages of them, which
are altogether unauthorized. For, as Cudworth remarks,
there have not been wanting pretended philosophers in all
ages, who have asserted that naturally and immutably
there is nothing just and unjust, good and evil.
2. The two leading ideas in the world on the subject of
punishment are in entire antagonism to each other. The
one pertains to immutable and eternal justice, and the
other to utility or expediency.  The former necessarily
includes the element of retribution, though it does not necessarily exclude the idea of prevention and reformation, as
being contemplated in the exercise or administration of the
ruling power or authority; but the latter must logically
and necessarily exclude the element of retribution, and is
confined to prevention and reformation alone. In other
words, the one principle contemplates directly and mainly
the Creator, the other the fallen and depraved creature.
3. Previous to the time of that wonderful genius Plato,
the world seems never to have entertained a doubt that
punishment could be other than simply and strictly retributory in its primary sense and intention, or that anything
else, (like prevention of crime, reformation of the criminal,




~ 49.                  PUNISHMENT.                       367
etc.,) which might become associated therewith, could be
other than incidental and secondary. Though the illustra.
tion of the consequences of crime, which might be furnished
by any given example of penal infliction, could be appealed
to, and such references might be salutary in their effects,
and operate to prevent the recurrence of transgression either
in the individual himself or in others, yet the idea of inflicting punishment solely for this purpose was, unless I grievously mistake, unknown until the time of Plato,* who advaheed, in relation to the matter; that utilitarian principle
which underlies so much of the theology, morality, ethics, and
philanthropic enterprise of the present day, and is, in fact,
applied more or less to the settlement of every question in
morals, jurisprudence, and in almost everything wherein the
rights and conduct of men are concerned. Nor are even the
teachings and proceedings of the eternal Jehovah exempted
from this audacious application. Justice, for instance, is
recognized as justice, only so far as its utility is discoverable, and right and principle are tested'by the same alembic. And though a far-sighted heathen jurist (Cicero, De
Leg. 1) had said, Lex est ratio summa, insita in natura, quce
jubet ea quce facienda sunt, prohibetque contraria, Christian
jurists and divines may be found, in no small number, who
scruple not to resolve even virtue itself into utility or
expediency.
4. The sentiment of Plato, to which we refer, and which
Is of frequent occurrence in his works, is that no one should
be punished because he has sinned, but lest he should sin,
* By one of those unaccountable but ludicrous leave-takings of actually
possessed and well-digested knowledge which sometimes, to the perplexity of mental philosophers, occur with the truly learned, (as when the
celebrated advocate Erskine, in a most animated oration, eulogized Julian
the apostate, as having been so zealous in favor of Christianity, as to have
deservedly obtained the soubriquet of Julian the apostle.) Dr. Tayler
Lewis, than whom few men are better acquainted with Plato, has, in the
Biblical Repository for Jan. 1847, pp. 77, 82,'assigned to this Platonic doctrine, and even to Plato's aphoristic utterance of it, a much later date. It
occurs in one of Dr. Lewis's essays on "' Human Justice," which will
richly reward a thorough perusal.




368         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 49.
since we are not able to recall the past, but may prevent the
future; (or as the famous English judge expressed it to
the horse-thief, " You are not punished for stealing horses,
but in order that horses might not be stoldn!") See the
Protagoras of Plato, ~~ 39, 118, 122, and also the 9th and
11th books of his Laws. Seneca translates and highly applauds the passage; (De Ira., lib. i, cap. xvi; ii, xxxi;
and also in his De Clementia, i, xxii;) while A. Gellius, in
his Noctes Atticre, lib. vi, cap. xiv, has undertaken to set it
off by a magnificent paraphrase.  But the manner in which
the early Christians rkarded the sentiment may be learned
from Augustine, De Doct. Christiana, lib. iii, cap. xiv.
5. I do not propose here however to enter the lists with
Plato, (seeing he has already fared so hardly in the hands
of the Annihilationists,) further than to protest against this
principle utterly, and against every application of it.
Whatever be his real meaning on the subject, (for he certainly is far from being consistent in his applications of the
principle,) that must be a most shallow understanding which
can fail to perceive that utility and expediency, in their true
sense, require that retribution, or the punishment of crime
for its own intrinsic demerit, must enter into the administration of law or justice.* Divest punishment of the retrospective moral element, and make it merely prospective,
and what hold can it have upon the conscience of the criminal, or of others? Wherein can consist its true moral,
warning, restraining, and reforming power? Expediency
and utility may therefore, and properly enough, be consulted or considered in any actual relation they may have
to a specific case, but never can they, in any sense, become
the primary principle or rule of moral action, without throwing helplessly out at sea the whole superstructure as well as
the foundations of all virtue and moral principle.
6. The utilitarian principle has been introduced by our
opponents into the discussion relating to the punishment of
sin under the Divine administration, and they have made it
* See this illustrated in the above mentioned Essay of Dr. Lewis.




~ 50. TRUE SENSE OF THE TERM  PUNISHMENT. 369
to apply so as practically to neutralize and even to set aside
the strongest declarations of God in his word, on the subject.  Instead of inquiring, and endeavoring to ascertain
what is right according to the express statements of Jehovah,
the question is made to turn upon what is best in our view
of the matter, and what is most in accordance with the
character of a God of goodness and compassion; or, in
other words, what ought the eternal Jehovah to do in the
case in order that his character may not suffer in man's estimation? for it all comes to this. See the discussion as
conducted by the whole mass of Socinians, Pelagians, Rationalists, Restorationists, Modern Universalists, and Annihilationists, (names which we use not invidiously, but only
for distinguishing.)  They seem  to have adopted from
Horace (sat. 1, 3, 98) the maxim, Atque ipsa utilitas, justi
prope mater et cequi.  And on this principle, moreover,
questions intimately connected with  the satisfaction of
Christ, human ability and obligation, future punishment of
sin, etc., are to be mainly adjusted and settled even by reputedly evangelical divines.
~ 50. The true Sense of the Terms Penalty and Punishment.
1. Some of the old philosophers spoke of three kinds of
punishment, (indicated by as many distinct terms,) which
appeared to them to comprehend every idea really embraced
in the subject.'They were, 1. NovOegiav, (likewise designated  as  raQaiveaut,) consisting only in words, and to
be employed where there is hope of amendment with
respect to the offender.  This we name reprehension or
reproof.  2. TLowpta, (from  -rIt/pwco, to aid, to avenge,)
which expressed the idea of penalty inflicted as a vindication of authority, or to support official dignity. The term
and its usage clearly express the idea of vengeance, vindication against the transgressor; and hence the old phrase, house
of correction, to designate what, in more modern parlance, we
ridiculously express by the term penitentiary, (poenitentia24




370          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.                ~ 50
rius,) which originally had the twofold import, (1.) of a
priest who imposes penance on an offender; and (2.)a place
for hearing confessions.  3. IIapaddeyua, an example,' a
term by which they designate punishment when inflicted
mainly with a view to its salutary effect.
2. Poena (Fr. peine, Ger. straJfe, Eng. penalty or punishment) is a Greek term, 7rotvq, (Doric, 7rotva,) and comes
from rrolvado, to avenge, to obtain compensation for an injury,
whence rrovri (pretium) is a price with the Greeks, because
murderers were delivered to death by their relatives and
neighbors lest the guilt of the murder should be laid to
their charge.  (Comp. Deut. xxi, 1-9; Ezek. xxiv, 7, 8.)
So Mausachus teaches out ofiHesychius; and in the Laconies
of Pausanius, 7roLvO is defined to be taapTrla —orf EK6tiG1iatc,
the revengingc of sin, (without any reference to that Platonic
definition, attributed however to Speusippus, " a curing of
the soul for an error committed;") or as the Roman jurists
say, noxce vindicta, or delictorum correctio.
3. Punishment, then, in its true idea, and in all the proprieties of speech, is sEufering judicially inflicted as a satisfaction to justice; a point which the reader may find further
illustrated in Grotius, De Satisfactione, cap. iv, or in Howe's
"Living Temple," part ii, chap. v, ~ 6.
4. Paul, the jurist, undertook to maintain in part the Platonic notion of punishment, ponce constituantur in hominurn
emencdationem. But Grotius (in his De Jure Belli ac Pacis,
lib. ii, cap. xxi, ~ 12) has thoroughly refuted the assumption;*
and in fact it needs no words to show that this notion effect.
ually resolves all virtue into mere expediency, and justifies
doing evil that good may come.  Instead of saying that a
thing is right because it tends to utility, the true idea is, that
it tends to utility because it is right.
5. Grotius not only directly opposes the Platonic figment,
(De Jure, etc., ii, 20, 4, and as above,) but gives (in cap. xx,
~ 1) the following antagonistic definition of punishments
Est poena generali significatu malum passionis quad infli.
* See also his reference to Carneades in the Prolegomena.




~ 51.     TRUTH  AND  JUSTICE IMMUTABLE.                    371
gittur ob malumn actionis: "punishment, in the general sense
of the word, is the evil of suffering which is inflicted on
account of the evil of an action." In his De Jure Naturali
et Gentium, lib. viii, cap. iii, ~ 4, Puffendorf fully sustains
this: " Punishment in general may be thus defined: an evil
of suffering inflicted for an evil doing, or some uneasy evil
inflicted by authority in a compulsory way, upon view of
antecedent transgression."   Blackstone (iv, 7) sustains the
same idea; and if we turn to the theologians we find
Turretin, Owen, Ridgley, and in earlier times Augustine,
and others without number, expressing the idea in substantially the same words."
~ 51. The Principles of Truth and Justice are immutable
and eternal.
1. The relation of the foregoing to the theme under discussion is sufficiently obvious; for the connection between the
utilitarian theory and the future punishment of sin appears, as
already remarked, in all the writings of our opponents. In
fact it furnishes the whole staple of their argument, and renders
imperative the necessity for examining it in this connection,
though to attempt to do this fully, and in the whole range
of the subject, and in its various relations to morals, jurisprudence, philanthropy, etc., would at once double the size
of our volume. On no topic in the whole argument do
* It is sometimes edifying to see how heedlessness will undertake to
confound the plainest matters of fact. The Rev. Mr. Barnes, for example,
in his Defense, p. 233, asserts that Grotius, in his De Jure, uses the terms
guilt and puiishment in their obvious and proper sense; "buet when he
had a contr'oversy with Socinlus, and a theory to defend, he labored to prove
that the woor'ds were employed zwithowut refeirence to personal ill desert."
Now, 1. Grotins never had a controversy with Socinls, who died in
1604, while the De Satisfactione was not written till 1616. 2. When Grotius wrote this work he had no theory to defend, unless a desire to defend
the common faith of Christians could be so named. 3. He wrote his De
Jure in 1625. 4. When he wrote this work he was committed to a specific
theological theory, as may be seen by his correspondence with Crellius in
1631, so that the real facts of the case are the wvery reverse of the forementioned allegation. Such an attempt to neutralize the force of the above
statements of this great jurist deserves to be reprehended severely.




372         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 51.
we feel more severely the restraint which necessity has
imposed upon us to be brief, and we have no alternative
therefore but to abandon the higher and more philosophical
form of discussion, and to consider the subject in those
bearings mainly wherein our opponents have undertaken to
associate it with the grand themes of eschatology; for
nothing is more common in their writings than the assertion
that eternal punishment is of no conceivable utility, and the
broad inference from  thence, that consequently there can
be no such thing; that the existence of the wicked in
misery through eternity is contrary to all our conceptions
of God's goodness and compassion, and can answer no good
end conceivable by us; and that if we are not willing to believe they are to be restored to his favor and to holiness, we
are compelled to believe that they will be annihilated.
2. Thus at' the very outset, laying aside all idea of the
just demerit of sin as settled by the averments of Jehovah,
they assume that utility (in their conception of it) is to be
the measure of our faith; that is, (for it is folly to pretend
to evade the logical sequence,) that we are not to believe
anything to be true, just, good, right, or proper, unless so
far as we can see it to be useful.  Now as the human
idea of utility is variable, often contradictory, and at best
but relative, and confessedly has no ultimate standard,
either for reference or appeal, it is the sheerest folly imaginable to attempt to settle on this principle any question, either in ethics, jurisprudence, theology, or even the
simplest questions in natural history. Is it true that
there are no such things as poisonous plants, noisome
insects and reptiles, because we cannot see or understand
the utility of such things?  And would it be wisdom  or
insanity to assume the position of refusing to believe in their
existence until we should be able to understand how they
are useful?  And are we, on the same ground, to ignore
(as Universalists do) the existence of the devil, and of all
fallen spirits, and finally of all moral evil, and conclude
to deny that evil is evil? This notion has led many to




~ 51.    TRUTH AND JUSTICE IMMUTABLE.             373
these lengths, and even farther, and by a fair and logical
application of the principle. But the Annihilationists have
hardly proceeded so far; they profess to have found a
stopping place, (where all is vacancy,) and they admit that
such things do really exist, but claim that they may
be useful in ways unknown as yet to us or even to finite
capacity. Exactly so, my good friends. And now please
inform us what should hinder other things, yes, even the
eternal misery of the damned, from being useful to the government of God in ways unknown to us? Your assertion is
that it cannot be, and on this assumption you infer that it
will not be. We meet you on your own ground, and ask
you why it may not be? The question is every way fair
and proper. It is but a request that you furnish the reasons
why you ask our assent to such a statement; and to attempt
to ignore or to evade it, or to treat it with levity, or as unworthy of notice, must evince, either that you have impertinently made such an assertion on this transcendently important theme, with no reason to sustain you, or that something aside from  love for the truth is prompting your
efforts.
3. There are innumerable admitted facts and truths, the
reasons for which lie clearly beyond the range of our faculties in this stage of our being. And hence, let theologasters
say what they please, we are required both by common
sense and the Bible, and often by human testimony, to believe that things are true without being able to explain
how they are true. And in relation to the fact of their existence, all we can do is to give the reasons for our faith. For
over the rationale itself, the God of nature has thrown an
impenetrable vail; and any attempt to explain the why and
the wherefore in relation to their existence, is at once felt to
be a departure from the known to the unknown, and involves
all our speculations in confusion and uncertainty. The whole
principle, therefore, upon which the aforesaid application of
the utilitarian idea is based, must, in the very necessity of
the case, (and it seems impossible to avoid seeing it,) un



374.        IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.                ~ 51.
settle the basis of all actual knowledge, as well as of ethics,
jurisprudence, etc., as Plato might have seen had he despised
Aristotle's syllogism less.  That he had no sympathy, however, with those notions of right and wrong, just and unjust,
etc., which are at present so rife among utilitarians, is obvious from many portions of his writings; for in the Minaos
(which some "Amber Witch" critics in Germany and England deny to be his) he asserts that vo6/oq, law, is not
d66oya 7r6ero&, a. decree of state, since there are unjust decrees, but that which is in its own nature absolutely and
immutably just.*  And in his tenth book on laws, cap. iv,
he condemns those who maintain that nothing is naturally
just, but is made so by human laws and conventionalities.
4. That there is an infinite, immutable, eternal mind, the
intelligent first cause and source of all things, atheists alone
will deny. And that the principles of his administration are
based in eternal rectitude, will be freely conceded on both
sides in this discussion. And hence it is, if strictly considered. all nonsense to talk, as many do, of the mere will of
God being the standard of right and wrong; for either he
can or may will things contrary to his nature, or he cannot.
To maintain that he can, is to deny the immutability of his
nature, and consequently his eternity; and if he cannot will
what is opposed to his nature, then to pretend to make the
aforesaid practical distinction between his will and nature is
folly. The nature of God, therefore, furnishes the foundation for an immutable distinction between the right and the
wrong, the just and the unjust, and this too without respect
to any such things as expediency or utility, in the low sense
now attached to those terms.  His justice and righteousness
in no way can depend upon such things; nor is his administration of government over his fallen creatures regulated in
any way by their selfish conceptions of utility and expediency.
* See Cudworth's Tract on c; Immuttble Morality." The speculations
of no man now on this subject are worthy of attention who pretends to
discuss it without having thoroughly mastered the reasoning of that
treatise.




~ 51.     TRUTH AND JUSTICE IMMUTABLE.                375
5. Then, further, that there is such a thing recognized
and known among men as certain, immutable, and eternal
truth cannot be questioned. (See Locke, book iv, chap. xi,
~ 14.)I am not speaking of the distinction which philosophers
pretend to make between what they call the different kinds
of truth, but simply of the idea, and of men's recognition of
that idea.  If such distinctions must be made, and pompously discussed, they should be correctly made, for it is, in true
philosophical speech, as inaccurate to "jumble together," in
relation to this matter, man's moral and intellectual nature,
as it is to "jumble together" mathematical and moral truths.
And I affirm, without fear of contradiction by any sensible
mind, that the moral nature of man is as fully adapted to
certainty of actual knowledge in relation to moral truth, as
his intellectual is in regard to mathematical.-*  But passing
this, for it cannot be here dwelt upon, I prove that man has
not only a conception but an actual knowledge of immutable
and eternal truth, by a reference to geometrical theorems.
For instance, that the three angles of any triangle are equal
to two right angles is, and ever has been, and ever will be,
true in this world and in every world. Nor can we conceive
that an act of the Divine will can change it, without at the
same time affecting also a corresponding change in nature itself, and in man's rational powers.  And to assume the contrary, and that God may have created our faculties so that
we shall clearly perceive and understand that to be true
which is not true; or, in other words, to understand that
which it is impossible to understand, is not only a contradiction and absurdity, but the consequence is, there can be no
certainty of anything, since if things that are contradictory
to each other may be likewise true, it is impossible to make
an affirmation or denial respecting anything whatever. There
is no doubt that the human faculties may 1ecome more or
* The obscuring influence resulting from his alienation from God, has
more deeply affected his moral than his intellectual nature, and hence the
apparent difference in perceptive power. But see what Locke says, Essay,
book iv, chalp. iii, ~ 18.




376         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 51.
less disordered and obscured, but it is impossible that they
should ever be made clearly to apprehend and know the true
to be false and the false to be true.
6. And then, further, that from the earliest times mankind had a similar and universal conception of the eternal
nature and immutability of moral truth (however they may
have mistaken in regard to the thing itself) can be easily
demonstrated.  Let a single illustration suffice. All the
early Pagan legislators found themselves under the necessity of respecting this impression of the people, and to favor
it by assuming the divine origin of their laws. Zoroaster
declared that the laws which he gave the Persians were obtained from Oromazes, Hermes (the Egyptian) ascribed his
to Mercury, Minos to Jupiter, Draco to Minerva, Lycurgus to Apollo, Numa to Egeria, etc. So firm and universal
was the conviction of antiquity, from the earliest ages even
to the time of Plato, (who pretended that the laws which he
gave to the Magnesians ahd Sicilians were obtained from
Apollo and Jupiter,) that there was an eternal distinction
between right and wrong, justice and  injustice.  And
these things were so far from being dependent upon mere
human enactment, that had those lawgivers pretended that
the laws they promulged were derived from the nature of
things, or from mere principles of utility and expediency,
they would have brought themselves and their codes into
contempt and disregard. The conviction impressed upon
the whole human mind (and never to any serious extent impaired till Protagoras and his fellows perplexed it by their
wild theories) was, that the principles of right and justice
are divine and immutable, and could in this world of per
plexity aind confusion be derived from God alone.
7. It would be an interesting inquiry, how this idea that
there is something naturally and immutably true and just,
and that things are what they are, not by arbitrary will or
institution, (O8a8t,) but by nature, (0vasEt,) should have been
from the earliest ages so universal, on the supposition that
the utilitarian theory of our opponents can be true 




~ 51.    TRUTH AND'JUSTICE IMMUTABLE.            377
Whence could this conviction of the immutability of the
distinction between good and evil, right and wrong, have
originated in a world of selfish creatures, who are proverbially prone to regard expediency and utility, rather
than the immutable principles of justice and morality, in all
their pursuits and avocations? Whence could the opposite
conviction have originated, unless from the eternal and immutable Jehovah himself? and how, in such circumstances
as the aforesaid, could it have been entertained, unless from
a thorough and inherent conviction of its truth? There can
be no other explanation of the fact. Nor do we find that
legal enactments and commands ever run in this form-that
any specific thing shall become just or unjust; but they
simply require obedience, and announce the penalty for
disobedience.  So far is it from the truth that moral right
and wrong are, or ever can be, constituted by mere will or
arbitrary command.
S. Such being the fact, it follows, not that things are right
merely because God wills and so appoints them, but that
he wills and appoints them because they are right, and
because they are the utterances of his own immutable and
eternal nature. Still, if any one insists that the will of God
is the standard of right and wrong, I should not dispute with
him, if he mean, as many who employ such language do
mean, that God's revealed will is the only true standard by
which we are to know fully and clearly what is right and
wrong. Or if it should be insisted that, as God cannot will
anything contrary to his nature, which is eternally and immutably just and righteous, therefore the expression of his
will shows what his nature is, and is in this sense a proper
standard of right and wrong, no serious objection could be
made to it; but the doctrine held by some of the schoolmen,
that no act is morally evil except as it is forbidden by God,
and that there is none which cannot be made morally good
should God command it to be done, is not to be entertained
by any intelligent Christian in this day. It is utterly repulsive to the feelings of ally community where the Bible is




378        IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 52.
received as the word of God. Who can suppose that if God
were to will (were such a thing conceivable) that twice two
make seven, or that the three angles of a triangle are equal
to the four angles of a parallelogram, the thing would necessarily be so, and that we should see it to be so? And if such
a thing is impossible to be imagined in relation to material
forms, can it be conceived in relation to moral truth, that
should God will right to be wrong, and wrong to be right,
the nature of things would be immediately changed, and
along therewith his own eternal nature? Such a supposition would at once blot out all science and truth, and actual
knowledge, for in such circumstances nothing could be
either true or false; and therefore moral truth and justice
depend not on the will of God, but upon his own eternal,
immutable nature, and the nature of things.  And this
being so, it is obvious that all those speculations which
assume that God, by a mere act of his will, can or may reverse the utterances of his law, (which is but the expression
of his nature,) are in a high degree absurd and ridiculous.
~ 52. Utilitarian Theory of Punishment and Legal
Administrationz.
1. And now, as respects the aforesaid Platonic idea of
punishment, (though Plato obviously refers to human legislation alone,) and the utilitarian idea of legal administration, where, on such principles, shall be located or established the assurance of public safety for any member of the
body politic? When, for instance, parents or masters, on
leaving home for a season, have called up their children or
servants, and administered to each a sound flagellation to
insure good behavior during the interval, it has not been gencrally thought to evince the most refined and perfect imaginable type of moral administration. But certainly the idea is
strictly utilitarian, and might, if those principles are true, be
of advantage if generally adopted; for as, according to this
idea, the design of punishment is not to recall the past but
to prevent the future, surely a sound flagellation, under the




~ 52.   PUNISHMENT-UTILITARIAN THEORY.    379
aforesaid circumstances, was but a fair practical development of the theory.
2. But since, on this theory, there neither is nor really
can be any guilt or demerit attached to criminality, none at
least deserving of retribution, why should the criminal be
selected to exemplify, through inconvenience and suffering,
the results of misdemeanor? Admit that the perpetration
of crime may be supposed to indicate the proper subject to
be selected for such a purpose, why should that supposition
be heeded l and why may there not be, if utility is the
object to be secured, some other principle of selection
adopted than simply the vulgar one that he has "stolen the
horse?" The fact that he has perpetrated the crime does
not prove that his sufferings will be the most useful to the
state, unless on the old "exploded notion" that crime for
its own sake deserves retribution; an idea which plainly
could not be adopted without at once surrendering the reqowned maxim aforesaid, that the thief is punished, not for
stealing the horse, but that horses may not be stolen. The
lifficulty of establishing an obvious connection between the,crime and some other person who had no hand in it, could
be easily obviated by some enactment like that of the old
Dutch alderman in Southwark, Philadelphia, who made it a
point to mulct the constable in the costs whenever he ventured to bring into his, august presence an offender who
could not pay them. This had the high advantage of securing the administration of the law from pecuniary loss, and
also of making the constable peculiarly careful whom he
ventured to apprehend. Or why not adopt it as a principle
that when any useful, active citizen commits a trespass,
some useless old "fogy" should be immediately apprehended, or some lazy, worthless vagabond, and by "making
him smart for it," evince the consequences of committing
offences against the state? In such a case the useful, active
citizen would be still spared to labor on in his avocations,
and all useless fellows, and mere encumbrances of the body
politic, would in time be got rid of entirely. Or, still




380           IMMORTALITY  OF THE SOUL.                    ~ 52.
further: why not adopt the principle, that when the laws
are violated the wealthiest man in the community shall be
taken and punished, and his wealth be either'ecast into
the state treasury, or distributed among the poorer classes?
WTould not this be a much more useful appropriation of it
than to have it lying unemployed in his coffers?  Such an enactment must, moreover, have a strong tendency to make the
rich doubly watchful that the laws be not infringed, for frequently they are known to be rather indifferent about such
matters. At any rate, if these principles for selection be
not adopted, why may not some others be fixed upon, instead of the merely arbitrary one which associates the
offender with suffering merely because of his connection
with the offense, seeing that the offense itself cannot possibly have any moral desert attached to it? For I do
affirm that, on the utilitarian principle that " moral guilt is
in no sense the ground of punishment," such things might
be perfectly proper; for on this principle there is no more
propriety nor justice in punishing the criminal than in punishing any one else whom a legal enactment may designate
for the purpose. Di1. Cheever, in his work on Capital Punishment, has truly said, "If utility is the sole ground of punishment, then there may be cases in which it might be useful to punish the innocent as well as the guilty."*
3. But then again, what, according to this principle, are
* In fact this may be easily demonstrated; for it is conceded that
the sinner may be properly punished, or made to suffer, for his own
good, since it may restrain him from future sin. And for the same
reason, as is obvious, and as utilitarians themselves concede, he
may be thus made to suffer for the good of others, as it may restrain them  from  sin. But what is the momag basis of such a procedure.? for it must have one.  Is the good of the sinner himself
and of others a sufficient reason of itself to inflict suffering?  If
so, then- any one, and of course the innocent, may be thus afflicted
or punished at any time.  If they may seot be, then the aforesaid
reason is not sufflcieret to justify punishment; and of course guilt deserves, on its own account, punishment, irrespective of any such considerations whatever. Hence the utilitarian theory is utterly false, or the
innocent may he made to suffer whenever and as often as it should be
decided that such suffering may be useful either to themselves or others.




~ 52.  PUNISHIMENT-UTILITARIAN THEORY.    381
these so-called "consequences of crime," which are to be
evidenced by the sufferings of somebody?  What consequences result from crime, which suffering can illustrate,
according to this principle? The offender is simply "unfortunate;" and how can his suffering or that of some other
person show that men ought not to be unfortunate?  These
consequences cannot be shown through his sufferings on the
ground that they are retributory for ill-desert, for this at
once destroys the whole utilitarian theory.  To punish a
man for being " unfortunate," is not only idle but wicked.
Suppose the law had required that Mr. Collins should be
fined or hanged because his most estimable lady perished
on board the Arctic? Would such an enactment have any
tendency to prevent shipwrecks? Would it commend itself
to our moral nature?  What then, I demand, are these somuch-talked-of " consequences of crime," in the utilitarian
sense of the word, which are developed by the sufferings and
inconveniences of the unfortunate?  There is no room for
remorse, according to the principle, for a man cannot feel
remorse on account of an unavoidable calamity. But it is
needless to press the matter. On this theory repentance,
and consequently reformation, becomes an impossibility, for
the very idea of such a thing is sheer absurdity, when
severed, as it is in this case, from the impression and conviction of ill-desert.
4. It is obvious therefore, upon every view of the matter,
that the law is compelled to admit an idea back of and
higher than any asserted utility, and from which the utility
itself depends for support. To punish the innocent, as our
utilitarians admit, would not be useful.  Why? Simply
because it would not deter from crime and could have no
reformatory effect, for the reason that it would be recognized
by man's moral nature universally as unjust. And the
utilitarian himself says it would be unjust. Of course, then,
the existence of a principle of immutable justice is thus
recognized in the very effort to explode that idea by carrying out the utilitarian theory.




382         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 53.
~ 53. Punishment in its true sense is retributory.
1. Upon the whole, then, it must be admitted that no man
or set of men can have a right to call justice expediency, or
benevolence justice, and vice versa. It must be admitted
that intrinsic demerit, aside from inconvenience, does enter
into the one unchanging idea of crime; that retribution, or
the suffering for such intrinsic demerit, does enter into the
one idea of punishment, so that whatever government,
divine or human, employs it at all must either employ it
with this inseparable idea, or substitute something radically
different in its place.  It is a fact that in all languages, invariably, the terms corresponding to our word punishment
are formed upon the idea of suffering for the intrinsic demerit of crime, and that in none of them do the utilitarian
ideas, as constituting the sole or highest ground of punishment, human or divine, have place.*  Right, as Cudworth
has fully demonstrated, (though Horne Tooke, in his shallow'method of reasoning from language, has asserted the contrary,) right never came from a word signifying that which
is ordered or commanded.  For what code of laws ever attempted to enact that a specific thing shall or shall not become right or wrong.
2. Blackstone, (iv, 11,252,) speaking of the end or final cause
of punishments in human legislation, says that it "is not
by way of atonement or expiation for the crime committed,
for that must be left to the just determination of the
supreme Being, but as a precaution against future offenses
of the same kind."  This, which the utilitarians seem unable
rightly to understand, admits both the intrinsic demerit of
the criminal and that punishment is retributory. But he
does not assume that law is in its true and high sense (as
* I have here employed terms used in his essay aforesaid, by Dr. Lewis,
who in that and a succeeding one (Repository for April, 1847) has made
good the position, beyond the reach of anything hitherto advanced to the
contrary.




~ 53.        PUNISHMENT RETRIBUTORY.                383
utilitarians do) the creature of human legislation or enactment. The sole object of human legislators in declaring it,
may be not so much retribution as prevention, and this may
be mainly their object in executing it. But to pretend, as
these utilitarians do, that because legislators have the right
to declare and execute the conceded utterances of immutable
and eternal law, they therefore have the right to substitute
other principles in their stead, to ignore all moral distinctions, and to enact that good shall become evil, and evil
good; or, which is the same thing, that utility shall be the
measure of right and wrong, is to claim what men in their
senses never will accord. For though a lower or a higher
utility may enter into the idea of punishment when contemplated by human legislators, in declaring and administering law, yet to pretend that it is consequently the basis
of the law itself is absurd, since the law itself, or the immutable moral distinction between right and wrong, exists,
and, as demonstrated above, must exist, aside from the
motives of all human legislation whatever.
3. The effort so often made to represent this view as
being pharisaic, and as justifying revenge and vindictiveness,
being based upon an ignorant misapprehension of the
terms, is unworthy of notice; for the argument does not
assume, either directly'or by implication, that man in him
self, and irrespective of divine sanction, has the least ground
to punish at all. And let me in conclusion say, in reference
to a subject perpetually on the lips of modern utilitarians
and would-be reformers, that the true method of raising the
fallen, and of recovering him from the degradation into which
crime has brought him, is not by seeking to palliate or deny
his guilt, but to lead him, by a correct view of that guilt, to
feel, abhor, repent of, and forsake it. Such is the course
ever pursued by the Father of our spirits in bringing back
the sinner, through repentance, to salvation and to himself.
4. It must be conceded, therefore, that there is no way to
avoid the inference that, in its strict and proper sense, punishment is suffering judicially inflicted for ill-desert, and that




384         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 54.
its essential element is retribution, an idea irreconcilable
with the theologastrian notion that it is merely a preventive
and reformatory discipline.  Such too is the representation
of the whole word of God on the subject, and hence desert
is everywhere therein declared to be the first ground of
punishment. There are degrees of punishment, to be sure,
and in its milder forms the infliction in this, our Mediator's
world, is not designed to be destructive, for here justice is
tempered with mercy. Still it is, in any and in every case
wherein even this may be pleaded, disciplinary and reformatory only because it is retributory. It is the infliction of
suffering for ill desert, and for nothing else, and hence may
effect a reform, and a determination to avoid incurring such
ill-desert in future.  But to pretend that it is not retributory because it may have or does have this effect, is absurd
in a high degree.
~ 54. Application of the foregoing Principles to the Argugnent.
I regret that the course pursued by our adversaries has
rendered it necessary to occupy so much space with the
foregoing discussion; but without referring to the matter
thus fully, the whole of our remaining argument would be
subject to idle cavils and senseless objections which would
continue to have weight with some; we shall now, therefore, return to the discussion in its more direct relation to
the Holy Scriptures and theological science.
1. With respect to the power or authority to punish crime,
a single word, in addition to what has been already said, will
be sufficient to place the subject in its proper light. Private
persons in their individual capacity, and not otherwise authorized, are not permitted to avenge themselves upon the offender.  Hence, says God, "Avenge not yourselves.  Vengeance is mine, I will repay." Rom. xii, 19. The administration of his own law is either directly by Providence, or
instrumentally by authorized human legislation. (Gen. ix,




~ 54.    APPLICATION TO THE ARGUMENT.             385
5, 6; Prov. viii, 15, 16; Rom. xiii, 1-7.) The same is true
also of a state, in itself considered, or of any number of individuals whatever. The right to punish crime, because it
deserves to be punished, is from God our Creator alone.
2. The word of God everywhere regards the sinner not
as unfortunate, but wicked. What then properly constitutes
wickedness? On this point the statutes of enlightened
Christian nations agree with the Divine code. And hence
the old law maxims: Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea:
Actus me invito factus, non est meus actus. "The essence
of an offense," says Bishop, (Crim. Law, b. iii, chap. ix,
section 227,) " is the wrongful intent, without which it cannot
exist." And the Bible gives no other reason for punishing
crime save that the criminals are wicked.
3. It will hardly be questioned that tlie man who voluntarily transgresses deserves to suffer all the natural evil
which he effects by his sin, or which his sin tends to produce.
I speak simply of personal desert. Nor can it be questioned
that a man may incur more guilt, and of course deserve
more punishment, than he really has capacity to atone for or
endure. Suppose, for illustration, that hd murders in cold
blood thousands of persons, as Sylla murdered the six thousand in the Roman circus? his real desert would of course
be death for every murdered victim; for to say that he
deserved no more punishment for murdering thousands than
for murdering one, would be plainly absurd.,Now he deserves death for the murder of any one of the supposed six
thousand, and of course by murdering the whole he deserves to suffer death six thousand times. But being incapable of suffering it more than once, it is -plain that he
may deserve a punishment immeasurably greater than he
has capacity to endure. Compare also Matt. xviii, 23-35.
4. It is of course necessary that the laws of God have
penalties annexed to them. A law without a penalty is
merely advice, and it is absurd to name it law. And it is
equally absurd to suppose that God in his eternal and infinite
wisdom annexed penalties without designing to inflict them,
25




386          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 54.
or threatened their infliction without any serious intention
of executing his threatenings. A supposition like this must
necessarily divest him of all the moral attributes of divinity. Or should it be supposed that, after he had announced
the penalty, he, on further reflection, concluded not to inflict
it, though he at first fully intended to do so, this would divest him at once of all the natural attributes necessary to
Godhead.-* All such conceptions of God necessarily revolt
the feelings of every refined and well-balanced mind. It is
admitted that the threatened penalty should not be more nor
less than the crime deserves. But this must be left solely
with God, whose word announces the truth on the subject.
This is conceded by all who believe the Bible.
5. Our opponents in their vague dissertations on the
subject, confound the object of the threatening with what
they are pleased to call the object of the law itself.  Now
the law is eternal, and is based in the nature of things, and
in the very nature of God himself; and the original object
of proclaiming it was that all rational creatures may abide
in a state of conformity to his moral character.  The object
of the threatening is to announce the penalty of departing
therefrom. The object of this, therefore, is to deter, by
evincing how great an evil transgression is, what is the
desert of sin and rebellion against the law, as well as to
make known how infinite is God's abhorrence of all moral
evil. Such being the fact, therefore, we may expect to learn
through these announcements the true nature of sin, its just
demerits and its certain consequences, as settled upon the
eternal and immutable principles of justice, wisdom, and
goodness. Those announcements, however they may appear
to our depraved, selfish creature conceptions, can really contain nothing contrary to the justice, goodness, and wisdom
of God; and therefore it is obviously preposterous to
array against his plain utterances on the subject any of our
* It is not necessary here to refute that wretched Socinian notion that
God may possess the attribute of foreknowledge and not choose to
exercise it.




