81 3 if

t^lvc s^'^iAjf^^^'ir

Z^-

7-?^

With the Compliments
of the Author^

THE

Bible Doctrine of the SouL;

OR,

MAN'S NATURE AND DESTINY,

AS REVEALED.

BY
CHARLES L. IVES, M.D.,
late PROFESSOR OF THEORY AND PRACTICE OF MEDICINE
IN YALE COLLEGE.

The secret things belong unto the Lord our God ; but those
THINGS vifHiCH ARE REVEALED belong unto us, and unto our
children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.
Deuteronomy xxix. 29.

PHILADELPHIA :
CLAXTON, REMSEN & HAFFELFINGER,
624, 626 & 628 MARKET STREET.
1878.

Copyright.
CHARLES L. IVES.
1877.

0 f '1^ ^^ I

J. FAGAN & SON, S T E EB OT Y P K BS, PHILAD'A.

PREFACE.

A SPECIAL interest attaches to a ¦ discussion of the
nature and destiny of man, in that it involves the
question of the future of the wicked.
What that future may be, is now a question rather than
a dogma of Christian belief. A hundred years ago, an
eternity of "unspeakable torment," of which fire was to
be the agent, was the belief of Protestantism; the devil
and his angels were to be the inflicters of this misery on
man, as well as his companions therein ; rtie suffering was
to commence directly at death, and before the judgment ;
after which latter event it was to be somehow aggravated —
precisely how, it were difficult to conceive. Such seems
the plain teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith ;
though those who subscribe to it now generally understand
that the Scripture-threatened fire is — the remorse of a
guilty conscience !
Others still, calling themselves orthodox, believe in some
future unrevealed restoration of the wicked, more or less
general, after a second or further periods of probation;
while yet others believe that the future of the wicked is left
in uncertainty ; that God has not seen fit to reveal it to
those who are most deeply interested therein.

ii Preface.
It would seem the simplest solution of the question to
take Holy Writ to mean just what it says: that death
means death, the loss of existence, as the threatened pun
ishment; that life means life as the promised reward.
"The wages of sin is death; the gift of God is eternal
life." This is the conclusion to which the discussion we are to
enter upon leads us. Back of any inquiry into the mean
ing of Scripture declarations of future punishment, we take
up a preliminary question : whether the Christian public
have not gone astray at the very outset; whether they
rightly conceive of the Biblically revealed nature of the
soul. Certainly any light that can be thrown upon a ques
tion of such vital interest to every human being, and on
which such conflicting ideas are entertained, will be gladly
received by all.
The question of man's future has of late received much
and candid attention from leading minds of all denomina
tions in Great Britain, where the standing opposition of
the Dissenting to the Established Church leads to greater
independency of religious thought than with us.
One of that country, who this year received a Doctorate
of Divinity from the oldest university but one of our own
land, has so aptly expressed himself in introducing to the
English public a little work * on this subject, by a French
* The Struggle for Eternal Life ; or. The Immortality of the Just,
and the Gradual Extinction of the Wicked. By E. Petavel, D. D.,
author of " Bible in France," etc. -With an Introduction, by Rev. R.
W. Dale, M. A. London; Kellaway & Co., lo -Warwick Lane, E. C,
I875. (Originally read as an essay before the Geiieral Assembly of
Pastors, at Neufchatel, Switzerland.)

Preface. iii
Protestant clergyman, that we take the liberty of quoting
at length. He says :
" The great doctrines of the Christian faith have such close
and organic relations to each other, that it is difficult to inves
tigate a question like that which is raised in this volume, with
out including in the investigation many other questions 
The reorganization of a single doctrine involves the reorganiza
tion of that theological province to which it belongs. It is my
impression, however, that if the theory indicated by Dr. Petavel
can be sustained, as I think it can, its effect on theological
thought will be friendly rather than hostile to those great truths
which are commonly known as Evangelical. On one or two
points the theory may require that the definition of these truths
should be slightly modified, but their substance is left untouched ;
and if I may judge from my own experience, faith in Evan
gelical doctrine, instead of being enfeebled by the acceptance
of this theory, is made more intense and vivid.
" The present condition of thought in this country on the
future of the impenitent is very unsatisfactory, and even peril
ous. The traditional theory of the endlessness of sin and of
suffering has lost its authority. It is probably still retained in
the creed of an overwhelniing majority of the English Church,
and in the creed of an overwhelming majority of Evangelical
Nonconformists. But its hold on the conviction and on the
imagination of those who still believe it, is not sufficiently firm
to compel them, if they are preachers, to preach it with adequate
earnestness and energy, or to enable them, if they are private
Christians, to tolerate the vigorous and relentless enunciation
of it by their ministers. There are also many who, while they
cannot see how the rejection of the traditional theory can be
justified by the New Testament, consciously recoil from it as

iv Preface,
too terrible to be true. To preach it at all, to listen to it at all,
is for these men impossible;
" The result is that, even among those who have accepted
neither the theory of universal redemption, nor the theory advo
cated in this volume, there is a general avoidance of the appal
ling revelations of the New Testament concerning ' the wrath
to come.' Men may Usten to Evangelical preaching for years,
and never be made to feel that their refusal to acknowledge the
authority of the Lord Jesus Christ is likely to be followed by any
awful consequences beyond death. The appeal to fear is being
silently dropped. Augustine said that it very seldom or never
happens that a man comes to believe in Christ except under
the influence of terror. This sweeping statement, to whatever
extent it may have been verified by his own experience, is fla
grantly inconsistent with all we know of the rise of Christian
faith and hope in the souls of men in our own times. But the
menaces of Christ mean something. The appeal to fear had a
considerable place in his preaching ; it cannot be safe, it can
not be right, to suppress it in ours.''
Besides this great question of the destiny of the wicked,
others of no little interest and importance will be found to
arise. For all such the serious, thoughtful consideration
of the reader is earnestly invoked. And may all personal
motives and every prejudice be subordinated to the one
great principle which should govern the Christian student
of truth. May all be
Ad majorem gloriam Dei ! C. L. L
September, 1877.

CONTENTS.

Introduction  11-15
CHAPTER I.
ON INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE.
Evidently some statements of popular theology are not in accord with
the Bible — • Difficulty alleged to be in the figurative language of the
Bible — Law OF the literal and the figurative analyzed, illus
trated, applied  17-26
CHAPTER II.
THE POPtJLAR CONCEPTION OF THE SOUL.
The Bible our sole and sufficient authority — The popular conception
of the soul has three main elements ; (i) Exclusively human; (2)
Immaterial ; (3) Immortal — Each essential to the conception. 26-30 X
CHAPTER IIL
all ANIMALS HAVE SOULS.,
Proof thatthe Bible so teaches  31, 32
CHAPTER IV.
man's SOUL IS MATERIAL AND MORTAL.
Bible account of its formation. Gen. ii. 7 — " Breath of life" defined —
The Bible soul the man himself — The popular soul a part of man —
Even thus defined, Gen. ii. 7 shows it formed " of dust " — That
passage not figurative — Sustained by other Scripture — A material
soul of course mortal — Real origin of dogma of essential immor
tality — The Bible doctrine of man's spirit — Of ghost  33-41
V

vi Contents.
CHAPTER V.
THE BIBLICAL SOUL HAS A RESURRECTION.
Early Christian belief — Testimony of dying Stephen — Of our Lord
— Christ's " soul not left in the grave " — Paul proves the actual
resurrection of our Lord — Its importance as the pledge and type
of our resurrection  41-46
CHAPTER VI.
THE BIBLE USAGE OF THE WORD SOUL.
Soul denotes the individual man — Recorded word of Jehovah — Of
writers and speakers of Old and New Testaments — Soul of Christ,
of David, of Hezekiah — Soul and body destroyed in Gehenna —
" Who saves his soul, loses it " — " Immortal soul " not in
Scripture  46-52
CHAPTER VII.
PASSAGES EXAMINED WHENCE INFERENCE OF DISEMBODIED
SOUL IS DERIVED.
Rich man and Lazarus — Thief on the cross — Christ's .argument
with Sadducees for a resurrection — The transfiguration and its
lessons — Souls under the altar — " To die is gain " — Paul's " earn
est desire " — "Absent from the body" — Spirits in prison — Rais
ing of Samuel — "Encompassed by cloud of witnesses" — The
inference of immateriality groundless — An additional argument
against it, the Eng. Version conceals the truth — Design of this —
The Bible every way condemns the popular conception of the soul,
whether as a fact or as an inference  52-103
CHAPTER VIII.
THE BIBLE DOCTRINE OF THE NATURE OF THE SOUL.
Our English word, ORGANISM, the present exact equivalent of the Heb.
word translated soul — Primary and secondary definitions of the
word — This understanding of the word corroborated by a popular
mode of speech, which itself contradicts the popular conception 
This language of nature the language of the Bible — Popular speech
still expresses mental emotions by bodily organs, as does the Bible

Contents. vii
— Critical difference between soul and body illustrated — Can man
destroy a soul ? — The destiny of the soul — Immortality conditional
— The soul's new birth in a spirit-body, at the resurrection to life
— Nature of the spirit-body learned from our Lord's — The self
same body has not a resurrection — Popular theology here openly
contradicts the Bible — The resurrection to judgment  104-125

CHAPTER IX.
THE DESTINY OF THE SOUL. THE DOCTRINE OF IMMOR
TALITY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Immortality revealed in Eden — Conditioned on obedience — The
simple test given by the tree OF life — God establishes meaning of
" life " by his word " lest he live forever " — And thus is fixed
meaning of death as loss of existence — Modem theology's three in
vented varieties of death — " In the day thou eatest, thou shalt surely
die " — God did not curse our first parents — When immortality for
feited, condition retained but deliverer promised — Significance of
Eve's name. Life — Tree of Life reappears in Paradise regained —
Eve's hope partly realized as yet — Way of Tree of Life kept for
men — The flaming sword, Jehovah's presence — The Cherubim,
type of future immortals — The Deluge, type of future destruction,
the Ark of future salvation — Impress of early revelation upon pagai>
worships — Seen also in Egyptian embalming — Unconditional immor
tality, of paganism and of modern theology, a corruption — Fallacy
of argument from reason so-called — Christ found immortality taughv
in the law of Moses — Meaning of " prolong days " — The promise
to Abraham yet to be fulfilled — This earth the believer's future
place of reward  126-152
CHAPTER X.
THE DESTINY OF THE SOUL. THE DOCTRINE OF IMMOR-
. , TALITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Immortality revealed alike in each — Study of the word immortality
as found in E. V. — Aphtharsia (incorruptibility), Athanasia (death-
lessness) — Attained by a resurrection — Conditioned on use of pres
ent life — Our Lord's doctrine of the two resurrections, as given
Jno. v  152-158
I*

viii Contents.
CHAPTER XI.
-THE DESTINY OF THE SOUL. NO IMMORTALITY FOR THE
WICKED ; FOR THEM ETERNAL DEATH.
Bible proof that the declared penalty of sin is death, as Biblically
defined — Fire the agent by which the second death of the
wicked will be accomplished — Christ's explanation of the parable
of the tares — Scripture illustrations of fate of wicked evaded by
modern theology — Their variety and directness illustrated — Erro
neous inferences of popular theology exposed: Everlasting pun
ishment; Unquenchable fire; Undying worm; Dwelling with de
vouring fire; Smoke of torment forever ascending — Weakness, of
arguments of modern theology — Example of illogical reasoning in
a prominent champion of eternal misery  158-181
CHAPTER XII.
THE DESTINY OF THE SOUL. THE INTERMEDIATE STATE.
The first death a sleep in that all are to awake from it ; so represent
ed in the O. T. — Anything but a sleep according to modern theol
ogy — Which claims that its doctrine is that of the N. T. — This
claim shown to be false: (l) by N. T., speaking of death, using O.
T. language; (2) by N. T. discrimination in the use of egeiro and
anistemi; (3) by N. T. explanation of O. T. types — The claim of
modem theology also negatived by correct meaning of sheol, upon
which depends that of hades — The Biblical meaning of these words
fully illustrated — Inquiry into Biblical meaning of gehenna — Ori
gin of modem doctrine of hell  182-209
CHAPTER XIII.
THE BIBLE DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL — OF ANGELS.
Angels exist now in spirit-bodies, as will the saints of the resuiTection —
Hence called " spirits "— The teaching of our Lord -and his Apos
tles — Good and evil angels, in subordinated ranks, ever about us —
Demoniacal possession — Spiritual influence is exerte'd upon one
from without himself — Angels employed to try our characters 
Good angels helping man — Evil angels tempting ; drawing into sin
those who yield, but indirectly confirming in holiness those who

Contents. ix
resist — When their allotted work fully accomplished, evil angels
to be destroyed — Scripture declares their fate, and shows them
aware of it — N. T. meaning of abysses, rendered bottomless pit —
Evil angels and evil men perish together in " the fire prepared for
the devil and his angels."  209-223
CHAPTER XIV.
THE BENEFICIAL RESULTS OF THE BIBLE DOCTRINE OF THE
SOUL.
1. It glorifies God; exalts his power, justice, wisdom, love — 2. It res
cues the Bible from the virtual charge of modem theology that it is
not intelligibly nor conscientiously written throughout; also from
modem theology's open denial of its truth — 3. It strengthens and
explains other Bible truths; examples, the doctrine of the atone
ment, in which Christ's vicarious sacrifice is obscured by popular
error concerning first and second death; the doctrine of original
sin ; the question of Christ's human nature — 4. It makes the preach
ing of the word more effective — 5. It refutes Universalism, or uni
versal restoration — 6. It checks infidelity — 7. It subverts Ro
manism, Spiritism, and Swedenborgianism — 8. It helps the work
of missions — 9. It insures Christian unity — lo. It promotes our
physical well-being — 11. It promotes personal holiness.... 223-269
CHAPTER XV.
OBJECTIONS FROM OUTSIDE THE BIBLE.
I. This doctrine is annihilationism — 2. It is materialism — 3. It
ignores the possibility of moral obligation — 4. It destroys dread
of future punishment — 5. The sleep, of the dead is repulsive
to us — 6. It is not the doctrine of the church generally — The
point overlooked that the Spirit is promised to guide into essen
tial truth — The recipient of truth must possess a childlike spirit —
Trath in its details perverted all through the ages ; Satan corrupting
what he cannot destroy — Protestant Reformation arrested by
man-worship — Denominationalism now represses free_ inquiry in
ministers, in the religious press — Yet witnesses to the Bible doc
trine to be found through the centuries past, even at cost of their
lives  269-293

X Contents,
CHAPTER XVI.
SUMMARY OF THE BIBLE DOCTRINE, AND ITS APPEAL.
Points already elucidated by Bible study . — Christian perfection at the
resurrection of the just ; shown by example of Christ, and by antici
pations of Bible writers — Destruction of wicked to follow the sec
ond resurrection — Appeal of this Bible doctrine: to ministers; to
the Bible revision committee; to commentators; to Christian lay
men; to the sceptic ; to every impenitent  294-313-

APPENDIX. A.
Bible References to Souls of Lower Animals  315
B.
Bible References to Material Nature of the Soul  319
c.
Bible References to Mortal Nature of the Soul  322
D.
Bible References to Dead Souls, Visible and Tangible... 326
E-
Bible References to Various Parts of the Soul  327 :
F.
Bible Proof that the Wicked have a Resurrection  331

INTRODUCTION.

THAT the Bible not only does not affirm the essential
immortality of the soul, as all theologians acknowledge,
but that, in fact, it positively denies it, was stated by
the writer to his Bible class in reply to a requested explana
tion of Rev. xxii. 20. Great surprise was of course mani
fested : one present was so positive that the Bible declares
the soul shall never die, that though he could not name
chapter and verse, he insisted the teacher's greater familiar-^
ity with the Bible must enable him to do so. He was
referred to Ezek. xviii. 4, 20. By request of the class,
this point was selected for discussion the next Sabbath, on
their promise to look up Bible authority on the subject. On
reassembling, it was found that no proof of the soul's in
herent immortality had been discovered, though some
passages were brought forward from which' it h^d been
inferred. The writer presented a number of carefully se
lected references ; and as the subject seemed so new and
interesting, he promised another Sabbath, to bring to each
a written list of the same. But on reflection, as the class
was so large, it seemed easier to print, and better to give
the passages in full. And then some explanation df mis
understood passages seemed desirable ; and finally a 1 2mo
pamphlet of 120 pages was presented to the class, and to
the public.
And now after an interval of four years, during which
time the work has been extensively circulated in this
country and in England, the demand for still another edi-

1 2 Introduction.
tion, issued last Fall, has stimulated the writer entirely to
rewrite the whole work.
As first issued it was but a sketch, presenting suggestions
on the points discussed, rather than extended argument.
But the topic itself and the line of thought involved are
to many so new and strange, that it seemed desirable that
the argument should be given more in detail. This the
writer has now endeavored to do, as concisely as possible.
It will be seen that th? argument rests upon Scripture quo
tations, which have been given in full, with the reasons
for any variation from the popular understanding of the .
same. It has been the writer's purpose in every inference
from a Scripture quotation, to state in full the grounds of
such inference, that each reader may for himself test its
correctness. All mere human authority for any position
has been sedulously avoided. The writer has endeavored
to explain Scripture by Scripture, in ¦ careful study of the
, context, and of other passages bearing upon the point at
issue. It has been his aim to bring the reader to our only
source of precise knowledge on these matters, that he may
read and judge for himself.
The need of such a work at this time is most evident.
Christians generally are sadly unsettled in their views of
many doctrines, directly dependent upon the question
herein discussed. They know not what to believe. Ask
any lay Christian, what is the punishment of the wicked.
And the ministry are little, if any, better off. It is
within the personal knowledge of the writer, that questions
perplexing the more thoughtful students of our theological
seminaries, are not quieted by the attempted explanations
of their professors. And the graduate goes forth to teach
¦others in matters on which his own mind is ill at ease.
How little we hear from them of those terrors of the Lord
which Paul preached, "as he reasoned of righteousness
self-control, and the judgment to come!" How many

Introduction. 1 3
of our pastors have virtually embraced Universalism, under
its less objectionable name, Restorationism ? Enough for
a Congregational paper in New York city, to style the doc
trine of unending misery "a dying belief! "
That very study of the Bible which, thanks to our lay
evangelist?,, and through the investigating spirit of the age,
is being developed among us, calls loudly for clearer light
as to the true meaning of God's word. As the apparent
discrepancy between many of its plain declarations and the
popular misunderstanding is made more evident, there is
danger lest, if not guided to the real truthf many thinking
minds may be led to reject all revelation ; lest there be re
peated, in many an experience, the history of' sceptical
France, led by the discovered errors of a corrupt church to
deny all religion. The writer has thankfully learned of
some, who had denied that the God of the Universe is the
God of the Bible, but have been led to accept that truth
from studying his former work.
It is for the truth, and as the truth, that the work is now
again presented to the public in its new form. If the writer
is in- error ; if he has made any misstatement, in his positions
as based upon the Divine word, in his renderings from the
original, or in his conclusions, he will be most grateful to
be corrected. For he trusts he prizes the truth above all
else. But for four years the work has been before the
public ; in that time no published reply has to his knowl
edge appeared.
A circulation during that time of 13,000 copies (about
1500 gratuitously), no publishing house pushing the sale,
as the author published it privately, shows the great interest
taken in it by the public even with their limited knowledge
of the work. The position it' takes strikes at the root of
many important theological dogmas. And these are thus
assailed not by a sceptic, but by one who writes from a
Bible standpoint, whose Christian character has not been

14 Introduction.
assailed, to whose retention of office in a Congregational
Church, no objection has been interposed. Certainly if
such a one is spreading error he can easily be met, for the
Bible is his avowed authority for every doctrine he pro
claims. And for so easy and simple a duty, champions
should not be wanting. ,
Why then has no attempt been made to refute his alleged
errors, so widely spreading ? Can it be that the policy of
a " masterly silence " is thought the safest? Not so, in
deed, when truth itself is at stake. Silence then is a con
fession of weakness !
A writer has well said, "When a document is not an
swered, the author has a certain right to assume it cannot
be answered." •
To remove any difficulty in the way of a reply that pos
sibly may suggest itself, the writer, for the truth's sake,
, makes the following
OFFER :
If a reply SHALL BE WRITTEN WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM
January i, 1878, which by a majority of three arbi
trators SHALL be adjudged TO HAVE REFUTED THE ARGU
MENT from THE Bible of this work, the writer of this
hereby pledges himself, at his own EXPENSE, TO publish,
AND TO PLACE AT THE DISPOSAL OF .THEIR AUTHOR, FIVE
thousand COPIES OF SUCH REPLY.
The arbitrators to be chosen as usual, one by each side,
the third by the two thus chosen : the reply not to exceed
in length the present work. The writer may be addressed
at New Haven, Conn.
A word further. The writer trusts no reader will judge
he has written harshly. He has felt constrained to speak
plainly, and sometimes strongly of facts as they appear to
him. For the great error, which herein he exposes, and
which he believes so damaging to the religious teaching of
the present day, the writer acknowledges an intense and

Introduction. 1 5
growing abhorrence. But he cannot feel harshly, he has
the utmost sympathy for those, who mistakenly but hon
estly still cling to the unrecognized error. He cannot
forget how earnestly he once held and would press upon
others, those errors of belief, into which he was himself,
as they have been, so carefully educated.
And also he may be permitted to express the great satis
faction and comfort, which now he derives from the Bibli
cal doctrine of the soul and its destiny. He finds that
now to him, "the word of God is not bound; " the fet
ters of man's invention, of human tradition, have been
broken off. " The darkness is past, and the true light now
shineth." Comparing his former conceptions, with his
present understanding of the truth, he is reminded of a
like contrast in objects seen through an optical instrument
out of focus, and the same when a proper adjustment is
had. As in the latter case the previous 'obscurity and
uncertainty of definition has vanished, and every object
coming within the field of vision appears sharp, clear, and
well defined.
And so the writer sends forth this little book, with the,
earnest prayer that the Spirit of Truth may use it to help
others to a like clearer understanding of God's word ; that
thus may be increased the gratitude and devotion of Chris
tian hearts, and that thus the unbelieving may be aroused
to "lay hold ON ETERNAL LIFE."

THE

BIBLE DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL.

CHAPTER I.

The alleged difficulty in understanding Bible lan
guage is but assumed ; it is fully met by the Law
of the Literal and the Figurative. .
THE entrance of Thy word giveth life," saith the
Psalmist. The Book of the Law, found in the house of the Lord
during the reign of Josiah, King of Judah, wrought a great
national reformation. The high places, where the abomi
nations of the heathen had been worshipped, were taken
away, and the people renewed their covenant with the God
of their fathers.
And so the Book of the Lord, found by Luther in his
monastery at Erfurt, set in motion the great Protestant
Reformation of the XVIth century. Many high places,
where incense had been burned to the so-called Queen of
heaven, were abolished, and the glad tidings of justification
by faith in the Crucified One were again proclaimed as it
is unto us this day.
And so, in individual experience, the word of God dis
covered and brought in to the heart, effects a wondrous
reform in the inner and outer life.
At present. Civilization and the Bible go hand in hand,
17

1 8 On Interpretation of the Bible.
and we have lately beheld a nation of the far East, with
arts and sciences acquired from more favored Western
nations, adopting also their Bible taught observance of one
rest-day in' seven.
A volume, so elevating to individual and national life,
we should expect would not only be highly prized, but so
patiently and thoroughly studied, that any question as to
the nature of the truth it unfolds, would be definitely set
tled. Yet this is very far from being the case. A lament
able and surprising ignorance of much of Holy writ pre
vails even among those, who profess to take it as the rule
of their lives. Indeed this may truthfully be said of very
many, whose professed life work it is to expound its truth.
In physical science its professors are ever alert to make
new discoveries. But in theology, though, the variance of
differing beliefs might stimulate to utmost research, its
teachers seem to argue that their own sect is the repository
of all truth, and so they have but to hand down to others,
what they have received by tradition from their elders.
Indeed, it would seem that the feeling is springing up
among them, that somehow we have got beyond the Bible,
that we are in advance of what the Holy volume is able to
teach us.
These are no unmeaning words. In a course of lectures
to the students of Yale Theological Seminary, by one of
the, most brilliant of American preachers, a man of un
questioned intellectual ability, the statement was boldly
made : " We, at the present day, know more of spiritual
things than did the Apostles." (!) In the succeeding issue
of the New Englander, for April, 1872, the statement was
quoted and endorsed by one of the theological professors
of the Seminary.
Can it be ? In our day, after the religious eclipse of the
Dark Ages, who claims to know more of spiritual things
than those specially inspired to build upon the foundation

Religious Teachers Undervahiing the Bible. 19
Christ Jesus, a superstructure of Christian doctrine for all
time? Who has advanced beyond Peter and John, or
beyond Paul, who says he received the glad tidings not
from man, but by special revelation from the Lord? (Gal.
i. 12.) In one respect we may have a doubtful advantage
over Paul. He was expressly informed by the Spirit, i Tim.
iv. I, 2 Thess. ii., of "perilous times in the latter days,"
when " some should depart from the faith, giving heed to
seducing spirits and doctrines of devils." Yet perhaps he
did not fully anticipate how prevalent and persistent was
to be that falling away from the faith, which history actually
records of the Christian church !
What does all this mean ? Why is it that religious teach
ers, secretly or openly, are found undervaluing the writings
of the Apostles of our Lord ? It is not difficult to give the
reason. We find the ancient and the modern teachers are
not in accord. They are at variance on just the point we
propose to discuss, the nature of the soul. Our modern
teachers hold that the soul is essentially immortal. Immor
tality, they tell us, is already the inalienable possession of
every human being. But on the other hand Paul tells us
of those, "who, by patient continuance in well doing, seek
FOR immortality ; " Rom. ii. 7. Then he does not think
they have it already.
A very important, a radical, difference is this. For, in
this question of the nature of the soul is bound up the
whole question of man's future : what the present state of
the dead, whether their sleep be a fiction or a reality ; what
the real value of the resurrection ; what the time and place
of reward of the righteous ; what the punishment of the
wicked ; aye, even the question whether God triumphs or
fails, in his endeavor to secure a holy universe. 'The power<
the justice, the wisdom, the love of our Heavenly Father
are all brought in question. He who has learned to love
and trust his Maker may say it all matters little to him, he

20 On Interpretation of the Bible.
will trust still and wait. But to the doubter, or the merely
indifferent, it matters much whether or not error be mixed
with the truth presented for his acceptance.
How do our religious teachers meet this serious difficulty,
this so apparent discrepancy between their teaching and
that of the Bible ? They may not openly take issue with
Paul and others, who thus differ from them. The professed
believer cannot, as the sceptic, reject obnoxious passages
as spurious, but the same end may be virtually attained.
The right is assumed of interpreting the language of the
Bible writers' for them ; not to decide what they say, that is
plain enough, but what they mean, what they ought to have
said. What our Lord actually said, John iii. i6, is very
plain: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his
only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should
not perish, but have everlasting life." He presents it as
a question of life or death. But if we thus take the words
in their natural sense, it were to teach that some actually
perish, not that all live forever. So it is interpreted for us.
We are told : to perish does not mean exactly to perish, it
means on the contrary, to live forever — in misery ; while
everlasting life does not mean exactly that, for all have that,
but rather everlasting happiness ! Well might a novice in
Bible study ask : If the Lord meant just that, why did not
he say just that ?
But how is this elastic principle of interpretation to be
sustained, by which a writer is made to say just what we
want him to ? The plan is a very simple and effective one.
Declare that the passage is figurative, that it is not to be
taken in its natural sense. Then, we are at liberty to
give it the meaning we judge most desirable.
But still the thoughtful Christian will inquire : what right
have our religious teachers to declare the passage figura
tive — to take the words in a sense so far from the ap
parent and natural meaning ? Is the Bible so ambiguously

The Figurative Intent always made Apparent. 21
written that it needs human help to make its sentences in
telligible? Is there no rule about this, no law of the
literal and the figurative, by which for ourselves we may
judge whether language be literal or figurative, and so
may be able to exercise the Protestant's right of private
judgment ? Certainly, there is. We find for speaker and
hearer, for writer and reader, one simple, invariable rule,
governing the verbal expression of ideas. It is that the
literal, or natural, meaning of every word holds good till
that is proved impossible, then, but not till then, does a
figurative meaning come into consideration.
Let us clearly understand so important a point. When
we analyze the working of our mind, in determining the
meaning of any sentence or word, we observe that neces
sarily, though perhaps unconsciously, we consider first the
literal meaning; if sufficient cause is found to reject it,
we then look about for a figurative meaning, i. e. we always
pass through the literal to the figurative. E. g. Isa. Iv. 1 2 ':
"All the trees of the field shall clap their hands:" we
mentally first inquire,- Is this literal? Impossible, trees
literally have no hands to clap ; therefore we are justified
in turning to the figurative. So Isa. xliv. 20: "Is there
not a lie in my right hand?" That also is figurative, be
cause a lie cannot be thus holden. And so our equivalent
English phrase, "holding on to a lie," is figurative, as
strictly are all expressions transferred from physical to
mental action ; e. g. the mind reflects. But in all such
cases no possible difficulty arises, for the figurative intent
is evident beyond all question. If not,' the writer or
speaker must add some qualifying clause, to show the natu
ral, or literal, meaning is not intended. To illustrate ;
look at some examples of the figurative' use of the word
"dead," in the Bible.
Eph. ii. I : "And you hath he quickened [made alive],
who were dead " — had thie statement ended there, "dead "

22 'On Interpretation of the Bible.
must have been taken literally, especially in connection
with "made alive." But the passage itself declares for
the figurative, not literal, meaning of " dead " by the added
clause, dead ^' in trespasses and sins."
I Tim. V. 6: "She is dead, while she liveth." Had
the statement "she is dead," stood alone, it could have
but one, the literal, meaning. But here the qualifying
clause, "while she liveth," shows that the one dead must
be so in some figurative sense, to be determined by the
context. Observe the verb liveth, qualifying the other,
is itself used absolutely, and therefore must be literal:
Luke ix. 60: "Let the dead bury their dead." Here
the same rule applies. The physical act of burying, predi
cated of "the dead," impossible to the literally dead,
necessitates a figurative intent to the word. But when
next the word dead is used, since it is without any quali
fication, the literal meaning again takes precedence, and
must be the one adopted.
Rev. xix. 8 is an instructive illustration of a Scripture
Vriter recognising this rule. In that passage, "that she
should be arrayed in fine linen," fine linen is intended to
be taken figuratively, but lest, even in that symbolic book,
the reader should take it literally, the writer feels it neces
sary to declare his figurative intent; "for fine linen," he
says, "is the righteousness of saints."
We have thus analyzed and illustrated what we now pre
sent as THE Law of the Literal and the Figurative :
The Literal meaning takes precedence in all cases ; so that
the possibility of its being intended must be exhausted before
a Figurative meaning can be considered.
A speaker or writer then is debarred from using language
figuratively, till either by the well known circumstances of '
the case, or if need be, by his statement to that effect, the
possibility of his language being literal' has been exhausted
beyond question.

This Law Applied. 23
Let us apply this rule to the standing controversy be
tween Roman Catholics and Protestants, on the question
of the real presence in the bread of the Lord's supper.
The question turns on this : Did our Lord speak literally
or figuratively, when he said, " This is my body" ? His
words certainly are literal, " unless the possibility of their
being so is plainly exhausted. To decide this we ask the
simpler question first : Did he say he was speaking figura
tively ? He did not. Next, we ask : Do the well known
circumstances of the case exhaust the possibility of the '
literal meaning ? We reply. They do.
Go back to the occasion when the words in dispute were
uttered to the disciples, and to us. The Apostle thus de
scribes the scene : " For I received of the Lord, That which
I also delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same
night in which he was betrayed, took bread : and when he
had given thanks he brake it and said. Take, eat; this is my
body, which is broken for you." Could one of the dis
ciples around that board, at the moment the Lord uttered
those words, have imagined the bread was actually his body ?
Why, they had ocular demonstration that it was not. The
broken bread was upon the table, or in their hands ; the
real body of their Lord itself was beside the table, before
their eyes and unharmed as yet. It needed no verbal ex-,
planation that his language was not literal ; that they could
see for themselves. There had been need of further ex
planation, if with such proof to the contrary, he had, meant
literally what he said. Thus strong the case, the language
must be figurative. And the figurative meaning, accus
tomed as they were to types, it was not hard to find : , This
is — stands for — my body. It presented thus a symbol ;
to them at the time, of what was to take place ; to us now,
of what has taken place ; it symbolizes His body bruised
and pierced for us.
So the strict application of this Law of the Literal and
3

24 On Interpretation of the Bible.
the Figurative clears up verbal difficulties in all such
cases. It were impossible too emphatically to state the funda
mental character of this organic law of human speech. It
controls every case of speaking or writing. Without it,
intelligent intercourse between man and man cannot exist.
If impossible to tell with absolute certainty whether one
speaks or writes literally or figuratively, we cannot know,
we cannot agree upon, what he does mean. Others cannot
understand us ; nor we them. So universally is the essen
tial character of this law recognised, that the speaker or
writer disregarding it, is excused only on the plea of ina
bility to comprehend the first element of clear expression.
And to the level of this mental imbecility, do we in our
imagining degrade the writers of the JBible, whenever they
speak of the nature and destiny of the soul. Even the
Omniscient One, so are we taught, in giving us the revela
tion of His will (as in Jno. iii. i6), has so disregarded
this simple, necessary law of human language, that he can
not be understood as he means, by those he addresses, un
less some one explains it to them for Him ! We wonder
not that the Bible, if thought to be thus defectively written,
is so lightly esteemed, and so little pleasure found in read
ing it. Nor can we .wonder at the slur cast upon the Bible,
that any one may prove what he will from it, if, in the
case of this book alone, the reader is at liberty to ignore
this law which decides the verbal meaning of every pas
sage. With this understanding of the Law of the literal and
the figurative, we restate the case as follows : Between
the Bible statements and those of popular theology in re
gard to the soul, there is a most apparent discrepancy.
That there should be any real difference cannot be ad
mitted, for the popular belief professes to be the same as
that of the Bible. The only alternative then is that this

The Charge Against the Bible. 25
discrepancy is but apparent, that it is due to the ambiguity
of Bible language, which is figurative, without so being
made apparent, and thus is liable to be misunderstood.
But is not this a very serious charge to bring against
the speakers and writers of the Bible? If actually figu
rative, the writer intended his language should be so un
derstood, but it is charged that in this he has .failed.
There was no need of failure ; it can only be because
he violates that indispensable law of human speech. In
one instance quoted, Paul speaks of some "who seek for
immortality;" had he exhausted the possibility of his
language being literal ? Or had it been done in the other
instance, Jno. iii. 16, where we learn from outside explana
tion, that perish does not mean to perish, to be destroyed,
but figuratively, it is to live forever in misery ; and everlast
ing life means not life but happiness? It were quite as easy,
or easier, to have said just what was meant, what possible
excuse for such blundering utterances? And note, the
charge of such inexcusable stupidity does not lie against
merely one, but against every writer or speaker of the
Bible, whenever, through a period of fifteen hundred
years, they touch upon the subject of the soul ! And the
more inexcusable is it, that only in this do they violate
that law of verbal expression, on all other topics they are -
most careful to observe it.
Here then is the case stated ; what judgment now are we
to render ? Must not every one decide that this claim of
figurative language, involving conclusions such as these,
needs to bring forward the strongest possible proof of its
correctness? The bare fact of its general acceptance by
mankind does not shift the burden of proof from its
shoulders. -Indeed, when one understands the full bear
ings of the claim, the very resort to it is presumptive evi
dence, that ¦ not the Bible writers, but those who advance
such a claim, are at fault ; the very fact of such claim

26 The Popular Conception ^of the Soul.
inclining one to believe that the apparent difference be
tween them and the Bible is after all a real one.
But possibly some may have doubts as to this alleged
difference between the Biblical and the popular doctrine
of the soul, seeing but two proofs of it have been brought
forward ; but two Bible witnesses, our Lord and his chief
Apostle, have so far given their testimony.
Let us then investigate further.

CHAPTER II.
The Question at Issue — Where Answered.
WHAT is the soul of man ? Whence is an authori
tative reply to this question to be obtained ? He,
who made the soul, can give the answer.
Have we a statement of the truth from Him ? We claim
that we have — in the Holy Bible. We believe that holy
men of old were moved by God's Spirit to record, what
things He intended should be " written for our learning ; "
Rom. XV. 4. Through fifteen centuries, many different
"minds were engaged in compiling this volume, yet if all
was under the special supervision of the All-wise, its differ
ent parts, the more they are studied and the better under
stood, the more will they be found in full harmony with
each other. Such is the case ; though here and there a
verbal inaccuracy, through the imperfection of human
transcribers, has crept into the text. And the more marked
is such agreement of the different books of the Bible, in
that it is to be discovered in the original language, even
where the prevalent ideas of any age, or the defects of later
versions, have somewhat obscured it. Of no other book
could this be said. No work of mere human composition,

The Popular Soul Defined — Limited to Man. 27
embracing so many topics as this, and written in parts
through a thousand years, would be found in accord with
our present advance in knowledge, or even with itself. It
is in this agreement of these different parts, and in the evi
dent fulfilment, in the past and in the present, of its pre
dictions, that we find abundant proof of its Divine author
ship. _^
The J.-jte, as a revelation of the Creator's will, was
written for man, and about man. It treats of his nature,
his relation to his Maker, his hope for the future. Such its
subject, and such its Author, it will speak with authority
on the question, what is the soul of man.
The main question then is this : What does the Bible
teach to be the Nature of the Soul?
In discussing this question it naturally divides itself into
two : Is the popular conception of the soul the same as that
of the Bible ? Secondly, If not_; what is the Bible doc
trine? We then first inquire :
Is the popular conception of the Soul that of the Bible ?
Satisfactorily to answer this it is necessary first to define
the popular conception of the soul. This it is not easy to
do ; possibly the popular idea is not a very definite one.
We will here state, as best we can, what is generally agreed
upon. According to natural characteristics, as discerned by our
senses, Man is classified by Science among animals. The
correctness of this no one questions. He belongs to the
sub-kingdom of Vertebrates, to the class of Mammals,
which embraces both man and animals. But the popular
conception seems to place him not in the animal kingdom,
at its head, but in a grand division by himself It repre
sents him as composed of a body, and of a something
essential to his existence, so different from anything that
pertains to animals, that virtually he stands entirely alone.
In fact, in the popular conception, he is contrasted, rathei
3*

28 The Popular Conceptimi of the Soul.
than classified, with animals. This component part of
man's constitution, which the animal has not, is the popu
lar soul. It is said to be that which thinks and acts, for.
'^we are told that no body, no rriere combination of matter
however highly organized, can possess ^ intelligence, the
faculty of reasoning. It would also seem to be that which
has life in itself. We are told, when the soul goes from
the body, death ensues. A query will suggest itself: what
is that which acts and even reasons in the lower animals?
in what is the life of such found ? This then is one char
acteristic of the popular soul ; it belongs to man, not to the
lower animals.
~ Secondly, we are told this soul is immaterial. It is not
matter, even in any of its marvelously subtile forms. But
matter is all that our senses can take cognisance of. With
the material body we are sufficiently familiar.. But no one
ever has, or can, touch an immaterial soul. Nor has such
ever been -seen. That which is immaterial is utterly be
yond the reach of our senses. How then do we know such
an immaterial part exists at all ? We cannot appeal to
universal belief. All the world once thought our round
globe a flat plain, but all the world was wrong. Nor does
the power of reason or the faculty of memory prove the
necessity of an immaterial soul, since both premeditation
and memory are displayed by animals, the dog, horse,
elephant, etc., who have no immaterial soul. .Evidently
all knowledge of this immaterial soul must come from that
which is beyond our own senses. We can have no actual
knowledge of such, except as a revelation from a Higher'
Intelligence. If then the Bible, the only written revela
tion which we possess, does not state the existence of such
a soul, the fact of its existence stands absolutely without
proof. We observe, by the way, another difficulty. Reason,;
memory, consciousness, which are said to belong to the

Three Essential Elements. 29
immaterial soul, are, as far as we can see, strangely like-
functions of man's brain. We find they are impaired or
obliterated in exact proportion to the impairment of that
organ. The brain is said to be an instrument by which
the immaterial soul operates ; and yet without this instru
ment, it appears the - soul is unable to act at all. Just as
far as the instrument is injured, in just so far is the soul
restricted in its peculiar province. We may inquire, how
would it be were the necessary instrument, instead of par
tially, to be totally, destroyed ?
We accept then, a second characteristic of the popular
soul, that it is immaterial.
Thirdly, it is stated that the soul is wholly indestructible
by any possible means. Indeed in popular conception it
is no soul at all, if not an " immortal soul." That phrase
seems to carry with it the idea of an inherent immortality,
so inhering in the soul, that, once created by the Almighty,
it is regarded as practically independent of its Creator. It
would seem to live on by some inherent force of its own.
The popular conception of the soul seems to ignore the
fact that " it is in Him [in God's power], we live and
move, and have our being;" that this power is each
moment in constant exercise to sustain us in being, or as
the Psalmist expresses it, "to hold our soul in life." We
recognise then a third characteristic of the popular soul,
it is immortal. This, as a problem of the future beyond
our reason and necessarily entirely dependent on the Crea
tor, can be actually known only by a revelation of His will.
We have then before us three essential elements of the
popular conception of the soul :
I. It is an exclusive possession of man ; the lower ani
mals have not souls.
2. // is an immaterial substance. (If the word substance
may be so used," as, the substance of a thought.)
3. // is immortal.

30 The Popular Conception of the Soul.
Of these three propositions, the last is the one of para
mount importance in its consequences. But all are essen
tial, in that not one can stand without the other two. For,
first, if the soul be not immortal, if the soul dies when the
body dies, then the other two propositions are not worth
considering. Secondly, if the soul be nCt immaterial it evi
dently is not immortal, for deatli leaves nothing material in
existence, all the material goes to decay. Thirdly, if such
an immaterial, immortal soul be not the exclusive possession
of man, then all animals are immortal. So then not one
of these propositions can stand without the others. In this
respect the popular conception of the soul, resting upon
these three propositions, may be likened to a tripod with
its three legs. If but one of these be taken away, if but
one of these three propositions be shown to be false, the
tripod comes to the ground.
The truth or the error of these propositions from the
nature of the case is beyond man's natural ken ; it can be
learned only from revelation. To our only record of reve
lation, the Bible, we are then to'go, as the tribunal of final
appeal, and of full -jurisdiction. We come before it, not to
interpret its decisions to suit ourselves, or to receive them
interpreted for us by others. But with the humble, teach
able spirit of little children, in our confessed ignorance of
the future, we open the book which Infinite wisdom has
put into our hands. Reverently we study its pages, saying
with the Psalmist: " I will hear what God the Lord will
speak. ' '

CHAPTER IIL
The Bible Declares that ALL Animals have Souls.
TO establish this fact, which is brought out only twice
in the text of our English version, we need but go
to the language in which the Bible was originally
written.* In the account of the Creation, before man himself was
created, we read :
Gen. i. 20 : " And God said. Let the waters bring forth
abundantly the moving [Heb. in. margin, creeping] thing
that hath a living soul;" (Hebrew, nephesh, soul, chayah,
living, English Version, 'life.') It will be seen that our
English translators in their marginal reading (which read
ings are of equal authority with the text, being generally
more accurate), have here translated exactly the two He
brew words, " living soul. "
Gen. i. 21 : "And God created great whales and every
living soul [Heb. nephesh chayah, Eng. Version, ' living
creature '] that moveth, which the waters brought forth."
Gen. i. 24: "And God said. Let the earth bring forth
the living soul [Heb. nephesh chayah, E. V. ' living crea
ture '] after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast
of the earth."
Gen. i. 30 : And God said, " To every beast of the earthj
* It may be well to mention that the Old Testament was written in
Hebrew ; the New, with the possible exception of Matthew, originally
in the Greek language. The Septuagint version, or translation of the
Old Testament into Greek, dating over 250 years before Cljrist, is
valuable as showing what was understood to be the meaning of the
Plebrew at that early day. The correctness of renderings, which may
hereinafter be given from the original, and which differ from those of
our English version, may be verified by any Hebrew or Greek scholar.
31

32 All Animals have Souls,
and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creep-
eth upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul; " (Heb.
nephesh chayah, E. V. has in text, 'life,' in marginal read
ing, 'a living soul.')
Gen. ii. 19:, "And out of the ground the Lord God
formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air ;
and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them :
and whatsoever Adam called every living soul [Heb.
nephesh chayah, E. V. ' creature '], that was the name
thereof." Numb. xxxi. 28: The Lord said, "Levy a tribute unto
the Lord, one soul of five hundred, both of the persons,
and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep."
Here our English version translates nephesh, as the soul, of
oxen, asses and sheep, as well as of men.
Rev. xvi. 3 : " Every living soul [Gr. psych^l died in
the sea." Here our translators render the word "psyche,"
referring to marine animals, by our word, soul. The Gr.
psyche corresponds to the Heb. nephesh, and is the only
word in the N. T. ever rendered soul.
For further details under this head, see Appendix A.
The foregoing quotations from the Bible totally demolish
one essential element of the popular conception of the soul,
viz., that it is an exclusive possession of man. And if one
essential element, if one leg of that tripod of popular be
lief, be knocked away, the whole structure falls with it. If
the soul is something which Holy Scripture assigns equally
to man, and to the lower animals, no one will have the
hardihood to claim that it is immortal.
We might here rest our case, but we will continue our
Bible study, and see what becomes of the other two sup
ports of the tripod.

CHAPTER IV.
The Bible Declares that Man has, or is, a Soul, so
Constituted as to be Liable to Death.
GEN. ii. 7 : " And the Lord God formed man of the dust
of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the
breath of life, and man became a living soul : ' ' Heb.
nephesh chayah, precisely the same Hebrew words before
used in describing the creation of the lower animals.
This account of man's original formation, as coming
from God's word; must be reliable. It is just what we
need. It is what Revelation alone could supply. Let us
then give it our earnest consideration. It is a simple state
ment of facts. It brings to our notice three objects : the
Lord God as the Creator ; the material used is du.st of the
ground ; the object formed is man. Into the man after he
has been formed, we are told, the breath of life is infused,
and he then becomes a living soul. '
What is this breath of life? It has been claimed that
it denotes an ever-living soul. But then the subsequent
statement would have been : and va.xa.^s.cz.vcis. possessed of
a living soul, not "and man became [i. e. was after that]
a living soul." Besides, to put in the soul after the man
has been fully formed, were, according to modern theology
itself, a physical impossibility. That claims that man is
composed of body and soul ; he could not then have been
first formed of body alone : no compound can be formed
of one of its ingredients. But the use Moses subsequently
makes of the term breath of life, settles its meaning. He
tells us, Gen. vii. 21,22: " All flesh died that moved upon
the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beasts, and
of every creeping thing, and every man, all in whose nos-
33

34 The Soul Material and Mortal.
trils was the breath of life, died." The " breath of life "
was the common possession then of all these animals ; when
they lost it, they died. Evidently, to state that any being
has the breath of life, is simply to say that it lives, or is
alive. In this inspired record tTien of man's creation, Ve find
no statement that the Lord formed a material body, joined
to it an immaterial soul, and then called the now compoun^i
being, man. Such is the teaching of modern theology,
not that of the passage before us. Its statement is explicit
that man was man ere life entered the lifeless form. He
was first made a man ; after which, receiving from his
Creator this breath of life, he began to live, he began
to be (became) a living soul, a live soiil : the very phrase
the pen of inspiration had before applied to lower ani
mals. According to this, it would seem that the man himself
as such is a soul ; that a man alive, or living, is a soul alive.
But this were to make the entire man a soul, which is con
trary to our popular theology, which represents the soul as
a part of man. That there may be no mistake here about
our understanding of the popular belief, we quote from
Webster's Unabridged. It defines, "Soul: the spiritual,
rational and immortsd part of man ; that part of man which
enables him to think," etc. From Buck's Theological
Dictionary the following definitions are taken : " Man : a
being consisting of a rational soul and an organic body. "...
"The constituent and essential parts of man, created by
God, are two ; body and soul. ' '
Yielding now, for the moment, the position that the
individual man is the soul, let us follow out this definition
of modern theology : " the soul is an essential part of man. ' '
Read again Gen. ii. 7: "The Lord God formed MAN
.[not one part only of man, but man, this compound being,
-body and soul], of the dust of the ground." Does the

Modern Theology Pleads Figurative Language. 35
reader perceive the full import of this statement ? It de
cides the case against modern theology on its Own stating
of the case. Put the argument in the simplest form :
Man was formed of the dust of the ground :
But man is soul and body :
Therefore, soul and body were formed of the dust of the
ground. The conclusion is inevitable.
And a soul formed of the dust of the ground is not
immaterial. Thus gives way another essential component
of the popular idea of a soul. A second leg of that tripod
comes down, and we have proved it were impossible for the
remaining one to stand alone. For, immortality, as a
necessary element of a soul, if not restricted to man, claims
too much ; and if it be not in something irrimaterial and so
beyond reach of our senses, is refuted by our daily obser
vation. But how does modern theology meet this staternent of
Gen. ii. 7, which if allowed to stand as it is, so completely
overthrows its dogma, of an immaterial soul ? It has but
the one resource for all these difficulties, — figurative lan
guage ! It can only say, the word man (what was formed
of the dust of the ground) in this passage does not mean
man, it is used figuratively for the body alone. Let the
reader judge if this is aught but the baldest assumption.
Read the passage with the context, remembering this is a
simple, historical narrative. The word man first occurs
Gen. i. 26, 27 : "And God said. Let us make man in our
image. ... So God created man in his image, male and
female created he them." The word man is literal here,
no doubt. Next use of the word is chap. ii. 5: "there
was not a man to till the ground : " this also is literal, the
mere body could not till. Will the meaning of the word,
thus established in its literal signification by this usage, be
changed in the immediate connection, the next verse but
4

36 The Soul Material and Mortal.
one, to a figurative use, to mean only a ]iart of the indi
vidual, and especially when a somewhat minute account of
the individual's formation is being given? Such trifling
with the s:u-red record strikes at the root of all rexerenee
for the Bible. How are we to know what au)' passage
means, that it means anything at all, if such license i.s to
be taken with the word of God? In vei-se 19 we lliui
similar language : " .Vnd out of the ground the Lord God
formed (same Heb. as ver. 7) every bea.st j " as well I'hiiin
the word, beast, is figurative, and means part of the beast !
If further testimony be necessary to sustain the literal
intent of Gen. ii. 7, it is furnisheil in God's word.
Gen. iii. 19, the Lord God addresses Adam, the nwn,
by modern theology's own definition, a compound of body
and soul: " .'Vnd unto Adam he said, In the sweat of thy
foce shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground;
for out of it wast thou taken j for dust thou art, and unto
dust shalt thou return." This solemn sentence of death is
the last place for figurative, or anyway ambiguous, language.
Indeed, could words be found less unequivocally to set forth
the man's material nature?
Ps. ciii. 14, David says, perhaps with these words of the
Creator in mind: "He knoweth our frame, he remembereth
that we are dust."
Ps. xx.\. 9 : "When /go dbwn to the pit [or grave] ; sliall
the dust imiise thee? "
Ps. cxivi. 4, of man we read : " His breath goeth forth,
he returneth to his earth ; in that very day his thouglits
perisli. ' '
Nor arc we confined to the Old Testament, for the Old
and New are in liarmony on this, as on all points. The
Apostle Paul most explicitly declares the truth of the ma
terial origin of the soul ; and all the more to our piu'|)ose,
in that it comes in incidentally in the eoiir.se of an argu
ment. In I Cor. XV. we find him arguing for the resurrec-

The Apostle Paul's Testimony. 37
tion with the doubters of his day. He first proves the fact
from Christ's resurrection, then he shows its necessity to
the Christian's hopes, then he meets the objection that our
present body passes away, by showing, that though in bodily
form, it is with another and different body that we are to
live again. Ver. 39-42, he says, " all flesh is not the same
flesh," as "star differeth from star; so also is the resurrec
tion of the dead;" more exactly, the Gr. without the
article, of dead ones. Ver. 44 : " There is sown a natural
body \_psychikon soma'] ; there is raised a spiritual body
\^pneumatikon soma]."
Note here a very silggestive fact. The Gr. word trans
lated natural, is made up oi psyche, soul, and -ikon, our
adjective suffix, '-ical:' psych-ikon = j>sydi-ica\, i. e.,
soul-ical. -But in English a noun used as a prefix, becomes
an adjective, psychi-kon soma is then, a soul-body. While
pneuma-t-ikon {pneuma, spirit) soma, is in English, spirit-
body. " There is a soul-body, and there is a spirit-body. And
so it is written, the first man, Adam, was made [Gr. eg^eneto,
became] a living soul." This soul-body is that spoken of
(ver. 42, 43) as sown in corruptibility, in dishonor, in weak
ness : the spiritual is to be raised incorruptible, glorified,
powerful. " Howbeit that is not first which is spirit-ual,
but that which is soul-ical ; and afterward that which is
spirit-ual. The first man is of the earth, earthy." That is
to say,\the first man just declared a living or live soul, is of
earth, earthy. Thus does Paul confirm the literal meaning
of Gen. ii. 7, that soul and body are material. And so
Holy Writ, throughout, overthrows modern theology's sole
reliance of a figurative intent in Gen. ii. 7. That passage
must be allowed to stand, as meaning just what it says.
That a material sonl should be liable to death follows of
course, and in fact. The man dies ; that is, he, who be
came, and for years past has been a living soul, at length

38 The Sold Material and Mortal.
ceases to live, he parts with his life. This living soul dies,
as is the language of Rev. xvi. 3 : " Every living soul died
in the sea," and is according to the simple word of Ezek.
xviii. 20: "The soul that sins, it shall die." To meet
this, modern theology, we here find, actually denying that
the man has died ! It teaches that body and soul, the two
essential parts of man, are separated ; this it calls dying.
But the theoretical soul, by an incomprehensible stretcTi of
language and fact (yet so are we taught), at that event
virtually becomes the man (one part becomes a whole) ; it
cannot die, it still lives on. So death does not pass upon
the man, but upon the body. For the man himself, death
is simply a change in his mode of existence, or rather place
of abode. That we do not misrepresent, is shown by this
favorite illustration of modern theology, " Death is but the
passing from one room to another."
We call this theology modern, because it is at a com
paratively recent period that it has prevailed among be
lievers. But in reality, its peculiar doctrine, the dogma of
inherent immortality dates back to the garden of Eden, and
wrought fearful evil with those who then accepted it. We
read. Gen. iii. 4: "The Serpent said unto the woman.
Ye shall not surely die!" Abetter theological au
thority tells us, Rom. v. 12 : "And so death passed upon
all men, for that all have sinned." If all living human
souls have sinned, all such die. If not, if death be not
loss of life, but change of life to another state or place,
why did the Lord say. Gen. iii. 22 : "And now, lest the
man put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life,
and eat, and live forever ? ' ' And we read the Lord took
measures to prevent this living forever ; — to prevent just
what modern theology claims to be the fact with Adam and
all his descendants. Were it not more reasonable to con
clude that the measures adopted were effectual ?
Before we leave this topic, let us briefly inquire as to

Bible Usage of " Spirit!' 39
that breath of life, which we learned (Gen. vii. 22) is a com
mon attribute of all living beings. It is an equivalent ex
pression for the spirit. Spirit is the vital principle of all
living organisms; it is that mysterious element, life. In
the original languages it was denoted by the word primarily
meaning breath, as that is the outward sign or manifesta
tion of the presence of the spirit, or life.* It comes from
the Great Source of life, -vivifying all created beings alike,
and every while in them it is Biblically spoken of as still
belonging to God.
Job xxxiv. 14, 15 : "If the Almighty gather unto him
self his spirit [Heb. ruacK\ and his breath, all flesh shall
perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust."
Ps. civ. 29, 30 : After the mention of various land and
marine animals and man himself, the Psalmist says, "Thou
takest away their breath [Heb. ruacK\, they die, and re
turn to their dust. Thou sendest forth thy spirit [Heb.
ruacK\, they are created."
Eccl. viii. 8 : "No man hath power over the spirit, ta
retain the spirit."
Eccl. xii. 7 : " Then shall the spirit return unto God,
who gave it." The principle of life, "the breath of life "
as Moses calls it, is what returns to its Giver ; evidently
not a soul, a conscious being. Such could return to God,
only as having previously existed with him.
The popular misinterpretation of this passage, consider
ing the explicitness of the context, is indeed something
marvelous. It is generally understood to read. Then shall
the soul letmn, etc. And so, Webster's Dictionary quotes
the verse as an exaniple to sustain its popular, but Bibli
cally incorrect, definition, that spirit is identical with soul.
According to modem theology's claim that man lives on
after death, it is the soul that lives, which then of course
* It is in HebreW, ruach, in Greek, pneuma : the Latin is spiritus
(from spiro, I breathe), whence our English word, spirit.
4*

40 The Soul Material and Mortal.
is the man. Now in the very sentence preceding (but one
period between, in E. V.), the writer of Ecclesiastes has
told us what he thinks becomes of man at death. He thus
states the fact of death: "Man goeth to his long home,
and the mourners go about the streets." Does any one
question what he means by man's long home? when this
very writer (Eccl. ix. lo) had spoken of "the grave
whither thou goest." Repeating and expanding (not con
tradicting in his next breath), this thought of man's going
to his long home, he adds : " Then shall the dust [i. e. man
formed of the dust of the ground. Gen. ii. 7] return to the
earth as it was ; and the spirit [the life principle] shall
return to God who gave it."
It is precisely the sentiment already quoted from Job,
which we quote again ; " If the Almighty gather unto him
self his spirit, and his breath" all flesh shall perish together,
and man shall turn again unto dust." The writer of
Ecclesiastes had already written, Eccl. iii. 19, 20: "As
Jhe one [the man] dieth, so dieth the other [the beast] ; yea
they have all one breath [or spirit, Heb. ruach']. All go
unto one place : all are of the dust, and all turn to dust
again." A careful perusal of this book will satisfy the
thoughtful reader, that this attempt to gather any support
from it, for the doctrine that man continues to live while
dead, can be explained only from a discreditable igno
rance, or a wilful ignoring, of the whole tenor of the
book. . A peculiar expression of our English version needs ex
plaining ; — the ghost, what is that ? Simply an old Saxon
word for the breath, and so for the spirit. To give up the
ghost, is , simply to expire, i. e. to breathe out the last
breath, as is denoted by the Latin composition of our
English word expire ; viz. ek, from, spiro, ],breathq. Such
is the composition of the two Gr. verbs, so rendered in

The Fact of a Resurrection. 41
N. T. The Gr. pneuma, spirit, is rendered ghost, in
Matt, xxvii. 50, and Jno. xix. 30, and so rendered in the
phrase. Holy Ghost. The Heb. word rendered in our
version by " give up the ghost," is used in O. T. of lower
animals, though the E. V. never so renders it in that
case. For example, in passages already quoted, Job
xxxiv. 15: "All flesh shall perish," Heb. expire, breathe
out; Gen. vii. 21: "All flesh died," Heb. expired; Ps.
civ. 29, of various animals, "they die," Heb. expire, or
as translated of man alone, they give up the ghost. So
according to the Bible writers, all these animals have a
ghost, a spirit, or, the sign of its presence, a breath, to yield
up, to breathe out. A suggestive commentary on the pop
ular belief in ghosts !