~ 54.    APPLICATION TO THE ARGUMENT.               387
own conceptions (for they at best are but the conceptions
of sinful, selfish creatures) which may be in conflict therewith. He alone is competent to know and to declare what
is really true on the subject; and whatever he has declared
is, and must obviously be, perfectly consistent with justice,
wisdom, and goodness, whether we are able to perceive it so
or not.  Nor is our failure to see it to be so, or to reconcile
it with our ideas of the fitness of things, any argument that
it is not so, since God does not require that we should see
or perceive it to be so, but simply that we believe his declaration on the subject.  He requires of us no blind, unintelligent faith, for it is not a blind, unintelligent faith to believe what eternal justice, truth, and goodness declare to be
true.  Hence the only question to be settled in the matter
by those who receive his testimony is, What has he said in
relation to it? It is not, (as some of our opponents seem to
think,) What ought he to have said? or, Is what he has
said consistent with our notions of justice or with our feelings?  God has nowhere required that in this stage of our
being it should be, and it is therefore very impertinent so to
introduce such matters into the discussion as to constitute
them the reasons of our faith, irrespective of what God has
actually said. And it is equally preposterous to conclude
that because we cannot see how a declaration of God can
be true, we must therefore attach some other meaning
to the words containing it; for instance: to say that because we cannot see how eternal suffering is consistent with
goodness, therefore God never intended to say that the
wicked shall be thus punished, but must have meant something else.
6. It is likewise obvious that in all moral administration
the penalty of the law must be as much regarded as the precept.  The penalty is of course essential to the law, in order
to its support and enforcement, and the maintenance of its
authority. This will be conceded as true. And therefore
it is just as conceivable that God should dispense with the
precept of the law as with its penalty.  The precept requires




388         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 54.
that we love him supremely, and our neighbor as ourselves.
God cannot uphold his moral government and require of
rational creatures less than this, and he does not require
more. Now it is obvious that to neglect to enforce the
penalty when incurred, is equivalent to the abrogation of the
precept, (which ceases thereon to be preceptive, and becomes
only advisory,) which is equivalent to an abandonment of
the throne of the universe. Hence, whenever the penalty is
incurred it must be executed in its true sense, as we shall
have occasion to show more fully in the sequel.
7. It is, moreover, obvious that whatever forgiveness consists in, and however and whenever it is exercised, it cannot
in any sense consist in the abrogation of the law.  This
cannot be supposed without gross absurdity, for it would be
equivalent to saying that God may require less of some of
his rational creatures than that they should love him with
all the heart, and their fellow-creatures as themselves, which
would be the same as to maintain that he may be indifferent
as to whether his requirements are regarded or not; for to
suppose any case of such forgiveness exercised, the persons
forgiven will be required afterward either to obey or not.
If they are not required to obey, then, of course, as above
stated, God is inidifferent in respect to their moral character
and conduct; but if they are required to obey, and again
offend, then we must suppose that forgiveness is again extended, and so on indefinitely; or that the penalty shall
overtake them. at last. If forgiveness is extended indefinitely, and whenever they transgress, then this is equivalent
to his being indifferent as to their moral character and actions, which is both absurd and blasphemous to suppose.
But if the penalty at last overtakes them, then the same objections will apply against its infliction, on the score of goodness, compassion, etc., as the objector urges against it now;
so that after all he gains nothing to his argument by supposing the exercise of such forgiveness. And hence we may
see why the Bible so fully declares that nothing but forgiveness through atonement or satisfaction can bind the heaitt




~ 54.    APPLICATION TO THE ARGUMENT.            389
with supreme love to God so as effectually to lead it to
hate and avoid all iniquity.
8. The necessity of having the law fulfilled to the utmost
is very fully announced by our blessed Redeemer in Matt.
v, 18, and Luke xvi, 17. Nothing is more fully conceded
by all our opponents, especially the utilitarians, than the
importance of' God's maintaining steady and inviolable the
laws of the natural world. (See Edwards, vii, 552.) And
much more then is it important that he should strictly uphold and maintain those of his moral administration; for
there cannot be a greater conceivable absurdity than that the
law, either natural or moral, should give place to the transgressor of it. Such a principle would be regarded as insanely
absurd in human legislation and jurisprudence; and yet
many of our opponents substantially maintain that it ought
to take place under* the Divine administration. Now dispensing with the penalty of the law, as we have above shown,
is the same thing as abolishing the law itself. It would be
the same thing, Edwards remarks, (vii, 516-529,) as to have
inserted in the law the expression, that if it should be violated the penalty should, nevertheless, not be executed.
The law was promulgated that the subject might regulate
himself by it, and not that it should be regulated by the
subject. But to say that the law ought to give place to the
subject, because he saw proper to violate it, is the same as
to say that sin should annul and abrogate the law,. than
which nothing more preposterous can be imagined.
9. The same conclusion is apparent from the assumption
that repentance alone is a sufficient atonement for transgression; for there is nothing in repentance that is compensatory,
or that balances the desert of guilt, or in any way tends to
its diminishing. It has no tendency to heal a fatal wound,
or to recover to life the murdered. And then, moreover,
if God can pardon on repentance, seeing there is nothing of
compensation therein, and nothing that can relieve the soul
fronm guilt, (unless it be evangelical repentance, which is
efficacious only through the atonement of Christ,) why may




390         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 54.
he not pardon without repentance? Repentance bears no
proportion to the injury which sin may have done; and if
sin can be pardoned with it, why not without it? But, for
the argument's sake, admitting that both in this life and in
the life to come it may secure forgiveness, the question still
recurs, Shall it be deemed sufficient in all cases, and as often
as offense is committed?  If it is, then what effectual security
is there against continued rebellion and transgression? None
whatever, which it is absurd to suppose. But if it is not
to be perpetual, then, as already remarked in respect to forgiveness, the penalty in all its fullness must at last overtake
the sinner, so that our opponents gain nothing by this assertion except to shift the question a step backward.
10.'Then, further, none will deny that some transgressors,
on account of their egregious crimes, merit the full penalty
of the law, whatever it may be that God in his infinite goodness and wisdom has announced to be such. Origen himself,
in his book against Celsus, says that those who are found to be
incurably wicked shall be punished without end. And even
Celsus (as quoted by Origen, lib. viii) says there can be
no doubt that the good will be everlastingly happy, and that
the wicked shall be miserable forever. The sentiments of
Plato may be seen in Gorgias, ~~ 71-79. The same, too,
is fully admitted by our opponents, though they make the
penalty to be extinction of existence rather than suffering.
See Hud. 371-373, 390-392; D. 244-251; M. 9-12; and
even Abner Kneeland, Lectures, p. 47.  They all admit,
therefore, that sin deserves eternal punishment. Now this
admission being based upon what God has said, its truth cannot be made to depend upon any explanation which a person
may give of the word penalty; for, according to these admissions, that penalty, whatever it may be, is conceded to
be just; and to admit, therefore, that sin deserves eternal
punishment, is the same as to say that it is both fit and
proper that it receive such punishment. And if it be fit and
proper, then, whatever the penalty may be, it is absurd to
object to its infliction as inconsistent with goodness and strict




~ 55. PUNISHMENT-OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 391
justice. Others of them claim that God is not bound to
execute his threatenings, but we have already shown that
this is inadmissible and absurd. And then, further, if he is
not bound to execute his threatenings, he may omit to do so
in every case, and so punish no crime; which is the same as
for him to resign the throne of the universe, and to proclaim
impunity for sin and immunity to the transgressor. See
Edwards, vii, 541.
11. It is confessedly necessary to a Divine moral government that all sin should be forbidden under the sanction of
a penalty, for God is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity.
(Hab. i, 13.) And for the same reason it is necessary that
the penalty should be universally executed, unless, as before
remarked, we would accuse God of uttering threatenings
without intending to execute them.
12. There is but one more thought that need be mentioned in this connection. As all sin may be strictly resolved
into hatred of God and our neighbor, (for between the love
required and its absence there can be no medium,) it
follows that it is justly and properly the subject of God's
displeasure, since hatred of God, or a refusal to love him, is
of course a rejection of his government.
~ 55.-Objections considered.
I shall now, in concluding the chapter, attend to some
questions and objections.
1. The question whether eternal punishment is not inconsistent with infinite goodness, has been substantially disposed
of above. Our opponents here make a distinction, and
while they admit that eternal punishment is consistent with
infinite goodness, they deny that eternal suffering is. They
assert that punishment and actual or conscious suffering are
separable. See M. 9-12; E. 234; H. 1, pp. 136, 137;
A. 105; Has. 39, 40; J. T. 32. S. 83 affirms it, and on
p. 39 appears to deny it.
This must be conceded to be a somewhat adroit method




392         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 55.
of evading a point.  The question simply is, Shall the sinner
BE happy or miserable to eternity?  Now  what answer is
it to a question like this to reply, as these men substantially
do, by saying, The sinner will not exist through eternity, and
therefore he twill be p2unished to all eternity.  Then, further,
they make this actual eternal punishment of the sinner to
be endured by him in a very short time, and mainly by anticipation, which I take to be the bestowing upon the
creature a clear and absolute conception of eternity; so that
the great problem which has so long puzzled the philosophical
world, as to whether the finite is capable of conceiving of the
infinite, must be regarded as now settled by Messrs. Hudson,
Dobney, et id genus omne; for it is perfectly obvious that the
sinner, in order to endure eternal suffering or punishment
by anticipation, must have a very clear idea of eternity
itself.  This is one of the great advantages which accrue
from having such men investigate topics like the one before
us; and after having read their works with great diligence,
I can testify that nothing which occurs in the way of their
investigations, however difficult it may appear to others,
seems to perplex them in the least.  The most puzzling
problems of the most recondite philosophy they solve
with a promptness and readiness which would have made
even Crichton stare.
This, then, is their answer to the question, a man may be
miserable through all eternity by anticipation. Locke (b. ii,
c. i, ~ 11) had the vulgar idea on the subject.  He says:
"For to be happy or miserable without being conscious of
it, seems to me utterly inconsistent and impossible."
A nd then, further, if the wicked can suffer eternal punishment
in this manner, why may not the good enjoy the happiness
of heaven in the same way? If we can suffer punishment
without being conscious of it, why surely we can enjoy happiness also unconsciously.  And as this will not be denied,
the conclusion to which we shall without difficulty arrive is,
that the idealism of Berkeley is the natural outgrowth of Materialisnm, (a thing never suspected before,) and that Hume has




~ 55.  PUNISHMENT-OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 393
given the most perfect definition of the genus homo which
has ever been given-that he is an impression or idea.
And thus all the hitherto discordant schools of philosophy
are brought ifto harmony, and likewise shown'to be,
through the aid of annihilationismn, perfectly consistent with
revelation itself.
I am sorry, however, to be under the necessity of interfering a little with some of the proportions of this magnificent
conception; for those to whom we are indebted for it, and
who maintain that annihilation is inflicted as the just penalty
of the law, aver also that neither men nor beasts have any
natural title to live forever.. Of course, then, extinction of
being is only the natural course of things, and the bestowment of immortal existence is purely an act of favor, so that
when God created man, and before man had sinned, they
were all destined to everlasting punishment, irrespective of
all personal desert, unless grace prevent.  But it is unnecessary to pursue the subject here, as it must come up for consideration in another chapter.
2. Others of our opponents take the ground of the ultimate restoration of the wicked, (and the same idea is often
alluded to even by Annihilationists, for they refuse to be
trammeled.by either logic or consistency,) urging that eternal
unhappiness is too long a punishment for the sins committed
in this brief life. The same argument must likewise prove
that either annihilation is not the penalty of the law, or, if
it be, it is too long a punishment to inflict for sins committed
in time.  For if sinners may, in this short life, deserve to
be forever annihilated for their sins, (and even Dr. Priestley
admits that they do,) then how idle is it for those who hold
this view to object that eternal punishment is too much to
be inflicted for sins committed in this life? But not to
dwell upon this matter, I would, with all seriousness, ask
our opponents how long a time is required to refuse an
offer which is made to us, and pressed upon our immedi~ate acceptance? The offer made to our sinful race is etelrnal happiness, glory, joy. The very constitution of man's




394         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 56.
intellectual and moral nature requires that he should accept
or reject an overture which comes to him as this does. He
may of course refuse it persistently and finally, and having
done so what is left but the opposite? He cannot take a
middle position, and neither accept nor refuse. If he refuse eternal happiness, therefore, he chooses the opposite.
And what is that opposite? To pretend that that also is
eternal happiness, is to make the Gospel offer a farce.
~ 56. Future Punishment and " Natural Laws."  How Sin
is an " infinite " evil.
Is future punishment a direct and positive infliction of suffering for sins committed in this life, or is it merely the natural
result of transgression, and depending for its continuance upon
the future continuance of sin? This question, which presents
two points, was wrought into the discussion some years ago;
and from the manner in which it has been thoughtlessly
decided by some of our divines, the truth has seriously
suffered, and many have been led into grievous error.. We
cannot here discuss it, however, except very briefly.
1. The doctrine of the Scriptures has never been considered doubtful in reference to the doctrine of punishment'in
the world to come for the sins done in the body or in this
life.  See Heb. ix, 27; Rom. xiv, 12; 2 Cor. v, 10;
Matt. xii, 36, 37; xxv, 31-46; Rom. ii, 5, 6; Prov. i, 24-28;
Luke xiii, 23-27; 2 Thess. i, 7-9.  In all these, and in
multitudes of other passages, there is a clear retrospective reference to sin perpetrated here as the sole ground of
the judicial decision and succeeding punishment; but the
huge outcries of Universalists some years since, at what they
called this " diabolical aspect of the doctrine," induced some
good men, who were never created to be improvers of
theology, to attempt to modify the representation, and make
it less repulsive to the carnal heart of the impenitent and
ungodly; a course of procedure which never can in any
instance be justified, except on the assumption that our




~ 56. PUNISHMENT-OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 395
blessed Redeemer was not so mindful of the interests of
men as those are who make these attempts. A few references will suffice to bring the subject sufficiently before the
reader to expose the glaring impropriety of such efforts.
In the earlier series of the tracts issued by the American
Tract Society* we have the following: " Sinners will
deserve to be punished as long as they continue in sin.
If they sin during the whole of life, they will be exposed to
suffering during life; if for a thousand years after death, they
will deserve to suffer during that time; if eternally, their
punishment will have no end. To disprove the justice of
fature endless punishment, then, it must be shown either that
sinners will cease to sin," &c. Dr. Dwight likewise (in
tract number 181, p. 7, and Theology, sermon clxvii) says:
"' God may justly punish sin so long as it exists, and it may
exist forever... That while we continue to sin, God may
justly punish us, if he can justly punish us at all, is equally
evident." Dr. Lyman Beecher and others likewise assume
the same ground; but further quotation is needless.
Now while it is undoubtedly true that those who perish
in their impenitence will continue to sin forever, and that
they are still held accountable for all the sin they perpetrate
in this or in any other world, it is a grievous error to make
their eternal severance from the source of life and light and
salvation to depend in any way upon sin that is not committed in this their probationary state.  What is this but
to concede substantially that' the sins of this. life do not
deserve eternal punishment?  What is it but a substantial
concession that if the sinner can be supposed to refrain from
further transgression in the future world, he may expiate
his former sin by suffering, (since it would be wrong to
punish him any further,) and so be saved even without the
intervention of Christ? Is it not something like a concession
to the Papists and Restorationists that their so long-claimed
principle of the purifying tendency of suffering may be
* No. 224, pp. 44, 45, I think, though I have not the tract now at
hand.




396          IMMORTALITY OF TIE  SOUL.             ~ 56.
reasonable 3 It is, in, fact, placing the issue of the whole controversy upon the question whether future suffering may
not have a tendency to lead the soul to hate and forsake sin.
And it is plainly impertinent in any man to undertake thus
to change the issue of a question of this character, relating
so intimately to the dearest interests of the race. Let it be
but conceded that this is really the issue, and how soon, in
the hands of a learned and adroit disputant, may the whole
power of the Gospel appeals to sinners on this subject be
neutralized 2: In fact, the amount of this attempted modification is a surrender of the doctrine that sin deserves eternal
death, since man is not punished in the life to come except
as he shall there continue to sin, so that after all it is not
necessary to suppose that he will be punished forever for
the sins done " in the body," that is, in this life.
It is no reply to this to say that the sins of this life bring
the sinner under the necessity of continuing to sin. This is
not the point. The question is, Does future and eternal
punishment depend on or result from sins perpetrated here?
If it do not, then we must cease to insist upon the truth of
the doctrine from such passages as those referred to above.
And if it does, then this most uncalled for and unadvised
attempt to modify the teachings of God on the subject should
be abandoned.
2. As to the idea, so rife at the present time, that in the
future world the sinner shall suffer only the natural results
of sin, and nothing positive, it is contrary to the whole
Scripture representation. That he does really and fully
reap what he has sown, is true, and nothing is more frequently or more directly asserted in the word of God; but
that these expressions relate alone to natural consequences,
as they are called, is false. The Jews," "whose carcasses
fell in the wilderness," and Achan, and Jezebel, and Uzzah,
and Ananias and his wife, all reaped what they had sown
by venturing to disobey God; and did they therefore suffer
only the natural consequences of sin?  Did the rich man
in hell, being in torments, reap only the natural conse



~ 56. PUNISHMENT-OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.  397
quences of his sins?  The principle, therefore, is plainly
false in respect to the government of God in this world; and
that it is equally false in respect to the world to come, is
plain from the fact that the same language is employed in
reference to the future rewards of the righteous, and which
are also declared to be far superior to any mere natural results.  It is false, too, from the fact that the penalty of the
law is retributory; and it is idle to make mere natural consequences the penalty of moral law.  It is false, moreover,
from  the fact that it renders the pardon and expiation of
sin an utter impossibility, and furnishes encouragement to
the thoughtless and impenitent to persist in sin. They do
so here in despite of all natural consequences, and of the
penalties imposed by human legislation; and how then
shall they be deterred through apprehension of mere
natural consequences in the life to come?*
3. A great deal is also said at the present time about
the  absurdity  of sin  being  an  "infinite  evil."   See
D. 249, and all the rest of the Annihilation school, not
excepting  Dr. Whately.  They  either use the  phrase
without understanding it, or else they willfully attach
to it a meaning which is not attached to it by their opponents. A single instance will show this. The younger
Edwards, in his Reply to Chauncey, uses the phrase frequently; but in repeated instances throughout his book
(see pp.. 22, 1259, 131, etc.) he carefully defines it in some
such connection as the following: " The expression infinite
evil of sin seems to be very offensive to some gentlemen."
Their "idea of the infinite evil of sin is very different from
that which is entertained by those who hold that sin is an
infinite evil.  All they mean is, that sin is in such a sense
an infinite evil that it may be justly followed by an endless
pulnishment."  Now as the Annihilationists hold it to be in
* See Bellamy's True Relig. Delin., Disc. i, sect. 5, and a truly excellent essay by Rev. Samuel D. Cochran in the Bibliotheca Sacra for
April, 1854. It is deformed, however, by a careless misprint of the
word elements for emotions three times in the first paragraph.




398         IMMORTALITY OF TIE SOUL.             ~ 57.
this same sense an infinite evil, their objection to us for
holding the same idea is absurd. The expression, moreover, was originally derived from the Bible-Job xxii, 5.
~ 57. Future Punishment as a Motive.
There in one more objection often insisted on by these
gentlemen, which demands a brief notice. They perpetually asseverate that eternal suffering in prospect has no tendency to lessen crime. See C. 60, 62; D. 252-262; II. 1,
p. 134, note, and 142, 143. Dr. Chauncey, pp. 340-357,
asserts the same. But,
1., Neither has annihilation any such tendency, as we
have abundantly shown in the notes to ~~ 15 and 19, above.
The facts there stated evince that it has a tendency the very
opposite; and that Materialism always had the effect of discouraging virtue and encouraging vice, I could easily prove
even by the testimony of the old philosophers, if it were
necessary.
2. But even infidels, though, like the Annihilationists,
they deny and ridicule the doctrine, are compelled to admit
its restraining power.  Bayle, referring to the libertines,
says: "Nothing can more effectually reclaim those men
than to convince them of the immortality of the soul," etc.;
and again: " The two handles by which man is moved are
the fear of punishment and the desire of reward." (See
Crit. Dict., iv, 719, and v, 812.) Shaftesbury (Charact. i,
pp. 18, 19, and iii, 315, 316) expressly affirms the restraining power of this doctrine.  Hume, (in his Essays,
pp. 244, 245,) referring to the Epicurean philosophy, says:
"In fact men do not reason after that manner; they draw
many consequences from the belief of a Divine existence,
and suppose the Deity will inflict punishment on vice, and bestow rewards on virtue, beyond what appears in the ordinary course of nature. Whether this reasoning of theirs be just
or not is no matter, its influence on their life and conduct
must still be the same; and those who attempt to disabuse




~ 57. PUNISHMENT-OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.  399
them of those prejudices may, for aught I know, be good
reasoners; but I cannot allow them to be good citizens and
politicians, since they free men from one restraiht upon
their passions, and make the infringement of the laws of
equity and society in one respect more easy and secure."
Bolingbroke makes substantially the same concession.
He says: "The doctrine of rewards and punishments in a
future state has so great a tendency to enforce the civil
laws, and to restrain the vices of men, that reason, which
cannot decide for it on principles of natural theology, will
not decide against it on principles of good policy." (Works,
iv, 227.)  So also in vol. iii, 220: " The doctrine of future
)Iewards and punishments, which suppose the immortality
of the soul, is no doubt a great restraint to men." At the
same time that he affirms all this, he caricatures and ridicules the Gospel account of the matter. I could add the testimony also of Lord Herbert, Chubb, and Blount to the same
effect, if necessary, but the foregoing is a sufficient refutation of the cavils of the Annihilationists.  And that mankind from the earliest ages entertained the belief of the perpetuity of future rewards and punishments, is sufficiently
plain from the testimonies adduced in part i, chap. iii,
above. Locke, who also believed in their perpetuity, says:
"The rewards and punishments of another life, which the
Almighty has established as the enforcements of his law,
are of weight enough to determine the choice, against whatever pleasure or pain this life can show." See also Essay,
B. ii, chap. xxviii, ~~ 8, 12.
The patristical view has been sufficiently presented in
~ 40, and we shall conclude the chapter with the following
quotation from Dr. Cheever's review of the Life and Writings of John Foster, in the Biblical Repos. for Jan., 1847:
"The truth of eternal retribution is a citadel defended by
many batteries. So fast as, to the vision of an enemy, one
seems to be demolished, another rises. In the Scriptures,
in human reason, from analogy, from the nature of things,
from the character of God, from the character of man, the




400         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.            ~ 57.
evidence is solemn and overwhelming. You may play your
game of escape, if the laws of evidence be disregarded; but
with one who holds you to logical conclusions, in every possible move you are checkmated.  You cannot put the
various doctrines of the Bible in any relative array but they
lead to this; you cannot exclude this from any possible combination; and any one of the elements of the Scriptural
problem given may lead you through the whole circle of
truth. Given, the atonement, to find the character of man
and its relation to the element of retribution; that would
do it. Or, given, the character of man and the character of
God, to find the element of retribution, that would do it.
Or, given, the necessity of Divine grace to fit the soul for
heaven, the atonement being the sole condition of that
grace, to find the element of retribution; that would do it.
Or, given, the existence and agency of fallen spirits, to find
man's retribution; that would do it. Or, given, the bare
offer of eternal life; that would do it. Or, given, the benevolence of God, the axiom of the universe, GoD Is LOVE;
that would do it. [For all retribution is invested with the
atmosphere of love, and had not God been love, he might
have let the guilty go unpunished. But justice only does
the work of love, and love works by justice for the purity
and blessedness of the universe. Where there is sin, love
without wrath, without retribution, would only be connivance with iniquity. There is no such thing as love without justice, or justice without penalty, or penalty %vithout
execution, or execution with end, so long as there is sin."




~ 58.          FUTURE RETRIBUTION.               401
CHAPTER IV.
FUTURE RETRIBUTION -  THEORIES OF UNIVERSALISTS AND DESTRUCTIONISTS.
~ 58. The Point to which the Discussion is brought.
I HAVE now brought this long and really laborious investigation to the great point on which all the human
interest pertaining to it is made by our opponents to revolve, and I trust it is scarcely necessary to say with what
deep and overwhelming feelings of solemnity I approach it.
With my natural sympathies on the side of the creature,
and conscious that through my native depravity, as well as
actual sin, I am unfitted, in the very nature of the case, to
form an unprejudiced and unbiased a priori judgment in
matters wherein my own deepest interests are involvedmatters too which intimately concern the infinite holiness,
justice, truth, and goodness of the eternal God, and also the
interests of the whole universe, so long as the throne of
Deity shall endure —I cannot even venture to introduce my
own speculations herein. All I propose to do therefore,
and all that I can even hope to perform intelligently, is to
employ the faculties which God has given me in the endeavor to understand the import of his message to man on
the subiect, as delivered in his written word, and as illustrated by his works of creation, providence, and grace.
Through the gentlemanly attention of the Rev. Thomas
Whittemore, of Boston, Mass., I was enabled some years
since to collect a large number of the ablest and most approved treatises of modern Universalist writers; for it was
then my intention to furnish a very full and thorough dis.
y~~~~9




402         IM4VMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.           ~ 59.
cussion of the whole subject of future retribution.  My
studies, however, were interrupted, and my plans frustrated,
and now, although it cannot be even attempted on the few
pages of our volume which remain to be occupied, it yet is
necessary to consider the question in its relation both to
Universalism and Annihilationism; for though these may
appear to some to present points of direct antagonism,
every one acquainted with the history of the controversy
in past ages knows that it is not so; and that although the
Restorationists and Annihilationists quote the same pasages, in innumerable instances, to support their views, and
of course draw  diametrically opposite conclusions from
the same words, yet the Restorationists have always kept
the theory of destructionism as a corps de reserve, in case
they found themselves unable to be saved by their favorite
doctrine. It is necessary therefore to take a little broader
range in treating the subject than we should do if the works
of our opponents evinced either consistency or precision of
argument. The principles upon which they and the Universalists assail the doctrine of eternal retribution are the
same, and this requires that an eye should be had to each
in the argument.
~ 59. False Issues pointed out and considered.
Our argument hitherto has conducted us to the conclusion that man is immortal, that his conscious existence
is uninterrupted by death, and that he was originally placed
by his Creator under the eternal and immutable principles
of moral law, by which he was to be governed. It is moreover conceded by ourselves and our opponents, that he
freely and voluntarily violated the precepts of that law by
disregarding an express prohibition of God, and that by so
doing he incurred its penalty. It is in like manner mutually conceded that Christ Jesus came into the world to provide, through his labors and sufferings, a way of deliverance
for man from the ultimate execution of that penalty upon




~ 59.        FALSE ISSUES EXPOSED.                  403
him, and that he offers this his intervention freely to all.
The question then arises: What shall be the final condition
of those who, by rejecting this proffered intervention, (which
rejection itself greatly enhances their guilt,) still remain
under the penalty of the moral law?
1. This, I repeat it, is the only point now at issue; and
the attempt to implicate that issue with other questions
which have no real relation to it, so far as we are concerned,
(a course pursued by all our opponents perpetually,) will
scarcely be regarded as either proper or honest by any
serious inquirer after truth. What propriety is there, for
instance, in endeavoring to drag into the issue the question
as to what will become of the nations to which the Gospel
has not been promulgated? since it is freely conceded by
all that God will treat them in perfect consistency with his
justice, goodness and truth; and since the Annihilationists, moreover, are obliged to confess that they must either
suffer the penalty of the law and become annihilated, or
else escape it and live forever. If they escape it, then they
do so without formally accepting of the intervention of
Christ; but if they do not escape it, then why pretend to
object to our theology, that the same conclusion might be
deduced from it? All such issues therefore are to be
thrown aside, as tending only to obscure the point really in
question, since that point relates only to the final condition
of those who reject the proffered salvation through Christ.
Shall they be restored through suffering, or be annihilated,
or live forever in conscious misery. This question thoroughly disposed of and settled, it will be time enough to go
into inquiries as to what will become of others. And if
our opponents have any real information to communicate
on that subject, I, for one, will receive it thankfully; but
at present it is not needed, since we have all the information that is required in order to settle the issue actually
before us.
2. There are other false issues which they endeavor to
raise in connection with the question, and by which they




404        IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 59.
have succeeded in perplexing it to many minds. For instance, they perpetually persist to reason from man to God,
by inferring that as a tender parent would not punish his
children forever, therefore God would surely never do so in
respect to his creatures. This, however, cannot be urged
by the Annihilationists without absurdity, since no tender
parent would consent to annihilate his children forever, any
imore than he would consent to punish them forever, unless
on the supposition that annihilation is a less fearful punishment thati to live forever in alienation from God, and suffering the consequences of sin, which, however many of
them explicitly deny. But at all events, what is the amount
of this foolish attempt to reason from man to God? If car.
ried out it must lead to Atheism. Since God does many
things which no tender parent would do, (for what parent
would have drowned his children in a flood, or have burned
them, as in Sodom and Gomorrah, or would destroy them by
pestilence, storm, and shipwreck?) we must conclude, if this
reasoning have any foundation, that God has less compassion than man, and is therefore, in reality, rio God at all.
3. Our opponents dwell upon the fact that some persons
are very much impressed with horror and anguish at the
idea of eternal suffering. Mr. Hudson, for example, rings
the changes ad nauseam on this point, and Dr. Chauncey
declared that he could find no way in which to make it sit
easy upon the mind; and we are informed also by Mr.
Hudson (353-355) that the celebrated German scholars of
the present time have abandoned the idea. These things
are frequently urged, and have great weight with some;
but admitting the whole of the representation, what does it
amount to in respect to the real issue before us?  Nothing
whatever, unless the principle be assumed that we are not
to believe any announcement of God to be true, which some
men are perplexed with, or have a difficulty in receiving.
Great and learned men have been puzzled and much perplexed by the doctrines of the Trinity, Providence, Grace,
Atonement, Incarnation, Resurrection, and everything relat



~ 59.        FALSE ISSUES EXPOSED.                405
ing to God's administration in the unseen and eternal
world; and are we thence to conclude that nothing is to be
believed by us in relation to these matters?  The idea is
absurd. Why then endeavor to perplex the issue in this
manner? The statement, however, in reference to the German theologians is false, (as the articles of faith adopted by
the Evangelical Alliance would of themselves evince,) and so
far are they from having abandoned the idea, their renewed
and thorough investigation of the subject has only confirmed
them more fully in its truth.
4. Another matter which these men perpetually endeavor
to drag into the discussion is stated by them in the often
repeated assertion, that, according to the views which we inculcate, the greater part of mankind must perish forever.
But if such a thing could be justly and logically inferred
from the theological system which we adopt, what would it
have to do with the plain simple question as to the final
condition of those who voluntarily reject the Gospel offer of
salvation?  This question is to be settled by an appeal to
the word of God, and not to any theological system. Why
then attempt to drag any such system into the issue? Sup
pose that as systemrs they are all rejected, this question
would still remain to be settled on its own intrinsic merits.
I would remark however that the assertion on which this
cavil is based is false. Our theologians do not teach that
the great majority of mankind will perish forever. The
constant statement of our'best divines is that the number of
the lost will bear no more proportion to that of the saved,
when the final judgment shall forever settle the destinies of
our race, than the convicts in a prison bear to all the inhabitants of the state.
5. Others make equally preposterous attempts to introduce into this issue their unfounded theories as to the final
cause of God in creation.  But what do they know of that
final cause, except so far as God himself has seen proper to
reveal it? Dr. T. Southwood Smith and Petitpierre assume,
for example, that God, being benevolent, could have had no




406          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.                 ~ 59.
other object than the happiness of every one of his creatures,
and thence infer that all men shall be saved at last. But
where in the whole Bible do we find that God's only design
or object in creation thus terminates upon the creature 2
The redeemed in heaven and all the angelic host sing, "Thou
art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honor, and power,.
for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they
are, and were created." Rev. iv, 11.*  The testimony. of the
whole Scripture is uniform on the subject, and directly in
conflict with the foregoing assumption.  "The Lord hath
created all things for himself." Prov. xvi, 4. "All things
were created by him and for him." Col. i, xvi. See also
Heb. ii, 10; Rom. xi, 36. And in the same manner he declares himself to be the end of his works.  L' I am the Alpha
and the Omega, the Beginning and the Ending," etc. Rev.
i, 8, 1 17, and xxii, 13, with Isa. xliv, 6, and xlviii, 12.
And that he constantly makes himself his end in his providential government and dispensations is plain from such
passages as Isa. xlvii, 11: "For my own sake, even for my
own sake, will I do it."  Isa. xliii, 7: "For my glory I
have formed him." See also Isa. xlix, 3; Ix, 21; lxi, 3;
Eph. i, 5.  And that it is not for the sake of man, but " for
his own sake," that he extends mercy to them. (Ezek. xxxvi,
22, 32.) And hence mankind are required to glorify him
as the great end of their creation. (2 Thess. i, 10-12; Phil.
i, 10, 11; ii, 11; Matt. v. 16; 1 Pet. ii, 12; 1 Cor. vi, 20;
x, 30.) And Jesus likewise sought the glory of God as his
highest end. (John vii, 18, and xii, 27, 28. See Edwards
on the Last End of God in Creation, for an admirable view
of this whole subject.)
Such is God's own testimony on the subject, and what right
* Professor Stuart translates the passage thus: " For thou hast created
all things, and by thy -wzill they came into existence and were created,"
mnaking it a mere inane repetition. And, unsupported by any authority
whatever, he arbitrarily assumes "an instrismentae sense," which he had
not the shadow of a right to do, and thus most unexegetically confounds
d(it before the accusative, with dcld before the genitive. A more uncalled
for and unsupported criticism never proceeded from his pen.




~ 59.         FALSE ISSUES EXPOSED.              407
has any presumptuous mortal to assume, as these men do,
that the contrary is the fact? But gross as is such impertinence, it sinks into insignificance, compared with the presumption which would lead the sinner to hazard his eternal
well-being upon such an idle dream! That God's object in
creation was both wise and benevolent no one will question.
But how can it be inferred from this that it so terminates
upon rebellious and sinful creatures as to lead him, for their
sakes, to set aside his law by abrogating its penalty, and thus
render all his admonitions and threatenings a farce'  Is such
an unfounded assumption sufficient to justify a rejection of
God's own statements on the subject?  If not, then the question still returns, What has he said shall be the final con.
dition of the lost? For whatever he has said on the subject
he will accomplish; and whatever that may be, it is certain
to be perfectly consistent with infinite benevolence and truth,'
whether we, in this stage of our existence, can see it to be so
or not.
The following illustration, for which I am indebted to
Saurin, is in point here, and will set this whole matter in its
true light. Suppose.that previous to the creation of man
God had communicated to certain holy intelligences his intention of calling our world into being, and that thereupon
several of them had begun to speculate upon what kind of
world it would be; what may we suppose (for the supposition is perfectly proper) would have been the views
entertained by such beings on the subject, who knew God to
be perfectly holy, wise, and almighty?  But suppose that
one of the number, during the deliberation, should have advanced, as probable, the idea that the world which was to. be
created should prove to be a universe of sin, disease, misery,
and death; how may we suppose that such a theory
would have been regarded by them? May we not well conclude that it would have been at once pronounced to be infinitely absurd and preposterous? And on the supposition
that our opponents themselves could have formed a part of
that assembly, and before experience had made them ac



408         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.  ~             59~
quainted with the facts, would not they, in all probability, have
been the loudest in denouncing the idea as not only absurd, but
even allied to blasphemy? Such would doubtless have been
their own feelings, and the feelings of the whole assembly;
and yet how wide of the truth would such conclusions have
been? For we find that, in the inscrutable counsels of a
wise, holy, and righteous God, just such a world has beenr
brought into being. And if present sin and misery are not
incompatible with infinite goodness and benevolence, how
audacious'is the assumption that there ever will arrive *a
period when they shall become incompatible therewith? If
their introduction and existence now are consistent with a
perfectly wise and holy administration, who has fathomed
the counsels of the Eternal sufficiently to warrant the assertion that they will not continue to be consistent therewith?
And what impertinence is it to make such an assertion without the slightest knowledge whatever of the matter?
6. Of the same character'is that kindred assumption, that
moral evil is the positive appointment of God as a necessary
means for promoting the greatest ultimate good of all his
creatures. There is not the slightest proof to sustain such a
hypothesis, and it is a puerile attempt to evade the true issue
before us, since the only way in which we can, possibly know
anything of God's design in permitting the existence of evil,
and of its ultimate results upon the creature, is from what
he himself has announced respecting it. The question then
returns, What has he said on the subject?  And then, as to
this hypothesis itself, it is directly contrary to all the Scripture representations of the manner in which God regards sia
and treats the sinner. It makes God himself the author of
sin, and man a mere machine, since he can feel and act only
as the Sovereign of the world efficiently appoints,  It utterlydestroys conscience, and excludes all remorse for sin; annihilates the distinction between right and wrong, or moral
good and evil, and turns the threatenings and admonitions
of God into idle words. All these things can be easily de.
monstrated whenever occasion may require.




~ 60. THE ATONEMENT AND THE FINALLY LOST. 409
7. How impertinent then is it for Rev. Messrs. Whately,
Dobney, Hudson, Ham, etc., to pretend to feel so very anxious about the character of God, lest it should suffer in the
estimation of themselves and others, and on this ground to
presume to modify his own awfully solemn teachings respecting those matters which pertain to our best and eternal
interests. Well may such tamperers with eternal truth expect.to hear him demand of them, "Who hath required this
at your hand?" We commend to their- sober and serious
consideration the remark of Beza: "We cannot speak improperly of God, while we speak of him as he speaks of himself."  Qui sequitur Deum, emendate sane loquitur.  And
that also of the wise and judicious Hooker: " Whatever is
spoken of God, or things pertaining to God, otherwise than
as the truth is, though it seem an honor, it is an injury."
~ 60. The Atonement cannot benefit the Lost.  Their
Resurrection.
What, then, shall be the final condition of the lost? In
answering this awfully solemn and momentous inquiry I remark:
1. It is obvious that the atonement cannot help thenm.
Our blessed Mediator, through his labors and sufferings,
opened the way for our return to the favor of God, and there
is no other way by which man can be recovered from sin to
holiness. He, moreover, has offered his intervention to all,
and announces his willingness to save to the uttermost all
who come unto God by him. But this offer is voluntarily
rejected by those to whom the question in issue pertains;
and that rejection is of course a voluntary renunciation on
their part of all the proffered blessings of redeeming love.
How then can they be benefited and saved by that which is
left to their own choice, and which they freely refuse?  It
is obvious, therefore, that as the acceptance of the offer must
bring salvation, so its rejection must preclude the possibility
of being thus saved, since the effects of such refusal must




410         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 60.
necessarily be as direct, and marked, and lasting as those
resulting form the acceptance of the offer. The atonement,
therefore, cannot save those who reject it, and they must
consequently remain under the penalty of the law forever.
And in exact accordance with this we find it stated that
Christ, when all his enemies are prostrate and overthrown,
resigns the mediatorial kingdom which he had received,
thus leaving those enemies to the unending consequences of
their impenitence and guilt. (1 Cor. xv, 24-28.)
The attempt of Universalists to extend the efficacy of the
atonement over the whole human race, irrespective of man's
treatment of the offered salvation, and whether he repent
and accept it or not, is in every view absurd, as is shown in
sect. 59; and then further, to pretend to offer to man's free
acceptance or rejection what he must at all events accept,
whether he will or not, is to charge God foolishly. It makes
the atonement also a nullity; since, as is perfectly obvious,
if God could thus save men without repentance, he could
save them without an atonement.
2. In reference to the question, What is their connection
with the resurrection?  Do they, or do they not arise from
the dead? I remark,
(1.) That the views of a few of'our opponents on this
matter, as may be seen from section 5, sub-sections 5 and 6,
are somewhat undecided; so also is Mr. Hudson, in his book,
pp. 263, 264, 299-308, 399, 400.. The majority, however,
emphatically affirm that the wicked shall arise; and that
this is the truth is plain from many express declarations of
Scripture: Dan. xii, 2; Matt. v, 29, 30; x, 28; Mark ix,
42-50; John v, 28, 29; Acts xxiv, 14, 15; 1 Cor. v, 10,
and a multitude of other places. And the severance of
soul and body being no part of the proper penalty of the
law, they must of course be reunited body and soul in order
fully to endure that penalty. See section 45, above.
(2.) The idea of their being thus raised merely to be annihilated over again, is not only contrary to the whole Scripture representation, but one of the most repulsive ideas that




~~ 61, 62. RESTORATIONISM  CONSIDERED.            411
can be conceived by the human mind. (See sect. 19, subsect. 3.) Without the clearest inspired affirmation of its truth
it should not be entertained for a moment; and much more
should it be utterly repudiated, when it is based, as it truly
is, upon a mere idle assumption.  But as the question
whether the wicked are to be annihilated is brought forward
irrespective of the question as to their resurrection, we shall
give it a thorough consideration in the sequel.
~ 61. The Punishment of the Lost is not disciplinary.
1. That it is not, according to the annihilation theory, is
admitted by all its advocates. They who admit the resurrection of the wicked, admit that the process of annihilation
may continue amid the most unutterable torments for a vast
and indefinite period, until it is consummated. Of course,
therefore, there can be nothing disciplinary therein, and it
is simply retributory.
2. That the sufferings of the wicked during the interval
between death and the resurrection are not disciplinary, is
sufficiently apparent from the considerations presented in
sect. 48, sub-sect. 4, and this point needs not to be further
dwelt upon.
~ 62. The Restoration Theory inconsistent with Scripture
and Reason.
That the sufferings of the wicked subsequent to the resurrection are not disciplinary is evident from many considerations:
1. The presumption (asserted by the Restorationists) that
it may be, is fairly disposed of by the undoubted fact that
the punishments inflicted by the government of God in this
world are not necessarily of that character, but often are, indisputably, the very reverse. In order to place this beyond
cavil, it is only necessary to refer to the Deluge, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the case of Pharaoh, of Nadab




412         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 62.
and Abihu, of Achan and the house of Eli, of Saul, etc.
There is, therefore, no correct principle upon which it may
be presumed that the punishments inflicted in the world to
come are of an opposite character.
2. If future punishment be reformatory and purifying, it
must lead its subjects to repentance through suffering. This,
in relation to moral agents, implies. of course, a state of
trial and probation; for a state of discipline which is not of
that character is an absurdity. They must, therefore, be in
the possession of all the freedom necessary to constitute
them moral agents, for to deprive them of this would be to
make them render a forced or compulsory obedience, which,
in such a matter, is really no obedience at all; and a compulsory purification, therefore, would be no purification in
the true sense of the word.  But if they possess their freedom, how is it to be presumed that this asserted discipline
will prove effectual  If, after all the torments employed
to bring them to repentance, their obedience and reformation
still remain a contingent event, how is any one to know that
their purification will certainly follow? It is a mere assumption, and to base upon it certainty of knowledge is therefore ridiculous.
3. Then, further, it is conceded by the Restorationists that
this discipline must continue during a longer or shorter
period, according as the moral state of the wicked may require; and that though it is natural to suppose it must
necessarily require a longer time to reclaim  the most
hardened and obdurate than it would those of a less degree
of wickedness, yet the torment shall in no case continue
longer than is necessary to secure its end, which is the repentance and reformation of the sinner; and any further infliction would be inconsistent with that end, and therefore
not to be supposed. These things being so, it is plain that
during the infliction of these torments, the offer or promise
is constantly held forth to the sinner, that if he will only
repent and reform his sufferings shall cease.  Now the very
presentation of this offer to them shows that they retain the




~ 62.      RESTORATIONISM  CONSIDERED.              413
liberty either to accept or refuse it; and we are assured,
moreover, by the Restorationists, that many will continue
to refuse it for a long time, and so be in continual torments
for ages of ages.  But here the question occurs, Is their
resistance to this discipline sinful, or is it not? Is *their
continued refusal to yield and repent wrong or right? No
one will contend that it is right; for it would be obviously
wrong, in the same sense that the sinner's resistance in this
world is wrong, and sinful, and wicked, as God has declared
it to be. If then it is wrong, it of course cannot go unpunished; so that if the refusal to repent during some fifty
or sixty years in this world may require a discipline of
millions of ages, as some of them say, how long a discipline
would a refusal continued through a million of years or
ages require? And then, as Edwards remarks, (vii, 382,)
it is plain that by persisting in impenitence and stubbornness, wiekedness in the heart will be vastly established and
increased; for it may be laid down as an axiom, that the
longer men continue willfully in the perpetration of wickedness, the more is the habit of sin established and the more
will the heart become hardened in it.  So that after the
lost have continued thus in sin and rebellion for ages of
ages, and have arrived to that desperate hardness of heart
and strength of habitual wickedness which must ensue, they
will be, as respects every moral aspect of their case, in an
infinitely worse and more hopeless condition than when at
first cast into hell.  And if in that state the torment
should be lengthened out indefinitely, they must still continue to sin, and of course all hope of repentance and reform becomes simply an absurdity.  But then we are not
left to metaphysical reasoning on the subject; for a state of
probation after the close of the present life is plainly contrary to the whole Bible. See, for example, Gen. vi, 6;
Eccles. ix, 10; Matt. xii, 31, 32; Luke vi, 24; xvi, 25-31;
John ix, 4; Heb. vi; 4-6.
4. That it is not disciplinary is further evident from the
fact that such an idea must necessarily compel the belief




414          IMIMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 62
that the curse or penalty of the law is the greatest possible
blessing which can be possessed by the sinner, which would
be very absurd even to imagine.  Christ failed to save them
by his Gospel, and thus they were brought into a fearful
state of wickedness and danger; but they are now taken
and put into the midst of hell-fire, according to'the threatening against rejecters of the Gospel; and this fire does-for
themn  what Christ could not do-it raises them  to heaven
and the joys of eternal life. Hell-fire, therefore, is to such
persons, according to this principle, a greater blessing than
Christ, and the penalty of the law more precious to them
than the promise of mercy; for the promise failed, but the
penalty was effectual. Now such persons could never unite
with the blood-washed throng, and sing praises to Him who
washed and redeemed them in his own blood; the objects
of their praise and laudation must be hell-fire, and the curse
of the law; and how perfectly preposterous this would be,
every one can see for himself.
5. The very same conclusion is arrived at in another way;
for it is plain that future punishment is either the infliction
of the threatened curse or penalty of the law upon sinners,
or it is not. If it is not the curse of the law against sinners, then what is it? and when and where is that curse
inflicted? and on what ground?  It is, however, admitted
to be the curse by all who hold the doctrine of future punishment.  But if it be the curse of the law, and yet disciplinary, that is, designed to lead sinners to repentance and
salvation, then the curse of the law is the greatest of all
blessings, and, as above remarked, a greater blessing'than
Christ; so that those who are thus disciplined into repentance and heaven, are not saved by the atonement of Christ,
unless it be supposed that he died to procure the execution
of the curse, instead of removing it from  our race.  This
inference is logical and direct; and according to this view,
therefore, the curse of the law is the greatest blessing that
a sinner can receive. And how great the power of such a
doctrine is to restrain or encourage sin, the reader will decide.




~ 62.      R.ESTORATIONISM  CONSIDERED.             415
6. It is obvious, moreover, that according to this view
salvation does not consist in forgiveness through mercy,
or* in being saved from anything, strictly speaking, but
simply in doing justice to the sinner.  He is made to eat
the fruit of his own doings, and so soon as he has eaten
it, he is thoroughly and eternally cured.  Now this of
course turns into nonsense all that the Bible says of sinners
being saved by mercy, grace, etc.
7. That future punishment is not disciplinary or reformatory, is plain from all those passages which speak of its
retributory nature.  Such, for instance, as Deut. xxxii, 41:
" I will render vengeance to my enemies, and will reward
them that hate me." Rom. iii, 5: " Is God unrighteous,
who taketh vengeance."   Rom. xii, 19: "Vengeance is
mine; I will repay."  2 Thess. i, 8: " In flaming fire taking
vengeance on them."  Jude 7: "Suffering the vengeance of
eternal fire-" Heb. x, 27: "A certain fearful looking for
of judgment, and fiery indignation, which shall devour the
adversaries." See also Rev. xiv, 10. I include purposely
here passages which refer also to God's administration in
the present world; since, if in this probationary state of
mercy vengeance often overtakes the sinner, and a retribution which it is impossible to regard as reformatory, what
may the sinner not look for in the world to come?
8. Our opponents endeavor to perplex this point by confounding the retributions which overtake the sinner here,
with the chastisement suffered by the righteous. There is
no sense in this, however, as a comparison of the language
referring to the two will at once show. God addresses men
in such language as the following: " The curse of the Lord
is in the house of the wicked, but he blesseth the habitation
of the just." Prov. iii, 33.  "Behold I  set before you this
day a blessing and a curse. A blessing if ye will obey,"
etc. Deut. xi, 26-29. "Thou hast rebuked the proud, that
are accursed." Psa. cxix, 21.  "Their portion is cursed in
the earth." Job xxiv, 18.  "They that be cursed of him
shall be cut off." Psa. xxxvii, 22. Also Jer. xi, 3; xvii, 5,




41 6       IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 62.
etc. And in the New Testament they are spoken of as " cursed
children." 2 Pet. ii, 14. Now even allowing all these expressions to refer to men in this life, it is plain that some
here are cursed of God. And a curse is certainly a punishment which does not promote the good of the subject. (See
Edwards against Chauncey, pp. 76, 77.)  But on the contrary the chastisements of the true child of God are all said
to be in love: " Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and
scourgeth every son whom he receiveth."  " If ye be without chastisement whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards and not sons." Heb. xii, 5, 11. " For unto you it is
given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but
also to suffer for his sake." Phil. i, 29. See also Psa.
lxxxix, 30-34; ciii, 13, 14; cxvi, 15. There is as much
difference, therefore, between the two as between a curse
and a blessing; for to the one the infliction is in vengeance,.fury, wrath, and fiery indignation, while to the other it is
in compassion, tenderness, and love. To pretend, therefore,
that these things are similar, and of the same import, is
gross ignorance.
9. The idea which underlies all such representations is
contained in the often repeated statement, that sin is only
the necessary means by which God purifies a moral universe.
It is repeated by T. Southwood Smith, and the Restorationists generally; but to me it seems that the mind of ian
could not conceive a more preposterous idea.  What purification did the moral universe need before sin entered it?
Of course it needed none. How then could it be purified
by the admission of sin? Could the pure sweet waters of a
beautiful pellucid lake be purified by turning into it a turbid
stream redolent with the  foul washings of kennels and
sewers?  But even. should we grant the assumption, our
adversaries would gain nothing to their argument, since a
continuance of the same means which'were thus originally
necessary in order to purify the universe, may be likewise
necessary in order to keep it pure.




63.      FUTURE PUNISHMENT ETERNAL.                 417
~ 63. Subject continued-Future Punishment eternal.
That the sufferings of the lost are not disciplinary and
reformatory is further evident from the fact that they are
plainly declared to be eternal.* I merely refer to the fact here
in a general way, and as it relates simply to the issue with the
Restorationists. It will be necessary however, in the sequel,
to consider it in its relation to the stand-point assumed by
the Annihilationists.
1. That the future punishment of the sinner will be endless is clearly implied by innumerable declarations of the
Scriptures.  For example, it is distinctly stated that no
mercy shall be extended to them in hell, which is obvious,
moreover, also from 4he fact fully proved above, that their
punishment is not reformatory.  Now  that strict justice
will be awarded to the impenitent in hell, is clear from such
passages as Job xxxiv, 2; Psa. lxxii, 12; Jer. xvii, 10;
xxxii, 17; Matt. v, 25, 26; xvi, 27; Rom. ii, 6; 2 Cor. v,
10; Jas. ii, 13; Rev. xiv, 10; xxii, 12; and if God, even
in this world, where mercy is displayed, often visits with
retributory justice, much more will he in the world where
mercy ceases to be offered.  The same is likewise implied
by the existence and misery of Satan, who is never to be
restored. Toward him and his angels the word of God
holds out no hope, but plainly the reverse. (Heb. ii, 14-16.)
Dr. Chauncey (p. 225) assumes, directly in the face of the
plainest statements to the contrary, (Matt. xxv, 41; Rev.
xx, 10,) that they will be annihilated; but such assumptions
are unworthy of notice.
2. The same words, as Mosheim  remarks, (Gedanken,
sect. 3, sub-sect. 2,) are employed by the Holy  Scriptures, and in the same latitude of import, to describe the
eternal sufferings of the damned, as are used to describe the
- On this whole subject let the reader consult the " Observations " of
President Edwards in vol. vii, of his works, and the reply of the younger
Edwards to Dr. Chauncey. Also the Gedanken of Moshelm upon the
doctrine of Future Punishment.
27




418         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 63.
eternal blessedness of the righteous.  In Matt. xxv, 46, for
instance, the same term (awvtLog,) is applied to both. So
also are the words translated for ever and ever; for elf -roV'
at vag ir-v atvcov, and' Wy  h    (and  tin) mean
an endless duration.  This phrase is employed eighteen
times in the New Testament, and in fifteen of these it is
used to designate the continuance and perpetuity of the
glory, perfections, government, and praises of God. In
these instances the import of the phrase cannot be questioned. As to the other three, in one of them it is said of
the devil, the beast, and the false prophet, that they should be
tormented day and night, " forever and ever."  In the second, it is said of the impenitent, that the smoke of their
torment ascendeth for ever and ever, and in the other instance it is said of the righteous that they shall reign for
ever and ever.
The objection which all our adversaries so insist upon,
and which Messrs. Le Clere, Chauncey, Kneeland, and
others now bring forward with such pedantic display, that
the idea of time.is contained in all these terms, and therefore, however long a period we may suppose to be designated, it must come to an end, is not evincive of a reflection
much more profound than their objections usually exhibit;
since, if the fact that the idea of time, or temporal duration
being contained in them, proves that the thing referred to
must have an end, then of course the happiness of the righteous must have an end, and so must the glory, and praises,
and government of God. But the pedantic utterance itself,
however, is set in its true light in the following passage from
Noah Webster: "It will be easily seen that as the human
mind cannot comprehend eternity in duration any more than
it can infinite space, no word which men could form would
express the whole idea. All that men can do, in this case,
is to express their ideas by a word of indefinite meaning;
and what better mode can men take to convey their limited
ideas of what is unlimited, than to use a word which expresses enlargement or extension?  Eternity, then, is unlim.




~ 63.     FUTURE PUNISHMENT ETERNAL.              419
ited extent in duration; and that the Greek word above mentioned (a'&v) is often used in that sense, is a fact which no
critic can disprove, and no rational critic can deny." *
3. Future punishment is positively affirmed to be endless. Psa. xvii, 14; Matt. vi, 15; xii, 31, 32; Mark iii, 19;
Luke xii, 10; xviii, 8;  xxiii, 34; xxvi, 24; Marl;
xiv, 21; Mark ix, 43-49; Luke vi, 24; xvi, 25, 26;
John iii, 36; 2 Thess. i, 7-9; Heb. vi, 4-6; x, 26, 27;
2 Pet. ii, 17; 1 John v, 16; Jude 13; Rev. xiv, 10, 11,
and in many other places.  Such language, too, as the
following cannot possibly convey any other idea; and it
is impossible to conceive that it should be employed if
the damned, after many ages, are to be received into an
eternity of bliss: "Woe to you that are rich, for you have
received your consolation!"  An expression which, if its import could be regarded as at all doubtful, is fully explained
by such language as the following: "' Thou in thy life time
receivedst thy good things."  "Men of the world, who have
their portion in this life." Luke vi, 24; xvi, 25; Psa.
xvii, 14. No language can possible express the idea of an
endless deprivation of bliss if this do not, and consequently
it asserts that the punishment of the wicked shall be eternal.
4. The same may be said also of Mark xiv, 21: " Woe to
that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed. Good were it
for that man if he had never been born!"  The impossibility of reconciling these words with the idea that this
man, after he had suffered any supposable length of time,
should enjoy a whole eternity of bliss, is too apparent to require remark. (See also John xvii, 12.) And hence Judas
was never to obtain such happiness. The remark that the
expression is a proverb, is idle, as regards this issue. Suppose
it were, and does this show that it may not have been literally applied to Judas by our Lord? Is language employed
in proverbs never employed in its literal import? Are
proverbs, in the necessity of the case, literally inapplicable
to the subject concerning which they are spoken? But then
* Christian Spectator for 1836, p. 818.




420         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 63.
there is not the slightest evidence that Christ used the expression as a proverb.  All that Dr. A. Clarke, or any one
else, has attempted to bring with such parade in support
of the assertion, will, if conceded to be accurately presented,
only go to show that the phrase had passed into a proverb
some two or three centuries after the death of Christ, a time
of sufficient length to turn consecutively any twenty expressions originally of an aphoristic form from their literal
usage into proverbial. The exception therefore is nothing
to the purpose.
5. The same truth is apparent, likewise, from such expressions as that of John the Baptist: "He that believeth
not the Son shall not see life." John iii, 36. The word
life in the Bible has two meanings: 1. Mere existence;
and 2. Eternal happiness. (See sect. 27, sub-sect. 2.)  The
first sense cannot, of course, be its meaning here, as the
persons referred to do or shall possess existence, so that
here it can only refer to future and eternal happiness.  And
it is impossible, therefore, to express in stronger terms the
doctrine that the wicked are not to be restored to the possession of eternal life, however long their sufferings may be
supposed to continue.
6. And, finally, the same truth is evident from the representations constantly made in the Scriptures respecting the
manner in which God regards and treats the persistently
impenitent. They are lost, rejected, cast away, perish, destroyed, etc.  " Gathered the good into vessels, but cast the
bad away." Matt. xiii, 48.  " They shall utterly perish in
their own corruption." 2 Pet. ii, 13.  "But we are not
of them that draw back unto perdition, but of them that be
lieve unto the saving of the soul." Heb. x, 39.  "The day
of judgment, and perdition of ungodly men." 2 Pet. iii, 7.
"Fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."
Matt. x, 28.  "Who shall be punished with everlasting
destruction from the presence of the Lord." 2 Thess. i, 9.
Now if the damned were under only a salutary discipline,
such language could no more be applied to their state than




~ 63.     FUTURE PUNISHMENT ETERNAL.                 421
it could to that of Christians who are under such discipline
in the present life; and they are equally removed from that
state or condition to which such terms as destruction, lost,
perish, etc., are applicable in the strict and proper sense in
which they are employed in the foregoing passages. Hence
in no proper sense can they be regarded as lost, cast away,
rejected, destroyed, on the supposition that they are merely
being trained for the bliss of heaven, through the reformatory and "salutary discipline" of hell.  The application of
these terms, therefore, in this their strict and literal sense, to
their state, evinces that they are under no such discipline,
but that their sufferings are retributory and their condition
final.




422         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.            ~ 64.
CHAPTER V.
ANNIHILATION IS NOT THE PUNISHMENT OF THE
WICKED.
~ 64. Position of the Annihilationists stated and disproved.
All our opponents who are not Universalists maintain,
and, as the reader has doubtless observed, greatly insist,
that the wicked are to be annihilated, and that this is an
eternal punishment. But that this is not to be their punishment is evident from the whole word of God. And,
1. Annihilation is not the penalty of the law. It is nowhere said to be such; and to take it for granted, as is done
by D. 271, 272, and others, is inadmissible and absurd.
It is asserted with one voice by our opponents that man
has no actual title to immortality or endless existence.
They affirm that by Christ alone, man, since the fall, has been
placed in circumstances in which it is at all attainable; and
that this is the only foundation upon which he can become
capable of immortality. They maintain, further, that he
was originally created mortal. How, then, can the law
threaten that if he sin he shall be mortal, and be deprived
of that which does not in any way belong to him? According to their doctrine it belongs to man no more than to
beasts, naturally, and yet they do not hold that beasts are
sinners, and that when they die they are punished everlastingly, and suffer the penalty of the law. They are obliged
to hold, moreover, that even had our first parents persisted
in their integrity, and not sinned, as they were created mor



~ 64, THE WICKED NOT TO BE ANNIHILATED.   423
tal, God could have left them to the natural course of things
without doing them any injustice, or depriving the m of any
native right whatever. They had no claim upon God for a
continuance of life beyond the supposed period; and there
could be no injustice therefore in not granting it, and in
permitting them to pass into nothingness. An innocent
being, therefore, according to this view, may suffer annihilation without the slightest injustice; and if so, annihilation is,
strictly speaking, no punishment at all, and therefore cannot
be the penalty of the law.
The theology of our opponents on this point is more remarkable than theological. At one time they claim that annihilation is the severest and most terrible of all punishments, worse even than eternal suffering; and then again,
in their expositions of texts, they make out that it is no
punishment to suffer it between death and the resurrection,
but really "gain.'"*  Now if it be no punishment in such a
case, how can it be in any other case?  Will a man who is
annihilated forever feel it more than one who is annihilated
only for a few thousand years?  And do the wicked who
are annihilated between death and the resurrection feel it
more than the righteous who are also then annihilated?
And if the annihilation of the righteous during this interval
is not the penalty of the law, how can the annihilation of
the wicked be?
it-cannot, therefore, be the penalty of the law, even on
their own principles, because it is inflicted upon the righteous,
and may without injustice be inflicted upon the innocent, and
all who have no claim to continued existence. A purlishment is an actual evil brought upon any one as a testimony
that his conduct is disapproved; but the non-granting of a
favor to which there is no title is no testimony of disapproval and displeasure, though the refusal of a promised
favor may be, for promise bestows a title to it, which is not
the fact in the case supposed. To confound, therefore. the
* C. 40; S., App. 9, 21, 22; II. 2, pp. 68, 78; A. 90, etc.; E. 136, 137;
G. 20; F. 11-14; W. 84, 88, 89; Hud. 256, 257.




424          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.            ~ 64.
non-bestowment of a positive and unmerited favor, or boon,
with the~execution of the fearful and threatened penalty of
the Divine law, is absurd, unless it can be supposed that a
right may both exist and not exist at the same time.
2. It is plain also that it cannot be the penalty, since, according to our opponents, it is really and fully executed
twice: first, at death, and then after the resurrection.
And here I may remark that it would be well if our opponents would favor us with some explanation in regard
to their notion of the resurrection of the wicked. It is
either an act of grace or of penalty. It cannot be on their
principles an act of penalty, since while dead the wicked
already are fully, and as much as they ever can be, under the
penalty. Nor can it be of grace, for it is no grace to give.
a creature life merely for the purpose of torturing him to
death.
3. Why, then, should the wicked be annihilated?  The
views of our opponents are greatly inconsistent and contradictory here. They say, first, that it is the just desert of
their sins, and that God has threatened it, and will be sure
to execute it. And at the same time they say that it would
be more in accordance with infinite goodness and compassion
to do this, rather than to preserve the wicked in existence
forever in misery; that is, it would be more in accordance
with goodness to deliver them thus from the just consequences of their sin. But it is proper to: ask here, Would
this be an act of mercy, or of justice? for it can hardly be
both. And to suppose that they can have any claim to
mercy, and that God is bound by goodness, or by anything
else, to show them his favor, is to suppose that he is obliged
to save them from the consequences which they have voluntarily brought upon themselves by rejecting his proffered
mercy. In other words, because they have rendered themselves the fit objects.of his displeasure, by despising his calls
and admonitions, and the provisions of his mercy, he is
bound still to relieve them from the consequences of so dcing, though he had assured them they should " have judgment




~ 64.  THE WICKED NOT TO BE ANNIHILATED.   425
without mercy." James ii, 13. What can be the effect of
such a doctrine, except to encourage the wicked in sin?
Then, moreover, the idea that annihilation is an act of
grace destroys at once and utterly the whole theory that it
is the penalty of the law and just desert of sin, as maintained by our opponents, since it is hardly possible to
conceive, on any other principle than that of suffering everlasting misery by anticipation, (see sect. 55, sub-sect. 1,) that
the penalty of the law can be inflicted in mercy, and that
mercy itself toward the sinner should require its infliction
upon him.
4. But, as we have fully shown in sects. 53, 54, God's
raethod of procedure, in his treatment of rational creatures,
is not of this character.  The justice of the law may be
properly executed upon those who violate its precepts, as
no man can rationally dispute. And, as Annihilationists are
compelled to admit, the terrible anguish inflicted upon the
lost, and which issues in the extinction of their being, is not
for their personal good, but for the good of others, as a salu
tary example of the consequences of sin; so, according
to their own principles, if an unending continuance of
their suffering would in the same manner be useful, it
would be consistent with both justice and propriety to
continue it forever. In such a case even Utilitarians, if
consistent with their principles, must concede that it would
be proper. (See sect. 52.) And even the aforesaid celebrated definition of punishment by Plato would justify it.
(See sect. 49.) Let us then briefly contemplate the subject
from this stand-point.
(1.) The attempt which many writers now make to throw
this whole matter aside, by a sort of general caveat, and so
take for granted that there is something back of all reason
which will justify their refusal to believe it, however clearly
its truth may be justified in the view of both conscience and
the reason, is utterly irrational, and contrary to the principles of common sense. Is it so that we are at liberty, on
the ground of the most unfounded assumptions, thus to




426         IMMORTALITY 01' THE SOUL.             ~ 64.
ignore the clear announcements of revelation, and the deductions which reason cannot but draw therefrom?  What is
this but claiming the right to ignore the rational and moral
nature which God has given us2 But let those who thus
trifle remember that however untrue we, by pursuing such a
course, may prove to be to that nature, God is bound to recognize it, and to prove true to it in all his dealings with us.
He can recognize no such conduct to be justifiable in any
rational creature. " There is a way which seemeth right unto
a man: but the end thereof are the ways of death." If sin
and suffering were inconsistent with infinite goodness and
mercy, God would not permit them here to exist. And
we are entirely too little acquainted with the future state to
determine that they will not be necessary there. Who durst
say that when we are better acquainted with that state we
shall not find that suffering, as connected with guilt, is even
more necessary there than in this world?
(2.) It is impossible to conceive how God should deal
with rational and moral creatures by any other arrangement
than is here recognized. He finds them in a sinful and
miserable state, and offers them deliverance. They refuse
it, and thus practically prefer to remain as they are. What
then should hinder his permitting them to continue to furnish
to all holy beings forever an illustration of the consequences
of sin and rebellion against his authority? Such is his government in the moral and natural world now. A man, disregarding the laws of life, wantonly severs an artery.. Is
God under obligation to arrest the tide of death, and heal
the wound, that the man may be saved from the consequences of his act? No one will pretend such a thing. The
Inan is left to suffer the penalty, and by that suffering to
evince to others the consequences of such an act. The same
principle is true also ill God's moral administration; and
though triflers have dared to ridicule the idea of God glorifying his justice, their trifling is rebuked by facts of constant
occurrence under both his natural and moral administration
which should make them  tremble.  Men must regard




~ 64.  THE WICKED NOT TO BE ANNIHILATED.  427
natural laws, or suffer the consequences; all concede this.
And the necessity is equally imperative to regard moral
law. We have referred to the Deluge, and the destruction
of Sodom, and to other instances of the consequences of disregarding moral obligation under his administration; let us
now briefly contemplate the Scripture doctrine of examples
touching this subject.
(3.) The apostle, after enumerating a catalogue of such
punishments for moral obliquity, expressly declares (1 Cor.
x, 6, 11,) that "These things were our examples, to the intent
we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
All these things happened unto them for ensamples, and they
are written for our admonition." (Compare 2 Tim. iii, 16.)
And then in the following verse he applies the instruction
furnished by those examples: "Wherefore let him  that
thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall;" thus plainly
declaring and repeating the doctrine, that under the government of God the vices and punishments of men are employed
for purposes of warning and instruction. The same, too, is
declared in the case of Pharaoh. (Rom. ix, 27.) And let
the reader consult what the Spirit of God has recorded in
relation to the e ects of that fearful example of disobedience
and consequent wrath. See the reference to it by Jethro,
(Exod. xviii, 10, 11;) and also that most instructive one in
1 Sam. vi, 6, three hundred amid fifty years after Pharaoh
was destroyed. The same idea is presented also in 1 Sam.
iv, 7, 8; Neh. ix, 10; Hos. xi, 8; Deut. xxix, 21-29; Psa.
lxiv, 2-6; lxxxiii, 14-18; cxxxv, 3-13; Ezek. vi, 2, 3, 7-14,
and in places without number. See also in the New Testament, besides the passages already quoted, Heb. iv, 11, and
2 Pet. ii, 6.
(4.) Thus it is God's pleasure that the persistently wicked
should be treated, without the slightest regard to their personal welfare. And I repeat the question, Why should God,
in the world to come, cease to administer his government
on this principle? From what he declares by the prophet
(Isa. ix, 7: "Of the increase of his government and peace,




428         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 64.
there shall be no end,") it is plain that the number of his
subjects shall still increase, by new creations of moral existence, through eternity; and who shall say that the collaterally continuing "peace" shall not be the result of these fearful examples of the consequences of transgression? (Compare
Isa. lxvi, 24.)  The existence of those present abiding examples (Psa. lix, 11,) must be forever salutary in evincing
how terrible are the consequences of disobedience. And
thus, therefore, even on principles claimed by the Utilitarian
and Annihilationist, the propriety of the eternal sufferings of
the damned is clearly apparent.  And though God does not
thus punish them merely for the sake of example, (for they
receive only the just award of their guilt,) he does employ
their sufferings as a salutary example to the rest of his
rational creation forever.
(5.) It is therefore the very height of Atheistic folly and
impiety to pretend that God is regardless of the actions of
his rational creatures, (as the whole objection logically
assumes,) for this is in effect to say with the atheist,
that there is no God. To deny that God is the ruler of
his creatures is practically to deny his existence altogether.
And hence Epicurus and his followers, who did not deny
that God existed, but only asserted that he did not concern
himself with the actions of men, have ever been, by wise
and reflecting minds, among Pagans, Jews, and Christians,
ranked with atheists; for if God concerns not himself with
the actions of his rational creatures, it must be either from
want of power or want of will; and on either supposition,
so far as all practical purposes are concerned, there is no
God. This has ever been seen and admitted, and hence reflecting infidels, like Lord Herbert, of Cherbury, and even such
as Jefferson and Paine, have strenuously asserted the
doctrine of a particular providence.  But if God concerns
himself with the actions of his intelligent creatures, then,
on principles of reason and common sense, it is plain that
he holds them responsible, and must ultimately, at least,
reward the obedient and punish the disobedient. And as




~ 64.  THE WICKED NOT TO BE ANNIHILATED. 429
the nature of those retributions is clearly announced by him
in his word, what madness is it for rational and sinful
creatures to attempt, in the aforesaid manner, to ignore
the whole subject, and to. exclude it from all proper consideration!
(6.) I will dismiss this point with a brief notice of an
assumption which to many appears to give some degree
of plausibility to the aforesaid method of treating the
subject. It is assumed, and much insisted on by some
of these writers, that the saints cannot be happy in heaven
with the knowledge that sinners are thus suffering in hell.
The principle upon which this assumption is based, is that
such suffering must awaken the sympathy, and so far interfere with the happiness of the redeemed.
That undeserved suffering may thus excite sympathy is
plain; but will any one pretend to say that deserved retribution has the same effect? What is the testimony of facts?
In the word of God we find the souls under the altar
(Rev. vi, 9-12) praying that the time of the Divine vengeance upon the ungodly may be hastened.  We repeatedly
find, moreover, that the execution of God's vengeance upon
such is a subject of holy praise, (see Psalm cxlix, 6-9,) and
that he is extolled for it as furnishing evidence "that
his mercy  endureth  forever,"  (Psalm  cxxxvi, 17-21;
ixiii, 12; Rev. xix, 11-16;) and especial thanks in heaven
are given to him on this ground. Rev. xi, 14-18; xii, 10-12;
xv, 1-4; xvi, 5-7.  And it is expressly  stated  that
when the inhabitants of heaven shall witness the execution
of the final judgment upon the enemies of Christ, they
shall say "Alleluiah" as they see "the smoke of their
torment ascending up  for ever and ever."   And to
undertake to deride such representations, as our opponents, and especially the Universalists, do, and at the
same time to profess to believe in the Divine origin and
authority of the volume which contains them, is a most
glaring instance of the strangest inconsistency and.in.
sincerity.




430         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 64.
And then, further, what are the facts as connected with the
present life?  Are even our opponents themselves always
unhappy on account of the sufferings of those condemned
to the penitentiary, or devoted to capital execution? There
is no evidence that their enjoyments are thus interfered
with any more than those of other men. And we find that
mankind do not the less enjoy thbe fruits of temperance and
virtue, because the intemperate and the vicious suffer.
God has not thus placed the happiness of his faithful servants in the hands of the ungodly and disobedient, as this
objection supposes, and the idea itself is a perfect absurdity.
Are angels unhappy because the devils (once their beloved
companions in glory) are suffering deserved torment and
misery? Were Abraham and Lazarus unhappy because they
beheld Dives suffering the torments of the damned?  On
what principle, then, is it to be supposed that the saints in
glory will be unhappy on account of the just retribution
which they suffer who, on account of their hostility to God
and holiness, are confined in the prison of despair?
The urging of this objection by the Annihilationists is very
absurd; but it is like their other theological inconsistencies.
How is it that the happiness of the saved is not marred,
while the wicked are undergoing the terrible agonies which,
according to these men, are to issue in their extinction? Or
how is it that their happiness is not marred on witnessing or
knowing of the almost interminable ages of ages of torment
and agony spoken of by the Restorationists   Suffering is
suffering while it exists; and if its present existence awakens no
such sympathy as is referred to, why should its continuance?
A knowledge that it is just and proper relieves the mind in
the one instance, and such knowledge must forever relieve
it in view of all the family of God.
As corporeal death is the severance of all merely natural
ties, so will the second death be the severance of all ties which
once bound the unhappy and impenitent to the friends of
Christ. The ties of earthly relationship, while they shall be
remembered in all their controlling power by the lost, (as




~ 64. THE WICKED NOT TO BE ANNIHILATED.  431
with Dives, who might well dread to see his brothers in
hell, to which his own vile example tended to lead them,)
shall, in the case of the redeemed, have no influence in
view of the revelations of the eternal world.'When they see,
in the light of that world, the horrible position which they
who have lived and died impenitent, assume against the holy
government of God, and the merits and proffered salvation
of the blessed Jesus, their sympathy shall be reversed. It
is sympathy with the rebellious creature in this world of sin,
rather than with the infinitely holy and glorious Creator,
which lies at the foundation of this whole objection. But
such sympathy will have no place among the redeemed.
Higher thoughts and higher affections shall then take possession of their souls, and they will so fully sympathize
with God in all he does, that the strength of an earthly
affection for such as are his enemies will be utterly and
eternally forgotten. Let not the rebellious and impenitent
therefore be comforted with the idea that they are to have
the holy sympathy of heaven on their side amid the retributions which they have defied. Such is not the fact.
They have trifled with the sufferings and sympathy of Jesus,
and must pass away to their doom with no sympathizing
friend among all the redeemed.
An incident occurred some years ago, at the launching of
a ship in Philadelphia, which may serve, in some respects, as
an illustration of the point. As the vessel was one of the
noblest that had ever been built in our country, an immense
concourse of people assembled to see the launch. They
thronged the wharves and surrounding' buildings till every
spot which could afford a view was occupied, while even the
river for a great distance was covered with boats filled
with men, women, and children, to enjoy the scene. By
and by the appointed moment approaches, and every eye is
turned toward the magnificent structure on the stocks, and
the multitude, with breathless expectation, await the signal
which is to dismiss her into her element. And now the
loud booming of cannon gives the signal, and the cry, "She




432         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 64
is cominng!" bursts from the surrounding multitude. Just
at that instant a man at the outer extremity of the long
wharf misses his foothold and falls into the water. But the
attention of the multitude is so intensely occupied by the
grand pageant before them, that no one seems to notice the
sufferer. He struggles and shrieks for help, and is within reach
of hundreds, both in boats and upon the shore, but no one seems
to hear him, and there he struggles, and sinks, and perishes,
surrounded by those who could have rescued him, but whose
minds are too intently occupied to witness his distress or
hear his cries. Such is the all-absorbing power of a strong
emotion; and when the redeemed are assembled before the
throne in heaven, and behold before them the object of their
most intense love and sympathy, and whom on earth they
loved infinitely more than life itself, can any one suppose that
they will be willing also to share their sympathies with those
who have renounced his authority, despised his proffered love,
"' trampled under foot his blood," and derided his agonies,
and thus intimate that they think he has treated these
his enemies too severely? It may comfort the impenitently wicked and ungodly in this world to be assured
that here they shall, at all events, secure this tender
compassion and regard; but let them remember, Eternal
Truth declares that, if after the present probationary state
they are found among the enemies of God, they will meet
with no sympathy from any inhabitant of heaven.
5. But to return. It is further assumed that annihilation
must be the punishment of the damned, because it is not to
be supposed, say our opponents, that Divine wisdom and
goodness would have created a being that could be eternally
miserable, and that hence we must suppose that those who
would become so if they continued to exist will be annihilated.  This objection is so nearly like the foregoing, that
were it not that our opponents, atid such philosophers as
"Thorndale,'" appear to think it different, we should pass it
unnoticed. And surely they might have seen that the same
mode of reasoning which is here resorted to would, if




~ 64.  THE WICKED NOT TO BE ANNIHILATED.  433
applied, prove with equal conclusiveness that Divine wisdom
and goodness would hardly have created a being whom it
would be necessary to annihilate.  And then, moreover, to
say that God would not create a being that could be eternally miserable, is equivalent to saying that he could not
create one that was capable of vice or virtue, praise or blame,
reward or punishment, as would appear if this objection were
metaphysically followed out to its fair results.  This is needless, however, for the question between us and our opponents
is one of pure exegesis; and the folly of the idea of depriving a rational creature of existence, that he may escape the
just award of his guilt, has been sufficiently exploded already.
6. That the wicked are not annihilated is further evident
from the absurdity of supposing that they are raised out of
extinction merely to be annihilated over again.i  Their personal identity is of course utterly destroyed by the first extinction;t the chain is broken, and it is a new creation
which is then called into being, (and which in no possible
sense can become conscious of an identity that has no existence,) and which must then be annihilated merely to show
the consequences of guilt with which it was in no way connected. If; however, our opponents reply that all this may
be justified on the principle of imputation, we (though we
hold to no such imputation as that) are content that they
should say so.  But they will of course remember that they
cannot justify it on that principle without admitting the
justice of the principle itself, and its logical sequences, a
principle which, if admitted into their theology, would
straighten it out considerably.
7. The same truth is evident, also, from the fact that the
devil and his angels are not to be annihilated, and wicked
men are to partake with them their punishment. (Matt. xxv,
41.)  According to such writers as Hudson, Dobney, and
Storrs, the object of the annihilation of the wicked is to ban
ish all evil from the universe.  Hence, if the devil is not
* See remarks on this point in sect. 19, above.   t See sect. 13,.