CHAPTER V.

Man's Soul is Like that of Lower Animals in its
Liability to Death, but Differs from theirs in the
Fact of a Resurrection.
DEATH comes the same to man and to beast. At
that event, as far as the actual possession of life, of
present existence, is concerned, they stand on a level.
Feci. iii. 19, 20: "A man hath no preeminence above a
beast; as one dieth, so dieth the other. All are of the
dust, and all turn to dust again." Psalm xlix. 20: "Man
that is in honor, and understandeth not, is like the beasts
that perish." 2 Pet. ii. 12: "These [the incorrigibly
wicked] as natural brute beasts, shall utterly perish."
Yet in the possibilities of a future life, there is a radical
difference between man and beast. There is a living again
ior tiie former, not for the latter.

42 Man's Sotil has a Resurrection.
But how is one actually dead, who has lost his life, that
is, has passed out of existence, how is such to live again ?
Evidently, only by Almighty power. And this, the word of
God tells us, will be by a Resurrection at an appointed time in
the future. The Gr. a/iastasis, resurrection, is compounded
of two words, ana, up, and istemi, to stand or cause to stand,
a standing up from the sleep, or recumbency, of death to
the activities of life. It means then, simply an actual Res
toration to Life. At this resurrection, when the good and
the wicked death have life restored to them, they are to be
rewarded every one as his work shall be. Jesus said, Jno.
V. 28, 29 : " Marvel not at this, for an hour is coming, in
the which all that are in the graves [mark, where One who
certainly knew, locates the dead who are yet to hear His
voice, they] shall hear the voice of the Son of man and
shall come forth ; they that have done good unto the resur
rection of Life, those that have done evil unto the resur
rection of Judgment ; " (so we should render the Gr. krisis.)
The early Christians well understood this truth. Stephen
dying prayed. Acts vii. 59: "Lord Jesus, receive my
spirit." He prayed the Lord to take his life into His safe
keeping till the resurrection, believing as did Paul, 2 Tim.
i. 12: "I know in whom I have believed, and am per
suaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed
unto Him against that day." He entrusts to his Lord,
the principle of life he had received ; his spirit, not; his
soul, which were his very self. Of himself another dis
position must be made : for, of him we read, " And when
he had said this, he fell asleep," — asleep till that promised
resurrection. "And devout men carried Stephen [asleep
in death] to his burial."
So on the cross the Lord Jesus himself had prayed,
" Father, into thy hands I commend [entrust] my spirit
[Gr. pneuma]. And having said thus, he gave up the
ghost ; ' ' Gr. ex-epneusen, he out-breathed, expired. (This

' Christ's Soul tvas not Left in tlie Grave. 43
from Luke; Matthew writes, " apheka to pnetima," E. V.
"he yielded up the ghost," or spirit; comparing the Gr."
of these writers and the English Version, yielding up the
ghost is out-breathing the last breath.) His spirit, the
breath of life, the vital principle, our Lord prayerfully
entrusted to his Father. This spirit, all may see, was not
himself, not his soul (though popular theology makes the
two synonymous) ; if so, then his prayer was not answered,
his spirit did not return to God the giver; since at his
Resurrection he told Mary Magdalene that he had not as
cended to his Father. Nay, we are definitely told the very
place where he himself had been. As was Stephen, so he
was buried. The angels say to us as to the women at his
seiHtlchre, "Come, see the //«« where they laid /urn;"
the same "him," the word is, they "should see in Galilee; "
Matt, xxviii^ 6, 7. So Paul says, " He that descended [into
un earthly grave] is the same also that ascended far above
all thing's; " Eph. iv. 10.
But we learn that last prayer of our Lord's mortal life
was heard by his Father. At the "appointed time " (Job
xiv. 14), for him the third day, this entrusted life, the spirit
that returned to God its giver, was given back; the Crucified
was restored to life. From the grave, "where they laid
him," his soul was raised to an immortal life. So Peter
tells us, .\ots ii. 31, applying the prophecy of the prophet-
king, who "spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his
soul \«\s not left in hades [the grave ; see hades Biblically
explained, Chap. XII.], neither did his flesh see corrup-:
tion." Note that " to be left in the grave," is the recog
nised jwrallelism of "seeing corruption."
The importance of this great fact, that Christ's soul Avas
not left in the grave, but had a resurrection, or restoration
to life, is shown by the frequent statement of the fact in the
preaching and the epistles of the .Apostles. Paul preached.
Acts xiii. 30 : " God raised him from the dead j " Gr. ek

44 Maris Soul has a Resurrection.
nekron, no article, from dead ones. He writes, Eph. i. 20 :
" The Father of glory raised him from dead ones." Peter
preached. Acts ii. 32 : "This Jesus hath God' raised up."
He writes, i Pet. i. 21 : " God raised him from dead ones
and gave him glory." We read Heb. xiii. 20: "God,
who brought up from dead ones our Lord Jesus Christ."
At Athens, Paul preached, "Jesus and the Resurrection,"
and he states to those proud philosophers, as an elementary
element of " this new doctrine," that "God hath raised
him [Jesus] from dead ones."
Evidently the early disciples believed that Christ actually
died, and it was to them a truth of the utmost importance,
that God had brought him again to life from this state of
death. And why so important ? Because if not brought
to life again, if he is still dead, we have no Saviour. As
Paul expresses it, " If dead ones are not raised, ^then Christ
has not been raised. And if Christ has not been raised,
your faith [your belief in a Saviour able to save from sin,
if still he is dead] is in vain ; ye are yet in your sins ; ' '
I Cor. XV. 16, 17.
In this XV. of First Corinthians, where Paul so sharply
argues the fact and necessity of the resurrection, he brings
forward the different appearances of Christ after his death
and burial, as proving "that he rose again." (See verses
3-8.) Whatever weight as an argument attaches to these
appearances of our Lord, and especially of that one to
Paul himself, must come from the fact, self-evident as Paul
must have regarded it, that Christ could not be living at all,
unless he had had a resurrection. He says, "He was seen of
Cephas, he was seen of five hundred . . . And last of all
he was seen of me also . . . Therefore whether it were
I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed. Now if
Christ be preached that he has been raised from dead ones,
how say some among you, that there is no resurrection of
dead ones? " i Cor. xv. 8-12. If our modern theory had

Christ s Resurrection the Pledge of Ours. 45
been accepted by Paul and his converts, that dead men are
still living in heaven, then Christ's appearing to Paul from
heaven, were no proof of his resurrection, but only that he
was living that celestial life. The fact that Paul should argue
for Christ's resurrection from those appearances of his after
his- death, is incontrovertible proof that he reasoned that
Christ's being alive at all, made it apparent that he had had
a resurrection. In other Words, he evidently believes that
death is the actual loss of life : one who died, and now is
living again, must of necessity have had life restored to him.
This resurrection of our Lord is of the greatest impor
tance to all his followers, because it is the type and the
pledge of their own living again. It is the grand hope
upon which we, as mortals, rest all our hope of the future.
Paul calls it, "the hope and resurrection of dead ones; "
Acts xxiii. 6. In the Revelation made after his ascension,
the Lord Jesus refers to his own resurrection, and to that
of his followers, when he says Rev. i. 18 (so Gr. of best
MSS.) : " I even became dead, and behold living am I for
the ages of the ages, and I have the keys of death and of
hades : " of hades, the grave (see Chap. XII.), not hell, as
in English Version ; that were the Gr. gehenna: would our
translators suggest a resurrection from gehenna? Having
the keys (power) of death and the grave, he releases whom
he will, he consigns to death whom he will. And so he
assures his followers of the fulfilment of the promise, "Be
cause I live, ye shall live also; " Jno. xiv. 19. That life
of ' ' the ages of the ages ' ' he entered upon by a resurrec
tion from death, so are his followers to enter upon the same
eternal life.
To repeat Paul's argument with those doubters of the
resurrection : "If dead ones are not raised [awakened, see
Cliap. XII.]; neither has Christ been awakened ; and if
Christ has not been awakened [if still dead], vain is your
faith, ye are yet in your sins. Then also those having fallen

46 Bible Usage of Word, Soul.
asleep in Christ, are perished. If in this life only we have
hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable " (i Cor.
XV. 16-19) j that were, in case there is no resurrection, and
so, no life beyond this. Note the force of that " also ; " —
they ALSO perished in death with Christ himself, since if
Christ has not been awakened, those having fallen asleep
in Christ can never be awakened; then, there is no awaken
ing to life again. For so the Bible teaches. There is no
life for Christ once dead, or for others who die,
except by a resurrection, a restoration to llfe !

CHAPTER VL

Passages Showing the Bible Usage of the Word,
Soul.
CHILDREN acquire the meaning of words from hearing
their elders use them ; so we learn the Bible meaning
of a word by observing how it is used in the Bible.
From the language of Genesis already considered, we un
derstand that the word soul applied to a human being,
denotes the man himself. If that is the correct meaning
of the word, it should be found so used throughout the
Bible, by its different writers and speakers. Is such the
case? We need but refer to the Bible to establish this
point. From it we select a few of many such examples.
The Lord himself is represented as so using the word,
and in a way fully to recognize the material and mortal
nature of the soul. He says to Moses :
Lev. V. I : " If a soul sin, and hear the voice of swear-
ing." Lev. \.2\ "If a soul touch any carcase, and it be hidden
from him."

How the Lord used the Word Soul. ^.7
Lev. v. 4: "If a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips
to do," etc;
Lev. vi. I, 2 : "11 a ^oul sin, and lie unto his neighbor,
... in any of all these that a man doeth," etc. Here
the words " a man " are used as a virtual repetition of " a
soul" in the preceding clause.' And so, in each of the
foregoing instances, "a soul " is evidently the same as " a
man." Lev. xvii. 11, 12: "The blood maketh atonement for
the soul. No soul of you shall eat blood." '
Lev. xxii. 11 : "But if the priest buy any soulViih. his
money, he [as a household slave] shall eat of " — the holy
things. How apparent the contrast here between Jehovah's
idea of a soul and our popular conception of it ! As He
uses the expression, to buy or sell a soul, is simply to buy
or sell a human being; the popular notion involves the
hypothetical purchase of the " immortal part " of " mortal
man!" Lev. xxiii. 30 : " Whatsoever soul doeth any work in that
same day, the same soul will I destroy from among his
people. ' '
Numb. XV. 30 : " Whatsoever soul that doeth aught pre
sumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger,
that soul shall be cut off from among Ris people. ' '
Ezek. xviii. 4, 20, the Lord says to the prophet: "The
soul\ha\. sinneth, it shall die."
Nor can we find that the Lord uses the word soul in any
other way ; certainly never, as now used, to signify an im
mortal part of man. And He changes not. What He said
once, is the truth for all time.
Other speakers in the Bible have the same conception of
the soul ; that it is the individual himself, and is liable to
death. We have noticed, Numb. xv. 30, that the Lord speaks
of "souls born in the land." Moses writes. Gen, xlvi. 26:
5

48 Bible Usage of Word, Soul.
" All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, that came
out of his loins." Ver. i8 : " these sixteen souls she bare
unto Jacob." Compare the languagt of Heb. vii. lo: "For
he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchizedec met
him." Gen. xii. 13 : Abraham says, " my soul 'iaz& live becau.se
of thee; " i. e., they will not " kill me," as is his expres
sion in the preceding verse.
Gen. xix. 17 : The Angels say to Lot, "Escape for thy
life [Heb. nephesh, soul], lest thou be consumed." In his
reply he says, ver. 19, 20 : " thy mercy which thou hast
showed in saving my life [Heb. nephesh, soul] ; lest /
die, .... let me escape thither, and my soul [Heb. nephesh]
shall live."
Gen. xxxvii. 21 : "Reuben said. Let us not kill him"
[Heb. his soul]. " Shed no blood," etc.
Numb, xxiii. 10 : Balaam says, " Let me [Heb. my soul]
die the death of the righteous." So says Samson, Judges
xvi. 30: "Let me [Heb. my soul] die with the Philis
tines." In Josh. xi. II, tlie writer tells us that the Israelites took
Hazor, and "they smote all the souls that were therein
with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them. ' ' So
Josh. X. 28, 30, 32, 35, 37, 39.
Take a few from many passages in the Psalms. Psalm
XXX. 3: "O Lord thou hast brought up my soul from the
grave, thou hast kept me alive that I should not go down to
the pit. ' ' xxx'iii. 19: "To deliver their soul from death, and
to keep them alive in famine." Ixxviii. 50 : "He spared
not their soul from death, but gave_ their life over to the
pestilence." I'xvi. 9 : " Who holdeth our j-(72^/in life." xlix.
15 : "God will redeem my soul from the power of the
grave." Ixxxix. 48 : " What man liveth, and shall not see
death? shall he deliver his soul from the hand of the
grave ? ' '

" David Sazv Corruption;" Hesekialis Deliverance. 49
In Isaiah liii. 12, the prophet says of Christ: "He
poured out his soul unto death." Compare now Psalm
xvi. 10, and the same in Acts ii. 27 : " Thou wilt not leave
my soul in hell," that is [Heb. sheol; Gr. hades], the
grave. Peter, in Acts ii. 31, tells us this was spoken of
_ Christ, who was brought to life again, was not left in the
grave ; and so, that it was not spoken of David, who, Paul
declares (Acts xiii. 36), did "see corruption ; " and who,
Peter tells us (Acts ii. 34), "is not ascended into the
heavens." In Isaiah xxxviii. 17, Hezekiah, on receiving fifteen ad
ditional years of life, exclaims : " Thou hast in love to my
soul delivered it from the pit of corruption" — from the
grave ; referring unquestionably to the threatened loss of
his life, for the>word brought him from the Lord (same
chap., ver. i) admits of no misconception: "Thou shalt
die, and not live." There was no continuing to live in
any other place for him ! Modern theology must find here
two very awkward cases : one, David, certainly not gone to
heaven.; the other, Hezekiah, not to be allowed to live, as
it claims all the rest of the dead have been ! The latter of
these difficulties is not met by adding an explanatory clause :
" Thou shalt die, and not live " on earth — i. e., thou shalt
still live in heaven. For, if such meaning was intended,
why was it not so announced ? Certainly Hezekiah did not
so understand it. Or, why should he so bitterly mourn his
approaching fate, if God had just sent to tell him He was
about to call him to His presence, and to the supreme bliss
of heaven ? And why was such lack of faith rewarded with
those additional fifteen years of life ?
But not alone is the death of souls referred to as a matter
of course ; we actually find a soul, as an object lying dead
before us, spoken of in the original Hebrew, — not in our
English version by any means !
Numb. vi. 6; Of the Nazarite it is said, "All the days

50 Bible Usage of Word, Soul.
that he separateth himself unto the Lord, he shall come at
no dead soul; " so the Hebrew, the E. V. has dead body.
Lev. xxi. lo, II : "The high priest shall not rend his
clothes, neither shall he go in to any dead soul; " E. V.
dead body.
(See Appendix D for more examples of dead souls.)
In the New Testament, the language of the Old is
found. Rev. xvi. 3: "Every living soul died in the sea." It
is interesting to find this last book of the Canon adopting
precisely the language of near two thousand years before.
Acts iii. 23 : "Every soul, who will not hear that prophet,
shall be destroyed from among the people. ' '
Jas. V. 20 : " Shall save a soul from death."
Matt. X. 28 : What means this passage, if not just what
it says? In it we are warned to " fear Him who is able to
destroy soul and body in hell ; ' ' gehenna, as he elsewhere
styles it, "gehenna of the fire." There is no question as
to what destroy means when applied to the body, and as
effected by fire; it is a literal destruction. "Destroy"
here thus used, *is then of course literal. And so the warn
ing is, lest your body and soul be literally destroyed. But
modern theology informs us that in fact the soul cannot be
literally destroyed ; that though, of course, God, as its
Creator and the One "holding it in life" (Ps. Ixvi. 9),
can destroy any soul, yet it is certain that He never will.
A queer commentary this on the intelligence, or honesty,
of our Divine Lord, if he thus solemnly bids us stand in
fear of that which will never take place !
Matt. xvi. 25 : " For whosoever will save his [Or. psyche]
life, shall lose it ; and whosoever will lose his [Gr. psyche]
life, shall find it." Ver. 26 : " For what is a man profited
if he shall gain the whole world and lose his [Gr. psyche]
soul, or what shall a man give in exchange for his [Gr.
psyche] soul ? ' ' Thus to translate in a continuous para-

To Save or Lose a Soul. 51
graph the same Greek word by two different English ones,
can only be excused on account of the perplexing differ
ence between the popular conception of the soul and that
of the sacred writings. Psyche is the only Greek word,
that can be translated soul in the N. T., and of course it
is as appropriate a rendering in the former verse as in the
latter. — Thus rendering it and other words more exactly,
we read: "For whosoever will save his soul, shall [Gr.
' apollumi] destroy it, and whosoever will [Gr. J destroy his
soul [Luke adds, for my sake] shall find it. For what is
a man profited, if he^ gain the whole world, and [Gr.
zemiod] forfeit as a penalty his soul, or what shall a man
give in exchange for his soul ? " Luke repeats (ix. 24, 25)
the former verse exactly, but makes a suggestive variation
in the second; translating literally, it is: "For what is a
man advantaged, having gained the whole world, but [Gr.
apollumi] having destroyed or [Gr. zemioo] forfeited him
self; " where himself is plainly used as equivalent to
psyche in the preceding verse, in accordance with O. T.
usage. Destroying oneself, or one's soul, is to destroy
one's very existence, his life ; what advantageth the world
to one whose very existence is to be taken in exchange,
or as a forfeit, for what he has gained ?
I Pet. i. 24 (quoted from Isaiah xl. 6) : "All flesh is as
grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass : the
grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away."
The special glory of man, in the estimation of modern
theology, must include that immortal soul, which is said
to distinguish him from animals — this immortal soul then
" falleth away," as a flower decays.
A full quotation of proof texts on the material and mor
tal nature of the soul, as established by Bible usage, will
be found in the Appendix, Arts. B, C, D.
We may conclude this section with the statement of a
fact, which mast be exceedingly puzzling to modern
S*

52 "Immortal Soul" not in the Bible.
theology.- The Hebrew and Greek words denoting soul
and spirit occur some sixteen hundred times in the Bible.
" Immortal soul " or " immortal spirit," in the original, or
in our translation, we can find NOT OXCE ! although so
common a phrase in hymn-books, and on our lips I
On the other hand we do find, that Bible usage does not
restrict the word soul to a part of a man ; but designates
by it' the man himself, the individual. Instead of declaring
or even hinting at the dogma, that the soul is inherently
immortal, we find Bible usage treats of the soul, as that
which is unquestionably mortal ; as that which is about to
die, as dying, as dead, and as in the grave, whence it can
only be redeemed by the Almighty One.
We have now an answer to our opening question : Is
the Bible doctrine of the soul identical with the popular
conception of the same ? The answer is decided — No !
The Bible teaches that the soul is Hot a part of man : it is
7iot immaterial : it is not immortal : it is n^t restricted to
man. These are the essential elements of a soul in the
popular conception. On these points the Bible is radi
cally at variance with popular belief.
Precisely what is the Bible doctrine of the soul will be
considered in a subsequent chapter.

CHAPTER VII.

Passages in the Bible; from which the Existence
of a Soul, without a Body, has been Inferred.
IF then in the Bible, the soul is neither denominated im
mortal, nor in any way stated to be such, and if such
a conclusion is contradicted by Bible usage, it may well
be asked : Has the doctrine of the inherent immortality

Erroneous Inferences Corrected. 53
of the soul, anything at all in Scripture upon which it is
founded? And the reply must be. Nothing, absolutely
nothing ! Strange as it may seem, there is not a text of
Holy Writ, upon which such a doctrine may be solidlf
built up ! The most that can be discovered, are certain
passages from which such a doctrine has been inferred.
To these mere inferences, modern theology, which must
find some Scripture support for its peculiar doctrine, clings
with a death grasp. And its adherents, as was the writer
himself, are educated to accept these inferences, as 'the
only correct or possible interpretation of the Sacred word.
It is necessary, then, carefully to examine each of these
passages, and in the light of God's revelation as a connected
whole, to determine whether the inference in each case is
true or false. Be it understood, these inferences are the
sole props of modern theological teaching, as distinguished
from the old and Biblical ; if they give way, the whole
structure gives way. Our examination of these passages
then must be critical and thorough. If the important in
ferences drawn from them be correct, they will stand any
ordeal, for God's truth is Impregnable : if false, all should
rejoice in their downfall.
Luke xvi. 19-31. The parable of the rich man and
Lazarus. To this supposed stronghold, the advocates of separate
soul-existence confidently retreat, when dislodged from
other Scripture positions. But a careful study of the
passage, shows that their position here is utterly untena
ble. The story before us must be interpreted jn one of two
ways. It is to be regarded either as the narration of an
actual occurrence, at least of what might occur in the so-
called spirit world, or else it is a purely imaginary repre
sentation of how dead ones, were it possible, might be

54 The Rich Man and Lazarus.
supposed to feel and speak in view of their past and future.
In the latter case, not the details of the parable, but its
moral is the point of the highest interest. Now the ques-
'lion is, which of these is the correct understanding ? In
its determination we are to rest our belief, not on the au
thority of man, but on that of the Bible. We are to be
guided by the narrative itself, and the light thrown on it
by other Scriptures.
Since a parable is not the most satisfactory basis for a
doubted doctrine, it has been claimed that this is not a
parable at all, but an actual occurrence ; and, as in real life
the rich man should have a name, seeing Christ did not
give him one, the Latin adjective " dives," rich, has been
generally adopted as a, proper name for this Hebrew. But
no proof has been adduced for the suggestion that we have
here actual history, except it be the opening words, "there
was a certain man ; ',' which prove nothing, as these are
precisely the words which introduce the parable of the Un
just Steward, in the very same chapter. Still, if we are to
regard this parable as a glimpse given us into the life of
the future, by one competent to lift the veil, we must ac
cept it as what were not impossible may take place in the
unseen world. And such is its common interpretation.
Take then this position, and see where it fairly brings us
out. We encounter the following difficulties :
I . It is very strange, to say the least, that we are informed
' that Lazarus is carried, not into the presence of God, but
to the bosom of Abraham, and where Abraham seems to be
the chief personage. It will not do to say, as has been
claimed, that Abraham's bosom is a figurative expression
for the highest celestial felicity ; for, Abraham himself in
his own person appears on the scene. And if he himself
is present in a literal sense, it is hardly fair to use his bosom,
at the same time, in a figurative sense ! If his bosom is

Difficulties of Popular Interpretation. 55
figurative, then Abraham himself, and so then the whole
narrative, is figurative.
2. The beggar receives his reward and the rich man his
punishment, immediately after death, and before the judg-,
ment day. But this were in conflict with the Apostle who
says, 2 Cor. v. 10 : "We must all appear before the judg
ment seat of Christ, that [Gr. hina, in order that] every
one may receive the things done in his body. ' ' Or else,
there must be a separate judgment at the hour of each one's
death, thus making the Master contradict himself in Matt.
xxv. 31, where he says it is "when the Son of Man shall
come in his glory." In either case, it contradicts Christ's
word in Rev. xxii. 12 : "Behold I come quickly, and my
reward is with me, to give to every man ; ' ' that is, he keeps
his reward till he comes, and bestows it then. As he pj-om-
ises Luke xiv. 14 : " thou shalt be rewarded at the resurrec
tion of the just." And so Paul says, ." There is laid up for
me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord will give me
at that day" — of his appearing.
3. The rich man is not in hell, as in our English version,
the Greek for that is Gehenna, but in Hades, or the grave.
(For Bible proof that such is the true meaning of Hades,
see Chap. XII.) We read, "the rich man died and was
buried and in Hades ' ' (the grave), etc. The beggar died ;
his burial does not receive notice. Abraham had died, and
his sons buried him. Gen. xxv. 8. None of these as yet
have had a resurrection, a restoration to life.
Now if we are to understand that our Lord by this parable
actually teaches, that dead men are able to hold converse
with each other, we make- him in this to contradict the
plain, declarations of those Scriptures, which he enjoins us
to search. As for instance, Eccl. ix. 5, 6: " The dead
know not anything ; their love, their hatred, and their envy,
is now perished." Ps. cxlvi. 4 : " His breath goeth forth,
he returned to his earth, in that very day his thoughts

56 The Rich Man and Lazarus.
perish." Ps. cxv. 17: "The dead praise not the Lord,
neither any that go down into silence." Eccl. ix. 10:
" There is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom
, in the grave, whither thou goest." And so is the word of
the Master himself, Jno. ix. 4: "The night cometh when
no man can work. ' ' Paul speaks of the dead, i Thess. iv.
13, as, " them that are asleep ; " just the word of Job, chap.
iii. 13 : " For then had I slept." See also Ps. vi. 5 : xxx.
g: Ixxxviii. 10-12: Isaiah xxxviii. 18: Lam. iii. 6: Dan.
xii- 2, 13. Passages of this kind are too many, too direct,
too scattered throughout the Scriptures, and yet in full
harmony with each other, to be figuratively explained
away. And we may well hesitate to construe Christ's lan
guage, so as to make him contradict them, or any other
portion of the Divine word.
4. As the time of the parable is between death and the
judgment, its characters, if living at all, must be in a
disembodied state. For the natural body is in the grave,
and the spiritual body of believers is not till the Resurrec
tion. Read Paul's statements, i Cor. xv. 22, 23, 42, 44,
52 ; I Thess. iv. 16.
Now, if we are to believe that dead men live as immaterial
existences, then in the only part of the Bible that is supposed
to describe such existence, we find that the One thus unveil
ing to us the unseen, is himself so ignorant, or so oblivious,
of the fact of such ^«-embodied beings, that again and
again he makes mention of various members of their bodies.
In this brief narration he speaks of a bosom, finger, tongue,
eyes, while, from the narrative, we are asked to learn that
Abraham and Lazarus are in heaven, the rich man in hell,
all entirely destitute of anything like a body !
The explanation of this incongruity is that such expres
sions are figurative. And we have been so fully trained
to accept this supposed explanation, that one does not at
first sight recognize its utter absurdity. The argument

Difficulties of Popular Interpretaticm. 57
may be briefly stated thus : A. claims that man after his
death still exists in an inynaterial condition, without a
body ; B. doubts it. To prove it, A. brin^ up this para
ble as illustrating such a mode of life. B. reading it over,
exclaims, " ^Miy, all the characters of the story are repre
sented as having bodies." A. replies, "Yes, but you
must not understand from that that they have bodies ; it
means just the opposite, the language is figurative." B.,
unable to .see what figure of speech is used, except it be a
felsehood, inquires, " How do you know it is figurative? "
And A. can only respond. If any bodily parts are spoken
of, that must be figurative, because man's life immediately
after death is without a body. Thus simply begging the
question, assuming the very point to be proved, and insist
ing that what conflicts with that asumprion, must be figura
tive. In other words, the existence of an immaterial soul,
the jKiint the parable is said to prove, is first assumed to be
true ; then every detail of the parable which conflicts with
this is fiuther assumed to be incorrect and of no account ;
and then the parable, thus manipulated, is triumphantly
held up as fiill proof of the point assumed I Indeed, is not
this an example of that handling the word of God deceit
fully, of which we read, 2 Cor. iv. 2 ? To sa)', that one
clause of a given sentence, "being in torment," is literal,
and that its conjoined clause, "lifting up his eyes," is
figurative ; that the request to send Lazarus is to be under
stood literally, and what he is to do, dipping his finger in
water, is to be taken figuratively ; this is but playing fast
and loose with Holy Writ. It is trifling, not alone with
the forms of human si)eech, but with the words of a Divine
Speaker !
5. Taking the story literally, we are constrained to be
lieve that the abodes of the blest and of the lost are virtu
ally one ; that, though there is no passing between, yet the
suflfering class is not only in full'view of the other, but that

58 The Rich Man and Lazarus.
the two are so near as to converse across the dividing line.
No wonder that the elder Edwards, taking the parable as
literal, logically concluded and actualfy preached, that the
sight of the agonies of the lost, enhanced the bliss of the
redeemed !
To repeat then ; we have discovered the following objec
tions, some of them insuperable, to the literal interpreta
tion of the parable :
I. We are told, not that the beggar is taken to the pres
ence of God, but to Abraham. 2. The beggar and the
rich man receive each their reward at death ; thus nullify
ing the judgment or anticipating its predicted time, and
denying Christ's word that he withholds his reward till the
time of his coming. 3. It flatly contradicts the universal
testimony of Scripture, as, to the unconscious state of the
dead. 4. It falsely represents disembodied spirits as pos
sessing what from the nature of the case it is impossible
that they should possess. 5. It teaches that the saved and
the lost are, in the future, in full view of each other.
Surely an interpretation, however generally though un
wittingly it may be accepted, that leads into such a maze
of absurdity and contradictions of Scripture, cannot be
the correct one. And they must be in sore straits to find
apparent Scripture authority for their traditional belief,
who, while decrying others for accepting literally the simple
words of God, themselves insist that this parable must be
understood literally !
Rejecting then the transparent fallacy of such an inter
pretation, let us see if the other supposition is more tenable :
that it is a purely imaginary representation of how dead
ones might be supposed to feel and to speak, in view of
their past and future. The truth of the parable lying not
in its detail, but in its moral. It will be understood that
the speakers in the parable, not only died, but they are
actually dead men.

As a Parable, No Difficulty. 59
Taking up in their order the difficulties of the other mode
of interpretation, we find them solved :
I . It is most natural these dead Israelites should be found
where the parable locates them ; in Hades, the grave, the
house of the dead. And that for them Abraham, not Christ, .
should be the chief one there. For though our Lord him
self died, and went into Hades, or the grave, yet his stay
in "the power of the grave" was a short one. As the
ever-living One, Hades is no place for him.
2. On this ¦view, neither the, beggar nor the rich man
have received their reward. They are lying in death, await- .
ing that voice that shall call forth "all that are in their
graves" (Jno. v. 28), to the judgment of the Day that is
coming. Thus corroborating the word of the Apostle,
2 Pet. ii. 9 : " the Lord knoweth how to reserve the unjust
unto the day of judgment to be punished;" and the still
older word of the patriarch, Job xxi. 30 : " Do ye not
know that the wicked is reserved to the day of destruction?
they shall be brought forth to the day of wrath."
3. Contrary to the other, this view of the parable is fully
in accord with the Scriptures, which, while they declare
that the dead know not anything, also in like highly
wrought, parabolic imagery, Isa. xiv. 9-1 1, represent the
dead actually in their graves, rising up to rejoice over the
mighty conqueror who had put them to death, himself now
conquered by death, saying, ' ' Art thou also become weak
as we, art thou become like unto us ? The worm is spread
under thee,, and the worms cover thee." No one would
think of taking that passage in Isaiah literally ; it is pre
cisely the same figure in the parable before us.
4. The absurdities of the other method of interpreta
tion vanish on this. As in imagination we bring the dead
into our thoughts, we picture them in their graves as they
were before laid away from our sight. And instead of being
anyway incongruous, it were most natural to speak of their
6

6o The Rich Man and Lazarus.
bodily parts. What the imagination supplies is life, and
consequent power of speech and motion. Is not a similar
figure of speech most common in every-day life, when we
personify, or supply life and speech, to inanimate objects,
as mountains, trees, and the like? Is it not common in
the Scriptures ? for example. Judges ix. 8 : " The trees went
forth on a time to anoint a king over thepi, and they said,"
etc. In all such cases we do not hesitate to recognize the
figurative use of language, because it is so apparent. Why
is it not here equally apparent to every oiie who regards
.God's word, for otherwise it contradicts the whole tenor
of Holy Writ regarding the present state of those dead ?
On this understanding, we are not compelled to do vio
lence to the spirit of all written language, and arbitrarily
to judge one clause of a sentence means just what it says,
while the other part does not mean what it says, but has
some concealed meaning by which it is accommodated to the
exigencies of a theory.
But some one may ask, if the whole story is figurative,
a fiction of the imagination to present a truth, why did not
our Lord make the fact more manifest ; why did he not
state the fact ? It might as well be asked, why utter any
parables at all ? He had a right to assume that, at first
sight, we should know the story to be figurative, as in the
case of Jotham's parable before referred to. It could not be
that we should believe he would utter anything contrary to
Scripture. And so evidently does the popular understand
ing of the parable contradict Holy Scripture, that it would
never have been even tolerated, but for the impossibility
of finding direct Bible support for an unscriptural belief.
In fact the figurative understanding of the parable as a
whole, beside being in harmony with Scripture, has the
advantage of plainness and entire consistency in its details,
which then can be taken in a straightforward, literal sense.
In the other case, though we call it taking the parable

Tlie Gulf Fixed. 61
literally, we actually find in the details a confused jumble
of the literal and the figmative in the conjoined daoses
of the narrative.
5. On this view, the peculiar feature of the parable, that
both the rich man and Lazarus are found together after death,
is strictly Biblical. The preacher saith, Eccl. vi. 6 : " Do
they not all go to one place ? ' ' Job says of him that liveth
at ease, and of him that never eateth with pleasure, ¦ • They
shall lie down alike in the dust, and the worms shall cover
•them; '' Job sxi. 26. "The small and the great are
there ; " Job iii. 19.
But what of the great guK [Gr. chasma, chasm] fixed
between the two, so incomprehensible on the hypothesis of
immaterial beings, whom a chasm, narrow enough to con
verse acros, however deep, could scarce be stipposed suffi
cient to restrain, — -d:h.2i means this chasm fixed between
those lying dead ? It is that irrevocable division which,
the Bible teUs ns, death fixes between the good and the bad
at the dose of their earthly probation. \i the class in
which death finds each, there must each remain till the
summons to the great Assize. Though, at present, one may
pass from the ranks of the condemned (John iii. 18} to the
pardoned, yet, when death comes, it is forever too late,
the g'Jf is fixed, so that they who then would pass, cannot.
"As the tree faUeth, so shaU it Ue." "He that is unjust
is still nnjust, he that is righteous is righteous stiU." Let
it be noted, that this gulf, thus " fixed," cuts off the hope
of a fhtnre probation, with which some delude themselves
and others, and also, the more general hope of universal
restoration. But we read, "he lifted up his eyes being in torment,"
and again he says, "I am tormented in this flame." The
former statement, we are told, is literal (unless there be a
diiTiCalty about his eyes : the second, which qualifies and
explains t/.e former, is figurative ! The torment is literal.

62 The Rich Man and Lazarus.
the agent of that torment is figurative. We allow one
might allude to his torment in figurative terms, but in ex
plicitly stating what produces that torment, that one can
use figurative language, passes belief. No, if the torment
is literal, much more is its agent literal. What then is this
literal fire?
Certainly, there is no literal fire in the grave. We have
learned from God's word that the sleeper in dedth is un
conscious of weal or, woe. But he is represented in the
parable as a dead man endued with life, and he speaks as-
such might be supposed to speak, in view of that which
will be his fate after his actual awakening to life. That
fearful threatened fire, of which the Gehenna fires outside
Jerusalem were a type, which, said our Lord, at the end of
this age shall burn up the tares, the children of the wicked
one. Matt. xii. 40: that fire spoken of by Paul, 2 Thess. i.
7, 8, "when the Lord Jesus shall [literally] appear from
heaven, with his mighty [literal] angels, taking vengeance
inflaming fire [literal also] on those that know not God ;"
that fire foretold by the prophet, Mal. iv. i, that "shall
burn as an oven, and shall burn up the stubble leaving
neither root nor branch ; ' ' the awakened sleeper is depicted
as already feeling its hot breath, and in his despair he cries
out for the smallest respite, though but a drop of water.
That fiery doom, that utter, literal destruction, must be his
at his awakening to life again ; and in imagination raised
to life, he is represented as encountering that which thus
waits for him. Possibly our Lord here sarcastically rebukes
those Pharisees, whom (ver. 15) he was addressing. For
since the Chaldean captivity, the heathen dogma of im
mortality for all, had been creeping into their cold, philo
sophical belief, and he pictures to them the utter incon
gruity of a belief in the immortality of the wicked, with
God's threatened doom of actual fire, — rthat they should
deem possible any should survive in that element, whose
province it was to destroy, to consume, to burn up !

As a Parable, Everything Intelligible. 63
And how naturally, if dead men are supposed to be speak
ing, comes in the final appeal, " Nay, father Abraham, but
if one went unto them from the dead [Gr.~ apo nekron,
from dead ones], they will repent." And how consistent
with this the reply, "they will not be persuaded, though
one rose- from dead ones." But on the common view,
what the need of a rising from dead ones, of a resurrection
from the dead? Could not the "disembodied spirit," as
the phrase is, be sent, as God sends his angel messengers,
with the warning word to those five brethren ? Why need
one rise from dead ones to do this ?
To sum up then : if the parable is received as figurative
in that those, who act and speak in the story, are actually
dead, i. e. without life, then former difficulties vanish, and
all the proprieties of time, place, and grammatical construc
tion are strictly observed. We find the beggar is properly
in Hades, where are Abraham and all who have likewise
been "gathered to their people," according to the Scrip
tures : that rewards and punishments are not yet meted out,
according to the Scriptures : that the dead are not conscious,
living beings, but that they are actually dead, according to
the Scriptures : that, in imagination, we think of the dead
as possessing bodily parts, according to the figurative lan
guage of the Scriptures : that the gathering of such, though
with differing destinies, into one place, the grave, is accord
ing to the Scriptures : that the gulf fixed, the flaming fire,
the rising from dead ones, are all explicable according to
the Scriptures. And we are not obliged now to accept,
and now to alter, the apparent meaning of various parts of
the story ; for the parable is thus in harmony with itself, as
well as with the laws of written language.
One- question yet remains, what is the moral of this re
markable parable ; why did our Lord utter it ? Plainly we
find the occasion in the preceding context. We read ver.
14, that the Pharisees, who were covetous, derided him
6*

64 The Rich Man and Lazarus.
when they heard him say, they could not serve God and
mammon. They were endeavoring to combine the service
of Jehovah with that of mammon. They had brought
themselves to believe that the prospered in worldly things,
the successful in amassing wealth, were special favorites
of heaven, as well as honored of men, while the poor were
rightly despised of man and cursed of God. But the
Master informs these pleasure-seeking, money-loving men,
that the judgment of God who knoweth the heart is dif
ferent from theirs ; "for that which is highly esteemed
among men, is abomination in the sight of God." He
also tells them, ver. 16, that the kingdom of God is to be
attained by those only who strive after it as the great ob
ject of pursuit ; that, ver. 17, heaven and earth should pass
away rather than one jot or tittle of the law should fail,
the law which they were trying to make void by their tra
ditions. And these truths, after a brief allusion, ver. 18,
to a special vice of the luxurious ones of their nation and
time, he enforces by the parable before us, showing how
their vaunted father Abraham himself would uphold this
righteous judgment of them, were he to speak from out
his silent resting place. In bold, yet strictly Scriptural,
imagery, the parable presents the dead patriarch, rejecting
his rich descendants, who seek their portion in this world,
and accepting to a place by his side, the poor beggar, rich
like Abraham in the faith of a world to come. We also
see that the choice made in this world is irrevocable ; that
the dishonored Law makes not the least abatement of its
demands ; and that inexcusable and hopeless is the state
of those, who hear not Moses and the prophets, who live
not up to the light they have.
And these lessons of the parable reach also to those in
our day, who will not live up to the light they have ; who
refuse not only Moses and the prophets, but also the kin
dred teaching of Christ and his Apostles. It were well for

The Thief on the Cross. 65
such, as they discuss this parable, so generally interpreted
as to discredit God's word, to heed its moral: that which
is highly esteemed among men, is abomination in the sight
of God. And to remember, that the interpretation which
so dishonors Christ as a teacher, has been fastened upon
us, as suggested in the Latin name of the rich man, by
that corrupt church, which is "the mother of the abomi
nations of the earth."
Luke xxiii. 43 : "And Jesus said unto him. Verily I say
imto thee. To-day thou shalt be with me in Paradise."
As generally read, this is a statement that our Lord and
the penitent thief were that day to be together in Paradise.
If so, the inferences growing out of that fact are, fully
stated, as follows: ist, Christ himself did not die, it was his
body only that ceased to live ; 2d, the same was true of
the thief; 3d, nobody dies, when said to die, the body
only dies ; i. e. everybody that has died is now living, neces
sarily in a dis-embodied state. Such inferences we may
hesitate to accept, till we ascertain that the statement is cer
tainly what it purports to be.
Examining into this, we find that the received under
standing of the passage is after all a question of grammar !
It depends upon how the Gr. adverb of time, semeron,
to-day, or this day, as it is more generally rendered in N. T.,
is to be construed; whether with the preceding verb, "say,"
or the following, "shalt be." From its position in the
sentence, it may qualify either. ,
It may be thought the comma decides it. Not at all ;
the comma is no part of the original Greek. The New
Testament MSS. were originally written entirely without
punctuation, which was not introduced into the Greek text
till the ISth century. Surely, the punctuation of a period
just emerging from medieval darkness, when churchly tra
ditions were paramount, and independent thought untol-

66 The Thief on the Cross.
erated, can scarcely be relied upon to settle a point in dis
pute, or to build up a doctrine. The Bible Societies have
found it necessary, in Matt. xix. 28, to alter the punctua
tion, and in other places it is still in question.
How then shall the true position of the comma, and the
consequent correct reading of the passage be ascertained?
Evidently, as in the case of the parable just considered, we
are to be guided by the light of other Scriptures, and by
the context itself.
First, then, if we locate the comma before to-day, and
make that adverb qualify " shalt be," thus giving the mean
ing that Christ and the thief, when they died, did not cease
to live (i. e. did not really die), but merely changed their
place from earth to paradise, we encgunter the fatal objec
tion that thus the passage conflicts with the rest of Holy
Writ, which so explicitly, as we have seen, declares that
the dead are unconscious, are actually dead.
But besides this, such cannot be the correct reading, since
the Scriptures elsewhere tell us where Christ was these three
days, and it was not in paradise. On this point we have
the united testimony of men, angels, and our Lord himself.
In Matt, xxviii. 5, 6: the angels say, "Ye seek y^aj liSho
was crucified. He is not here, for he is risen, as he said.
Come, see the place where the Lord lay." Jesus predicted
of himself. Matt. xii. 40; "As Jonah was three days and
three nights in the whale's belly," — Jonah was there him
self, was he not? — "j^; shall the Son of Man be three
days and three nights in the heart of the earth." An in
spired A-postle says, Eph. iv. 9, 10: "He descended first
into the lower parts of the earth. He that: descended is the
same also that ascended up far above all heavens. ' ' Could
words be framed more unequivocally to state, that during
those days Christ was not in paradise, but in the grave ?
And who are we, to set aside the concurrent testimony of
such witnesses ?

The Thief on the Cross. 67
Moreover, we find the connection of thought requires
that the adverb be joined "with "I say." The prayer of
the penitent thief is, "Lord, remember me when thou
comest [not into, the Greek is not eis but eri] in thy
kingdom." This Israelite has recognized in the patient
sufferer beside hini, the promised Messiah, the Anointed
King of his people. The accusation, the King of the Jews,
over his head is no unmeaning title. In Him, though now
yielding up his life in strange humiliation, shall yet be ful
filled the prediction of the prophet; "Saith the Lord, I
will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall
reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice
-in the earth;" Jer. xxiii. 5. And, looking through the
present darkness on Xfy that Coming in triumph, the dying
thief prays that the companion of this lowly hour of anguish
may be remembered by the Royal One, when he shall come
in his kingdom :
" 'When thou shalt in thy Kingdom come,
Then, Lord, remember me."
Does the King grant the humble petition ? He returns
a clear, direct affirmative; "Verily, I say unto thee this
day," an emphatic Biblical form of most solemn assevera
tion, "thou shalt be with me in the Paradise." Note the
Greek article, the Paradise, — the Paradise of which thou
hast spoken, the Paradise of God with its restored tree of
life (see Rev. ii. 7, xxii. 2), the pledge of life everlasting.
A right Royal response ! In the unending glory and joy
•of that Paradise yet to be, thou shalt not only l»e remem
bered by the King, but thou shalt be with Him, fpr, the
King Himself this day has said it! "So," says Paul,
I Thess. iv. 17, speaking of that same Second Coming,
"so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort
one another with these words."
But on the common understanding, how irrelevant the

68 The Thief on tlte Cross.
response, how niggardly the promise ! Irrelevant, because
it ignores the Royal Coming of which the suppliant speaks ;
niggardly, because it promises but a few hours of com
panionship with the Lord. For, if it is assumed that Christ
and the thief were that day in Paradise, then he left Para
dise and returned to earth, the third day. At that time he
told Mary Magdalene (Jho. xx. 1 7), that he had not as-
cendid to the Father ; but the Father is in heaven, there
fore that Paradise, where we suppose to have been, is not
heaven. Afterward he did ascend to the Father and is
now in heaven (Heb. ix. 24), leaving the thief in that
hypothetical, not the real. Paradise. And so, if we adopt
the common reading, we must logically conclude that
Christ, whose presence is essential to Paradise, is not in
Paradise personally, any more than now on earth.
It has been said, that to connect "this day" with the
preceding verb, is but a quibble, a trifling evasion. But
where is really the trifling ; is it not in that reading which
contradicts Scripture, which makes the reply so irrelevant
and meagre, and which has so unscriptural a conception of
Paradise ?
As illustrations of the Biblical use of "this day" quali
fying the preceding verb, see Deut. xxx. 16; "I command
thee this day to love : " Deut. viii. 19 : "I testify against
you this day, that ye shall perish: " Deut. xv. 15 : "I
command thee this thing to-day;" Acts xxvi. 29: "I
would that all that hear me this day, were as I am ; ' ' and
so everywhere. It is said that in the Septuagint and the
N. T. , this is far the more common grammatical relation of
semeron, to-day, but the writer has not verified the state
ment. Enough, surely, has been adduced to show that
an inference, whose only footing is, at the most, an open
question of grammar, cannot stand against the direct state
ments of other Scriptures.

Christ's Argument zvith tin Sadducees. 69
Luke XX. 37, 38 : " Now that the dead are raised, even
Moses showed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the
God of Abraliam, and the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob ; for he is not a God of the dead, but of the living ;
for unto Him all live."
Wlien the writer was investigating the question of the
sleep of the dead, i. e. whether the dead are actually dead,
and was even struggling against a growing conviction of
its truth, the passage before us decided the question for
him. He could no longer doubt that Jesus received and
taught the doctrine, since upon it he here constructs an
argument which silenced, if it did not convince, his theo
logical opponents. And yet in our da}', tlie passage is used
to controvert that doctrine.
What our Lord proposed to prove in this argument with
the Sadducees is very evident. He leaves no room for doubt.
Here in Luke he states the point, " Now that the dead are
raised:" in Mark it is, "And as touching the dead, ihat
they rise .• " in Matthew, " But as touching the resurrection
of the dead. ' ' Now the simple question is : Did he prove
that ? He thought he did. The Pharisees thouglit he did.
The Sadducees were "put to silence." The multitude
"were astonished." And yet, he totally failed to prove
his point, if we accept modern theology's interpretation of
Christ's argument. That informs us, that what he did
prove was that Abraham and other dead patriarch:! are now
living, of course in a disembodied state. But that was not
what he set out to prove. Does " the resurrection," — that
" the dead are to be raised," — have any necessary connec
tion with that ? In fact, the point we are told Christ proves,
of a present life for dead patriarchs, as far as it go ;s, redly
militates against the probability of a resurrection. For .is
that old English Reformer and Bible student, William
TjTidale, well puts it: "If the souls be in heaven, tell
me why they be not in as good case as the angels be, and
then what cause is tliere of the resurrection ? "

70 Christ's Argument with the Sadducees.
One commentator. Rev. J. C. Ryle, in Expository
Thoughts on the Gospels, has the frankness to say: "The
quotation contained in this passage has occasioned much
controversy. At first sight, it does not appear to be any
proof of a resurrection, but only of a life to come." And,
indeed, that is all there is of it, if the theory of a disem
bodied existence be correct. He goes on to say: "One
thing is very clear, the argument which our Lord used
completely silenced the Sadducees, and called forth the
approbation of the Scribes." And then he adds, in sub
stance : If we are not convinced, the fault is in ourselves,
not in the argument ; we ought to be convinced, though
we cannot tell why !
It is only as freed from the popular delusion, that dead
ones are actually living ones, that we find ourselves also
freed from all difficulty in the case. We are not left to
suppose that our Lord himself was so lacking in judgment,
or the wily Sadducees and Pharisees so stupid, as not to
know what was, or was not, proof of a disputed point.
Christ's argument for a resurrection is unanswerable; but it
is so by virtue of a Biblical premise, which modern theology
totally ignores, viz. : There is no life for dead ones ex
cept BY A resurrection ! Christ's argument really is this :
God's words at the bush recognize a life for dead patri
archs :
But there is no life for dead ones except by a resurrec
tion (or raising to life again) :
Therefore, there must be a resurrection : which was to
be proved.
This minor premise, no life for dead ones except by a
resurrec:tion, is very clearly stated by Paul, i Cor. xv. i6,
i8 : "If the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been
raised. Then also those having fallen asleep in Christ, are
perished;" aor. passive of Gr. apollumi, were destroyed,
as E. '\I. renders same Gr. in same epistle, chap. x. 9, 10.