434          IMMOERTALITY OF THE  O0UL.                ~ 64. 
annihilated this object fails, and consequently his continued
existence in torment (as our opponents must acdmit) will
infer the continuec  existence of wicked men, so far as aall
their objections are concerned,
That the fallen angels are not yet annihilated is conceded
by our opponents, (see sect. 5, sub-sect, 10;) and that they
are not to be annihilated is plain from their apprehensions
of future torment,'"Art thou come to tornment us before
the time," said they to Christ,  It is torment, and not extinction, that they are to suffer.  Hence, they "believe and
treemble.9  See 2 Pet. ii, 4; also Rev. xx, 10: "They shall
be tormzented day and night, for ever and ever."
8. The annihilation theory, so far as the Bible is concerned,
is built entirely upon a false application of the terms, life,
death, perish, consuze, destroy, destruction, etc,; and that
this may be fully manifest to any who may choose to prosecute the. inquiry, I will here subjoin a few references to
the writings of its advocates.
(1.) On Death and Life.  See S. 12, 19, 20-30, 52, 60;
App. 1-8; G. 7-9; C. 46; Has. 14-20; D. 121, 129, 135,
152, 196, 197; E. 64, 256; B. 11, 12; H. 1, pp. 119,
126-129; H. 2, pp. 69, 70, 85; M. 31-33, 36, 37
On Perish, Perdition, Consume, Devouer.  See C. 46-58;
B. 14-22; S. 17, 49-56, 80, 82; H. 1, p. 142; A. 121, 122;
E. 235-244; D. 168, 169,
On Destructi'on, _Destroy, etc. See Bo 12-14; E. 239 —243;
M. 52; A. 118-121; H. 1, p. 142; D. 85, 86; S. 47-56;
Has. 20-28; C. 48-58.  These few references are abundantly sufficient.
(2.) In respect to their inappropriate use of the terms
life and death, sufficient has been said in section 27, and
throughout the Bible argument.  Their use and application
of the other termns, however, is pure nonsense; for example,
they confound perish with annihilate.  But that it has no
such meaning, in the sense attached to annihilation by our
opponents, a few examples will evince; and if the reader
will substitute annihilate for perish in these passages, he will




~ 64. THE WICKED NOT TO BE ANNIHILATED.   435
at once perceive the folly of pretending to regard the words
as interchangeable.  " That the land perish not through
famine." Gen. xxxi, 36. "The valley also shall perish and
the plain be destroyed." Jer. xlviii, 8. "The law shall
perish from the priest." Ezek. vii, 26. "Truth is perished."
Jer. vii, 28.  "The good man is perished." Mic. vii, 2.
"The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."
Isa. lvii, 1. "There is a just man that perisheth in his
righteousness." Eccles. vii, 15. "It must not be that a
prophet perish out of Jerusalem." Luke xiii, 33.  "The
world being overflowed with water, perished." 2 Pet. iii, 6.
(3.) It is equally absurd to pretend to confound the
terms consume or devour with annihilate, as an attempt to
interchange them in such passages as the following would
show: "The famine shall consume the land." Gen. xli, 30.
"They shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away."
Psa. xxxvii, 20. "The sword is drawn: for the slaughter
it is furbished, to consume." Ezek. xxi, 28.  " He shall devour the whole earth." Dan. vii, 23. "Your land, strangers
devour it in your presence.". Isa. i, 7. See Zach. ix, 15; Deut.
xxxii, 42. "Fight against them till they be consumed."
i Sam. xv, 18. "I am consumed by the blow of thy hand."
Psa. xxxix, 10. "Ye devour widows' houses." Matt. xxiii, 14.
"For ye suffer, if a man devour you." 2 Cor. xi, 20.  See
also Gal. v, 15; 1 Pet. v, 8.
(4.) Equally absurd is their application of the terms
destroy, destruction, etc., as may be. evinced by such passages as the following: "The King of Babylon shall destroy
this land." Jer. xxxvi, 29. " Knowest thou not that Egypt
is destroyed." Exod. x, 7.  "He sent frogs among them
which destroyed them." Psa. lxxviii, 45. See also Ezek.
xxv, 16; Hosea xiii, 9. Even the expression "utterly
destroyed," does not mean annihilated in the sense attached to that' term by our opponents. See 1 Chr. iv, 41.
2 Chr. xxxi, 1; xxxii, 14; Isa. xxxiv, 2. And then such an
interpretation would turn many passages into the sheerest
absurdity. As for example: " God shall destroy them with




436          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 64.
a double destruction." Jer. xvii, 18. It is easy to understand what a double destruction is; but the phrase double
annihilation can only be understood by some such method
as our opponents have contrived for suffering eternal punishment. It is needless however to quote other passages;
the Bible is full of them.  Let the reader refer to Job
v, 21, 22; ix, 22; xxviii, 22; Isa. xlix, 19; xiv, 20; Lam.
ii, 11; iii, 17; iv, 10; Psa. xxxiii, 17; cvii, 20; Obad.
12; 1 Cor. v, 5.  All arguments and inferences, therefore,
which are based upon any such confounding of terms, are
false and delusive; and it is amusing to reflect that Dr.
Chauncey (pp. 224, 272-292) argues from the same words
that the wicked shall live forever, after their purification, and
that the fires of hell shall be put out.
(5.) And then, further, all' the texts alleged by our adversaries to prove that the wicked are to be hereafter
destroyed, consumed, devoured, or, in their vocabulary, annihilated, are met just as fully on the supposition that annihilation is to take place at once, as well as after, or in consequence of long-continued and terrible suffering; for not
even the Restorationists insist more that the torments in the
future world will be dreadful beyond description, and it
is not to be supposed that the wicked are to be raised from
the dead again merely to pass quietly out of existence.
But as all this suffering is needless, unless as an example,
(for, as above remarked, the texts alleged say nothing of
any long-continued suffering which is to precede their destruction or " annihilation,") so, if needed for an example,
it is obvious that it may be needed forever as such; for
since the wicked are to be raised from the dead in order to
be made an example of suffering, (and this is admitted to be
the only object of their resurrection,) so it is plain that their
sufferings may continue as long as there is occasion for any
such example. And as we are nowhere informed that there
will be no such occasion in the future state, there is no sufficient reason to say or believe that there will not be, as we
have no means of knowing anything on the subject farther




64. THE WICKED NOT TO BE ANNIHILATED.   437
than what God has declared respecting it. And as he has
not said there will be no such occasion, but, on the contrary,
has affirmed many things which clearly declare and infer
the very opposite, it is the height of impertinence for any
one to say or assume that there will be no occasion for the
continued existence and sufferings of the wicked.
(6.) The exposition of these words by our opponents
is likewise destructive of their whole theory; for they
affirm that consume, devour, destroy, etc., in the texts which
they quote, mean the sufferings and torments which are,
according to them, to issue in annihilation. Now if the
words mean suffering and torment, they do not of course
mean non-existence or annihilation, nor can they in any
sense be regarded as proving annihilation; and it is a
mere unsupported inference, therefore, that this devouring,
destroying, etc., will issue in annihilation.  If the words
mean simply annihilation, they do not mean misery, (for the
two things are not reconcilable;) but if they mean misery,
as our opponents allege, it is perfectly gratuitous and impertinent to tack to their import the idea of annihilation also,
since the texts alleged give not the slightest intimation of
any such idea. They speak of destroying, consuming, etc.,
and as this confessedly means suffering and misery, no one
has any right to say that it is misery which will result in
extinction of being, since it is obvious, on the very admissions and expositions of our opponents, that to perish forever
may be to suffer forever. They must therefore, in the very
necessity of the case, deny their own perpetually repeated
affirmation that the words mean suffering, or they must
admit that they furnish no proof that the wicked are to be
annihilated.
9. That annihilation is not the penalty of the law is
evident further from the clear announcements in the word
of God that there are to be degrees of punishment; that is,
not in duration, for that would be impossible, but in extent
or severity. All the finally impenitent shall be punished
forever, but not all with equal severity.




438        IiMMIORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 64.
The idea, though our adversaries endeavor to mystify it,
is sufficiently plain even to a child's apprehension, and it is
the basis of our Saviour's remark in Matt. v, 22. And accordingly we read that the servant that knows not his master's will, and commits things worthy of stripes, shall be
beaten with few stripes, while he who knows his master's
will, and transgresses, shall be beaten with many stripes.
(Luke xii, 47, 48.) And the whole context shows that this has
reference to the future state. (See verses 31-48.) And some
shall receive greater damnation than others. (Matt. xxiii, 14.)
And, referring to future retribution, our Saviour declares that
it shall be more tolerable for Sodom, and Tyre, and Sidon,
than for Chorazin, Capernaum, etc. (See Matt. xi, 21-24.)
Now as there cannot be different degrees of annihilation, so
annihilation is not the punishment of the damned.  The reply to this, that the degrees may refer to the sufferings
which result in annihilation, and that the suffering of some
therein will be greater than that of others, is simply absurd;
for if the sufferings which precede annihilation be here referred to, then the penalty of the law does not consist in
annihilation, which is simply extinction of being, and requires no sufferings to precede it. And if these "many
stripes " which precede annihilation are the penalty of the
law, then annihilation is not the penalty of the law, and consequently it is a mere gratuitous inference that the damned
are to be annihilated. And as they are to suffer according
to their works, that is, endure different degrees of punishment, it is plain that annihilation is not the punishment of sin.
10. The falseness of the whole system is apparent too
from the fact that it makes the righteous, not less than the
wicked, suffer the full penalty of the law between death and
the resurrection. But that they are not annihilated at death
is proved by the whole of our preceding argument; and that
they do not suffer the full penalty of the law at any time, is
evident from the fact that they are members of Christ,
(1 Cor. vi, 13, 15; Eph. v, 30,) and that they are redeemed
by the blood of Christ (1 Cor. vi, 20) from all condemna



64  THE WICKED NOT TO BE ANNIHILATED.   439
tion, (Rom. viii, 1,) as we have already fully shown.
Hence the theory which requires that they should suffer the
penalty of the law after their union with Christ, is false;
and therefore our opponents must give up either the assumption that death is the extinction of being, or that annihilation is the penalty of the law. And if it is not the
penalty of the law, then it is sheer folly to say that the
wicked are to be annihilated.
11. We omit other arguments, and conclude with the
following: The future annihilation of the wicked is, according to this theory, in no sense the penalty of the law, but results from the intervention or mediation of Christ, which is
a gross absurdity. This is plain from the fact that our opponents teach that the penalty of the law is death, or deprivation of existence. This, of course, therefore, all would
have suffered without any reference to Christ whatever;
but by or through his intervention the wicked are raised
from this state of extinction, (in which they otherwise must
have continued,) and, after untold ages of intolerable torment, are annihilated over again.  And as all this comes
purely through the intervention of Christ, according to the
theory of our opponents, and would never have been inflicted were it not for that intervention, so it is the sheerest
absurdity to pretend that the future annihilation of the wicked
is the penalty of the law. And as it is not the penalty of
the law, the assumption that it will ever be inflicted as such
is simply ridiculous.
12. In respect to the issue, however, it is a matter worthy
of most serious reflection that impenitence, or a refusal to
accept of the salvation offered by Christ, if persisted in
through the present, stage of our being, must be followed
either by eternal sorrow and despair, or by eternal extinction of being. The idea of extiiVction may bring relief to
the minds of the incorrigibly wicked, as has been shown in
a former section; but who can, without deep emotion, contemplate the alternative which awaits such, whichever way
the issue presented in the discussion before us is decided




440         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 64.
or the certainty, thus presented, that neglect of the Gospel
must eventuate in utter and final exclusion from happiness
and heaven?  "It is well understood," as Mr. Hudson truly
remarks, (p. 392,) " that the common doctrine of universal
salvation offers in fact no salvation; for no one can be said
to be saved from that to which he was never liable, nor from
that which he actually suffers."  And the theory of restoration to holiness and happiness through future torment
is involved in so many insuperable difficulties, as well as inextricable contradictions, being based upon assumptions
which are not only absurd and inadmissible, but destructive
of each other, (as already shown in ~~ 59-63,) that no wellbalanced mind which views the subject intelligently and dispassionately can entertain it. Hence it has been, in modern
times, generally abandoned, on the one side for the later
form of Universalism, and on the other for Annihilationism;
and therefore the great issue now is on the question, Shall
the existence of the sinner be extinguished, or be perpetuated? We have in the present section considered the question in one of these aspects, and shall now proceed to consider it in the other.




~ 65.  FUTURE STATE OF THE IMPENITENT.    441
CHAPTER VI.
THE ETERNAL SUFFERING OF THE WICKED CONSIDERED.
~ 65. Future State of the Impenitent.
THus far we have closely followed the statements and
reasonings of our antagonists in support of their theory that
annihilation is the punishment of the damned.' We have
carefully analyzed their system, as exhibited in their multifarious productions, and in the course of this volume have
fully and fairly presented every leading point in which it
comes into conflict with our own; and have patiently considered and shown the inaccuracy of all their statements,
professedly derived (in support of their theory) from reason,
revelation, philosophy, ecclesiastical tradition, and the principles of law and justice; and along therewith have given
also a tolerably full abstract of the direct and positive argument in support of the views which we entertain, and at the
same time have pointed out the irrelevancy of the objections
against them; and moreover, in our last sections we have
met the great issue which their theory presents, and have
shown that annihilation is not the punishment of the damned.
We might, therefore, here rest the argument, as the inference is both fair and legitimate that the wicked are to live,
and suffer forever the consequences of sin; but as we are
not willing that the truth on this subject should seem to be
a matter of inference, when there are so many inspired declarations to sustain it, and as the theme from this stand-point
affords an opportunity to expose further the subterfuges of
infidelity which are resorted to by Universalists and others




442         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 65.
in relation to the matter, we shall proceed to show that
eternal suffering is the necessary consequence of sin. The
charges of "cruelty," etc., brought against us for entertaining these views by Universalists et id genus omne, are deserving only of contempt, until they show that we prefer to
advocate them, irrespective of all consideration of their
truth or falseness. And we aver "that if a man would
know what is now most fitting in the relations between man
and his Maker and between man and man, he must learn
these things mainly from the Bible; and that only as his feelings shall be in-harmony with revealed ethics is he likely to
be a believer in revealed theology."
The reader is perhaps aware how all our opponents of
every grade, from the Deist to' the Annihilationist, (though
a few of this latter class do aim to be more consistent,) endeavor to perplex this whole question by insisting on mere
side issues respecting liberty and necessity. The true freedom of the will is logically and wholly subverted by T.
Southwood Smith, Dr. Chauncey, Dr. John Taylor, Sir
George Stonehouse, and by all the Universalists of the Ballou and Whittemore school-and in fact by all who maintain that omnipotence, associated with infinite goodness,
furnishes a sufficient guaranty for believing that all men
will be saved-just as effectually as it is by the materialistic theory adopted by most of the Annihilationists, which
makes the soul of man a mere result of corporeal organization, in order to secure its extinction between death and
the resurrection. But the bearing of the question upon the
theme before us is a practical one, and relates to those expectations indulged by many, that God will in some way
secure their ultimate salvation and happiness "in spite of
themselves," and whether they regard the Gospel offer or
not. A few remarks, however, will show that this effort to
throw off responsibility in relation to our futtre well-being
is irrational and ruinous.
*From the British Quarterly, republished in the Eclectic for January
1858, p. 3.




~ 65.   FUTURE STATE OF THE IMPENITENT.    443
In order to understand the principle of moral obligation,
it is not necessary that we also understand how the will can
be free, for this, as Sir William  Hamilton justly remarks,
4" under the present limitation of our faculties, must remain
wholly incomprehensible;"   a statement supported, too,
by the remark of Reid, that "to conceive a free act is to
conceive an act which, being a cause, is not itself an effect;
in other words, to conceive an absolute commencement.
But is such by us conceivable "  How, therefore, moral
liberty is possible in man or God, we are utterly unable
speculatively to understand; but practically, the fact that
we are free is given to us in the consciousness of an uncompromising law of duty, in the consciousness of our moral
accountability. And this fact of liberty cannot be redargued
on the ground that it is incomprehensible, for the philosophy
of the conditioned proves, against the Necessitarian, that
things there are which may, nay, must be true, of which the
understanding is wholly unable to construe to itself the possibility.t  In fact neither liberty nor necessity is in theory
comprehensible.  But no man is conscious of necessity, while
for the fact of liberty we have the evidence of consciousness,
and of its practical recognition in all human intercourse, by
every man, woman, and child. -And, as Dr. E. S. Ely (whose
attainments in the philosophy of mental science are entitled
to high consideration) has well remarked: "All of man's
actions, of every kind, are as truly his own as they could be
were there no God that minds the affairs of men." 2 Every
man is conscious of being the author of his own volitions;
and Edwards has clearly shown, (in his work on the Will,
p. 56,) that " the activity of the soul may enable it to be the
cause of its own volitions." Hence Dwight, in his Theology,
(for we wish our opponents to understand that the view we
present is not " got up " for the occasion,) says: "By the
term moral agent, I wish it to be understood that I intend a
real agent, a being whose thoughts, affections, and actions
* See his 1" Philosophy of the Conditioned," chap. ii.
t Ibid.            I Theol. Review, ii. p. 6.




444         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.                ~ 65.
are his own."  And again: " It is as easy to conceive, to
evince, and to admit that man is an agent as that God is an
agent. No difficulty attends the former case which does
not in an equal degree attend the latter. If man is an agent,
then there is no necessity of tracing his actions beyond himself." Ser. 8 and 27.  (See also Howe, 216, 217.)  And
that such has ever been, the view entertained and recognized
by man, aside from mere metaphysical speculation, will not
be seriously called in question.  With his usual trueness to
nature, Homer (Odys., lib. i, 32) denounces the opposite
sentiment thus:
Perverse mankind, whose will created free,
Charge all their woes on absolute decree;
They to the dooming gods their guilt translate,
And follies are miscall'd the crimes of fate.-BRooME.
And Humrnel, one of the ablest and most decided fatalists,
says:'I have a feeling of liberty, even at the very moment
when I am writing against liberty upon grounds which I regard as incontrovertible.  Zeno was a fatalist only in theory;
in practice he did not act in conformity to that conviction."*
This universal and conceded consciousness of liberty, therefore, a consciousness practically conceded and exhibited by
man in all his actions and intercourse, and in all ethics and
jurisprudence, sufficiently settles the question as to his moral
obligations and responsibility to the Creator of all things.
It settles the question that he is a moral and accountable
agent, and of course the entire propriety of his being treated
by God in accordance with this his nature. He alone is
responsible for his actions, and God as his moral governor
must take cognizance of them, and treat him accordingly.
To suppose that God will not do this, or that he may
neglect to do it, is to suppose that he is not a moral governor,
which brings us at once into Epicurianism, and practically,
into atheism.
Every man, moreover, who pretends to the least degree
* Quoted by the editor of Hamilton's Philos., p. 510.




~ 65.   FUTURE STATE OF THE IMPENITENT.    445
of intelligence or discernment, must admit that in regard to
God and his proceedings there is a vast and illimitable
unknown, so far as the faculties and knowledge of mankind are concerned. To deny this is to assert that there
are no limitations of thought and knowledge to mail in
this world. But it is needless to dwell upon the topic here,
for Sir William Hamilton, in the essay aforesaid, has settled
the principle so as to shut the mouth of even cavil itself.
And he remarks, in view of it, that " humility thus becomes
the cardinal virtue, not only of revelation but of reason.
This scheme proves, moreover, that no difficulty emerges in
theology which had not previously emerged in philosophy;
that, in fact, if the divine do not transcend what it has
pleased the Deity to reveal, and willfully identify the doctrine of God's word with some arrogant extreme of human
speculation, philosophy will be found the most useful
auxiliary of theology.  For a world of false, and pestilent, and presumptuous reasoning, by which philosophy
and theology are now equally discredited, would be at
once abolished in the recognition of this rule of prudent
nescience.'
In reference to the subject of moral agency, however,
it is usual with Restorationists, to throw themselves back
upon a sort of heterogeneous notion combined of their
vague imaginings respecting the omnipotence and goodness of God, and to say that whatever moral agency
may consist in, it must be admitted that God can perform
all his pleasure, secure the accomplishment of his purposes,
and influence men to act in any given manner without at all
impairing that agency, as is seen by his securing the conversion of souls in tlNs world, and all his purposes announced in his word respecting human affairs, and that
therefore it is a fair inference that he can in the future
world secure any such results without impairing the moral
agency of the creature.
It is conceded on all hands, and must be conceded, that
for God to coerce and so impair the moral agency of a




446         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 65.
rational creature is, to all intents and purposes, to annihilate
his moral nature; and there is no proposition which, in all
its bearings and relations, is susceptible of a clearer moral
demonstration than this. And that God will secure any
purposed result in any world, without impairing the moral
agency of any creature, is true; but to infer from this that
he is bound to secure any and every result which we suppose infinite wisdom and goodness ought to accomplish, is
indeed to draw an inference with "a cart-rope."  Let it be
shown that God has purposed the recovery of the damned
to holiness and heaven, and we shall not object to the doctrine because we cannot understand how it is to be effected.
The how relates to the unknown and secret things of God,
and there, under any such circumstances, we are always'willing to leave it.  But it alters the case prodigiously to
assume, without a just and sufficient foundation, that God is
bound to perform a specific act, and then to ignore all
attempts to consider the assumption itself in the light of
reason alone.
There are, however, important matters relating to this
assumption of what God is able to effect without impairing
man's moral agency, which these men never take into
the account, and which, notwithstanding, affect the very
vitals of the question.  That God does so arrange causations
as to result in the final salvation of all foreknown faithful
believers, without in any way arresting the free exercise
of their choice or impairing their moral agency, is most
true, and cannot be intelligently called in question. And
that in this world he could so plan events as to result in
the salvation of all men, need not be denied by the most
careful defenders of man's free agency and God's ihnpartiality.  But why he does note so arrange causes, belongs to the province of the inaccessible and unknown, so
far as relates to man in this stage of his being; a province
into which no sensible man will attempt to penetrate.
Doubtless the reasons are drawn from the best good of the
universe as a whole; and to an eye grasping the entire, would




~ 65.  FUTURE STATE OF THE IMPENITENT.    447
be approved as accordant with the highest goodness and wisdom. In this world, however, which was given into the hands
of the second Adam immediately after our first progenitor,
by proving unfaithful to his trust, plunged it into ruin and
death, and which is therefore Messiah's world, and which
furnishes to man a state of probation in relation to a free
offer of deliverance from  the curse and pollution of sin,
God secures the forenamed results by an influence whose
operation is a part of redemption's contemplated work, and
which therefore can pertain only to a state of probation or
trial, and to the means of grace. These means and this
influence pertain therefore to the present state alone, and
are so associated with this world and the present life that
they cannot follow or accompany us beyond it, (Eccl. ix, 10;
John ix, 4,) for they can have no existence in a state of
retribution, where we receive according to the deeds done
in the body. And as they are associated with the mediatorial
kingdom, altogether and entirely so, it is obvious that they
must cease to operate, at farthest, when the Mediator surrenders that kingdom to the Father, which he will do while
all his enemies are under his feet.  Such, then, is the
mode in which God effects his ends in full view of and
without impairing their moral agency, and every instance
of such effect, of which we have any knowledge whatever, is associated with the means; but to assume that
because God can secure this result by these means he can
therefore secure it without them, is practically to deny the
necessity of redemption, and to make the work and sufferings of our blessed and adorable Redeemer a mere unmeaning pageant. It is equivalent to saying that because God
created the universe by his omnipotence, therefore he could
have created it by his omniscience; and consequently, as the
means of grace by which God may, in their state of probation, and in the mediatorial kingdom, secure the conversion of
sinners, confessedly cannot exist in a state of retribution
and without a mediatorial kingdom, it is simply idle to
assume either that he can secure the same result without




448         IMIMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 65.
these means, or that the employment of the coercion of
retribution and torment to secure the same result, would not
be (even if it were possible thus to secure it) a violation of
the creature's moral agency. We know (as Mr. Caird in his
Sermons remarks) that "nature and character are spontaneous. They will not take any form, or utter themselves
through any exact and inflexible mode of expression which
may be furnished from withoIut; for who can love by rule,
manifest sorrow by stereotyped gestures, indicate gratitude
or admiration by adopting looks and postures authoritatively
prescribed?  Try to make a man do so, and instead of
helping you will cramp and vitiate his feelings, and by
the effort to force consciousness into one special mold or
shape, kill the life you mean to cultivate. In attempting to
work up feeling into another's forms, a man would end by
ceasing to feel, or by becoming a hypocrite and formalist."
Such is the fact, known and admitted by all who have ever
considered the moral and intellectual nature of man; so that
to insist that the coercion of torment and of inflicted suffering will secure, either mediately orimmediately, the results
secured by the Spirit's influence and the means of grace in
the mediatorial kingdom, is to insist upon a proposition
into whose very texture is inwrought the most revolting
blasphemy, by a fair and logical deduction. To insist upon
it, moreover, in the absence of anything like revelation
to sustain it, is quite bad enough, but, to urge it in direct
contradiction to the Divine averments is still worse. It is
fraught with the folly of attempting to make the inaccessible, the unknown, and unrevealed the foundation of moral
obligation, and to set up notions thus originating in direct
antagonism to the expressed truth of God.
It seems impossible to think that it can be so, and yet
nothing is more obvious than that nearly every objection
against the doctrine maintained in this chapter is based
upon the merest assumptions in relation to that which is
absolutely unknown, and unrevealed to us. We have made
this manifest in many instances already, in this and preceding




~ 65.   F UTURE STATE OF THE IMPENITENT.    449
chapters, and it will be in place here to refer to an effort
of like character in a recent English work, written in the' "namby-pamby"' style of a would-be philosopher of the
modern utilitarian school, and who, without professing to
have any views of his own, seeks, in the most discreditable
methods, to unsettle public confidence in the averments of
revelation.*  But let us hear what he has to offer on the
subject.  He represents Cyril (one of his characters) as
saying, in reference to a remark of Dr. Chalmers in his
-Bridgewater Treatise:'I believe it! It is most true that
so far as our spiritual life is concerned we are here in a sort
of fetal condition.  The analogy is permissible.  But,
good heaven! am I also to believe what Dr. Chalmers and
his Church will proceed to tell me-that the conduct of
this spiritual fetus is to determine forever the condition of
that higher being who is to be born into some higher world!
I have a greater reverence for Dr. Chalmers than for any
living man; but how am I to reconcile the argument in his
book with what he and all his Church teach in the pulpit? 
IHe argues here for our immortality on the ground that we
have faculties for a higher and more spiritual life than can
be here fully developed; I admit the fact; I constantly
maintain it; of nothing am I more thoroughly persuaded.
O! what'to me would be this earthly existence if I did
not believe that it would usher me into another, where the
knowledge, and worship, and love of God shall fill my
whole soul!  But how can I, or any man, use this argument for our immortality, and at the same time maintain
that this life, where our spiritual powers are thus scantily
developed, shall be the only trial-scene for determining the
eternal condition of that other life, where our powers will
be thus exalted?  Is the status of a man in the eternal life
to be wholly and irredeemably determined by his conduct in this mortal life, in which it is confessed that
the very faculties peculiarly appropriate to that eternal
* See "Thorndale; or, The Conflict of Opinions."  By William
Smith. Edinburgh and London. 1857.




450         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.   ~     65.
life are but imperfectly developed, and cannot be fully
exercised.
" We say, indeed, with truth, that the man grows out of
the boy, and each subsequent stage of existence must be
influenced by its predecessor.  But on the other hand, if the
subsequent stage brings with it new powers, it cannot be
wholly determined by the state that preceded. The man
does in fact recover from the faults of the boy. And
most certainly you would not judicially determine that the
conduct of the boy should forever decide the condition of
the man,  In like manner, how can any one assert that the
immortal is to suffer eternally, without possibility of recovering himself, from the conduct of the mortal?  Are
higher faculties to be given for no other purpose than to
feel greater pain, and anguish, and remorse than the sinner
could have done in the state in which he sinned?  I cannot
be wrong!" he exclaimed; " it is as clear as any demon
stration in Euclid."  Pp. 220, 221.
The author then proceeds to detail the subsequent speculations of Cyril on the subject, and his final resolve on
suicide; a legitimate result. of such speculation. And if
the reader would see a striking-practical illustration of the
tendency of infidelity of this sort, he may turn to the account, given in the New York Tribune for July 16, 1858,
of the " Suicide of a Berlin Heights Free Lover."  His
letter to his friends, as there given, and the determination
which it announces, are a perfect transcript of this experience of Cyril, beginning, continuing, and ending alike; for
that suicide is justifiable on those principles cannot be intelligently doubted.
But the style of reasoning in the foregoing extract is
that which is adopted by our opponents generally, and by
all Universalists and Deists in common. This of itself,
however, proves nothing in relation to its conclusiveness, or
the contrary; nor do I refer to the fact invidiously. But
that its basis is laid in an utter ignoring of the testimony
of Divine revelation will not admit of a serious doubt;




~ 65.  FUTURE STATE OF THE IMPENITENT.    451
for if the argument be based in truth, (and it assumes to be
as clear as the demonstrations of Euclid,) it is obvious that
the whole representation of the Scriptures on the subject
is false; and the men who assume it are bound, in all consistency and common honesty, to come forth from their
lurking-places among professed believers of the Bible, and
take the comparatively manly position of antagonism  to
its announcements. It is high time that such glaring dishonesty was met by the strong and avowed disapproval of
every man of intelligence and moral principle.
The argument itself, however, proceeds with confounding
a distinction, perfectly obvious to every mind on a moment's
reflection, and recognized in all practical human intercourse,
between the moral and purely intellectual. Man, in his
present state, has as clear a perception Of the distinction
between moral right and wrong, good and evil, obedience
and disobedience, as he can ever hope to have; and that he
has powers adequate to the full appreciation of this distinction in all its relations to asserted consequences, in this and
in all other worlds, is sufficiently clear even from the construction of the foregoing objection itself. His powers are
fully adequate to the just and proper consideration of all the
information which God has imparted on the subject. Had
God imparted no information in relation to it, the reasoning
might appear to be plausible; but since he has imparted all
needed information, and has, withal, provided the means
for our securing a happy immortality, it is idle to pretend
that we are at liberty to disregard it, and to act on the assumption that we are left in darkness on the subject. Every
objection brought by our opponents against a future state
of retribution is a full proof that man is thoroughly able to
appreciate that consideration as a motive to action; and
we need look no farther for evidence to prove the shallowness of all such reasoning as the above. Nor does the fact
that man's intellectual powers shall continue to expand
as his stores of knowledge increase, bear at all upon the
issue, since an increase of intellectual power and percep



452          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 65.
tion in no way infers a necessary increase of moral discernment.  That may continue to increase forever, but
this is here as clear and plain as is necessary for a probationary state.
It will be observed too that this train of thought wholly
ignores all idea of a probation for rational creatures; for
the same reasoning which would prove our earthly life too
brief for such probation, would prove that any period, however extended, would be too brief in view of the eternity
which shall succeed.
And here let me ask, Is it true, can it be true, on any
principle recognized by man's moral nature, that a rational
creature in this or in any other state may trifle with all his
own convictions of moral good and evil, obedience and disobedience, right and wrong, truth and falsehood, on the plea
that he is in an irresponsible state of existence, and may
therefore disregard all such considerations any farther than
respects the consequences of his actions in the present life?
If this be not so, then this whole mode of reasoning is a convicted lie; for if our present life (call it "-fetal" or anything
else) has no such relation.to the life to come as is claimed
for it in the word of God, then it is obvious that man is irresponsible for his conduct here any farther than pertains to
present consequences, or consequences related to the present
life. This is the broad basis upon which all such reaso:,ing
ultimately rests, and the tangible practical difference between it and Atheism I leave to others to define. I tan
see none.
Of the same character is that inane and silly twaddle so
often heard from this class of writers, to the effect that man,
in the exercise of his rational powers, cannot believe without
evidence; a statement which they employ for justifying the
contemptuous disregard with which they treat the proffered
evidence itself. The infidel, for example, who has never
-examined a thousandth part of the evidence in favor of the
Divine origin and inspiration of the Scriptures, does not
hesitate to ignore the whole inquiry on this pretended plea.




~ 65.  FUTURE STATE OF THE IMPENITENT.    453
And in the same manner is the awful theme of future and
endless retribution often treated by our opponents. Now
all these men are perfectly aware that no one more than the
intelligent Christian maintains the principle that God never
requires faith without sufficient evidence. But what has this
to do with the point? The question is not whether faith can
exist without evidence, but whether these men have investigated the proffered evidence itself? And that they have
not, is apparent from the ignorance of the subject which is
patent in all their lucubrations. If a man may possess himself of all the evidence in a matter of deep interest to himself, and on which he is required to act, and yet through negligence or indifference fail to procure it, and consequently
comes to a wrong decision, can he justify his decision on the
plea that "man cannot believe without evidence?"  Who
would justify a jury which, through gross inattention to the
material points of the evidence elicited, had rendered a wrong
verdict, (even though the verdict were based upon other and
immaterial points of the'evidence to which they did attend,)
on the plea that they had to decide according to evidence?
It is true that, from the evidence which they did consider,
they could come to no other verdict; but who will doubt
that they were guilty, and deserved severe punishment for
bringing in such a verdict, since, through gross and culpable
indifference and inattention, they neglected to consider that
portion of the evidence which must infallibly have led them
to a different decision, and of which, upon subsequent inquiry, you find them utterly ignorant, although it had
been brought out fully before them?  Their attempt to
justify themselves on the plea that intelligent belief cannot
exist without evidence, would only enhance their criminality;
since it would render apparent the fact that they were aware
of the value of evidence and knew how to appreciate it, and
yet permitted themselves to come to a false conclusion, in a
most important matter, through a heedless disregard of the
fullest and most conclusive evidence, which had been carefully brought within reach of their minds and spread out




454         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 65.
before them. I need occupy no space in applying the illustration.
I repeat therefore, that it is not inconsistent with wisdom
and goodness to treat rational creatures as responsible, and
to hold them answerable for their actions in this or in any
world where they may enjoy a state of probation; and that
God will do this cannot be intelligently questioned.  And
that moral agents must furnish an approved test of an
obedient disposition is equally plain; which of course infers
the existence of a probationary state for all such, and of
course a termination of such state, (since it would be absurd to suppose that a state of trial is not to terminate,) and
by consequence an approval or disapproval of their conduct
while it continued. The existence of such a state, moreover,
plainly infers the free and unconstrained use of all the powers constituting moral agency, for without this the idea of
trial and responsibility is an absurdity; and consequently
Divine goodness, in furnishing such opportunity for fair and
full probation, cannot, without absurdity, be supposed to do
more than to see that opportunity and means are afforded
which, if improved and' not neglected or perverted, shall
secure the final happiness of him who is the subject of the
trial. To dispute either of these positions, and at the same
time pretend to assert the existence of moral agency, is idle.
Nor is it for us to say what are the just limits of a probationary condition for moral agents; the Creator alone may
determine that, so that all such speculations as the foregoing from "Thorndale" are mere inanities when tested by
reason or common sense. Life (as Horsley remarks in one
of his sermons) is to be esteemed long or short, not from
any proportion it may bear to eternity, (which would be
equally none at all, though protracted to ten thousand times
its ordinary length,) but according as the space of it may be
more or less than is sufficient for the purposes of probation.
There must be a certain length of time, the measure of which
God only may know, within which the promises and the
threatenings of the Gospel, joined with the experience which




~ 65.  FFUTURE STATE OF THE IMPENITENT.    455
every man's life affords of God's power and providence,
may be adequately appreciated, and within which, if at all,
this state of experience, joined with future hopes and fears,
must produce certain degrees of improvement in moral wisdom and in virtuous habit.  If, in all that time, no effect is
wrought, the impediment can have arisen only from incorrigible self-will and obstinacy.  The fact that God terminates the probation of any such moral agent at a given
time is evidence of this. And the infidel assumption, therefore, that some of the impenitent die before they are incorrigible, is both arrogant and preposterous, (though
many doubtless are, for wise purposes,- permitted to live
long after they become so,) since it assumes a knowledge
of God's secret views and operations which no man in his
senses can pretend to possess; for no man can, with the
slightest degree of reason, pretend to know how long a moral
agent must live in sin in order to arrive at the condition
referred to, and therefore no man has a right to say that
any sinners die before God as perfectly knows them to be
incorrigible as if they had lived in sin a thousand years.*
Nor is there any reason to believe that had they continued
to live ever so long there would have been any change in
their moral condition.  " Qualities," as Horsley remarks,
"are not to be measured by duration; they bear no more
relation to it than they do to space.  The hatefulness of sin
is seated in itself-in its own internal quality of evil; by that
its ill-deservings are to be measured, not by the narrowness of the limits, either of time or place, within which the
good providence of God hath confined its power of doing
mischief."
If a moral agent, therefore, become truly incorrigible in
any state of probation assigned to him by God, it is plain
that the retribution preannounced by God as the consequence of disobedience is his just desert; and it is plainly
4 See on this point Edwards against Chauncey, chap. viii; a little
work which Universalism has never even attempted to answer, though
originally published in 1789.




456            IMMORTALITY  OF THE SOUL.                   ~, 65.
impertinent to pretend that God, who knows all things front
the beginning, and of course knew them  all at the time on
which he announced those consequences, is either not beoenc
to inflict them, or that goodness should lead him  to furnish
a second probation.  What assurance is there that another
probation would secure: results which the Gospel and its
means of grace failed to secure?   And how are the sins
of his previous probation to be disposed of? (a point on
which Beecher's " Conflict of Ages " is very weak.)", And
how  is such a second probation to be brought about so
as to be certain in its results?  Are infinite goodness and
omnipotence to be called to the rescue?  But, not to insist
on what is above said respecting moral agency, I would
ask, if such interposition be needed to secure that result,
why was it not made so as to prevent man from  cominng into such a condition at all? If God's sole aim is to secure
the happiness of every one of his creatures, it is manifest.
that this interposition could far better have been made at
the outset; and in the utter absence of any principle, either
in reason or revelation, to sustain the foregoing assumption,
I affirmn this to be so.  In the same manner that God could
operate after the close of this our present life, so as to secure
by his Almighty power the future salvation of the lost, he
could have prevented the introduction of sin and misery into
the universe. And if he can, and therefore ought to renew
* Kant, (Religionslehre, sec. 78,) in referring to this matter, shows the
folly of expecting salvation on the ground of our own works. He says:
"Whatever may have been the circumstances under which the sinner
began his course of piety, and however uniformllly correct his deportment
may be, still, previously to his change, he lived in sin, and the guilt then
contracted he cannot possibly ever wash away. The fact that he, after
his change of heart, contracts no new debts, will never pay off the old,
ones. Nor can he, however holy his walk, ever do more than he is bounld
to do, for he is under constant obligation to exert himself to the utmost
of his ability in the service of his God." (Cited in Stbo' and Flatt's Theology, sec. 90.) Kant should have credited this argument to Bunyanks
Pilgrim's Progress. It is perfectly conclusive, however, and should be
most seriously considered by those who hope for salvation, and at the
same time reject the offer made to them through the vicarious atonement
and sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ.




~ 65.   FUTURE STATE OF THE IMPENITENT.    457
men through the torments of hell, it is proper to say, in the
absence of any inspired declaration to the contrary, that he
can renew them at once and directly, yea, without even the
discipline of suffering at all; for if it is to be effected, as
this theory assumes, by pure almighty power or omnipotence, and irrespective of mediatorial intervention, it is plain,
as omnipotence is not restricted to the use of instrumentalities, it can accomplish its end immediately and without
them.  And if this renewal is to be thus effected, (that is, by
pure omnipotence, and by ab extra operation,) God can accomplish such a result at any time, either with or without
an instrument. Why then does he permit his creatures to
suffer as they do in this world?  The question is perfectly
proper in respect to a theory which professes to be founded
on the. reason and the nature of things. If the fact that he
is good and almighty proves that he will prevent the continuance of misery hereafter, since, on the ground that he can
then prevent it, it is alleged to be unnecessary, it is equally
plain that he can prevent it now, and that therefore it is now
unnecessary.  Goodness and omnipotence, therefore, are
confessedly not inconsistent with the existence of the misery
they can prevent, and therefore to draw any such inference
in relation to the prevention of misery in the future state is
absurd. (See H. 1, p. 134; S. 65, 69; D. 87, 88, 122, 276278; M. 29-39; Kneeland's Lectures, 227.)  Essential
goodness is defined to be the love of virtue for its own sake.
Whether this is or is not a full and sufficient definition is,
however, of no consequence here, for it is sufficient for the
purpose.  We know, as Horsley has remarked, that as virtue
and vice are opposites, so love and hate are opposites.  A
consistent character, therefore, must bear opposite affections
toward opposite things. To love virtue for its own sake,
and to hate vice for its own sake, may therefore belong
equally to the character of essential goodness. And thus, as
virtue, in itself, and for its own sake, must be the object of
God's love and favor, so incorrigible vice, in itself, and for
its own sake, must be the object of his hatred and displeas



458         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 65.
ure, and of course, therefore, it is in no way inconsistent with
essential goodness to visit it with unending retribution; I
say endless retribution, since from the very nature of sin it
cannot be otherwise; for any creature, by knowingly and
voluntarily perpetrating it, at once places himself beyond
the power of undoing what he has done, or of recovering his
standing as a pure and holy being with God his Creator.
Hence, unless God interpose and save him, he is manifestly
lost and helpless forever. Much more then must this be his
condition when God, having freely offered to save him from
sin, and to bestow upon him eternal life, he refuses the offer;
and therefore we find it clearly announced that the refusal
of the offer of eternal life necessarily involves eternal death
as the consequence. (John iii, 36; Rom. vi, 23.) And as
the wrath of God is to abide or remain (/evel) upon such, it
is obvious that they are to sustain and realize that loss and
its consequences; not by ceasing to exist, for it would be
ridiculous to suppose that the wrath of God could abide upon a nonentity. Thus the guilt of those who die impenitent
must be, in the very nature of things, perpetual, and of a
twofold character, being derived both from transgressing the
law and refusing the deliverance offered in the Gospel; and
it is equally obvious that where guilt exists under the government of God, there also must misery exist likewise.
As the foregoing speculation is the stronghold of all who
deny the eternal punishment of sin, it is very important to
consider it in all those points of view in which they present
it, and to give it a thorough refutation; and it is the more
important from the incautious and culpable representations
made on the subject by some divines. Nothing is more absurd than to say that because God may, on the sinner's acceptance of proffered mercy in a probationary state, remit a
threatened punishment, he therefore is not bound to execute
his threatenings when the sinner has, in his impenitence,
passed into a state of retribution.  And the contrary intimation, by some reputedly orthodox divines, has tended no
little to relieve the minds of the impenitent and vicious, and




~ 65.   FUTURE STATE OF THE IMPENITENT.    459
to encourage such blasphemous assertions as that of Whiston,
that "this doctrine supposes God to delight in cruelty;" and
that " if certainly true, the justice of God must inevitably be
given up, and much more his mercy;" and that also of
Dr. Chauncey, who says: " It is high time that some generally received, doctrines should be renounced, and others embraced in their room that are more honorable to the Father
of mercies, and comfortable to the creatures which his hands
have made."  The same is countenanced too by such writers
as Whately, Ham, Storrs, Hudson, Dobney, T. S. Smith, etc.
The remark of Archbishop Tillotson, that God may reserve to himself thl  right to inflict or not to inflict the
threatened penalty of sin in a state of retribution, has already accomplished vastly more of evil to the souls of
men than all the labors and influence of that most amiable
and exemplary prelate have ever done good. Since his own
time it has been reiterated by all the despisers of God's admonitions and threatenings, and multitudes have made it
a plea to justify their casting off all practical recognition of
moral obligation.  God has said nothing like this in his
word; and what right had Dr. Tillotson to theorize thus in
respect to a practical matter of the most transcendent interest to human welfare?  God has, moreover, not only said
nothing to justify such an intimation, but all his utterances,
as we shall see, are directly against the supposition. And
what right, therefore, had any minister of Christ thus to interfere with those motives which God had furnished for
practical human life and conduct, and to neutralize them
thus by mere inferences from the absolutely unknown and
inaccessible?  Dr. Tillotson had no such right, nor has any
other man; and those, therefore, who practically venture
to build their hopes for the future on any such idle alid baseless expectation, do it not only without reason, but at the
imminent peril of making eternal shipwreck of their future
well-being.
If to threaten is not inconsistent with infinite goodness,
and mercy, and wisdom, on what principle is it inconsistent




460           IMMORTALITY  OF THE SOUL.                  ~ 65.
therewith to execute the threatening?  We may admit that,
in strictness of speech, God may not be obliged to execute
simply because he has threatened, (as Edwards, vii, 527,
remarks,) but yet he was under no obligation to threaten if
he knew at the same time that he would not execute, for this
would  have been plainly inconsistent with,truth.   The
necessity of the connection between the execution and the
threatening, arises from the obligation which He who knows
all things was under to threaten at all; and from this arises
the obligation to conform  his absolute threatening to the
future execution, so that the truth of God forms an inviolable connection between absolute threatening and execution; for to suppose that he threatened in relation to a
state of pure retribution, contrary to what he knew would
come to pass, is to suppose that he threatened contrary to
what he knew to be the truth. If absolute threatenings are
significations  of anything, they are significations of the
futurity of the thing threatened.  They are in one sense
predictions; and the same argument which would prove
that he could thus falsify them, and retain his character
as a God of truth, would equally prove that he could
falsify his predictions and still retain that character, which
is plainly absurd.*
* A statement to the following effect is often made by infidels and Universalists for the purpose of ignoring all argument in favor of Christianity and the future punishment of sinl: to wit, that if they believed these
things they would not rest satisfied with the little efforts which are
made for human salvation by those who profess to believe them, but
would give their friends no rest till they had secured their salvation, and
that they " would go out, and as it were, compelsthem to go to church,
read the Bible,'1 etc., from all of which they also deduce the inference
that Christians do not really believe what they profess. And this silly
rhapsody is regarded by them as sufficiently justifying the disregard
and contempt with which they treat the whole subject of religious obligation. But while I would in no way attempt to palliate the most culpable indifference of many professors of religion on the subject, I would
remnarlk in reference to the individuals aforesaid, that supposing they believed in future retribution, they woould not, unless wholly ignorant of
human nature, pursue any such course as they describe, since every
man of sense can see that such a procedure, instead of securing the attention and salvation of men, must infallibly awaken their contempt and




~ 65.   FUTURE STATE OF THE IMPENITENT.    461
No one supposes that the infliction of penal evil, as such,
and in itself, is desirable to God, for no one believes that it
is of itself a pleasure for God to destroy his own work.
(Job x, 3; Ezek. xxxiii, 11; 2 Pet. iii, 9.)  But what then?
Are we to suppose that nothing can render it desirable to
God that penal evil should be inflicted?  This is the inference drawn by many of our opponents; but what means
such language as that in Jer. ix, 29? "Shall not my soul be
avenged on such a nation as this?" And Hos.'x, 10: " it is
in 9my desire that I should chastise them."  Deut xxviii, 36
"The Lord will rejoice oiver you to destroy you.". Isa. i, 24:
" I will ease me of my adversaries: I will avenge mne of my
enemies."  No pretended metaphor or anthropology can
divest this language of its awful import, or hinder its pointed
application to the case in hand; for we know that God
has thus avenged himself by the ruin and destruction of his
enemies in multitudes of instances; and the reason is
simply because he must do this or compromise his hatred of
iniquity, the utterances of his nature, and, in the view of
all his, intelligent creation, set light by his word, (see
Psa. cxxxviii, 2,) and hence the holy inhabitants of heaven
witness, with the highest applause, the execution of his
threatenings, (Rev. xi, 17, 18; xvi, 5-7,) as already shown
above.  There is none of the mawkish sentimentalism
among them which is exhibited in such books as those of
Dobney, T. S. Smith, Hudson, Whately, and in "Thorndale,' wherein all possible sympathy finds utterance on behalf of the wicked, and rebellious, and impenitent creature,
and none whatever on behalf of the holy and righteous
Creator and moral Governor of the universe.  Sin, and
disgust, asall suchlinterference with man's right to think and act for
himself must do; and for a man thus to prove himself destitute of
wisdom, is not the way to do much good in this world. And then, moreover, neither Christ nor his apostles, nor the prophets, notwithstanding all
their terrific announcements on the subject, ever sought to save men in
this way. The objection is merely an attempt to lull a disquiet conscience, and those who are thus influenced are on!f planting thorns in
their bed of death.




462        IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 65.
wickedness, and disregard of moral obligation are the common center of this sympathy, and holiness, and righteousness, and equity are ignored, and their claims cannot be
even asserted without awakening repeated accusations
of cruelty, want of mercy, etc., and similar utterances of
false philanthropy and ambitious imbecility.  It might be
useful for our opponents to ponder a little upon Job xxxiii,
12, 13, and Isa. Iv, 8, 9.
But set the rule aside that God is thus under obligation
to fulfill his threatenings against the finally impenitent, and
where shall be placed the limit of departure from his most
solemn obtestations?  If he may do it once, why not
twice, or twice ten thousand times?  But this is absuId,
since the very object of these open and absolute averments
is that his-. creatures may notice and rely on them, and act
accordingly. Were probation and the mediatorship continued after the final judgment, (if such an absurdity were
at all supposable,) then there might be some plausibility
in refusing to regard threatenings as absolute.  But we
have abundantly shown that this idea of probation and
mediatorial intervention cannot be entertained except at the
sacrifice of Scripture and common sense; and therefore,
if God has reserved to himself the liberty to depart from
this rule, with no previous announcement, and no reason
given to determine what his pleasure shall be, how may it
be known that he will not, in any given instance whatever,
depart from it? And on this ground what becomes of certainty in respect to the fulfillment of his word in any case?
Thus, by a fair and logical sequence, along with certainty
in respect to his threatenings, must depart also certainty in
respect to his promises and predictions, (since, on the same
principle, he must reserve the right either to fulfill them or
not,) and thus the promised bliss of heaven becomes as
much a matter of uncertainty as the threatened torments
of hell.
The evasion itat these threatenings do not announce what
God will do, but only what the sinner deserves to suffer,




~ 65.  FUTURE STATE OF THE IMPENITENT.    463
can be entertained by no serious mind who will carefully
consider the threatenings themselves.  See, for example,
Matt. xxv, 41, 46; 2 Thess. i, 7-9; Matt. xii, 32;
xviii, 8, 9; Rev. xiv, 10, 11; xx, 10. The evasion, however, really amounts to nothing; for, not to speak of its
being alike applicable to all Divine admonitions and announcements, and therefore self-refuted, it concedes that
the threatenings themselves contain God's expressed announcements of the true demerit of sin.  Sin therefore
truly deserves all that these threatenings express.
Upon the whole, then, to adopt the language of Dr.
Whitby in his discourse on the endless misery of the
Wicked, "Either God may in justice inflict upon the
wicked those punishments which he has threatened, or else
it is unjust in God to execute upon them the judgment
written, that is, the punishment which he hath threatened
to them in the word of truth. If it be said, It is unjust in
God to execute them on the sinner dying in his impenitence,
either we cannot be obliged to believe that word in which
these threats are contained, or else an obligation must lie
upon us to believe that God will act unjustly."
Now it is conceded freely, and either directly or indirectly, by nearly all our opponents, that the sinner deserves
eternal punishment. See, for example, M. 9-11; H. 2,
p. 65; D. 51, 66-72, 164, 244-251; Kneeland, p. 47. And
so, too, the Restorationists, Socinians, etc.  But on what
principle does he deserve to be thus treated? And further,
on what principle is it unjust or improper to inflict upon
him what he deserves? The absurd talk about summum
jus summa injuria, of which the writings of Messrs.
Dobney, and Hudson, and Kneeland, and Dr. Chauncey are
so full, has no application here. The maxim may sometimes be true in the necessarily imperfect jurisprudence of
men; but to reason thus from an imperfect human administration to the infinitely perfect and divine, is to proclaim
one's self to be "not o'erfraught with sense;" and to
venture upon any such hope is a fearful experiment. And




464         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 65.
if I may again refer to an idea already suggested, a fair
and logical application of the utilitarian principles of our
opponents will justify the continuance of this punishment
forever.  The employment of such penal execution as a
salutary example is clearly brought to view in Isaiah
lxvi, 24, (a passage which, in its relation to eternity, is
strongly applied by our Saviour,) and its use is there also
exhibited.  The idea that because the Sabbath and new
moon are referred to in the context, the passage must
refer to a period antecedent to the general judgment, is
absurd, and cannot mislead a child, unless that child should
entertain a notion that the pristine condition of earth is
incompatible with endless duration.
We have the assurance of the Holy Scriptures that the
redeemed of Christ, after being gathered home to heaven,
shall never fall, and that there shall be no violation of' the
peace of that government in which Christ shall still reign as
Prince of Peace after he has resigned the mediatorial kingdom, or ceased from all mediatorial intervention on behalf
of sinners, and no limit to its increase. Holiness, and
righteousness, and peace, shall remain forever.  And that
the redeemed and all the future subjects of his kingdom are
to be preserved from sin and fall by the influence of moral
motives, will hardly be questioned by any who hold the
moral agency of man. And who dare venture to say,
therefore, that any specific order of motives may be dispensed with in securing this result? The man who should
venture to say of any order of means employed by God
in the matter, or which he announces shall be so employed,
that it is unnecessary or superfluous, would by so doing convict himself ot playing the fool in an important matter
respecting which he knew nothing. Good ends are confessedly answered by punishment in this world; and when
God assures us that punishment shall exist in the world to
come, how impious is it to reply to him by saying that it
is unnecessary because we can see no use in it? The text
referred to in Isaiah lxvi, presents a view of this motive in




f 65.  FUTURE STATE OF THE IMPENITENT.    465
its operation, and the salutary effect of such a spectacle is
easily understood by the mind.  And if the continued
sufferings of those who have rebelled against God and renounced his authority shall be thus salutary, and if the
salvation of the righteous, and the preservation of other
beings who may be at any time created and pass through a
probationary state, should call for this perpetual example
of punishment, why should God spare the wicked and
rebellious, and cease to inflict upon them their just deserts.
I put the question to those who have dared to say that
"perpetual punishment is needless, for no good can come
out of it;" and that "it is so great an evil that it cannot
be compensated by any good." Why, therefore, should
God spare the wicked, and not fulfil against them  his
threatenings?  Perpetual suffering is truly an infinite evil
to those who suffer it; but in the same sense, as remarked
already, the good arising from it is an infinite good to in
numerably greater multitudes.
Before leaving this topic, it may be proper to refer in
conclusion to the sentiments entertained on the subject by
those learned and profound scholars and critics, the Polish
Socinians. They represent the utmost limits to which " liberal principles" can venture in consistency with a profession
of Christianity, and this, together with their uncompromising antagonism to the whole evangelical system. of doctrine,
renders their views on this topic a matter of importance;
for men who venture beyond those limits are bound in all
moral honesty to renounce the Christian name. Dr. Jared
Sparks (late President of Harvard University) affirms that
the Churches of Poland and Transylvania believed the doctrine of " the eternity of future punishment," and that it was
taught by the Racovian Catechism, which was the approved
expression of the faith of all those Churches, and was drawn
up by Socinus, Smalcius, and others " among the most learned
theologians of the fraternity." (Inquiry, p. 348.) B. Wissowatius, in a note on the passage in which this sentiment is
affirned, says that " it has been always the opinion of the
30




466        IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.                ~ 65.
Church that the wicked will be doomed to punishmert, and
cast into the fire prepared for the devil and his angels," and
that the eminent writers of the Unitarian faith 1" constantly
maintained that there will be a resurrection both of the just
and of the unjust, and that the latter shall be consignled to
everlasting punishment, but the fomer admitted to everlasting life."
And accordingly Crellius, the leading and most profound
genius of that school, in his discourse on Matt. aii, 11, 12,
(Pol. Frat., iv, 3-9,) says that "Igynis inextinctus est imprimis ille futurus, qui ita consumet omnia, ut ad meliorem
statumr nullus sit reditus, et exitium plane teternum affieret."
And in his exposition of Heb. x, 26-32, (pp. 285-300,)
after largely insisting on the same truth, he adds the following, (well worthy of being pondered by all our adversaries:)
" Ex his autem  patet, misericordiam non esse proprietatem
in Deo naturaliter ac proprie residentem.  Nam  quzdam?
sunt actiones Dei, in q2uibus nulla utitur misericordia, sed
ejus contrario, nimirum, ira et severitate."  See also his
note and paraphrase in Heb. x, 27. (tom. iii, 165, 2G3,) and
on 2 Thess. i, 9, (p. 554;) also Slichtinglus on John v, 29.
(Tom. v, 43.) Wolzogenius also, though with some of his
brethren a little inclined to favor the doctrine of the ultimate
annihilation of the wicked, says on Matt. iii, 12: " igni inextinguibili.  Hoe igne significatur Seterna damnatio e qua
impii nulla nunquam tempore emergent aut liberabuntur."
(Tom. vi, in loco.) And on Matt. x, 28, in a passage already
referred to, he says: 1" Since Christ here names the place,
even Gehenna, where God shall destroy the soul as well as
the body, it appears that he by the word destroy did not understand simply kill, or reduce to nothing-in nihitlum redigere, (for God can do this immediately while the soul is
separated from the body,) but torment and torture, sed torquere ac cruciare.  See his powerful note also on John v, 29~
Even the later Socinians of the Swiss and French Churches
entertain the same view.  Their " Geneva Catechism," says
of the wicked that "they will be tormented with remorse




~ 65.   FUTURE STATE OF THE IMPENITENT.    467
and abandoned to despair, because they have lost eternal
happiness by their own misconduct;" and to sustain this,
Mark ix, 43; Matt. xxiii, 13, are cited.  The " Christian
Disciple," also, for March and April 1819, conducted by
the late Prof. A. Norton, and other learned Unitarians of
Boston and vicinity, (and which Dr. Sparks says " may be
supposed to declare the prevailing sentiments of the Unitarians of this country,") thus speaks: " We cannot but wonder and lament that any should so far pervert the oracles
of God as to persuade men to believe that there is no punishment hereafter; an error, we repeat, most dangerous to
the interests of society; it breaks down the barriers of con.
science, and removes those salutary restraints, without
which neither virtue,'nor reputation, nor property are secure."
And President Sparks himself, in reviewing the matter,
says: ",The true:state of the case is, then, that Unitarians,
as a body, universclly believe in the future punishment of
the wicked. By a very large number this punishment has
been considered dernal; by others it is supposed to be
limited in duratio, but to be severe and dreadful," etc.*
I have introduced these testimonies simply as an offset to
those false representations of Mr. Hudson, and others, respecting the views )f the divines of Germany, and to expose
the folly of certan individuals who are ever evincing a
morbid unwillingmrss that God should regulate the affairs
of his own adminitration, and do what he himself esteems
right and best, unless their own puny intellects are admitted
into his counsels, and made to understand the whole matter.
But while we appreciate and realise the overwhelming importance of being,:n this probationary state, truly mindful of
our eternal interests, we have no sympathy with any doctrine which either neutralizes or ignores the most solemn
and impressive counsels and admonitions of the God of truth.
* Inquiry, p. 350.




468         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 66.
CHAPTER VII.
TIHE ETERNALLY MISERABLE  EXISTENCE  OF  THE
WICKED  IS FULLY  ANNOUNCED IN THE WORD
OF GOD.
~ 66. Ultimate Condition of the Lost.
WE return, then, to the question, What is eternal punishment?  We have seen that it is not annihilation, and of
course it cannot consist in happiness, so that there is no way
to avoid the consequence that it is a state of endless retribution and irrecoverable misery. That God has afforded
us (for, being a practical matter, it is Setter that in this
business we confine our attention mainly to ourselves) A
fair and full opportunity to obtain eternil life, will not be
questioned; and that the terms on whbh this deliverance
from sin and its penalty are offered are purfectly reasonable,
will be admitted; and that many amongus willfully refuse
the. offer, and even all proper consideraton of it, none can
deny; nor will it be denied that the- do this hi utter
defiance and disregard of all the expostulltions, admonitions,
and threatenings of God. And now, mj reader, be candid
with your own soul, and answer to your conscience and to
God the question, Where is the impropriety or injustice of
withholding the proffered boon from those who have deliberately refused. it, treated the offer with disdain, and
spent their opportunities for securing it in such pursuits
and indulgences as must, in the very necessity of the
case, render them in every way disqualified for the worship
of God, and for the holy society of hea7en?  Eternal life
was fully within their reach; they could have secured it,




~ 66.   ULTIMATE CONDITION OF THE LOST.    469
and become qualified for its enjoyment, and for companionship with the good and the excellent of all ages who have
been gathered around the throne, but they refused it. And
as it would be ridiculous to pretend that such a choice or
refusal of a moral agent is the same in the long run as if
he had chosen the opposite, so there is nothing that can
remain to such but that they should have their choice; and
that as they chose to be separate from the holy and redeemed
family of God, they should be associated with his enemies
in both their character and. doom. An utter severance,
therefore, from Jesus and his redeemed, and an abode and
association with evil angels, are the necessary consequences
which they have willfully brought upon themselves, and such
is the eternal misery of the damned. There is for them no
other alternative. The evidence is abundantly sufficient to
convince any one who will seriously examine it, that man
is a sinner, and alienated from God; that his moral nature
needs renewal before he can be either holy or happy; that
God freely offers to deliver and save him through Jesus
Christ, and pleads with him  tenderly and earnestly to
accept the offer; and therefore either to hope or plead for
impunity on the ground that these things are not believed by
the exceptant, is as vain and hopeless as it is trifling and
arrogant. This doom, therefore, is privation of eternal life,
(John iii, 16; v, 29;) endurance of God's displeasure,
(1 Thess. v, 3; Gal. vi, 8; John viii, 51; 2 Thess. i, 9;) and
is called the second death, (Rev. xx, 14; xxi, 8;) and is an
utter rejection from the society of Jesus and the blessed.
(Matt. xiii, 48-50; xxv, 41, 46; Luke xvi, 26; Rev. xxii, 14.)
And the spirit of God in describing it employs the following terms of fearful import: 6Oe0pof, destruction, (from
&`X~vgtt, to destroy;) Ic6aoats, a cutting off; ar3s0ela, perdition; o67y  Tov Oeov), wrath of God; KpilGa, judgment;
KIpioat, (also from  cptvro, to separate,) separation; aOva —oq
d86Vrepo9, second death; aiz61yA, (undying,) worm; 0opai,
corruption;  irvp  awlvtov, eternal fire; and  3daavot,
torments.




470          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 66.
There is, moreover, the olearest announcement, made in
every form that language will admit, that there shall be a
direct contrast between the condition of the good and evil
in their future existence. See Psa. xvii, 14, 15; Prov.
x, 28; xiv, 32; Dan. xii, 2; Matt. iii, 11, 12; vii, 13, 14,
21; viii, 1I, 12; xiii, 30, 40-43; xxv, 23, 30-46; Mark
xvi, 16; Luke vi, 23, 24; John iii, 10; v, 29; Rom. xi,
21-23; 2 Tim. ii, 19, 20; Gal. vi, 7, 8; Heb. vi, 8, 9' etc.,
etc. And as the state of the righteous, here referred to, is of
course final, it is obvious that the state of the wicked is
final also.
God will accomplish this separation, (and hence the difference between the two states is described as a great gulf,,Xaata /tzya, fixed, Luke xvi, 26,) for he shall cast the
wicked out of his kingdom. (Luke xiii, 28.) He shall sever
the wicked from among the just, and send his angels to collect all that do evil, and cast them into a furnace of fire.
(Matt. xiii, 40-43, 48, 50.) He shall separate the good and
evil, one from the other. (Matt. xxv, 32-34, 41.) Compare
also Rev. xx, 15, 20; xxi, 8; xxii, 14, 15.
The place appointed for the wicked of both men and
angels is named hell, y1evva, (from tim. xi-; see 2 Kings
xxiii, 10,) Matt. v, 22, 29; x, 20; Mark ix, 45, 47, also
-r67rog r~If /3taavov, place of torment; Luke xvi, 23, 28, /
yeevva -rov  rvpof, the hell of fire; also gc6O-roq -ir-epov,
outer darkness;  6qog  roo atc6-rovg, blackness of darkness;
MIatt. viii, 12; xxii, 13; Jude 13.  See also Matt. xiii,
50, 52; Mark ix, 43-48; Rev. xiv, 10, 11; xix, 20; xx, 14.
And here they receive every one ca-ra Sra e~ya awrov,
according to his works, (Rom. ii, 6;) or according as he has
sown, (Gal. vi, 7;) according to the deeds done in the body,
(2 Cor. v, 10;) according to the wrong he hath done, (Col. iii, 25;)
for as this is their abode it is of' course the place of their
retribution.
We have, in the course of this volume, repeatedly adverted to the fact that it is neither unphilosophical nor unreasonable to conclude that as the present stage of our being is




~ 66.   ULTIMATE CONDITION OF THIE LOST.    471
but the introduction to and preparation for the next, there
are things recorded in the Scriptures which are designed to
show the connection which really exists between the visible
and invisible world. In this category is doubtless to be
placed the fact of demoniacal possession; a fact which is
patent upon the very face of the whole Gospel record, and
which no ingenuity can set aside, as is conceded substantially
by our adversaries themselves, in their adoption of the language of Mr. Mole, quoted and approved by his friend Dr.
Lardner: "This affair of the possessions is an embarrassment which one would. be glad to be fairly rid of."  But
there is no getting rid of it, whatever embarrassments it
may place in the way of the mere rationalizing theologue; and
as the appearance of Moses and Elias in glory foreshowed
to man the future state of the redeemed, so, according to all
Scriptural representations, the fearful spectacle of a human
being possessed by evil spirits foreshows, by a terrible representation, the future condition of the damned. The demoniac, for instance, mentioned in Matt. viii, knew Christ, yet
avoided and hated him. " An outcast from the intellectual
and religious world, he grieved over his lot, yet he could
not repent. In the deepest misery and distress he heightened his own agony by self-inflicted torments.  The light of
heaven, which occasionally broke in upon his melancholy
dwelling among the tombs, served only to make more visible the darkness of his wretchedness, and embittered every
anguish and suffering by the torturing remembrance of
what he was and what he might have been."  And such
is the awful warning addressed to the wicked and illpenitent among men to accept the Gospel offer of deliverance, lest they likewise come into the same state of condemnation.*
The question whether the term "fire," in its relation to
this subject, is to be understood metaphorically or literally,
presents every evidence of having been suggested by the
devil himself, and in fact there is no possiblity of mistaking
* See Townsend's N. T., Notes, pp. 76, 77.




472          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 66.
his hand in the matter; for, 1. We have no means of solv
ing the question; 2. If solved it could answer no practical
purpose; and, 3. In the attempt to solve it many errors have
been run into; a vast deal of time and energy have been
wasted; many souls have been led away from the practical
into the merely theoretical, and their attention has been diverted from the important considerations calling upon them
to secure their own salvation without delay. Men had infinitely better concern themselves with the inquiry how to
escape the damnation of hell, instead of attempting to pry
into the unrevealed and unknown; for we may fairly conclude that God has employed no expression or figure, in
speaking on the subject, which conveys an idea stronger than
the reality must prove to be. The Annihilationists, however, for obvious reasons, insist that all the more terrific
expressions in reference to the doom of the wicked are to be
taken in their literal sense; for they hope thus to establish
their notion of the ultimate and utter extermination of the
wicked; but as well might they insist that the metaphorical
riepresentations of the future happiness of the blessed are to'be literally understood.  On the one side ou0ter darkness, the
-undying wornm, fournace of fire, lake of fire and brimstone,
which is the second death, etc., are mentioned; and on the
other, the bosom of Abraham, Paradise, sitting down with
the patriarchs, tree of life, festal scenes, treasures, crowns,
and the like; and whatever the unvailed future may show
to be the full import of these terms, the ideas which the
human mind spontaneously attaches to them in their proper
connection in the word of God, are sufficiently distinct and
impressive to constitute motives to action in view of the life
to come.
In the present and preceding sections the arguments establishing the doctrine of the eternal suffering of the damned
have been so fully brought to view in their various relations
to our whole theme, that, instead of attempting a recapitulation of them here, we shall conclude the whole argument
by a brief consideration of some passages of Scripture which




~ 66.   ULTIMATE CONDITION OF THE LOST.    473
plainly and clearly teach this doctrine, but which our opponents have labored to divest of their significant application to the subject.
1. The first is Dan. xii, 2: " And many of them that sleep
in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life,
and some to shame and everlasting contempt."  The meaning of the latter clause of the verse may be seen by referring
to Prov. i, 24-31.
The idea of some of the ancient Rabbins, that because the
word here employed is many instead of all, therefore the
wicked are not to be raised, is absurd; for the passage says
expressly that of those who are raised, some shall arise to
shame and'everlasting contempt.  But that it is in accordance with Scripture usage to employ such partitives often in
a general sense, and terms of collective or universal import
in a restricted sense, no reader of the Bible can seriously
question. See Psa. xcvii, 1, (Heb.;) Isa. lii, 15; liii, 12. Comp.
v. 6, and 2 Cor. v, 15; Rom. v, 15, 19; xii, 5, (Greek;)
viii, 29; Matt. xx, 16, 28; Exod. ix, 6.  Comp. v. 3 and
Exod. xxxii, 3.  Conap. v. 16, Matt. iii, 5, and many other
places. See the principle illustrated in Glassius, Philol.
Sacra, lib. v, Tract. i, c. 14, 15.  The passage, therefore,
expresses the same idea which is taught in John v, 28, 29;
Acts xxiv, 14, 15; Rev. xx; and the sense is that " the many
who sleep in the dust shall arise." And it contains a silent
antithetical reference to those who do not thus sleep, but
who shall be living at the time when the event occurs. (See
1 Thess. iv, 13-17.)  And as the wicked, therefore, are to
experience a sense of shame and everlasting contempt, they
of course must continue to exist.
On this passage S. 63 remarks that "the text does not
say that they awake to everlasting shame.  It says they
awake to shame-mark that-' some to shame' and everlasting contempt."  "I affirm the text does not say the shame
shall be everlasting, but only that they shall awake to shame;
and surely they must feel overwhelmed with shame when
God shall call them from their graves, and when they shall




474         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 66.
be condemned to death, as too vile to have a place anywhere
in the universe of God," etc. See also M. 74-76.
Such ignorance is as near an approach to non-existence of
knowledge as can well be imagined. Without referring to
the Hebrew, these men could have seen, from the English
translation alone, that "and" forms no part of the original;
and the idea simply is, "some to shame, to infamy everlasting." Endless, or everlasting, is the attribute of both terms,
as is plain from the construction, and from its being placed
at the end of the clause, The sense is cumulative, and the
repetition of the idea of shame in the second term, which
not only includes it, but expresses that idea much more
strongly, is intensive, according to Hebrew usage, as no one
acquainted with the subject can fail to perceive. Hence the
LXX render it els 6veldst&tOv icat aia6Xivyvv ahlvtov, to
ignominy and shame eternal; or, omitting tai, (to which
there is no answering particle in the original,) to ignominy,
to shame eternal.  The phrase is Ail 35.   nSin_, and
needs no further criticism to show that while eternal shame
shall be the portion of the ungodly, a consciousness on their
part that they are a loathsome spectacle to all holy beings,
(see ),5q,3 as used in Isa. lxvi, 24,) shall cover them with
eternal confusion.
2. The next passage is Matt. xii, 31, 32, (Mark iii, 29,)
in which it is declared that the sin against the Holy Ghost
shall never be forgiven.
The phrase "neither in this world, neither in the world
to come," is explained in Mark to mean " hath never forgiveness."' See also Luke xii, 10. And I can see no reason
to suppose that our Saviour refers to actual pardon in this
world, and the declaration of it in the future world on the
day of judgment.  The phrase was of frequent use among
the Jews, and in the sense simply offorever.' Dr. Chauncey
concedes that " it was not our Saviour's intention here to suggest that any sins might be forgiven in the future world,
which were not forgiven in this." (Universal Salv., p. 339.)
The same idea is of course entertained by our opponents.