The Transfiguration. •ji
•
There is but one way of understanding it ; if there be no
resurrection, there is no hereafter- to those who die. In
that case, death, the loss of life, is a finality.
As Paul's comment on Christ's words, " God is not a
God of dead, but of living ones, for to him all live," read
Rom. iv. 17 : " God quickeneth [Gr. zoopoied, makes alive]
the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though
they were.' ' All the living ones of the future are, in the
sight of the Infinite One, as though they were living now.
Matt. xvii. 3 : "And, behold, there appeared unto them
Moses and Elias talking with him."
From this scene on the Mount of Transfiguration, is in
ferred the existence of Moses and Elijah as disembodied
beings, or, at least one of them, as such.
But what was that scene on the mount ? An utterance
of the Bible is the best authority on any disputed point,
and fortunately, an inspired commentator answers this
question for us. The Apostle explains it, 2 Pet. i. 16:
" We have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we
made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of his majesty." This,
he specifies, was (ver. 18) "when we were with him in the
Holy Mount." "It was the power and coming of our
Lord" that was in this scene prefigured, that coming in
the power of the future kingdom, of whose majesty the
apostle could speak as having been an eye-witness.
That the transfiguration scene was a foreshadowing of
that future kingdom, is also shown in that statement of our
Lord, which (no unmeaning fact) introduces the narration
in each evangelist. This statement is a stumbling-block to
our modern commentators (difficult passage, says Lange),
who sever it from the connection, given by each evangelist
and recognized by Chrysostom and early commentators, and
then are puzzled how to explain it. The statement is:
7

72 The Transfiguration.
"There be some standing here who shall not [Gr. double
negative, very emphatic, we render, ' absolutely shall not ']
taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his
kingdom; " Matt. xvi. 28. Mark says, ix. i : "till they
see the kingdom of God come with power." Luke ix. 27 :
" till they see the kingdom of God." Christ here speaks
in Matt, of the coming, in Mark of the power, in all three
of the kingdom.
But Peter, in the epistle already quoted, speaks of the
power, and coming (2 Pet. i. 16), having introduced the
subject of the kingdom in ver. 11. Now, when the iden
tical terms in which the epistle states the occurrence, are
found introducing the narrative of that occurrence in three
gospels, is not that conclusive of their reference to the oc
currence itself, especially when no other plausible explana
tion is offered for their presence there ? Most assuredly.
Then the statement of our Lord in the gospels, which so
troubles commentators, is an announcement that the coming
in power of the Kingdom of God, the coming of the Son
of Man in his Kingdom, was to be seen after six days
(Matt, and Mark), about eight days after (Luke), by some
then standing there. But why say " some" ? If the
kingdom was actually to be set up "with power," if the
Spn of Man was actually to come "in his Kingdom,"
why should not all behold an event of such magnitude?
And why state they positively should not die, (Gr. ou ml
geusontai thanatou] before the sight ?
This brings us to a question essential to our comprehen
sion of the passage : How did they see it ? And this,
again, to a further inquiry into the actual time of that
kingdom. When, then, is the Kingdom of God really to be beheld,
or, in the language of Matthew, when is the Son of Man to
come in his Kingdom ? It is to be in " the days of the
Son of Man," Luke xvii. 22, at his future "appearing and

The Kingdom at Christ's Coming. 73
his Kingdom," as Paul joins the two, 2 Tim. iv. i. ' Then
occurs the resurrection of the just, of the heirs of- the
Kingdom, those who are to reign with Christ. Then " this
mortal puts on immortality." For as Paul declares, i Cor.
XV. 50 : "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of
God, neither [the same idea repeated in the succeeding
clause] doth corruption inherit incorruption." It is in
the spirit-body, i Cor. xv. 44, that the promised " entrance
shall be ministered to us abundantly into the everlasting
Kingdom of our Lord ; " 2 Pet. i. 11. As our Lord states
it-, Jno. iii. 5, 6: "Except a man may have been born
[Gr. aor. pass, subj.] of water and of [no article] spirit, he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born
of the flesh, is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit,
is spirit," is the spirit-body, not the soul-body (see page
118), not flesh arid blood, which " cannot inherit the king
dom." That resurrection entrance into the spiritual life, is
at Christ's coming, as the Apostle tells us, i Thess. iv. 16, 17.
And that Second Coming, as our Lord himself unequivo
cally declares, must precede his Kingdom; "And then
shall they see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with
power and great glory. When ye see these things come
to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at
hand ;" Luke xxi. 27, 31.
But many, who still pray "Thy kingdom come," have
been taught that Christ did establish his kingdom at his
First Coming; an " invisible " kingdom, in each one's
heart. And rather, a limited one, though it might be
styled, numerous, one to each man. For proof of this
strange doctrine, Luke xvii. 21 is relied upon; "The
kingdom of God is within you."
We must then digress a little to correct the evident
misapprehension of that passage. The context makes mani
fest the meaning. To whom did Christ address those
words? Read ver. 20: "When he was demanded it/ /.^^

74 The Transfiguration.
Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he
answered them, and said. The kingdom of God cometh not
with observation [the marginal reading, outward show, is
contrary to ver. 24, and to the Greek, parateresis, close
watching], neither shall they say, see [Gr. idoii] here, or
see there ; for see, the kingdom of God is " — within you,
does he say? Within those Pharisees, whom. Matt, xxiii.
27, he declares are " full of all uncleanness " ? Certainly
not ! The words should be rendered as our translators
have done in the margin, "See, the kingdom of God is
among you ; " as the Gr. enios umin, in the midst of you,
properly denotes ; i. e. in the midst of the group, not of
each individual. The kingdom of God, in the person of
the King himself, freely offering all a share in that king
dom, is here in the midst of you, and see, you professed
watchers for that kingdom, the religious leaders of the
people, you discover it not ! Turning from his captious
critics in their pride of learning, he tells the true learners,
"the disciples" (ver. 22), of a period of waiting ere that
kingdom comes, a time when the King personally will not
be in the midst of them; "The days will come when ye
shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and
ye shall not see it." From that verse to the end of the
chapter, any one may read of the time and the manner of
the kihgdom.
But further, it was impossible that our Lord could have
meant to say his kingdom was already " within " any one,
for after this "he added and spake a parable," Lul^e xix.
11-27, to correct the error of some who "thought the
kingdom of God should immediately appear." He again
reveals this needful time of waiting, under which we are
now living at the present day. " He said therefore, A
certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for
liimself a kingdom and to return." Christ must first go,
and return. And when he was returned and begins his

A Vision only of the Kingdom Possible, Then. 75
reign, mark the fate of " those his enemies who would not
that he should reign over them. Bring them hither, and
slay them," is the order. It reminds us of Ps. ii. 8, 9 :
"Ask of me, and I will give thee the nations for thine
inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy
possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron ;
thou shalt dash them in pieces, like a potter's vessel." No
doubtful kingdom then, it comes in power ! No invisible
kingdom, needing any "close watching " to discern its
coming ! " For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the
one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under
heaven ; so shall also the Son of Man be in his day !"
The thoughtful reader of God's word will perceive that
giving two meanings to the one phrase, the kingdom of
God, or dividing it into two kingdoms, " the kingdom of
grace and the kingdom of glory, ' ' one already come and
the other yet to come, is but a mere human invention, to
meet those texts which declare the kingdom to be yet
future. The gospel, the glad tidings of the kingdom,
Christ and Apostles preached (Matt. iv. 23, Acts xxviii.
31) ; and still is it to be "preached in all the world for
a witness, and then shall the end- come ;"^ — the end of
the present ordering of things, the coming in of the king
dom. But the announcement of the kingdom is not the
kingdom itself; the herald precedes tjie king.
Receiving, then, from the lips of Christ and his Apostles
the truth that the kingdom of God, as they spoke of it,
is something even in our day yet to come, we conie back
to consider again that statement of our Lord : "There be
some standing here who shall not taste of death, till they
see the kingdom of God come with pow'er." But all to
whom he spoke died long ago, and that kingdom is still
in the future. How then could any have seen it then?
Only in one way. The sight must have been just what
Christ called it, a vision. "Tell the vision to no- man,
7*

^6 The Transfiguration.
till the Son of Man be risen from the dead;" Matt.
xvii. 9.
Modern commentators, well knowing that the immaterial
soul gets very little support from the transfiguration scene, if
it be a vision, try very hard to make out it was not a vision.
For example, Owen (on Matthew) actually says it was "not
a mere vision, but a reality;" but probably Christ knew.
Paul also (i Cor. xv. 50) is authority that the kingdom is
not for men as now constituted. If seen by such, it can
be seen only in vision. Labored efforts are made to ex
plain what the Scripture writers intended by the Gr. word
orama, vision, but one of the evangelists very clearly
shows us how he understood the word in his day, when he
remarks (Acts xii. 9) that Peter, who saw a real angel and
¦was by him really liberated from prison, "wist not it was
true [real] which was done by the angel, but thought he
sine) a vision. ' '
Some commentators, to prove that Christ's calling this a
vision means nothing, bring forward our Lord's caution,
Mark and Luke, not to tell what " they had seen." As if
a vision were something not to be seen ! Luke however
tells us, as already quoted, that a vision was what Peter
saw, or thought he saw. Not all commentators so grossly
err. Lange well says the disciples were " in a state of pro
phetic inspiration ; " which explains their ready recognition
of the two unknown characters of the vision.
We observe, further, that this foreshadowing of " the
power and coming ' ' of our Lord, was after the manner of
a vision. Like the visions of the Apocalypse and others
foretelling future events, it was in type or symbol. Christ
the King is the central figure ; with him, Moses, as type
of the sleeping saints to be raised to life at the kingly
coming of Christ here typified ; and Elijah, representative
of the saints alive at that coming ; both classes, thus repre
sented, then to be in the spirit-body. Let no English reader

Christ the First to Rise "in Glory'' "jj
suppose that the language of our version, " Moses and Eli
jah appeared unto them," at all implies any active agency
on the part of the two. What the Greek actually states is
that they became, or were, visible ; the verb in the original
is passive, literally, " were seen by them."
K a real Moses and Elijah appeared thus to the disci
ples, it contradicts other Scriptures. At the time, thus fore
shadowed, of Christ's Second Coming, all the saints will
have their glorified, spirit-bodies, " made like unto His
glorious body; " Phil. iii. 21. See i Cor. xv. 43 : " It is
sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory : " and Col. iii. 4:
" 'V\Tien Christ who is our life shall appear, then shall ye
also appear ¦with him in glory." So did the two actually
appear at this time. Luke says, ix. 31, they " appeared in
glory." But though it were assumed that Elijah at his
translation received his spirit-body, " changed in a mo
ment," I Cor. XV. 51, as will be those remaining alive at
our Lord's coming (i Thess. iv. 15), yet Moses did see
death, and at this time was sleeping with his fathers, as
the Lord said he "must;" Deut. xxxi. 14, 16. Certainly,
then, if at this time he was raised from the dead and re
ceived the glorified body, that contradicts Paul's repeated
statement, that " Christ was the first that should rise from
the A^e2A," Acts xxvi. 23, that " He is the first bom from
dead ones," Col. i. 18, that "Christ is the first fruits of
them that slept. Christ the first fiiiits, afterward they
that are Christ's at His coming," i Cor. xv. 20, 23, "that
He might be Xhe. first bom among many brethren ; " Rom.
¦viii. 29. John, Rev. i. 5, speaks of Christ as " \\i& first
bom [same Gr.] from the dead." It were impossible that
Moses, by a resurrection into glory, should thus precede his
Lord. Nor can we suppose that he had a temporary resur
rection into glory, being supplied, for the time of the
vision merely, with the glorified body of the new spiritual
life then to return to a disembodied state ; for that new

78 The Transfiguration.
life is eternal, that spirit-body is a deathless one. But
difficulties vanish, contradictions disappear, when we ac
cept Christ's word as the simple truth, and con.sent to
I'ecognize the scene .on the mount as Peter recognized it ;
a vision of the Kingdom of God, a foreshadowing of the
future "power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ;"
2 Pet. i. i6.
But, thus accepting it, the inference of modern theology
disappears. To a vision, we can hardly look for reliable
information as to the actual existence of Moses and Elijah.
For, if a vision of Moses and Elijah is to authorize the
inference that they are now living in heaven, which does
not appear in the account, by parity of reasoning another
vision. Acts x. 11-16, is as good, if not better, authority
for the inference that heaven also contains "all manner
of four-footed beasts of the earth," since it is stated that,
in vision, Peter saw such "let down from and received up
again into heaven."
One point more. Receiving the transfiguration scene as
a prophetic vision of a period subsequent to the first resur
rection, we discover in that a reason for the injunction,
" tell the vision to no man till the Son of Man be risen
from the dead." It has been said, this was because of the
greater enlightenment of the disciples, at that time, by the
gift of the Holy Spirit. But other truths they did not un
derstand till after Christ rose, why should this be kept con
cealed till then ? There is a reason for it, because that, in
Christ's own resurrection, they then would have had a prac
tical illustration of that resurrection upon which the coming
[kingdom, now displayed in vision, is absolutely dependent;
the first resurrection, of which Christ's was the type. This
was needed ere the three disciples themselves could fully
comprehend the vision. Note the language of Mark ix.
10 : " And they kept that saying with themselves, question-

The Kingdom to Come is for the Life to Come. 79
ing one irith another, what the rmngfrom the dead sho'ild
mean." Not a qnestion of the rising of the dead, that was
a familiar idea 1 see Acts xxiv. 15 ' ; it was not what is the
rising of dead ones, but the rising out from dead ones ; Gr.
to ek r.iZr'n anasfenai.
Modem commentators say, this scene was intended to
strengthen the ^th of the three disciples, and through
them of the rest, in view of the ^Master's approaching death.
Had it been that, why forbid their teUing the rest, for that
death had been announced to all ? why continue the injunc
tion of secresy after his death till he should rise again?
Then, their faith would need but the sight of their risen
Lord ; even doubting Thomas then exclaimed, " ily Lord
and my God." No, the special object of the vision was to
teach the beholders the great lesson which in time they
might teach to others : that he who enters into the kingdom
of God must first have died, and have been raised to a new
life : he must thus enter a second time into life, he must be
bom i^Gr. andtheri) from above, into the new life of the
spirit-body. For, to repeat the word of our Lord, "that
which is bom of flesh, is flesh; that which is bom of spirit,
is spirit." The disciples needed this lesson, for they were looking
for the kingdom in their present liietime. Though Jesus
said. Jno. xviii. 37, that he •" was bom and came into the
world to be a king; " yet he also sa}-3, "his kingdom is
not of this world." Note this word, " world." It is not
the earth, as many think ; a different Gr. word, ge, expresses
that. In our version, world is the common rendering of
two Gr. words, aion, age, and, as here, kosmos, order, or
arrangement. Its peculiar meaning is seen, i Peter iii. 3 :
" whose adorning \kosmos, arrangement], let it not be that
wliich is outward, of plaiting the hair, and wearing of ap
parel," etc. " Of this world," then, means of this present
arrangement of things, this dispensation. " If my king-

8o The Transfiguration.
dom," said Jesus, "were of this kosmos, then would my
servants fight." The kingdom of the Son of Man (Dan.
vii. 13, 14) is to be "set up" (Dan. ii. 44) in the next
kosmos ; and in that kingdom the saints ofthe Resurrec
tion "shall reign on the earth; " Rev. v. 10. But as Christ
must first die, and be raised out of dead ones to an immortal
life, so they also must die, and like him, be raised to a new
life, ere that kingdom comes.
But this truth, so exclusively had the Jewish mind of
that day dwelt on the prophecies of his literal reigning,
ignoring those of his literal humiliation, — probably they
spiritualized and explained away the latter, as we now do
the former, — this great truth of a resurrection as essential
to that kingdom, they Could hardly receive, till the King
himself had been seen to die, and to be raised to an im
mortal life; "henceforth expecting till his enemies be
made his footstool," Heb. x. 13; and till the Bride, the
Lamb's wife,, those to be associated with him, should be
made ready, "arrayed in the righteousness of saints;','
Rev. xix. 7, 8.
After their Lord's resurrection, it was all clear to their
minds. " And with great power gave the Apostles witness
of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus ; " Acts iv. 33. They
preached through Jesus the resurrection, that " out from
dead ones" (anastasin ten ek ton nekron) ; Acts iv. 2. In his
Pentecostal sermon, Acts ii. 14-40, Peter made known the
power and coming of the Lord Jesus, as an actual king, as
the one to "sit on David's throne," and declared, "This
Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses."
He n(5w understands the full import of that vision on the
Mount, the seal is off his lips, and to him the glad news
of the kingdom, the gospel he was commissioned to preach,
is to him as it was to Paul, " Jesus and the Resurrection ; "
— fesus the coming King, and at the Resurrection from
dead ones His coming kingdom !

Soids under the Altar. 8i
Rev. vi. 9: "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 (Gr. mar-
tyrian') which they held : and they cried with a loud
voice." This is sometimes presented as a case of body-less souls
in heaven. But the whole statement itself negatives any
such idea. Like the scene on the mount jast considered,
it was all done in symbolic vision. The seals were sym
bols of great events or epochs, of "things which must
shortly come to pass: " Rev. i. i. The souls crying out
from under the altar are in symbol. It is precisely the
figure of Gen. iv. 10 : " The voice of thy brother's blood
crieth unto me from the ground." "Under the altar"
is an evident allusion to the place where the blood of the
sin offering was poured. Lev. iv. 7: "at the bottom of
the altar of burnt offering." And the blood was the rec
ognized symbol of the soul; see Lev. xvii. 14. It was
the blood of those who had been sacrificed at God's altar,
as witnesses for him, that was thence calling upon God, as
did Abel's blood.
We must not forget that the book of Revelation is
largely made up of O. T. imagery, and that its writer uses
the word, soul, strictly as in the Hebrew, "every living
soul died in the sea." And not alone from their position
under (Gr. upokatd, down under, underneath) the altar,
do we perceive that these were not actually living ones,
but also from the injunction "that they should rest yet
for a little season, until should be fulfilled [the number of]
those their fellow servants that should be killed even as
they." That cry of unjustly shed blood could not yet
be heeded. These slain ones, though recognized as faith
ful martyrs, must yet sleep on in death, till should come
(Rev. x. 18) " the time of the dead, that they should be
judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy ser-

82 To Die is Gain.
vants the prophets, and to the saints, and to them that fear
thy name, small and great."
Phil. i. 21 : "To die is gain."
To sustain the doctrine of separate soul existence, this
passage is so often quoted, apart from its connection, that
one might almost think it a sententious apothegm, embody
ing a truth of universal application. The preceding clause,
however, limits it to the Apostle, and the well known in
ference drawn from it is that death to him, as to the Chris
tian, is a gain in that, instead of ending his life and con
signing him to the grave, it ushers him into an unending
life of unspeakable bliss. So generally is this inference ac
cepted as the real meaning of these words, that j^ossibly
the reader will be shocked to be told that they have no
reference whatever to such a fact. The question of the
possible future of the individual who dies, is not even
alluded to in this passage !
It is very easy to decide this. We ask. Does Paul here
speak of his death as a gain to himself, or to Christ? To
himself, most will reply. And, to draw from it the usual
inference, so must it be. But it happens that the context
settles this question beyond all controversy. Let us see
how. Going back to ver. i6, we learn that, during Paul's pres
ent imprisonment at Rome, some there were proclaiming
the gospel, not sincerely, but, as Paul tells us, "of con
tention, supposing to add affliction to my bonds. What
then," he says, "notwithstanding every way whether in
pretense or in truths Christ is preached, and I therein do
rejoice, and will rejoice." Himself, his own profit or gain,
is evidently the last thing he is thinking of; he cares not
what may come to him, if in any way the glad tidings of
the Master he loves, may be made known. And, carrying
out this thought, he adds: " According to xny ^^axnii'ii ex-

To Die is Gain, 83
jjectalion and my hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed,
but that with all boldness, as always, so now also, Christ
shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life or by
death." How shall " Christ be magnified " by his living?
J ie goes on to tell us : " For to me to live is Christ," — is
living as he would, and so honoring Christ. , How shall
" Christ be magnified " by his dying ? " To die is a gain"
TO lIiM. To yield up his life for the Master's sake, is a
gain to the Master's cause. Is it possible to believe Paul
says, in speaking of magnifying Christ, For to me to live
is for Christ' s advantage, and to die is for my own ?
Ah, indeed, he has not the least thought of himself, ex
cept as, whether living or dying, magnifying his Lord; not
one word of what he himself may or may not gain in the
future : it is what the Lord shall gain from his death, if he
sees fit to permit it. And has not the death of his mar
tyred ones ever been of the greatest gain to the cause of
(Christ, as they seal their testimony with their blood? As
our proverb expresses it: "The blood of the martyrs is
the seed of the church 1 " May not the death of the proto-
martyr, Stei)hen, have been one means, by the truth thus
testified to, of gaining/tf^ the Master his most capable and
useful Apostle ?
Had wc at this day more of Paul's self-denial, of his
self-forgetfulness, we should be more slow so to interpret
his language here, as not alone to conflict with the context,
but also with the spirit of one who reckoned self crucified
with Christ, who could say (liletal Gr. of Gal. ii. 20) : "I
no longer live, but Christ liveth in me."
The pojjular understanding of the lassage is also in direct
confliel with what I'aul himself elsewhere states. For he,
whom we misrepresent as saying it is a gain to him to
(lie, further on in this very epistle (chap. ii. 27) calls it
a " mercy " to a faithful Christian not to die ! In 2 Cor. i.
10, 11, he speaks of himself as having been delivered from
8

84 Raid's Earnest Desire.
death, and trusts Christians will pray that he may still be
delivered, "that for the gift [of deliverance from death]
bestowed upon us by the means of many persons, thanks
may be given by many on our behalf." In 2 Cor. v. 1-4,
he desires not death; he "would not be unclothed," be
found naked, as when this earthly tent is dissolved. In
I Cor. XV. 26, addressing Christians, he styles death, the
" last enemy."
And was he not right ? To the Christian himself, to die
is «^/gain. Death is our "last enemy." It robs us of
life, till the Saviour comes again, till that "hour, when
all in the graves shall hear his voice." And yet in the
final encounter with his adversary, the Christian can, and
he should, as the Apostle John expresses it, " glorify God."
Jno. xxii. 19. This was Paul's expectation and desire.
May it be ours also !
Phil. I. 23 : "To depart and be with Christ."
The whole passage reads: "Yet what I shall choose I
know not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a
desire to depart and to be with Christ which is far better."
This seems to. be one of the main pillars of the , doctrine
that .souls continue to live at death. Paul's word "to de
part," for which he has "a desire," is thought to refer
to his death, especially as he is just speaking of living or
dying ; and if death is " far better," it can be so only in case
one is to be immediately with the Lord. The inference
here is apparently very strong that Paul expected to be alive
when he was dead, but is it actually just what it seems?
First, we notice one point which awakens our distrust ;
we find the passage is not an exact rendering of the original
Greek. Certain words have been omitted, and others evi
dently modified in meaning, seemingly for a purpose.
Doubtful indeed the cause which is upheld by anything
like unfair dealing !

Wliat tlie Departing. 85
Let us compare the English version with the Greek.
In ver. 23, "for," as a rendering of the Greek de of the
approved MS.S., though unusual, need not be objected to :
it expres.ses a transition with somewhat the idea of cause
and effect, as it does for instance in Luke xxiii. 17. "In a
strait betwixt two;" no word for "betwixt;" the Gr. is ek,
from, or by, here with genitive of the agent; "two" is
"the two," lit. Gr. by the two, by both. ' "In a strait,"
if we are to understand by that in a perplexity about a
choice, is not the meaning of sunechomai, and moreover that
would require the meaning of ek to be changed to betwixt.
Precisely the same passive present in Luke xii. 50, our
translators render, in the text, "I am straitened," in the
Margin, "I am pained;" Liddell and Scott render, "I
am confined, constrained, troubled, distressed" — that is,
then, by both. " Having a desire," is having the [definite
article, emphatic] inten.se desire; Gr. epithumia, else
where translated lust, inordinate desire. Next two Gr.
words are omitted in our English version, though impor
tant in the connection, eis, for, and to, the; the definite
article with the infinitive "to depart and to be," being
u-sed as a noun governed by the preposition eis, " for the
departing and being with Christ." Then gar, for, is
omitted in our version, " for [this were] by much far bet
ter." The pa.s.sage then rightly reads: "which I shall
choose for myself I ktww not. For I am straitened [troubled]
by both ; (having the intense desire for the departing and
being with Christ, for very much better is this.') "
Now, then, what does "the departing" mean? It is
generally believed that by it Paul here refers to his death,
as in 2 Tim. iv. 6. But this is an evident error, for that
would conflict with what goes before. Paul had just said,
whether life or death he knows not which he would choose,
for he is troubled by both. . The one brings him continual
trial. (See i Cor. iv. 13, 2 Cor. v. 4.) The other, our

86 Paul's Earnest Desire.
"enemy," robs him of life, which all are loath to lose.
Will he in the next breath so stultify himself, as to say that
his intense desire, his earnest longing, is for death; — is
for one of the two, which are a trouble to him ? That
cannot be.
What then does he refer to? We shall see. An old
man, Paul the aged, alone in his Roman prison (for in dis
missing Timothy to the Philippian Church, he sadly tells
them (chap. ii. 20), he has no one like-minded, all seeking
their own, not the things of Jesus Christ), his personal work
through such a life of unparalleled labor, suffering, infirmity,
nearly or quite done, just now waiting (chap. ii. 23) to " see
how it will go with him," he says, it matters not whether
life or death be before him, for himself he would not care
to choose. But no one may think hirh a disappointed, dis
couraged man. In one of those parentheses of which his
writings are full (e. g., see Eph. ii.), he declares the great
hope which sustains him. There is one thing he longs for,
one thing upon his heart (as the composition of Gr. epi
thumia expresses) : it is the departing and being with
Christ. There is- a departing which every man shrinks
from, to that land of darkness and forgetfulness (Ps. Ixxxviii.
12), where no man can work (Jno. ix. 4), or praise the
Lord (Ps. cxv. 17), the returning to his earth (Ps. cxlvi.
4) ; it is that death which has passed upon all men, for that
all have sinned, Rom. v. 12. But it is not for this he has
the intense desire ; it is for the — note, how the one definite
article binds together the thought of the two infinitives as
one compound, inseparable idea — for the departing and
being with Christ, that departing which to his mind is insep
arably associated with the manifested presence of his Lord.
When is this to be ? Need we repeat Paul's own words?
He tells us, i Thess. iv. 16, 17, that the Lord himself shall
descend from heaven, to raise to life his sleeping saints,
and to change those still living, bestowing upon all their

Absent from the Body. 87
spiritual bodies, in which they "will be caught up to meet
the Lord in the air, and so will they ever , be with the Lord."
" With these words," he urged the Thessalonians to " com
fort one another." Thus did he comfort himself in that
lonely Roman prison, looking forward to that promised ap
pearing of his Lord, when he should receive the sought for
immortality, and when he could be with the Master he had
loved and served so well. , "
That was something to be intensely longed for, " for very
far better " were it than present life or than death. " By
the two he is confined and oppressed, but he has the intense
desire for the departing and being with Christ," — for that
great Day of reward when, forever departed from, sorrow
and sin, he will forever be with the Lord.
2 Cor. V. 8 : " Willing rather to be absent from the body,
and to be present with the Lord."
This passage is another expression for the idea we have
just been discussing, the departing and being with Christ.
It is the same writer, here, also, looking forward to the re
ward of the great Day.
But it is claimed that Paul refers to an existence in a
disembodied state, with which he says he is well pleased.
(The Eng. version, "willing," by no means gives the full
force of eudoked; it is used Matt. xvii. 5: "My beloved
Son, in whom I am [Gr. eudoked] well pleased.") The
context, however, so plainly contradicts the idea that Paul
"is well pleased" with the state between his dying and
his Lord's coming again, that all we need is but thought
fully to read it over. ¦*
Paul had just spoken, chap. iv. 14, of his assurance of a
resurrection like to that of his Lord. " For which cause "
(ver. 16) he does not lose heart, as he looks (verse 18) on
to the unseen and eternal. Then beginning chap, v.,
" For we [who are thus to be raised] know that, if our
8*

88 From what Body?
earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, [if our
present body, the natural {psychikoti) of i Cor. xv. 44, were
destroyed (as is the usual E. V. rendering) in death, it
matters not, for we know that] we have a building of God,
a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."
This eternal building cannot be the disembodied state,
for that is by no means eternal, it lasts but till the Resur
rection. What is it, then? Evidently, the spiritual body,
which is immortal, imperishable, here spoken of as a per
manent home in contrast with our present perishable tent,
the natural body. This spiritual body, tjiis "building of
God" coming direct from his special creative power,
"from heaven," and not as our mortal body through hu
man generation, is yet in the Creator's hand, that it may
be given to the faithful, when he comes to give to every
one as his work shall be ; Rev. xxii. 12.
Ver. 2 : " For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be
clothed upon with our house, which is from heaven," — with
our spiritual body. Here is the precise Gr. endusasthai,
of I Cor. XV. 53; "For it is necessary that this mortal be
clothed with [endusasthai] immortality." What is to be
thus clothed ? The soul, all will say ; and that Paul
calls " this mortal ; " it is not immortal, till clothed with
the spirit-body.
Ver. 3. " If so be that having been clothed [Gr. aorist],
we shall not be found naked." Ver. 4. " For we that
are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened, not for
that we wish to be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mor
tality might be swallowed up of life." To be unclothed,
to be without a body, the natural or the spiritual, in other
words, to be dead ; that he does not wish. What he does
wish is to exchange the mortal for the immortal, as he had
before explained to these same Corinthians, i Cor. xv. 54,
when "this mortal puts on immortality, then death is
swallowed up in victory." Ver. 5. "Now he that hath

spirits in Prison. 89
wrought us [worked us out] for the self same thing [the
swallowing up of mortality by life] is God, who also has
given to us the earnest [or pledge] of the Spirit."
And now comes our passage, "Therefore [ver. 6] we are
always confident" [Gr. of good courage, good cheer.
Matt. xiv. 27], and ver. 8, "and are well pleased [E.
V. willing] rather to be absent from the body and to
be present with the Lord." It is as looking watchfully
(so the Gr. skopeo) to the unseen and eternal, that he is
well pleased to be absent from — not a body, as the popu
lar inference would make it, that he has just denied, but
from — the body, this temporary tent, and to be present with
the Lord. For that involves the time of reward, the com
ing of the Lord, the Resurrection, when he is to be clothed
upon with immortality, with the eternal building of God's
special workmanship and bestowal. That the full context
brings out this as Paul's meaning is too evident to discuss
further. I Peter iii. 18-20: "Christ suffered .... being put to
death [Gr. sarki, dative of manner, no article] according
to flesh, but quickened [Gr. pneumati, no article] accord
ing to spirit [Gr. en ho], in [or, by] which also he Went
and preached unto the spirits in prison, who sometime were
disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited
in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing," etc.
The question here is whether this going and preaching
was literal or figurative : i. e., whether Christ did it him
self, or did it through others ; as we say, one does himself
what he does through another, freely translating the Latin
maxim, "Qui facit per alium, facit per se." Those who
hold the literal view believe that, during the interval be
tween his crucifixion and his ascension, Christ went in
person and preached to certain spirits (disembodied), those
who had lived in Noah's day. Others, taking it figuratively,

90 Spirits in Prison.
believe this preaching of Christ was done through Noah,
when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of
that "preacher of righteousness," as Peter in his second
Epistle styles him: 2 Pet. ii. 5. They understand that
"went and preached" is equivalent to the "came and
preached" of Eph. ii. 17: Christ "came and preached
peace to " the Ephesians not in his person, but through his
ministers ; that as it was in one case, so in the other.
Now, is there here any real difficulty in deciding whether
the expression under discussion is literal, or figurative ?
None at all, if we folloy the Law of the literal and the
figurative. That constrains us to consider first, and to ac
cept, the literal; that Christ himself went and preached,
unless such be proved an impossibility. We observe on the
supposition that Christ did the preaching himself, it was to
those long dead ; if he did it through Noah, it was to those
living, while the ark was preparing. On the literal view
then, the question is as to the possibility of preaching to
the dead.
Well, the Bible doctrine makes short work with such a
fancy. We read, Eccl. ix. 5 : " the dead know not any
thing;" Ps. cxlvi. 4: when "he returneth to his earth,
his thoughts perish;" Eccl. ix. 10: " there is no device,
nor wisdom, nor knowledge in the grave, whither thou
goest;" Ps. cxv. 17: "the dead go down into silence;"
Isa. xxxviii. 18 : " they that go down into the pit cannot
hope for thy truth;" evidently no preaching to them
while there, as is the implied declaration in the ques
tion of Psalm Ixxxviii. 11, 12 : "shall thy loving-kindness
be declared in the grave ? shall thy wonders be known in
the dark ? ' ' Our Lord himself has declared that there he
himself could neither preach nor do any work. He says,
Jno. ix. 4: "/ must work the works of him that sent me
wuhile it is day, the night cometh, when no man can work. ' '
Moreover, men, angels, and our Lord, unite to testify to

spirits in Prison. gi
us that during that interval between his crucifixion and
his resurrection, Christ was doing no preaching to living
or to dead men. He was simply lying in Joseph's tomb
all that time. Our Lord tells us, "As Jonah was three
days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son
of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the
earth; " Matt. xii. 40. The angels say, "Ye seek Jesus,
who was crucified. He is not here, for he is risen, as he
said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay;" Matt.
xxviii. 5, 6. And Paul declares, " He descended first into
the lower parts of the earth. He that descended, is the
same ¦aS&o \\\at ascended far above all things;" Eph. iv.
9, 10.
Evidently, the literal sense, that Christ in person preached
to the dead Antediluvians, as it is held, is an impossibility;
and we must adopt the other view, that Christ preached by
his spirit in his servant Noah to them while living, as only
it could be done, when formerly the long-suffering of God
waited upon them. For that abuse of God's great patience,
those, who are said to be now in prison, "reserved unto
the day of judgment to be punished " (2 Pet. ii. 9), in the
day when for them the bars of the grave will be withdrawn,
will then have but to give account, and receive their re
ward. For, with life, ended their opportunity.
And so, this legend of Christ's preaching when in his
grave takes its place, as far as Scripture authority goes,
alongside of those other apocryphal histories of his child
hood. I Sam. xxviii. 3-25 : The reputed raising of Samuel.
Like our modern spiritual manifestations, this has so
much of deception about it as to be unworthy of serious
notice, were it not that it is so generally accepted by our
religious teachers as an actual appearing of the dead
Samuel. Perhaps they have been led astray by a theory

92 Raising of Samuel
that dead men are still living, for, except there be the der
sire to interpret the story as sustaining such a belief, there
is no difficulty at all about it.
The point in dispute will be. Was Samuel actually there?
Either he was, or he was not. If actually there, it was,
according to the narrative, in bodily form; "an pld man
cometh up," verse 14. How came he there as such? for
if the popular theory be true, he is a (/w-embodied being.
The spiritual body is not "put on" till the Resurrection,
when, at the last trump, this corruptible puts on incorrup
tion. See I Cor. xv. 42-52. This appearance of Samuel
in such a shape could be only by miracle, wrought either
by the magic power of the witch, or by divine power.
That this witch, one according to Israel's law unfit to live,
should be able to summon from his abode the great Seer
of Israel, if indeed living, into her presence, and to give
him a " materialized " body, were too preposterous to argue '
upon. If, then, Samuel were really there in the shape the
narrative presents him, it must have been by a special ex
ercise of almighty, creative power. And for what? Merely,
as we find, to declare to the king his inevitable fate. In
other words, God's miraculous power was put forth to
accomplish just what God had refused to do in the ordi
nary way !
Nay, more extraordinary still. We learn that Saul had
received the kingdom of Israel as the viceroy of Jehovah,,
but, failing to obey the orders of his superior, he is re
jected, until at last his indignant Sovereign refuses to
hold any intercourse whatever with him. And then the
rebellious king fully reveals his guilty character. Well
aware that God had denounced the practice of witchcraft
as a special abomination (Deut. xviii. 9-12), that he had
denounced against it the- death penalty (Ex. xxii. 18;
Lev. XX. 27), which penalty Saul himself had rigorously
enforced, he now determines to plunge himself into this

A Fraud. 93
abominable wickedness. In contempt of the majesty of
law, its appointed guardian presumptuously violates the
law. Is this new, startling act of rebellion to render his
Sovereign more propitious? Will he, to reward his daring
impiety, now grant him the refused audience? Will he
send a special messenger to convey to him his will ? Nay,
more, will the Most High himself become an apparent
partner in the crime, doing in effect for the woman what
she could not herself, and thus to others actually substan
tiating her claim of power to raise the dead ? To harbor
the thought is an outrage ! By every attribute the Holy
One is pledged against thus countenancing sin. A man
born blind has better insight into the divine character, who
tells us, "We know that God heareth not sinners;" John
ix. 31.
If, then, the witch could not, and God would not, bring
Samuel there, the only alternative left us is, he was not
there at all. It was a fraud. This woman, whose trade
is deception, evidently imposes upon the God-forsaking
and forsaken king.
This we learn from the narrative itself. In the darkness
of night, three strangers present themselves at the woman's
door. One of them, a very giant for stature, states his —
not their — errand (his language shows they are but attend
ants), thus : "Divine for me by the familiar spirit, and bring
me him up whom I shall name unto thee." His features
are muffled and mean his apparel, yet no disguise can con
ceal the tall form of one "higher than any of the people,
from his shoulders and upward;" i Sam. ix. 2; x. 23.
In the Hebrew of the 20th verse, as given in the margin,
the writer of the story himself notices this marvellous
height : "Then Saul made haste and fell with the fulness
of his stature." And we must not forget that, at this
moment, the tent of Israel's tall general was seven miles
away. Saul himself at her door ! May it not be a trap

94 Raising of Samuel
for her life? She states her suspicion, verse 9. Her pre
vious recognition is confirmed, while her fear is quieted,
by the solemn oath, not as of a private subject ^ " I will
not betray you;" but as of one whose word was law —
"There shall no punishment happen to thee for this
thing." Shrewdly concealing her knowledge till the opportune
moment, she arrogantly inquires : ' ' A\'hom shall I bring
up ? " " Bring me up Samuel. ' ' Her incantations, which
gave time for any needed preparation, being completed,
she suddenly screams out with every appearance of terror.
Commentators strangely tell us, it was because Samuel him
self unexpectedly appears on the scene. We have already
shown that were impossible. But let the further narrative
decide that. The woman herself states the cause of her
terror, whether real or assumed : " Why hast thou deceived
me, for, thou art Saul?" It is Saul himself, the mortal
terror of the Hebrew necromancers. In his very presence
has she been unwittingly betrayed into practising her un
lawful art !
She is acting a part ; she knows all along it is Saul, and
his oath already stands between her and harm. She would
have Saul assume that the supernatural power that imparts
to her this unsuspected information, can also bring to her
Samuel. Saul, who surely could never have imagined her
as terrified at what she professed to do any day, recognizes
himself as the cause of her terror, and he quiets her with a
word, as he could not had Samuel actually frightened her,
eagerly bidding her not to be afraid of him, but to go on —
" Be not afraid, but what sawest thou ? ' ' Saul sees nothing,
but the woman's artifice has fully succeeded ; he is now too
well convinced of her magic power to be critical, he will
trust her eyes — "what sawest thou?" Does she reply,
Samuel himself, whom you asked for ? Not she ! far too
shrewd for that, especially where, as here, mystery is essen-

A Fraud. 95
tial to success ; and preferring, like modern spiritual me
diums, to make her credulous victim think he is using his
own mental faculties, she vaguely responds, " I saw gods
(or as the Hebrew might be rendered, a majestic one) as
cending out of the earth." "What is his form?" asks
the king, who still sees nothing. "An old man cometh up,
and he is clothed with a mantle," a royal or sacred robe.
We read, " Then Saul perceived it was Samuel." How?
He perceived from the description given him, evidently
from no observation on his part. And, thus a willing
victim to this artful woman, "he stooped with his face to
the ground, and bowed himself," not the best position cer
tainly for critical observation.
Then ensues a conversation between Saul and either the
woman acting as a ventriloquist (as seems to have been cus
tomary in such cases ; compare Is. xxvii. 4), or with an
arranged confederate ; of which conversation a commen
tator, forgetful perhaps that " Satan is transformed into an
angel of light," says: "The devout, prophetic utterances
are only possible to a servant of God like Samuel." But
the language is by no means so devout. A querulous in
quiry from Samuel breaks the silence — hardly necessary to
specify the fictitious Samuel — "Why hast thou disquieted
me to bring me up ? " This Samuel seems to have fallen
in with the arrangements made, and accepts it as a fact that
the magic art of the woman, at the instance of Saul, has
thus disturbed his.quiet slumber in the grave, and, we should
judge, much to his discomfort. Is this the opening word
of a special messenger from the Almighty?
As apology for this disturbance, Saul explains that God
has entirely deserted him, will in no way deign to answer
him, "therefore," he says, "have I called for thee, that
thou mayest make known," etc. The response of Samuel,
" Why dost thou ask of me ?' ' seems to show that Samuel,
as well as Saul, recognizes that God has had no agency in
this interview. 9

96 Raising of Samuel
But it may be asked. Does not the after fulfilment of the
prophecy show a divine foresight? By no means. One
even less shrewd than this artful woman would have been
at no loss to forecast Saul's near future at this juncture.
All Israel knew that he had been rejected by the Divine
king-maker, and that his successor had -been appointed.
It was evident that the sceptre was slipping from the grasp
that had held it for forty years. Already a confident Phil
istine host was in the heart of the land. The panic-struck
army of Israel was led by a trembling leader (i Sam. xxviii.
S), so estranged from God as now to be found in the hut
of a proscribed witch, who learns from his own lips how
far "the Lord had departed from him and become his
enemy." And every Israelite knew the fate of his
country, or of individuals, when God was arrayed against
them. Her nearness to the contending hosts would apprise the
witch of the imminency of an engagement, and under such
circumstances she could but recognize the hour when Saul
must yield up his kingdom and his life. And in the hope
less contest, his sons with him would no doubt also lose
their lives, as most of them did.
But if this were the real Samuel, what shall be said of
the language in which he announces to Saul his impending
fate? "To-morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me."
With me ! The God-abandoned king to be admitted to
the realms of the blest, of which the righteous Samuel, if
living at all, must.be a resident? Impossible! We can
not say here, as is so commonly said when Bible language
contradicts some theory of our own, " In Old Testament
times' they did not understand these things," for here is
supposed to be one who knew all about these things. And
yet perfectly natural is the statement, if the speaker pro- •
fessed to be one raised for the moment out of the grave,
into which alike the wicked king and his faithful son were

A Fraud. 97
so soon to be called. " They shall lie down alike in the
dust, and the worms shall cover them; " Job xxi. 26.
It is worthy of note how exactly all the actors in this
story, when speaking of the present abode of dead ones,
follow universal Bible usage, instead of the popular usage
of the present day. Saul begins, "Bring me him up."
The woman inquires, " Whom shall I bring up? " " Bring
me up Samuel." She says, "I saw gods ascending out
of the earth" — "an old man cometh up." Samuel says,
" Why hast thou disquieted me to bring me up" — "to
morrow shalt thou be with me" — with me, not my body,
in the grave. And a thousand years after the Master him
self, who knows, for he really came from heaven, uses the
same language : " All that are in the graves shall hear his
voice, and shall come forth ; " John v. 28.
Thus we see, on the understanding of a fictitious Samuel,
the story is consistent and intelligible throughout ; while
the popular understanding of a real Samuel rests on —
what? On two assumed inferences from two statements
in the narrative, " When the woman saw Samuel she cried
out," and, "Then Saul perceived it was Samuel." It is'
assumed, that the unexpected presence of a real Samuel
frightened the woman ; she herself says, i*t was Saul's
presence. It is assumed, that Saul perceived it was.
Samuel from his own observation : the narrative tells us
it was from the woman's description of what he did not
see ; while the prediction itself was within the capacity of
any ordinary intelligence. Nor can any deduction be
drawn from calling the one Samuel who personates that
individual, for such is the usage of all languages and times.
In speaking of one who, as here, acts the part of another,
we say, Hamlet did thus, or appeared thus ; never deeming
it necessary to explain, we do not mean the real Hamlet,
but the actor who personates him. We could hardly, in a
story told in as few words as this, ask for explanatory de-

98 The Cloud of Witnesses.
tails, when such should be patent to every thoughtful reader.
Had the writer of the narrative foreseen the desire of after
years to misunderstand his words, he might have more fully
explained himself.
Thus have we shown that the presence of a real Samuel
was impossible, both in the nature of the case, and from
the narrative itself. Would that the real spectre in the
imagination of Bible readers, and which has so encouraged
the wicked abominations of spiritism, might be so laid to
rest as never again to be " brought up."
" Wherefore, seeing we also are compassed about with so
great a cloud of witnesses ; " Heb. xii. i.
The preceding context so guards against an erroneous
inference, that the writer would not have noticed this pas
sage, had he not recently found a somewhat noted theo
logical authority referring to it as a proof-text in support
of the popular theory of disembodied existence. To have
any bearing upon that question, the passage must be under
stood to imply that we are compassed about by the living
' souls of the ancient worthies, spoken of in the preceding
chapter, who are thus represented as looking down upon
us, witnesses of the fidelity with which we run the race
they have completed.
To the casual reader, our version appears to permit such
a construction, and perhaps it was so intended it should,
but what says the original? The Gr. for "we are com
passed about," is, hemeis, we; echontes, having; peri kei-
?nenon, lying around; hemin, us — "we having lying around
us so great a cloud of witnesses. ' ' Every definition given
in Liddell and Scott's Lexicon to the Gr. verb, perikeimai
(compound of peri, around, and keimai, to lie), is based
upon the idea of lying recumbent, which is the proper
meaning of the original verb. And it will be observed
that, if it were intended merely to express, as does our

Lying around Us, 99
version, that we are compassed about by, i. e., we have
about us, these witnesses, then the verb keimai in its com
position here is of no use ; for echontes fully expresses that
idea with the other Gr. words, hemeis echontes peri hemin,
we having around us. In this very verse the verb keimai,
in the same participial form, is repeated in composition
with another preposition, pro, before, and in its undoubted
meaning : "let us run with patience the race [pro-keimenon]
lyifig before us." As that race is (keimenon) lying {pro)
before us, so is that cloud of witnesses {keimenon) lying
(peri) around us.
Moreover, the Gr. martus, or martyr, translated "wit
nesses, ' ' never bears the meaning, apparently given to it in
our version, of spectators ; of those looking upon, watch
ing our course. The word denotes, solely, one who bears
witness, it may be by words, by his life, or by his death ; as
the first witness specified, Abel, who, "being dead, yet
speaketh."' Some of these witnesses sealed their witness,
or testimony, to their faith with their lives, "not accept
ing deliverance, that they might gain a better resurrection"
— the "resurrection and life" of Jno. v. 29.
The precise location at present of one of these witnesses,
the word of Inspiration explicitly states : " Men and breth
ren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David,
that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with
us unto this day. For David is not ascended into the
heavens;" Acts ii.- 29-34. About as precise as language
can well be ! We understand that David is lying {kei
menon) in his sepulchre, till the day of which he speaks in
the XVIIth Psalm: "When I awake, in Thy likeness."
Certainly he, at least, is not with that ghostly host which,
in the imagination of some, is thought to be looking down
upon us.
No such thought, evidently, was in the mind of the writer
of Hebrews. For, after speaking of those who desire the
9*

TOO The Cloud of Witnesses.
"better resurrection," he says, in the verse immediately
preceding the one we are discussing: "that they, without
us, should not be made perfect ; ' ' Gr. teleiosthosi, should
not be perfected. Paul, in Phil, iii., longing for the same
better resurrection {exanastasis ek nekron, ver. ii), im
mediately says, " Noir as though already I received it, or
already I have been perfected." If those now lying in the
sleep of death, were enjoying the supreme felicity of the
heavenly world, it were certainly very near our idea of
being perfected. And some of our theological friends seem
so to understand it, when they quote Heb. xii. 23, " spirits
of just men made perfect," to sustain their idea that the
souls of the dead are now in the perfect bliss of heaven.
Could the writer of Hebrew have supposed possible such a
misuse of that passage, when he had just before stated that
they were not yet made perfect ?
We have now examined all the more prominent passages,
whence modern theology draws the inference that the
soul is immaterial and immortal. These inferences we
found to be the last, or rather the sole, support of its pe
culiar dogma, which so many suppose is derived from the
Bible. Our study of the sacred record showed us that the
dogma itself is not stated, nor is the soul ever denominated
immortal ; on the contrary, it is spoken of as mortal, ma
terial, and as belonging to all animals.
What, then, does modern theology ask of us? It de
mands that we receive as Bible truth a doctrine so im
portant in itself and in its bearing on other doctrines
as the inherent immortality of the soul, when careful in
vestigation shows that the Bible, which alone can re
veal the nature and destiny of the soul, not only fails to
reveal this doctrine, but most peremptorily, in words at
least, denies it. And it demands this of us on the
authority of — what? Of mere inferences, which it

English Version Conceals the Truth. loi
claims to . draw from comparatively few passages of the
Bible. Well, we have now carefully examined these passages.
We have sought for the meaning of each passage in the
original, and as associated with'its context and with other
Scriptures. And what has been the result ! Each reader
must judge for himself. We find that not a single passage
examined sustains the inference of an immortal, imma
terial soul ; but that each, judged by its relation to the
context and to other scripture, directly condemns the infer
ence. And these inferences were all that modern theology
could hope to find to sustain its peculiar dogma. What
then becomes of any Bible standing for that dogma?
But this is not all.
Our study of the word of God discovers to us that, in
the English Version of the Bible, there has been a deliberate
and persistent effort to cover up the truth on this question
of the soul, from the ordinary English reader, unac
quainted with the original- languages in which the Bible
was written.
In the first, second, and ninth chapters of Genesis, nine
times is the Hebrew for "living soul" applied to lower
animals. Not once does it so appear in the English text.
In the marginal readings, which in many Bibles are not
printed, and which but few carefully read, the fact is
brought out in but two of these instances : yet enough to
show that our translators recognized the correct rendering,
and the application of the original to all animals. Of all
instances in the O. T. where the word soul is used of
lower animals, in one case only (Numb. xxxi. 28), is it
literally so rendered ; and there, on account of peculiar
surroundings, itwas difficult to avoid it. {See Appendix h..)
So, too, our translators of the Bible have largely con
cealed from us the mortal nature of the real soul, by practi
cally expurgating such passages as I ring the natural death

102 Desig?i of Concealing the Truth,
of a soul prominent before the mind. Where tbe Hebrew
speaks of the death of a soul by violence, they, as a rule,
substitute some other English word. {See Appendix C.)
If, however, the thought in connection with the word
soul be that of life, even though it be this present mortal
one, they show no hesitation in using the correct rendering.
For instance, in Gen. xix. 17, 19, 20, the Heb. nephesh,
soul, occurs three times, referring each time to Lot's soul.
The first time we read " Escape for thy life ; " Heb. soul :
that is in the destruction of Sodom, save thy soul from
death; so here nephesh is rendered life. The next time
Lot speaks to the angel, who brought him out of Sodom,
as having saved his soul, i. e. from threatened physical
death ; so again our English version renders nephesh, life.
But in the next verse, the idea of living is prominent,
though it is but continuance in this mortal life, and so we
have, this third time that Lot's soul is spoken of, the
literal rendering: "and my j<;«/ shall live." In other
cases, as i Sam. xxii. 22: "I have occasioned the death
of all the souls of thy father's house," it would not answer
to say "death of all the lives; " so we have "of all the
persons." We have noted a familiar instance of this
double rendering in consecutive verses. Matt. xvi. 25, 26,
and Mark viii. 35, 36.
Again, we find that the Bible, as originally written,
speaks of dead souls as tangible objects, lying dead before
one's eyes. But not the least hint of such a fact is al
lowed to appear in our .English version. {See Appen
dix D.)
The design of this concealment of the meaning of the
Hebrew is most apparent. And it furnishes a most con
vincing proof, if such were needed, of the radical differ
ence between the doctrine of the Bible and the doctrine
of modern theology, in reference to the soul. Our trans
lators recognized the fact, that if they translated the Bible

Popular Conception of Soul Disproved' by the Bible. 103
into its equivalent English, this radical difference were
made apparent to every mind. And so the question came
up, they could not evade it : — Must we put into the hands
of the common people a book which will stultify our own
doctrines? In translating from the original languages
in .which the Bible was given to man, shall the Bible doc
trine, or our own doctrine, of the nature of the soul give
way ? The result we have before us. On this question,
Bible trath went to the wall; it was crushed out of
sight !
Are any among us so hardy as to defend this course ?
Do the International Committee on Bible Revision pro
pose to follow this example, or will they honor God's word
and themselves by boldly standing for the truth? That
remains to be seen, — not only here, but in a Day that is
coming !
We have now obtained a full answer to the question
of the nature of the soul, in the form in which it was first
considered. Our inquiry was: "Is the Popular conception
ofthe soul that of Holy Scripture ? ' ' Most emphatically are
we answered, NO. Popular theology teaches that a soul is-
immaterial, immortal, and the sole possession of man. The
Bible teaches that a soul is material, mortal, and does not
appertain solely to man. And our English translators have
clinched the argument as against modern theology, by
their evident endeavors to cover up the truth on these
points !
We now proceed to the further question, what actually
is the soul, as taught in the Bible ?

CHAPTER VIII.
The Main Question Answered. Statement of the
Bible Doctrine of the Soul.
OUR inquiry into the Bible use of the word soul has
brought out the following facts :
Soul is a term applied alike to man and to all ani
mals. It denotes what is material ; what is liable to death,
and while in the state of death, for a time at least, visible
and tangible. A very peculiar feature of its use is that
while usually it denotes the entire being or individual, at
times it would seem to denote something which the being
possesses ; in Biblical phrase, we may say of. man or of
any animal, each is, or, each has, a soul. For example,
we read. Gen. ii. 19: "And out of the ground the Lord
God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the
air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call
them ; and whatsoever Adam called every living soul [so
Hebrew], that was the name thereof" And again. Gen.
'i. 20: "And God said. Let the waters bring forth abun
dantly the creeping [so margin] creature that hath a living
soul ; " so Heb., as in margin.
In some cases of its use in the Bible, soul might be thought
a synonym for body, as in Numb. vi. 6, and other instances
where our translators themselves render Heb. " dead soul,"
by Eng. "dead body." In other cases we recognize a
difference, as where Paul writes, i Thess. v. 23, "the
whole of you, the spirit, and the soul, and the body."
We observe also from this quotation, and from Heb. iv. 12,
which speaks of " the dividing asunder of soul and spirit,"
that soul cannot be_ the same as spirit. That we have
learned is the vital principle, or breath of life ; as being that
104

The Biblical Soul is the Organism. 105
which gives life to what without it were dead, the idea
of life cannot be dissevered from spirit, as it can be from
soul. What then is this Biblical soul? Such marked peculiari
ties in its use, must guide us to the meaning of the word
beyond a question. •
In our language there is a word, which, as we use it, pre
sents the precise counterpart of the Heb. word for soul.
All the marked peculiarities of the Bible use of the latter
are exactly reproduced in our use of the English word.
That word is organism. All that the Bible has to say of a
soul, we say of an organism. It appertains to man and to
all animals. It is material, it is liable to death. Like the
dead soul of the Bible, a dead organism is visible and
tangible. In our modern use of organism, we find that
striking peculiarity of the Bible use of soul ; it denotes
either the entire animal, or what the animal possesses ; the
animal is an organism, or, we may say, it has an organism.
And. we use organism as the Bible does soul, as a practical
synonym for body ; the dead organism of an animal is its
dead body. When animated by the presence of life, the
animal becomes a living organism, as Adam became a living
soul. Surely, here is the exact equivalent in our language of
the word so.ul, in Bible language. And it shows the felt
need of just' such a word, that when the word soul was
perverted — may we say ? — to another meaning, the need
for what soul formerly expressed was so apparent, that this
new word, organism, was coined to take the place of that
otherwise appropriated. We may rightly say misappro
priated, for, from being a pertinent and useful word, it was
carried off to express something of which we can know
nothing except through revelation, and which we find
revelation does not even mention.
Can we hesitate, then, to accept the one word as the

io6 The Bible Statement.
proper equivalent of the other? If, in any language,
ancient or modern, we find that a special word, whose
meaning is in question, is used precisely as a special word
is used in our own, all that is predicated of the one being
also of the other ; and especially, if certain striking pe
culiarities of the former, in., relation to the verbs to have,
and to be, and also in its relations to a third word in that
language, are exactly reproduced in the similar relations
of our own word, is it not beyond all controversy, that we
have here the exact word by which the hitherto doubtful
foreign word is to be rendered into our language ?
y With such facts before us, we come to the conclusion,
judging from Bible usage, that the English word organism
is the exact equivalent of the Hebrew word nephesh, and
so is the exact equivalent of the word soul, by which the
Hebrew is rendered into English.
Organism is defined to be: "A structure composed of
or acting by means of organs ; an organized being. ' ' The
word expresses the idea of the orderly arrangement and
association of organs in one structure, with differing func
tions, and yet mutually dependent upon each other. This,
then, is the original, or primary, meaning of the Biblical
soul. Out of this have grown certain secondary meanings.
These organs are formed, and thus related for a special
purpose, to receive and carry on life. Hence the thought
of life, though not absolutely indispensable to it, is sug
gested by the thought of organism. For when the organ
ism is destroyed, or its functions arrested, life ends ; on the
other hand, when life is taken away, the organism comes
to its end. Hence in the Bible, a second or derived mean
ing of soul.' It is used to convey the idea of life, which
cannot be manifested without a soul, or organism, to re
ceive and retain it. This secondary meaning, life, is some
times found in the Hebrew language, though it is more

The Soul Fully Defined. 107
fref[uent in the later Gr., as would he expected of a derived
meaning. When the Gr. psycM, soul, denotes life, it does
it with a manifest allusion to the manner it acquired this
meaning ; it expresses what we might call organized life. '
So the Gr. bios denotes life, with reference to the means
of subsistence ; bios being the same woi;d as, and probably
deriving its meaning of life from, the Gr. for bow, which,
in early days, provided the means of subsistence. While
the Greek zoS denotes life in the abstract sense of the
word. But, further, as an outcome or result of a vitalized soul,
or organism, there are mental manifestations, thought, feel
ing, will, desire, and the like. The Heb. nephesh, soul, ,
sometimes expresses these, as Gen. xxiii. 8; "If it be
your nephesh," Heb. soul, E, V. mind. So also i Sam.
xviii, I. "The soul of Jonathan was, knit to the soul of
David." In tlii.s case the word soul is used precisely as we
use one of the bodily organs, the heart, to express emo
tions that arise from the action of the whole organism.
We may here note that a similar metaphorical meaning
of spirit is common in our own and in all languages. As
it is the spirit, or vital principle, which sets in operation
the functions of the organism, producing thought, feeling,
etc., when then these are powerfully manifested, we call it
an exhibition of spirit; — we say, he is a man of spirit.
And so the opposite. When the Queen of Sheba saw the
magnificence of Solomon, we read; "there was no more
spirit in her " (i Kings x. 5); or, to go back to the eadiest
meaning of spirit, it took her breath away, as is still our
English expression.
We find, then, that the Bible gives us as the original,
the primary meaning of soul: the organism of man and of
all animals ; the conception embracing the organization, as
making up one entire individual. This is by far its most
frequent meaning. It is found everywhere iu the Old Testa-

io8 772^ Bible Statement.
ment, and to a considerable extent in the New, even where
the original is not translated soul in our version.
A secondary, or derived meaning, is life ; not abstract
' life, but organized life, dependent upon, or connected with,
an organism. This is more common in the New Testa
ment, though we find examples even in the earlier portion
of the Old; as Gen. xxiv. i8: "As her soul (life) was in
departing, for she died." Also i Kings xvii. 21 : "Let
this child's soul (life) come into him again."
As a more remote meaning we find occasionally the word
soul stands for the emotions, which it originates, as in the
examples already given.
A remarkable corroboration of this primary Bible mean
ing of soul, as denoting an organized individual, we note
in a mode of speech prevailing among us, which so coii-
¦ tradicts our present modes of thought as to be indeed
utterly inexplicable, but for its agreement with Bible usage.
Notwithstanding it is almost universally taught, and as
universally accepted, even among disbelievers in revelation,
that the soul is something immaterial and absolutely in
destructible, in daily speech, in daily papers, we find
expressions like those : "Some hundreds of souls perished
in that shipwreck," or "by disease, by fire or flood,, or
famine, or by the devastation of war, so many souls were
destroyed ;" evidently meaning so many individuals were
destroyed. So thoroughly is this Biblical mode of expression inter
woven with the conception we form of ourselves, that it
comes out even when one does not intend it. A noted
American preacher, declaring to his congregation his be
lief in the migration of souls to another sphere, exclaimed :
f When I die, and I am buried in Greenwood, let none of
you standing before my grave say. Here lies  . Thank
God, I shall not lie there ! ' ' etc. He contradicted his
theoretical belief even in the stating of it ; — I die and am

Bible Language the Language of Nature. 109
buried, when I am buried I am not buried. Does not the
" T" of the same sentence denote in each case the man
himself? At the funeral of a little child, the officiating clergyman
administered the usual consolation to the bereaved parents,
informing them it was "not their child lying there before
them; that was but the lifeless case, or shell ; their boy him
self was gone to a brighter land, a cherub form before the
throne," etc. (Little idea, apparently, have our religious
painters or teachers of the four-fac^d cherub of Holy
Writ !) The exercises concluded, the afflicted mother, who
no doubt thought she believed what had been said, leaned
over the coffin to take a last look at what had been her
child. Kissing its cold forehead, she sobbed out, as she
addressed the lifeless form before her : " Oh my child, my
child, shall I never see you more ? ' ' She felt it was still
her child lying there in death. The heart reversed the
verdict of the head. A mother's love rising up against
a false' theology, claimed the dead child as its own !
It was the language of nature ; it is the language of the
Bible. How touchingly the aged patriarch says: "As for
me, Rachel died by me in the land of Canaan, and I buried
her in the way of Bethlehem. ' ' It was the dearly loved
wife, for whom his seven years of service had " seemed but
a few days for the love he had to her," whom he left buried
there. And he charged his sons: " Btiry me with my
fathers in the cave of Machpelah: there they buried
Abraham and Sarah his wife ; there they buried Isaac
and Rebekah his wife; and there I buried Leah."
How does modern theology meet this language of nature
and the Bible ? For it holds that the man is not buried
in the grave ; it declares that those are all wrong in fact,
who, with the Bible, say that souls are destroyed by any
physical means. It has here the assurance even to assert
that this popular use of the word soul, which contradicts

no The Bible Statement.
the popular conception, is, in reality, a confirmation of
the correctness of its theory. It sa3-s to us : " There, you
see, in common speech, in the daily records, those who
believe in the essential, inherent immortality of the soul,
say souls are destroyed. You know they do not mean what
they say. So is it in the Bible."
But, how do we know the}- do not mean what they say ?
It is because so often we hear them categorically expressing
the opposite belief How comes it then that not one of
the Bible characters, under any circumstances, through
fifteen centuries, is ever found expressing the opposite
belief, if really they held it? Without exception, their
testimony is all one way. Still more perplexing, how
comes it about that men of the present day could ha^ve
been taught to say jiist what they do not mean ; to make
the statement that souls are destroyed, when they actually
believe the destruction of a soul is one of the most impos
sible of things ? How could they ever universally acquire
so heedless, so false a way of expressing themselves ?
There must be some reason for this. Will it be said, they
learned it from the Bible ? Then who taught Bible char
acters to utter themselves so regardless of fact? And
Moses represents our Creator Himself as using this remark
able language.
In reply, modern theology has but one resource ; it falls
back upon its one refuge of  figurati\'e language ! A
figure of speech, it calls it. But what figure ? by what
name is it known? What figure of speech can that be,
where a man says one thing and means another, and never
gives us a clue, as Bible speakers do not, that they intend
other than the most natural meaning ?
The writer has heard of but one figure of speech actually
suggested, viz., synecdoche, where a part is put for the
whole, or vice versa; such verbal interchange of the two
being permissible as a figure of speech, on the basis that

Popular Speech Inexplicable by Popular Theology, in
what is true of the one is true of the other. We are told
the soul is put for the whole man. But here, there is no pos
sible synecdoche ; it is rather one part put for another part:
The statement in question does not apply either to the .part
specified, or to the whole ; it is simply untrue, according
to modern theology. We were told, so many souls were
destroyed : modern theology says they cannot be destroyed ;
that we were meant to be told, so many human bodies were
destroyed. That is, a speaker intends to state that a man's-
body, the shell of his real self, was destroyed ; he goes to
work to do this by stating that the real self, the soul, which
he believes indestructible, was destroyed, and says nothing
of the body itself Is it needful to illustrate the absurdity
of this ? It is as if a father, instructing a son, were to say
of a pile of walnuts : If you plant the shells, you will have
a crop of young trees ; or, as if a housekeeper, thinking
to speak by synecdoche, should inquire of an oyster dealer,
how many shells her guests would be likely to eat ! In
fact, the latter supposition does not involve the utter phys
ical impossibility, which, on the popular conception, at
taches to the statement of the destruction of souls by phys
ical disaster.
Here is indeed an enigma evidently beyond the power
of modern theology to solve. It cannot give us the origin
of this peculiar habit of using the word soul strictly in ac
cordance with Bible usage, and yet so totally at variance
with modern theology's teachings, and the universal accep
tation of the word ; how men soberly should say one thing,
and by general consent be understood to mean just the
reverse of what they say.
The simple solution of the difficulty is that we here meet
with a relic of ancient days. The very language in which
from generation to generation men have been taught to
express themselves, herein sustains the Bible doctrine of
the soul, and protests against the theology we have rightly

112 The Bible Statement.
denominated modern. This form of speech has been
handed down to us from a period antecedent to modern
theology, when the fact was universally accepted, and in
delibly impressed upon human language, that the soul, or
organism, is the man himself, and perishes in death. And
it still holds its own against later innovations, a most telling
witness of the present corruption of old-time truth.
We may also note here, as further corroborating this
view of the truth, what will be more fully noticed elsewhere
(see Appendix E), that the Bible speaks of the various
bodily organs as parts of a soul, or organism. It uses one
or more of these parts, as the liver, bowels, kidneys, or
one of them together with the whole, to express the emo
tions or affections, which belong to the whole organism.
This peculiarity of ancient times is still found, in the like
use popularly made, in these days, of one of these organs,
the heart, and in the occasional use of another, the spleen,
and of the bile, a secretion of a third organ. The circu
lating fluid, the blood, is also spoken of by us as the seat
of, or as giving rise to, certain emotions ; as when we speak
of a deed done in cold blood, in' hot blood, or of bad
blood between two foes. And so the God of Israel selected
the blood as the emblem, or representative, of the individual
life which results from the action of the conjoined organ
ism. As, Lev. xvii. 12, 14, ii : "No soul [nephesK] of you
shall eat blood. For it is [or, represents] the soul [nephesh,
E. V. life] of all flesh : the blood of it is for the soul
[nephesh, E. V. life] thereof I have given it to you upon
the altar to make an atonement for your souls ; ' ' nephesh.
But it may be objected that i Thess. v. 23 does not fall
in with this Bible meaning of soul. In that passage, Paul
prays that " the whole of you, the spirit, and the soul, ana
the body, maybe preserved blameless [not unto as in E. V.,
but] in the appearing [Gr. parousia] of our Lord Jesus
Christ." It is claimed that this enumeration, "and soul

English Translators Acknowledge NO Difference. 1 1 3
and body," argues a distinction between the two, greater
than our definition permits, which, as we have seen in cer
tain cases at least, would make the two almost synonymous.
First, however, permit us to note that the same objection
applies with fatal force to the popular theory. For, ac
cording to that, except in some secondary meanings, soul
and sjiirit are the same; no distinction exists between the
two. And so, Webster presents the two as absolutely
identical. Spirit is defined : " the soul of man, the intel
ligent, immaterial, immortal part of human beings." Soul
is defined : " the spiritual, rational, and immortal part in
man." Moreover, Heb. iv. 12, speaks of "the dividing
asunder of soul and spirit." Two things which thus gen-
eric.illy can be divided asunder, belong to two different
classes ; they are not the same identical thing.
V But now for the objection that, if we define soul to be
organism, we fail to recognize the distinction between it
and the body, which the Bible requires.
Let us first understand how much distinction the Bible
really makes between the two. One who has not given
the subject attention, will be surprised to learn how litde
this is. ' We give, in Appendix D, a number of instances
where our translators themselves fail to recognize any dif
ference, for in those instances they actually translate the
Heb. word soul by the Eng. word body. And so the
word flesh, which popularly is thought to be as distinct as
possible from soul, sometimes in the Bible is used as an
other term for human beings, soul and body. E. g.. Gen.
vi, 12, 13: " ^ fiesh had corrupted his way upon the
earth. And God said unto Noah, the end of all fiesh is
come before me, for the earth is filled with violence through
them." And so "flesh " stands for soul, in Matt. xix. 5,
where our Lord quotes, " For this cause shall a man leave
father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they
two shall be one flesh," or, as is the equivalent expression,

1 14 The Bible Statement.
Acts iv. 32, "were one [not of one] heart and one soul."
Yielding up the individual interests of former days, the
married couple are henceforth to be one flesh, that is, one
soul, in the emotions, desires, purposes, that proceed from
one soul, or organism. Note still another example. When
our risen Lord would convince his disciples that.it was
really their Lord who stands before them, he appeals to
what? "Behold," he says, "my hands and my feet, that
it is I myself; handle me, and see." In handling him,
they handled flesh. The Word was made flesh.
l/^ But still it is evident i Thess. v. 23 presupposes some
difference between soul and body. What is it, then?
Precisely the difference, no more and no less, that in oui
English tongue exists between body and organism. Though
both terms denote the material frame, yet they give us
quite different ideas of it, as the observer looks at it from
two different stand-points.
The term body, as applied to man, critically used with
regard to the distinction between it and the organism,
brings him before us in the more rudimentary idea of a
physical mass, made up of so many material elements, or
particles, agglomerated together. As a body, the physicist
takes cognizance ofthe man as of any structure, in his rela
tions to the laws of matter.
The term soul, or organism, brings before us a highei
idea of man, embracing what is the peculiar study of the
physiologist. We regard him as the highest type, yet
known to us, of the orderly assemblage of different yet
mutually dependent organs, which, by their joint asso
ciation, form one individual, capable of receiving and
sustaining life. In this light, thought and action re
garded as the product of these organs, he becomes a
subject of study also for the moral philosopher and the
theologian. The distinction here stated is recognized in the language

Body Without Soul — No Soul Without Body. 115
of our Lord, Matt. vi. 25 : "Take no thought for your
soul [Gr. psyche, E. V. life], what ye shall eat or what ye
shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on."
The soul, here, is that assemblage of organs for which food
and drink are required as a condition necessary to the ex
ercise of its functions, and to the existence of the whole.
MVhile by contrast the body is viewed as a form of inert
matter, which is invested with clothing, as it is displayed
upon the wooden figures in our shop-windows ; and, in
some cases, it may be for no higher purpose.
But still it may be urged that this distinction is rather
a verbal than a tangible one ; tliat it must ever be impos
sible to present such a soul without a body. That may
be; for the idea of soul is so bound up with that of body,
that in i Cor. xv. 44 our present earthly body Paul de
nominates " psychikon soma," a psych-icsS. or soul-ical
body; in other words, an organized body. Yet let us
see if this distinction may not be evidence to outward
sense, as well as to our inward perceptions. If a soul
cannot be presented without a body, can we not present
a human body without a soul?
Let us suppose a healthy man falls into the water, and
is rescued just as life seems to be extinct. You make
every endeavor to resuscitate him ; you alternately com
press and expand the chest to supply needful air to the
lungs ; you omit nothing, if so be the vital principle, or
spirit, may not really be lost. But at last you give over
effort; it is all in vain. God has taken away that which
he alone can restore. What is this which lies before you ?
A dead body, you say. Yes ; and it is likewise, in
Bible language, a dead soul. The organization is intact ;
every organ is in place, and in such condition that the
vital spark alone is needed to set the human machinery in
motion again. A dead soul, as was Adam when our Maker
formed him of the dust of the ground, ere he breathed

Il6 The Bible Statement.
into his nostrils the breath of life, by which he became a
live, a living soul.
But now suppose, again, that a man has been caught and
drawn through between the heavy rollers of some powerful
machinery. Every organ is pressed into a shapeless mass ;
the very bones are comminuted. Hastily you stop the
machinery ; you gather up tenderly the undistihguishable
fragments ; you enclose them in a proper receptacle, that
you may give them decent burial. What have you now ?
A dead body, you say. Yes, it is all there : but not now, as
before, is it a dead soul. It was, but is no longer organized
matter; the organism, the soul, has been destroyed. The
former body needed but the word of the Almighty calling
back to it the breath of life, and, like the widow's son of
Nain, the man would "sit up and begin to speak; " this
latter body requires first the creating hand of the same Al
mighty power to form anew the destroyed organs.
But it may be asked : Can man literally destroy a soul?
What does the Bible say to this ? It replies : Temporarily,
relatively to this life. Yes ! " They smote all the souls
with the edge ofthe sword, utterly destroying them." But
permanently, in relation to absolute existence here or here
after, it replies. No ! " Fear not them who kill the body,
but are not able to kill the soul ; but rather fear him who
is able to destroy soul and body in Gehenna." From man's
destruction, there is a returning to life again. " In an
hour that is coming, all that are in their graves shall hear
the voice ' ' that shall call them forth from their silent rest
ing-places. But in the destruction from God's hand, in
his Gehenna fire, there is no return to life.' The wrath of
God will abide upon those who encounter that. Well may
we fear him who thus destroys !
Having thus stated the Bible doctrine of the nature of
the soul, we advance to an inquiry of practical interest.

Immortality of the Soul Conditional. 1 1 7
which already has been glanced at. It is the great f|iiestion
of man's destiny. What does the Bible teach of the future
of the soul? Has it a future? Can it po.ssess the immor
tality for which we long ? It can. Conditional immor
tality is within reach of all.
It is evident that man, a human soul, as the Bible defines
it, by the mere fact of his creation does not possess immor
tality. Adam was made capable of it, but he forfeited it
through his failure to observe the prescribed condition.
In conse()uence, mortality was stamped upon each of his
descendants ; and as each in turn fails to obey the Lord's
commands "which, if a man do he shall even live in
them," each one dies. Ceasing to exist, "his thoughts
jjcrish;" Psalm clvi. 4. Yet it is but for a time. The
Infinite Creator keeps that soul in remembrance, and in
the "appointed time," at the Resurrection, he restores
it again — restores the man himself, with his own char
acter, his old emotions, habits of thought and purpose, and
his memory, in fact, the same individual as before. If his
name is written in the Lamlj's book of life, if in this world
of his probation he has fulfilled the conditions of life
eternal, then the Almighty bestows upon him immortality
in a body ma<lc like unto his Lord's glorious body ; Phil.
iii. 21.
The precise nature of this "glorious body" has not been
revealed. Evidently some wonderful change takes place,
beyond the reach of present sense. The grosser elements
of our present earthy body are replaced by others more
subtile, more highly vitalized, more fully endued with
spirit, or the vital principle, and so called a spirit-body.
We may form some conception of this spirit-body from the
record of our Lord's resurrection body. In that, "born
[anothen] from above," Jno. iii. 3, he entered upon his
immortal, spiritual life, as "the first born from the
dead," Col. i. 18; " i\it first haxrx of many brethren,"

Ii8 The Bible Statement.
Rom. viii. 29; the first of those who, like theur Lord, by
a similar new-birth, are to enter upon the same spirit-life.
This is not the common idea of the new birth. That,
popular theology asserts, is but another name for con
version, or what the N. T. calls in the Gr. metanoia, re
pentance, or more exactly from its composition, change of
mind or purpose. But conversion is evidently not the new
birth, only the first step towards it. It is but the concep
tion ; not the completed birth, which, as in the first birth
or entrance into our present life, is yet dependent upon
many a contingency. To sustain its assertion, modern
theology actually teaches a palpable perversion of Christ's
words, one which with strange simplicity has been generally
accepted by us. Yet see how plain is the case against it.
Our Lord said to Nicodemus : " Except a man be born of
water and of [no article] spirit, he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is
flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit. 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. ' ' Our
Lord here presents a well known characteristic of the wind ;
unseen, it can come and go, thou knowest not whence or
whither ; so, he tells us, so is every one that has been born
of the spirit, thou canst not tell .whence he cometh or
whither he goeth ! Certainly, that is what our Lord said.
But modern theology has the hardihood here to interpolate,
or substitute, a word. It tells us this statement, "so is
every one," really is "so is [born] every one that is born
of the spirit ; ' ' that is, the manner of his birth is like the
wind ! Yet the word actually spoken was — " so is every
one. ' ' If modern theology takes such liberties with Christ's
words, it raises a question as to the actual value it assigns
to what he may have said on any subject !
From this human invention, which so evidently " makes

The New Birth at the Resurrection from the Dead. 1 19
void the word of God," turn now to an inspired expla
nation of the birth " from above," this spirit-birth. Paul,
testifying to the Jews of the resurrection of Jesus (see Acts
xiii. 30), declares, ver. 33 : " God hath raised up Jesus, as
it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my son,
this day have I begotten thee," or rather, brought thee
forth to birth ; the Gr. gennao bears both meanings, and
the latter, in this reference to Christ's resurrection, to, his
entrance on the new spirit-life, is evidently the correct one.
(Certainly, Christ was not that day begotten in the sense of
being conceived.) The s^me fact is alluded to in Rom. i.
4, where Paul speaks of "Jesus Christ our Lord, who was
made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and
declared to be the Son of God by the resurrection from the
dead. ' '
And the illustration our Lord gave Nicodemus of the
manner of life of those born by the new spirit-birth, an
swers to the record of his own life after his resurrection.
He did then come and go like the unseen wind. Appear
ing and disappearing at will (Luke xxiv. 31, 37), no one
knew his abiding place. Again and again he comes to the
disciples, when "the doors were shut [firmly, no doubt]
for fear of the Jews," Jno. xx. 19, 26. On occasions he
partook with the disciples of ordinary food, as on the even
ing of his resurrection, Luke xxiv. 43, and at the Sea of
Galilee,' Jno. xxi, 13 ; as did Jehovah and the two angels
at the tent of Abraham, Gen. xviii. 8. And yet we can
not believe this as essential to his existence as during his
mortal life. Read the suggestive allusions of our Lord to
the future life. Matt. xxvi. 29, Luke xxii. 30. We observe
he speaks of himself as possessing flesh and bones, Luke
xxiv. 39, but Paul says, "flesh and blood [note, he does
not say flesh ^r blood] cannot inlierit the kingdom of God,"
which is to come when " this mortal puts on immortality."
What, in our Lord's spirit-body, took the place of the cir-
II

120 The Bible Staternent.
culating fluid, of earthy, mortal blood? We are not told ;
probably we could not now understand it. No less com
prehensible is this, than the fact that, in the spirit-body,
he came into an apartment closed against human intrusion,
or that he should vanish from human vision while the eye
was fixed upon him. As one, before ' ' born of water, and
[now] born of spirit ' ' (Gr. ek,from viatex,from spirit, geni
tive of material (as Jno. ix. 6) ; our present body nine-tenths
"of water," our next, a spirit-hody), he had entered into
the spirit-life ; he experienced at his Resurrection that
change foretold of all then redeemed from death, who then
"put on immortality."
For, such. will be the saints of the Resurrection. "We
know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him,"
I Jno. iii. 2. As those early disciples, we also "wait for
his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even
Jesus (i Thess. i. lo), who shall change our vile body that
it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body ; " Phil. iii.
21. "For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth
for the manifestation of the sons of God ; " Rom. viii. 19.
Then our organism, or soul, in a spirit-body becomes capa
ble of powers as yet to us unknown : powers of intellect
in the receiving, tracing out, storing up knowledge ; of
capacity for enjoyment ; of motion ; of unwearying exer
tion. "They that wait for [see Isa. xxv. 7-9] the Lord,
shall renew their strength, they shall run and not be weary,
they shall walk and not faint ; " Isa. xl. 31. "The redeemed
of the Lord shall return, and come with singing unto
Zion; and everlasting joy shall be upon their head : they
shall obtain gladness and joy, and sorrow and mourning
shall flee away;" Isa. Ii. 11. Then they receive "the
gift of God, eternal life."
This "Resurrection to life," Jno. v. 29, which alone is
detailed to us by the Apostle in i Corinthians xv., is a
resurrection of the soul, or Organism : it is no't a resurrec-

Is the Self-same Body Raised? 121
tion of the body ; either of 'that which the man had at
death, or which he had ten, twenty, forty years before.
The elementary particles of matter which go to make up
the body are ever changing, no two days exactly the same.
The resurrection is of the organism, on which the life of
the individual depends, but then in an entirely different, a
wonderfully changed body.
Here again we find ourselves at variance with modern
theology. The Westminster Confession of Faith declares :
"All the dead shall be raised with the self -same bodies."
This question must be decided by the word of God.
So explicitly, in i Cor. xv., does Paul discuss and state
this very point, that we need but quote his words :
" But some one will say ; How are dead ones [no article]
raised up, and with what body do they come? Thou
foolish one [Gr. aphron, without, or not using reason],
that which thou sowest is not made alive [zoopoied], except
it die, and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that
body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat
or of some other grain. But God giveth it a body as it
hath pleased him, and to every seed its own body . . .
So also is the resuifrection of dead ones. It is sown [im
personal Gr., there is a sowing] in corruption [corruptible],
there is a raising in incorruption [incorruptible]. There
is sown a natural body, there is raised a spiritual body.
As we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also
bear the image of the heavenly. The dead shall be
raised incorruptible, and we [disciples of Christ remaining
alive unto the coming of the Lord, i Thess. iv. 15] shall
be changed."
This change of the living is in what? In their bodies.
It is the change which occiirs when this mortal puts on
immortality: it is the change from the natural to the
spiritual body, from the body corruptible to the incor
ruptible. But Paul tells us that the dead are raised in-

122 The Bible Statement.
corruptible ; it is, then, thus changed that they are raised,
with this incorruptible spirit-body. Then their old body
has been left in the grave, and so it is not "with the
self-same body ' ' that they are raised ; and yet the West
minster Confession of Faith says that it is !
Strange that our religious teachers can uphold so palpa
ble a contradiction of Scripture. Possibly they do not
allow themselves to think about it. But for those whose
duty it is to know "what saith the Scripture," will that
excuse avail in the day of account? — with him who said
to his ministers of old ; " For the, priest's lips should keep
knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth;
for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts ; " Mal. ii. 7.
Why is it that modern theology so plainly contradi.cts
the Apostle ? It is the inevitable result of the dogma that
the soul never dies. For, if the soul does not die, // can
not have a, resurrection. Life cannot be restored to that
which never lost it. Yet something has a resurrection.
This something must be the body then, if the body is all
that dies. And thus is deliberately falsified the word of
an Apostle ! An awkward position surely, a very uncom
fortable one, for modern theology on the question of its
own reliability. The only possible way out is to assume
that the Apostle Paul was not fully acquainted with all the
facts in the case ; or, to repeat the statement of two of our
religious teachers, as quoted Chapter I., " No doubt at the
present day we know more of spiritual things than did the
Apostles." Let others profess greater knowledge; we
prefer to receive the truth from one who delivers to us
that which he received from the Lord himself. Compare
Gal. i. II, 12, and i Cor. xv. 3.
Possibly, modern theology may think to defend itself by
Isa. xxvi. 19: " Together with my dead body shall they
arise." But that were grasping a sword by the blade, in
the effort of self-defence. Read the whole passage : " Thy

Bible Declares the Resurrection of the Dead. 123
dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they
arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust." Now,
will modern theology tell us, on its theory, who they are,
and where they are, any "dead men," so dead that their
life is yet future, who may be expected to "awake" to life?
But the expression "my dead body" presents no real dif
ficulty to the earnest seeker for the truth. Scripture does
not contradict itself. Paul does not contradict Isaiah.
As Paul's statement is so much more detailed and specific,
and as he no doubt was as familiar as we, and more, with
the passage in Isaiah, it is fair to assume that he under
stands the prophet to use the word "body" precisely as we
often use it, for organism, that is, the man himself, as
" flesh " is again and again used in Scripture for man him
self. E. g.. Gen. vi. 12, i Pet. i. 24, etc. As, on the
other hand, soul or organism is used to denote the dead
body, as where our translators so render the Heb. nephesh,
soul. {See Appendix D.)
No, indeed. Holy Scripture does not teach the fiction of
the resurrection of the body, which is set forth in the
standards of the church of to-day. Every one knows that
the so-called Apostles' Creed did not originate with those
whose name it bears, but not every one observes that one
passage in it not only is not expressed in Bible language,
but that it contradicts the recorded belief, or creed, of the
Apostle, when it declares, "I believe in the resurrection
of the body." In the words of inspiration it should be, I
believe in the resurrection of the dead (or of dead ones,
anastasis nekron), — as, very possibly, it was originally
written. It is in evidence, as a matter of history, that in
that Creed the phrase, "he descended into hades," which
already had been expressed by "was buried," is an addi
tion of later times.
We desire to call attention to an important corollary
from the doctrine of the resurrection of the soul, or or-
II*

124 1^^^^ Bible Statement.
ganism, as set forth in i Cor. xv. Already (Chap. IV.)
we have had the testimony of Paul showing that the soul
was made of ' ' earthy ' ' material. There we showed he
denies that it is immaterial ; here, again he declares :
Neither is it immortal. The argument is very simple.
Take it even on modern theology's own ground, which
defines man to be part body and part soul. (See page 34.)
The question then will be : Which of these parts of a man
has a resurrection, a restoration to life ? It is not the body,
as Paul declares, 1 Cor. xv. 35-53. There is a change,
not a resurrection, of the body. A new spirit-body takes
the place of the old one. Then it is the soul to which
the resurrection appertains — it is that which is restored to
life. But for this to be possible the soul must have once
lost its life ; then it is not inherently immortal.
The argument as such is now complete. We have con
sidered the question. Is the popular conception of the
soul that of the Bible ? We found it was not. We next
inquired. What, then, is the Bible doctrine of the soul?
The results of that inquiry are now before the reader. We
have stated what we believe Holy Writ teaches of .the nature
of the human soul, and of its future destiny for those who
attain the prize of immortality. Many a reader has doubt
less started back at statements and conclusions so utterly
at variance with popular ideas, and some may loudly assert
such a doctrine cannot be true. Why not ? What will
you believe ? Do you cling to the dogma that the soul
never dies ? In this chapter alone you have sufficient evi
dence that that dogma cannot be true. You perceive that
it necessitates either a denial of the resurrection, or else
it must assume, as it does, that the resurrection is a resur
rection of the body, which is explicitly denied by the
word of God. There is no middle ground. One clear,
explicit Bible contradiction of the dogma of inherent im
mortality, which distinguishes modern theology from the

Is Evohied from the Bible Itself. 125
old and Biblical, one such contradiction is fatal to it.
Has there been but one shown you ?
Whatever conclusion, reader, you may come to, remem
ber these indisputable facts. This doctrine of the nature
and destiny of the soul has been evolved from the Bible
itself; not a position has been taken, but it has been sub
stantiated by full Bible proof, and more was at hand if
needed; not one that was in conflict with a single clear
statement of Holy Writ : while on the other hand, it has
just been proved to you that the generally accepted, pop
ular theology, in its best known Creed and its Confession
of Faith, openly teaches a direct and palpable contradic
tion of God's word.
But there are souls of whose future we have not spoken ;
those who, in this world of trial and testing, this mere
preparation-world for one to come, have given themselves
only to present and selfish gratification, who have abused
their exalted powers and their great opportunity. What
resurrection shall theirs be? Not a "resurrection to life,"
but a "resurrection to judgment." They will be raised
with mortal bodies, for they are to die, — to die the second
death. Created rational yet choosing to be irrational, "as
animals irrational by nature [aloga zoa physikd], made to
be taken and destroyed, they shall utterly perish ; " 2 Pet.
ii. 12. When the decision was in their own hands, they
by their life here "judged themselves unworthy of ever
lasting life." Raised to judgment, on trial had, they shall
be adjudged to death, as unworthy indeed to live.
But more detailed testimony in regard to the revealed
future of the soul will be desired. And in the succeed
ing chapters we shall more fully consider man's destiny;
seeking to learn how and what the Bible has taught of
immortality for the righteous, and also what it teaches is
in reserve for the wicked.

CHAPTER IX.
The Destiny of the Soul. The Doctrine of Im
mortality in the Old Testament.
IT is no easy matter, concisely and yet satisfactorily, to
set before the reader a subject on which the Bible has
so much to say. The doctrine of a future life is the
great truth which the Holy Scriptures are specially intended
to reveal. " The Bible is the book of life, or,liiore exactly,
the book of the way of life. As there is a popular misap
prehension that this truth is but obscurely recognized in
the. Old Testament, let us first go to that, and learn how
the Creator revealed this fact to men of a former age.
In the very outset of revelation, conditional immor
tality, life dependent upon obedience, appears its great
fundamental truth. We open the sacred volume, and read
its grand introduction; how "that things which are seen
were not made of things which do appear," they ^were
spoken into being by the word of the Almighty ; how the
earth was formed, and clothed with verdure and animal
races, till finally man himself appears upon the scene, and
into his hand all is given. Then comes the subject-matter
of the book. In successive detail we are told of immor
tality, conditionally offered, but lost through disobedience;
of the promise of its restoration through a coming deliverer;
how this truth of the way of life was held up to view through
the ages ; how in the time appointed the deliverer came,
to give his life for the forfeited life of the race ; how his
sacrificed life was restored, a life immortal ; how he is now
engaged in preparing for the restoration to a similar life
of those who comply with the prescribed condition ; and
finally, in prophetic vision, is set before us_the great con-
126

The Test of Obedience. 127
summation— ofLj£d£m4ationIs^HQrk, _th£ promised..ammor-
*^i^^yfJ:^^LS!£I£SkJM5£?.S^ "P°P the adopted 'ispns and
daugEters^f theLord Almighty."
The record of the fitting up a place for man's' abode dis
closes the simple yet decisive means by which the Creator
set before our first parents this truth of immortality con
ditioned on obedience. We read :
"And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden;
and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out
of the ground made the Lord to grow every tree that is ^
pleasant to the sight, and good for food ; the tree of life
also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowl
edge of good and evil; " Gen.'ii. 8, 9.
The test of obedience was thus provided. The man is
told he may freely eat of all the trees of the garden with
the exception of the last mentioned. If he disobeys this
simple restriction, he must die ; but as long as he eats not [
of the tree of the knowledge of good. andjexiCso. long ,he 1
ma^a1:_of the tree of life". The decision is thus left in -
the creafure's own hand. Innocent and pure was our first
parent as he came into being ; what shall be his character,
whether holy or sinful, is for him to choose ; for not yet
has he the knowledge of good and evil. That will come
either as, on the one hand, he steadfastly resists, or, on the
other, he yields to, the temptation set before him. That
trial of his obedience was not a hard one ; but in it he
failed; he ate of the tree of which the Lord commanded
he should not eat. And the fancied tree of happiness
proved to him a very tree of death. ,
It is the same testing that, in one form or another, has
been going on through the centuries since — its present and
its ultimate result the same. By it, the character of each
is determined holy or sinful, and by it is decided the destiny
of each hereafter. As then, so now, life is setj)ver against
death, and each one chooses for himself.

128 Immortality in the Old Testament.
The exact meaning in this connection of the words, life
and death, the sacred record here puts beyond all question.
In popular religious speech, in theological writings, there
is some ambiguity as to the meaning of these words ; none
whatever here. "Life" is simply life; it is used in its
primary sense of existence ; and its opposite is the loss of
that life. When the man had sinned and forfeited his life,
we are told of the means used to prevent any possible arrest
of impending death. We read. Gen. iii. 22 :
"And the Lord God said. Behold the man is become as
one of us, to know good and evil [he knows what it is to
be sinful, what it was to be innocent] : and now, lest he
put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and
eat, and live forever ; -:- therefore the Lord sent him forth
! from the garden."
There is no possible mistaking or misstating, here, the
language of Holy Writ. It is on record that it was not to
deprive him of those trees, " pleasant to the sight and good
for food," that Adamjwas sent out of Paradije: it is ex-
pressly stated that it was to take from him- one special
object, the tree of life. It was to take from him the power
to thwart that sentence of death by a continuous eating of
the tree of life, and thus to " live on forever : " it was to
prevent such indefinite continuance of his existence.
We cannot overestimate the importance of this to the
point under discussion. It is really decisive. In this
opening of revelation, it defines, once for all, the Biblical
meaning of the word life ; and, as it shows us what the life
lost in the Fall, so if shows us what the life regained in_
" redeniptron. And as the details of that great work are suc
cessively disclosed in the Bible narrative, this must be the
life which is constantly referred to. The word here de
clares the reward of obedience ; it expresses that which was
lost by disobedience ; can we believe that, anywhere in
the book of life, that word arbitrarily and without warning

Theological Varieties of Death. 1 29
departs from this established meaning? Could the word
life be changed, as some assert, to mean happiness, which
may or may not be a concomitant of life ? When the Lord
Jehovah says to Adam's descendants, " Hear [with the im
plied idea, obey], and your soul shall live," Isa. Iv. 3, does
he mean. Hear, and your soul shall be happy? When the
Lord Jesus says, Jno. vi. 35, "I am the bread of life,"
does he mean bread of happiness ? Or, when he says, ver.
58, "Your fathers did eat manna and are dead, he that
eateth of this bread shall live forever," does he mean, shall v
be happyTorever? TheiT'iPsIiotild'read, your fathers did'
eat manna, and are unhappy !
Establishing thus the Biblical meaning of life, establishes
also the Biblical meaning of its opposite, death. When
the latter word is used independently, that is, without any
accompanying modification of its meaning, it must then
bear, in the Bible, its primary meaning of loss of existence.
If ever used figuratively, that fact, according to the uni
versal law of human language already (Chap. I.), noted,
must be made apparent beyond a question.
Contrast, now, the simplicity of the Bible conception of
death with that of modern theology. The word of God
recognizes death as the literal loss of life : the first death,
when man dies, or loses life, the first time; the second
death, when the wicked man loses life a second time, after
it had been restored to him by a resurrection. In the first
as in the second death, the word holds the same, its natural,
meaning. But modern theology, to meet the exigencies' of its theory
that man does not actually die, has invented three theo
logical kinds of actual death, not one of them actually
death, or loss of existence, i. Temporal death, or separa
tion of its hypothetical soul from the body. No actual
death here ; the individual lives on, according to modern
theology. 2. Spiritual death, in which are all mankind by

130 Immortality in the Old Testament.
nature. This is not actual death, it is but figurative. The
man is living, but is dead to spiritual things. Modern
theology tells us he has lost the favor of God, while in
fact he is receiving from him wonderful favor and mercy !
3. A death, which modern theology substitutes for the
second death in the Bible, following the judgment. This,
again, is no actual death, or loss of life, for the wicked
dead. Nor is it for them even a loss of happiness, for
that was lost before. Instead of being any death at all, it
actually is life forever, in aggravated misery. These three
varieties are all of modern theology's actual deaths (so-
called) that apply to man. Of course, it .also recognizes a
fourth variety, a bond fide loss of existence, for the lower
animals ; but human beings, it claims, have nothing to do
with that. (The first and third named deaths are further
considered. Chap. XIII. sec. 3.)
Now, we are told it was the second variety of these
deaths that Adam suffered as the penalty of sin ; that it
was this which was intended when death, or loss of life,
was threatened him as the penalty of disobedience. But,
certainly, it was not so stated with any definiteness, and it
is difficult to understand how Adam could have so under
stood it, with the meaning of life already defined to him
by the tree of life, which gave continued existence.
f; To sustain itself on this point, modern theology quotes
I tlie words of the threatened penalty : "In the day thou
eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die;" Gen. ii. 17. It
says: "In that twenty-four hours day, Adam, we know,
did not die as we usually understand the word [i. e., theo
logical death. No. i] ; therefore, the word die must have a
different [a figurative ?] meaning : he died a spiritual
death" [i. e.. No. 2]. (Here modern theology itself ap
peals to the Law of the Literal and the Figurative, as laid
down in Chap. I.) But it should be remembered that, in
Gen., ii. 17, our version attempts to render a peculiar

Bible Explanation of "Dying thou shalt Die!' 131
Hobrew idiom into English. Our translators, recognizing
the difficulty of thus rendering exactly the Heb. infinitive
and verb combined, give more nearly the original in the
margin, "dying thoii shalt die." We observe in this very
passage that a corresponding expression, as given in mar
gin, "eating thou shalt eat" (Heb. infinitive with verb),
is rendered in text, "thou mayst freely eat." Evidently,
some freedom of translation, then, is required in a correct
rendering into English. Just what then does the Heb.
mean? Fortunately, we have exactly this expression used in the
Heb. of I Kings ii. 42, in circumstances where its English
meaning is apparent beyond a question. In his interview
with Shimei, King Solomon says : " Did I not protest unto
thee, saying, know for a certain on the day thou goest out
[of Jerusalem], that thou shalt surely die;" Heb. dying
thou shaft die. It is most evident that at their first inter
view, neither Solomon nor Shimei understood that Shimei
should surely die within the identical twenty- four hours in
which he should transgress. The Jewish day ended at sun
set ; he might go forth a few minutes before its close. At
that second interview, some days had passed since Shimei
broke through the restraining law, yet the words of the
previously announced penalty are quoted as still bearing
upon the case; Plainly, their meaning was that Shimei,
on the day he transgressed, should bring himself under
the penalty of death ; he becomes one doomed to death.
Precisely so it is, when the same Heb. words are used in
narrating the penalty threatened Adam. And that the
Lord so intended to be understood, and referred to literal
death, we perceive in his announcement of the sentence of
death for Adam's disobedience : " Forasmuch as thou hast
eaten, . . . dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return;"
Gen. iii. 19. Returning to dust, he must die; he must
lose his life, his existence.

132 Immortality in the Old Testament.
We observe, in passing, that the modern theological
belief that the death penalty for sin is spiritual death, or
loss of God's favor, in its attempts at consistency, leads to
harsh views of God's character, such as would delight the
Evil one himself, whose first step in tempting Eve was to
malign the goodness of God: "Yea, hath God said ye
shall not eat of all the trees ofthe garden? " — is he so un
kind as to wish to deprive you of so slight a gratification ?
We have heard, not alone in popular speech, but from re
ligious teachers, that the Heavenly Father cursed those who
had sinned, who, we are told, had lost his favor. But, how
untrue ! In Infinite mercy, the God of all grace came to
seek his fallen creatures, who, as so many now, sought to
hide themselves from the love that would save. The great
adversary himself received a direct curse ; — - he might be
called spiritually dead in the technical sense, he had actually
lost the favor of God ; — but no curse fell upon Adam.
The ground- was cursed " for his sake. " Why? In evident
mercy. "Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth," that
man henceforth may gain his livelihood by the sweat of his
face, for the merciful reason that idleness in sin would in
sure the total ruin of x\dam and of all his posterity; labor,
now that he has sinned, is a blessing indeed. And the
woman was brought into the pains and infirmities of ma
ternity, and into subjection to her husband, that she too
might find occupation, and also protection from the sin
and violence henceforth to rule in a fallen world. Indeed,
it was in Infinite love that the Almighty came near to the
fallen ones. His own Son was to be born of the race ; He
could not deal harshly with them.
In the very sentence pronounced upon the tempter to
evil, in that declaration of his coming destruction, is em
bodied the word of mercy and deliverance for his deluded
victims. The seed of the woman was promised, who,
though the adversary should crush his heel, should himself

Significant Name of Eve. 133
crash the head (the vital part) of the serpent, thus deliver
ing those the evil one had brought into bondage to death.
All that passed between the Creator and the sinning pair
is by no means recorded in Gen. iii. 9-19 ; yet from what
follows we perceive how they understood the announce
ment made to them. Immediately following the word of
the death sentence, "unto dust shalt return," we are
abraptly yet significantly told that Adam gave his wife a
new name. He calls her "Life," who had just brought
this death upon them.
Is there not meaning in this ? He intended it as a name
of honor, as were the new names of Abraham, Sarah, Israel.
It ¦was to comfort and cheer the deceived and now crushed
woman, no doubt reproaching herself as the guilty cause of
their great trouble. It was a reminder of the great Promise
just given them. As often as the word Eve, Heb. Havah,
life, passed from husband to wife, it turned their thoughts
from the past, with its bitter memories, from their present,
with its sin and impending death, to a future immortal >
life. For a higher life was to replace the life lost in Eden —
the Paradise of innocence was to be restored a Paradise of
holiness. She, who had been an instrument of ending in
them and in their posterity the present life, was yet, through
one who should call her mother, to be the means of giving
them the future life. "And Adam called his wife's name.
Eve [Life], because she was the mother of all living'ones,"
not the mother of all human beings, but specially of all
who should have that glorious life. It was a name of
promise ; in that sad hour, it brought to them a gleam of
hope and of coming joy. It reminded them that that tree
of life was not utterly lost to them.
And yet in the years to come, more and more deeply was
impressed upon the ageing pair their present loss of that
tree of life. As disease and the gradual decay of their
natural powers came creeping over them, as sight, hearing,

134 Immortality in the Old Testament.
muscular power, were found to fail, how often must their
thoughts have turned to that great gift, once theirs, now
theirs no longer, that could have remedied these advancing
infirmities, the precursors of a final arrest of all the func
tions of the organism, or soul.
And 50_J±ie_remembrance of, and the longing for, that
tree of life abides in the" thought of the race. In Holy
Writ it is brought before us in the sayings of the wise mari,
who tells us how it may be again attained. We read of it
in the completion as in the beginning of God's revelation.
In the Apocalypse, "that revelation of things which must
shortly come to pass," as, in prophetic vision. Redemp
tion's work is disclosed in its final accomplishment, when
what was lost in the Fall will be restored, in the Paradise
Regained the long lost tree of life reappears. There is "a
pure river of water of life, proceeding out of the throne
of God and of the Lamb. And on either side of the river,
the tree of life;" Rev. xxii. i, 2. In the verse immedi
ately preceding, we read of those who partake of that life-
giving water and fruit ; it is " they who are written in the
Lamb's book of life." The simple, natural significance
which inspiration has already attached fo the word life,
as connected with the tree of life, fixes its meaning here.
For it is the same word for the tree, the river, the book of
life. And as in the earlier Paradise, this life is still condi
tioned on obedience. He who reveals that future declares :
" Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they
may have right to the tree of life; " Rev. xxii. 14. They
receive "the gift of God, eternal life." They live forever,
when the disobedient and unholy, who have lost all right
to the tree of life, have forever passei^ out of existence.
But just when that coming restoration of life was to be
received, just when that coming deliverer was to appear,
the first pair evidently knew not. As it is now, they were

The Coming One to Come Again. 135
to hope and wait, and hope still. When her first-born
came into the world. Eve thought she had gotten the
promised deliverer, and so she named the little stranger
Cain (in the Heb. gotten), saying: "I have gotten the
man, even Jehovah ; ' ' not, from Jehovah, as in our ver
sion. She thought it was the promised Yahveh, or Yehovah,
the coming one, " He who will be," as is the literal He
brew of the name the Lord gives himself, Exod. iii. 14:
" I will be that I will be," not, as in E. V., " I am that I
am." * She found herself disappointed, and her bitter
disappointment finds expression in the name of her second
son, Habel, vanity.
But since that day her expectation Has been fulfilled, in
part, at least, though, in the sleep of death, as yet she
knows it not. " When the fulness of time was come, God
sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under law,
to redeem them that were under law, that we might receive
the adoption of sons; " Gal. iv. 4. The coming one, "He
who will be ' ' has been born into the world — to die for
his redeemed. And the rest of Eve's hope has yet to be
fulfilled. " For the earnest expectation of the creature
waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God; " Rom.
¦* That the Hebrew future should here be rendered as a future, not
a continuous present, is evident from Exod. vi. 3 : " And I appeared
unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Al
mighty \_El Shaddai'] ; but by my name, Jehovah, was I not known to
them." But, Gen. xxii. 14, we read Abraham used the name of
Jehovah in giving name to a locality. In reality, the Heb. word
rendered known, Exod. vi. 3, has the meaning perceived (as E. V.
renders it, Isa. vi. 9), or comprehended. In his personal dealings with
the patriarchs, God was to them rather the Almighty than " He who
will be" to help, a Deliverer, as he was now to manifest himself to
Israel in delivering them from Egypt. The Septuagint renders Exod.
vi. 3 : " My name, Lord, I did .not manifest unto them." See The
Memorial Name, by Alex. Mac'Whorter; Gould & Lincoln, Boston,
Mass. 12*

136 Immortality iri the Old Testament.
viii. 19. The sacrifice of atonement has been offered.
The great High Priest has carried the blood of it — "his
own " (Heb. ix. 12) — into the most holy place (Lev. xvi.
15), and " to them that look for him shall he appear the
second time without sin unto salvation;" Heb. ix. 28.
At his first coming, in his death, his heel was crushed by
Satan's malice ; at his appearing the second time, he will
crush in utter destruction the head of his adversary. Re
demption's work will be accomplished, when he shall give
to the redeemed the promised immortality; that "salva
tion ready to be revealed in the last time," for which some
have waited, though unconsciously, so long.
But the great truth of a future immortality was yet more
vividly revealed to the men of that earliest dispensation.
We read. Gen. iii. 24 :
"So he drove out the man : and he placed at the east
j of the garden of Eden, cherubim, and a flaming sword
' [not which turned every way, but literal Heb. J, turning
itself, to keep the way of the tree of life."
What was the object of this ? It has been supposed it
was to keep all intruders from the tree of life, but that
by no means exhausts the full meaning of the statement.
If it was to keep, to guard, the tree itself, why was it not
so expressed ? or, why was not the tree, if now no longer
needed, destroyed, or taken away. But observe, the tree
is left standing, and these special preparations, we are told,
were made to keep, or guard, the way ofit\\t tree of life.
Evidently it was the way of life itself, which was thus
so carefully kept before, as well as for, the race that had
lost it. This will be still more apparent, if we learn the
nature and purport of these objects, by which the way of
life was preserved.
Uliat was the flaming sword? or, literal Heb., the flame
of a sword turning itself, as if instinct with life. It is easy

What the Cherubim? 137
to see this was the same mysterious emblem of Jehovah's
presence, which in later years manifested itself in the burn-
¦ ing bush and in the cloudy pillar. The infinite mercy of
the Almighty thus manifested itself; keeping the tree of
life from the sinning, to whom endless existence were an
endless curse, and yet keeping it in remembrance now, in.
promise hereafter, for the holy, to whom only that life
were a blessing.
And what the cherubim (not cherubims, it is Heb. plural
of cherub) ; what the story they unfolded ?
The allusion to them here in Genesis is of the briefest.
What definite knowledge we have of them comes from
writers of a later day, who wrote for those to whom their
forms were less familiar. The cherubim are presented to
us as images, or as seen in prophetic vision. They are
next referred to in the tabernacle, the dwelling-place (Exod.
xxv. 8) of the pod of Israel. Moses was ordered to make
of beaten gold two, one on each end of the mercy-seat
which covered the ark. As no directions are given for
making them, but only as to their position, we may judge
their appearance was too well known at that day to require
description. Besides these, two colossal ones of olive
wood covered with gold were in Solomon's temple, making
four in all.
Four cherubim appear later in the visions of Ezekiel, and
are described chapters i. 5-24, x. 1-22. We learn they had
the general " likeness of a man," but with four faces apiece,
of man, ox, lion, and eagle, four wings, a man's hand on
each side under their wings, straight feet, the soles of
their feet like the sole of a calf's foot, their body, back,
hands, and wings full of eyes. To go in any direction they
needed not to turn themsel-ves ; they "ran and returned
as the appearance of a flash of lightning."
The four cherubim of Ezekiel appear again in the visions
of the Apocalypse, though that fact is obscured by our trans-

138 Immortality in the Old Testament.
lators, who call them "beasts." The Gr. so translated,
zoa (from zoe, life), is the word in the Septuagint for Heb.
hayoth, Ezek. i. 5, etc., which our version there renders
"living creatures," as it should also have done in the
Revelation. The beast of Rev. xiii. is Gr. therion. As
if to suggest to us that these strangely complex creatures
are not actual beings, we have in the Revelation a varia
tion in their appearance, as might be permitted to a mere
symbol, The four faces are distributed, one to each
cherub or living creature, and they have each six, in-'
Stead of four wings ; in other respects they are alike.
And here, in the Revelation, we discover beyond ques
tion what they symbolize. Addressing the Lamb, they say,
"Thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of
every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation ; and
hast made us unto our God kings and priests, and we
shall reign on the earth ; " Rev. v. 9, 10. They symbolize
then, we see, not angels, but men, not redeemed indi
viduals, but the entire class, "redeemed out of every kin
dred and tongue." But why are such figures used to
shadow forth the redeemed ? What means this strange
collection of incongruous emblems in one complex whole ?
It is a pictorial representation of an idea, a hieroglyph of
abstract qualities, such and so many, as could not be pre
sented to the eye, except by combining different represen
tatives of these mental and physical attributes ; in which
combination, the symmetry or beauty of the whole is com
pletely subordinated to the expressiveness of the symbol it
self. In the cherubic symbol we behold the patient, steady
industry of the ox, the courage of the lion, the lofty flight
and keen sight of the eagle, the intellectual capacity of
man, the operative dexterity of the human hand, the quick.
and comprehensive vision of numberless eyes, the un
wearied motor power of many wings : all betokening a
future existence for the redeemed man of a nature so far

Cherubim Associated with Deity. 139
beyond our experience or conception, that it could be
expressed only by thus crowding type on type, emblem
on emblem.
We recognize the cherubim, then, as in the ^bsence.of
written language, "iTnecessary means of revealing to the
race what inan in his _ redeemed, glorified. stat£.JwiJL..be.
To the men of primeval days, silently yet unceasingly,
they preached the gospel of faith ; the old, old story of
a Deliverer to come, and of the high exaltation he has
in store for those who live in expectation of his coming.
For, as an essential element of the cherubic story, stands
forth the strangely intimate association that redeemed man
is to have with Deity Himself In Eden after the fall, the
cherabim first appear ; beside that sword of flame, " turn
ing itself," as if with life, the symbol of Jehovah's pres
ence, as were the flame of the bush and the inner fire of
the cloudy pillar. In tabernacle and temple, God's earthly
dwelling, their station is in the most holy place, even on
the Mercy-seat itself Jehovah is addressed : " Thou that
dwellest between the cherubim." Ezekiel in vision never
sees them, except as with the glory of the God of Israel.
And as the beloved Apostle beholds them, it is even ' ' in
the midst of the throne, and round about the throne ! " Rev.
iv. 6. Wonderful, indeed, that revelation of man's coming
future; inconceivably grand and glorious ! "For since the
beginning of the world, men have not heard or perceived by
the ear, neither hath the eye seen a God beside thee, who
doeth so for him that waiteth for Him; " Isa. Ixiv. 4, margin.
Deeply indeed we may believe the truth these strange
figures portended, was engraven upon the expecting hearts
of our first parents. In the next generation but one, we
read of a clearer perception of the truth. Gen. iv. 26 :
"Then began men to invoke by the name Yahveh" (or
Yehovah) ; He who will be, the Coming One. They be
gan to pray in the name of the Coming One. They now

140 Immortality in the Old Testament.
recognize and address their God as Himself the coming
Deliverer from death, who "brings to light life and im-,
mortality." Our present English version of Gen. iy. 26
is but nonsense : " then began men to call upon the name
of the Lord ; " ^^- as if they never prayed before !
But how long did that prohibited garden and its tree of
life remain a memorial of original innocence, and of fprr
feited life immortal ? How long did those symbolic figures
there abide, in conjunction with the token of Jehovaji's
presence, as a pledge of a yet more glorious, immortality,
that " forever with the Lord " ? How long ? Sijrely, till
the deluge. It was not for Adam and Eve alone that the
cherubim vvere there set up, and that Jeho'vah's presence
kept the way of the tree of life. It v^^as for all who had
faith in his word. It was the place where men of that age
might resort for worship, and, in the symbols before them,
gaze upon the pictured story of an immortality of surpass
ing glory fgr those li'ving noyt in faith of the thus revealed
future. For we perceive that the cherubim were not, as so many
suppose, angel-guardians of the tree of life. They were
symbolic figures or images; and, as we gather from the
pattern shown to Moaes in the Mount and followed in the
tabernacle, they were plaqed in the attitude of deepest
attention and worship, on each side of that lambent, life
like column of flame ; in a position, not to receive man's
homage, like idol irnages of heathendom facing those who
came to worship, but re'^^erently turned to that whiqh sym
bolized his presence, who alone is worthy to be praised.
So in Rev, iv. 5, their attitjidg and occupation are that of
adoring worship.
To that holy spot we may believe Cain and Abel brought
their offerings. And as often in the history of the chosen
people the descending fire attested the Lord's acceptance
of his people's gift, so here, doubtless, from the column of

The Deluge a Type. 141
flame, the fire leaped forth to take that sacrifice, which dis
played the humble faith of the offerer, as it typified the
coming Lamb, who was to die in the stead of his sinful
yet penitent worshipper. It was to that presence Cain refers,
as, going forth a fugitive and a wandei'er from these famil
iar scenes, he says : "And from Thy face shall I be hid."
Certainly, it is but reasonable to conclude that this early
sanctuary in Eden remained Earth's holy place until the
deluge. He, who so fully reveals himself and his plan for
our salvation, would not leave that dearly purchased salva
tion without a manifest witness. But with the ending of
that dispen.sation, the abiding column of fire withdraws,
and with it disappear those cherubic forms. In that seven-
day interval between Noah's entrance into the ark and the
coming flood, when we read, "the Lord shut him in,"
we may believe that living fire kept its guard over the
ark, protecting its inmates from the intrusion or malice
of scoffing foes without. For " the Angel-Jehovah en-
campeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth
them." And now rises before the world's gaze another pictured
story of the coming future. We behold the old pledge of
safety and life, but it shows out against a darker back
ground ; — the loss is now, not of privilege and opportu
nity, but of existence itself No symbolic figure here
mutely appeals for a nobler, higher life: it is an instal
ment of the coming doom itself ! Its thunder tones startle
tho.se who heeded not the long waiting call to life and im
mortality. A deluge of water wipes out a guilty world ;
while above that scene of death peacefully floats the ark,
bearing on in life only those who believed the warning
given. Their salvation was through faith. "By faith,
Noah, warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved
with holy fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; "
Heb. xi. 7. And his preservation, and that world's de-

142 Immortality in the Old Testament.
struction, utter, to all time, the word God speaks from Sinai
and from Calvary: "I call heaven and earth to record this
day against you that Ihave set before you life andjdeajh ;
therefore 'choose^^SSZffiot thou mayest live ;j' Deut. xxx. 19:
" That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but
have everlasting life ; " Jno. iii. 16.
Need we trace the detail further ? Profane history testi
fies to the same truths. There also appear the sacred
emblems of that primal dispensation of grace ; though
changed, perverted, corrupted, we recognize their likeness
still. The fire-worshipping Parsee recalls the tradition of
that early pillar of fire, the visible sign of the unseen God.
The sculptured slabs and images of Nineveh exhibit to us
to-day the cherubic idea ; the winged bull, associated with
the sacred tree of Assyria, repeats the very scene in Eden
beside the tree of life. In the monuments of Egypt also,
we find many variations of the cherubic type. The mul
tiple heads and arms of the gods of Oriental polytheism,
the multi-mammaed Ephesian goddess, recall to us that
earliest symbolization of abstract thought in the world's
first sanctuary, and also show man's perverse tendency
through all time to "worship the creature rather than the
Creator, who is God over all, blessed forever. ' ' While the
incarnation of the Hindoo god reminds us of the promise
in Eden, and of the period a little later, when men began
to realize that the One to be incarnated, the Seed of the
woman, was their Saviour and their God.
Although our earliest records of revelation do not ex
plicitly mention the doctrine of a resurrection, yet, evi
dently, it was fully understood by the men of that day.
For it was absolutely essential to their idea of a future life.
To them, lifesi^nffied actual^xistence, ,aiidjieath the ces
sation of such existence. After the execution of that sen
tence of death, "unto dust shalt thou return," life could be
only by a resurrection, or restoration to life. The promised

\

Old Testament Allusions to the Resurrection. 143
deliverer brought hope, because he brought the promise of
a future release from death, the promise, of life from the
dead. Believers then reasoned, as Paul afterward reasoned :
"If dead ones are not raised, then, those having fallen
asleep in Christ are perished." No less than the Apostle
did they esteena "the hope and resurrection of dead ones; "
Acts xxiii. 6. To Abraham, the announcement of his
death. Gen. xv. 15, did not impair the promise that he
"should inherit the land," Gen. xiii. 17, because he
looked forward to a promised resurrection. Although his
belief is not mentioned in the narrative in Genesis, yet the
writer of Hebrews recognizes it as a necessary article of his
faith. He tells us, it was displayed in his offering up Isaac
as commanded, "accounting that God was able to raise
him up from the dead, when also he received him in a
figure; " Heb. xi. 19.
And so Job, in one of the earliest books of the Bible,
announces his belief, chap. xiv. 14, 15 :
" If a man die, shall he live again ? [Rather, not a
question, he shall live again. If it were a question, he
answers it himself] 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
thy hands."
The Psalmist says, Psalm xvii.. 15 : "As for me, I shall be
hold thy face in righteousness ; I shall be satisfied when I
awake in thy likeness."
Isaiah tells us, chap. xxvi. 19: "Thy dead men shall
live, together with my dead body shall, they arise. Awake
and sing, ye that dwell in dust, for thy dew is as the dew
of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead."
Ezekiel prophesies, chap, xxxvii. 12-14: "Thus saith
the Lord God, Behold, O my people, I will open your
graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves 
And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened
'3

144 Immortality in the Old Testament.
your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your
graves, and shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live."
And Daniel tells us, chap. xii. 2: ""Many o£_tliem that
sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlast-
rnglife;""" theirs is the resurrection to life of Jno. v. 29.
Now this ancient doctrine of a resurrection to life finds
a striking confirmation of its early acceptance in the oldest
history outside the Bible. In ancient Egypt, the dead
were embalmed, that they might be ready for that life to
which they ¦were to be recalled. Every Egyptian mummy
tells of an early period, when men had not yet departed
from that revealed truth. No future life without a resurrec
tion. We are surprised to learn from the early religious
records of that nation how much of revealed truth was still
preserved amid much corruption. We quote from a stand
ard authority:
"Although all bodies were to descend into the lower
world, they were not, however, all assured of resurrection.
To obtain this, it was necessary never to have committed
any great sin either in act or thought. The deceased was
to be judged by Osiris and his forty-two assessors : on this
judgment depended the irrevocable lot ofthe soul. If the
deceased was convicted of inexcusable faults, he was de
capitated by Horus on the nemma, or block, of Hades.
Annihilation was believed by the Egyptians to be the pun
ishment reserved for the wicked." *
It is not difficult to understand why, in the progress of
time and ever-widening departure from the truth, every
nation but the Hebrew dropped this original restriction
of immortality for the faithful alone. It is far more flatter*
Tng to his" pride, Fhat immortality should be recognized as
the possession of man as man ; while such a belief gives
greater power over the masses to their religious teachers,
¦* Lenormant and Chevallier's Ancient History of the East.