~ 66.   ULTIMATE CONDITION OF THE LOST.    475
The idiom  is well illustrated by Kuinoel, in loco, (who
refers also to 2 Mac. vi, 26, which see,) as expressing simply the idea of forever.  Glassius sustains the same view, and
has established its accuracy beyond all reasonable doubt.
(Phil. Sac., pp. 803, 2111.) The guilt of this sin, therefore,
is forever to rest upon him who perpetrates it. There is no
hope of his ever obtaining forgiveness. And as such language cannot, of course, be predicated of -a nonentity, it is
obvious that they to whom it refers must continue to exist
forever.
3. Matt. iii, 10-12, which asserts that " every tree which
bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into
the fire," and that Christ " will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire," is admitted to refer to the final destiny of
the wicked; and from it D. 235-237, and H. 1, p. 138, argue
their extinction.  I-. avers that the perpetuity "pertains
not to the objects upon which the fire acts, but to the fire
itself." D. sustains the same idea, and refers for illustration to Isa. xxxiv, 8-10, in which it is said that " the land
shall become burning pitch, that shall not be quenched night
nor day, the smoke thereof shall go up forever;" and also
to Jude 7.  "Sodom  and Gomorrah, and the cities about
them, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance
of eternal fire;" and by cities he understands not the inhabitants, but the houses, walls, etc., constituting the material
cities, (as though these " had gone after strange flesh,") which,
says he, were " never again to be rebuilt." But the attempt,
even on the ground of such an exposition, to obtain the idea
of utter annihilation from these passages, is sheer nonsense;
for the land of Edom still exists, and all the component
parts of Sodom and the other cities, notwithstanding this
fearful application of fire, burning pitch, and brimstone.
-These have produced their effect, and brought utter desolation upon the places specified; but annihilation and desolation are hardly the same; and so will the fire referred to
in the text bring utter desolation upon the wicked.
The word chaff,'?vpov, (Matt. iii, 12,) here refers to the




476         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 66.
straw broken up by treading out the grain, and which the
Jews were accustomed to cut up and burn to heat their
ovens. See Matt. vi, 30; Mal. iv, 1. The terms flame
and fire are often used in the Scriptures to signify Divine
wrath, displeasure, etc.  And the same terms are employed
in popular language to express the idea of human anger; for
example, as when the Latins say, incanclescere, infiammari,
accendi ira.  Thus God is said to be a consuming fire.
Deut. iv, 24. See also Deut. xxxii, 22; Isa. lxvi, 15, 16;
Psa. lxxxix, 47; Ezek. xxi, 31. And as in our text the
phrase, he shall "gather his wheat into the garner, but he
will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire," is admitted
to be exegetical of the phrase, " He shall baptize you with
the Holy Ghost and with fire," (see D. 236,) the idea of utter
extinction by baptism of the person baptized is not only
inadmissible, but ridiculous, and the folly of attempting to
join the ideas is apparent.  Baptism with the Holy Ghost
(as also with water) is expressive of character in its subject, and so too baptism with fire. It settles the subsequent
character and moral position of those who receive it; but
to make it destructive of the existence of the recipient is as
complete a piece of inanity as can well be imagined.
The figure of the chaff being utterly consumed is relied
on as justifying the inference that the wicked are to be annihilated, but with how much reason a moment's reflection
will determine. The Jews cast their chaff into the fire,
which, having consumed it, was of course quenched. And
John, to guard them against the idea which some of them
entertained, (see, 39, above,) that the sufferings of the
wicked would terminate, refers to the figure of the chaff, but
adds, that those whom it represents are to be burned up
with zunquenchable fire; and of course as the fire is unquenchable, that which feeds it must continue to exist forever.
And yet, from this self-same precautionary admonition of
John, our adversaries would infer that the error which he
thus refutes is, after all, the truth! But, on the supposition
that the wicked are to be utterly annihilated by the fire,




~ 66.   ULTIMATE CONDITION OF THE LOST.             477
where is the propriety of calling it unquenchable? To say
that it is unquenchable so long as the wicked are being extinguished by it, is saying nothing to the purpose, for the
fire in which the Jews burned their chaff was unquenchable
in precisely the same sense, and John is here, as above
stated, distinguishing between the two; and as such an
idea of unquenchable destroys the distinction, it of course is
a mere evasion of the point. The evasion referred to above,
that " the perpetuity refers to the fire, and not to the objects
cast into it," renders the threatening itself simply ludicrous.
For, first, as fire here refers to the wrath or displeasure of
God, it would be absurd to say that it continues after the
objects of it have ceased utterly to exist; and then, further,
how could it add to the force of a threatening to say, You
shall be burned up and extinguished in a fire that shall afterward continue to burn forever? Suppose that some man in
Rome were now condemned to be burned at the stake, and
that the judge should say to him, "You shall, for your great
wickedness, be burned in a fire which the government has
ordered to be kept burning for fifty years after you are
consumed;" and who can suppose that the man could be influenced by that consideration, or that he would care how
long the fire might burn after it had ceased to torment him?
Such an idea, of course, cannot be entertained, and hence it
is obvious that the wicked must suffer forever under the
wrath or displeasure of God; let not the impenitent,
therefore, entertain the hope that their existence is to ternminate.
4. In Matt. xvi, 25, 26, (and Mark viii, 35-37,) Jesus
says: " For whosoever will save his life, shall lose it, and
whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it. For
what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and
lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for
his soul?"
D. 234, 235, undertakes to divest this passage of its impressive bearing upon our theme, by the puerile criticism,
already noticed in section 33, above, that the word 4vx1l




478         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 66.
is employed in both verses, and should be uniformly
rendered life, instead of life in verse 25, and soul in verse 26.
Dr. Campbell, in his loose, rambling translation, gives it the
uniform rendering of life, though he at the same time affirms, " That our Lord has a principal eye to the loss of the
soul, or of eternal life, there can be no doubt." But how
does the fact that it is the same word in both these verses
prove that it should be translated in both alike by the same
English term. Every school-boy who has ever studied a
language knows that this would be a most preposterous
rule to follow. Our blessed Redeemer, in conversing with
Nicodemus, after remarking that, "Except a man be born
of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom
of God," and that " that which is born of the flesh is flesh,
and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," adds these
words: " The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh,
or whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the
Spirit." John iii, 8. And it is the same word, rrveJiua,
which, in this one verse, is translated by both wind and
Spirit.  And even Dr. Campbell does not venture to apply
here the aforesaid rule of uniformity. The objection of Mr.
Dobney to the translation is therefore puerile, and of no
weight whatever.
That Jesus refers in this passage directly to the future
judgment is plain from the context. And the expression,
" What shall a man give in exchange for his soul," alludes
to the condition of'the soul after it is rejected by the final
decision of the Judge. Of course, then, continuance of being
is clearly implied; for, independent of the fact that the
loss of a thing in no way supposes its annihilation, if the
sentence of the Judge was a condemnation to extinction of
being, all idea of exchange would be absurd. It would be
equivalent to saying, " What shall a man give in exchange
for his nonentity? for himself when he has no existence!" Of
course this is inadmissible. And the doctrine of the passage
therefore is, that after the final sentence of the Judge, the




~ 66.   ULTIMATE CONDITION OF THE LOST.    479
condemned can give nothing by which to recover their forfeited happiness; and since, therefore, their existence after
receiving this sentence is thus clearly declared, the sentence
itself cannot be annihilation.
5. Matt. xxv, 41, 46: " Depart from me, ye cursed, into
everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. And
these shall go away into. everlasting punishment; but the
righteous into life eternal."
D. 212, and S. 25, 26, here remark that, "before this
text can be fairly adduced as proving the sinner will exist
forever in misery, an opponent must prove the sinner to be
immortal." This issue we cheerfully accept, and appeal
to the whole of the preceding argument, derived from the
Scriptures, as settling the question of the soul's immortality. The passage before us, moreover, clearly supposes
the future and interminable existence of both the righteous
and the wicked.  The one enters into reward, the other into
punishment, and that reward and that punishment are both
eternal. The idea of cessation of existence is in no way
intimated, either directly or by implication, in either case;
and it is just as reasonable to infer that the greatness of the
rewards of heaven will extinguish the existence of the
righteous, as that the greatness of the punishment of hell
will extinguish the existence of the wicked.  But if the
immortal nature with which the righteous shall arise from
the dead shall be such as to adapt them to the otherwise
overpowering glories of heaven, (see Dan. viii, 27; x, 8, 9;
Rev. i, 17,) the immortal nature with which the wicked
shall arise shall be such as to adapt them to the otherwise
overpowering sufferings of hell. The antithesis is obvious
throughout in relation to the condition of the two; and.
consequently, as the righteous are confessedly appointed to
happiness, the wicked are appointed to its opposite. Unhappiness or misery is the antithesis of happiness, and
such therefore is the final cofidition of the wicked.  It is
simply silly to say that non-existence is the antithesis of
happiness, as a child can see with a moment's reflections




480         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 
for in strictness of speech it is as much the antithesis or
misery itself as it is of happiness.  And then, further,
eternal life here, by the admission of our opponents, means
eternal happiness. But we have shown that death in no
sense infers extinction of conscious being.  (See sec. 27,
sub-sec. 1.)  Of course, then, eternal death infers no such
extinction, and hence the final state of the lost is here
designated by the singularly appropriate term  c62aorgS;
punishment by rejection, or cutting off from, or by depriving of, that happiness which the saved enjoy. And they
are said to go away into this everlasting punishment, as the
righteous are said to go into their eternal reward. The
reward, therefore, eternally finds the righteous in possession
of it, and the punishment eternally finds the guilty and
condemned in possession of it. Such is the obvious and
unforced import of the passage.
Our opponents, in their efforts to evade this testimony,
pretend that its force is invalidated by the exposition of the
passage given by Dr. Duffield in his work on " Prophecy,"
and by Dr. Lord, (Theol. Rev. for 1850, p. 411,) who refer
it not to the general judgment, but to that which will take
place at the introduction of the millennium. The same
view was substantially held by Curcellaeus (Opp. p. 921)
and Turretin, (Opp. iv, p. 750.) But admitting this criticism, it in no way affects the point in question, for it leaves
wholly untouched the subject of the final condition of men,
as brought to view in the passage itself.
6. Another passage is Mark ix, 43-49: "And if thy
hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter
into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into
that fire that never shall be quenched; where their worm
dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."  These are the
words of our Saviour, and, after repeating them in relation
to the foot and eye, he, in showing why the worm should
not die and the fire never be, quenched, uses those deeply
impressive words: " For every one [that is, of those who
come into this condemnation] shall be salted with FIR,."




~ C6.   ULTIMATE CONDITION OF THE LOST.    481
The very element which, in the literal valley of Hinnom,
consumed the dead body, and the worms which feasted on
it, shall in hell preserve the body and the worm in being.
They shall be salted, that is, preserved by it in existence.
And hence the clear distinction which he observes between
the fire in the vale of Hinnom, which was quenched, and
the fire to which he refers: &rw0sE1v Elf -r-v Tysvvav, Etf
TO rvQ 7 -  daeoa-rov,'"to enter into the hell, into that fire
which never shall be quenched;" thus distinguishing between the type and antitype, for the Jews regarded Gehenna as a type of hell. In the type the worm died, and
the fire was quenched; but in the antitype the worm shall
not die, and the fire shall not be quenched.
The utter hopelessness of the advocates of the opposing
theories, in view of this awful testimony, may be seen by
the false and flimsy comments by which they would persuade the reader to believe that our blessed Redeemer referred only to the vale of Hinnomn, on the south-east of
Jerusalem, and thus representing him as forewarning his
followers of being cast into a valley into which none of them
ever had been or ever would be cast, and which had no
connection with the religion they were now appointed to
teach, and in fact whose fires were extinguished before that
religion was established. It would be well if such triflers
would remember his admonition respecting the utterance of
"idle words;" and if those also of them who blasphemously
ridicule the images here employed by our Saviour, would
remember that those who " are ashamed of his words," and
who blaspheme the utterances of his Spirit, shall have no
part in his kingdom.*
That the passage refers to the future and final state of the
wicked., is further evident from the parallel expression in
Isa. lxvi, 24. And too little is here known of that state to
justify the arrogant assumption of Universalists and others,
~ That the Jews were accustomed to describe the future punishment
of the damned by the figure of fire and worms, is ftlly proved by quotations from the LXX, and Josephus, cited in Kuinoel on Mlark ix, 44-46.
31




482          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 66.
that certain specific representations which God has given of
it, are inconsistent with such a state; as when, for example,
Whittemore, (on the Parables, p. 65,) speaking of Isa. lxvi, 24,
says: "This passage cannot be considered as having reference to a future state of punishment, because it is said to be
fulfilled where time is denoted by new moons and Sabbaths."
That is, in other words, God cannot mean to say what his
words announce, because we cannot see how those announcements can agree with our ideas of a future state. Such a
rule of interpretation is unworthy of my friend Whittemore,
and is purely theologastrian. Had the earth remained in the
state in which it was created, and continued to be the abode
of holy beings, would new moons and Sabbaths have had no
connection with endless existence? And why then should
they not havein connection with the earth's renovation? Our.opponents speak much also of the term " carcass" in this
passage, and endeavor from it to prove that as a carcass is
a body bereft of life, the scene referred to must precede
and not succeed the final resurrection and judgment; but
carcass is referred to as the visible part of man, and is equivalent to body. It is simply nonsense to pretend that Ir.
necessarily implies a body deprived of vitality, as the term
h, dead, applied to it, plainly evinces.  See 2 Kings
xix, 35; Isa. xxxvii, 36; and hence the expression, "Your
carcasses shall fall in the wilderness." Numbers xiv, 28.
Their carcasses were of course not dead bodies when thus
referred to. Our opponents insist upon it, moreover, that
" a living soul infers that there is such a thing as a dead
soul;" (see, for example, C. 14-23; E. 31-49, 233,)
and, of course, if this be so, a dead carcass must suppose
such a thing as a living carcass.
Those who are here referred to, therefore, by Isaiah, are
the wicked who had died the second death, and hence the
term carcass is applied to them, intimating that they had
thus died. Their visible part, their bodies, thus prostrate
by the second death, are a loathsome spectacle to all the
redeemed, as illustrating the fearful consequences of rebellion




~ 66.   ULTIMATE CONDITION OF THE LOST.    483
against God. And Jesus assures us that the fire and worm
shall never consume them, an idea perfectly familiar to the
ancient Jews, as may be seen by Isa. xxxiii, 14: "Who
among us shall dwell with the devouring  fire; who
among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings." Compare
Eccles. vii, 19; viii, 10; ix, 15; x, 11; Judith xvi, 21; also
Matt. v, 22; xiii, 42. Philo, too, as quoted by Whitby,
(in Mark ix, 43, 44,) states that the punishment of the
wicked shall be "to live forever dying;" "to be forever in
pains and griefs, and calamities that never cease."
The literature of our opponents on this passage may be
seen in D. 204-9; S. 22-24; H. 1, p. 139; A. 103;
M. 41-43; F. 29, 30; Hud. 197-206; Chauncey, 310-324;
Balfour, 175-179.
7. There are many other passages which evince with
equal clearness that the future punishment of sin is not.
extinction of being, but conscious and unending misery; but
our limits forbid us to dwell at length upon them; for
example, (Mark xiv, 31,) where Christ said of Judas, " Good
were it for that man if he never had been born." This of
course declares that the future condition of Judas would be
worse than non-existence. Now as he did not exist previous
to his entrance into this world, so, if after leaving this world
he should at any period, however distant, pass out of existence, he would be in precisely the same condition as previous to his birth. How then could it be good for him if he
had never been born?
8. In John v, 28, 29, Jesus, speaking of the resurrection,
says that " they who have done good shall come forth to the
resurrection of life, and they that have done evil to the
resurrection of damnation." Life and damnation are here
in antithesis. Now both the evil and good are raised to
life or actual existence. Why then are they put in possession of existence by a reunion of soul and body? Plainly
that they may be rewarded according to their works. The
word life, therefore, expresses the reward of the righteous;
and the word damnation, or condemnation, the reward of the




484          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 66.
unrighteous. The one refers to a happy existence, the other to
an existence which is the reverse of this-a miserable, unhappy existence.  The term pKiact; here rendered damnation, is employed nearly fifty times in the New Testament,
and in not one of them does it import extinction of being,
annihilation, or anything that even infers a deprivation of
actual existence. And in the passage before us the phrase
8Il7TopEvaovTaL eigf dva27acrav icpiaeo6 shows the utter incompatibility of that idea; for as the righteous shall come
forth into a renewal of life, (the union of soul and body, interrupted by death,) which shall be a life of happiness, so
the wicked shall comeforth into a renewal of life, a life of
condemnation or unhappiness.  Such is the idea obvious
upon the very surface itself of the language.  The idea of
renewal of life is clearly expressed by dvdacaataf, (used
nearly as often as nptatl in the New Testament, and always
in such a sense,) and the bare attempt to join the two terms,
as they are connected in the text, and seriously to attach to
Kpiftg the idea of extinction or annihilation, would be worse
than nonsense, for it would be turning into ridicule the
words of Christ, and would be making him say, "They shall
comne forth to the renewal of life, a life of non-existence, or
annihilation."  The verb, therefore, expresses the idea of
their coming forth out of their graves,  vda-raals, the life
to which they shall return, and icpifaW, the condition or state
of that life itself.
9. The same idea is clear also from John iii, 36: "He
that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life;" has it now,
is already passed from death into life which shall continue
forever; " and he that believeth not the Son shall not see
life, but the wrath of God abideth, (gEvet remaineth) on him."
That " everlasting life " here refers to salvation,.and not to
mere existence, is obvious from the fact that the believer even
in this world is said to possess it. Comp. also Rom. viii, 1, 6;
1 John iii, 14; v, 12; John v, 24; viii, 51; xi, 36. And
that life in the latter part of the text does not mean mere
existence, is evident from the fact that the unbeliever in this




~ 66.    ULTIMATE CONDITION OF THE LOST.    485
world does possess this, and shall repossess it at the resurrection.  He both does and shall see life, therefore, in the
sense of actual existence; but he does not, and never shall see
it in the sense of salvation. The condition of the life which he
shall possess is clear also from the last clause of the passage:
"The wrath of God remaineth on him."  And as it is impossible that this wrath should rest upon that which has no
existence, so it is clear that the wicked must continue to exist:
and that as long as they who believe the Son shall enjoy
salvation, so long shall they who believe him not have the
wrath of God abiding on them.
10. In Rom. ii, 4-10, the same contrast is presented, (as
well as in many other places which need not be specified.)
They who, by patiently continuing in well-doing, seek for
glory, and honor, and immnortality,* shall secure eternal life;
while they " who obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall secure indignation and wrath, tribulation and
anguish;" that is, a state or condition of being utterly irreconcilable with annihilation.  The continued existence of
both classes is therefore clearly indicated. The one is to
inherit an eternal life of glory, and the other an eternal
death (the antithesis of eternal life) of tribulation and
anguish; and the idea that this eternal death is to terminate
in annihilation, is as unfounded as the idea that the eternal
life spoken of shall so terminate. Excessive joy and excessive grief may, either of them, produce asphyxia, but there
is no more tendency in the one than in the other to produce
extinction of being. In this passage, moreover, the penalty
of the law and the effects of its infliction are clearly defined.
The penalty is Divine "indignation and wrath," and its effects
are " tribulation and anguish." And to attempt to connect
extinction of existence with this tribulation and anguish, is
simply impertinent; for if indignation and wrath, which
produce tribulation and anguish, be, as is here asserted, the
penalty of the law, then indignation and wrath, which produce
* A Hebraism for " a glorious and honorable immortality," as illustrated in section 37, sub-section 4, above.




486          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.               ~ 66.
the very opposite effect, is not the penalty.  Extinction
of being is, of course, the cessation of tribulation and
anguish, and to say that both are the penalty of the law
is nonsense. The infliction of the penalty produces suffering, and suffering, therefore, is the endless portion of the
ungodly.
11. In exact accordance with this, the apostle, in 2 Thess.
i, 6-9, declares that Christ shall come with his mighty
angels in flaming fire to award tribulation to those who have
troubled and persecuted his people; and this tribulation he
declares to be " everlasting destruction from  the presence
of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." (Comp.
Isa. ii, 19, 21.) The word here rendered destruction (b'Se0pog)
is used but four times in the New Testament, (1 Cor. v, 5;
1 Thess. v, 3; 1 Tim. vi, 9,) and in no instance means annihilation.  Eternal, or everlasting destruction, therefore, is
consistent with the everlasting endurance of tribulation or
suffering, and of course everlasting tribulation infers everlasting continuance of existence. And then, moreover, the
attempt to substitute annihilation for destruction in the passage would show the absurdity of the whole idea of our adversaries: "Who shall be punished with everlasting annihilation from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of
his power."  It is not difficult to understand how overwhelming ruin and destruction should produce the tribulation referred to, but it would take an Annihilationist to tell
how annihilation could produce it. The infliction of the
penalty of the law, however, does produce trouble or tribulation in those who are suffering it, and therefore annihilation is not the penalty.
12. The continued existence of the finally impenitent is
likewise clearly announced in Jude 6, 7, and 2 Pet. ii, 4-6,
where the state of the sinning angels is referred to as
furnishing an illustration of the consequences of transgression; and then the illustration is applied to the final condition of impenitent men. The angels, when they sinned, at
once incurred the penalty of the divine law, which is death,




~ 66.    ULTIMATE CONDITION OF THE LOST.    487
and were cast down to hell. They were deprived of happi
ness, but their conscious existence was not interrupted,
and the infliction of that penalty, therefore, infers no such
extinction in the case of a rational creature. And hence
the wicked men referred to in these passages are not extinct,
but are held forth as an example,' suffering the vengeance of
eternal fire.
But H. 1, p. 138, after denying that hell is now in existence, (a direct denial of what Peter and Jude here affirm
respecting the evil angels and their doom,) asks, "Why
did our Lord speak of'their (the people of Sodom, etc.)
punishment as yet future (Matt. x, 15) if they were already
in hell."  Answer: He speaks of that portion of it which
was still future, as future, simply because it was future.
See Prov. xxvi,' 5. Mr. Balfour, (Inquiry, p. 93,) though he
utterly denies the separability of the soul from the body,
says that he is of opinion that Korah and his company are
the angels here referred to, and (p. 99) that as the judgment of the great day means the destruction of Jerusalem,
Korah and his company were reserved till that time. See
Prov. xxvi, 4.
S. 26, 27, gives a characteristic perversion of the passage, and says that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are here "expressly said to be reserved" for
punishment.  He doubtless quoted this from  that other
Bible, referred to above in the note to section 36, sub-sect.
2, for there is nothing like it in either our Greek or English
Scriptures.  D. 237 makes the phrase, "Sodom  and Gomorrah, and the cities about them," refer to the material
-the houses, walls, etc., and of course, then, these houses
and walls "had given themselves over to fornication, and
gone after strange flesh." But the material philosophy
may logically admit of this, if we except the locomotion,
or "going after," since, if matter of itself may think, all
matter may think: so that, after all, the houses and walls
may have been sinful, and may have been punished.
Hud. 204 says: "It is here worthy of note that the




488          IMMORTALITY OF TiE SOUL.                 ~ 66.
adjectiv.e'suffering' (virrsovaat) in Jude verse 7, refers
to the cities rather than to the inhabitants;" so that the
cities, as distinguished from their inhabitants, went after the
strange flesh, and committed fornication. And thus too we
are taught that Chorazin and Capernaum, (Matt. xi, 20-24,)
and not their inhabitants, were upbraided by our' Saviour,
and are to be brought down to hell. The remarks of B.
63, 87, 88, are equally absurd. Dr. Priestley, in loco, says
that the term  4' angels " here probably refers to those called
" the sons of God," in the antediluvian world, who perished
in the deluge. H. 2, p. 90, ventures upon a criticism of the
original, and would fain supply a word to our English translation.  He says: "The word -roVi'rof (to those) is left untranslated in our English version, and which, being in the
masculine gender, agrees with the ayyX2ov~ of verse 6."
And he renders the passage as follows: "Even as Sodom
and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, in like manner
to these [angels] giving themselves over to fornication and
going after strange [margin, other] flesh, are set forth for an
example." This, I suppose, is the,Annihilationist doctrine
of angelology, and its resemblance to Christian angelology
may be seen in Matt. xxii, 30, where being " like the angels"
is given as a reason why, in the future life, the saved neither
marry nor are given in marriage. The Greek word on which
this folly is attempted to be based, is very properly left
untranslated in our excellent version, because the English
idiom fully expresses the sense without it. The inhabitants
of Sodom and Gomorrah, and of the neighboring cities, are
referred to, and those of the latter cities, following the example of the former, ran into their sin, and incurred their
condemnation. This is the fiull idea, as expressed in the
Greek, and our own version renders it with equal force and
precision.*  C. 45, F. 30, J. T. 36, say that Jude's lan* Dr. Bushnell has in his late work essayed a. criticism upon the foregoing
passage, and offers Faber as authority, aiming to show that it has no reference to an/gels, but only to the " Sethites," alnd attempts to drag Josephus
into his support; but Nwith what reason may be seen by referring to Antiq.,




~ 66.    ULTIMATE CONDITION OF THE LOST.    489
guage does not imply that the people of Sodom, etc., " are
now suffering, but that they are now  an example of suffering." But of what suffering are they now an example? To
say that they are now an example of what they had suffered
would be announcing nothing but what everybody knew.
The answer of Jude therefore is the only true one: " They are
now an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
Compare Luke xvi, 23, 24.
This notion of C., etc., has been thoughtlessly favored by
some who ought to have known better than thus to trifle.
The T-  decyFta, example, is the fact here announced; and
to pretend that it refers to a visible, palpable example, is
nonsense, for the material cities themselves have long ceased
to be such; their precise locality even is unknown; and as
the historical statement of their destruction is sufficient to
present them to us as an example of the retributive justice of
God on earth, and that too without any visible and palpable
representation, shall not the emphatic announcement of the
Spirit of God suffice to set them forth as an example of
suffering the vengeance of eternal fire? Shall it be regarded as less veracious than the formal historic statement?
This shallow attempt therefore to restrict the application of
SdeiLyta to palpable objects, is not only ridiculous, but, if
carried out, must divest the term  of all present application
to the material cities themselves.
book i, chap. iii, sec. 1. He moreover professes to be so well acquainted
with the angelic state, as to know that the word oiCKr7pWov  (see Jude
6, and 2 Cor. v, 2; also otfcia, as employed in John xiv, 2) is "' entirely
malapropos, when referred to celestial beings.~" See his ~" Nature and
the Supernatural," pp. 130, 131.  How this extraordinary attainment in
the knowledge of the:" supernatural " was made he has not informed the
world, though perhaps he designs it should be inferred from the fourteenth chapter of his book, the title of which is,'" Miracles and Spiritual
Gifts are not discontinued."  No man has a higher respect than I for
Dr. Bushnell's great and transcendent powers, when exercised within
their proper sphere; but the province of critical exposition lies not with-'
in that sphere. And in his whole book there is not one formal attempt
at the exegesis of Scripture which would not be unworthy of the merest
tyro.




490         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 66.
I have here exhibited a full view of the imbecile and
hopeless struggles of our opponents with the obvious import of this and other passages, (and had my limits permitted, should have done so in every instance,) to illustrate
the folly of attempting to build up mere human theories in
antagonism  to the truth of God.  But I must conclude
these criticisms with a brief notice of two or three passages
in Revelation.
13. In Rev. xiv, 9-11, and xix, 20, the sentence of those
who worship the beast and his image, and the sentence also
of the devil, and beast, and false prophet, is declared to be
unceasing and endless torment: esi  TroV  atlvag -ri)v
alyoy)v.: literally, through the eternity of eternities. That
this phrase is employed to designate an absolute eternity
no one can reasonably doubt. See Gal. i, 5; Phil. iv, 20;
2 Tim. iv, 18; Heb. xiii, 21; 1 Peter iv, 11; v, 11; Rev.
i, 6, 18; v, 13; vii, 13.
The criticism of our opponents on the expression has
been noticed already in sect. 63. We can have no idea of
eternity except as an endless succession of ages; and
common sense, not less than the strictest philosophy, justifies the phraseology as applied to designate it. The attempt
therefore to prove that alhov may mean an age, and oi
atlvag i-riv aicrv6ov, no more than a limited duration, is
simply puerile, as is evident from the fact that the phrase
is employed to designate the perpetuity of the glory and
government of God, and the happiness of the redeemed, in
which any such sense is clearly inadmissible.  It is employed but eighteen times in the New Testament, in sixteen
of which it is applied to the former, and in one of the other
two to the latter.  Then as respects adoWv, whenever
(whether in the singular or plural) it is governed by elF, it
invariably in the New Testament signifies endless duration.
In this construction it is therein employed sixty-one times,
in fifty-five of which no one can doubt that it has this
sense, and in the other six it is applied to future punishment.  How idle then to question its import in these in



~ 66     ULTIMATE CONDITION OF THE LOST.    491
stances, or to undertake to prove that because ai&v may
be employed to signify a temporary duration, it may therefore have this sense in the construction aforesaid, when
every fact is against the supposition?
The adjective alOvtog may likewise claim  a passing
notice in this connection.  It is used seventy-one times in
the New Testament, in five of which the Restorationists
themselves admit that it is applied to future punishment.
In fifty other instances it is applied to the future happiness
and glory of the redeemed, and of course means unending
duration or perpetuity; in four others to God and his
perfections; once to the consolation of true believers, which
of course will never fail, (2 Thess. ii, 16;) once to things
unseen, in contrast with the visible, (2 Cor. iv, 18;) once
to theredemptionof Christ, (Heb. ix, 12;) once to the covenant of grace, (Heb. xiii, 20;) once in Jude 7, (explained
above;) once to that evangelion to be announced by the
angel, (Rev. xiv, 6;) once to past eternity, (Rom.
xvi, 25;) once to the indissoluble relation constituted by
Christian brotherhood, (Philemon 15;) and once to the
judgment, which decides the endless destiny of men. (Heb.
vi, 2.)  Besides these instances, which number sixty-nine, it
is twice employed as follows: 7rpoi X%6vv ai6vcov, (2 Tim.
i, 9, and Titus i, 2,) and means before the endless ages.  It
is common to divide eternity into past and future, since
there is a point at which, so to speak, the endless existence
of man begins.*  And it is equally proper to designate the
time previous to the occurrence of those transactions recorded in Gen. iii, 9-21, as before the endless ages, or specific dispensations referred to in Heb. xi, 3, and which so
pre-eminently concern the eternal destiny of the sinner.
Such metonomy frequently occurs in the Scriptures. See
also conclusion of part i, chap. iii.
The instance of its application to the kingdom of Christ
(2 Peter i, 11) has been pleaded as signifying a temporary
* See this illustrated, with his usual felicity, by Augustine, De Civit.
Dei, lib. xii, cap. xv.




492          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ ('
duration, but without reason; for although Jesus surrende X
to the Father the mediatorial kingdom, (1 Cor. xv, 24-28,)
can any one suppose that his relation to the redeemed will
ever cease?  They shall receive a crown that fadeth not
away, (1 Peter v, 4; 1 Cor. ix, 25,) and a kingdom that
cannot be moved, (Heb. xii, 28,) and shall reign forever
and ever, (Rev. xxii, 5;) he shall dwell among them, and
his throne be in their midst, (Rev. vii, 14-17;) and the
throne of God and the Lamb shall continue as such forever, (Rev. xxii, 1, 3;) and therefore, although he gives
up his mnediatorial kingdom and offices, so far as the sinner
is concerned, he shall, as the Lamb once slain, rule over his
redeemed through eternity.
Thus full and clear is the evidence derived from all these
terms and expressions, that the misery of the wicked shall
have no end; and in relation to the passages we are considering, therefore, Prof. Stuart, on verse 10, makes the obvious remark that "the idea of the writer is that they [the
wicked referred to] shall remain in the condition to which
they are doomed, that is, they are still to remain living."
And the expression, "the smoke of their torment ascendeth
up forever and ever," evinces the true import, as given by
the Holy Spirit himself, of such passages as Matt. iii, 12;
Mark ix, 43,' etc.
The manner in which our opponents trifle with these expressions is anything but creditable to them. B. 89-103
evinces his usual illiteracy, and though he draws largely from
others, does not succeed in quoting anything really bearing
on the issue. M. 49 says the torment here referred to is
inflicted in this world; A. 104, S. 30-35, C. 41, 42, D. 224229, H. 1, p. 138, say the same, and draw the sage conclusion, that because the wrath here mentioned overtakes the
wicked while they are in this world, it therefore must end in
this world. As well might it be said that because the
righteous pass from death unto life in this world, that therefore their salvation shall end in this world.  The inhabitants
of Sodom and Gomorrah were overwhelmed with Divine




~ 66.   ULTIMATE CONDITION OF THE LOST.    493
vengeance in this world, and yet they suffer the vengeance
of eternal fire. And what would be said of the man who
should insist upon it that, because Divine wrath overtook
the sinning angels, and cast them out of heaven, therefore
their sufferings terminated in heaven?  It is a fair application of the argument, and the logic is the same. F. 31 refers the language, however, to the future world and final
judgment, but maintains from it that " the wicked shall be
burned up, and consume away into smoke, which smoke shall
ascend up."  But how can this be according to the statements of the passage?  After they are utterly consumed,
how can the smoke of their torment ascend up? However
distant that event may be supposed, there will yet an eternity succeed it, during which no smoke can of course ascend.
But further, by what authority do F. and S. and D., and
all these writers, make the wicked to be so long burning up?
A lake of fire and brimstone would consume a man in an
hour, or even less. True, God can preserve men alive in
the greatest fires. (See Dan. iii, 25, 27.) But this idea is,
of course, not to be brought in here, for our opponents insist that the penalty tf the law is annihilation, and that the
wicked suffer these torments in undergoing the process of
extinction. For what, then, are they kept burning during
the long period asserted by these men? They could be
easily consumed in an hour, or less. Our opponents can
give no reason for their opinion, except that God, for wise
purposes, preserves them in being so long. And of course,
therefore, all those arguments upon which they so much insist, about " the natural effects of fire upon human bodies,"
etc., are only trifling with the subject, and do not bear upon
the question at all. It will not be doubted that he who can
make a human body endure fire for a century, can continue
its existence in fire forever; and if he find reason to continue
its existence for a century, he may find reason likewise to
continue it " day and night forever and ever."
14. The last passage to which we shall refer is Rev. xx,
9-15, which describes the events just previous to the usher



494         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 66.
ing in of the final judgment, and the judgment itself and its
issues. The devil is cast into the lake of fire, where the
beast and false prophet are; and then after mankind are
judged, it is said in ver. 15, that whosoever of them were
not found written in the book of life were also cast therein,
and of course made partakers of his own doom, according to
Matt. xxv, 41. Now so long as any one is tormented, he
lives in torment, as must be obvious to all; and this torment
is here said to be forever and ever. And as this is after the
final disposal of man by his Creator, the terms forever and
ever can relate only to an absolute eternity, even if in other
connections they might sometimes express a limited duration. It is therefore the final condition, not of a nonentity,
but of the wicked; a condition of torment. Nothing is to
come after; no ceons to close up in the sad experiefice of
such; their condition is absolute and eternal; it is the
second death, and can be followed by no resurrection; and
the Mediator, when they are consigned to this doom, gives
up his mediatorial offices, as no more of Adam's race are.
now to be reconciled to God. He ceases to act as mediator
between God and sinful men, and thus the wicked are left
hopeless and unredeemed forever.
The efforts of our opponents to divest this passage of its
awful import, are of the same character with those referred
to in our examination of the former passage. Some of them
endeavor to symbolize the devil, but their remarks are beneath criticism. D. 229-9234 is the only one among them
who seriously and soberly endeavors to set aside the proof
here furnished of the unending misery of the lost. He admits that the devil may, as here stated, be really tormented
forever and ever; but denies that any proof is thereby furnished that wicked men shall be tormented in the same
manner. And of course he denies that " the lake of fire,"
mentioned in ver. 10, is the same as that mentioned in ver. 14,
15; the one referring to the doom of the devil, and the other
to that of wicked men. And further, that even admitting
the lake to be the same, it is unfair to conclude that men are




~ 66.   ULTIMATE CONDITION OF THE LOST.    495
to live in torment as long as the devil shall. These are his
exceptions.
(1.) As to Mr. Dobney's denial that the lake of ver. 10 and
that of ver. 14, 15 are the same, it is simply contemptible.
The devil is declared to be cast into " the lake of fire;" and
then, a few verses afterward, and with not the slightest reference to the possible existence of any other lake of the kind,
the wicked are said to be cast into " the lake of fire."  But
if even there could be room for a rational doubt on the subject, their identity is declared in the clearest possible manner in Rev. xxi, 8, where the phrase, " the lake which burneth
with fire and brimstone," identifies the lake there mentioned
with that of Rev. xx, 10; and the phrase "which is the
second death," identifies it with that of ver. 14, 15 of the
same chapter. And to deny their identity, therefore, is
as utterly absurd and ridiculous as it would be to deny
that " things which are equal to the same thing are
equal to one another."  We have therefore full proof
here that the existence of hell is not, as our adversaries
(who deny a present hell) affirm, consequent upon the issues
of the judgment day, since they themselves maintain that
the hell mentioned in Rev. xx, 10, is to be referred to a
period antecedent to the judgment. And as this hell is the
same with that which is to succeed the judgment, it becomes
at once identified with that mentioned in Luke xvi, 23, 24;
Mark ix, 43-49; Matt. xxiii, 33; Jude 6, 7, and other
places. There is, therefore, a hell now in existence; and it
is to continue forever.
(2.) Mr. Dobney denies, also, that because the devil is to be
tormented forever and ever, it will follow that wicked men
must be who partake his doom. But what is the ground of
such denial? If it be the mere exigencies of an idle theory,
it surely is entitled to no deference whatever. Have the
Scriptures anywhere intimated a difference? The exception
is a mere captious cavil, unless some sufficient reason can be
given to justify or sustain it. The word i3aavtaotjaovo at,
shall be tormented, is plural; and all to whom it refers