Does Law of Moses Teach a Future State ? 145
wiio even in our day, in proportion as revelation is ignored
or lost, assume to have the whole future virtually at their
disposal. And so, as the religions pf the world diverged
from that early revelation to the race, they grew more and
more corrupt, till, retaining but a semblance of the true,
" they sacrificed to devils, not to God," i Cor. x. 20 ; and,
in place of the God-given truth of an immortality con
ditioned on faith in the Coming One, they substituted the
very doctrine which the Father of lies promulgated in
"Eden, when he declared, " Ye shall not surely die ; " — he,
the first teacher of the now world-wide dogma, that immor
tality is the inalienable possession of every man !
And thus also appears the utter fallacy of that argument
from reason, so called, which religious teachers of our day,
in lieu of Bible arguments, bring forward to prove an un
conditional immortality. They claim to sustain their doc
trine by pointing to the evident craving all have for it,
and by the fact that all nations are found to believe in it.
We see how the nations first obtained the idea of immor
tality for a sinful race ; it was promised in Eden on the
essential condition of faith in One to come : we see how
that condition, originally accepted in the far past, came to
be universally dropped. And it is easjf to see why God
implanted within us a craving for immortality. It was
not because we already have it, but to lead us to seek to
attain the object of our desire; for Paul tells us, "Toj
all who, by patient continuance in well doing, seek fori
honor and glory and immortality, God will render eternaA
life." Owing to their failure to comprehend the Bible meaning
of life, our religious teachers of recent times have been
led into a most palpable error. They generally believe
that, in the law which God gave to Israel by Moses, the
doctrine of a future state of rewards finds noj)lace. This

146 Immortality in the Old Testament.
strange idea originated with an English Bishop, some hun
dred and fifty years ago.' It met with much opposition at
the time, and its general acceptance since illustrates the
power of mere speculative belief, combined with ignorance,
or neglect of the Divine word.
It would seem that the truth in relation to that law had
been set forth with sufficient clearness by the Giver him
self, Ezek. XX. 11: "And I gave them my statutes, and
made them to know my judgments, which, if a man do,
he shall even live in [or, by] them." One may, however,
seek to evade the force of this word, live, by assuming
that it refers only to this present life.
But One, whose authority is unquestionable, so states
the truth on this question of Moses' law, that his word
may not thus easily be set aside, for in this case he speaks
of the life eternal. Turn to Luke x. 25-28. A certain
lawyer, or teacher of the law of Moses, stood up and
tested him : (was it not to see whether the Lord's teaching
agreed with that of Moses?) He asks, "Master, what
shall I do to inherit eternal life? ' ' For answer, the
Lord refers him to that law of which his inquirer was a
professed teacher, — the very law now thought to contain
no reference to a future life; — "what is written in the
law, how readest thou ?" He might well ask that question
to-day ! But the lawyer well knows how Moses answered
his question, and he quotes Deut. vi. 5 : " Thou shalt love
the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, and strength,
and mind;" and Lev. xix. 18: "Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself" Our Lord acknowledges the cor
rectness of the reply, and adds, from Lev. xviii. 5, in the
very words of the law: "This do, and thou shalt live ;"
showing that he recognizes this passage from Leviticus as
a promise of future life.
So, Luke xviii. 18, a ruler asks, "What shall I do to
inherit eternal life ? ' ' Him our Lord likewise refers to

" Prolonging Days" Reward of Righteous. 147
the law: " Thou knowest the commandments." As much
as to say : " They are for the very purpose of leading you
to that which you seek," " in keeping of them is great re
ward," even the "blessing of life for evermore."
Turning again to the lawyer's reply, we find that the
context of the passage, he so promptly quoted from the
law, shows us why he selected it. For in Deut. vi. i, 2,
just preceding his quotation, is the explicit statement of
eternal life as the reward of obedience :
" Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and
the judgments, which the Lord your God commanded to
teach you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye
go to possess it : that thou mightest fear the Lord thy God,
to keep all his statutes and his commandments which I com
mand thee; thou, and thy son, and thy son's son, all the
days of thy life ; and that thy days may be prolonged."
This prolonging days as a reward of obedience is not the
lengthening out of this mortal life. That does not follow
as a result of obedience ; often, indeed, the very opposite.
Stephen inquired : " Which of the prophets have they not
persecuted? and they have slain them," — because indeed
of their unflinching fidelity to God, The expression,^" that
thy days may be prolonged," following as it does "all the
days of thy life," can only refer to the future prolonging
of existence after the character has been formed and tested
by a life of obedience here.
This is fully corroborated by the language of other Scrip
tures. As prolonging of days is promised to the righteous,
so the opposite is threatened to the disobedient. Again
and again are we told, "he shall be cut off." In Eccl.
viii. 13, it is declared of the wicked : " He shall not pro
long his days;" — note, the original has no possessive
pronoun; it is simply "prolong days." But the meaning
of the expression is put -beyond question in Isaiah liii. 8,
10. The prophet says of Christ, " He was cut off out of
, 13*

148 Immortality in the Old Testament-.
the land of the living," but " When thou shalt make his
soul an offering for sin," — when (ver. 12) he has "poured
out his soul unto death," — " he shall prolong days," etc.
We know how our Lord's days were prolonged after death ;
it was by a resurrection to life, to a life never to end. And
thus is fulfilled the word of Psalm xxi. 4 : "He asked life_
of thee, and thou gavest it him, length of days^ foxeyer and
ever. ' '
Thus understanding the word of the Lord, we find the
law of Moses is full of this truth. As, Deut. xxx. 19, 20:
"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you,
that I have set before you life and death, a blessing and a
curse, therefore choose life [what life ? see Matt. xvi. 25],
that both thou and thy seed may live. [Is it not in the
life everlasting?] That thou mayst love the Lord thy God,
and may cleave unto him ; for he [the Eternal One] is thy
life] and the length of thy days. ' ' Compare i Jno. v. 1 2 :
" He that hath the Son hath life, he that hath not the Son
of God hath not life." Deut. xii. 28 : " Observe and hear
all these words which I command thee, that it may go well
with thee, and with thy children after thee, forever. ' ' Is
it not "with thee" forever, as well as "with thy chil
dren "i
But it may well be asked : If as plain as this, why have
Christian scholars so missed the meaning, as to have con
cluded that the law of M6ses never refers to a future life ?
It is partly because so few investigate for themselves, and
especially because of the training they receive. With some
of these promises of prolonging of days there is an added
clause, the meaning of which they fail to grasp. In one
already quoted, Deut. xxx. 20, we read on: "that thou
mayst dwell in the land which the Lord sware unto thy
fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them." The
writer understands that this promise is yet to be fulfilled ;
God is yet to give this land to them- We read, Heb. xi.

Mistaking the Meaning of Promise to Abraham. 149
8, 9> i3> of " Abraham called to go out into a place which
he should after receive for an inheritance, sojourned in the
land of promise as in a strange country, dwelling in tents
with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same
promise. These all died in faith, not having received the
promises." Their descendants, if found obedient, as were
these patriarchs, may dwell with them in the joy of that
future state. That such will be but a remnant we learn
from Isa. X. 22 : "the remnant of Israel shall return," or,
as it is quoted Rom. ix. 27 : " the remnant shall be saved."
Modern theology understands that the promise has been
fulfilled to the patriarchs, that the land was given to them
when'given to their seed for a dwelling-place in this mortal
life ; that is, it mistakes a time of probation for the time
of reward ! But most explicitly the martyr Stephen, " full
of the Holy Spirit," contradicts this theological notion.
Speaking of Abraham, he says. Acts vii. 5 : "And he gave
him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his
foot on ; yet he promised that he would give it to him, and
to his seed after him." Stephen here declares the promise
of Gen. xiii. 17 has not been fulfilled, modern theology
claims it has ; whence so radical a difference on a ques
tion of fact ?
Well, it is this dogma of inherent immortality, again,
that makes all the trouble. Modern theology, having
adopted the fiction, as we have found it, of immaterial,
immortal souls, must provide some place for them, i. e., for
its living part of Abraham and others, and so it has con
trived a kingdom in the skies for such souls. But no such
doctrine is found in the word of God.
What does that say of the place of future reward . for
earth's faithful ones? Jesus said, " I go to prepare a place
for you ; " — where is that place, and when is it to be pre
pared, according to God! s word?
John tells us in prophetic vision : "I saw a new heaven

150 Immortality in the Old Testament.
and a new earth. And I, John, saw the new Jerusalem com
ing down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride
adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out
of heaven saying. Behold, the tabernacle of God is with
men, and he will dwell with them ; " Rev. xxi. 1-3. Peter
says, "According to his promise, we look for new heavens
and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness; '' 2 Pet.
iii. 13. We understand that as the earth was once swept
by a deluge of water, the ark bearing in safety above it the
few redeemed from destruction, so once .more it shall be
swept over by a deluge of fire, that, renewed and purified,
it may henceforth be the dwelling of the righteous.
Read also Prov. xi. 31 : "Behold, the righteous shall be
recompensed in the earth." x. 30: " The righteous shall
never be removed, but the wicked shall not inhabit the
earth." ii. 21: "For the upright shall dwell in the land
(or earth), and the perfect shall remain in it."
Psalm xxxvii. is full of this anticipation of the earth as
the place of reward for the righteous; verses 9, 11, 22, 29,
34, declare, "they shall inherit the earth." And we are
told, ver. 18, " their inheritance shall be forever."
Modern theology may hardly assume all this means noth
ing; that these early Bible writers did not exactly know
what they wrote about; for it is but the same doctrine
that the Apostles of our Lord teach us. Nor can it venture
here to call in question the inspiration of these Old Testa
ment writers, for the Lord Jesus himself has set to their
word the seal of his authority. He repeats the very words
of Psalm xxxvii. 11 : "The meek shall inherit the earth;"
Matt. V. 5. Nor can it assume to tell us what the Lord Jesus
meant, and did not say. He knew the laws of human
speech, and he meant what he said. " The meek shall in
herit the earth ! "
And so, with the Lord Jesus for our teacher, we accept
the word of Deut. iv. 40, as stating the literal truth : "Thou

Jesus shall Reigh on Earth. 151
shalLkcep.JJierefbre.Jiis statutes, that .it_may go well with
thee, and with thy children after thee ; and that thou
mayzst prolong days upon the earth, which the" Lord thy
God giveth tly^, forever." "The heaven, even the
heavensTarelhe Lord's, but the earth has he given to the
children of men;" Psalm cxv. 16. And so we under
stand the promise of the Fifth Commandment, "that thy
days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God
giveth thee," to mean that, in a future life, thy days may
be prolonged on the earth. It was " the first command
ment with a promise," Eph. vi. 2 : as obedience to parents
is the first step toward that obedience to the Heavenly
Father which brings the eternal reward. Certainly it
was not the good children only in Israel whose mortal
life was prolonged. The wicked Jeroboam lives on, while
his son, Abijah, in whom "there was found some good
thing toward the Lord God of Israel," dies before him ;
I Kings xiv. 12, 13.
But, it may be asked, are not Christ's people to be
caught up from earth to meet the Lord in the air ? Cer
tainly, so Paul teaches, i Thess. iv. 17, and we might pre
sume they would not again be on earth, if it were not that
all Scripture shows (some of such passages already given)
that the earth is to be their future home. Here the king
dom promised is to be established, here the redeemed are
to "reign on the earth;" Rev. v. 10. "Behold the days
come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a right
eous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall
execute judgment and justice in the earth. ^And this is
the name whereby he shall be called, Jehovah our right
eousness " {fehovah-tsidkenu); Jer. xxiii. 5, 6. "The
Lord of hosts shall reign in Mount Zion, and in ferusalem,
and before his ancients gloriously; " Isa. xxiv. 23. " Of
the increase of his government and peace there shall be no
end, upon the throne of David ; " Isa. ix. 7. " Thou shalt

152 Immortality in the New Testament.
call his name Jesus, and the Lord God shall give unto him
the throne of his father David; " Luke i. 31, 32. "And
the Lord shall.be King over all the earth in that day;"
Zech. xiv. 9 : the scene of his humiliation will be the
scene of his triumph !

CHAPTER X,

The Destiny of the Soul.' The Doctrine of Im
mortality in the New Testament.
IF the Old Testament and the New are a revelation of
God's will, it is impossible that the two should be as
unlike as some seem to imagine. The manner of the
revelation may differ, but the matter itself, the ^purposes
of God as unfolded, must be the same in each. The Bible,
as a revelation from God, is one connected whole. Of the
twotestaments, or, more exactly, covenants, tlie- latter is
the outgrowth and fulfilment of the former. "The Lord
Jesus says, he cariie not to destroy, but to fulfil the law
and the prophets ; Matt. v. 17. " For what the law could
not do, in that it was weak through the flesh ' ' (through
human inefficiency), God accomplished for us, "sending
his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, that the right
eousness of the law might be fulfilled in us" (Rom. viii.
3, 4), and its reward obtained. That righteousness of the
law, the perfect obedience of our Lord to its demands, is
set to the account of those who believe in him. And the
reward of the Old Covenant is the reward of the New. It
is life under each. In the Old Testament dispensation
this truth was clearly revealed and fully recognized,' but,
in his fulfilling of the law, our Lord Jesus, by his own
sacrificial death, and his resurrection to life, " hath abol-

" Aphtharsia" and " Atlianasia!' 153
ished death, and hath brought to light Ufe and immor
tality" (2 Tim. i. 10); "who, verily, was foreordained be
fore the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these
last times for you, who by him do believe in God, that
raised him frerm dead ones ;" i Pet. i. 20, 21.
Taking up, then, the New Testament, let us see how the
word immortality is there used. By it our version renders
two different Greek words, aphtharsia and athanasia. The
former, somerimes differently rendered in E. V., denotes
incorruptibility ; as applied to that not liable to corrapt,
to spoil, to fall into decay. It comes from Gr. a, negative,
and phtheiro, to corrupt. As our word corrupt is now so
restricted to moral decay, perhaps a better rendering were
imperishability. The other word, athanasia, denotes. death-
lessness ; from Gr. a, privative, and thanatos, death. It is
the exact equivalent of the English immortal ; from Latin
in, negative, mors, death. With this understanding, we can
better see the force of the quotarions below.
Twice we find aphtharsia rendered immortalit}-, once its
adjective, aphthartos, immortal :
I Tim. i. 17: "The King etemal, immortal;" Gr.
aphthartos, imperishable.
2 Tim- i. 10: "Jesus Christ hath abolished death, and
hath brought to light life and immortality [Gr. aphtharsia,
imperishability] through the gospel." The gospel (glad
tidings) of salvation from sin and its attendant physical
corraption, brings to light, for dying, decaying human
beings, life and imperishability, which are to be had on the
conditions of the gospel, viz., belief in its message, and
repentance; Gr. metanoia, exactly, a change of mind or
purpose, involving a change in the manner of one's present
life. As we read :
Rom. ii. 7: "To them who, by patient continuance in
well doing, seek for honor and glory and immortality
[aphtharsia, imperishability], God will render etemal life."

154 Immortality in the New Testament,
In two passages only is athanasia found :
1 Tim. vi. i6; "\\'\\o only \\\t\\ immortality ;" athanasia,
deathlessness : God only hath this.
I Cor. XV. 4:;, 50-57 : " It is sown in corruption [perish
able] ; it is raised in incorruption [Cir, en aphtharsia, im
perishable]. Now this 1 say, brethren, that flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of Goil, [cannot receive'that
kingdom yet in the future, which we pray may t-ome],
neither doth corruption [the iierishable] inherit incorrup
tion [the imperishable]: Behold, I shew you a mystery :
we shall not all sleeji, but we shall all be changed, in a
moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump ; for
the trumpet shall sound and the d«'ad shall be raised incor
ruptible [imjierishable], and we [those then not sleejiing
in death] shall be changed. For this corruptible [perish
able] must put on incorruption [imperishability, aphthar
sia], and this mortal [Gr. thneton, death-ly] must put on
immortality [dealh-lessness, athanasia]. So when this
perishable shall have put on imperishability, and this
mortal [death-ly] shall have jiut on immortality [death-
, lessness], then shall be brought to jiass the saying that
is written, death is swallowed iqi in victory. O death,
where is thy sting? 0 grave, where is thy victory? The
sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law."
For one in his sins, death has indeed a fearful sting. Tlie
first death is but the prelude to a second, an eternal death.
But those "accepteil in the Beloved" may now say:
" Thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory through our
Lord Jesus Christ I " Over them the triumph of death
and the grave is limited, for the Lord Jesus has iiromised
to ransom his own from the power of the grave at the
Resurrection to Likh. Thanks indeetl to God for that
Resurrection ! And yet are there not in our day those of
whom Paul asks, " How say some anuing you that there is
no resurrection" — of dead ones? i Cor, xv. 12, Modern

A Conditional Immortality. 155
theology teaches this ; for it knows no actually dead ones,
none without life, none not immortal !
But I Tim. vi. 16 shows us that athanasia, deathless
ness, immortality, is strictly an attribute of God alone.
And from i Cor. xv. we have learned that some who have
suffered death will after that receive life again, and be en-
Aoyi^SZMi'CQ.jaihdriasia, immortality. But this appertains
to a portion only of created beings. The wicked will not
be endowed with immortality. "Eternal life is^ thg^gift
of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord ; " Rom. vi.- 23.
Though the "proud philosophers of this world and our
modern theologians claim that immortality is the in
alienable possession of every human being, it is by the
Divine Giver limited to " those who, by patient continu
ance in well doing, seek for it; " and it is not to be " put
on " by them, until the day of our Lord's appearing, when
they all receive the spirit-body, when mortality is swal
lowed up of life.
Thus, everywhere, does the word of God hold out to us
a future immortality, conditioned upon the_ use made of the
lifeHere given us.
The teachings of our Lord Jesus are full of this truth.
They lose simplicity, directness, harmony, if we ignore it.
He proclaims himself "the resurrection and the life."
Again he says, " I am the bread of life ; " that which sus
tains life, its staff. As he says, "The bread of God is
he who cometh down from heaven, and g'vethlife unto
the world." He offers life to us, " that^ whosoever be-
lieveth in him,_nii^it_.ji.QL4i!£rish,-but have everlasting
life." And how sadly he says to those rejecting, him,
~^Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." In
the fifth chapter of John's gospel, this truth of a future
life is so minutely detailed that we quote at length. Surely,
on this point, the word of One who "speaks that he does
know," ought to be decisive, unless, like some in his own
day, we "will not receive his witness."
14

156 Immortality in the New Testament.
Let us then open our Bibles at the place, and read the
verses in their connection.
Jno. V. 21: "For as the Father raiseth up [Q,r. egeiro,
arouses, awakens] the dead, and quickeneth them [Gr.
zoopoied, makes to live] ; even so the Son makes to live
whom he will." The words "dead," and "makes to
live," modern theology may claim are figurative, but
too strong is the case already made out against it ; the
burden of proof rests 'upon its shoulders, it must prove
its ¦ claim before it can be allowed. But such attempt
were useless here; the context decides against it. In
ver. 25, our Lord again speaks of the dead, and again
in ver. 28 ; but in the latter case, instead of using the
word dead, he defines its meaning by its equivalent, —
"all that are in the graves." As, then, the One giving
literal life to the literally dead, he says :
Ver. 24 : " He that believeth on him that sent me hath
everlasting life, and comes not into judgment;" — Gr.
krisis, which E. V. inconsistently renders condemnation ;
but note its own testimony as to the real meaning of Gr.
krisis, which it renders condemnation three times, damna
tion three times, judgment forty times ; as it is necessarily in
this very context in verses 22, 27, 30; — "but is passed
from the death into the life ; ' ' from those, over whom
death is impending, to those who have the deathless life
in promise, to^ be "put on" at the Resurrection to Life.
This first resurrection is referred to in the next verse.
Ver. 25 : "An hour is coming, and [or, even] now is,
when the dead shiall hear the voice of the Son of God, and
they that hear shall live." In that passing hour, some, but
not all, of the sleeping dead heard that voice of power,
that, from among them called back to life Lazarus, and
the widow's son of Nain, and Jairus's daughter. So in the
coming hour, not all the sleeping dead shall hear the glo
rious call of "the first resurrection," Rev. xx. 5, "the

The Second Resurrection to Judgment. 157
resurrection of the just," Luke xiv. 14, the Ex-anastasis,
"resurrection from among dead ones," that typified by
our Lord's glorious resurrection. But those of the dead
who hear shall live.
Ver. 26: "For as the Father hath life in himself, , so
hath he given to the Son to have life inhimself " Having
life in himself, he hath power to call dead ones into being
again, to give life to "whom he will." And not only has
he power to give life; he says, ver. 27, he has "authority
to execute judgment also ' ' (Gr. krisin poiein, lit. to make,
i. e., sit in judgment), upon those to whom he does not
give life. And then he proceeds to announce a resur
rection also, for this latter class, as well as that for the
former. Vei. 28, 29 : " Marvel not at this,' for an hour is coming,
in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and
shall come forth; they that have done good unto the
resurrection of Life : they that have done evil unto the
resurrection of Judgment ; " Gr. krisis. A resurrection
to life, for all who come to him for life, for, though such
meet the first death, they will not the second. ^ For our
Lord tells us, " It is the Father's will, that of all which he
hath given me I shduld lose nothing, but should raise it up
at ifie last day ; that every one who believeth on the Son
may \\.avt everlasting life, and / will raise him up at the
last day;" Jno. vi. 39, 40. It is at the last day that
Christ brings back into life his own who trusted in him,
and bestows upon them life everlasting. Their future life
is assured by his. He is " living for the ages "of the ages,"
Rev. i. 18, and he has said, "Because I live, ye shall live
also." And a resurrection also is there for such as came not
to Jesus for life ; a resurrection not to life, but to judg
ment. Then he who once gave his life for us, that he
might make us partakers of his life, — " partakers of the

1,58 The Future of the Wicked.
Divine nature," 2 Pet. i. 4, — he, then, sitting in judgment
over those who did not accept that blood-bought pardon,
will pronounce the inevitable sentence of the law, " The
soul that sinneth, it shall die." " Sin, when it is finished,
bringeth forth death" (Jas. i. 15), — death, final, fearful,
irremediable !
This great offer of life, of immortality through our Lord
Jesus Christ, is the glad tidings, the message which the
whole Bible brings to all " those who, through fear of
death, were all their lifetime subject to bondage; " Heb.
ii. 15.

CHAPTER XL

The Destiny of the Soul. The Bible Doctrine of
the Future of the Wicked.
IN an hour that is coming, they that have done evil shall
hear his voice, and shall cgme forth . . to the resurrec
tion of judgment;" Jno. v. 28, 29. What does the
Bible tell us is the penalty of the violated law, to be
executed upon those found guilty in that judgment ?
This is by no means, as some think, one of "the secret
things which belong unto the Lord our God." It is
clearly of " those things which are revealed, that belong
to us, [in order] that we may obey all the words of the
law;" Deut. xxix. 29. As life, in its primary, natural
significance, was held out as the reward of obedience,
so DEATH, the loss of that life, is the reward of dis
obedience. Ezek. xviii. 20: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die."
Rom. vi. 23 : "The wages of sin is death."

Everlasting Destruction Foretold. 159
Jas. i. 15: "Sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth
death." All Scripture unites to declare this truth. The Lord Jesus
tells us of " Him who is able to destroy soul and body in
hell;" gehenna. Compare Deut. xxxii. 39: "See now
that I, even I, am he, and there is no God with me ; I kill
and I make alive ; neither is there any that can deliver
out of my hand."
Peter, Acts iii. 23, preached to the people: " "Every
soul, who will not hear that prophet [the Lord Jesus],
shall be destroyed from among the people. ' ' Thus Peter
explains Deut. xviii. 18, 19, whence this quotation is taken,
".whosoever will not hearken, I will require it of him'; "
— will require it of him at the cost of his life ; he shall
be destroyed.
The same Apostle writes, 2 Pet. ii. 12: "These, as
natural brute beasts, . . shall utterly perish. ' '
Paul tells us, Phil. iii. 18, 19, that " the end of the
enemies of the cross of Christ is destruction." As he
says, 2 Thess. i. 9: "Who shall be punished with ever
lasting destruction. ' '
So we read, Jno. iii. 36: "He that believeth not the
Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God [as expressed
in his destruction] abideth on him."
The same truth, also, we read in the Old Testament.
Psalm cxlv. 20 : " The Lord preserveth the righteous ;
but all the wicked will he destroy;" preserving in life
contrasted with destroying in death.
Isaiah i. 28 : " The destruction of the transgressors and
of the sinners shall be together, and they that forsake the
Lord shall be consumed. ' '
Psalm civ. 35: "Let the sinners be consumed out of
the earth, and let the wicked be no more."
Psalm xxxvii. 10 : "For yet a little while, and the wicked
14*

i6o The Future of the Wicked.
shall not be ; yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place,
and it shall not be. ' '
Obadiah i6: "They shall be as though they had not
been. ' '
Certainly, if language means anything, the future which
awaits those condemned in the Judgment has been revealed
to us. They are to be destroyed, to lose their life, at the
hand of One who is able to and will, in the appointed
time, destroy soul and body in an utter and everlasting
destruction. We next inquire. How is this destruction to be brought
about ?
On this point Holy Scripture gives no uncertain sound.
From every part we hear the fearful warning cry. Fire,
Fire ! It tells us of a future burning, from which
there shall be no escape to the wicked : they shall be
burned up.
The loving Master himself, who gave his life to ransom
ours, set before us this truth in unmistakable language.
His disciples came to him, saying. Matt. xiii. 36, " De
clare [Gr. phrazo, give us to know, explain] unto us the
parable of the tares of the field." They request that,
dropping the parabolic, figurative language in which he
had clothed the truth, he would now make it so plain to
them that they could not mistake his meaning. He grants
their request ; minutely he explains each point to them,
and surely we may believe it could not be more simply
done, for it is a Divine Instructor who makes it plain.
" He answered and said unto them. He that soweth the
good seed is the ¦ Son of Man ; the field is the world [Gr.
kosmos] : the good seed are the sons of the kingdom,
but the tares are the sons of the wicked one ; the enemy
that sowed them is the devil ; the harvest is the end of
the age [Gr, aion]; and the reapers are the angels." It

Christ Language to be Believed. i6i
is as one explaining an allegorical painting on canvas ;
he points to each figure, and gives its meaning in language
so simple and direct that none could mistake. In the same
simple, direct language, he continues: "As therefore the
tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so shaLl it be in
the end of the age ; ' ' Gr. aion.
Why are the tares gathered and burned ? A careful
husbandman roots up noxious weeds to clear his ground of
their presence ; and, in order that he may rid himself of
future trouble from them or their seed, he completes the
work of destruction by gathering and burning them. "So
shall it be in the end of the age. The Son of Man shall
send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his king
dom all things that offend [Gr. skandala, all causes of
sinning], and them that do iniquity, and they shall cast '
them into the furnace of the fire ; . there shall be the wail
ing and the gnashing of the teeth." Can words be plainer
than these? Can circumstances be imagined calling for
greater simplicity of speech? Can a declaration of the
future fate of the wicked be more explicit than this ? Can
it be enforced by a more apt and unequivocal illustration ?
Can a speaker be found of higher authority ? Why then
do we not believe him ? A religious teacher once said to
the writer, "Did that passage stand alone, I should believe,
as you do, that the wicked are to be burned up. ' ' But did
Christ make a statement to be contradicted by his past or
future utterances ? Though the statement is corroborated
by the rest of Scripture, at the time of its utterance it did
stand alone, and it must, and does, stand on its own merits.
How does modern theology evade the force of these few
simple words? Behold, and wonder ! It teaches that the
angels are literally sent forth ; they literally gather out the
wicked ; they literally cast them — where ? Into a figura
tive furnace of fire, so figurative that, literally, there is no
fire about it at all ! For, if we understand the present

1 62 The Future of the Wicked.
position of modern theology, — and so little has the pulpit
of the present day to say on this subject, that the writer
may be pardoned if he cannot be positive, — it would seem
that, for its teaching of a hundred years ago of literal fire,
peculiar in not consuming, there has been substituted of
late a figurative fire. It has somehow been discovered
that it is the fire of a guilty and remorseful conscience.
This must be another of the points where we are thought
to "know more concerning spiritual things than the
apostles." In the present advance of our spiritual knowl
edge, literal fire, we are told, is too gross and material a
conception ; and, besides, material fire could not harm the
soul, which modern the'ology teaches is immaterial and
immortal. So, lest this un-biblical dogma be overthrown,
we are told that the Divine teacher, while seeking to speak
with the utmost simplicity, and while we have reason to
believe he is still speaking as literally as possible, gets so
mixed up in his language, that, having just used the word
fire in its natural meaning, he uses it again the next
moment and without explanation, in a different sense.
Indeed, our Saviour is not one thus weakly to violate the
necessary laws of human speech. His statement is direct
arid unequivocal as possible: "As therefore the tares are
gathered and burned in the fire, so shall it be in the end
of this age." The tares are literally gathered out, so shall
the wicked be ; the tares are literally burned, so shall the
wicked be ; and as the result of that burning, tlie tares are
literally consumed ; "so shall it be in the end of this age "
with the wicked !
Some may have inferred that "the wailing and the
gnashing of teeth" imply an eternity of torment. Not at
all ; the duration of that misery is no way here referred to.
Ps. cxii. lo presents an inspired comment on this passage :
"The wicked shall see it [the exaltation of the righteous],
and be grieved; he shall gnash with his teeth, and melt

Destruction by Fire. 163
away. ' ' How protracted may be the act of dying in each
case in that furnace of fire, the Lord does not reveal. It
is the time of the wailing and the gnashing of the teeth, a
terrible agony of mind and body, fearful to contemplate.
But it has an end. The penalty of the broken law, the
full wages of sin, will certainly be received. Death, sooner
or later, comes to every one, silencing every cry of pain,
every shriek of despair, every groan at the thought of what
might have been. And at last that Scripture is fulfilled,
" The wicked shall be silent in darkness ; " i Sam. ii. 7.
The word of the Lord by his prophet Malachi brings
before us the same picture :
Mal. iii. 18; iv. i, 3 : "Thgn shall ye return and discern
between the righteous and the wicked ; between him that
serveth God, and him that serveth him not. For, behold,
the day cometh that shall burn as an oven ; and all the
proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble : and
the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of
hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. And
ye shall tread down the wicked ; for they shall be ashes
under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this,
saith the Lord of hosts."
The same warning of impending fire is uttered, by the
one who was foretold by this prophet (Mal. iv. 5), as com
ing in the spirit and power of Elijah. He says :
Matt. iii. 10-12 : " The axe is laid unto the root of the
trees ; therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good
fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire. . . He will bap
tize in fire. . . His fan is in his hand, and he will thor
oughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner,
but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."
Utter destruction by fire is also the alarm sounded out
by the Apostles of our Lord. Paul writes of that burning
in the end of this age :
2 Thess. i. 7, 8: " When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed

164 The Future of the Wicked.
from heaven with the angels of his power, in fiaming fire
[Gr. in a flame of fire] taking vengeance on them that
know not God, who shall be punished with everlasting
destruction. "
2 Pet. iii. 7 : Peter foretells the same event : " The
heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word
are kept in store, reserved unto fire against a day of judg
ment and [Gr. apoleia, as translated, same chap. ver. 16]
destruction of ungodly men." Away back in the past. Job
held the same truth. Job xxi. 30 : " The wicked is reserved
to the day of destruction ; they shall be brought forth to
the day of wrath. ' '
The author of Hebrews writes (Heb. x. 27) of "a cer
tain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indigna
tion [Gr. pur OS zelos, zeal of fire], which shall devour the
adversaries." Psalm xxi. 9 : " Thou shalt make them as a fiery oven
in the time of thine anger : the Lord shall swallow them
up in his wrath, and the fire shall devour them."
Psalm xi. 6 : taking the marginal rendering of the He
brew, ' ' Upon the wicked he shall rain quick, burning
coals, fire, and brimstone, and a burning tempest : this
shall be the portion of their cup."
Jer. xxiii. 19, 20: "Behold, a whirlwind of the Lord
is gone forth in fury, even a grievous whirlwind : it shall
fall grievously upon the head of the wicked. The anger
of the Lord shall not return, until he have executed, and
till he have performed the thoughts of his heart : in the
latter days ye shall consider it perfectly. ' '
Thus -we have the testimony of Psalmist, of Prophets, of
Apostles, of Christ himself, that fire will be the agent of
the final destruction of the wicked, in the end of this age.
The illustrations of the future of the wicked, which the
Scriptures present, are very decisive as to their ultimate

Modem Theology Shuns These Bible Illustrations. 165
fate. Written statements, it is claimed, may be differently
interpreted by different minds, but a picture held up be
fore the eye has but one story for all beholders. Its in
tent is made still more evident, if many different pictures
are brought forward to illustrate the lesson taught.
Now such illustrations abound in Scripture, but in the
religious teaching of our day, little, we may say no, use
is made of them. The great effort seems rather to explain
them away ! It is very significant that an "advocate of un
ending suffering, if he wishes to illustrate a doctrine which
he professes to take from the Bible, for his illustrations
goes not to the Bible, but to heathen mythology, it might
be called demonology. We all know the hard service to
which the well-worn fable of Prometheus and the Vulture
has been compelled, to illustrate the so-called Christian
doctrine of unending suffering. Why should modem
theology thus shun the illustrations of Scripture? Be
cause these inspired pictorial representations are not what
it wants. They carry not the idea of continueji existence
in suffering, but of the very opposite; they tell of an
ending of all existence, a complete, literal destraction I
But let us see what these illustrations of Scripture are.
Certainly, there is no lack of them. The prophet Hosea
crowds four different images into one sentence :
Hos. xiii. 3 : " Therefore they shall be as the morning
cloud, and as the early dew that passeth away, as the chaff
driven with the whirlwind out of the floor, and as the smoke
out of the chimney."
Comparing the wicked in their ultimate fate to worth
less chaff and stubble, fit only to be destroyed, is very
common. Jer. xxiii. 28: "What is the chaff to the wheat? saith
the Lord."
Psalm i. 4 : " The ungodly are like the chaff, which the
wind driveth away.'"

1 66 The Future of the Wicked.
Isaiah v. 24 : " As the fire devoureth the stubble, and
the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as
rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust."
Isaiah xxxiii. 12 : "And the people shall be as the burn
ings of lime ; as thorns cut uJD shall they be burned in the
fire." Isaiah xlvii. 14: "Behold, they shall be as stubble, the
fire shall burn them ; they shall not deliver their souls [so
Hebrew, as given in margin of our version] from the power
of the flame : not a coal to warm at, a fire to sit before ! ' '
Jer. xiii. 24: "Therefore will I scatter them as the stub
ble, that passeth away by the wind of the wilderness. ' '
Prov. X. 25 : "As the whirlwind passeth, so is the wicked
no more."
Psalm Ixviii. 2 : "As smoke is driven away, so drive
them away ; as wax melteth before the fire, so let the wick
ed perish at the presence of God." Compare 2 Thess. i.
9: "who shall be punished with everlasting destruction
from the presence of the Lord."
Nahum f. 9, 10 : " What do ye imagine against the Lord ?
He will make an utter end; affliction shall not rise up the
second time. For, while they be folden together as thorns,
. . . they shall be devoured as stubble fully dry. ' '
We have already seen the illustrations of the forerunner
of Christ ; the axe laid at the root of the trees ; the tree
hewn down and cast into the fire ; the chaff burnt up with
a fire no one may quench. John the Baptist did not fail
to "persuade men" by the terrors of the Lord; he
preached to the wicked their utter destruction, unless they
repented. We have also considered one of our Lord's illustrations
of the same truth, the tares burned in the fire. But that
passage does not stand alone ; it is corroborated by every
word of the Great Teacher.
Luke xiii. 2-5, in speaking ofthe Galileans, whose blood

Bible Illustrations of Future Punishment. 167
Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices, and of those on
whom the tower in Siloam fell^ Jesus says to his hearers,
"Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." Were
they also to have their bloodmingled with their sacrifices,
and to be crushed by a falling tower? No; the emphasis is
on perish. They also shall perish, shall lose their lives,
their existence, if they repent not ; if they come not to
him for life.
Luke xvii. 26-30 : Our Lord speaks of a sudden, total
destruction in the days of Noah, " the flood came and
destroyed them all; " in the days of Lot, "it rained fire
and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even
thus shall it be in the day when the Son of Man is re
vealed." The illustrations our Lord here makes use of we
find likewise used by Peter and by Jude (2 Pet. ii. 5-9, Jude
7) ; it seems they were not driven to the rubbish of heathen
mythology. Luke XX. 18 : " Whosoever shall fall upon that stone
[the headstone ofthe corner], shall be broken," stumbling
upon it, he shall suffer damage as one in falling breaks his
limbs ; " but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him
to powder. ' ' What does our Lord here foretell but the
utter destruction of the rejector of Christ, that which in
the day of the Lord shall come upon him " as a destruction
from the Almighty" ? Is. xii. 6, And how completely
does our Lord here refute the notion of modern commen
tators, who, dropping the idea of literal fire, inform us that
the threatened doom "is represented not as something
external to the sinner, but as consisting of his sins, and
proceeding from himself." (So says Lyman Abbott's Com
mentary on Matthew, page 183 ; note on the fire, into
which sinners " shall be cast !") And in this connection,
read what our Lord announces as the words of his final
sentence. Matt. xxv. 41 : " Depart from me, ye cursed,
into eternal _/?ri?, prepared for the devil and his angels."
IS

1 68 The Future of the Wicked.
Some allusions in Scripture to the book of life serve to
set forth the fate of the wicked. We read of the Lamb's
book of life. Rev. xxi. 27; of that book of life to be
opened at the judgment. Rev. xx. 12; of the remnant in
Jerusalem, that are holy and written among the living. Is.
iv. 3. The names thus written are of those who, having
had life in this world, are also to have it in the hereafter.
But we also read. Rev. iii. 5 : "I will not blot out his name
out of the book of life." Ps. Ixix. 28: "Let them (the
wicked) be blotted out of the book of life, and let them not
be written with the righteous. ' ' How is this ? Are there
any whose names once in the book of life are afterward
to be blotted out of it? Never, from the Lamb's book
of life. Those whose "names are written in heaven,"
"whom he will confess before his Father and the angels,"
as purchased with his blood, to whom he gives eternal life,
" shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of
his hand." It is evident that " book of life " (as we have
already shown of the tree of life) is used as a symbolic, or
figurative, expression for those who have life, whether it be
in the future or in the present. And those living now in
this world, those whose names are in the book of this pass
ing life, their names "shall be blotted out " altogether, if
they are found unworthy of eternal life. Such blotting o.ut
from the number of those who have life, who live, can
signify nothing but the blotting out of life itself, the final
ending of their existence.-
In Prov. xxiv. 20, the future of the wicked is both stated
and illustrated, so clearly that it seems to have given our
translators some trouble. The passage is in our version.
' ' There shall be no reward to the wicked man ; the candle
of the wicked shall be put out."
No reward to the evil man ! Evidently that word is not
correctly rendered. The Lord declares, Deut. xxxii. 41 :
" I will reward them that hate me." We read, Ps. xci. 8:

Erroneous Inferences. 169
"Thou shalt see the reward of the wicked." The Heb.
of Prov. xxiv. 20, a different word from that in the last
two quotations, our translators have elsewhere rendered
end. And this might have just suited their views here:
" There shall be no end to the wicked man," but that the
latter clause of the verse contradicts this, "the candle of
the wicked sliall be put out; " i. e., there shall be an end
to him. The same Heb. word is found, Numb, xxiii. 10:
" Let me [Heb. my soul] die the death of the righteous,
and let my last end be like his." Prof. Bush renders it
" my afterhood, my hereafter," or perhaps we might more
definitely say, my after-time. And so Gesenius gives it.
With this corrected rendering, Prov. xxiv. 20 declares,
"For there shall be no after-time to the evil man; the
candle of the wicked shall be put out." The corrected
rendering is thus corroborated by the parallelism of Hebrew
poetry ; no after-time for an evil man corresponding to the
candle of the wicked put out; i. e., he, the evil man, will
be extinguished. In Prov. xxiv. 14, the Heb. for after-
time is rendered reward, but it will readily be seen that
after-time is the appropriate rendering.
And so we read. Psalm xxxvii. 37, 38: "Mark the per
fect man, and behold .the upright; for the [not end, as in E.
v., not death, but the] after-time of that man is peace.
But the transgressors shall be destroyed together ; the after-
time [E. V. end] of the wicked shall be cut off."
We have thus briefly considered the Bible doctrine of
the punishment of the future : what it is, how effected, and
how illustrated in Holy Writ. We learn that an unending
"destruction shall be to the workers of iniquity; " it will
be effected by fire ; and as illustrations we have set before
us the most complete fiery destructions of the present life.
But the question must arise : Is there nothing in Scrip
ture which the advocates of the more popular belief may

170 The Future of the Wicked.
quote, to sustain their side ? For a doctrine of such mag
nitude as the unending suffering of the wicked, is there
not, in all revelation, one direct announcement of that
stupendous fact, if such it be ? Not one ; there is not a
single one ! As in the question of separate soul existence,
each so-called proof-text rests upon inferences merely. A
few passages of Scripture have been found which have
been thought to warrant such an inference. And while
the advocates of unending suffering completely ignore the
Scripture illustrations of the fate of the wicked, they m^ke
such constant use of these few passages, as to give the im
pression that the Bible has little else to say on the subject.
Let us then carefully examine these passages, that we may
determine the value of the inference derived from them.
Prominent among these passages stands the parable of
the rich man and Lazarus. We call attention to the fact
that the duration of future suffering is not eyen hinted at
in that parable ; and that its scene is laid between death
and the judgment ; before trial is had and the sentence is
pronounced, "Depart, ye cursed, into eternal fire." More
over, it represents torment as produced by fire, not by a
guilty conscience, which in this world the guilty man
carries about with him. But we have already (Chap. VII.)
so thoroughly exposed the absurdities and contradictions,
both of fact and figure of speech, in the popular interpre
tation of the parable, that it is not worth while to linger
upon it here. Let us turn to other misrepresented passages.
Matt. xxv. 41 : "Depart from me, ye cursed, into ever
lasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels."
Matt. xxv. 46 : " And these shall go away into ever
lasting punishment : but the righteous into life eternal."
We have already been compelled to notice how our
translators have managed to cover up the truth with re
gard to the use of the word soul in the Scriptures. Here

What is an Eternal Pmiskment? 171
we observe a somewhat peculiar manii)ulation of the Greek
in our Eng. Version. The ordinary English reader would
not be aware that it is one and the same word in the Gr.,
which in ver. 46 is translated everlasting and eternal, and
everlasting in ver. 41 ; when qualifyitig punishment it is
everlasting, qualifying life it is eternal. The Gr. is aionois,
adjective from aion, seon, age. We acknowledge that aion,
except in the form "the ages of the ages," does not ab
solutely involve the idea of eternity. But still, in N. T.
Greek, it often does convey that meaning. And here it
is only fair to understand that the punishment "aionian "
of the wicked is of equal duration with the life " aionian "
of the righteous. We have the right to insist, for sim
plicity's sake, that one English adjective shall be used
for the one Greek ; and as the word eternal is so often
used elsewhere, we shall use it here.
. What then is meant by " eternal punishment"? The
Greek for punishment is kolasis ; in its original meaning,
a cutting off, pruning, as of trees. As the expression to
"cut off" is so frequent in the Old Testament, we may
presume this was intended as the Greek equivalent, and
that it is properly rendered "an eternal cutting off." But
it is not necessary to insist upon this ; we retain our
English word punishment.
It is held by some that punishment cannot be eternal,
unless eternally felt by a conscious object; and so the
wicked must have an eternal life, that they may suffer
eternal punishment. But the fallacy of this is most patent.
What is the punishment taught in the Bible? As we under
stand it, it is death. Is this death eternal ? It is. Then
the punishment is eternal. Or to put the argument in the
simplest form :
The punishment of sin is death ;
But that death is eternal ;
Therefore, the punishment is eternal.
'5»

172 The Future of the Wicked.
No question would ever have arisen, but for the un-bib
lical conception of the soul. For the Bible uniformly
denominates that eternal which is eternal in its necessary
results. We read of eternal judgment (Heb. vi. 2), qf
eternal redemption (Heb. ix. 12), of eternal sin, as the
oldest MSS. have it in Mark iii. 29. This is not eternally
judging, eternally redeeming, or eternally sinning ; but in
that judgment of the great Day, in that redemption Christ
accomplished for us, in that blasphemy against the Spirit,
in all these, the results are eternal ; and in this respect, the
judgment, the redemption, the blasphemy, are eternal.
No more may one claim that eternal punishment is eter
nally punishing. In its results the punishment is eternal ;
for it is eternal destraction ; i Thess. i. 9.
And the same Biblical mode of speech holds good with
regard to "eternal fire." To be an eternal fire, it is not
necessary that it should be eternally burning, but that its
results, as with the judgment and the redemption, should
in like manner be eternal. It is eternal in that it accom
plishes the foretold eternal destruction of the wicked.
Consumed in fire, " they shall be no more ; " " they shall
be as though they had not been."
Matt. iii. 12: "He shall burn up the chaff 'with un
quenchable fire."
Nothing could better illustrate the straits to which the
advocates of unending suffering are reduced, than the dis
creet use they make of this passage. Its "unquenchable
fire " is often enough on their tongues, but how seldom we
hear of the rest of it, of "the chaff burnt up!" The latter
is one of those inconvenient illustrations so studiously shun
ned. For the fire of modern theology does not "burn up,"
notwithstanding experience, and the Bible, declare that fire
in burning consumes; and that this special fire is^signifi-
cantly spoken of as " a day that shall burn as an oven."

" Unquenchable Fire!' 173
The simple question with this passage is: Does the
expression " unquenchable fire " carry with it any implica
tion of eternal duration? Not the least whatever; neither
in the language of the Bible, nor in that of common life.
What is stated is that the fire cannot be put out. Whether,
after nothing remains to feed the flame, it shall then go
out of itself, is an entirely different question. From all
we know of fire, we should anticipate it would.
As an example of Bible usage, we read, Jer. xvii. 27:
"I will kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall
devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and // shall not be
quenched." This was fulfilled, as the same prophet tes
tifies. Lam. iv. 2 : " The Lord hath kindled a fire in Zion,
and it hath devoured the foundations thereof." But that
fire "not quenched " is not now burning on. It went out
when its work was done ; but not till then.
Such also is the language of everyday life. Suppose an
isolated wooden building takes fire. You afterward inquire,
"Was the fire put out? " " No," is the reply, " it could
not be put out ; we had no supply of water." "It could
not be put out " — that is not to say the fire will never cease
to burn, but that, no means being at hand to quench it, it
burned on unchecked till there was nothing left to burn ;
that is, till it had entirely consumed the building. The un
quenchable nature of the fire, that it could not be put out,
simply speaks the utter destruction of that on which it fed.
So of the fire of the great day; it is unquenchable, no one can
hope to extinguish it; it will continue to burn, till its work is
thoroughly accomplished in a like destraction of the sinner.
Mark ix. 47, 48: "It is better for thee, one-eyed [so
Gr.], to enter into the kingdom of God, than, having two
eyes, to be cast into the gehenna of the fire, where the
worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."
Certainly, the fact is very suggestive, that the double

174 The Future of the Wicked.
repetition of this illustration of the worm and the fire, in
verses 44 and 46 preceding, is spurious. It is not in the
earlier MSS., but is an addition of later centuries. It tells
of a felt difficulty that so little in the Bible should even
appear to sustain the dogma of unending suffering.
But poor support, indeed, except with the thoughtless,
does this passage give to that dogma. It is virtually the
same as the preceding passage, except that two instruments
of destruction are brought before us instead of one.
Strange, indeed, that the indestructible character of these
instruments of destruction should be deemed to infer the
indestructible nature of that which they destroy ! An
inference of the unending life of that which is being con
sumed, from the statement that nothing can arrest the
work of destruction ! And yet, such is force of early edu
cation, that we fail to notice the absurdity of this idea till
it is pointed out to us. For the argument on the preceding
passage applies here also. As the fire cannot be put out,
so the worm cannot be destroyed ; they must complete
their work. And such understanding of this passage is
confirmed by that whence the "figure here is quoted, Isaiah
Ixvi. 24 : " And they shall go forth, and look upon the car
casses of the men that have transgressed against Me ; for
their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be
quenched." It is upon those already dead that the fire
and the worm are to feed. The figure is taken from the
fire of the gehenna outside Jerusalem, where the fire and
the worm completed the destruction of the refuse brought
thither from the city. It tells not only of the sinner's loss
of life, but of the utter destraction of what may be left
after life is extinct. Instead of in any way suggesting
unending life, it is an image of uttermost destruction.
Isaiah xxxiii. 14: " Who among us shall dwell with the
devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with. everlasting
burnings? "

"Smoke of Torment!' 175
It is inferred that there are those who will. But were it
not a more natural response to the inquiry, who shall dwell
with the devouring fire ? — None, most certainly, none !
The question is like that in Ps. Ixxvi. 7 : "Who shall stand
in thy sight when once thou art angry? " For, in " the
great day of his wrath" is it that devouring fire will be
kindled. In the verse but one preceding, Is. xxxiii. 12,
it is stated of those who, modem theology infers, are to
abide that consuming fire; "And the people shall be as
the burnings of lime, as thorns cut up shall they be burned
in the fire." No thorns can abide the fire, we all know;
so no human beings can survive that future devouring fire.
The words of the prophet Nahum fitly answer to this ques
tion of Isaiah :
Nahum i. 5, 6, 8, 9: "The mountains quake at him
and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence,
yea, the world, and all that dwell therein. Who can stand
before his indignation ? and who can abide in the fierce
ness of his anger ? His fury is poured out like fire, and
the rocks are thrown down by him. What do ye imagine
against the Lord ? He will make an utter end : affliction
shall not rise up the second time. For, while they be
folded together as thorns, and while they be drunken as
drunkards, they shall be devoured as stubble fully dry."
Rev. xiv. 11: "And the smoke of their torment as-
cendeth up forever and ever."
Many take this as the literal declaration of unending
misery in store for. the wicked. But we must not forget
that the passage is from the Revelation of St. John, a book
so full of symbols as to be the stumbling-block of com
mentators. And no quotation from so symbolic a book
can override the simple statements of other Scriptures.
In dealing with symbols we need a key, not one supplied
by any human invention, but by the word of the Spirit.
And in Isaiah xxxiv. 10 we are happy to find the key

176 The Future of the Wicked.
needed here ; for thence is evidently taken the figure of
the ascending smoke. In foretelling the Lord's judgments
on the land of Idumea, the prophet declares: "It shall
not be quenched day nor night, the smoke thereof shall go
up forever!" No traveller finds, in the present condition
of ancient Idumea, the literal fulfilment of Isaiah's poetic
prediction. Desolate indeed is the land, totally ruined are
its cities ; but they are not now sending up the smoke of
their burning. And yet the poet-seer is no false prophet.
That doom which, in the highly-wrought language of
poetry, he foretold, has overtaken those cities. We behold
it in a destruction, which is not only total, but ever con
tinuing; and so fitly symbolized by the ever ascending
smoke of their burning. Here then is the key required.
The literal meaning of the poetic symbol is unending de
struction. And this is its meaning, when, in the Revela
tion, the symbol is again brought before us.
But one may object ; — Everything in the Revelation
is not figurative, may it not be an assumption thus to re
gard this passage ? Well questioned ; for no passage may
be adjudged figurative, except the proof be incontroverti
ble. What, then, is this proof? It is as follows:
I. Thus only- can the passage be made to accord' with
the declarations in the rest of Scripture of the unending
destruction of the wicked. 2. The probability of its being
figurative is confirmed by finding in Isaiah the same lan
guage unquestionably figurative, as already shown. 3.
This torment is said, in verse preceding, to be "in the
presence of the holy angels and of the" Lamb." Are
their pure eyes never to be free from the sight of unut
terable, because eternal, agony? Impossible. Such a
statement must be figurative. 4. Elsewhere in this book
of the Revelation its writer uses the expression, "torment
forever," so as to place beyond question its necessary sym
bolic intent. We read : " The beast and the false prophet

Erroneous Inferences — Smoke of Torment. 177
were taken, and cast into a lake of fire, burning with brim
stone;" Rev. xix. 20: and again, "where the beast and
the false prophet are, and they shall be tormented [plural
Gr.] day and n\^t forever ;" Rev. xx. 10. It is evident
the beast is not a literal brute beast, but a sjrmbol, as is
the associated false prophet. From Dan. vii. 3, 17, 23,
we learn that "beast" is the Biblical symbol of a king
dom or government of this present world, or dispensation.
Can it be that the government here symbolized is to exist
forever, as it must, if literally forever tormented ? Cer
tainly not ; for we learn, Dan. ii. 44, that our Lord's king
dom "shall break in pieces and consume all these king
doms." We have then abundant proof of the necessary
figurative nature of the expression.
What then is the import of this established symbol?
As we learn from Isaiah's use of the figure, it calls atten
tion to the unending nature of a destruction already ac
complished. As applied in the Revelation to the fate of
the irretrievably lost, it tells us that that fearfiil ending of
existence, whenever it rises before the mind of the sur
viving beholders, is as if the smoke of that burning were
StiU ascending before one's actual vision. As it is figura
tively said of Abel, Heb. xi. 4, " He, being dead, yet speak
eth; " — he speaks to us whenever we think of him. So,
in memory, that fate of the lost abides a warning to the re-
deemed,ever continuing, against an}- turning to that sin which
has brought about such hopeless, perpetual destruction.
Having thus examined careftdl)-, and we believe can
didly, the passages whence is derived the inference of
unending suffering, we find that, so far from bearing the
construction put upon them, they all agree in asserting
the utter literal destruction of the wicked. We therefore
judge that, in Holy Scripture, there is absolutely nothing
on which to rest the unauthorized dogma of etemal misery.

178 The Future of the Wicked.
And, indeed, it is impossible to understand how, on a
thorough and impartial investigation, any one, capable of
giving a reason for the faith that is in him, can come to
any other conclusion. Unless it be, that the believer in
eternal misery is so convinced of the truth of the doc
trine, that no question of the fact can enter his mind,
and so all his thought is absorbed in strengthening his
position or in meeting objections to it. In some such
way only, can we explain the weakness of arguments often
advanced, and readily accepted by Christian people, who
substitute the authority of others for their own judgment.
The most prominent champion at present of the doctrine
of unending misery is Rev. S. C. Bartlett, D. D., formerly
Professor of Intellectual Philosophy and Rhetoric at West
ern Reserve College, late Professor of Sacred Theology at
the Chicago Theological Seminary, and just called to the
Presidency of Dartmouth College. In the New Englander
of Oct., 1872, he publishes what he must have believed a
sound argument in favor of the doctrine he holds. Referring
to an evidently difficult point for his doctrine, those illus
trations of Scripture, the chaff, stubble, thorns, tares, all
consumed in the fire, in which cases the object selected as
the example is utterly blotted out of existence, he declares
very correctly these are ' ' simple images of a terrific over
throw." But then he goes on to explain that the idea of
literal destruction embodied in these Bible images is not
intentional, and should not be accepted. It is an error,
he tells us, due to the necessary imperfection of imagery
drawn from nature around us. But then could not the
All-wise have found illustrations less misleading ? Or may
it not be possible that ,the reverend writer assumes his point,
and then unconsciously argues from that assumption? We
quote his own words :
" Perhaps the shortest, as well as most palpable and most
incontrovertible reply [italics our own] to the annihilation-

Illogical Reasoning Exposed. 179
ist use of these comparisons, is to produce a living man in
the Scripture employing nearly every one of them (and
more also) to describe his own present wretched condi
tion. We will introduce the patriarch Job."
Then follow the utterances of Job contained in the fol
lowing references : Job vi. 4; vii. 8; ix. 18; xiii. 25, 28;
xvi. 9, 10, 12, 16; xvii. I ; xix. 8, 9, 11 ; xxx. 14, 15, 19,
22, 28-30, with the triumphant summing up: "If these
utterances of the living Job are not an annihilation of the
doctrine of annihilation, what could be?" [Well, we
agree in that ; nothing else could be !]
Let us then examine this supposed crashing argument
from these utterances of Job.
First, however, we do not say that Pres. Bartlett intended
to convey such an impression ; yet, from his statement re
specting the Scripture images of future punishment, that
"Job employs nearly every one of them, and more also,"
if, from that, anyone takes the suggestion«that Job's language
describing his suffering is any way more comprehensive, or
more terrible, than is the Scripture presentation of the fate of
the wicked, or indeed that it other than falls immensely short
of it, such a one is grievously led astray ; as will be seen by
comparing these references from Job with Scripture quota
tions already given in this chapter. But let that pass.
The first position of Pres. Bartlett must be that this
language of Job cannot be literal. Job was not a " leaf
driven with the wind," or " dry stubble," xiii. 25 ; his days
were not literally "extinct," xvii. i; neither was he
"broken asunder," or "shaken to pieces," or his "reins
cleft asunder," xvi. 12, 13. Granted, most readily. The
rule of figurative language already given (Chap. I.) decides
the matter : The possibility of the literal meaning must be
exhausted before a figurative meaning is adopted. Here it
is exhausted in the circumstances of the case. No living
man can literally say his days are extinct. And in a book
16

I So The Future of -tlte Wicked.
like that of Job, all of which is poetry but two chapters
and a half, we look for great poetic license, to a degree
inadmissible in prose, and yet never to violate the strict
rule, that the figurative intent shall always be made most
evident. Granting, then, this evident fact of figurative
language, what conclusion is sought to be drawn from it ?
Certainly, it was not the intention of Pres. Bartlett to
prove merely that it were possible such expressions could
be used figuratively, which is all that Job's language legiti
mately proves. That all would allow, and that is no
"most incontrovertible reply" to the so-called " annihi-
lationist use ' ' of these Scripture illustrations ; for such use
never denies the figurative use of these expressions on
other proper occasions. It was intended these quotations
from Job should go beyond this. They are of no avail
here, unless they are held to prove that the Scripture illus
trations of future punishment are to a like degree figura
tive ; and so, for that reason, they cannot be held to teach
the idea of absolute destruction involved in them. If this
"incontrovertible reply" is to be of any account, it can
only be because it carries this conclusion, viz.. That be
cause Job once used certain language figuratively, there
fore, when other Scripture characters use- similar language,
they likewise use it figuratively. To be sure, Job speaks
on one topic, his own case; they speak on another, the
punishment of the wicked ; yet because one uses the words
figuratively, we are bound to conclude that the other does
also ! Here is the gist of the argument; a "most palpable"
non sequitur, it would seem to any one.
Let us apply this style of argument. Job says, chap. xix.
lo : "He hath destroyed me ; " he speaks figuratively, for
he exists while saying it. Moses writes, . Gen. xix. 29 :
"God destroyed the cities of the plain." If the figurative
use of "destroy " by Job is to govern our understanding
of the word elsewhere, then it " incontrovertibly " proves

Illogical Reasoning Exposed. i8i
that these cities were , figuratively destroyed, and literally
continued to exist. Perhaps that is an explanation why
Jude uses the fate of those cities as an illustration of what
we are now told is the' figurative destraction of the sinner !
Or, to suppose a case ; let the question be. Did Mr. X make
a certain statement by word of mouth, or by sign language ?
This style of logic thus argues upon it :
Mr. X made a certain statement ;
But we know that Mr. Y, at another time, and to another
audience, made the same statement, using sign language ;
Therefore, it follows that Mr. X's statement was made in
sign language.
What Mr. X here has to do with Mr. Y, is what no one
can find out. No more can we discover the connection
between Job speaking of his discomforts and our Lord
foretelling th§ fate of the wicked; except that, in their
speech, one uses an illustration similar to that used by the
other !
Perhaps it may be thought this case of mistaken argu
ment is not worth the space given to it. But it is usefiil as
showing the Christian public how their leaders go astray
on these questions, and that the "incontrovertible" con
clusions of such as hold that the law of the literal and the
figurative does not apply to God's revealed word are to be
received with caution.

CHAPTER XII.
The Destiny of the Soul. The Bible Doctrine of
the Intermediate State.
HOLY Scripture reveals to us that the righteous, after
their special resurrection ("the first resurrection,"
Rev. XX. 4, 5 ; "of the just," Luke xiv. 14; "to
life," Jno.V. 29), are to receive their reward in eternal life,
then bestowed upon them as "the gift of God through
Jesus Christ our Lord; " Rom. vi. 23. While the wicked,
after their subsequent resurrection (Rev. xx. 5 ; "to judg
ment," Jno. V. 29), are to be judged and condemned to
eternal death, "the second death; " Rev. xxi. 8.
The intermediate state of the dead,, that between death
and their resurrection, according to the Bible, is a state of
unconsciousness through years or through centuries, till the
resurrection of the special class to which the sleeper be
longs. His state, meanwhile, is not yet one of joy or of
woe. He remains in his grave till the "voice, which all
in the graves shall hear," Jno. v. 28, summons him forth
to his reward.
Such is, unquestionably, the doctrine of the Old Testa
ment on the intermediate state. It is while all are thus
waiting that we read, "There the wicked cease from
troubling, and there the weary be at rest;" Job iii. 17.
(A text which the writer has seen quoted at length in
a child's catechism, as an answer to the -question, " How
does the Bible describe heaven? " !)
But such is not the doctrine of the intermediate state'
held by the church generally at the present day. In the
theological seminaries of our land, where our religious

Modem Doctrine Contrary to the Bible. 183
teachers are supposed to be indoctrinated into the real
meaning of the Bible, a doctrine the exact opposite of this
is generally, if not universally, inculcated. It is taught that
when a man dies he does not cease to live ; he merely
steps out, as it were, into an enlarged, conscious existence
somewhere else. If a faithful follower of Christ, he
receives his reward forthwith, only without a body ; if
impenitent, he in like manner receives his reward ; and
this, apparently, without a judgment to decide what that
reward should be. For although Paul does say, "we must
all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, that [Gr. in
order that] each one may receive the things done in the
body," yet this judgment seems to be now understood to
be a matter of no essential importance, a mere ceremonial,
or pageant, with no practical result, unless it be as regards
our bodies, *
* That we may not be thought to misrepresent, we quote from the
¦Westminster Confession of Faith, published by the Presbyterian Board
of Publication, Philadelphia, Pa.
" The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption ;
but their souls (which neither die nor sleep), having an immortal sub
sistence, immediately return to God who gave them." (The text
quoted to prove this destination of J08«& is: "Then shall the spirit
return to God, who gave it; " on which, see page 39.) " 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 [Italics ours] into hell, where they remain in
torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great
day." From Questions 88, 89 of the Assembly's Larger Catechism, we
learn that after the resurrection comes the day of judgment, when
" the wicked shall be cast [Italics ours] into hell, to be punished with
unspeak.ible torments, body and soul, forever."
¦What idea, if any, did the framera of that Confession get from the
misapplied, text, "Then shall the spirit return," etc.? They tell us,
the souls of righteous and wicked alike return to God; when the
righteous, made perfect, are received into heaven. Is it meant, that
16*

184 The Bible Doctrine of Intermediate State
But the question will come up : How is it that the only
Bible which Christ had, which he studied, and with which
he showed himself so familiar (see Matt. iv. 4, 7, 10), how
is it that this Bible should hold out to us a doctrine of the
intermediate state so opposed to that taught in our reli
gious schools, and by their graduates? Both cannot be right.
It is indeed a serious question. Does the Bible teach falsely
on this point, or do our religious teachers ?
It is expected we shall be quieted, as so many Christians
are, with the following reply: "It was the gospel which
brought to light life and immortality; it is doubtful if they
knew much about that in Old Testament times. Those old
patriarchs, prophets, psalmists, and seers, with whom their
Maker held such free converse, did not, after all, get very
clear ideas of what comes after death. Those holy men of
old, moved by the Holy Spirit, though with no intent to
deceive us, gave us but the reflection of their own personal
views." Then we are not to take it that the Bible is an
infallible rule of faith and practice ? Certainly not, we are
virtually told, unless the New Testament is put alongside
to correct the errors of the Old ! And so the larger por
tion of God's word is actually contemned and put aside,
because it contradicts modern theology's doctrine of the
intermediate state.
In so doing, the popular theology of our day claims
that it is built upon the doctrine of the New Testament.
Very well ; let us then see if this claim is correct. Let us
interrogate the New Testament on this point, and see
whether indeed one part of God's word does contradict
they remain in heaven, and the wicked, who returned to God in
heaven, are cast out of it into hell; or, that the great God goes out of
heaven, his dwelling place, to meet each individual soul as it singly
returns? For, certainly, the idea oi personal meeting is involved in
such application of the text ; otherwise, they return to God no further
than they are now with him here.

As Taught by Our Lord. 185
the other ! For, if the Old Testament teaches that the in
termediate state is one of unconsciousness, with neither
knowledge, nor wisdom, nor thought, a state of silence and
darkness ; and if the New Testament teaches, with modern
theology, that this state is in reality one not only of full
consciousness, but of knowledge and powers exalted be
yond our possible conception ; then there is here no pos
sible agreement between the two : one directly contradicts
what the other asserts, which is hardly probable. Or else,
modern theology goes down on its own showing.
On examination, we find that this charge which modern
theology brings, that the New Testament contradicts the
Old, is not sustained.
We learn this :
I . From the fact that our Lord and his Apostles use Old
Testament language, the Biblical phraseology of their day,
in speaking of the death of believers. For example, Jesus
says, Jno. xi. 11: "Our friend Lazarus [literal Gr.] has
fallen asleep, but I go that I may awake him out of sleep. ' '
Certainly, he, who spake as never man spake, has here no
thought of perplexing his disciples with a verbal ambiguity.
He seeks to impress upon them, and so upon us, that
death to a follower of his, is what the Old Testament
represents it, a sleep. We may trust him in this matter,
for where we might mistake, his loving heart assures us,
"If it were not so, I would have told you." With this
agrees his language, Jno. ix. 4 : " The night cometh, when
no man can work. ' ' And so we understand why Lazarus,
so many days dead, should have no revelations to make of
a "spirit world; " he had nothing to tell. In that undis
turbed, dreamless sleep in his rock sepulchre, he " knew
not anything" (Eccl. ix. 5) till a voice calling "Lazarus,
come forth," aroused him, as in the Resurrection the same
voice will arouse all the sleeping dead ; Jno. v. 28.
At the raising to life of Jairus' daughter, our Lord said

1 86 The Bible Doctrine of Intermediate State
to the weeping mourners, " Weep not ; she is not dead,
but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn, knowing
that she was dead ; ' ' this latter clause given us only by
the physician-evangelist Luke. Why did the Lord here
use the word sleep ? It can only be explained in that, to
his foresight, the interval between death and the judgment
is but a sleep, as the Old Testament represents it ; there is
to be a waking again to consciousness. His words are
equivalent to : " Weep not ; she is not dead, never to live
again ; this is but a temporary loss of life ; it is indeed
a sleep, a brief period of unconsciousness." But when
one dies the second death, that is death in its reality — a
permanent loss of life ; it is perishing, indeed. Such a fate
for themselves or others might indeed call forth those
boisterous demonstrations of grief, but not when we may
be comforted by the fact that the death is virtually but
a sleep, a temporary cessation of existence. Even Lange,
on Matt. ix. 24, confesses that "Jesus declared death
is but a sleep." But what kind of sleep is that of
modern theology, where the sleeper in death is wide
awake, and with his intellectual powers more active than
ever? We find, then, that our Lord, instead of correcting
what modern theology calls an Old Testament error, actu
ally adopts and enforces it ! Surely this is -enough to over
throw the preposterous charge that the New Testament
contradicts the Old. But let us look further.
Matthew, the Evangelist and Apostle, uses similar lan
guage. "Many bodies of the saints, who slept, arose; "
Matt, xxvii. 52.
Luke, the writer of Acts, in relating Stephen's death,
says: "He fell asleep. And devout men carried Stephen
to his burial ; " Acts vii. 60. In recording Paul's speech
at Antioch in Pisidia, he uses the peculiar language of the
Old Testament : " For David, after he had served his own

As a Sleep in the New Testament. 187
generation, fell on sleep, and was gathered to his fathers ; "
Acts xiii. 36.
The Apostle Peter writes in the same way: "For since
the fathers fell asleep ; " 2 Pet. iii. 4.
Such is Paul's favorite mode of alluding to the death
of believers.
I Cor. vii. 39 : "If her husband be dead [Gr. same as
above, should fall asleep], she is at liberty to be married."
I Cor. xi. 30: "For this cause, many are weak and
sickly among you, and many sleep," — that is, have died.
I Cor. xv. 6 : " The greater part remain unto this present,
but some sxe. fallen asleep."
I Cor. XV. 18. "Then they also, that axe fallen asleep
in Christ, are perished."
I Cor. XV. 20 : " Christ is risen from the dead, a first
fruits of them that slept!'
I Cor. XV. 51 : " Behold I show you a mystery; we shall
not all sleep."
I Thess. iv. 13 : " But I would not have you to be igno
rant, brethren, concerning them that are asleep!' "Them
that ARE asleep ' ' — did not Paul mean what he wrote ?
You say, "It is their bodies alone that sleep." Will you
stand by that interpretation? Then, if the body is spoken
of as asleep, it is the personality : it is referred to by the
personal "prononn "them," — "them that are asleep."
I Thess. iv. 14 : " For if we believe that Jesus died and
rose again, even so them that sleep, will God through Jesus
(so Gr.) bring with him." That is, as Jesus was brought
from death to life, so will God bring them.
I Thess. iv. 15 : " For this we say unto you by the word
of the Lord, that we, who are al^ve and remain unto the
coming of the Lord, shall not [Gr. phthano] come (or, be)
before them that are asleep," — those still living shall not
come before, in other words, shall not leave behind them
that have died.

1 88 The Bible Doctrine of Intermediate State.
I Thess. iv. i6: "For the Lord himself shall descend
from heaven with a shout, with the tramp of God, and the
dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and
remain," — then, and not till then, does the promised
change occur, and "this mortal put on immortality."
These Thessalonian Christians, being in much tribulation,
were eagerly "waiting for" (i Thess. i. lo) their Lord
from heaven. To quiet their anxiety for friends already
dead, no longer .waiting with them, Paul gives them assur
ance from the Lord that such, when the Lord does come,
will not be left behind. "Wherefore," he adds, "com
fort one another with these words. ' '
How could they have had any anxiety about their dead
friends, if Paul had ever taught them that they were still
living, and in God's presence ! But when Paul would com
fort and reassure the bereaved, he speaks to them of that
which he tells us (Acts xxiv. 15) was his hope; it was
the coming of Jesus and the Resurrection. When our
Lord himself would comfort those sorrowing over their
dead, he turns their thoughts to the Resurrection, and
to himself, "the Resurrection and the Life." How dif
ferent this from the consolation usually administered by
the ministers of religion in our day ! That which is the
burden of their comfort, the present conscious felicity of
sleeping saints, Paul has not a word of it ; in fact, he
explicitly contradicts it. He declares, 2 Tim. iv. 8, that
for himself and others, the time of reward, the cro^wn of
blessedness and glory, is at the day of our Lord's appear
ing. He tells us it is "at the revelation of Jesus Christ,"
2 Thess. i. 7 ; " at his appearing and his kingdom," 2
Tim. iv. I. With his statements agree those of Peter, i
Pet. V. 4, and of John, i John iii. 2. They could fall
asleep in peace, being "persuaded that he is able to keep
that which they had committed to him against that day; "
2 Tim. i. 12.

'Suggestive Use of Greek Verbs. 189
2. That the New Testament writers teach that the first
death is a sleep, appears also in the significant meaning
of the two verbs, by which ' they express the bringing
the sleeper first to consciousness, and after that to the
active exercise of his awakened faculties. For the awaken
ing they use " egeiro ; " the subsequent action they express
by ^^ anistemi!' This marked distinction our English
translators either failed to recognize, or at least they ut
terly ignore it ; they render the two different Greek verbs
by the same English word, to raise.
The meaning of " egeiro!' as given by Liddell and Scott,
is primarily "to awaken, wake up, rouse, stir: " in a sec
ondary or derived sense, it is applied to the raising a sick
man from his bed, or a building from the ground. We
note its simple meaning in Matt. viii. 25 : " His disciples
came to him and awoke him, saying. Lord, save us, we
perish. ' ' And the distinction, between the simple and the
metaphorical sense, is well shown in the record of Christ's
conversation with- the Jews, Jno. ii. 19-21: "Jesus said
unto them,"' — they had asked a prophetic sign, — "de
stroy this temple and in three days I will awaken it ; "
"egeiro" in the future and in its primary sense, though
the E. V. gives the secondary, "will raise it up." The
evangelist explains in ver. 22 : "But he spake of the tem
ple of his body," that real temple in which Deity actually
dwelt. In their reply, the Jews, mistaking the temple
spoken of, their minds on the t)q)ical one of stone and
wood, take up " egeiro " in a metaphorical sense : " Forty
and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou
raise it [Gr. egeiro, awaken it into existence, E. V. rear
it upl in three days? " See by contrast the report of the
false witnesses, which our English translators seem to have
adopted in their " rear it up : " " This one said, I am able
to destroy the temple of God, and build it [Gr. oikodomeo,
lit. to build a house] in three days."

190 The Bible Doctrine of Intermediate State.
The other verb anistemi, with its noun anastasis, res
urrection, is a compound of ana, up, and istemi, to
make to stand. The action it denotes is entirely subse
quent to that of the preceding verb "egeiro; " the indi
vidual, first roused from sleep, is then made to stand up —
is set upon his feet, ,in the exercise of all his faculties.
We observe that the New Testament writers, with their
clearer perceptions of the nature and importance of the
resurrection, keep in mind and carefully note this distinc
tion. In Mark xii. 25, 26, Christ says: "When they
shall rise [anastemi] from the dead, they neither marry nor
are given in marriage; but are as the angels in heaven."
In this verse the reference is evidently to the life in a com
pleted resurrection state. In the next verse, where no
reference is had to the activities of their future life, the
question being simply whether they are to be awakened at
all, the verb changes in the Greek, though, unfortunately,
not in the English translation: "And as touching the
dead that they, rise!' — egeiro, lit. are awakened. And
such future awakening Christ proves solely on this concep
tion of death, as we have shown on page 69.
So, in the account given in Mark v. 41, of the bring
ing Jairus' daughter to life, we read: "And he took the
damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi,
which is, being interpreted. Damsel, I say unto thee [Gr.
egeire] awake [E. V. arise]. And immediately the damsel
arose [mark change of verb in the Greek, from egeiro to
anistemi, expressing action beyond that of simple awaking]
and walked ; for she was of the age of twelve years. ' '
When life was restored to the widow's son of Nain, Luke
vii. 14, the word was: "Young man, I say unto thee
[Gsx. egeiro, in passive], be awakened!' And in the 22d
verse of the same chapter, when Christ desired to call
attention to the fact that life was given to the dead, he
says: "Go, tell John . . . that the dead [Gr. egeiro ntai]

N. T. Explanation of 0. T. Types. 191
are awakened," — are aroused into life. We observe the
succession of thought in Jno. v. 21 : "The Father raiseth
up [Gr. egeirei, awakens to life] the dead, and quickeneth
them [Gr. zbopoiei, makes them to live]."
And so likewise in the 15th of ist Corinthians, where
Paul's argument is not concerning the nature of the resur
rection life, but of the fact itself, whether there be any
resurrection, any awakening at all, the Apostle invariably
uses egeiro, not anistemi. For instance, verse 35, the
inquiry is: ''How are the dead awakened? and with what
body do they come?" Surely, had our translators ren
dered egeiro, when referring to the state of death, by this
its New Testament sense of awaken, the modern error on
this question would have been much less prevalent.
Thus we see that not alone in the Old, .but in the New
Testament, the intermediate state is regarded as a sleep ;
and in pursuance of this idea, the first bringing back the
sleeper to consciousness and life is appropriately termed
awakening him.
3. In the New Testament explanation of the types of
the Old, we find the same thought sharply set before us.
Christ's sleeping saints are not with the One who has been
awakened (Acts xiii. 30, Eph. i. 20, i Pet. i. 21) from
dead ones, and has entered into immortality. In the nth
chapter of Hebrews we read : " Into the tabernacle, called
the holiest of all, went the high-priest alone every year."
Turning to Lev. xvi. 17, we find God had expressly com
manded : "There shall be no man in the tabernacle, when he
goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place. ' ' Here is the
type; how is it fulfilled? We learn from Heb. xi. 24 that
thus was foreshadowed the present mediatorial work of
Christ: "For Christ is not entered into the holy places
made with hands, which are the figures of the true, but into
heaven itself; now to appear in the presence of God for
us." Christ is now our high priest, now at the right hand
17

192 The Bible Doctrine of Intermediate State.
of the Majesty in the heavens ; Heb. vii. 24 to viii. 2. He
has gone there, as went the high priest into the earthly
tabernacle, "not without blood;" but it is "his own."
And so the other conditions of the type must be fulfilled
in him. He must go there alone ! We learn from Acts
ii. 34, that even David, that man after God's heart, has
not ascended into the heavens. Even to his disciples the
Lord Jesus said, as he had to the Jews, "Whither I go,
ye cannot come." But soon after he adds : "Let not
your heart be troubled ... I will come again and receive
you unto Myself." From the tabernacle of old, his atoning
work, in its prescribed type, completed, came forth the high
priest of Israel to bless the people waiting outside. "And
unto them that look for him, shall Christ appear the
second time, without sin [a sin-offering], unto salvation"
(Heb. xi. 28); that salvation (i Peter i. 5) "ready to be
revealed in the last time." As the true High Priest, he
is now gone from the sight of his people. He has entered
within the veil. He will yet again come forth, a King to
reign ; and whether in that day we be sleeping in dust, or
be "ali^ye and remain unto his coming," as we catch the
sound of that welcome voice, reaching even into the
grave, the utterance of our "satisfied" hearts will be,
" Lo, this is our God ; we have waited for him : this is
the Lord ; we have waited for him, we will be glad and
rejoice in his salvation;" Isaiah xxix. 9, where see the
preceding context.
In view of all these facts, can any one, whatever may ¦
have been his early education, fail to perceive the baseless
ness of the. assumption that the New Testament contradicts
the Old ? The two are in the fullest harmony with each
other. They must be so ; for they are the revelation of
the one true God.
But what then becomes of modern theology's claim that
its doctrine of the intermediate state is founded upon the

True Meaning of Sheol. 193
New Testament ? It is founded upon, neither the Old nor
the New. It has no footing whatever in the Bible. It is,
in so many words, the lie of the great adversary, " Ye shall
not surely die." Adopted by the authorities of the church
in days of greater ignorance of God's word, it is still
sought to be sustained by labored but inconsistent inter
pretations of Holy Writ. The facts on this question are
here before each reader. Let each use the reason his
Maker gives him, and judge for himself
A point yet remains unsolved. It may be asked, " Where,
on this view, do you put Enoch and Elijah, who did not see
death ? ' ' The full answer to that question has not been
revealed to us. No better reply can be given than the
words of good old Tyndale: "What God doeth with them
that shall we know when we come to them. ' ' We read,
Jno. iii. 13 : " No man hath ascended up to heaven ; " —
we understand, into the heaven of heavens, where God
dwells; Psalm cxv. 16.
But, further, the place, or state of the dead, is denoted
in the original Hebrew of the Bible by the word sheol; in
the Greek, by the word hades. Now, if we can determine
the real meaning of these words, the question of the in
termediate state of the dead is decided. Our theological
authorities seem inclined to seek for the meaning of hades
in the classic Greek, and from that, as a starting point, to
reason back to the earlier Hebrew word. But, on a ques
tion of Christian doctrine, hades has its value only so far as
it is the exponent of the Heb. sheol, upon the meaning of
which its Biblical meaning is wholly dependent.
It is then a primary question. What is the meaning of
sheol, as used in the Bible ? To decide t^is, we have but
to study the Bible examples of its use.
The question is much simplified in that it really lies be
tween two meaniags, so opposed to each other that both

194 1^^^ Bible Doctrine of Intermediate State.
cannot be right. Two renderings, the grave and hell, are
used by our translators, each in nearly equal proportion.
Sometimes both renderings are given — one in the text, the
other in the margin.
Beginning with the books of Moses, we find the question
is there virtually decided. Sheol occurs in these books
seven times. The first six times it unquestionably means
the grave. Would any writer, having thus by usage estab
lished a meaning, on using it again give to it a totally dif
ferent meaning, and without any explanation ? Yet on its
seventh occurrence our translators, in defiance of the con
text, render it hell. Thus :
Gen. xxxvii. 35 : "I will go down into sheol (E. V. the
grave) unto my son, mourning."
Gen. xiii. 38 : "Then shall ye bring down my gray hairs
with sorrow to sheol" (E. V. the' grave).
Gen. xliv. 29: "My gray hairs with sorrow to sheol"
(E. V. the grave).
Gen. xliv. 31: "His gray hairs to sheol" (E. V. the
grave). Num. xvi. 30 : " If the earth open her mouth and swal
low them up, and they go down quick [alive] unto sheol"
(E. V. the pit, evidently meaning the grave).
Num. xvi. 33 : " They went do^wn alive into sheol" (E.
V. the pit)!
Deut. xxxii. 22: "For a fire is kindled in my anger, and
shall burn unto the lowest sheol (E. V. hell), and shall
consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the
foundations of the mountains."
In Genesis, it would hardly do to make Jacob say he was
going down to hell, or for his sons to say it of him. In
the passage from Numbers, if one were to translate sheol
hell, he must accept the inference that as these wicked men
went into that hell "alive," they went not as "disem
bodied spirits," but carrying their bodies with them, which

True Meaning of Sheol. 195
entirely does away with even that limited resurrection (of
the body only), allowed by modern theology. That could
not be, and so Deut. xxxii. 22 was the only opportunity to
influence the English reader by putting the word hell into
the books of the law. And in this instance it is strangely
at variance with the context, and also with present orthodox
ideas ; for the Lord is speaking of physical fire, which
shall consume the earth and the foundations of the moun
tains ; as is foretold, 2 Pet. iii. 10.
Sheol next occurs i Sam. ii. 6 : " The Lord killeth and
maketh alive : he bringeth down to sheol (E. V. the grave),
and bringeth up ' ' from sheol, the grave ; certainly, there
is no resurrection, or bringing up, from the hell of modern
theology. And, according to the parallelism of Hebrew
poetry, "bringeth down to, .and bringeth up from sheol!'
corresponds to "killeth and maketh alive."
2 Sam. xxii. 6 : " The sorrows [margin, Heb. cords] of
sheol (E. V. hell) compassed me about ; the- snares of death
prevented me. ' ' Here the parallelism of Hebrew poetry
demands the rendering "the cords of the grave," to cor
respond with the "snares of death."
I Kings ii. 9: "His hoar head bring thou down to
sheol ' ' (E. V. the grave ; here certainly not hell).
Job vii. 9 : "Goeth down to sheol" (E. V. the grave).
Job xiv. 13 : " O that thou wouldest hide me in sheol"
(E. V. the grave ; Job would hardly select hell as a hiding
place). Job xvii. 13: " Sheol [E. V. the grave] is my house; I
have made my bed in darkness."
Job xxi. 13: "Sheol" {E.Y. the grave); xxiv. 19,
'< Sheol" (E. V. the grave).
But space will not permit us to give all cases of the Bible
use of sheol, as, thus far, consecutively. In those already
quoted, it is evident that sheol is the grave, not hell. So
apparent is this that it can hardly be possible our transla-
17*

196 The Bible Doctrine of Intermediate State.
tors would have had any difficulty with the word, had it
not been for the need of some support for the popular idea
of hell. Has it never occurred to the reader that the Scrip
tures never once mention the eternal dwelling in misery
of numberless human beings, which is a doctrine of "the
church standards" of the present day? That a Divine
revelation of man's future should ignore anything so tre
mendous, is almost, if not quite, fatal to the trastworthiness
of the doctrine or of the revelation ! And now, if the Bible
does not mention, or give any name for, any place, where
all this is said to occur, the existence of such a place may
well be doubted. If our English version thinks to find the
popular hell in this word, it is sadly out of its reckoning,
for the Bible speaks of not the wicked only, but of the
righteous also (as already quoted), going to this place ;
this "house appointed for all the living."
We note a few more examples of the Bible use of
sheol :
Psalm cxxxix. 8 : " If I make my bed in sheol" (E. V.
hell) ; evidently referring to the grave, the bed in which
we sleep till the resurrection morning, as is expressed in
both clauses of Job xvii. 13, above quoted.
Prov. vii. 27 : " Her house is the way to sheol [the grave,
E. V. hell], going down to the chambers of death." The
correct rendering preserves the exact parallelism, "the
way to the grave," answering to "going down to the
chambers of death."
Ps. Iv. 15: "Let death seize upon them, and let them
go down quick [alive, living] into sheol" (E. V. in the
text, hell, in the margin, the grave). The most enthusi
astic believer in the hell of modern theology will hardly
claim that any can go there alive ; they must go as dead
persons — death is the only portal to that abode. Then
certainly sheol, into which one goes living, smothered
alive, buried alive (Numb. xvi. 33: "they went alive into

Sheol in Lower Parts of the Earth. 197
sheol"), this sheol cannot be the popular hell ! The mis
givings as to the correctness of their preferred rendering,
our translators here manifest by their marginal reading,
the grave.
We find our translators had a similar difficulty with
Psalm Ixxxvi. 13 : " Thou hast delivered my soul from the
lowest sheol" (E. V. hell, or, margin, the grave).
Ezekiel chap. xxxi. is well worth careful study, for here
the inconsistent rendering of our translators serves to es
tablish the correct rendering of sheol. In verses 3 to 12,
the Lord compares the Assyrian monarch to a cedar tree
in Lebanon, and his fall to the fall of this mighty tree.
Verse 14, of other kings, gtyled "trees by the waters," we
read, "they are all delivered unto death, to the nether
[lower] parts of the earth, in the midst of the children
of men, with them that go do^wn to the pit." Verse 15,
referring to the Assyrian king: "Thus saith the Lord
God, in the day that he went down into sheol [E. V. the
grave], I caused a mourning. I caused Lebanon to
mourn for him, and all the trees of the field [/. ^., other
mighty men] fainted for him." Verse 16: "I made the
nations to shake at the sound of his fall, when I cast him
down to sheol [E. V. hell] with them that descend into
the pit, and all the trees of Eden shall be comforted in
the nether parts of the earth. " Ver. 17: "They also [in
the nether parts of the earth, mark you] went down into
sheol [E. V. hell] with him."
Here our translators, in rendering "sheol!' as it occurs
in two consecutive verses, and in reference to the same act
in one verse, "the grave," in the next verse, "hell," un
mistakably use these two words as synonymous terms ! But
in modern thought, there is a radical distinction between
tbe two. Then one of these renderings is an error —
which ? In every case already before us, we have found
the grave an unexceptional rendering ; to the other, hell,

198 The Bible Doctrine of Intermediate State.
often insuperable objections exist. Besides, if we accept
the rendering hell, then we acknowledge it located "in the
lower parts of the earth 1 ' '
In this connection, read Ezek. xxxii. 18, 21: "Son" of
Man, wail for the multitude of Egypt, and cast therii down
unto the nether parts of the earth, unto them that go down
to the pit. The strong among the mighty shall speak to
him out of the midst of sheol [the grave, E. V. hell] ;
they are gone down ; they lie uncircumcised, slain with
the sword; " i. e., they are lying, slain, in the grave.
In this and the preceding extract from Ezekiel, sheol
evidently is located in fhe nether (lower or under) parts of
the earth ; those " delivered unto death " are delivered " to
the lower parts of the earth ; " those in sheol, " gone down
the pit," are in the lower parts of the earth. How is
this ? We perceive that sheol means not the separate grave
of each individual (a different Hebrew word expresses that
thought), but that it is a general term for the state of all
the dead, whether they lie in careful sepulture, or, as Jacob
imagined of Joseph, they are torn and devoured by beasts
of the field. And this general state of the dead was con
ceived of as a vast pit in the darkness of " the lower parts
of the earth ; " a vast burying-place, or, as we call it,
cemetery (Gr. koimeterion, sleeping chamber), beneath the
homes of the living, where are gathered the dead of all
times past, who, slain by the sword, Ezek. xxxii. 21, or
dying in their beds, Isa. Ivii. 2, lie stored away, like mum
mied forms, "in the sides of the pit; " Isa. xiv. 15.
With this conception agrees the language of Isaiah xiv.
Q-ii : "Sheol [the grave, E. V. hell !] from beneath [i. e.,
in the lower parts of the earth] is moved for thee to meet
thee at thy coming ; it stirreth up the [sleeping] dead for
thee. All they shall speak and say unto thee. Art thou
also become as we? art thou become like unto us? The
worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee."
Surely, these speaking are not living beings, actually ex-

True Meaning of Sheol. 199
isting without bodies in an imaginary hell ; we have here
a figurative allusion to the grave, where, in the bold im
agery of Oriental poetry, those actually dead are repre
sented speaking one to the other, covered with worms.
Precisely the same imagery Christ makes use of in the
parable of Dives and Lazarus, where he represents the
dead as speaking to each other. And let the reader not
forget that the Old Testament, comparatively contemned
and certainly neglected now-a-days, was the Bible Christ
studied, and which he enjoined his hearers to search,
whose language was to him as household words.
The New Testament repeats the very language of the
Old on this point. In Matt. xii. 40, Christ speaks of his
future rest in the grave as being " in the heart of the
earth!' In Eph. iv. 9, 10, Paul thus refers to this rest of
our Lord in the grave : " Now that he ascended, what is it
but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the
earth ? He that descended is the same also that ascended
up far above all things. ' '
These citations of Scripture might be greatly extended,
but enough has been brought forward to establish the fol
lowing facts :
The Heb. sheol is rendered the grave, or hell, indis
criminately (we note thirty-two times the former, twenty-
eight times the latter) ; even where the word is used con
secutively in the same passage, it is rendered at first the
grave, and then hell (e. g., Ezek. xxxi. 15-17); with the
rendering hell in the text, the grave is given as a substitute
in the margin (e. g.. Psalm Iv. 15, Ixxxvi. 13).
Such interchange of the two renderings is only allow
able if the two are evidently synonymous terms. But such
is not the case. Whatever may have been the meaning of
the old Saxon whence our word hell is derived, the grave
and hell now convey two very different ideas to>the popular
mind, as also they did at the time our English version was
made. That the Hebrew word expresses one of these

200 The Bible Doctrine of Intermediate State.
ideas, no one questions. Which it is, is decided by the
fact that, in some instances of its use, the circumstances
of the case shut us up to the rendering the grave ; which
they never do with the other rendering, hell.
Thus, it is made apparent that the grave is the correct
rendering of the Heb. sheol.
We may here note the correct reading of a mistranslated
passage. Psalm ix. 17 : "The wicked shall be turned into
hell, and all the nations that forget God." The word here
rendered hell is sheol, the grave; "turned" is in the Heb.
returned. (See Lange on Psalms.) So this passage, by
which i Sabbath-school children and others are taught the
existence of hell as popularly understood, in reality declares
the Bible doctrine that the wicked, after their final judg
ment, shall be returned to sheol, the grave, the state of
death. From that return to death — the second death — there
is no resurrection. Never again shall they come forth.
Establishing thus the Bible meaning of sheol, establishes
also the Bible meaning of its Gr. substitute, hades. This
is evident on a consideration of the few cases where the
latter is used in the N. T.
Matt. xi. 23: "Thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to
heaven, shalt be brought down to hades ' ' (the grave, E. V.
hell.) This prophecy has been fulfilled in so bringing that
city to destruction, to the grave, that the place of its sep
ulchre can scarcely be determined.
Luke X. 15 : The same as preceding.
Matt. xvi. 18: "On this rock I will build my church,
and the gates of hades [the grave, E. V. hell] shall not
prevail against it." The gate, to the Hebrew, was the
emblem of power or dominion, as God says to Abraham,
Gen. xxii. 17: "Thy seed shall possess the gate of his
enemies." In Job xxxviii. 17, Psalmsix. 13, cvii. 18, we
find the expression, "gates of death," which the Septua-

True Meaning of Hades. 201
gint renders "gates of hades!' In Rev. i. 18, the Lord
Jesus, announcing his submission to death, and his subse
quent resurrection and immortality, declares that he has
the keys of hades and of death. Thus he can release when
and whom he will. And so his people, now or yet to be
under the power of the grave, within the gates Of hades,
shall not be permanently held there. The grave cannot
prevail against his church, for at "the appointed time"
(Job xiv. 13, 14), he who holds the keys will open the
gates, and from their graves bring forth his people to
glory. He has said, Hosea xiii. 14: "I will ransom them
from the power of the grave" (Heb. sheol, Sept. Gr.
hades). In Ezek. xxxvii. 12, 14: "Thus saith the Lord
God, Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and
cause you to come up out of your graves . . . And ye
shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your
graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your
graves, and put my Spirit in you, and ye shall live!'
Luke xvi. 21 : " The rich man died, and was buried,
and in hades [E. V. hell] he lifted up his eyes, being in
torment." Here we have the poetic figure, already
quoted from Ezek. chap, xxxi., where the dead in hades
were represented as " comforted in the lower parts of the
earth" over the fall of the mighty one who had brought
them to ruin. There, dead ones were represented as com
forted ; here, a dead one is represented as tortnented ;
both in the grave ; for we are told the rich man was in
hades ; it is explicitly stated that the same one died and
was buried.
No one questions but that those Old Testament passages
are highly wrought, dramatic representations of how dead
ones might be supposed to feel and to speak. Certainly;
it is precisely the same figure in Luke. And to interpret
it in like manner is -strictly following the rule that a figura
tive meaning may not be accepted till the possibility of the

202 The Bible Doctrine of hitermediate State.
literal is exhausted. Such possibility is exhausted in these
cases. For in Ezekiel and Isaiah it is dead ones, those
I lying slain, who move and speak ; literally, that were im
possible ; therefore, it is figurative. The same is the case
j in Luke ; dead ones in hades, in the grave, converse ; then
that is likewise necessarily figurative.
Acts ii. 27 : " Thou wilt not leave my soul in hades [the
grave, E. V. hell] ; neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one
to see corruption;" quoted direct from Psalm xvi. 10,
where sheol is the Hebrew for hades in Acts. "Leav
ing in the grave" corresponds to "seeing corruption;"
what the latter clause means we learn from Acts xiii. 36,
37: "For David, after he hud served his own generation
by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his
fathers, and saw corruption; but he, whom God raised
again, saw no corruption," because " His soul was not left
in the grave."
Rev. i. 18: "I have the keys of hades and of death"
(E. V. hell).
Rev. vi. 8 : "A pale horse, and his name that sat on him
was Death, and Hades [the grave personified, E. V. hell]
followed after."
Rev. XX. 13 : " Death and hades delivered up the dead
who were in them. ' ' Hades here is plainly the grave ; for
what hades delivered up was the same that, in this verse,
the sea delivered up, tous nekrous, the dead ones, who
were in then!. Our translators use "hell" in the text,
" the grave" in the margin.
But in the next verse they omit this important marginal
correction ; Death and hades [the grave, E. V. hell ! is
hell cast into itself?] were cast into the lake of fire; " —
thus symbolizing the end of death, and of the state of
death, for any of the living ones. It is the fulfilment of
the prophecy of Hosea xiii. 14: "O death, I will be thy
plagues ; O grave, I will be thy destruction," in which the
Heb. sheol, grave, is in Septuagint Gr. hades.

Not One of Conscious Existence. 203
One more instance of the N. T. use of hades remains,
I Cor. XV. 55. Here, as elsewhere in both Testaments,
death and the grave are associated and personified. The '
Whole^ line of argument in that chapter is so evidently upon
a resurrection, or restoration to life, from the grave, that
our translators could not venture here to render hades helL
Thus, they were forced to the correct rendering: "O
death, where is thy sting ? O grave [hades], 'where is thy
victory ? ' ' Yet, as if it gave some relief under this pres
sure, they arbitrarily insert their favorite rendering hell in
the margin.
But the repugnance they here manifest (and in Rev. xx.
13) to the more natural meaning so evidently manifests the
bias of our translators, that it doubly strengthens our claim
that the grave is the correct rendering of hades. We may
be sure they would never have accepted a rendering so
opposed to their chosen rendering elsewhere, could they
have resisted it. So we have their reluctant testimony that
the proof that the Apostle uses hades in the sense of the
grave, is too strong to be disregarded.
We find, then, on investigation, that Bible usage declares
that sheol, or hades, the place of the dead, is the grave.
And if the dead are in the grave, they are not in heaven
and hell, nor in the pagan Elysium and Tartarus. The
intermediate state is not one of conscious existence, but of
death. Instead of being alive and conscious, the dead are
simply dead. " There is no work, nor device, nor knowl
edge, nor wisdom in the grave [Heb. sheol], whither thou
goest. ' '
It is evident, then, that the original word in the Heb.
and Gr. for the intermediate state has no reference what
ever to the reward of the righteous or the wicked. It is
simply the grave ; a place of unconsciousness, of silence
and forgetfulness, of darkness, where the dead are repre-

204 Gehenna — Its Meaning.
sented waiting for their reward, which the Lord will give
when he comes; Rev. xxii. 12.
But the popular conception of hell is largely built up out
of the incorrect renderings of the Heb. and Gr. word for
grave. Is there, then, no such thing as hell? Do the
original languages of the Bible contain any word expres
sive of a place of future punishment ?
Nothing of the kind is found in the earlier portions of
the Book of revelation. What is there threatened is the
simple penalty of sin, — death, destruction, a cutting off.
But in later times, especially in our Lord's day, a word
appears appropriated to that foretold destruction by fire.
That word is Gehenna. It was borrowed from the exam
ple of a similar destruction, familiar to every Jew who
attended the national feasts at Jerusalem. Outside that
city was the defiled valley (2 Kings xxiii. 10) of Hinnom,
which was used as a receptacle for the refuse from the city.
The fires there burning to destroy the accumulated rub
bish, presented a suggestive type of the final burning at the
end of the age ; of that fire into which our Lord says
(Matt. xiii. 41) "shall be cast all things that offend, and
them that do iniquity," as out of God's kingdom they are
gathered by the reaper-angels. The place of this destruc
tion of worthless things outside Jerusalem was in the valley
of Hinnom; Gr. Ge-Henna. And so this word "gehenna"
came to be used as a name for that threatened destruction
of worthless things at the end of the age.
Yet we should note that this name was strictly local. It
never appears in any of the N. T. writings except those
addressed to Jews. We find it in the three earlier Gospels,
and in the Epistle of James, which was addressed "to the
twelve tribes scattered abroad." John, writing for those
not familiar with Jewish customs, does not use it in his
Gospel, nor in the Apocalypse. And so it is not used by
Paul or by Peter in their writings.

Gehenna — Its Meaning. 205
Here is a very suggestive fact. This word (in the origi
nal "Tophet," or "the valley of the sons of Hinnom,"
in its Gr. form, "Gehenna") is the only word in the
Bible which answers at all to the popular conception of
hell, in that it is the only word which can be viewed as in
any way denoting a place of punishment. And yet, if
anything so stupendous beyond conception be really true,
that there exists a place where, since the world began,
untold millions have been gathering in to suffer on for
eternity, the exceedingly limited use of this special word
is all we have in revelation to set forth such a place !.*
But further inquiry shows that the description of gehenna
is something radically different from the popular idea of
hell. Not continued existence in misery, but actual de
struction by fire is presented to us.
Our Saviour speaks of it as "the gehenna of the fire"
(Gr. to gehenna toupuros); Matt. v. 22, xviii. 9. He calls
it "going away into the gehenna, into the fire unquench
able; " Mark ix. 43. He tells us. Matt, xviii. 9, men are
¦* Here are all the instances of the use of gehenna in the N. T. .
Matt. v. 22: " Shall be in danger of hell-fire" (Gr., shall be one
liable to the gehenna of the fire), vs. 29, 30: "Should be cast into
hell " {gehenna').
Matt. X. 28: "Able to destroy soul and body in hell" {gehenna).
Matt, xviii. 9 : "To be cast into hell-fire " (Gr., into the gehenna
of the fire).
Matt, xxiii. 15: "Twofold more the child of hell" (Gr., a son of
gehenna, like John xvii, 12, " the son of [one devoted to] perdition ").
Mark ix. 43 : " Into hell \gehenna'\, into the fire that never shall be
quenched." As a writer well says, " The word ' never ' is a contribu
tion of our translators to the original asbestos^' which is literally "un-
quenched," or "unquenchable."
Mark ix. 45 : The same.
Mark ix. 47 : " Into hell-fire " (Gr., into the gehenna of the fire).
Luke xii. 5 : " Hath power to cast into hell " (Gr., into ihs gehenna).
Jas. iii. 6 : " Set on fire of hell " (Gr. upo, by the gehenna).