496         INMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.              ~ 66.
"shall be tormented forever and ever."  And that all the
wicked are to partake this doom is distinctly affirmed in ver.
15, and chap. xxi, 8. The torment is said to cbntinue through
eternity, and of course those tormented must continue to
exist through eternity. The assertion which Mr. Dobney
makes and insists upon, that this would infer an equal degr ee
of suffering to all, is utterly groundless, for God has said
that the wicked shall receive according to their deeds. He
will not violate his words, even though Mr. Dobney and
others cannot see how he can possibly verify them.  When
Mr. Dobney proves, therefore, that it is important to the
subject that he and his friends should know exactly how
Jehovah shall make his statements good, this argument will
be worthy of consideration.
(3.) Mr. Dobney further states that, since Death and
Hades are represented as being annihilated by being cast
into the lake of fire, (ver. 14,) it is therefore reasonable to infer
that wicked men will be likewise annihilated by the same
process. Mr. Hudson also takes the same ground. But
where is it said that Thanatos (Death) and Ltades are to be
annihilated?  I am aware that some expositors have inconsiderately conceded this, but without the slightest reason
whatever. There is no ground for any such concession.
Thanatos and Hades are to be confined to the lake of fire, no
more to blight or to harass, by their doleful influence and the
terrors they excite, the fair creation of God. Their power and
their terrors are to exist thenceforth only with the subjects of
"the second death."  They are cast into (3d0ALetv eig) that
lake, and are to return no more.
Thanatos and Hades are here, as in other places, personified.  (Rev. vi, 8; comp. Rev. i, 18; Hos. xiii, 14; 1 Cor.
xv, 55.)  And Thanatos again in Rom. v, 14. (Sin also in
Rom. vi, 14.) Satan is, moreover, spoken of as possessing
the kingdom or dominion of Thranatos, Heb. ii, 14. (Greek.)
Hades also expresses his power and operations, Mhtt. xvi,
18; (and in classical language it is both the name and doc
minion of Pluto).  fiR,5 too, has an equivalent inmportI




~ 66.    ULTIMATE CONDITION OF THE LOST.    497
and hence the frequent antithesis between heaven and hades.
(Matt. xi, 23; Luke x, 15; comp. Ezek. xxxi, 16-18;
Amos ix, 2; Sirach, li, 7.)  But Christ has conquered both
Thanatos and Hades, and holds them in subjection. (Rev.
i, 18; 1 Cor. xv, 55; Hos. xiii, 14.)  They are now said to
exist, and, in a sense, are said to rule in this probationary
state of fallen man. But He who holds the power over them,
(and all his enemies,) shall, when his mediatorial work is
completed and man's probation ended, sweep them forever
from the holy and happy universe of God, and confine them
to the lake of fire, and to those who are associated with the
second death.  Such is the idea here conveyed.  Instead of
being annihilated, they shall, whatever other forms they may
assume, still exist in more fearful shapes and with infinitely
more hideous terrors in the world of woe. Such is the terrifie and most awful picture here held forth by the Spirit of
Eternal Truth.*
But even if Thanatos and Hades were said to be utterly
annihilated, how preposterous would it be to infer, as do
Messrs. Dobney, Hudson, and others of that class, that because a personification should cease to exist, therefore the
thing personified must cease likewise to exist. The utmost
that the passage can be made to convey is, that Thanatos
and Hades shall cease to exist as regards the redeemed; but
will this prove'that they shall cease also in respect to the
unredeemed? And will any sober man pretend this with
the announcement in these very passages staring him in the
face, that deuteros thanatos (the second death) shall still exist after Thanatos and Hades are cast into the lake of fire?
The lake of fire is not itself the second death;t but to have a
portion therein constitutes that death. Mr. Dobney and his
coadjutors also quote 1 Cor. xv, 26: " Death, the last enemy,
* I am gratified to find that Dr. Post sustains the same view. See New
Englander, xiv, 204-206.
t The ignorance, or something worse, of Mr. Hudson, in his attempted
criticism of this phrase, is of a piece with what we have already exposed
of his glaring perversions of fact.
82




498         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.             ~ 66.
shall be destroyed."  But this passage refers to its abolishment in relation to the redeemed of Christ, as verses 54-57
evince, and of course it has nothing to do with the subject before us. Believers shall not be hurt by the second
death, (Rev. ii, 11,) though the wicked shall be. But we
must draw our work to a close,




CONCLUSION.                   499
CHAPTER VIII.
CONCLUSION.
A FEARFUL responsibility rests upon the man who, professing to be an expositor of the word of God, will trifle
with those impressive warnings and admonitions which
the ineffable love of Him who died to redeem us has
given, in order that our guilty and perishing race may
be led to accept of his proffered deliverance by being
brought to see what are the certain consequences of rejecting it. It is hard to be compelled to believe that our
opponents would voluntarily incur this responsibility; but
to what are we to ascribe the perpetually distorted representations of truth and fact which characterize nearly all their
publications on the subject?  They iterate and reiterate
their purity of purpose and honesty of intention; but how
are such professions to be reconciled with their open denial
and perversion of Divine truth, their misrepresentation
of facts, and their ridicule and caricature of those overwhelmingly affecting counsels and admonitions in relation
to our future welfare, given by the kindest, sincerest, and
most affectionate friend that ever dwelt in human flesh,
and who overpoweringly proved the extent and intensity of
his love by dying the accursed death that sinful man might
be furnished with the opportunity to flee from the wrath to
come, and to escape from that fire which never shall be
quenched? It is hard to think that even Mr. Dobney, in the
face of his unceasing professions of piety and purity of intention, should willingly be guilty of this crime; but no
serious and reflecting mind can read his work intelligently,
and notice its adoption of the Universalist verbiage and




500          IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.
sophistry, without wondering at such professions.  And
yet he beseeches his fellow-Christians not to represent God
as punishing sin forever, and associating wicked men with
the devil in punishment, unless upon a renewed investigationr
of the subject they should be certain that such is the fact.
D. 223. In accordance with the same spirit, he charges the
Edwardses and others with " almost reveling in descriptions of
never-ending torment;" but says, at the same time, that he
does not use the expression " in any offensive sense," (p. 255,)
which is about as becoming as it would be for one to say,
" Mr. Dobney delights in making excuses to encourage the
impenitent in sin, and in countenancing the wicked in their
reckless disregard of futurity; but I do not wish to be understood in any offensive sense."  But let Mr. Dobney
point out, in the works of either Edwards or of Mr. Melville, any passage half as obnoxious to such a charge as the
declarations of our blessed Redeemer in Matt. xiii, Mark ix,
or those in Rev. xx, or else let him retract this most unjust accusation. This is a common charge of our opponents, and as unfounded as it is common. They attempt to
ignore all those admonitions of the word of God, and when
we insist upon their truth and importance, they charge us
with taking delight and " reveling " in the discharge of what
we ever feel to be a most painful and soul-harrowing duty.
But instead of dwelling upon the point, I will here add a
word from the admirable essay of Rev. Mr. Campbell,* in
which, referring to the general subject, he says: " Whatever
reasons, then, justified our Saviour in holding forth'a fire,unquenchable,''a worm undying,''  a punishment everlasting,'
will justify every other preacher in arraying the same awful
issue of Gospel despising before the mind of every impenitent
sinner."
The open and iniquitous trifling of such writers as S., H.,
C., Hud., B., M., E., and Balfour in relation to this whole
matter almost surpasses belief. I call it iniquitous, for I
* "Life and Death," by President Campbell, of Bethany College, Va.
See Mill. Harb., extra, for Dec. 1844.




CONCLUSION.                     501
most heartily accord with Dr. Johnson's remark: " I know
of no crime so great that a man could contrive to commit,
as poisoning the sources of eternal truth."*  The pretense
of wishing "to relieve the character of God" is sheer impertinence. (See sect. 59, sub-sect. 7, above.) Infidels have
ever offered the same plea to justify their rejection of the
Bible. But when did God ever put the keeping of his character in the hands of these men, or authorize them or anyothers to defend him by denying or misrepresenting his truth?
The assumption of this whole class of writers, and one on
which they are perpetually ringing the changes, is, that " endless rejection from  God into a condition of hopeless and
final misery, being presented as a motive, serves only to
harden men in sin and unbelief."  It is a well-known fact
that two or three wolves in a forest, or on the mountains,
can so fill the woods with the echoes of their ever-varying
howl, that an inexperienced observer would be led to suppose there must be scores of them in company.  And in
like manner Mr. Dobney, and writers like him, by their unwarrantable cavils and speculations impair confidence in the
Divine averments, and produce the very echoings of disbelief which they adduce to prove the inefficacy of the motive
referred to. Impenitent men feel encouraged thus to disregard that motive, and it fails to influence them. The plea
that this effect is vroduced through a perception of the incompatibility of connecting endless punishment with the sins
of this probationary state, is false in the statement and disproved by fact. When did ever a truly awakened sinner,
burdened with a sense of his guilt, utter a syllable about
such disproportion? And is the thoughtless, impenitent
soul, "who loves darkness rather than light " —is "' the natural man that receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God because they are foolishness unto him," to be taken as a better
judge in such things than the soul awakened by the Holy
Spirit to see and feel the true nature and desert of sinl? But
the same plea, only varied in form, has always been urged
* Boswell's Tour to the Hebrides, p. 28.




502         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.
in the effort to get rid of all the leading doctrines of revelation which are unsatisfactory and distasteful to the carnal
heart. Read the exceptions of Socinus to the doctrine of
Christ's vicarious satisfaction, or of the Unitarians to his
Divine nature, or of Swedenborg to the doctrine of the
Trinity, or of Professor Bush to the doctrine of the resurrection, or of the Rationalists to the doctrine respecting
demoniacs, and you find this principle applied just as Mr.
Dobney and his coadjutors apply it in relation to future
punishment. (See sect. 64, above.) And the argument is as
conclusive in the one case as in the other. And then further, the question is one simply of exegesis; and as an exegetical question, (as every thorough scholar has ever admi'tted,) there is not room even for a rational doubt
respecting it. As speculative theologians, some such have
doubted it; but as exegetes, they confess that they must admit it; so that our opponents cannot even plead in their
defense that they bring philosophy into the account in order
to settle a doubtful matter in revelation; and the aim of
the objection is, therefore, to prove, not so much that God
has not thus spoken, as that he could not thus speak. And,
contemplated in either point of view, it is an impertinent
assumption of knowing infinitely more of the inscrutable
counsels and ways of God than ever was vouchsafed to mortals. How can such men, professing as they do to read
their Bible, forget the apostolic declaration: "1 How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out."
Rom. xi, 33. See also Isa. Iv, 8, 9. It is always more rational to believe God (though fools may call it "a blind
faith ") than to follow any human fancy whatever. (Prov.
xiv, 12; xii, 15; Rom. i, 22.)
The Gospel comes to sinful man in this form: "You
have entered upon an existence from which there is no escape; you have sinned, and thus severed yourself from
God, and are in a ruined and helpless condition, and if you
pass out of probation with this guilt upon you there will be
no opportunity of retrieving your loss through all the eter



CONCLUSION.                  503
nal ages. God has provided a full and free deliverance from
sin and its curse, and now entreats you to accept of that
deliverance and be forever happy. He takes no pleasure in
your destruction, but would rather pardon and save you.
But you are a moral agent, and he must treat you as such.
As you have no other probation, so if you now reject eternal happiness you choose eternal misery and alienation
from Him who is now ready and willing to save you. Then
hear his voice to-day, and harden not your heart." In this
manner does the Gospel present this motive; and how inexpressibly iniquitous is it to tell the impenitent and perishing that such a motive is calculated only to promote
unbelief and harden the heart! See the shameless perversions of Mr. Dobney, D. 253-262.
Now let this motive be clothed with any degree of uncertainty in the minds of careless and impenitent men, and
who can fail to trace the effect? Let them be assured that
God did not mean what his words declare, and that there is
no hell; or that sinners shall be saved if even they do not
accept of the Gospel offer; or that if existence become too
great a burden to them they shall be annihilated; let the
mind in love with sin get possession of either of these impressions, and the whole force of the aforesaid motive, and
of all the appeals of the Gospel, is at once neutralized.
The soul in love with sensuality, and absorbed by selfishness, labors to exclude from the mind all thoughts of the
future; such thoughts are always most unwelcome intruders in every such case; and let such a spirit obtain but
the idea that God does not mean what his words seem to indicate respecting future punishment, and that man is not to
live forever in misery, and how gross an insult to common
sense would it be to say that his mind would not be thereby
relieved, and that he would not be thereby encouraged to
persist in impenitence and sin. Yet such is precisely the
message which our opponents convey to souls that are in
love with their own ungodliness.
The statement that fear as a motive is not so efficacious




504        IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.
as love, is, in this connection, an absurdity. Is it true or
false that the carnal mind is enmity against God, and is not
in subjection to him, neither indeed can be? (Rom. vriii 7.)
and that the imagination of man's heart is evil, only evil,
continually? (Gen. vi, 3;) and that those who are the
friends of the world are the enemies of God? (James iv, 4.)
If this is true, then what can exceed the folly of such a
representation as the aforesaid?  The statement is, moreover, false, from the fact that it implies that the Gospel
offer, as presented above, is one of fear, when the great
point of its appeal is the wonderful love of God in providing, at such a cost, the way for the depraved and perishing to flee from eternal burnings.  But to speak to them
of love, and not at the same time remind them  of the
awful consequences of sin, would be a great absurdity.
We cannot now, however, dwell upon these points.  Let
it suffice to remark that for Destructionists and Restorationists to object to fear as a motive, and to talk about substituting love, is rather ludicrous, and has already been, ki,
a preceding section, proved to be absurd.
It is obvious, however, that the whole of these antagonistic speculations proceed from a sympathy with the wicked
and rebellious creature, rather than with the claims of a
holy, just, and good Creator.  It is certainly right and
proper to feel tender compassion for the wicked anic depraved, and'perishing, and to evince it by our best efforts
to save them.  But when this compassion degenerates into
sympathy with their wickedness, and into attempts to extenuate their rebellion, it alters the case greatly; and the
effect is, moreover, the same, whether it is through inadvertence or design. The soul is hopelessly runed, nor can it be
rescued on the plea that there was no intention to destroy it.
I presume that no one who denies not the existence or
personality of God will deny that, as we receive life and
breath, and all things from him, his right to us is perfect
and entire.  Among men it is freely conceded that there
is no right so perfect, no title so complete and inalienable,




CONCLUSION.                    505
as that which is obtained by creation or by manufacture.
The title of the artist to his productions, and that of the
inventor to his inventions, and their right to dispose of
them, are all unquestioned; and even in regard to the
original creations of the mind and imagination, this right is
by common consent so fully recognized, that it is regarded
as literary robbery to appropriate them to ourselves without a proper acknowledgment of our obligations.  We
moreover recognize the application of the same principle
in cases where, by specific arrangement or contract, we
acquire a right to the time or services of another; he is
under obligation to respect our right, and cannot, without
manifest sill and dishonesty, appropriate to his own pleasure or emolument that time and those energies which by
specific arrangement belong to us.
It is perfectly obvious, therefore, that if we are creatures,
and consequently have a Creator, we have an owner; and
that Creator and owner, as Paul before the Areopagus so
beautifully illustrated, (Acts xvii, 28, 29,) must possess the
same moral, intellectual, and spiritual nature which he imparted to his offspring. And hence we have an owner and
proprietor who is infinitely intelligent, and wise, and good.
But these points need hardly be here insisted on, since they
are admitted freely by all our opponents.  The practical
application of them is what concerns us now.
If then I am a creature, I have a Creator and an owner,
and of course a ruler too; one whose unquestioned prerogative it is to prescribe to me, to give me laws, and to
appoint to me what I am to do, and what I am not to do,
through the whole course of my being; for he who is the
original and author of my being must be the-end of it. He
that is the first to me must be the last also;* for it is obviously a matter of common sense that what could not be
of itself must not be for itself, and that it is wholly inconsistent with the state of a creature to be its own end. And
this being undoubtedly so, it clearly follows that all intelli* See Howe's Works, p. 759.




506         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.
gent creatures are bound to recognize the truth, that as it is
right and proper for God to order all things for himself, his
will and pleasure should be regarded by us in preference
to our own, and though contrary to the will and pleasure of
all other beings. True holiness is the practical recognition
of this truth, and sin is the practical rejection of it.
The illustration of this whole subject furnished by the
case of our first parents, is directly in point. With Adam,
in his primal state of rectitude, there was not only a manifest conformity to the will of God, (or a practical recognition of the aforesaid principle,) but his desire was to have
it so, and not otherwise.  He felt that he should obey God,
and be entirely at his disposal, and could form no idea of
happiness unless in such a course of obedience. And it is
equally clear that he fell from this state of rectitude the
moment that he yielded to the temptation to do his own
will, or to seek his own pleasure, as distinct from that of God.
Thus he severed himself from God, lost his holiness and
primal rectitude, and brought sin and death into the world.
It is therefore obvious that God is infinitely better qualified than his creatures are to make a righteous and benevolent disposal of them; that it is right and proper for him to
do with us what he pleases, and that we are in every way
bound to do with ourselves only what he would have us to
do. And on this subject we have a full revelation of his will.
These things being so, the inquiry becomes deeply important in this connection, What is the present state or condition
of man, as developed by his life and actions. Is this great
principle, which commends itself to every man's conscience
in the sight of God, ever practically recognized by him in
his numerous pursuits and vocations? or is it not utterly,
perpetually, and practically ignored? What man in an unregenerate state ever makes the glory of God his design or
end? Men talk and write much of virtue, and extol it to the
skies; but true virtue is a proper regard for the glory of
Him who gave us being. And where do we ever find it exemplified by the unrenewed heart? In no instance whatever.




CONCLUSION.                   507
Now that this disposition to live for ourselves, and to
make ourselves our great end, is contrary to right reason, to
the law of God, and is exceedingly sinful, cannot be intelligently denied by any but an atheist; for, that while we
love ourselves supremely, and live to ourselves ultimately,
we do really in our hearts, and by our practice, prefer ourselves above God, and so cast contempt upon his right to
rule over us, and his claim to us is undeniable. And as no
one will venture to deny that men naturally love themselves
above all, and that the native bent or bias of their hearts is
to make their ease, comfort, and happiness their last end and
their all, and to seek their all from the creature, or from that
which is not God,* (and this is apparent in all things and in
all circumstances,) so it is plain that mankind are in a state of
utter alienation from God, and rebels against the Divine government. And as this alienation and rebellion are voluntary,
it is obviously ridiculous to pretend that God can consistently
treat us as rational and accountable creatures, otherwise than
in accordance with the character which we sustain toward him.
Now it is to man in this fallen and ruined condition that
the Gospel brings the offer of relief. It is a free and full
offer, and effectual to all who truly receive it. But it is just
here that the Universalists, and such writers as Whately,
and "Thorndale," and Dobney, and Ham,. and Hudson come
in, and, instead of evincing any sympathy with God in his
claims upon the creature, throw their whole sympathy about
the creature in his selfishness, rebellion, and iniquity, and
labor to convince him that God has no such claims upon him,
and that he does not mean what his words seem to indicate
respecting the nature of sin and its punishment in the world
to come. And the result of such inculcations, and of such
iniquitous tampering with divine things, ever has been and
ever must be the rejection of the Gospel offer of salvation
in the case of all who are thus influenced, and their hopeless
ruin to all eternity.
4 See this point presented with great ability in Bellamy's True Religion
Delineated, Discourse I, sect. v.




508         IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.
And now, reader, let me say to you, that while the renewed investigation of the stupendous themes treated upon
in this volume has only deepened my full conviction of the
entire accuracy of the teaching of the Church of Christ in
relation to them, and that while my spirit has thus been frequently brought into delightful association, as it were, with
the lovely and the good of all ages who are gathered before
the eternal throne, and with whom, through the infinite
mercy of delivering love, I expect one day to be, I arrogate to
myself no claim of superiority, on the score of any personal
merit or desert, to the humblest partaker of our common
nature. The Gospel offer has been made to me, and I
humbly hope that through infinite mercy I have been led to
accept of it. My soul rests with delight ineffable upon the
expiatory power of my Saviour's blood, and there alone
rest all my hopes for eternity. I own from  my inmost
soul the perfect justice of the sentence which would consign
me as a sinner to an eternal severance from God and salvation, and I neither know, nor can I imagine any way by
which to escape that sentence, except the mercy proffered
through our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and glory
and dominion forever and ever.
This same deliverance is freely proffered to you, and,
whoever you may be, you are as much in need of it as I am.
You too have entered upon an existence from which there
is no escape, and your probationary state will soon be past
forever. If you die in a state of sin and alienation from
God, there is no hope for you. If, therefore, you have not
accepted of the overture of salvation which is now made to
you, through the infinite love and mercy of Him who is not
willing that any should perish, I entreat you to consider that
you have no time to lose. There is no other way by which to
escape from the curse and consequences of sin. But that way
is still open to you, and you can now escape if, without delay,
you will truly accept the mercy offered through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. He is waiting to be gracious
to you; heal then his voice, and harden not your heart.




INDEX OF TEXTS
ILLUSTRATED OR EXPLAINED.
PAGE                                     PAGE
Genesis i, 20........              121 Psalm xxxvii, 20.............. 435
i, 26-28................ 136  --   xxxix, 10.          435
- ii, 7... 132, 137          xxxix, 13................ 257
ii, 17................ 83, 324  -    xlix, 12, 14, 15........... 250
Hi  15                         83         lxxiii, 24-26............. 133
- iii 19................... 324  -     lxxviii, 45.... 435
v, 24.................... 156    -  lxxxviii, 10-12........... 259
xxv,................... 130         xc,3.................... 258
xxviii, 5a................. 128         x, 10................... 144
xxxi, 36..... 435         cxv, 17.................. 259
xxxv, 18..... 144    cxix, 175.. 259
xxxvii, 35.....    144         cxlv, 20.................258
xli, 30.......              435         cxlvi, 4.................. 250
xlv, 5....  121
xlix 33.................. 132  Proverbs v, 5..............  161
x,     16....................  122
Exodus x, 7.................. 435  -    xi, 12................   122
xiv, 27.................. 122
Defteronomy xviii, 9-12....... 129   -              lix, 23..................   122
xviii, 9-14............... 24 --   xxi 16............. 262
xxx, 15, 19.............. 122           xxiii, 14.162
1 Samuel xv,  18............... 435  Ecclesiastes iii, 21.... 132, 145, 253
-   vii, 15..                   435
2 Kings ii, 11....                 156        ix............. 251
xii, 7.............31, 182, 145
Job iii, 20.................... 121
vii, 9, 10................ 258  Isaiah i, 7.................... 435
xiv,  10................... 132  -      ix   7                        427
xiv, 10-15............... 254           xxxviii, 18, 19.......... 259
xiv, 20..................   144  -       vii, 1................... 435
xviii, 18.................   144      lxvi  24.                       481
xxi, 13.................. 161
xxxiii, 4................. 121  Jeremiah vii, 28.............. 435
xxxiv, 14, 15............. 238         xv,9.................... 132
xvii, 18.                    435
Psalm  vi, 5.................... 259          xxii, 24.                     151
ix, 17................... 161  -        xxxvi, 29.........  435
xvi, 10........ 262                     xlviii 8............... 435
xvi, 11.................. 122  -        li, 39.....'.......... 262
xxiii,  4........           130
xxx, 9................... 259  Ezekiel vii, 26................ 435
xxxi, 5.................. 130  -     xviii, 4, 20                     261
-   xxxvii, 10, 20........        258         xxi, 28.................. 435




510                      INDEX OF TEXTS.
PAGE                                  PAGE
Daniel vii, 23................. 435 1 Corinthians x, 6, 11.........  427
xii, 2.......              473         xv, 16-18................ 270
xv 6....................120
Micah vii 2....... 435
2 Corinthians v, 1-9........ 217
aggaiii, 23.................. 150           xi20.................. 435
-xil, 2-4......o.... 221
Zechariah iii, 7............. 151
xii.................... 152 Galatians iii, 8............  84
Matthew iii, 10-12.......... 475 Ephesians iii, 14 15....... 166, 241
vi~ 25.................. 121
Vi 14............. 122 Philippians i, 21-24........224, 282
ix,43-49................ 480
x, 28....... 173  Colossians i, 20...............  166
xii, 31, 32.......         474.......   -    iii, 14.................. 122
xvi, 25, 26........         477
xvii, iii.............. 156, 181  1 Thessalonians v, 23......... 8316
xix? 17.122
i. L1................. 122
xxiii, 14...43...... 435 2 Thessalonians i, 6-9......... 486
xxv, 41, 46.............. 479
xxvii, 0.......           132 1 Timothy vi, 16..............  275
xxvii, 52, 53............. 266
Mar xv, 2.49 2 Timotlhy i, 9.                       117
Mark xiv 21.................... 419        i, 10......  82
xiv, 3.....               483
Titus i, 2............. 117
Luke viii, 54, 55.......         186,
xiii, 33.................. 435 Hebrews iv, 2, 6............. 84
xvi, 19-31...............  187       vi, 12...........          241
xx,28-38................   196   -   xi 5........... 156
xx, 35, 36............... 283 -     xi, 16...........            165
xxiii, 43................. 201-    xii,9...........             239
xxiiii 46.                 131        xii, 22, 23............... 230
xxiv 36-39.............  211
1 Peter i, 23.................. 168
John iii 36.......              484 --   iii, 18-20................ 232
v, 24..                    167. iii 21................... 240
v, 28................266, 483  -  iv, 3................ 122
v, 40...            122
viii, 56................. 284 2 Peter i, 13-15..............  240
--   x, 28................... 166 -  ii, 4..                   281
xii, 24...................  120    -ii  4-6.......   486
xiv, 2...       165....ii, 6................   435
xx, 31...................  122
1 John v, 12.................. 122
Acts ii, 34......                267
vii, 59..............131, 214 Jude 6.............281
x, 43.................... 168 -  6,  7                           4..........    486
xxiii, 6-8................ 216
Revelation vi, 9-11............ 242
Romans ii, 4-10.......... 485  -     xiv, 9-11................ 490
ii, 7..................... 277     xiv 13.................. 243
v, 17.................... 122 -     xviii, 20................. 245
viii, 6................... 122 -     xix, 20.................. 490
-     viii 15.................  169 -     xx 9-15................. 493




INDEX.
FOR TIE FULL TITLES OF THE WORKS INDICATED BY LETTERS ONLY, SEE
"NOTE TO THE READER," AT THE END OF THE PREFACE.
A.                  212, 221, 223, 226, 231, 241,
Abercrombie, Rev. Dr., 94, 96.    250, 251, 256, 258, 259, 303,
Abercrombie, Dr. John, his defin-   313, 391, 423, 434, 483, etc.
ition of immaterial, 40, 41. See Antoninus on  the  constituent
also 49, 52, 350, 352.          parts of man, 317.
Adam, his fall and its effects, 83, Apollonius, 64, 109.
108, 140, 335-347.'A0Oapaia and 5O0apros, 274, 277.
A6dc, 129, 144, 293, 496-498.    OAr'roplat, 210.
Addison, Joseph, 33.            Aristotle, 9, 87, 1.02-106,108, 304,
Adoption of believers, 169-171.   313, 374.
_lElian, 90.                    Arnobius, 295, 305.
AEnesidemus, 64.'AOavaaia, 276.
Africans, 95, 96.'AWdvaros, 276, 296, 304, 305.
AhXv, 419, 490.                 Athenagoras, 295, 297.
Aitvtog, 418, 491, 492.         Atticus, 104.
Albertus Magnus, 24.            Augustine, 219, 301, 302, 313,
Ambrose, 206, 219, 313.           314, 344,347, 357, 368, 371,491.
American Tract Society on Future
Punishment, 395, 396.                       B.
Analogies illustrating the doc- Bacon, Roger, 24.
trine of immortality, 358-362.  Bacon, Lord, 362.'AvaXio, 226.                   Bakewell, F. C., 362.
Anaxagoras, 64, 104.            Balfour, Rev. W., 116, 117, 192,
Anderson, respecting  Otaheite,   483, etc.
97, 98.                       Ballou, Rev. H., 116, 192, 442.
Annihilationism; system of doc- Balzac, 25.
trines, 27-32; properly named Baptism of fire, 476.
materialism, 33; contrasted Barnes, Rev. A., 371.
with the doctrines of the Chris- And, 41, 132, 318.
tian Church, 34, 35; origin of Basil, 342.
the theory, 111-117; denies Basilides, 104.
that extinction of being is an Bayle, remarks on the Epicurean
evil, 281, 282; distinguishes   theory, 44; see also 64, 113,
between punishment and suffer-   308, 398.
ing, 391-394; disproved, 422- Bede, 206.
440, 468.                     Beecher, Dr. Lyman, 395.
A, 21, 31, 63, 64, 74, 111, 148, 149, Beecher, Dr. Edward, 22, 23, 215,
173, 185, 189, 198, 201, 209,   219, 456.




512                         INDEX.
Beeker, Rev. Mr., 25.            Cebes, 90.
Bellamy, Dr., 397, 507.          Celsus, 390.
Bellarmine, 206.                 Chalmers, Dr., 71, 449.
Belsham, Rev. T., 7, 115.        Chauncey, Dr., 112, 274, 398, 404,
Bengel, 245.                       417, 418, 442, 463, 474, 483.
Bernard, 302, 338.               Cheever, Dr. G. B., 380, 399, 400.
Berkeley, Bishop, 253, 392.      C. F., 239.
Beza, 177, 409.                  Christ, the second Adam; earth
Bible vs. Tradition, 111, 174, 214   and its interests committed to
215.                             him, 83-86, 332, 333.
Bishop on criminal law, 385.     Chrysostom, 118, 193, 219, 313.
Bistnoo, 109.                    Chubb, 399.
Blackburne, Archdeacon, 7, 9, 36, Cicero, 42, 48, 88, 92, 99, 109, 113,
37, 223, 224, 237, 303, 308.     118, 294, 296, 352, 367.
Blackstone, 371, 382.            Clarke, Dr. A., 252, 350.
B, 21, 36, 111, 112, 189, 262, 268, Clement, Alexander, 89, 193, 241,
434, 488.                        295, 300, 313, 317.
Bolingbroke, Lord St. John, 63, Clericus, 253, 290, 418.
86, 399.                      Cocceius, 133.
~82 distinguished from 51~W, 128. Cochran, Rev. S. D., 397.
Bourignon, Antoinette, 25.,      Columbus, 97.
Boyle, Sir Robert, 103.          Combe, Dr. G., 341.
Brahmins, Ancient, 92, 95.       "Common Prayer," The Book of,
Bretschneider, 144, 244, 289, 299.   its doctrine respecting immorBrutes, their capacities, 23, 63-68,   tality, 37, 38. Quotation from
145-147, 239, 253, 254.          it by H., 268.
Buchanan's Modern Atheism, 34, Comte, M., 20.
42.                           Conscience, 68, 75.
Buelffinger, 42.                 Cooke, Captain, 77.
Bull, Bishop, 107, 126, 347.     Crellius, J., 226, 230, 234, 371,466.
Bunyan, 456.                     Cudworth, 9, 41, 87, 199, 363, 366.
Bush, Professor G., 6, 22, 35, 126,   374.
257, 270, 284, 292, 293,349,353. Cyprian, 300.
Bushnell, Dr., 488, 489.         Cyrus, 89.
Butler, Bishop, 50, 65, 358.
Buxtorf, 180.                                  PAactz6vtov, 91.
C.                Dead judged twice, 280, 281.
Coesar, Julius, 89, 90.          Death, import of the term, 120,
Calvin, 10, 193, 199, 219, 233, 236,   259-261, 263, 319-348.
284, 285, 326, 327, 328, 342, 357. Democritus, 64, 112.
Campbell, Dr. George, 177, 356, Denham, Rev. M., 264.
478.                          Descent of Christ into Hades, 232 —
Campbell, President A., 11, 217,   236.
500.                          Dicsearchus, 31, 113.
C., 21, 27, 30, 31, 74, 138,149, 184, Dick, Dr. John, 327, 336.
189, 198, 201, 214, 221, 241, Didymus, 301.
243, 247, 250, 251, 258, 259, Diodorus Siculus, 89.
262, 270, 274, 398, 423, 434, etc. Dionysius Halicarnassus, 72, 91.
Cassiodorus, 313.                D., 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 36, 40, 50,
Castalio, 117.                     55, 56-58, 60-64, 71, 73-79, 83,
Cato the Younger, 90.              101, 112, 138, 140,150,172, 181,
Catullus, 57.                      183,189,198, 201, 221,237, 247,




INDEX.                        513
270, 274, 279, 282, 390, 392, 397,         G.
398, 409, 422, 433, 434, 457, Gage, M., injury of his brain, 353.
459, etc.                    Galen, 64, 114.
Doddridge, Dr. P., 37.'I1Y'1, 127, 196, 204, 211.
Draco, 376.                    " Gathered to his fathers," meanDruids, 90, 91.                  ing of the phrase, 130.
Duperron, 109.                 Gellius, A., 351, 368.
Dwight, Dr. T., 327, 336, 395, 443, Gemara contains the narrative
444.                           of the rich man and Lazarus,
]E.                 192-195.
Edwards's History of the West George, Rev. N. D., 11, 264.
Indies, 96.                  Gibson, Dr., on the language of
Edwards, President, 112, 219,279    animals, 64.
321s 334  389, 406, 413,2   417 "Giving up of the ghost," 131,
321, 334, 389, 406, 413, 417,
132.
Edwards, Dr. Jonathan, 397, 416, Glassius, Philol. Sacra., 235, 236,
Edwards, Dr. Jonathan, 397, 416,
417, 455.                      285, 326.
Egyptians, 86, 92.           Good, Dr. J. M., 48, 66.
E., 21, 28, 30-32, 40, 74, 111, 112, Gospel known from the earliest
138, 148, 173, 189, 198, 201,   ages,83-87, 117,118. TheNew
208, 209, 212, 214, 216, 221,   Testament dispensation distin223, 226, 250, 251, 253, 258,   guished from the Jewish, 125259, 262, 268, 270, 274, 303,
313, 350, 391, 423, 434, etc.    Greenham, Rev. M., 260.
Ely, Dr. E. S., 443.           Gregory Nazianzen, 347.
Emmons, Dr. N., 342-344.       G., 29, 138, 173, 189, 201, 209,
225, 231, 237, 243, 247, 274,
Engles, Rev. Dr., 6.             423, 434.
Einoch, Book of, 289.          Grotius, Hugo, 9, 83, 107,133, 147,'Erayye2i, 1341.         180, 187, 193, 203, 204, 221,
~Epictetus, 352.         241, 317, 370, 371.
Griesbach, 212, 244, 245.
Epicurus, 28, 31,44,113, 118, 428. Grimmesbach, 3.212, 244, 245.
Epiphanius, 222.               Grimm 353.
Erskine, Advocate, 367.
Eucherius, 193.             H[.
Euripides, 147.                Hagenbach, 295, 299.
EiVpictKc, 218.                Hall, Rev. Robert, 37.
Eusebius, 300, 312.            Hamilton, Sir W., 443.
"Esod&o, 240, 241.            H., 21, 22, 29, 30, 31, 32, 36, 64,
74, 111, 138, 139, 148, 149, 158F.                 160, 173, 182, 183, 189, 201,
Faith and evidence, 452-454.     208, 209, 212, 221, 223, 225,
Fall of man, effects, 341-346.   231, 237, 242, 245, 247, 250,
Ferriar, Dr., on the brain, 351,   251, 256, 259, 262, 266-271,
352.                           274, 278-280, 303, 308, 313,
Feuardentius, 308.               391, 398, 409, 423, 434, 457,
Final cause of creation, 405-409.   459, etc.
F'rancus, Sebastian, 31.       Hare, Dr. Robert, 24, 25.
Franzius, 285.                 HAS., 29-32, 74, 189, 247, 274,
F., 112, 173, 201, 208, 209, 221,   391, 434.
225, 423, 493.               Heaven, present existence of, 163Fuller, Dr. A., 333, 336, 337.   166.
33




514                        INDEX.
Hell, present existence of, 161-   123; doctrines inferring it, 160163, 469, 470, 495.             172; it is not conditional, 273Hengstenberg, 154.                278; the ancient Rabbinic tesHerbert, Lord, of Cherbury, 399,  timony on the subject, 180,.81,
428.                            192, 195, 196, 211, 287-293;
Hermes, 86, 87, 89, 376.          also the testimony of the ApocHerodotus, 91, 127.               rypha, Josephus, and Philo,
Hesychius, 370.                   287, 288, 484.
Hierocles, 72.                  Immutability of moral truth and
Hilary, 295, 301.                 justice, 371-378.
Hildebrand, 25.                 Incorporeal forms, the ancient
Hindoo Mythology, 109.            doctrine on that subject, 87.
Hinton, Rev. Mr., 11.           Instinct, God does not disappoint
Hippolytus, 104.                  it in the lower orders of aniHobbes of Malmesbury, 7, 8, 28,   mals, 54-58; differs from rea40, 44, 114.                    son, 66.
Hodge, Dr., 341.                Irenseus, 193, 222, 241, 299, 317,
Holy Spirit, his influence in re-   364.
generation, 456-458.
Homer, 88, 90, 93, 108, 118, 147, Jamblichus, 317.
263, 444.                     Jefferson, President, 428.
Hooker, Richard, 409.           Jerome, 295, 301.
Hoommel, 444.                   Jewish Rabbis, 195, 196, 288-292,
Hopkins, Dr. 5., 338-340.         294,
Horace, 369.
Horsley, Bishop, 232, 234, 236, Johnson, Dr. S., 8, 501.
457.                          Jones, Rev. W. G., 72.
Jones, Sir W., 95.
Howe, Dr. J., 370, 505.         Jortin, 23.
Hudibras, 312.                  Josephus, 180, 185, 287, 317, 481.
HUDn., 9809, 221, 223, 226, 249, J, T., 68, 112, 138, 143, 173, 189,
279, 280, 291, 293, 304-308,   201, 209, 221, 237, 253, 25.8,
390, 392, 404, 409, 410, 423,   291, 488.
433-440, 459, etc.            Junilius, 342.
Human authority to punish crime, Junius, Dr. F., 127.
whence derived, 384, 385.     Junkin, Dr. G., 296.
Hume, David, 392, 398.          Justification, 168, 169.
Huns, 94.                     Justin Martyr, 193, 294, 295, 298,
Hyperius, Andrew, 356.            317, 364.
IH~.  ~~K.
9i=, in the sense of create, 154, K'ant, 456.
155.                          Knapp, Dr. C. F., 10, 93, 198, 227,
Illyricus, F., 235, 263, 256.     238, 241, 319, 327, 362.
Immortality-importance of the Kneeland, Rev. A., 7, 192, 274,
doctrine, 39; early knowledge   390, 418, 457, 463.
of it; 81, 87, 108, 109,117, 118; KpaTOc, its import in Hebrew, 2as held by the nations, 89-110;   14, 15, 85.
falsely said to be always associa- Kuinoel, 481,
ted with transmigration, 87, 88; KptctL, 484.
inconsistencies of the Annihilationists in treating the argu-              L.
ment from  tradition, 99-117; Lactantius, 89, 295, 301.
their equivocation on the term, Laertius, 88.