2o6 The Gehenna of the Fire.
to go into that fire bodily : " It is better for thee one-eyed
to enter' into life, than, having two eyes, to be cast into
the gehenna of the fire;" — better far to go through this
world with but one eye, than, having every bodily faculty,
to lose all, even life itself For that fire, our Lord tells
us, destroys soul and body ; "Fear him who is able to
destroy soul and body in gehenna; " Matt. x. 28.
In the visions of the Apocalypse, the place of the final
destruction of the wicked appears to the Seer as a " lake
of fire," as we say, a sheet of fire, " burning with fire and
brimstone;" Rev. xx. 15, xxi. 8. Isaiah thus prophesies
of Tophet (the O. T. name of Gehenna) : " Tophet is
ordained of old; for the King it is prepared; he hath
made it deep and large ; the pile thereof is fire and much
wood ; the breath of the Lord like a stream of brimstone
do"th kindle it ; " Isa. xxx. 33. The purpose of this burn
ing we have already been made familiar with. " For be
hold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and the
proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble, and
the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord
of hosts, that it leave them neither root nor branch. And
they [the wicked] shall be ashes under the soles of your
feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord- of
hosts; " Mal. iv. i, 3.
As illustrating this doom of fire, Jude cites the fate of
Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, " set forth
for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal y?ri?. ' ' Our
Lord tells us, Luke xvii. 29, 30 : " The same day that Lot
went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven
and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day
when the Son of Man is revealed." In Matt. xiii. 40, he
declares : "As therefore the tares [representing the sons
of the wicked one] are gathered and burned in the fire, so
shall it be in the end of the age."
Precisely what this terrible burning, the gehenna of

The Gehenna of the Fire. 207
THE FIRE is to be, Peter states, 2 Pet. iii. 7, 10: "The
heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word
are kept in store, reserved unto fire against a Day of Judg
ment and Destruction of ungodly men. The Day of the
Lord will come as a thief in the night ; in the which the
heavens shall pass away with a great noise [lit. Gr., with a
rushing sound], and the elements shall melt with fervent
heat, the earth also and the works therein shall be burnt
up," — or thoroughly burned over. We have already read
of that fire spoken of in Deut. xxxii. 22, which "shall burn
unto the lowest sheol, and shall consume the earth with
her increase, and shall set on fire the foundations of the
mountains." Thus clearly speaks the word of God.
But our religious teachers, in general, now teach that all
this threatening of a fearful, overwhelming fire is but a
symbol, that the fire is but "a metaphor of the punish
ment of the wicked." It is a figurative way of expressing
the remorse of a guilty conscience ! They would have iis
believe that the foretold sentence of the Judge (Matt.
xxv. 41): "Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire," is
the imaginative way in which he would say: "Depart,
ye cursed, into the everlasting remorse of your own con
sciences, prepared for the devil and his angels."
Rebuking the impiety of these professed expounders of
God's word, who dare thus to explain it away. Science
comes before us, from actual observation telling us that
a world actually wrapped in flame were no unlikely thing.
More than once havte fixed stars, suns of other systems
than ours; been observed to blaze forth with a lustre so
exaggerated as, at such a distance, to betoken a conflagra
tion of terrific proportions. Such as, if it occurred with
our sun, would utterly destroy all vestige of life on this
planet. In the most recent instance of the kind, Nov.,
1876, occurring in the constellation of the Swan, our
18*

2o8 Origin of Modem Idea of Hell.
modern spectroscope showed most of the prominent spec
trum lines of t^iat star to be identical with those of our
sun ; revealing thus a similarity of constitution, and, so far
at least, the possibility of a like catastrophe !
"Nevertheless we, according to his word, look for new
heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness."
A world, henceforth, all holy, for that fire of destruction
is a fire of purification as well.
Perhaps we are here met with the common but utterly
irrelevant objection: "This is material fire of which you
speak; that cannot harm an immaterial soul." All that
may be ; we do not know, nor does any one else, what
would or would not affect an immaterial soul. What we
are discussing is the Biblical soul, that which the Bible
teaches us is material. Our Lord tells us that the soul is
destructible in gehenna [Matt. x. 28], and Peter tells us
that coming day of fearful burning will be " a day of judg
ment and destruction of ungodly men ; " 2 Pet. iii. 7.
It is easy to see how the popular doctrine of a place of
confinement for the wicked grew into shape. In common
with the other errors of modern theology, it is based upon
Satan's lie, "Ye shall not surely die." If, really, men do
not die, that is, if all are immortal, then the punishment
of the wicked is something abiding, and of course there
must be a permanent place for it. For an abiding place,
not much satisfaction is found in the descriptions of ge
henna. So, from it and from the general statement of
Scripture, is taken the fire which, till within a recent
period, was the acknowledged agent of punishment ; while
further recourse was had to the Bible ^ statements of sheol
and hades, with a suitable admixture of heathen mythology,
whence came into the church that dogma of universal im
mortality. We have seen that Sheol was located " in the
lower parts of the earth; " just where heathen mythology
located both its Elysium and its Tartarus. And there,

Angels Resemble Saints of the Resurrection. 209
also, is where one of our modern terms for hell locates it
— in the infernal regions ; the word infernal derived (says
Webster) "from Lat. infernalis, from infernus, that which
lies beneath, the lower."

CHAPTER XIIL
The Nature and Destiny of the Soul — of Angelic
Beings.
A FURTHER inquiry suggests itself, bearing upon our
future, and upon our present preparation for the future.
What is the nature of angelic beings ? what their re
lation to man and his destiny ?
Does the Bible throw any light on this subject ? In its
full detail, the question is entirely beyond our present ca
pacity, but, surely, the Bible furnishes some information
of this higher order of beings, that we may comprehend.
The popular ideas of angels are very crade, being
derived mainly from the conventional traditions of medise-
val art. One point seems to bfi generally accepted ; they
have wings ! an idea traceable to the prevailing misappre
hension of the cherubic symbol. Our Lord, however,
when on earth, assumed that in his day, the angelic mode
of life was sufficiently well known to be used by way of
illustration ; and, in so doing, he certified to the general
correctness of that knowledge. In discoursing to the Sad
ducees of the future life, he says :
Luke xx. 35, 36 : " But they who shall be accounted to
obtain that world [aion], and the resurrection from the
dead [Gr. that from dead ones], neither marry, nor are
given in marriage ; neither can they die any more, for they

2IO The Bible Doctrine of A7igcls,
are equal unto [or, the same as, Gr. isaiii:.clos] angels; and
are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection."
Angels, then, are now what "sons of the resurrection"
will be. And of what this is, we have gained an idea from
the record of our Lord's life after his resurrection ; for,
"when he shall appear [to awaken the sleeping dead, to
change the living, i Thess. iv. i6], we shall be like him;"
I Jno. iii. 2. We learn he was still in human form, yet
possessing a new, and to us incomprehensible, power of
passing into rooms secured against mortal intrusion, and
of becoming visible or invisible, at will. And other like
inconceivable powers of knowledge and of motion belong
to that spirit-body, in which our Lord has had, and his
followers will have, a resurrection from dead ones.
In a spirit-body, then, in the likeness of men, we learn
that angels now exist. This fact is corroborated by the
recorded visible appearances of such. In the visions of
Daniel, chap. x. 5, he speaks of an angelic messenger as
"a certain man;" ver. 16, "one like the similitude of
the sons of men." So, chap. viii. 15, " Behold, there stood
before me as the appearance of a man." In Gen. xviii.,
Moses records the ajipearance unto Abraham of the Lord
and two angels ; he describes them as "three men." Ver.
22: "And the men turned their faces from thence, and
went toward Sodom." Chap. xix. i: "And there came
two angels to Sodom at even, . . they turned in unto"
Lot's house. And ver. 4: "The men of the city called
to Lot, Where are the men who came in to thee?" " An
angel of God" appeared to Cornelius, Acts x. 3, who, ver.
30, thus describes him, " a man stood before me in bright
clothing," — "an angel of light;" 2 Cor. xi. 14. We
read in the angelic vision, of Zechariah, chap. i. 7 to vi.
15, of " a man with a measuring line in his hand ; " also,
Ezek. xl. 3, of "a man, whose api)earance was like the ap
pearance of brass, with a line of flax and a measuring reed

Their Form that of Man, 2 1 1
in his hand." Rev. xxi. 17 is very decisive ; we read of
an angel who "measured the wall thereof, an hundred and
forty and four cubils, according to the measure of a man,
that [Gr. ho, which] is of an [so Gr.] angel!'
In that si)irit-body the angels of course have the same
[lower of unseen motion that our Lord had after his resur
rection — ahli' to come aiul go like the wind (Jno. iii. 8),
able lo disclose or conceal their presence at will.
They who in the spirit-body thus live this peculiar
spirit-life, so different from our present mortal life, are
themselves called spirits. "Are they not ministering
spirits?" Ileb, i. 14. And in that sure-coming future, so
sure, that figuratively it is spoken of (Heb. xii. 22) as al
ready come, when the redeemed shall be gathered in the
city of the living God, which the writer of that epistle
declares, xiii. 14, is "one to come" (i. e., at the resur
rection), those in that city will then have passed into this
new spirit nuxle of existence. And so, those to have that
future life, though as yet "not made perfect!' Heb. xi. 40,
when spoken of as in that "city to come," and so in the
fiilnre spirit-body, are themselves calleil spirits, or spiritual
beings; as they then will be, being "the same as the
angel's." Hence, in looking forward to that future we find
them called "spirits of just men made perfect ;" Heb.
xii. 23.
The Si-riplures give us further information of these angelic
beings. They are dis])osed as a vast host in orderly arrange
ment, with their special leaders, and with specified duties
and spheres of action. This Paul alludes to, Eph, iii, 10:
" To the intenlthat now unto {hii principalities awX p07vers
in the heavenlies inight be made known, by the church,
the manifold wisdom of God." And Peter makes a sim
ilar reference, i IVt. iii. 22, s])eaking of our Lord, "Who
is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God,
angels, and authorities, and powers being made subject
unto him."

212 The Bible Doctrine of Angels.
Not only are there good angels, there are also evil angels,
living like the former in spiritual bodies, and so called evil
spirits. In the sentence which the Lord declares he, as
Judge, will finally pronounce upon the wicked, he speaks
of a fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Matt. xxv.
41 ; for the devil's messengers, as is the primary meaning
of the Gr. angelos, his emissaries.
But there are those who deny that there is any literal
"devil and his angels." The original words, diabolos,
devil, and daimonia, demons, they consider are but figura
tive expressions for the personification of evil.' But is it
possible to understand that what the Scriptures speak of
as done by devils or demons, is actually done by an abstract
personification? Paul, in Eph. vi. 12, writes of his fellow
Christians: "The wrestling [contest] for us is not agaxnst
flesh and blood [in the comparison human tempters are
of no account] ; but against the principalities, against the
powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against
the spiritual of the wickedness [E. V. renders, spiritual
wickedness] in the heavenlies : " it is a contest with spirit
emissaries of evil, in subordinated ranks arrayed against
us. In Col. ii. 15, he speaks of Christ, in his own con
test with such, as "having spoiled [disarmed] principali
ties and powers, triumphing over them." The language,
which declares the existence of good angels, is in like
manner used to express the existence of angels of evil.
Evidently, Paul states what was a general belief among
the Jews in our Lord's day. It was believed, not only
that evil spirits existed, but that also it was possible for
them to gain such control of a man's faculties as to use
them at their will. Can it be that our Lord, by act or
word, would have confirmed and perpetuated so gross an
error, if it be such ? For example, Mark records (v. 8) :
"He said to him. Come out — the spirit, the unclean —
from the man." Does one thus address an abstract per-

Evil Ones Undoubtedly Exist. 213
sonificatioh? It seems many had taken possession of this
man, and, Mark says, ver. 12: "The demons besought
him, saying. Send us into the swine. And Jesus gave
them leave." Again, Luke reports (iv. 41): "And de
mons came out of many, crying and saying. Thou art
the Christ, the Son of God. And he, rebuking them,
suffered them not to speak, because they knew him to be
the Christ." So also Mark i. 25. Knowing him to be
the trae Messiah, they hoped to injure his influence by
seeming to testify in his favor, which may indeed have
suggested to the Pharisees their charge that he cast out
devils by collusion with the prince of the devils. We ob
serve the same evil design in Paul's experience, recorded
Acts xvi. 17.
In these passages from the life of our Lord, if he pre
tended thus to recognize the existence of beings who ac
tually do not exist, his agency in thus promoting a popu
lar error cannot be reconciled with his perfect trathfulness.
Till we can do that, the law of the literal and the figura
tive compels us to accept his words as literally true, both
on these occasions and in Matt. xxv. 41, where his lan
guage agrees with'that of Paul, as he speaks of "the devil
and his angels ; ' ' hosts of evil marshalled under a central
authority. Accepting, then, the revelation which God gives us in
the words of Christ and his disciples, we must believe that
there exist spiritual beings, who have sinned, and are now
bent only on evil; for whom no Saviour has died, — "he
took not hold of angels; " Heb. iii. 16, margin. These
powers of evil are now permitted to be the means of testing
us, as by the struggle with temptation our characters are
confirmed in holiness. And when the problem of sin has
worked out its legitimate results, and at the same time in
directly has secured a generation to serve God, then that
which has been foretold, " destraction to the workers of

214 ^'^^ Bible Doctrine of Angels.
iniquity," shall overtake these spiritual agents of evil, in
the fire prepared for them.
Some believe in the existence of evil spirits, and yet
doubt the possibility of demoniac possession. They think
there must be some mistake about those cases, whose ap
parent cure Scripture records. But, as has been said, if
the cases are not what they are reported to be, the charge
of imposition lies against our Lord. Certainly, there is
nothing unreasonable in the supposition that such powers
of evil should obtain control of one in full sympathy with
them, who yields himself to them ; the question can only
be as to the extent of such power. And it should not be
forgotten that the powers of evil, in introducing sin into
our world, have thus brought upon us all the diseases to
which man is subject.
Possibly the popular misunderstanding of the Bible
meaning of soul may have much to do with this difficulty
in recognizing demoniac possession. It is imagined the
evil spirit is of a nature like what the soul is fancied to be,
something immaterial, which is thought actually to enter
into one's body, and to thrust aside man's spirit, or soul,
from its rightful seat. (Old anatomists thought a saddle
like process in the brain was the actual seat of the soul !)
But to take possession of a man it is not necessary actually
to get inside of him. In every-day life we see a human
being exerting so powerful an influence over another, that
we say one is captivated by the other ; he will do anything
the other wishes. We behold a most suggestive form of
spiritual, or mental, impression in so-called clairvoyance,
wherein, as the writer is convinced from observation and
study of the phenomena, one in a peculiar condition of the
nervous system^ of which but few are susceptible, is able
to recognize the unspoken thoughts of another, who vol
untarily puts himself in communication with the former.
Exactly how this mental impression is communicated from

spiritual Influence is from Without a Man. 2 1 5
one to the other, is a mystery to the one receiving it;
and the fact that it has been so much used for purposes of
deception, should stimulate to, rather than repel from, its
careful investigation by men of science. A special object
of here alluding to it, is to put the reader on his guard,
since so effective and pernicious a use is made of this ill-
understood faculty to further the arrant impostures of
spiritism, or, as it is improperly called, spiritualism.
In fact, spiritual influence, as being that which is exerted
upon a person from outside, is what all Scripture and reli
gious writers fully recognize. We read : " That -Christ
may dwell in your hearts by faith," Eph. iii. 17; "If
Christ be in you," Rom. viii. 10. How can Christ, a
person "made like unto his brethren," be in one of them,
or d^well in one of them ? It is by his spiritual influence
over that one. " If any man have not the Spirit of Christ,
he is none of his; " Rom. viii. 9.
So, on the other hand, spirits of evil exert an unseen yet
powerful influence upon the man from without his system ;
the extent of which is largely a question of other restrain
ing influences. And when the man is wholly under that
malign influence, we say the evil one has entered into him.
As it was said of Judas, Jno. xiii. 27 : "And after the sop,
Satan entered into him." So we understand how the de
mons entered into the swine, Mark v. 13. It was not by
an actual bodily entrance, but by such an impression made
upon the nervous system, or, to use Biblical language, upon
the soul or organism of the animals, that they followed, not
their own natural will, but that of the demons ; "the herd
ran violently down a steep place into the sea ; " precisely
as cattle now may do, when stampeded by some exciting
cause of terror.
It is suggestive to note that thus to influence the brute
creation, the demons had to ask permission. With the
higher race, the choice is in their own hands ; -it is given
19

2i6 The Bible Doctrine, of Angels.
to us to yield to, or to resist, at our own will. " Resist
the devil, and he will flee from you." In experiments by
means of animal magnetism, so called, if the one to be
influenced determinedly refuses to submit his will, the
attempted results cannot be attained. As with spiritual in
fluences for evil, so with those for our good. The spiritual
possession, or indwelling of a soul by the Lord, is brought
about by that one submitting himself, his own will, entirely
to the will of Christ ; voluntarily and wholly yielding to
the gentle, loving, spiritual influence that proceeds from
him. " For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they
are the sons of God; " Rom. viii. 14.
We understand, then, that we have continually about us,
in this life, an order of beings higher than our own. They
exist in spirit-bodies, unseen by mortal eyes, and yet with
the possibility of disclosure, as it was with our Lord's
body; and in the "angel's visits," rather appearings, of
former days. They are divided into two classes — the
good, very good ; the bad, only evil. What power they
have over the brute creation, it would seem from the case
referred to, must be specially given them by the Creator.
They have power over man, only as the intelligent creature
yields to, or resists, the suggestions of good or evil, which
from them may come to him, unconscious of the origin of
such suggestions. Precisely how they operate upon our
mental faculties we know not, yet we have already shown
the possibility of the fact itself, which Scripture so fully
reveals. "Are not they [God's angels] ministering spirits,
sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salva
tion?" Heb. i. 14. "And the Lord opened the eyes of
the young man, and he saw: and behold, the mountain
was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha ; ' '
(2 Kings vi. 17) — a Hebrew paraphrase for angels, in refer
ence to their bright, shining appearance. And on the other
hand we read: "And Satan stood up against Israel, and

Used to Develop the Germ of our Future Life. 2 1 7
provoked David to number Israel;" i Chron. xxi. i.
Peter said to Ananias, "Why hath Satan filled thy heart?"
Acts V. 3. That Apostle tells us: "Your adversary, the
devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about, seeking whom he
may devour;" i Pet. v. 8. Paul writes of "the prince
of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the
children of disobedience;" Eph. ii. 2.
The human race, in their present life, are in a formative
stage of existence. As before their first, or physical, birth,
they were in process of being formed, prepared for, this
present life, so, in respect to the spiritual life, a similar
process is now being repeated. We are being formed in
character, prepared for the new birth, that from above, the
resurrection to life, the entrance upon the spirit life. As
an actual fact, the vast majority of those starting out with
this possibility of life, will never come to the birth. The
germ of life in them is blighted in the process of its de
velopment here. It is the story we see repeated in all
nature around us. Myriads of seeds drop from our forests.
Each contains within it the possibility of a living tree.
How very, very few attain to that reality ! The same is
true of the animated nature ; it is seen in the spawn of
fishes, and in the germs of insect life. From the infinite
source of life springs this superabundant provision for per
petuating life.
A holy God has wished for holy beings. With such
alone can he be in full sympathy — with such alone can
his universe be preserved in harmony and peace. But such
cannot be spoken into being. God creates, in lavish
abundance, innocent beings ; but holiness of character
results from deliberate, continued choice in the free moral
agent, at liberty to choose the right or the wrong, at will.
Hence the possibility, in one sense the necessity, of sin.
Angels, exalted in knowledge and power, were created
moral agents, at liberty to choose for themselves. A part

2i8 The Bible Doctrine of Angels.
stood firm when tested, and holiness and immortality were
the prize. A part, we know not how many, failed in their
hour of trial, and now they await the destruction which
inevitably ,must follow their violation of the law of their
higher being.
Man also was created a free moral agent, with the same
liberty of choice the angels had. Our first parents failed
to stand their test. But the loss has not been irretrievable
to them or to their posterity. A ransom has been found.
God's own Son, in the infinite love which has been be
stowed upon us, "was made flesh;" he became "the
seed of the woman;" he took our place, that he might
raise us unto his. "As many as received him, to them
¦gave he power to become the sons of God," Jno. i. 12 ; —
"heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ! " Rom. viii.
17- The same testing, the same question of obedience " unto
life," Acts xi. 18, comes to us now as it did to our first
parents. And as then, the angels who sinned are now
used in the test. In the exercise of their freedom of
choice, their free will, they are now doing their utmost to
mar God's fair work in the creation of man. How well
they have succeeded with multitudes to-day, and in the
centuries past, we need. not tell. But while they are thus
bent upon their fell design, they are also unwilling instru
ments in bringing to completion God's great plan of love
and mercy for the man who abides faithful. By tempta
tions resisted, which they set before the man, they serve
but to strengthen and establish him in his high purpose of
steadfast obedience ; they confirm him in holiness, and
help thus to make him "meet for the inheritance of the
saints in light," for that "exceeding and eternal weight
of glory."
Our Lord's life itself was no exception to this method
of preparing man for immortality. In the outset of his

Result of their Present Work. 219
public career, we read of unseen agents of evil striving to
draw him from the way of life. And, in the ending of
his earthly course, the same unseen foes strove, as we may
believe, to draw him back from the awful sacrifice he was
about to make for our sakes. "And there appeared an
angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him;" Luke
xxii. 43. Spirits leagued against him, spirits ministering
unto him 1 And yet he says, "Thinkest thou that I cannot
pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more
than twelve legions of angels ? " Ah, himself he would not
save — that he might save us! " Though he were a Son,
yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered ;
and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal
salvation unto all that obey him;" Heb. v. 8, ,9. And in
his triumph over the hosts of evil, we behold the assurance
of our own victory.
For these emissaries of evil cannot harm a hair of one's
head, but as the man himself gives them leave. In all
their temptations we have the assurance "God is faithful,
who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are
able ; but will, with the temptation, also make the [so Gr.]
way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it ; " i Cor. x.
13. "They that be with us are more than they that be
with them ; " 2 Kings vi. 16. " If God be for us, who can
be against us? We know that all things work together y^r
good to them that love God; " Rom. viii. 31, 28.
And when, in its season, God's great work of redemption
is accomplished, when he shall thus have " taken out of
the nations a people for his name," Acts xv. 14, when he
shall thus have served himself of these spirit workers of
iniquity, who would not voluntarily serve him, then will
he cast them away as the vile things they have chosen to
be. Then at last the penalty of the violated law shall be
executed upon them, and also upon the foolish ones of
earth who have yielded to their allurements to sin. For
19*

220 The Bible Doctrine of Angels.
the soul that sinneth, it shall die. Tempters, with the
tempted, shall then pass out of existence forever. They
wait now but to see that their vile purpose has been wholly
defeated. For God's universe will then be all holy, it will
be furnished with, not merely innocent, but holy beings ;
those established in holiness by this very wrestling with'
the unseen powers of evil. The very trial here, that fitted
some for immortality, but made more manifest the unfit
ness of those overcome by the temptation ; whose sad fate,
the eternal loss of life, will, through coming ages, utter its
endless warning against any thought of sin. Henceforth
the great law of God, love to the Creator, and to all his
creatures, will be supreme, governing and uniting all ; a
love patterned after that love which prompted the Son
of God to sacrifice himself for his redeemed. And from
the grateful hearts of those thus " tried and made white,"
once defiled with sin yet now made whiter than snow,
shall unceasing praise ascend " unto him who loved us,
and washed us from our sins in his own blood."
What must be the fate of him who abides in his sin, has
been fully revealed to man. Has it also been revealed to
those lost angels ? It has. From sacred writ, we learn of
their gloomy forebodings, of the fearful anticipations, which
now disquiet their wretched existence. They are now
looking forward to their own destruction ; they know that
a time for this has been appointed. Mark (i. 24) and
Luke (iv. 34) record their encounter with our Lord, as he
dispossesses them of one of their captives. Snarling out
" ea!' (phonetically, y-ah, a Gr. interjection, E. V. renders,
let us alone,) they captiously ask (literal Gr.), " what foi
us and for thee," i. e., what have we to do with each
other now? "Did you come [aorist] to destroy us?"
Evidently they knew of a coming of his, when they will
be destroyed.

Evil Ones' Fear of the Abyss. 221
In Christ's interview with the Gadarene demoniac [Gr.
daimonizomenos , a demon-ized, bedeviled one], as recorded
Mark v. 7, Luke viii. 28, at the first, the cry was " torment
me not." (The Gr. word rendered torment, from its deri--
vation, means to rub upon the touchstone, hence to try
judicially by torture or the rack, and so it acquires a
combined meaning of suffering and punishment.) The
demons know they are in the. presence of the Judge him
self, and that deferred yet sure-coming sentence looms up
before them. In Matt. viii. 29, they makg the sugges
tive inquiry: " Did you come here before the time to tor
ment [or, punish] us?" Already we have learned from
them what their punishment will be — it is to be destroyed;
here they speak of the appointed time.
At the last of this interview, a suggestive modification
of this fear is expressed by them. Mark v. 10: "They
besought him much that he would not send them out of
the country ; " Gr. chora, more exactly, the proper place of
a person or thing. (See Liddell & Scott.) Luke (viii. 31)
uses a word which expresses their meaning, " that he would
not command them to go out into the deep ;" Gr. eis ten
abysson, into the abyss. The Apostle Paul gives us the
N. T. meaning of this word, Rom. x. 6, 7 : "Who shall
ascend into heaven, that is, to bring Christ down? Who
shall descend into the [abyssos] abyss, that is, to bring up
Christ from dead ones?" Evidently, the abyssos, out of
which one is brought frorp. those dead, expresses that state
or condition in which dead ones are ; it is the state of
death. The demons beseech him, who has the power of
life and death, that he will not command them to death ;
will n<5t send them out of the place they occupy, by send
ing them out of existence.
This definition of abyssos, which Paul gives us, throws
light on Rev. xx. 2 ; and the latter in turn explains this.
There we are told that, after the King of kings comes forth

222 The Bible Doctrine of Angels.
in his might to "judge and to make war," Rev. xix. ii,
"the dragon, the old serpent, who is the devil and Satan,
is bound a thousand years, and cast into the bottomless pit!'
So our translators arbitrarily vary their rendering. The
Gr. is abyssos, a word which, Paul shows us, denotes the
state of death. In that unfolding of the future, which in
prophetic vision passes before the eyes of the Revelator,
the "appointed time" has arrived, when the hosts of evil,
here represented in their leader, are to descend into the
abyssos. They are to die ; their work of death is to be
arrested; they shall "deceive the nations no more till the
thousand years are fulfilled." (Are these symbolic years, as
elsewhere a day represents a year ?)
This death of evil angels, limited to the thousand years,
answers to the first, or temporary, death of human beings.
It is evidently what the demons refer to, when they pray
not to be commanded to go into the abyss. But as the
wicked men, so the wicked angels have a resurrection. Ver.
7 : " But when the thousand years are expired, Satan [here
standing for all the host] shall be loosed out of his prison
[from the abyss, from death] for a little season." The res
urrection of wicked men is revealed (John v. 29, Rev. xx.
1 2) to be unto judgment ; we may presume the resurrection
of wicked angels is for the same purpose and at the same
time, since the record of the judgment of wicked men is
in Revelation in this connection. After which, both wicked
men and angels are to meet their foretold doom, to be
destroyed by that "fire prepared for the devil and his
angels." This is the punishment in view of which the
demons cry out, " destroy us not," "torment us not be
fore the time." It is the second death, a death unending.
And thus at last is reached the fulfilment of that ancient
prophecy of Gen. iii. 15. The seed of the woman crushes
the head of the serpent, the vital part, which one strikes
for in killing it. Paul gives us his idea of this, where we

// Exalts God's Power. 223
read, as our version has it, "The God of peace shall
braise Satan under your feet ; " Rom. xvi. 20. The Greek
is suntribo, which Liddell and Scott render, "to rub to
gether, to shatter, shiver, applied to pottery, to make a jelly
of, generally, to destroy utterly :" the word well expresses
the entire stamping out of the great agency of evil. Thus
also is fulfilled the declaration of Heb. ii. 14, where it is
stated to be the intent of the Son of God to " destroy him
that hath the power of death, that is, the devil!' And so,
finally and forever, in a imiverse, into which sin shall never
again rear its polluted head, God, the all holy, shall be
all and in all„ God over all, blessed forever.

CHAPTER XIV.

Granting that the Bible Teaches the Mortal Na
ture and Final Death of all Souls, except those
whom Christ Redeems, what Advantage has
this Doctrine over the Popular Belief?
IF we have recognized the fact that the Bible teaches it,
that, itself, is enough to commend it to our acceptance.
But the practical benefits of the doctrine are rhanifold,
and of the greatest value. To specify :
^i. It glorifies God, as the truth ever does.
God's power is exalted. Sin is not to be eternal. In
his own time, God will display his power in a full triumph
over it, thoroughly rooting it out from his dominions.
The sight of the abominable thing, which he hates, the
All-seeing will not suffer to be forever before his eyes.
Christ is to "destroy the works of the devil;" and not,
" upholding all things by the word of his power," is he to

224 Advantages of the Bible Doctrine.
use that power to perpetuate the devil's work through the
coming ages.
God's justice is exalted. Few, if any, are now to be
found, sufficiently venturesome, on any basis of justice, to
argue for the infliction of eternal misery in any form. It
is plainly out of reason that the sins of this finite life — in
itself but a moment compared to eternity, but the flash
of a weaver's shuttle — should be visited with infinite, for
such is unending, suffering. Nor can such excess of pun
ishment be passed over to the account of the future, as a
just retribution for sins ,then to occur ; for, in that hypo
thetical hell, the wicked can do nothing but sin, if, indeed,
any moral character appertains to actions which are at the
time unavoidable. The hymn tells us — it seems we have
to go to hymns for information on such matters —
" In that lone land of deep despair,
No Sabbath's heavenly light shall rise,
No God regard your bitter prayer.
Nor Saviour call you to the skies."
But Scripture has settled all this for us, declaring that
future punishment is not for the sin of a future life, but
" for the deeds done in the body ; " 2 Cor. v. 10.
God's wisdom is exalted. This is impugned by the
popular belief that God, in creating human beings, made
them immortal, when he knevv they would be exposed to
sin ; that myriads would sin ; and that eternity itself was
but the limit of the consequent wretchedness and woe.
Indeed, it were hard to say, in such a case, whether his
wisdom or his mercy were more at fault. But the Bible
doctrine of the soul puts the matter in a different light.
Immortality in , sin was just the thing the Creator deter
mined to prevent. We read his resolve, after man's fall,
in Gen. iii. 22, 24: "And now, lest he put forth his hand
and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.

It Exalts God's Love. 225
therefore the Lord God drove out the man," away from
the tree of life — from that forbidden immortality.
It is evident that God desired the companionship of holy
creatures. Though he could create innocent beings^ he
could not create them holy. Holiness is the expression of
a character established in habits of obedience. It is the
result of intelligent choice, and for that his creatures must
be left free to choose. There must be a possibility that
some should choose to sin, that any might choose to do
right. Those who make the right choice, and endure to
the end, shall be saved as worthy of everlasting life ; those
who choose evil, and so "judge themselves unworthy of
everlasting life," will have that judgment affirmed in the
great day. They shall pass away forever — literally perish —
in such manner as shall justly express God's abhorrence of
their sin. And their wretched fate, with the sad, sad story
of all the fearful results of sin, will forever remain a suffi
cient warning against the least turning to sin. It is but
the fulfilling of that law of being, which the past history of
creation reveals; the extinction of the unfit, and the sur
vival of the fittest. That law, to whose discovery in the
world around us men of science now point with pride, has
stood for ages in the written record of God's truth. And
when the great problem of life has been worked out, when
our finite experience shall grasp the end actually accom
plished, as it now exists in the Infinite Mind, then will the
survivors thankfully acknowledge that the relatively few
years of earth's suffering and woe were well worth an
eternity of assured holiness and happiness, which follows
as the result of their trial here.
God's love is exalted. It was not to save from an eternity
of wretchedness and woe, which the mind staggers and
trembles to contemplate, that God sent forth his Son, to
be made like unto us " his brethren," to suffer and to die.
It was to save us from perishing, from losing the blessing

226 Advantages of the Bible Doctrine,
of life ; it was to give life to those who would believe on
him, who were willing to become holy and fit for that
glorious hereafter. And how deep and strong the obliga
tion of the redeemed to their Redeemer, as they remember
their very existence through all eternity they owe to his
dying love !
2. The true doctrine of the soul honors the Bible.
It relieves it of the reproach now resting upon it. For,
as already shown (Chap. I.), modern theology accuses the
Bible of violating that law of human speech, which insists
as indispensable to clear expression, that whenever lan
guage is to be used figuratively, or in any other than the
most natural sense, such intent shall be manifested beyond
a question. Any speaker or writer who violates this law,
convicts himself of intellectual incapacity — he cannot write
or speak intelligibly. This modern theology charges upon
the writers and speakers of the Bible when — and only
when — they refer to the soul and its. destiny. Its ex
ponents tell us : " On that subject you cannot understand the
Bible without help. You would not recognize its figura
tive intent, except as we point it out. ' ' And so, taking the
Bible as its professed friends represent it, it is generally
said, "You can prove what you will from the Bible. It is
written so blindly, so incomprehensibly, one cannot hope
to understand it. ' ' Will any one who thinks the book to be
thus wretchedly written, be likely intelligently and fully to
accept it as a work of inspiration ?
But, not content with this, modern theology virtually im
pugns the integrity of Bible writers. Its expounders tell
us: "You cannot rely upon what Old Testament writers
say of death and the hereafter. God's revelation was given
them correctly, but into it they have infused their own
ignorant ideas of the future. For example, they say man
is unconscious in death ; they even represent the Almighty

Modem Theology Antagonistic to the Bible. 227
as so expressing himself Let us point out these errors,
and so get at the truth God really meant to reveal." "Pre
cisely so," says the infidel, "do the New Testament writers
color their statements, and mix in error. For example,
Christ did not claim to be divine — that was added by his
disciples. Let us point out these errors, and so get at the
real truth." Thus believer and unbeliever join hands in
attacking the revealed word. For what in each case is it,
but the actual withdrawal of confidence in the reliability
of these writers, and so in the record they give us ?
How comes it that our religious teachers thus lead off in
this joint effort to break down Scripture ? It is 'on account
of the antagonism existing between modern theology and
God's word.
Need we again explain this ? God said in Eden, If ye
disobey, ye shall die ; as he says to us. The soul that sins, it
shall die. But the devil said. Ye shall not die. The devil's
word was taken ; sin and death followed. And yet to-day
that lie is uppermost in men's minds. Sinful, mortal man
says, I shall not die ; only my body. Death does not
reach me ; I do not cease to live.
And modern theology repeats this lie of the father of
lies — does it not? — declaring to all men, ""Ve shall not die,
ye are immortal. Though death is loss of existence to the
lower animals, it is not death, or loss of existence, to the
higher animal, man." But confronting it stands the volume
of God's word, sturdily protesting in his name, Ye shall
surely die.' Will modern theology yield ? No ; in spirit
it rises up against the Bible ! But, with the tactics of the
great adversary, it dare not directly meet the Bible; it
appears to bow before it as supreme, but it adroitly ques
tions its inspiration on points where the two differ. It
thinks just here there has been some mistake, not caring to
see that what it calls a mistake here and there so interpene
trates Holy Writ, that to tear it out pulls to pieces the
whole fabric.

228 Advantages of the Bible Doctrine.
This method of dealing with the Bible is exemplified
beyond one's expectation in a work entitled "First Prin
ciples of Ecclesiastical Truth, Essays on the Church and
Society!' by J. Baldwin Brown, a prominent English di
vine (so called), at present (1877) chairman of the Con
gregational Union of England and Wales. Our attention
was first called to the work by the high commendation it
received from one of oiir religious journals, which prides
itself on its orthodoxy. This one of the modern school
of the prophets, discussing " the doctrine of the infallible,"
is not pleased with the idea that the Lord should, by his
servant Samuel, have ordered Saul to exterminate the
Amalekites. Such wholesale destruction he thinks incon
sistent with God's "name and nature, in the light which
Christ casts on it; " though, would he object, had the na
tion been swept off by deluge or pestilence? Very sum
marily does he dispose of God's agency in the affair. He
denies the inspiration of God's prophet in this particular
instance. We give his words: "We are bound to believe
that Samuel, in that terrible commission of slaughter, mis
took patriotic passion for the divine fire " ! *
Indeed ! Let us go to the inspired record for the facts.
In Exod. xvii. 14, just after Israel's coming out of Egypt,
Amalek attacked them ; — is it not a type of the hosts of
evil assaulting one just delivered from the power of Satan ?
We read : "And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for
a memorial, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua, for I will
utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under
heaven." In Deut. xxv. 17-19, Moses reminds the people :
* Any one who wishes for more of what is recommended to young
theologians as " First Principles of Ecclesiastical Truth," may turn to
the book itself, pages 94, 95, of English edition, Hodder & Stough-
ton, 27 Paternoster Row, London, 1871. Mr. Brown charges that the
Protestants tend to idolatry of the Bible ! ! Not very generally, we
think.

Modem Theology's Reverence for Bible Exemplified. 229
"Remember what Amalek did . . . how he smote the
hindmost, all that were feeble behind thee, when thou
wert faint and weary, and he feared not God : therefore,
. . . thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek
from under heaven, thou shalt not forget it." In i Sam.
XV., we are told of the execution of this foretold doom,
ver. r-3, II, 18, 23, 26, declaring it to have been done at
the special command of the Lord, and that, on account of
Saul's failure to obey the command to the letter, the Lord
rejected him from being king, to the great grief of Sam
uel. And now a modern religious teacher tells us we are
bound, to believe it was all a blunder, well meant, no
doubt, on the part of the prophet ! He thought the Lord
sent him, when he had not. Was Mr. Brown ignorant of
those previous facts of Hebrew history, or does he reject
them as spurious ? Let us hope the former.
But how could he thus give away the entire basis of
Scripture authority? For, if an accredited prophet of
Jehovah is himself unable to distinguish between the
movings of God's spirit and his own excited imagina
tion, we have nothing whatever to depend upon. All
confidence in any inspiration is gone ; we can never
know in any case whether we listen to the word of the
Lord, or of a prophet who does not kno^w his own mind.
How came a religious writer of such ability ever to con
sent thus to attack all belief in revelation ? It can only
be explained by that ignorance of God's word, and the
low estimate of its inspiration, which modern theology
has fostered in the minds of its followers. It painfully
shows us whither we are drifting. "When the Son of
Man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth ? ' ' Luke
xviii. 8.
Let no earnest-minded Christian think the preceding
an isola,ted case. Modern religious literature is full of
this line of thought. Before the writer lies a late number

230 Advantages of the Bible Doctrine.
of a religious quarterly, the New Englander, for April, '77.
On page 350, a writer states : "As early as the end of the
Persian period, 333 B. c, the Hebrew mind was uncon
sciously nearer the true Messianic idea than when David
wrote his Messianic Psalms and Isaiah uttered his Messianic
prophecies." What does he judge from? From those
psalms and prophecies, surely. What then does he mean ?
Why, as we learn from the article, that the Hebrew nation,
as their faith weakened in the actual, literal fulfilment of
those prophecies of Messiah's reign, were thus brought
nearer the actual truth than "holy men of old who spake
as they were moved by the Holy Spirit ; " — for modern
theology teaches us that a literal acceptance of the words
of those holy men would lead us astray. But what be
comes of the idea that David and Isaiah were inspired to
utter these prophecies? When God sets about to make
a revelation of the future, does he do it thus imperfectly ?
We would not reflect upon this New Englander writer — he
but reasons as he has been taught, on the basis of modern
theology, which, we repeat, but lightly esteems the inspira
tion of the Bible.
And so, the Bishop of Manchester, Eng., a man of high
literary repute — we quote the London Spectator — lately
" declared point blank to a medical audience, that he did
not expect them to believe in the historical accuracy of
the chapters in Genesis, which relate the creation and fall
of man."
But full proof lies before every one, if he will but heed.
it, of the wretched work modern theology makes with
God's word. Take, for example, the language of Jehovah,
recorded Gen. iii. 17-19: "And unto Adam he said. Be
cause thou hast hearkened . . . and thou hast eaten . . .
in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return
unto the ground, for out of it wast thou taken, for dust thou
art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Modern theology

How Bible is Studied in Theological Training. 231
reads this : "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou [Adam] eat
bread, till not thou [Adam] but thy body returns to the
, ground, for out of it was not thou but thy body taken,"
etc. In like manner,, where the Bible states " the Lord God
formed man of the dust of the ground, ' ' modern theology
again puts in its negative. It tells us to read : "The Lord
God formed not man, but his body, of the dust of the
ground." If, in the account of man's creation and fall, it
thus takes the liberty of flatly denying whatever conflicts
with its peculiar dogma of immortality for all, does not
common fairness demand that it grant the saine privilege
to the sceptic — that he may reject. whatever he will?
But, is it a light thing, thus to tamper with the word of
the living God? We read, in the days of Malachi, of
priests who said : " The table of the Lord is contemp
tible." Of them God declared: "Ye despise My naine;
ye have departed out of the way ; ye have caused many to
.stumble at the law."' Mal. i. 6, 7 ; ii: 8. What, in a day
> to come, will be his judgment of those who now practically
say, 'The word of the Lord is contemptible ?
Hbw is the Bible studied, in our theological seminaries?
As a book of occasional reference, -rather than a text-book.
The creed and approved dogmas of that particular school
of the prophets are carefully stated by the professor of divin
ity. Proof-texts are then referred to, and then the endeavor
is 'made — not always with recognized success — to explain
away texts opposed to the doctrines laid down. The
student is virtually taught that for the Bible to make any
statement is no assurance of its reliability. The rea,l ques
tion is. How does the professor, or the commentators,
regard it ? And the graduate goes forth, knowing much of
what men have said of the Bible, — coihparatively little of
the book itself, to indoctrinate others in what he has been
taught. Little inducement has he afterward to investigate
that peculiar volume for himself He fears to run against

232 Advantages of the Bible Doctrine.
difficulties, which have been but dubiously smoothed away
for him — ^felt difficulties, a too intimate acquaintance with
which might unfit him for the work he has been licensed to
perform. It is easier and safer to keep on, as he has been
led, to study into what others think, and to seek to interest
others rather by the brilliancy of his intellectual efforts than
by the depth of his Biblical research.
Is such the training to fit one to reverence the Bible as
the book above all books, or to grapple with and master its
sublime truths ? Is it any wonder that we find a half con
cealed ^- sometimes expressed — scepticism among those
who are thought to be specially "set for the defence ofthe
Gospel." When Bishop Colenso gives utterance to the
doubts of Bible inspiration, which modern theology actually
engenders. Dean Stanley sustains him, declaring his belief
that "the Pentateuch is not the work of Moses," that the
Bible " narratives of historical incidents are not unfre
quently colored '^yt!r^e necessary infirmities" of the writers;
that is, in reality, though not in intent, they are untruthful.
He speaks of Stephen, when full of the Holy Spirit, as
making errors in his speech. Our Lord had promised,
"When they shall deliver you up, take no thought before
hand, neither do ye premeditate ; but whatsoever shall be
given you in that hour, that speak ye : for it is not ye that
speak, but the Holy Spirit." Upon whom rests, then, the
responsibility of those "errors"? But the Dean is at least
consistent, as well as frank. For, what is it, that modern
theology should insert its negative, for example into the
Lord's sentence upon Adam, " Dust thou art [not], and
unto dust shalt thou [not] return;" what is this, but
actually denying the Divine authorship of the speech,
and the truthfulness of the recording historian, whoever
he may be ?
A grave accusation indeed it is, which our defence of
the Bible has constrained us to bring against modern the-

Christ Never Speaks Ambiguously, 233
ology. We do it in all seriousness, and we leave the
verdict with every lover of God's Word. Do, or do not,
the facts sustain the indictment ?
Surely every thoughtful Christian confesses to having
been perplexed, if not discouraged, by the evident am
biguity of Bible language, as modern theology interprets
it to us. For instance, our Lord, having used the word
death in its ordinary sense, as the loss of life, even when in
the presence of death itself, at the same time, so are we
taught, uses the identical word to express life etemal in its
misery, and that without a hint of intending to change the
meaning of the word. Formerly, studying the gospel of
John as a Sabbath-school superintendent, the writer knev/
not how to explain it to his teachers, except that Christ
often purposely spoke ambiguously, to give exercise to
greater faith. But our Lord asks no blind, unthinking
faith. God's truth, as he gives it to us, is so reasonable
that it commends itself to the strongest intellect, so simple
that the feeblest may grasp it. But we must take it pre
cisely as God gives it to us.
We should not omit to notice that sometimes there is
an ambiguity or misunderstanding, not in the original, but
in the words our translators adopted. The evidences of
design are so many and so apparent, that we cannot but
believe those good men thought it their duty, in giving the
Word of God to the common people, to make the Eng
lish Bible, at least, teach those doctrines they thought it
ought. For instance, Jno. xi. 25, 26, reads : " He that
believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live ;
and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. ' '
As it stands, here is an inexcusable ambiguity ; our Lord
fails to discriminate between the first and the second
death, as in speech he passes from one to the other. Or-
else it is a clear endorsement, as far as believers are con
cerned, of that original lie of the evil one ; if believers

234 Advantages of the Bible Doctrine.
now living are never to die ; if they themselves live on,
while their bodies die. On the latter understanding, it
were indeed a strong point for modern theology, if our
Lord said it. But did he? We appeal from our trans
lators to the original. The Gr. is ou me apothane (two
negatives more emphatic), he shall by no means die, eis
ton aidna, for the aeon, age, for eternity, as is the meaning
the word often carries. (Liddell and Scott define eis as
a preposition "of time, to determine a period," giving as
an example, eis aei, for ever.) So John viii. 51: "He
shall never see death," is in the Gr., he shall by no means
see death for eternity, the death forever, from which there
is no resurrection. Christ's language could not have been
more precise. He says not the believer is never to die, he
does die as other men; but he tells us he dies not the
second death, the death forever of those who have not life
through Christ.
3. This doctrine helps us to understand other Bible
doctrines. Look, for example, at that cardinal doctrine of our faith,
the Atonement. That it is vicarious in its nature, that
Christ died in the stead of, or as a substitute for, the sin
ner, is clearly set forth to the apprehension of the Bible
student, in both type and statement.
The ceremonies of the Levitical law pictured this to its
worshippers. Under the law of the sin-offering. Lev. iv.,
in each form of that offering, ver. 4, 15, 24, 29, it is speci
fied that the transgressor, "shall lay his hand upon the
head of" the victim. The meaning of this form, if ques
tion there were, is definitely declared in Numb. viii. 10,
where the substitution of the Levites in place of the first
born of the children of Israel was denoted by the latter
laying their hands on the former. See also Lev. i. 4. So,
in figure, the lamb takes the place of the sinner, its inno-

Christ' s Sacrifice Typically and Actually Vicarious. 235
cence becoming his, his sins laid upon the head of the
innocent creature ; and then what follows ? The death
of the victim. Tbe penalty of the law is carried into exe
cution before the sinner's eyes; "the soul that sinneth, it
shall die!'
These sacrifices, we know, derived all their meaning
from being types, or figures of the great Sacrifice for sin,
" fore-known [Gr. pro-egnosmenos] before the foundation
of the world," i Peter i. 20; "the Lamb of God who
taketh away the sin of the world," Jno. i. 29; he who
"appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself,"
Heb. ix. 26. As we read, " Christ was once offered to
bear the sins of many," Heb. ix. 28, "who himself bare
our sins in his own body on the tree," i Pet. ii. 24, on the
instrument of death. As Paul told the Corinthians, " For
I delivered unto you first of all, that which I also received,
how that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scrip
tures; " I Cor. XV. 3. It would seem to be beyond ques
tion, then, that our Lord takes the sinner's place, and so
the sinner, accepting the transfer on the condition re
quired, in his judicial standing takes the place of his Lord.
"He hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin,
that we might become the righteousness of God in him; "
2 Cor. V. 21.
But on this point, which the Bible seems to make so
clear, we find theologians are at variance. There is some
difficulty. No little discussion has arisen as to the precise
nature of the atonement, and some, who profess to be
guided by the word of God, entirely deny its vicarious,
or substitutional, nature. What is the difficulty ? Simply
this. If Christ, the holy one, stands in the place of the
sinner, if he takes on him the latter's sin, he must likewise
take the punishment due to that sin ; he must bear the
¦penalty of the broken law. But, did he ? Did he actually
endure the law's penalty ? Though modern theology may

236 Advantages of the Bible Doctrine.
profess to assent to this, it actually denies it. It teaches
that Christ did not meet the penalty of sin. That, it
- tells us, is not death, though so called, but eternal suffer
ing. And so, we find that the fact that some modern
theologians call. Christ a vicarious sacrifice, does not make
him such in the estimation of others, who recognize that
logically they have been taught, and are themselves teach
ing, that he is not a vicarious sacrifice — he did not take
the sinner's place in so far as to meet the penalty of sin.
Here, then, we see in this great doctrine of the atone
ment the workings of that leaven of evil, which, as the
dogma of universal immortality, is incorporated into the
teaching of modern theology. If one wishes to under
stand what confusion of thought and language Satan's lie
has brought into modern theological ideas, let him analyze
its doctrine of the first and the second death.
We observe that two deaths, you would say, ought at
least to resemble each other. Two things of the same
name, distinguished from one another by simple numerals,
"first," "second," should be enough alike to belong to
the same class. But, on the common theory, there is no
resemblance at all between the first and the second death.
According to Webster, death, in its primary and in all
its secondary meanings, is "the termination of exist
ence. " In a note we have a sort of exception in case of
spiritual death, but absolutely nothing is found answering
to modern theology's definition of the first or the second
death. For the first death of modern theology is not the
termination of existence ; it is the separation, the tearing
asunder of two parts of man's complex being. As a re
sult of this, one part decays, loses its organization, and so
ceases to exist ; the other part continues to exist in un
speakable torment. At last comes the resurrection, when
that part which passed out of existence is again brought
into being, and the suffering part is united to it. But

Modem Theology Idea of First and Second Death. 237
stop ! do we understand that the body, which is all that
has a resurrection on this theory, that the original body
is brought into being at such a time ? It is not imperish
able; it cannot endure the unending torture before it.
This hypothesis then must suppose that it also is changed
and made immortal, like the bodies of the righteous,
although no warrant in Scripture is found for this, and this
change in the bodies of the righteous, the putting on of
immortality, their bodies made "hke unto his glorious
body," is spoken of as "the gift of God through our Lord
Jesus Christ;" i Cor. xv. 54, 57. Does he indeed bestow
the same gift upon the wicked ? ,
But, if we accept this unwarranted , supposition, what
then? The two parts re-united appear before the judg
ment-seat ; they or the individual is judged according to
the deeds of the life on earth ; the verdict of' condemna
tion is pronounced, and the second death is now inflicted ;
2 Cor. V. 10, Rev. xx. 11-15, xxi. 8. How does this second
death resemble the first ? In no respect ; the two, parts of
the man are not torn asunder again ; but, on the contrary,
joined together ; they are cast into that torment which, on
this theory, one part has long been enduring without even
the formality of a trial. We might stop here to inquire
what the need of the judgment on a question already irre
vocably decided ? and why this apparently needless restor
ing of the body ?
But the point is this : comparing the first with the second
death, we find no analogy whatever, rather a contrast, be
tween the act of tearing asunder two parts of a being,
and the act of casting into torment the two reunited. The
two operations evidently are radically unlike. And yet to
these two entirely different processes, we are to understand,
so modern theology informs us, that the Word of God
gives the same name, death ; and, as if one were actually
a repetition of the other, designates one the first, the other

238 Advantages of the Bible Doctrine.
the second, death. Who dares to say, who dares to ask any
one to believe that God's Word is guilty of such abuse of
language ?
An expounder of the popular theory may seek to evade
¦ our conclusion, by objecting to the definition of the first
death as already given. He may claim that it is not the
simple separation of the two parts of a man ; but that it
also necessarily involves the idea of suffering in the part
still existing. In that case he confounds the result of
dying with the death itself And, if the idea of future
suffering be essential to the conception of death, then
Christ has not died, and since Christians are not thus to
suffer, they do not die. But we know, and Paul declares,
"in Adam all die."
But perhaps the objector may claim that the popular
definition should be more exactly stated — that the first
death embraces the separation of the two parts of man,
together with the consequences to the part still living,
according as the previous life had been a righteous or a
wicked one. If this be correct, not only have we the
before-mentioned confounding of results with that whence
they proceed ; but if death be not only the setting free the
living part, but also the results that follow — the actual
carrying of it, for the righteous, to inconceivable bliss —
how can Paul (i Cor. xv. 26) call death their "last enemy,"
and speak of it (2 Cor. i. 10, 11, Phil. ii. 27) as a thing
they should pray to be delivered from ? Such an evident
absurdity forces an objector back to our previous statement
that the popular theory represents the first death as simply
the separation of two parts of a human being.
And this, modern theology declares, is the death that '
Christ died; something entirely different being the true
penalty for sin which the unpardoned sinner is to undergo.
In fact the only resemblance between the two is in the
name of death, assigned to each ; but it will be observed

JVitliout Shedding of Blood No Remission. 239
that words have no definite meaning to modem theology,
when it discusses the nature or fate of the soul.
How sharply does the Word of God cut through all these
sophistries of those who labor, un^wittingly, it may be, to
reconcile the irreconcilable; to adjust the truth of God
¦with the lie of the adversary I The penalty, it declares, is
death. And death means what mankind understand death
to mean. The terms of a law is the last place to look for
other than the most natural use of words. We quesrion the
sanity of one who honestly supposes that the penalty of
death, in human jurisprudence, means imprisonment for
life ! And is the law of God less clearly expressed ? No ;
the pretence that ambiguously figurative language is used to
declare the penalty of his law, is a libel on the great Law
giver himself, deserving ofthe severest condemnation, which
it will receive in a day coming !
Death, in the language of the Almighty, means what he
knows it to mean in human language, — the termination of
existence, the loss of life. " Without shedding of blood is
no remission of sin ; " Heb. ix. 22. Life was forfeited by
disobedience ; another's life must go for that forfeited life.
It is the old, old stor}", which has come down to us through
the ages, which modem theolog}" would set aside. It was the
atonement by blood on which Abel rested his faith, when
he was accepted in the presence of Jehovah — " God testi-
fjing [not of him, but] of his^T^^j." It ¦was the atonement
by blood that Cain rejected, for that spoke of his sinful
ness, of his forfeited life, of the innocent d}-ing in the stead
of the guiln-. He rejected that, and he was rejected.
When that last fearful judgment was thundering over the
land of Egypt, waking a cr}- of agony from ever}- household
of that sinful nation, there were those there dwelling in
safety and peace. On their door-posts was the sprinkled
blood that told ofa life yielded up for theirs; for the Lord
had said, " When I see the blood, 1 will pass over you."
21

240 Advantages of the Bible Doctrine.
Through the death of another came pardon and life to
them. And when, in the fulness of time, our Great Passover was
crucified for us, our Great Substitute himself then met the
penalty of the broken law. He gave his life for ours ; he
gave himself for us. " He died, he was buried, he rose
again the third day, according to the Scriptures ; " i Cor.
XV. 3, 4. He died, not the first or the second death of
popular theology, but an actual death, — he ceased to live.
He was buried, — himself, not a part of himself, — for the
Apostle tells us, "He descended first into the lower parts of
the earth." (So the Scriptures speak of the grave. See Ezek.
xxxi. 14; xxxii. 18.) And he adds, " He that descended
is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens. ' '
The manner in which life is taken away does not affect
the actual fact of death. By the headsman's axe, the bullet,
at the stake, in various ways, the guilty one meets the pen
alty of the law, which declares that its transgressor shall
die for his sin. To fulfil the requirement of God's law,
calling for the death of the transgressor, there evidently is
no necessity that the manner of the death of the substitute
be precisely that of the unpardoned sinner. The law's de
mand was death. This our Lord fully met by his death on
the cross. He entered completely into our place. He was
"made like unto his brethren;" he was tempted in all
points like as we are, apart from sin ; he took upon him
self, on the cross, our guilt and its penalty. Thus, he was
a perfect substitute for the sinner, and his atonement was
truly vicarious, according to the Scriptures. " He was
delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our jus
tification ; " Rom. iv. 25.
He stood in our place. Then the converse, grand and
marvellous as it may be, is also true. We may, if we will,
enter into his place. Who can tell the wonders and the
future glory of this mystery? We are "accepted in the