INDEX.                         515
Language of animals, 64.        Mathematical and moral truth,
Lardner, Dr. N., 471.             375, 376.
Law, maxims respecting  guilt, MIausachus, 370.
385.                          Maximus Tyrius, 91.
Law of God, its requirements, 385, Megasthenes, 92.
386; object of its announce- Menasseh ben Israel, 284,290, 291.
ment, 386; and of the penalty, Mesmerism, facts respecting it,
386; all creatures under it,   351.
387, 388; cannot be lowered or Methodius, 222.
changed in its requirements, Michaelis, J. D., 235, 285, 362.
387-389.                      Milevia, council of, 347.
Lee, Rev. L., 11, 110.          Minucius Felix, 300.
Leland, Dr. T., 9, 363, 364.    Modern Spiritism, 23; its claim
Lewis, Dr. T., 353, 367, 368, 382.  to novelty, 24, 25; furnishes no
Life, meaning of the term, 121,   satisfactory proof of the im134.                            mortality of the soul, 25, 26,
Lightfoot, Dr. J., 193, 195.      43, 44.
Limborch, 302, 356.             M., 28, 36, 50, 64, 101, 138, 150,
Locke confounds dreaming with   173, 201, 274, 308, 390, 391,
remembrance of dreaming, 51-   434, 457, 463, 474, 492.
53; confuses personal identity, Moore, Dr. G., 11, 102, 103.
51. See other references to him, Moral agency defined, 425-429,
375, 392, 399.                  442-446, 454-458; subverted
Lombards, their ideas of immor-   by Materialists, Universalists,
tality, 94.                     etc., 425-429,442-446,454-458.
Lucan, 91.                      More, Dr. H., 9, ]10, 11, 28.
Lucretius, 28, 113.             Mosheim, 285, 417.
Luther, 143, 303, 308-312, 342.   Muller's doctrine of sin, 219.,ulih, 319-324.
M'Cosh, 71.                                    N.
M'Gee, Archbishop, 37.          riM, 142-144.
Magic, 93.                      Nazianzen, 301.
Maldonatus, 285.                Necromancy, 93, 128.
Manicheans, 94.                 Nelson, Dr., Cause and Cure of InMankind had always a conception   fidelity, 350, 358.
of the immutability of truth t,, 132, 137, 141, 118, 353, 354.
and justice, 375-377.         Nevins, Dr., extract from  his
Materialism contrasted to Spirit-  6" Mystical Presence," 279, 280.
ualism, 19-22; is the basis of No/Sf, 374.
the annihilation theory, 33, 43; Novf, 353.
state of the question in respect Numa, 376.
to it, 42-48; question of imma- Numenius, 83.
teriality not important, 40-42;
Materialism consistent with the             O.
existence of magic specters and CEcumenius, 118.
modern Spiritism, 43,44; irre- Origen, 104, 193, 295, 300, 312,
concilable with the existence   313, 317, 390.
of conscience, 69; encourages Orpheus, 86.
wickedness, 57, 72; origin and "Ort, 205.
development of the scheme, 111- Ovid, 292.
117; facts and analogies sub- Owen, Dr. John, 371.
versive of the theory, 351-362. Owen, Robert, 29.




516                         INDEX.
P.                  by sceptics, 428; denial of it
Paine, Thomas, 71, 428.           leads to practical Atheism, 428.
Paley's views of subscription, 36. bvx~i, 132, 137, 177, 179, 316-318,
Parseus, Dr. David, 98, 326, 342,   353, 354.
346.                          Punishment, import of the term,
Parmenides, 64.                   366-371; Plato's definition, 367,
Pascal, 84.                       368; Grotius's, Puffendorf's,
Pausanias, 370.                   etc., 370, 371; in its true sense
Penalty of the law., 30, 138, 140,   retributory, 382-384; and not
320-324; Christ bore it, 328.   a mere natural result of crime,
Persians, their doctrine of immor-   396, 397; views of the German
tality, 93-95.                  theologians, 404, 405; future
Peter the Martyr, 301.            punishment not disciplinary,
Peter Martyr, 97.                 365, 411-421; Dr Tillotson's
Petitpierre, 405.                 remark, 459.
Pherecydes, 88, 115, 304.       Purchas's Pilgrims, 96.
Philastrius, 313.               Pythagoras, 64, 72, 86, 88-90,
Philo, 134, 288, 483.             106, 292, 317.
Philostratus, 351.
Photius, 106.               Q'
Piscator, Dr. John, 117, 183.  thi  contrasted to ~5it, 128.
Plato, 42, 64, 83, 87, 90, 101, 103,          R.
104, 106, 108, 298, 304, 312- Rationalists, German, 9, 37.
314, 317, 366-368, 374, 376, R., 22, 28, 63, 308.
378, 390.                     Reid, Dr., 443.
Pliny Secundus, 93, 113, 351.   Relation of the Old Testament to
Plutarch, 91, 104, 106, 108, 109,  the New, 125.
113.
1'13   used to signify the devil
IIve,/ua, 132, 146, 155, 186, 316-   and  used to signify the devil
318, 354.                    1  and his angels, 162.
8otv  and Pna, sense of, 370.   Resurrection, prominence given
ot and Poena39,  3.sense of, 370  to the  doctrine in the New
Pcenitentiarius, 369, 370.        Testament, 278-280.
Points in the true issue respect- Robertson, Dr., 96.
ing immortality, 41, 362.     Rosenmiller, 193.
Polanus, 342.
PoDe, 98.                       hrnl, 132, 145-148, 155, 254, 318,
Polybius, 109.                    354.
Polycarp, 298, 364., 132, 317, 318.
Porphyry, 24, 64, 317.          Saurin, Rev. Mr., 407.
11ope-v/9ei, 2535.  31Saurin, Rev. Mr., 407.
Possession, diabolicl,  40, 471.   Scripture manufactured by the
Post, sesDr. T.. 10, 35, 358 497.    Annihilationists, 118, 149, 203,
Pressure on the brain, its effect   268, 487.
351.                          Schmidt, Sebast., 201, 325, 347.
Priestley, Dr., 7, 9, 115, 116, 223  Scultetus, Abraham, 257, 270.
226, 227, 231, 237, 270, 274  Seneca, 99, 109, 113, 118, 352,
287, 293, 393, 488.             368.
Principles of the Annihilationists, Shatepov, 203, 204, 206.
27-32.                        Shaftesbury's "Characteristics,"
Probation, all rational creatures   398.
pass through it, 442-460.       ilZn, 128-130, 144, 145,161, 162,
Protagoras, 118, 368, 376.        252, 256, 293.
Providence, special, admitted even zjq, 161.




INDEX.                        517
Shuckford, Dr., 325.           Taylor, Dr. John, 274, 312, 331,
Simpson, Rev. David, 37.         442.
Sin, God not the author of it, 342- Taylor, Isaac, 11, 41, 42, 68, 77,
346; is wholly forbidden by   352.
him, 391.                    Temple, Sir W., 94.
Icivuwa, 240.                 Tennent, Rev. W., 350, 351.
Sleep, the mental operations not Terms of salvation, 458, 468,469,
suspended thereby, 51-53; er-  502, 508.
ror in Locke's reasoning, 51-53; Tertullian, 89, 193, 219, 222, 295,
import of the word, as applied   299, 317.
to death, 255, 256, 263.     Thales, 64, 88, 304.
Slichtingius, 179, 180, 222, 466.   Theodoret, 118, 295, 325.
Smith, Dr. T. Southwood, 405, 416, Theophilus, 294, 295, 334.
442, 459, 461.               Theophylact, 193, 206.
Socinians, 7, 9, 37, 335, 340, 386, Theories of Bush, Beecher, etc.,
465-467.                       22, 23.
Socinus, Faustus, 63, 293, 346, Otvr6f, 296.
371, 465.                    Tholuck, 288, 343.
Socrates, 9, 72, 90, 101, 106-109, Thompson's Gospel History, 186.
118.                         Thorndale, 10, 449-452.
E;cza, 41, 132, 316-318.       Threatenings, when absolute, 76Soul, sleep of, 46, 47, 186, 231,   78, etc.
236, 244, 297, 311, 312, 355- Tillotson, Archbishop, 459.
357; separate state of it, 217- Time, difference between the Ro221, 234-237, 363-365.         man and Asiatic method of comSouls of brutes, 23, 63-68, 143,   puting, 207, 208.
145-147, 254.                Tindal, Dr., 9, 293.
Sparks, President J., 37, 465-467. Tiresias, 64.
Speusippus, 370.               Tittman, 234.
Spinosa, 28, 31.               Toland, 28, 40, 114.
Spirit, 130,131, 187, 212, 213, 317, Tooke, Rev. J. H., 382.
318, 354, 355.               Townsend, Harmony of New TesStewart, Dugald, 48.             tament, 186, 471.
Stonehouse, Sir G., 442.       Trench, Rev. C., 353.
Storr, Professor C. F., 195.   Turretin, 234-328, 330, 371,
S., 5, 21, 22, 26-29, 31, 36, 40, 50,   480.
55, 64, 74, 100, 101, 111, 148,
U.
173,181, 183, 189, 198, 201, 209,
212, 226, 243, 259, 261, 262, Uhleman, 297.
270, 274, 303, 308, 313, 423, Unfairness oftheAnnihilationists
433, 434, 457, 459, etc.       in the argument, 79, 80.
Strabo, 92.                    Union with Christ, 171.
Strato, 64.
Stuart, Prof., 146, 289, 406, 492.           V.
Sturm's Reflections, 54.       Virgil, 88, 93.
Sylla, the dictator, 386.      Volney, 28, 86, 87, 114.
Sympathy of the saved extends Voltaire, 28, 29, 63, 114, 292.
not to the finally impenitent,
429-432.                                   W.
Wagenseil, Sota, and Mantissa,
T.                 289.
Tacitus, 83.                   Warburton, Bishop, 9, 312.
Tatian, 294, 295, 297, 299, 306.  Wardlaw, Dr. R., 341.




518                        INDEX.
Watson, Bishop, 194.           Winer, Idioms of the New TestaWebster, Dr. Noah, 418.          ment, 210, 285.
Wegscheider, 9, 289.           Witsius, Dr. H., 98, 327, 335, 336,
Weissmann, Dr. C. E., 290.       364.
Whately, Archbishop, 8, 9, 20, Wolzogenius, 144, 203-205, 466.
22, 27, 32, 33, 36-38, 39, 65, 82, Wood on the Mosaic creation, 352.
83, 87, 90, 101-110, 117, 141,
158, 194, 221, 223, 226, 228,              X.
237, 293, 311, 358, 397, 423, Xenocrates, the Carthaginian, 64.
459, etc.                    Xenophon, 89.
Whitby, 193, 222, 317, 463, 483.
Whittemore, Rev. T., 192, 401, 442,          Z.
482.                         Zeno, 89.
Wilkins,  quotation  from  the Zoroaster, 86; his disciples, 89,
Bhagvat-Geeta, 95.             93, 317, 376.




PUBLISHED BY CARLTON AND PORTER,
200 MEulberry-street, New-York.
FOR SALE ALSO BY J. P. MAGEE, 5 CORNHILL, BOSTON, AND
H. H. OTIS, SENECA-STREET, BUFFALO.
Systematic Beneficence.
TFgREE PRIZE ESSA YS.
The Great Reform, by ABEl, STEVENS.
The Great Question, by LORENZO WHITE.
Property Consecrated, by BENJAMIN ST. JAMES FRY.  Price, in one
volume, 40 cents.
This long-expected work is at length p)ublished. It comprises three essays.
THIE GREAT REFOrM, by Abel Stevens, covers 126 paes. It is invincible in
argument, stirring and cloquent in expression. THE GREAT QUESTION, by Rev.
Lorenzo White, of the New-England Conference, covers 234 pages. It lacks
the directness of the former, but is scarcely less powerful in argument or stirring
in appeal. The elucidation of Scriptural rules of beneficence should be carefully
studied. We commend chapter tenth to the consideration of those in the
ministry who have excused themselves from  giving, because they had given
themselves to the ministry. PROPERTY CONSECRATE, D, by Rev. Benijamin St.
James Fry, of the Ohio Conference. covers 124 pages. It is full of strong thougllts,
clearly and forcibly expressed, and is well worthy of the honor awarded to it.
Its title is strikingly expressive as well as its arguments.-Ladies' Repository.
Selections from  the British Poets.
By ELIZA  WOODWnORTH. With twelve Illustrations.  Large l2mo.,
pp. 365. Price $1.
1he plan of this book of Selections is well conceived. It takes in the wholP
range of British poets, from Chaucer down to Tennyson, and gives brief biographical and critical notices of each, with some of their best and most striking pas
sages as specimens. —liethoclist Qzuarterly Review.
Natural Goodness,
By Rev. T. F. RANDOIPHs  MERCEIN, M. A.  Price 65 cents.
Its full title-page will sufficiently declare its object. It is set forth as containing
" suggestions toward an appreciative view of moral men, the philosophy of the
present system of morality, and the relation of natural virtue to religion." With* ut agreeing with the author fully in his view of the natulal virtues, we have
t;,ild his disclussioll one of the most interesting and able which has ever fallen'er our notice, and we earnestly commend it to the attention of that large
of intelligent and amiable men who are resting upon their morality. For
sale by Ide & Dutton.-Chrlistiacn  Witness.
Daniel verified in History and Chronology,
Showing the complete Fulfillment of all his Prophecies relating to
Civil Affairs, before the close of the Fifth Century.  By A. M.
OsBON, D. D. With an Introduction, by D. D. WHEDON, D. D.
12mo., pp. 202. Price 60 cents.
As the result of much patient study, Dr. Osbon has here given us new and
gtriking views of that portion of Holy Writ to which his attention has been
pecially directed. His positions are antagonistic to th:se of all previous expos-,tors with which we are acquainted.  He states them clearly and forcibly, yet
with becoming modesty, and meets the objections to his theory with argumentts
not easily reflted.-C7 hiistieatn Adeocnat, r(nd Jnurzanzl.




BOOKS PUBLISHIED BY CARlLTON & PORTER,
200 M3iulberry-street, New  York.
linistering Children,
A Story showing how even a Child may be as a Ministering Angel
of Love to the Poor and Sorrowful.
Large 16mo., pp. 542. Price.............................. $0 90
--   Illustrated edition, gilt edges....  1 25
IMorocco, gilt....................... 2 00
This is one of the most moviing narrations in the whole list of our publications. Its sale in England has reached FoarvY THOUSaND copies. The
illustrated edition contains more than a dozen superb cuts on plate paper.
Life in the Itinerancy;
In its Relation to the Circuit and Station, and to the Minister's
Home and Family.
12mo., pp. 335. Price...................................... $1 00
Life in the Laity;
Or, the History of a Station.  By Rev. L. D. DAVIS, Author of
" Life in the Itinerancy."
16mo., pp. 200. Price......0............................. $0 50
Chart o f Life.
By Rev. JAMES PORTER, D.D.
i2mo,, pp. 259, Price....................................... $0 60
The design of this book is to indlicate the dangers and securities connected with the voyage of life, all which are accurately and admirably
described.
Heroines of MKethodism;
Or, Pen and Ink Sketches of the Mothers and Daughters of the
Church.  By Rev. GEORGE COLES.
12mo.,  pp. 336.   Price.................................... $0  90
Heroes of Methodism,
Containing Sketches of Eminent Methodist Ministers, and Characteristic Anecdotes of their Personal History.  By Rev. J. B.
WVAKELEY.   With  Portraits  of Bishops  Asbury, Coke, and
3N'Kendree.
12mo.,  pp. 470.   Pric.......................................... $1  00
-     Morocco.....................2......   00',ife-like and interestinr   sketches of early Methodist preachers, their
toils., hardshipls, andll  achievements, intersi)ersed with anecdotes lively
and ei~irtainling.




BOOKS PUBLISHED BY CARLTON & PORTER,
200 Mlulberry-street, New  York.
Btevens's History of  ethodism,
The History of the Religious Movement of the Eighteenth Centrow,  called Methodism, considered in its Different Denominational Forms, and its Relations to British and American Protestantism.  By ABEL STEVENS, LL. I).  Volume I.  From  the
Origin of Methodism to the Death of Whiterield.
Large 12mo., pp. 480, Price...................         1 00
A charming  work-full of thrilling facts, combined and stated in the
most interestiiing  manner. The workl has been read and highly indorsed
by the most distinguished authors. One says, "It is wonderfully readable;" and another, "I have been interested beyond measure."  It will
be a standard for all Methodists for all time to come, and will be read by
thousands of Christians of other denominations.
It contains a niw steel engraving of Rev. JOHN WESLEY, the best ever
seen in this country.
The volumes which are to follow will be put up in the same style, so
that those who get the whole will have uniform sets, though they buy but
one volume at a time.
xiymns and Txunes.
Htymns for the Use of the Methodist Episcopal Church.  With
Tunes for Congregational Worship.
8vo., pp. 368. Roan, (20 per cent. discount to the trade.)... $1 25
Mrorocco, marbled edges................... 1 50
-  --- -  - ~extra gilt.......................... 2 00
This work embraces all the hymns in our standard Hymn Book, and no
more. It contains also more than three hundred of the most popular old
and new tunes in print, and is offered at a very low price for a book of its
cost, in the hope that it may be generally adopted.
Autobiography of Peter Cartwright.
Edited by W. P. STRICKLAND.
12mo., pp. 525. Muslin..................................... $1 00
This is one of the most interesting autobiographies of the age. The
sale of this remarkable book has averaged two thousand copies per month.
since its appearance. Thirty-two thousand have been printed, and stil.
the orders come. It is useless to add anything by waVy of commendation.
The people wil! have it, and we are prepared to supply the continued
demand.
What must I do to be Saved?
By JESSE T. PECK, D.D.
18mo., pp. 192. Price................................ $0 35
A new revival book, written by request, designed to awaken the sinner,
guide the penitent to Christ, anid establish the young convert.




BOOKS PUBLISHED BY CARLTON & PORTER,
200 Mulberry-Street, New  York.
Earmony of Divine Dispensations.
Harmony   of the Divine Dispensations.  Being a Series of Discourses on Select Portions of Holy Scripture, designed to show
the'Spirituality, Efficacy, and Harmony of the Divine Revelations
made to Mankind from  the Beginning.  With Notes, Critical;
Ilistorical, and  Explanatory.  By GEORGE  SaITH, F. A. S.,
Member of the Royal Asiatic Society, of the Royal Society of
Literature, Fellow of the Genealogical and Historical Society,
etc., etc.
8vo., pp. 319. Sheep......................................... $1 50
Half calf..................................... 2 00
This is a new work, being reprinted from the London edition to correspond with the "Patriarchal Age," "Hebrew People," and "Gentile
Nations," by the same distinguished author. It will be sold in connection
with the others, or separately. It is a profound work, and will have a
large'sale.
Lady Huntingdon Portrayed.
including Brief Sketches of some of her Friends and Co-laborers.
By the Author of " The Missionary Teacher," " Sketches of Mission Life," etc.
Large 16mo., pp. 319. Muslin.............................. $0 75
- Morocco............................. 1 75
{ibbard on the Psalns.
The Psalms Chronologically  Arranged, with  Historical Introductions, and a General Introduction to the whole Book.  By
F. G. HIBBARD.
8vo., pp. 589. Muslin................................. $2 00
- -  alf Morocco.........................   2 50
Morocco......................................  5 00
This book occupies all important place in Biblical interpretation, and
is a valuable contributio  to Biblical literature.
The Object of Life:
A Narrative Illustrating the Insufficiency of the World, and the
Sufficiency of Christ.  With four Illustrations.
Large 16mo., pp. 357. Price................................ g0 75
Morocco.............................     1 75
The Living Way;
Or, Suggestions and Counsels concerning some of the Privileges
and Duties of the Christian Life.  By Rev. JOHN ATKINSON.
16mo., pp. 139. Pric........................................    s $40




BOOKS PUBLISHED BY CARLTON & PORTER,
200 Mulberry-street, New  York.
Reasons for becoming a Methodist,
By Rev. I. SMITH, for some Years a Member of the Close-Communion Calvinist Baptist Church.  Including a brief Account of
the Author's Religious Experience up to the Time of his becoming a Methodist.
18mo., pp. 160.   Price........................................ $0  30
This work was written by Rev. I. Smith, now a member of the New
England Conference. It was printed in Boston a few years ago, and
seventeen thousand copies have been sold. Knowing the work from its
first issue, and believing it to be calculated, to do great good, we have
recently bought, the plates, and shll soon bring out the nineteenth
edition, with some improvements. Brother Smith was formerly a Calvinistic Close-Communion Baptist, but being placed in circumstances obliging
him to consider the principles he professed to believe, he was led to renounce them.  He subsequently joined the Methodists, and became a
Ireacher. This book develops the reasons which influenced his action in
the premises, and they are well stated. Preachers who are molested by
Biaptist influences, will find this work just the thing to circulate. We
have put it upon our list to extend its usefulness, more than to make
money out of it.
The Pioneers of the West;
Or, Life in the Woods., By W. P. STRICKLAND.
12mo., pp. 403.  Price..............................  $1 00
This decidedly popular book, which sketches to the life the Pioneer Explorers, Settlers, Preachers, Hunters, Lawyers, Doctors, School Teachers,
and Institutions of the West, is meeting with an extensive sale.
Ihe True Woman;
Or, Life and Happiness at Home and Abroad.  By JESSE T.
PECK, D.D., Author of " The Central Idea of Christianity."
12mo., pp. 400. Price.................................. $1 00
G- ilt edges..................................   1 25
Gilt edges, beveled....................... 1 50
M- orocco....................................   2 00
In this volume the author has illustrated his ideal of female character
Iy a series of didactic precepts and familiar examples. His standard is
not taken from the prevailing customs and opinions of society, but from
tlhe highest teachings of' Christian ethics. In his remarks on the inteliectual cultivation of woman, he condemns novel-reading in decided
terms, regarding it as a "crime, murderous to the heart, the intellect,
and the body;" while he as warmly recommends the perusal of literary
periodicals, and insists oil having access to at least one daily or weekly
newspaper. The work is;written with great earnestness and feeling, with
mn occasional exuberance of expression. —N.  Y Tribune.




CARLTON & PORTER,
Agents of thle  M[ethodist IBookl  Concern, 200  SiMullberry-streeb
New-York,  Avould  call  Lattenltion  to  a  fow  (of their nulnerol.s
publicatiolns.
THE SUNDAY SCHOOL ADVOCATE
Is a beautifully illustrated child's pai)er, edited by tlhe distinguislled friend of children thel.l veritable F1'ANCIS FolESTEn, and is issued semli-mlonthlly.  Tile seventeenth volume will commence in October, IS5T. The circulation is some 160,0i)O
copies.  Price 25 cents single, and 20 cents per copy when ten or Inore copies are
ordered to one address.
SABBATHs SCHOOL BOOKS.
Of these we have about 1,100 bound voluines, besides rnultitndes of Question Bo(oks,
1lyain Books, Picture Books, Catechlismrs, Cards, and Tracts, aL(al)ted to childrllen of
all r'alks and ages, anud we are adding to the ntmlrber monthly.  They are beilng
orderedland prized by schools of all denominlations.
T'l'llhen we lhave a large list of other sworks, becautifully illustrated for gift-books for
children and youth, which are equal to any in thle land, such as,
H] rry Budd.................Price *0 50 f Poor Nelly..................'Price $0 82
Illustrated Oiio...................   0 TO P  ictorial Gatherigs.............  0 65
[i4x Steps to Honor................ 0 6   ] HIere and There..................    0 1 5
Unele Tol)y's Library, 12 vols. 2 00  1Blistorical Series, 10 vols........ 02 05
Pictorial Catechian..............   0   Beunry's Bhirthday.................    0 85
(hild's Sabbath-Day Book......  20 2   Bird-Book......................... 0  Oe
To these we may add the popular volumes, enti'led,
1Pilgrim's PIogress......P. Price $1 50   Young Ma:n' Counselolr. Price *0  5.
Path of Lie......................... 0 -0    o nil    Lady's Colnnaelo r........ 0 05'
Marnly Character.................. 0 40 loong Rlan Advised.........        0?ci
rlidal Greetings..................  0 3  rn) ]rink Hlniey......................     0 20
Chart of Iife....................... O 60    inisterinrr Children.............. ( 90;The Successful Merchant.......    0 40  Object of Life...................... O0 5.HIBBARD ON THE PSALMS,
Givin, the time when, and the circumstances ulnder whlich each Psalm was written,
is a new and splendid work for preacllers, teachers, and for reading in fallily wor
ship. Price, $2 00.
We have BIBLES also, Royal Octavo and Imperial Quarto, in different styles,of
binding, ranging in prices fri'om rn   to $510 per copy. Besides, we have a large list of
Miscellaneous Works of various sizes and costs, on Imoral and religious subjects,
which only need to be known to be appreciated.
(jtatllo)gnes will be sent, gratuitously,    to all wliho olrder, at(nd on
r'eceivigi, tlhe retlil price of lany   f ouf   b)oolks, we will forwtir(l
Sati(l btooks free of chtarg'e.  Orders senit to  us as above, or to)
J. P. MAGEE, No. 5 Cornltill, Boston; or J. L. READ, Pittsburgh,
Pa.; or to  H. I{. MXA1TTESON, Sen.eca-street, Buffalo, N. Y.; (or
SWOMNISTEDT  &  PO1, Cincinnati, or any othler Methodist Boksellers, will receive prompt attention,




PUBLISHED BY CARLTON AND iPOTER,
200 Mulberry-street, New-York.
Six Steps to Honor.
Six Steps to Honor; or, Great Truths Illustrated.  Square 12mo
Price, 65 cents.
CON'TENTS.  First Step-Obedience.  Second Step-Truthfulness.  Third
Step —lonesty. Fourth Step-Kindness. Fifth Step-Energy and Perseverance. Sixth Step-Piety.
Beautifully illustrated with six engravings. It is designed as a gift-book for
the holidays, and should be read by all the boys in the land, as it contains
truths and suggestions which, if rightly followed out, will be the means of
making them good and useful men.
Henry's Birthday;
Or, Beginning  to be a Missionary.  A new  Gift-Book, beautifully
illustrated. Square 12mo. Price, 35 cents.
A Winter at Wood Lawn.
A Winter at Wood Lavwn; or, the Armor of Light Illustrated. Square
l2mo. Price, muslin, 65 cents.
This charming volume is intended as a gift-book for boys and girls between
the ages of eleven and fifteen. In a series of interesting conversations concerning the armor of the Christian, which are relieved by lively incidents, it
imparts many valuable religious lessons, and communicates many important
facts. It is elegantly and profusely illustrated.
Boys  and  Girls' Illustrated   Olio.
Square 8vo. Price, muslin, 70 cents.
This is literally a picture-book, for it contains ONE HUNDRED ILLUSTRATIONS.
A more elegantly illustrated gift-book, for boys and girls between the ages of
nine and fourteen, will not, we feel sure, be issued in this country. Its reading matter is instructive and unexceptionable.
Faithful Nicolette.
Faithful Nicolette; or, the French Nurse. lSmo. Price, muslin,
27 cents.
This is a charmingly written little book, translated from the German by Mrs.
MvEns. It illustrates the fidelity of a servant, the cheerful submission of two
lovely children to great trials, and the providence of God in caring for those
who trust in him. We shall be disappointed if the name of Good Nicolette
does not become a household word in thousands of families. The volume has
several very superior engravings.
Poor Nelly.
Poor Nelly; or, the Golden Mushroom. 18mo. Price, muslin, 32 cents.'his is a delightful little book, containing the singular history of an orphan,irl as related by herself when she became an old woman. Poor Nelly's trials
will make many weep, while her goodness will command admiration.




BOOKS PUBLISHED BY CARLTON & PORTER,
200 Mulberry-street, New  York.
Compendaium of Methodism.
A  Compendium  of Methodism: embracing the History and Present Condition of its various Branches in all Countries; with a
Defense of its Doctrinal, Governmental, and Prudential Peculiarities. By Rev. JAMES PORTER, D.D. Revised edition.
12mo,, pp. 501. Price........................................ 91 00
This work has received universal favor. The facts that our bishops have put
it in the course of study for local preachers, and that it has been translated into
the German and Scandinavian languages, commend it to the confidence of all
Methodists. Its peculiar advantages are, 1. That it gives a connected history of
Methodism from the beginning in all countries, and in all its denominations.
2. That it shows our doctrinal agreements and disagreements with other sects.
3. That it exhibits the different systems of church government in the world, and
the relative merits of each. 4. That it explains and defends all our prudential
means of grace and other peculiarities as no other book does. It is a WHOLE
LIBRARY in one volume, and is a labor-saving as well as a money-saving production. Its importance to preachers and others is indicated by the following
testimonials:
It is, in fact, a digest of Methodism. The arrangement and execution of the
several parts are admirable. The style is a model of' perspicuity, ease, and vigor;
and in point of condensation, the volume is literally crowded with important
matter. We have hardly seen as great compactness without confusion, or als
equal number of pages from which so few could be eliminated without detriment.
But what is far more important than the mode of composition is the spirit which
pervades the work. The author writes with that candid discrimination so essen.
tial to the proper discussion of the topics which he handles.-Ed. of North. Adv.
This work is a valuable acquisition to our Church literature. It embodies
much important information, arranged in a natural and convenient form, and
affords a good general outline of Methodism. It is a work of much merit. I do
cheerfully commend it, as a whole, to the favorable consideration of our friends
and the public generally.-T. MouRns, Bishop of M. E. ChusrcLh.
I like the book much. It will do good. Our people and friends ought to read
and study it thoroughly. It furnishes a satisfactory answer to the petty objections urged against the Methodists by a set of ecclesiastical croakers with which
we are everywhere beset. One gentleman, whom I let have a copy, after reading
it carefully, remarked, "It is the book needed; I would not take twoenty dollars
for my copy if I could not obtain another."-Rov. JUSTIN SPAULDING.
I have just finished the reading of this book, and I wish to express my decided
approbation of it. It should be a famnily book, a Sunday-school book, and I would
add especially, a text-book for all candidates for the ministry.-J. T. PECIK, D.D.
The work throughout is not a criticism on Methodist usages, but a statement
and defense of them. As such, we trust it will meet with the wide circulation it
deserves, both in and out of the Church.-Methodist Quarterly Reviesw.'We have examined the book, and most cordially recommend our friends, one
and all, to procure it immediately. No Methodist can study it without profit,
and gratitude to the great Head of the Church for the wisdom imparted to those
who have been the instruments employed in constructing the rules and regulations under which the operations of this most successful branch of the Church
are conducted.-Editor of the.Christian Guardian, Toronto.
It is precisely the volume needed to instruct our people in the peculiarities of
our system. The special character of Methodism is here developed in such a
manner as to show that it is specially excellent, and worthy of special zeal and
special sacrifices. It is very systematically arranged, and therefore convenient
for reference on any given point. To the Methodist, especially the " official "
Methodist, this book is fitted to be a complete manual; and to all others who
would understand what Methodism precisely is, as a whole, or in any specific
respect, we commend Dr. Porter's work as an ACKNOWLEDGED AUTHORITY.A. STEVENS, LL.D.




PUBLISHED BY CARLTON AND PORTER,
200 Iulberry-street, New-York.
tOR SALE ALSO BY J. P. MAGEE, 5 CORNHILL, BOSTON, AND
IH. H. OTIS, SENECA-STREET, BUFFALO.
A Model for Men of Business,
A Model for Men of Business: or, the Christian Layman contemplated
among his Secular Occupations. Revised and Modified from the
Lectures of Rev. HuGH  STOWELL, M. A., Incumbent of Christ's
Church, Salford. With an Introduction, by Rev. D. CuRRY. 16mo.,
pp. 322. Price, 35 cents.
An excellent little volume, indicating its character in its title-page, and forcibly
presenting the morality of the Gospel to the acceptance of men of business.
there is so much in every day life to call our thoughts away from God-so much
to blunt our sensibilities to the moral principles which should govern and direct
every Christian man in all his intercourse with the world, that a book like this
cannot but be a most profitable companion for all who desire to be at last accepted
in Christ Jesus. We welcome its appearance. For sale at the Methodist bookstores generally. —ieth. Protestngut.
This is a work much wanted to carry the sanctity of the Sabbath into the business of the week-to make religion, with business men, an ever-present and all:
pervading principle. It is well written, and highly edifying. Let it be widely
circulated.-Pittsburgh (hristian. Advocate.
The Life and Times of Bishop Hedding.
Life and Times of Rev. Elijah Heclding, D. D., late Senior Bishop of
the Methodist Episcopal Church. By Rev. D. W. CLARK, D. D.
With an Introduction, by Rev. Bishop E. S. JANES.  Pp. 686.
Price, large 12mo., $1 50; 8vo., $2 00.
The Temporal Power of the Pope,
The Temporal Power of the Pope: containing the Speech of the Hon.
Joseph R. Chandler, delivered in the House of Representatives of the
United States, January 11, 1855. With Nine Letters, stating the prevailing Roman Catholic Theory in the Language of Papal Writers.
By JOHN M'CLINTOCK, D. D. 12mo., pp. 154. Price, 45 cents.
Last winter Hon. Joseph R. Chandler, a Catholic, and Representative in Congress from Pennsylvania, being hard pressed by anti-Romanist influences, made
a speech, in which he denied the political supremacy of the pope. In doing
this, he showed himself possessed of the cunning of a Jesuit, or the weakness
of a neophyte. Dr. M'Clintock, in a series of nine letters, has thoroughly exposed the weakness and sophistry of Mr. Chandler's speech. It is a volume for
intelligent readers-none others will relish the learning and the nice discrimination which pervade the work.-N-orthern C/tristian Advocate, Aebsrn, 1\N; Y.
A series of letters to the Hon. J. R. Chandler, stating the prevailing Roman
Catholic theory in the language of papil writers, forms the substance of this
volume. They were prepared in reference to the speech of Mr. Chandler, delivered at the last session of Congress, and from the position and character of the
writer, as well as from his mode of treating the subject, are eminently deserving of public attention.-N-. Y. Tribune.
Carlton & Phillips, No. 200 Mulberry-street, New-York, have just issued a
neat duodecimo volume of one hundred and fifty-four pages, with the foregoing
title. It needs not that we say the work is a most timely and mastexly production.- We.-tern Christian Advocate.




PUBLISHED BY CARLTON AND PORTER,
200 Tulberry-street, New-York.
FOR  SALE  ALSO  BY  J. P. NAG3EE, 5 CORNHILL, BOSTON, AND
H. H. OTIS, SENECA-STREET, BUFFALO.
The Young Mlan Advised.
The Young Man Advised: Illustrations anl Confirmations of some
of the Chief Historical Facts of the Bible.  By E. O. HAVEN, D. D
12mo.,  pp. 329.  Price, 75 cents.
Let no one suppose that we have here a book of commonplace counsels to the
young. The writer has seized upon some of the chief historical facts of tile Bible
frolm  which lie hls d(raNwn illustrations, which lie commrends to the study and
ilnstrluction of his rcaders, and thus in a new and mrost striking form lhas conveyed
creat practical truths lwhich can hardly fail to make a deep impression upon the
yonthful mind.  I-e displays no slight degree of research in his own studies,
and the whole is clothed with such historical beamty as vill charm  while lis
words will instruct the studlent. —t.ew - Iorok. Observer.
Bishop Baker on the Diseipline.
A Guide-Book in the Administration of the Discipline of the Methodist
Ep)iscopal Church.  By OsMroN  C. BAKER, D. D.   12mo., pp. 253.
Priice, 60 cents.
This is truly a volume for the times, as it will furnish important aid to every
admlinistrtor ofd iscip)line.  The )ook is an indislpensatb!e one to every preacher,
and as such we recommend it without hesitation.- TWestern Christian Advocate.
Preachig required by the Times.
Essays on the Preaching required by the Times, and the best Methods
of obtaining it; with Remtiniscences and Illitstrations of Methodist
Preaching: includingr  Rules for Extemploraneous Preaching, and
Characteristic Sketclhe. of Olin, Fisk, Bascom, Cookman, Summerfieldl, and  other  noted  externporaneous  Preachers.   By ABEL
STEVENS.  l'mo.,  Price, 65 cents.
A AModel for Aien of Business.
A Model for M'en of Busihess: or, the Christian Laymatn contemplated
aniong his Secular ()ccupations.  Revised and Modified froim the
Lectures  of Rev. Hu(H  SrOWrrcL, M. A., Incumbent of Christ,'a
Church,  Salford.  Witli an Introduclction,  by Rev. D. CRRY.  16mc.,
pi).'22.  Price, 35 cellts.
An excellint little volusre, indicating its character in its title-page, and foreibly
presenting the morality of thie Gospel tc thue cceptance of men of business. Tlero
is so nluclh in everv-day life to call or t loughlts awr r friomGod —so mlch to blllnt
our sensibilities   tl te moral principles w s hhich shounld "overn anl direct ever\
Cliriis-ian ian in au llhis iltercollrse with tile world, thlat a book like thiis Cannot
but be a most priofitablU cornp:taiiion ii i     al   who  (esire to be at lIst acceltedl in
Christ Jesus.  W        e wielcome it; apltarance.  For sale at the Metlodist boisk
stor ~s genlerally. — JI t.,,  t, l stt f.