On Question of Original Sin. 241
Beloved." Of him the Father says, "This is my beloved
Son, in whom I am well pleased." "There is, therefore,
now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus."
At present, he who by death descended into the grave,
has ascended up above all. At the right hand of God
is now his place, — yet in our nature still, — our repre
sentative, our great High Priest, bearing our names
upon his breast, " now to appear in the presence of God
for us;" Heb. ix. 24. Now our Mediator, but what will
he be to his redeemed in the coming " manifestation of the
sons of God," in " the glory that shall be revealed in us"
(Rom. viii. 18, 19), as we then take our full standing in him ?
Prophecy tells us, "As the bridegroom rejoiceth over the
bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee;" Isa. Ixii. 5.
Oh, the height and depth of the love of God, which is in
Christ Jesus oiu: Lord !
And so this doctrine of the soul helps to a better under
standing of that doctrine of original sin, which so puzzles
the simple (not theologically trained) layman. He hears
the new-born infant spoken of as a sinner ; that somehow
sin pertains to it through. Adam. He remembers that dis
tich of the old primer :
" In Adam's fall.
We sinned all."
He revolts against the idea; against the possibility of sin
in a creature who knows not good or evil. But, going to
his infallible standard, in God's own commentary on the
atoning sacrifice of Christ, he finds (Lev. iv. 5) two divi
sions of sin offerings : — one, the offering for sins of igno
rance, that is, for sin according to the Divine, not human,
knowledge of it — for sin not known to be such at the time
of its commission ; and a second, the trespass offering, for
sin according to man's own knowledge, on his lower stand-

242 Advantages of the Bible Doctrine.
ard. He reads that " God condemned sin /« the flesh"
(Rom. viii. 3) ; not sin in thought, word, or deed, in any
of its manifestations or working, but in the flesh ; that Paul
says, " In me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good
thing;" Rom. vii. 18. Does not the Bible, then, teach
this mysterious, perplexing doctrine of original sin, or total
depravity ? What does it all mean ? Can one, after all,
be a sinner, and yet have never sinned ?
In his perplexity, the Bible doctrine of the soul brings
to him truth, helpful in solving his difficulty. He learns,
first of all, that the soul is no distinct, sejiarate, immaterial
entity, created by Almighty power, and infused at some
period of his bodily existence ; but that the soul is the
organism itself, in the forming of which he himself was
formed. And so, instead of the moral nature belonging to
a soul, and the physical to a body, the two are alike
evolved from one and the same organism. And hence, the
working of the organism in the one case, in the more evi
dent — the physical — gives a clue to its working in the
other — the moral.
For example, let us suppose that the physical disease of the
organism known as cancer, has just made its appearance
in a man forty years of age. The history of the case shows
the disease is traceable to inheritance — all his progenitors
have had it. Now, the question comes up : Has that man
had the disease these forty years since his birth ? We say,
certainly not. He has not been a cancerous patient all
that time — this is the first of it. And yet the disease was
somehow there, after all. There was some condition,
some peculiar make-up of the elementary particles of
his organism, constituting a predisposition to the disease,
which no physiologist's microscope can detect. All his life
he has had what is termed a cancerous diathesis, — some
constituent condition of his organism, which insures the
manifestation of the disease, when an appropriate time and

On Question of Original Sin. 243
exciting cause are reached. ' And in this sense, the taint
of cancer has been on him since his birth.
Thus is it with the moral disease of sin in man. The
infant organism, as at birth it first emerges into an inde
pendent life of itself, has no more moral character than a
kitten. And yet it has a sinful diathesis, inherited from.
sinful parents. It has the taint of sin upon it — a taint
which manifests itself in due time. It has been trans
mitted from the first of the race. "Behold, I was shapen
in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. Be
hold, Thou desirest trath in the inward parts;" Psalm
Ii. 5, 6. The pure eye of the Holy, All-seeing One can
but recognize that sinful taint, and the need of the
cleansing blood to wipe out the stain.
If each human being came into existence as a new, in
dependent creation at the time, and if the immaterial soul
of modern theology were the man, and the body its tainted
case, then that soul, which is first put into the body,
must be innocent and pure. But the Bible doctrine
teaches that our existence, as separate souls or organisms,
is by the power of God operating in the way of his ap
pointment, by second causes ; it is by human generation,
comprising the whole process of conception on to birth.
It is the same law of God which governs all organized
matter about us, which, in the account of the creation,
is first thus stated: "And God said. Let the earth bring
forth grass, the herb yielding seed, the fruit tree yielding
fruit, whose seed is in itself, after its kind; " Gen. i. 12.
As Paul says, "And to every seed its own body. There
is one flesh of man," etc.; i Cor. xv. 38, 39. "Being
begotten again, not of corruptible seed ; " i Pet. i. 23. See
how explicitly the Lord Jehovah states the place of the
creation of the prophet, Jer. i. 5 ; see also, Isa. xlix. i,
5, 15. And we must inquire with the patriarch, "Who
can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?" Job xiv. 4.
21 *

244 Advantages of the Bible Doctrine.
Such being our actual origin, as the Bible doctrine sets it
before us, we can understand whence and what the taint
of sin that comes to us through Adam's transgression,
and how naturally we ourselves become sinners by our
own voluntary act.
And so, the trae doctrine of the soul clears away another
theological puzzle : Had Christ a human soul ? Though
modern theologians confidently declare he had, — as a re
ligious teacher once said to the writer. Why, the Church
settled that long ago ! — yet their explanations of what the
fact involves, leads a thoughtful mind into serious difficul
ties and doubts. They tell us " the Second Person in the
Trinity, being conceived in the Virgin Mary" (so West
minster Confession of Faith), "by the power of the Third
Person, took to himself a true body and a reasonable
soul." That is, then, he took into union with himself
a complete, independent man ; for certainly body and soul
together are one man. Now here is the difficulty about this.
Notwithstanding it is stated "that two whole, perfect, and
distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one
person," yet, in practical operation, the two are presented
to us disjoined, and acting separately. In some sayings
of our Lord, for instance Mark xiii. 32, we are told it was
the man who spoke, in other cases it was the Divine One.
If, then, whatever theoretically may be stated, we are
practically informed that Christ is a compound of two
beings capable of acting separately, then the question is,
which performed the actual work of redemption ? It must
have been the human one ; he alone could be tempted to
sin; God cannot be tempted. He alone died for us; he
only could suffer death ; modern theology's death, the
separation of soul from body, appertains solely to a human
being. Then the actual Saviour was the human, not the
divine one ; this latter, as it were, but stands by and
assents. We had rested our hopes on a divine being, who

On Question of CJtrisfs Human Soul. 245
alone could be mighty to save and able to accomplish so
great a redemption. But if we are to foUow modem theol-
og}-'3 theory, we are constrained to cr\- out, ¦with Mary
Magdalene : " They have taken awaj- my Lord, and I know
not where they have laid him."
Helpful indeed to us comes now the true, the Bible doc
trine. Had Christ a human soul? Certainly; for a human
soul, so the Bible teUs us, is the human organism. For
Christ to have or to be such, to have or to be a soul, was
essential to his existence as flesh. ¦ ' The Word was made
flesh" (Jno. i. 14^, was "made like unto his brethren,"
Heb. ii. 17^ "he emptied himself [auton ekehbse], taking
the form of a servant, being made in likeness of men; "
Phil. ii. 7. And so. though the Spirit was given without
measure unto him, he was wholly conformed to the law of
our being ; his life, as ours, depended upon the formation
and sustenance of his physical organism or soul. He was
bom as we ; he lay helpless on his mother's knee ; he
"grew in wisdom and in stature," in one as in the other.
^Mien he says, •• Now is my soul troubled," he means his
very self -After his resurrection, the divine man says to
his doubting disciples, doubting if he himself, their own
Saviour, were really alive again : " Handle me, and see
that it is I, myself" And with joyful trust our hearts
respond, as even the most incredulous of them all ex
claimed, "My Lord and my God! " We might pursue
the subject fiuther, but it is holy ground on which we
tread. And so, not alone are other doctrines set forth in their
trae light by the Bible doctrine of the soul, but also Bible
stories and allusions, involving the nature of the soul, we
find become more intelligible.
A singular story, on the popular view, is that of Moses'
death, with its attendant circumstances. He had been
forbidden to go Into Canaan, and sorely grieved does he

246 Advantages of the Bible Doctrine.
show himself by the prohibition. Four times in his re
corded addresses to the children of Israel does he allude
to it (Deut. i. 37; iii. 23, 27; iv. 21, 22; xxxi. 2), telling
how he had besought the Lord that he might go over, and
might "see the good land," till the Lord forbade him to
"speak more of this matter;" promising him, however,
that he shall see it in the distance, from the mountains of
Moab. And so we read in the last of Deuteronomy how
he went up to Pisgah's top, and there the Lord showed
him the land of promise. Now, if Moses' desire was
really to see the land his people were to possess, why did
the Lord promise him this sight, and then take him to the
mountain-top, and kindly point out to him the localities,
if, on the popular theory, Moses was just about to have so
much better (if we may reverently sayj a bird's-eye view
of the whole land from the heavenly heights ? No ; the
bitterness of Moses' disappointment, and the scene on Pis
gah's height, flatly contradict the popular theory. Yet
they are perfectly intelligible when we accept Hterally the
Lord's words to Moses, Deut. xxxi. 16: "Thou shalt
sleep with thy fathers. ' ' He could not with spirit vision
follow the Israelites in their passage through Jordan and
in the future conquests. He could not be near, as mod
ern theology suggests {probably, no "thus saith the Lord "
for that !), a ministering spirit to those he had loved and
cared for. The language of Job must henceforth apply
to him ; " His sons come to honor, and he knoweth it
not ; they are brought low, but he perceiveth it not of
them." The same fact prevented his beholding his
people's coming triumph, which, by the word of the Lord,
should later prevent King Josiah from beholding the
calamities to overtake Israel: "Behold, therefore, I will
gather thee unto thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered
into thy grave in peace ; and thine eyes shall not see all

Makes Preaching' More Effective. 247
It is, moreo-ver, difficult to understand how, though it
might be a. disappointment to Aaron and to Moses not to
accompany the children of Israel into Canaan, their, fore
told death could be to them the penalty it is represented to
be (Numb. xx. 24; xxvii. 14; Deut. xxxii. 51), if as, on
modern theology-s showing, that death but directly brought
them into their reward, into the supreme bliss of the eternal
world !
That the natural method of interpreting God's Wdrd
tends to its better comprehension, is well shown by an inci
dent which came, under the writer's own observation. A
theological professor, lecturing to his class upon heaven as
the glorious abode of saints already departed, when he came
to consider Acts ii. 34, " For David is not ascended into
the heavens," frankly confessed, "I do not understand it."
While admiring his candor, we ¦ can but exclaim : Not
understand it ! He should have understood it. It was
sp'oken not to a company of metaphysicians and deep
thinkers, but to the common people. .It was an important
step in an argument which convinced three thousand of the
truth of Jesus' claim to the Messiahship. No doubt they
were more familiar with the Old Testament, which was all
they had, than are we ; but for us, with the additional light
of the New Testament, not to understand the passage, is by
no means creditable, to say the least. What is the key to
its comprehension? Simply this: take the passage literally,
acknowledge that // means just what it says, and all is plain.
If it contradicts your cherished theories, throw them, not.
God's. Word, aside !
4. A right understanding of the Bible makes the
preaching of the word more effective.
Before Felix, Paul "reasoned of righteousness, self-con
trol, and a judgment to come!' till the careless Roman
governor trembled. To the Corinthians the apostle writes

248 Advantages of the Bible Doctrine.
of "the terror of the Lord." How little of that do we
hear at the present day !
And yet there is need of such preaching. We need to
be reminded that there is a penalty for sin, and what it is.
God is a God of love, — we rejoice to know it, ¦ — but he is
also a God to be feared by evil-doers. We need to be
reminded of that also. He is terrible to his adversaries !
When he. would bring the Israelites out of Egypt, to make
of them a people to his name, he must first impress upon '
them this lesson. And this he did, by the judgments on
Egypt, by the terrors of Sinai. " The sight of the glory
of the Lord was like devouring fire on the top. of the mount,
in the eyes of the children of Israel;" Exod. xxiv. 17.
Twice, in their desert history, do we read of that fire
leaping forth frqm the enshrouding cloud to devour the
rebellious. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. The
thunder of Sinai must awaken the slumberer to his condi
tion, ere the love that would rescue can enter the heart.
The pulpit of to-day presents but one side of the tn^th.
Its ministers shun to declare the whole counsel of God.
But were they to reject the false dogma that all are im
mortal, they would no longer hesitate to proclaim the Bible-
declared punishment of the wicked. For the literal, utter
destruction of the unworthy, does violence neither to our
reason nor to our sense of justice.
And, on the other hand, the reward of the future is more
clearly declared and comprehended, if presented as in the
Bible. The Word of God plainly holds out the promise of
life to those found worthy. It is life instead of death. The
gospel (glad tidings) of peace announces pardon, and the
restoration of the life forfeited by disobedience. An old-
time preacher declares: "Behold, I have set before thee
life and death; therefore choose life; " Deut. xxx. 15, 19.
The weakest intellect can comprehend that. Its appeal

It Makes Preaching More Effective. 249
touches a responsive chord in every heart, for the desire of
life is implanted deep in our nature. "Yea, all that a man
hath will he give for his life." The Word of God repre
sents even the angels of evil, at the approach of the Lord
of life, crying out in terror, "Art thou come to destroy
us ? " Milton suggests the same thought :
" For who would lose.
Though full of pain, this intellectual being.
These thoughts that wander through eternity ? "
Yet here he weakens his verse by the error of suppos
ing their pain already begun. Though they may suffer re
morse, yet the actual anguish of their coming death is not
"before the time " appointed.
But how indefinite, unsatisfactory, we might almost say
evasive, the preaching of future reward in our day. It is
not too much to say that many of our religious preachers
appear to believe, what one of them, as reported in a New
York religious weekly of May i6th, 1877, frankly, though
incorrectly, declared of heaven: "We have a revelation
which reveals nothing." The preacher explained to his
people that no doubt it is something nice, but , that the
language in which it is revealed, expresses merely what
the people of a former ruder age would choose ; and so,
in so far as our ideas differ from theirs, the actual language
of revelation on this point is of no account. . And this
attack on the revealed word goes forth also, in a so-called
orthodox paper, to an audience of some fifty thousand
people, as a Christian exposition of the Bible ! Oh, that
our ministers might reverently bow before the . simple livord
of God, accepting it just as it stands ; not encumbering
and covering it up by human tradition! "The entrance
of Thy word giveth light ; it giveth understanding to the
simple." And so, but little do we hear of the great motive which

250 Advantages of the Bible Doctrine.
our Lord and his disciples use to stimulate to promptness
and diligence in the struggle for a life to come. Our
preachers warn us of death, its certainty, its possible near
ness. Prepare to die, we are told ; you know not when you
may die. The Holy Word warns us by a far grander thought,
"Prepare to meet thy God." It passes by the negative
losing of life, over the unconscious Sleep to follow ; it
seizes upon the moment of awakening, and the grand
scenes then to open. "Watch ye, therefore, for ye know
not when the Master of the house cometh." " Be patient,
therefore, brethren, for the coming of the Lord draweth
nigh." It is the Christian watchword, "Maranatha" —
the Lord cometh ! The Bible doctrine teaches that to
every man his next conscious moment after this life
ends, the awaking from the sleep of death, is at that
Coming : and then the Lord dispenses his reward, which
"is with him to give to every man as his work shall be."
How sadly confusing the teaching of our modern theology :
that every man still continues to live, and enters upon his
reward of weal or woe, as he ends his life ; and then, years,
or it may be centuries after, comes the day of reward,
when he is to be given the reward, which already has long
been in his possession !
And the Bible doctrine gives us to understand what
constitutes the punishment of the future. The attendant
pain of dying does not come into prominence in God's
sight. Fearful, indeed, that will be, for " then shall be
the weeping, and the wailing, and the gnashing of the
teeth." That this suffering is all that is involved in the
idea of future punishment is the traditional error we imbibe
from mediaeval times. But to the infinite mind, the great
thought is the infinite loss of life, of existence ^- the loss of
what we might enjoy, the loss of what we might have been.
That is the eternal punishment.
-When human jurisprudence threatens capital punishment

// Subverts Universalism. 251
for the highest crime, it recognizes the fact that death is
the highest of all known penalties. Circumstances of pain
and of shame may attend its execution, but death itself, the
loss of life, is tbe greatest penalty of the violated law.
So it is with God's unerring tribunal. When the great day
of reward actually comes, when he who once died for the
guilty shall sit upon the throne of judgment, to pass sen
tence upon the guilty, it will be to pronounce them unfit
to live. The Judge will award the extreme penalty of the
law. That sentence is — death, irrevocable, endless. "The
wages of sin is death, the gift of God is eternal life ; "—
life, that which men prize most; its loss the greatest con
ceivable loss.
5. The Bible doctrine of the soul subverts the grow-
ing tendency to Universalism.
Formerly, when human authority was paramount in
shaping religious beliefs, the popular doctrine of future
punishment passed unchallenged. It was taught that the
Creator called into existence myriads of human beings,
whom he knew were to violate his law, purposing for their
transgression to keep them in being, that he might torture
them forever. Thank God, the Bible teaches no such libel
on our All-wise and Infinitely-merciful Father, nor any
thing like it ! Such a belief proved too horrible for
Romanism; so it reserved that fate for heretics and the
like, constructing a purgatory for the final restoration of
even the chief sinners of its own communion. This,
being without Bible authority, Protestantism rejected, re
taining the Papal belief without its mitigations.
But as men began to think more for themselves, this
current belief underwent a change. In some measure, to
relieve God from the responsibility of this felt injustice, it
was denied that the fire which the Bible so plainly foretells
is literal fire. Somehow it was found out to be the fire of

252 Advantages of the Bible Doctrine.
a remorseful and guilty conscience. Yet the main fdct re
mains, as taught by that theology which styles itself ortho
dox, that for finite transgression an infinite penalty is
provided : for misery, which knows no end, is infinite
misery. The Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian
Church of America, subscription to which it requires as a
prerequisite to preaching the glad tidings, declares that
" the wicked are to be punished with unspeakable torments
of body and soul forever; " unspeakable in quantity, if not
in quality.
But human faith is breaking down under this load. It
were interesting to know precisely how many, who Subscribe
to this libellous statement, can fully accept it in their hearts.
Certainly very, very many of Protestant laymen and min
isters are turning to what they cannot find in the Bible,
but what they judge less disho.noring to God. They think
to save his character at the expense of what they profess
to reverence as his Word. They secretly accept a modi
fied form of that Universalism which so-called Orthodoxy
openly condemns. But they call it Restorationism. The
wicked are to be punished with suffering of a limited
duration, and then — then somehow, for we have no rev
elation on the subject — they believe they are all to be
restored to holiness and to God's favor. It is virtually
the old Romanist theory of purgatory, perhaps some
what improved, and it rests upon an equally sound foun
dation. A pleasing fancy it were ; but the important, practical
question for those it concerns is — Is it true ? To decide
this question, man's limited reason is of no avail ; it can
only bow before that revelation of his purpose which the
Almighty has graciously given us. This has been fully
quoted in Chap. XI.
That sin should entirely be done away and holiness
everywhere prevail in all God's universe, no reasonable

It Subverts Universalism.

253

being can doubt is desired by the Holy God. Nor can we
doubt he will strive to accomplish this — and can aught
stay his hand ? Certainly not. Then he will do what he
desires and is able to perform.
Evidently there are but two ways by which sin can be
arrested. Either the sinning one must cease to sin, or
must cease to be. Either he must become obedient — and
this of his own free will, for holiness results from the
voluntary choice of a free moral agent — or else the power
that sustains the disobedient will cease to continue his
being, to continue him in sin. That power may wait upon
him, up to a certain point, to give full opportunity for
voluntary obedience. Beyond that, it must destroy.
Has God revealed to us how sin shall come to its
end ; how his universe is to be made holy ? We believe
he has. We read in his Word that those who in this life
choose to forsake sin, to them he will give eternal life
in the holy hereafter; that those who in this life prove
to be incorrigible, he will destroy ; that man is now
on probation, being tested ; and that the summing up of
this probation in the awards of the judgment day will be
final. This latter conclusion the Restorationist denies. We
will note some of his objections. He shows that the Gr.
adjective, aionios, in the phrase "everlasting punishment,"
of Matt. xxv. 46, does not necessarily and always mean
everlasting. Right there, certainly. The question is, does
it mean everlasting in this case? A critical Greek scholar,
well known to be such, well states the meaning of the word
aionios :
"It uniformly denotes, not ' duration without end,' but
permanent duration ; permanent according to the nature of
the subject, covering in one case merely the period during
which a blasted fig-tree stands, and in another the eternity
of our Lord. To affirm that it always implies duration

254 Advantages of the Bible Doctrine.
without end, is as contrary to fact as to affirm that it never
does."* Here it is acknowledged that the word aionios may
express duration without end. Whether in any given case
it does or does not, is to be decided by the attendant
circumstances. In the passage from Matthew, "And these
shall go away into eternal [aionios] punishment, but the
righteous into life eternal" {aionios), the Gr. adjective
aionios, qualifying the life of the righteous, confessedly
takes its strongest meaning of endless duration. Does not
this fix the meaning of the word in the adjoining clause,
where it is used likewise to qualify the punishment of the
wicked? Is it reasonable, or indeed conceivable, that in
the one sentence the word should present two meanings the
most opposite possible — in one instance denoting duration
finite ; in the next, duration infinite ? And this, when the
antithesis of the sentence evidently rests, not on the quali
fying word, but on punishment, as opposed to life. And,
moreover, in what the Bible defines the punishment to be,
viz., death, there is nothing in " the nature of the subject "
necessarily forbidding to the word, in this instance, its
strongest meaning, endless.
Another difficult passage for the Restorationist is John
iii. 36: "He that believeth not shall not see life, but
the wrath of God abideth on him." This is explained to
mean no more than that "he shall not see life while he
remains in unbelief; the wrath of God abides on him while
he remains an unbeliever." But what if he die in unbelief?
* See page 16 of "Is Eternal Punishment Endless? By an Or
thodox Minister of the Gospel;" Lockwood, Brooks & Co., Boston,
1876. The author shows himself a thorough scholar, conscientious
and fearless, scrupulously guarding against the common fault of assum
ing too much from any Scripture. His work is clear, concise, and
admirable as far as it goes. He concludes that the duration of
" aionian " punishment is unrevealed.

It Subverts Universalism. 255
To extend the opportunity of exercising saving faith into
the next world, is certainly to go beyond what revelation
has given us. Nay, if we say that all are then to believe
and be restored, it is to deny it. For the Lord Jesus has
told us. Matt. vii. 17, "Wide is the gate [Gr. pyle], and
broad the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there
be that go in thereat. Because strait is the gate and
narrow the way that leadeth unto life, and few there be
that find it." If all were, sooner or later, to find the
way of faith leading unto life — be their course more or
less direct — our Lord would not, could not, thus have
spoken. Again, when he was asked, Luke xiii. 23, 24;
"Lord, are there few that be saved [exactly, if few are
those being saved] ?" he replies, " Strive [Gr. agonizesthe,
agonize] to enter in at the strait gate [Gr. thura, door],
for many, I say unto you, shall seek to enter in and shall
not be able, when [Gr. aph'ou] once the master of the
house is risen up and hath shut to the door " [Gr. thura].
If ever that door were to be opened to them again, even in
a far off age, to the query "if those being saved are few?"
so absolute a reply could never have been returned, "Many,
I say unto you, shall not be able to enter in." Or, if that
door is, in reality, never to be shut in the future, how
could the Lord so minutely detail the future pleading and
peremptory dismissal ofthe " many" shut out?
No, there is no escape for those who accept the false
dogma of unending immortality. If all men are immortal,
jf all live forever, the doctrine that all may, or are to be
restored finally, however preferable to the doctrine of un
ending suffering, cannot take the place of the latter, except
by recklessly rejecting much of the revelation God has
given us. If the punishment is suffering, not literal de
straction, it is endless suffering. The few find the way
of life, Christ tells us — the few receive the gift of God,
eternal life. The many will not be able to enter the shut

256 Advantages of the Bible Doctrine.
door, shut upon those who would not enter while it was
open to them, who would not seek for mercy, till the Judge
pronounces sentence upon them.
And yet does not the Bible declare the times of" the
restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the
mouth of his holy prophets since the world began ? " Is
there not a time to come when rebellion against God's
authority shall be quelled, "when he shall have put down
all rule, and authority, and power," and when " God shall
be all in all," and " every curse shall be no more " ? Who
can doubt it? And as clearly does God's word tell us
how this glorious consummation, utterly hopeless on the
so-called orthodox view, is to be brought about. " Every
soul, who will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed
from among the people; " Acts iii. 23. These, as natural
brute beasts, shall utterly perish ; 2 Pet. ii. 12. "Whose
end is destruction;" Phil. iii. 19. "Sin, when it is fin
ished, bringeth forth death," (Jas. i. 15) — a death, which
ends forever the sinner and his sin.
6. The Bible doctrine of the soul removes a great cause
OF infidelity. We charge against the popular theology
that it tends to make men infidels. So hard and untruthful
are its presentations of our loving Father in heaven, that
some who believe in a Supreme Being, deny that the God of
the Bible, as he is taught to them, can be that One. So
contradictory the interpretations it gives of the Holy Word,
that men deny it can be a revelation from the Supreme one.
Erroneous, at best, is the idea our fallen humanity forms
of its Creator and constant Benefactor. It is not that the
Father has to be reconciled to us by the sacrifice of his
Son, it is we that have to be reconciled to God. "All
things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by
Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of recon
ciliation : to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the

It Obviates Infidelity. 257
world unto himself;" 2 Cor. v. 18, 19. "God so loved
the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoso
ever believeth in him, should not perish, but should have
everlasting life ; " Jno. iii. 16. Yet, if God is what popular
theology represents him to be in his treatment of the wicked,
what becomes of his mercy a,nd love, or of his wisdom ?
Many a rejector of the Bible has been trained amid
Christian surroundings. He confesses that doubts and
then denial of that theory of future punishment taught
him was the starting-point, whence he was led entirely to
deny the Bible as a revelation from God. He recognizes
a God from his works ; he cannot deny that he has sinned .
against him ; but so great a Being must also be good, and
in the future life he trusts all will be well.
Strange that one priding himself upon his reason, too
wise to be blinded as others by religious errors, should not
use a little more of that reason on the problem before him.
If really the independent thinker he fancies himself, it
would seem he ought to have hit upon the correct solution
of his difficulties. Those very Bible contradictions, of
which he complains, might give him a possible clue. May
it not be there is some mistake in his understanding of the
Bible? May it not be that of a book, which has such a
history and has wrought so marvellous results, such as
would lead one to investigate whether it be not of God, —
may it not be he has taken his ideas of it too much at
second-hand? This independent thinker declares he is
not going to believe anything on mere hearsay, anything
he cannot see a reason for. We confess to a feeling of
respect for the position he assumes. He is the last one to
accept an important doctrine on insufficient grounds. But
what becomes of the pride of his reasoning, when we find
his idea of the future is based on his belief in inherent
immortality ? He believes that which confessedly cannot
be known except through revelation, and of which he con-

258 Advantages of the Bible Doctrine.
fesses to have no revelation. Ask him why he believes.
The only reason he can give is because mankind generally
have believed it; that is, he believes because others have
believed it, because others say it is so ! O empty reason !
It may be he will say that he and others rest their faith
on the evident unfinished condition of things here, and
especially on the feeling deep within us, that we are made
for immortality. But what does all this prove? Or at
most, what more than that all are created with the capacity
for a future life, which, if endless, reason would judge
should only be given to those found fitted for it? Cer
tainly eftdless existence, to those who do not make a right
use of it, is no blessing either to them or to others. And
all nature around us proclaims the survival of the fittest, the
extinction of the unfit.
If, then, instead of irrationally rejecting the Bible as
unworthy of credence, the sceptic will review his own
traditional belief, he will certainly make such use of his
God-given reason as may lead him to a fitness for the
future world. If he will consent to investigate and reason
for himself, and not take the Word of God as others have
thought it out for him, or as modern theology presents it
for his acceptance, he will find its contradictions and am
biguities vanish. He will find it denies the dogma of
unconditional immortality ; and that rejected, it stands
forth in harmony with itself, and with our sense of what is
reasonable. He will find the God of the Bible is indeed a
God of mercy and of love infinite, a love so passing knowl
edge that our feeble reason quails before it. He will find
the Almighty, as revealed, is also a God of justice and .of
infinite holiness, who will not endure sin when the hope has
passed of the sinner's reform. And he will behold the infi
nite wisdom of God's plan of redemption, how he can be
"just, and yet the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus."
And, seeking pardon for his sins in God's appointed and

It Overthrows Romanism. 259
revealed way, he may become an heir of the inheritance
of the holy ones in the life forever, which is revealed unto
those who now have the opportunity to prepare for it.
7. The errors of Romanism are utterly subverted
by the Bible doctrine of the soul.
That Church well knows it loses all hold of one who
reads the Word of God for himself, believing it means
just what it says. Therefore it is so careful to keep the
Bible from the common people. And those who would
put it into their hands, like that old English reformer,
Tyndale, it persecutes and bums at the stake, where it has
the power. In the early days of printing, it did not hesi
tate to manifest its antagonism to God's Word by publicly
burning all copies of the Scripture in the common tongue
which it could lay hands upon. To the Church, which
virtually worships our Lord's mother, and other holy ones
of the past, the Bible is indeed a dreaded book, for it
declares these objects of its worship to be now uncon
scious in death.
It is not difficult to understand why the Protestant Ref
ormation was stayed in its onward career — for it gave
up its vantage ground, it surrendered to the enemy. Al
though professing to hold up God's Word as supreme, it
yielded that' great principle, and with it largely the trath
itself It bowed before the authority of man, and accepted
again Satan's false assertion that all men are immortal.
And now the so-called orthodox Protestant finds his
hands tied in his contests with the Romanist. Certainly
the latter has the advantage of him on the question of
the invocation of dead saints, which leads to that worship.
Thus he inquires, "May we not ask a friend on earth to pray
to God for us?" Certainly. "And as David says, 'If
I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me,'
then the holier and freer from sin that friend, the more may

26o Advantages of the Bible Doctrine.
I seek his intercession ? ' ' Certainly. ' ' Then, assuming that
friend is now perfectly holy and in the immediate presence
of God, why should I not all the more ask him to pray for
me, since you find no precept in the Bible to forbid that?"
The argument is irresistible on that assumption.
But show him that the Word of God declares that the
dead are now in the sleep of death, in the grave, where is
neither thought, nor work, nor device, nor wisdom, nor
knowledge, and he is silenced. Prove to him that the Word
of God shows that the corner-stone of his ecclesiastical edi
fice is in reality the lie of the Evil one, "Ye shall not surely
die; " and if he prizes God's Word above human tradition,
he will come out and separate himself from the coming ruin,
which must surely overtake that great system of error.
So also with the errors of Spiritualism, as it is called ; and
so with the vagaries of Swedenborgianism, in which the so-
called orthodox method of allegorically, or figuratively, in
terpreting the words of Holy Writ seems to have blossomed
out, and run to seed. Both together read their death-war
rant, if the Bible is understood as it has been written.
8. Not alone in the encounter with these false religions,
but also in the work of missions generally, this reformed
belief would be found most helpful. It puts the mission
ary at a fearful disadvantage to be compelled to tell, for
instance, an intelligent Hindoo : " The true God, whom I
declare unto you, offers to make you eternally happy ; but
your father and all your ancestors, because, as you confess,
they did wrong, although not at the time realizing their
peril, he is now tormenting, and will to all eternity."
"How can I be sure," he may well reply, "that such is
the true God ? Why, your own showing makes him worse
than our Juggernaut, who slays, but does not torture eter
nally, his victims, I prefer to take my chances with the
millions who have gone before me."

A Great Help to Missions. 261
The story is told of a priest in Siam, who asked an
American missionary how long his God tormented bad
men in a future state. When answered "Forever," he re
plied, "Our god torments the worst of men only one
thousand years, so we will not have your American God in
Siam." Nothing but the religion of Christ could have stood this
strain which man has put upon it ! But let the missionary
be able to say: "I bring you glad tidings of a life to
come, to be obtained only through a loving Saviour. For
your patents this good news has come too late, and they
haye lost the life ; but, at the resurrection, God -(vill not
punish them above what they deserve." The thought of
their second death, with its attendant pain of dying, merci
fully moderated according to their guilt, he can endure ; but
he cannot bear the thought of their suffering to all eternity!
Such a message brings hope to him, without the accompa
niment of unending despair and woe for his loved ones.
Moreover, to us all, the Bible doctrine gives a more
correct, and so a more hopeful, view of what we are to expect
in mission work, whether at home or abroad. For some
reason, the interest in the work thirty years ago has not
been sustained; certainly it has not kept pace with the
enlarging field, and the increasing financial ability of the
churches. May not this, in part at least, be due to disap
pointed, because mistaken, expectations ? The writer re
members when, anticipating that the world was to be
made subject to Christ before his coming, he fancied he
saw that result almost attained. But more sober thought
beholds a thousand millions (say) on earth — two hundred
millions in India, three hundred millions in China, — and
a little skirmishing on the outside of 'this mighty mass.
Tiu-ning to nominally Protestant lands, how few with an
eye single to the Master's work ! And the end would seem
far off. ,

262 Advantages of the Bible Doctrine.
But we look into the Word of God, and we learn what
he really is now doing : " visiting the Gentiles, to take out
of them a people for his name ; " Acts xv. 14. We see it is
all foretold ; " in the last days perilous times shall come "
for our faith; — "when the Son of Man cometh, shall he
find faith on the earth?" Luke xviii. 8. As the flood
came upon an ungodly world, as the tempest of fire on
Sodom (Luke xvii. 26-30), so his coming will burst upon
those the least expecting it. It is "by the brightness of
his coming, that the wicked one," in Paul's day yet to be
revealed, " shall be destroyed ; " 2 Thess. ii. 8. And with
a new light we now read the entire promise of the world to
- Christ: "Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen [the
nations] for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of
the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with
a rod of iron ; Thou shalt dash them to pieces like a pot
ter's vessel ; " Psalm ii. 8, 9.
And so we hopefully plod on, nothing daunted by pres-
*ent small results, knowing what we are to expect, and that
God's great purpose is being carried out. If he so pa
tiently waits through the centuries, bearing with all the
fruits of sin, amid seeming disappointments and reverses,
while his work for this present age, the testing, the select
ing and rejecting, still goes on, as he is taking out of
the nations a people to his name, we also are content to
work, and wait, and watch ; — working with him to reach
the perishing ; watching for him till, his preparatory work
completed, he comes to triumph over every foe !
9. The Bible doctrine of the soul will also be found
most helpful in its influence upon our Christian churches
themselves. With the simple, literal method of reading
God's Word just as written, which its adoption permits, it
brings to us the long-sought Christian unity.
The existence of so many Christian denominations.

It Promotes Oiristian Unity. 263
whatever mitigations there may be of the evU, is a sad
reproach to our Christianity. Inndels take occasion to
decry our faith, and the inexcusable ambiguity of its
standard, which can be understood in so many different
¦ways. Christians mourn over the needless expenditure
of denominational force, and the animosity and rivalri«
between those whose great dutj- it is to love one another.
Christ prayed that his people may be one; and the an
swer to that prayer, though long delayed, must yet come.
What is the cause of all this diversity- in Christian be
lief? It is traceable to the presence in the Christian
Church of that fhiitfiil source of evil, the dogma of un-
conditionM immortality. To sustain a doctrine so ex
plicitly denied in Holy Writ, it has become necessary to
reject the natural meaning of many passages, and to search
out some allegorical, or figurative, meaning which may be
assumed to lie hidden in the passage. Thus license is
given to interpret all doctrines of the Bible after the same
allegorical ^shion, and it may be with the greatest diver
gence of -iiews. For the literal, or natural, meaning is
but one; if that is rejected on iinsiifficient grounds, the
figurative meaning adopted varies according to the bent
of each individual. Thus also the habit is formed, no
doubt imwittingly, in our religious teachers of every de
nomination, of passing over the natural meaning of a
passage, and of reasoning out some derived meaning.
One might almost think that the Bible, like the Eleu-
sinian and other mysteries of the ancient m\-thology,
had one meaning for the common j>eople, another for
the initiated.
There is a remedy for this variance of denominational
beliefe. It is ver> simple, and yet very radical. However
much it may conflict with creeds and theories of human
tbnnation, let individual Christians agree that they will
be governed in their imderstanding of Holy Scripture by

264 Advantages of the Bible Doctrine.
the simple rule they follow with regard to all other
writings, viz., that they will not accept of the figurative
meaning till the possibility of the natural meaning is unques
tionably exhausted. If the Bible be thus accepted in the
natural meaning of its language, it will everywhere agree
with itself, and thus, their standard of truth no longer
variable. Christians will likewise agree with one another.
Will yOu thus consent to do your part towards the fulfil
ment of Christ's prayer, or, will you endeavor to make
it and his word void, through continued subserviency to
human tradition ?
10. The Bible doctrine of the soul arouses a truer
INTEREST IN OUR PHYSICAL WELL-BEING.
We all approve the sentiment that " The proper study
of mankind is man." " Gnothi seauton!' know thyself,
was a favorite maxim of Greek philosophers. In this study
of ourselves, all will agree that it is needful that we start
right, that we get a correct conception of what we actually
are. Now it is impressed upon us from childhood that we are
compound beings, made up of a body and a soul. The
soul — the real man, something immaterial, which thinks
and acts — is imprisoned, so it would seem, in the body,
and is thus restrained of its full powers; till death releases us
from this imprisonment. The body, on this view, is of
comparatively little account, deserving of but little care or
thought. It may expect to receive more or less abuse, for
it is but a shell, or case, — in fact, an incumbrance, — which
we haust be hampered with, carrying it about with us, till
our time comes to "shuffle off this mortal coil," and we
immortals are free at last.
We note, on this way of thinking, an undesirable sequel
to this liberty, that after all it is but temporary. At the
inevitable resurrection we must return to our former prison,

It Promotes Physical Weil-Being. 265
which, though beautified and improved, has then immor
tality conferred upon it, and so it becomes our prison
cteinally. No wonder, with such views, we hear so little
in Christian conversation, sermons, or prayers, of that
resurrection of which Paul says, " If, by any means, 1 may
attain unto it," — in his " seeking after immortality,"
Now, we find in Bible study that this despising of the
body as a clog, a hindrance to us — this universal degrad
ing of the material, and exaltation of the immaterial —
which some seem to think essential to true religion, all this
belongs to our modern, not to the ancient, theology.
The Bible knows nothing of it ! When God surveyed his
material creation, the work of his hands, he pronounced it
"very good." Are we better judges than he? Though
man's normal powers had been weakened by the sinful excess
of generations past, )'el the Psalmist says, " I will praise
thee ; for / am fearfully and wonderfully made, and that
my soul knoweth right well;" Psalm cxxxix. 14. What
did he mean by "I"? Certainly not the immaterial
nothingness, to which the word soul is to-day applied.
For he goes on to say, " My substance was not hid from
thee, when / was made in secret and curiously wrought in
the lowest parts of the earth." Is not his reference here to
the creating in ages p;ist, deep in Nature's laboratory, of
the very particles of matter, which the Divine mind foresaw
would be brought forth, in later years, to form the man
himself? Surely all the life we have any experience of in
this world is in a material body; and it is in a body still,
that we enter upon the new life of the next world, when it
shall come. "There is a natural [soul-] body, and tiiere
is a spiritual [spirit-] body."
And, moreover, this human organism we so disparage,
and condemn, how highly has it been honored, and what
bright gleams of the future glory are reflected upon it, in
the marvellous fact that "The Word was made flesh!"

266 Advantages of the Bible Doctrine.
John i, 14. "He, being in the form of God, thought it not
robbery [Gr. harpagmon, freely translated, ' a thing to be
grasped and retained,' as a robber his prey] to be equal
with God, but . . . was made in the likeness of men, and
being found in fashion as a man, he became obedient unto
death; " Phil. ii. 6, 8. And now, having risen from the
dead, he has entered as our High Priest into the holiest of
all, in fashion as a man, "to appear in the presence of God
for us." "And unto them that look for him shall he
appear [', in like manner,' Acts i. 11] the second time with
out sin unto salvation;" Heb. ix. 24, 28. Then taking
his promised, everlasting dominion. King of kings and
Lord of lords, it is in human form still that the " Son of
Man shall sit upon the throne of his glory; " Matt. xxv.
31. Thus hath God honored and exalted our material
organism. And yet the simple Christian, who reverences
his Bible, and trusts its literal statement that the soul is
formed of material elements, is opprobriously termed a ma
terialist, as if that were the same as an infidel !
Now what practical results ensue from a correct knowl
edge of ourselves, of our physical being ?
As we reflect upon the marvellous skill with which God
has constructed this material frame, and how highly he
has honored it, even entering himself into its nature, we
can but highly esteem that which its Maker so highly
esteems. And the Bible reveals to us that the body is not
a vile case or prison which invests our independent and
noble self, but that it is through the body that we exist at
all. We recall the words of the Master: "Handle me,
and see that it is I, myself t" If we realize that the man
is the soul, that is. Biblically, the organism, and that upon
the integrity of his organism his existence depends, then
shall we care for and cherish it as we have had little thought
of doing heretofore. What we are, what we can do, de
pends upon the vigor of our organism. And if we accept

It Develops Personal Holiness. 267
the Bible truth, that " there is no work or wisdom in the
grave," Eccl. ix. 10, not only should we be more in earnest
to "do with our might what our hand findeth to do," but
also, would we see to it that, by proper care and discipline,
the organism is every way well fitted for its work. Parents
and teachers would not neglect physical training for the
mental, but will act upon that maxim which old-time ex
perience recognized; "Mens sana in corpore sano!' a
sound mind in a sound body. Laws of health will rise
to their due importance, and the individual will recognize
his personal amenability to those laws. For unreasonable
indulgence of the appetites, excess in eating or drinking, is
sin and folly; sin, which evidently is visited upon the soul
itself; which affects the well-being of the organism. And
so of sinful indulgences of youth, which the world heed
lessly styles " sowing of wild oats; " of such Peter speaks:
"Abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul,"
the organism, and so the integrity and existence of the
man. The voice of wisdom warns us : " He that sinneth
against me wrongeth his own soul ; all they that hate me
love death; " Prov. viii. 36.
1 1 . Last, but not least, we note that the Bible doctrine
of the soul arouses a deeper interest in our moral welfare.
Like all Scripture truth, it tends lo develop personal
. HOLINESS. "Be not conformed to this world;" "come out from
among them and be ye separate," is the command of our
Lord to "his, people," whom he would "purify unto him
self, a peculiar jjeojile, zealous of good works." But
where is the church of the present day? Is it not so far
below Apostolic standard and example that, were Christ
now to appear, he might ask of many of us, " What do ye
more than others?"
Why is the prevailing type of piety so low? It is
23*

268 Advantages of the Bible Doctrine.
"through the deceitfulness of sin." The arch-deceiver's
original lie, the influence of which we have been tracing
and combating in these pages, is found also exerting its
baleful influence in the formation of Christian character.
Each one who believes that if he sin he "will not surely
die," for immortality is his by virtue of his creation, is too
ready to think that a God of mercy will not condemn an
immortal being to endless torment, if only in this life
he can obtain the slightest semblance of yielding to his
authority. And the formal act of acknowledging the su- •
premacy of Jehovah, by uniting with his visible church,
seems to him to .have fulfilled such condition.
But the Bible — what has it to say on this point? "To
those who, by patient continuance in well-doing, seek for
immortality, God will render eternal life ; ' ' Rom. ii. 7.
Even Paul, towards the close of that wonderful life of self-
sacrifice, could say (Phil. iii. 14): "If by any means [if
possibly] I may attain unto the resurrection of the dead : "
attain to that Ex-anastasis, the resurrection from out the
dead ones, " the first resurrection " of those who shdll not
be hurt of the second death. For this he is yet to strive
and press forward in the race, to reach the prize, " the gift
of God, eternal life," lest when he had preached to others,
he himself should be found unapproved. It is they who
are worthy, the Lord says, who shall walk with him in
white (Rev. iii. 4).
God is now choosing out of the Gentiles a people for his
name (Acts xv. 14), to whom he will give life through
Christ, the Life-Giver. To these who shall be "accounted
worthy to attain that world, the children of God, the chil
dren of the resurrection," (Luke xx. 35, 36); to them
" shall be given the kingdom, and the dominion, and the
greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven ; " Dan.
vii. 27. For such high stations of honor and usefulness,
God will not accept of any whose character does not stand

It Develops Personal Holiness. 269
the test of its trial here. He is not under obligation, as
we have been virtually taught, to glorify us, or else to
torment us forever. Those found not worthy, he "will
blot out their names out of the book of life ; " an everlast
ing destruction, which leaves "neither root nor branch."
Solemn, indeed, the thought ! Moulding our character
here day by day, as death finds us, so will that character
be, when, at the great Day, God restores to us " the breath
of life." " He that is unjust, let him be unjust still; he
that is righteous, let him be righteous still; " Rev. xxii.
II. "As the tree falleth, so shall it lie." That solemn
moment is ever near. The true doctrine of the soul
teaches, that to the individual his next conscious moment
after death is the resurrection morning. Death may befall
us at any moment. The next conscious moment, and that
great Day has come. Ah ! on this view how near the
Judgment! "Behold, the Judge standeth before the
door ! ' ' Watch ye ! watch ye ! is continually ringing in
our ears ; give all diligence to make your calling and elec
tion sure ! For it is the Master's word : " Not every one
that saith unto me. Lord, Lord, shall enter into the king
dom of heaven."

CHAPTER XV.

Objections to the Bible .Doctrine, from without
the Bible.
THE objections to the Bible doctrine of the soul, which
purported to be based upon the Bible, have already
been carefully examined, and the fallacy of their pre
tensions exposed. It was found they were nothing better
than inferences, deduced from a few passages, which, in

270 Non-Biblical Objections Answered.
some cases, were incorrectly rendered, and that the infer
ence, in every case, was in conflict with the context, and
with the uniform testimony of other Scriptures. But there
are some objections from outside the Bible, which, though
thus from outside the only source of any real authority,
may be thought worthy of notice here.
I. An objection is suggested, rather than expressed, /// the
name '^annihilationism!' popularly given to this doctrine.
This objection has its origin in a^ confounding of two
shades of meaning. in the word. In two ways, anything may
be said to be annihilated : either the particles of matter of
which it is composed are themselves destroyed, or else is
annihilated the present form under which it exists, as a
mass of cohering matter, or as an organized object. We
know nothing whatever of the former, the absolute mode
of annihilation. We have no examples of such. It is but
an abstract conception of that return to nothing, out of
which, we suppose, all material things were spoken into
being. The second mode of annihilation embraces all
cases of actual destruction with which we are familiar.
Take the example used by John the Baptist, to illustrate
the doom of the wicked — the tree hewn down and cast
into the fire. No one imagines the elementary particles
of the tree are absolutely annihilatec| ; it is the organiza
tion, that which gives existence and individuality to the
tree, which is totally destroyed ; it is as a tree that it is
annihilated. So a block of marble, reduced to powder, is
annihilated as to its existence in a block. Had that block
been shaped into a statue, reducing it to powder annihilates
the statue.
If the word were always taken in this sense, as only
practically it can be, there were no objection to its use in
this connection. But it is not so taken. When applied
to our doctrine, the absolute meaning is claimed for the

It is Annihilationism. 271
word. We are told: "You believe in annihilation, when
matter never is annihilated." And further, it is asked:
"Where do you find annihilation in the Bible? "
Under these circumstances, one is surprised to observe
the word adopted by Pres. Bartlett, to whose logic, or
rather lack of it, we were constrained to call attention in
Chap. XI. In his elaborate treatise in favor of eternal
torment {Life and De.ath Eternal, Am. Tract Society), he
insists that he will call those annihilationists who them
selves, as he confesses to know, protest against 'the word,
as so likely to be misunderstood, that, it does not fairly
present their views. This is especially surprising in that
writer, since, from his freedom in judging the motives of
others, whose views differ from his own, one might suppose
that he held the monopoly of honest dealing on these ques
tions. On page v of his work we read that he considers
" annihilationist " as (not simply a convenient, but) "in
deed an indispensable term." Why indispensable ? Is it .
a confession that his argument needs some outside help ?
that it puts it into a more hopeful shape, if by using the
word annihilationist, with its usual misunderstanding, he
can thus assume to array against his antagonist both
science, which denies absolute annihilation, and the Bible,
wherein the word itself is not found ?
But it is evident that science finds no fault with the word
annihilate, used in the sense in which alone it expresses
the views of the literal destructionist. For such is the
language of every-day life ; it is the only way in which
the word annihilate can be practically used.
And though the word annihilate is not in the Bible, the
omission is but verbal. The idea which the word carries
in its Latin derivation, ad, to, nihil, nothing, is literally ex
pressed. For example, Jer. x. 24: "O Lord, correct me
not in anger, lest thou bring me to nothing!' The Vul
gate, or Latin Version, here presents the word annihilate

272 Non-Biblical Obfections Answered.
in its constitutent elements: " ne forte ad nihilum redigas
me." See also Isa. xxix. 20; xii. 12: "They shall be as
nothing, as a thing of naught." Obad. 16: "They shall
be as though they had not been. ' '
The writer we have quoted may say that the absolute sense
is the only one in which the word annihilate can be used
in reference to the soul, which, he claims, is immaterial
and without organization. But it is the material and or
ganized Biblical soul which we are considering, not the
ideal creation he would substitute therefor. In fact, in
his claim that there is no matter in the make-up of the
soul, he has already annihilated it in the absolute sense ;
he thus brings it literally "to nothing."
We are then strictly following Bible usage in our under
standing that the execution of the sentence, "The soul
that sinneth it shall die," will be, not that the elements of
which it is composed will be annihilated (no one claims
that, nor can it be so inferred), but that its organization
will be totally destroyed ; so that the individual, as such, no
longer exists. 'He is brought to nothing ; in the Biblical
sense, he is annihilated.
2. Again, it is objected : This doctrine is materialistic ;
it is materialism.
In reality, this is merely an unfounded appeal to preju
dice. It is an endeavor to affix to the Bible doctrine the
stigma of a name, appropriate perhaps in itself, but which
has come technically to include that which this doctrine
denies. Webster defines "materialism: the doctrine of
the materialist;" and "materialist: one who denies the
existence of spiritual substances, and maintains that the
soul of man is the result of [rather is] a particular or
ganization of matter in the body." According to Web
ster, then, the doctrine we are considering is not ma
terialism. It conforms to the latter part of the defiiii-

It is Materialism.

273

tion, but not to the former; it does not "deny the exist
ence of spiritual substances."
But we may ask : Is that definition of Webster correct
in the broad sense of the word ? Is there any essential
antagonism between materialism and the existence of
spiritual substances ? It is notorious that our theological
teachers endeavor to impress upon us such a belief, but
in 'this, are they not themselves in antagonism to the in
spired Apostle? Paul writes of a "spiritual body; " thus
combining in one phrase the spiritual and the material :
as there is our present material body, so there will be a
future spiritual body; i Cor. xv. 44.
In the broad sense of the word, in the Biblical, the
Apostolic sense, our doctrine is materialism. But who can
say aught against it ?
"The Lord God said to Adam, Dust thou art, and unto
dust shalt thou return; " Gen. iii. 19.
Moses tells us, " The Lord God formed man of the dust
of the ground; " Gen. ii. 7.
The Psalmist writes, " He remembereth that we are
dust;" Psalm- ciii. 14. And again (Psalm xxx. 9), he
says, " Thou hast kept me alive, that /should not go down
to the pit. When 1 go down to the pit, shall the dust
praise thee?" — that lifeless dust, which I then shall be.
Paul reminds us, "The first man (Adam, a living soul)
was of earth, earthy; " i Cor. xv. 45, 47.
And now, what do modern theologians give us instead of
the Bible doctrine we here quote ? Immaterialism ! That
man himself, the real man, is formed of — no matter, of
nothing. They decry matter, " that of which the sensible
universe and all sentient bodies are composed " (Webster),
as if it contained an inherent essence of evil ; though its
Maker, at the' completion of his work, pronounced it
"good." And in its place they seem trying to substitute
something, or more exactly a literal nothing; at least.

274 Non-Biblical Obfections Answered.
that which is utterly unrecognizable by the senses God has
given us; of which, therefore, we can have no possible
knowledge save through revelation, and of which revela
tion says nothing ! Revelation teaches that our future {spir
itual) life is to be in a body, as is the life of the angels
now (Luke xx. 36), and as was our Lord's after his resur
rection. Paul tells us that those in the spiritual body are
to be in the image of the Lord from heaven. See i Cor.
XV. 47-49-
But our teachers may ask. Is there nothing in Revelation
teaching immaterialism ? Does not Jno. iv. 24 say, "God
is a spirit," that is, an immaterial being? They assume
thus, for the Bible does not teach it, that spirit is a syn
onym of what is immaterial. Spirit-body, then, were an
immaterial body, composed of /^-material matter ! But
that solitary passage in John has no bearing whatever
on the question. At best, it rests on a question of trans
lation, with the immediate context against it. The Gr. is
pneuma ho theos ; no article with spirit, which is then to
be translated without any article, or with our indefinite
article, according to the sense and context. Translated,
then, as the same word is translated just before and just
after, and in direct connection, we read : " The true wor
shippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth. God
is spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in
spirit [not, in a spirit] and in truth." God is spirit, — life
itself; and so must the true worshipper worship him, with
that life which proceeded from and returns to God, its
giver. Ere the leaders of religious thought, in our theological
seminaries and elsewhere, venture to teach the immaterial
ism of the present day, or apply to the contrary doctrine
epithets appealing to a prejudice founded on misconception,
it would seem their duty to account in some reasonable
way for the materialism of the passages above quoted, and

Immoral Tendency of this Doctrine. 275
so many like them. It is but a questionable compliment
to the hearer's intellect, to tell him that in those passages
the word man, and those personal pronouns, refer only to
man's body, unless they are prepared to allow that the
body is the man himself !
Some there are who have contemptuously termed this
Bible doctrine of the soul dust-theology. We simply say.
Let it stand as that, or as materialism. For we have shown
that it is the materialism of the Bible. It rests upon an
authority man cannot assail. "Let the potsherds strive
with the potsherds of the earth ; woe to him that striveth
with his Maker ! Shall the clay say to him that fashioned
it. What makest thou?" Isa. xiv. 9.
3. Another objection, growing out of the preceding,
and a favorite with those who cannot find Bible arguments,
is the immoral tendency of this doctrine !
This objection is thus set forth, by Rev. N. L. Rice,
D. D., in a publication of the American Presbyterian Board.
The doctrine, he informs us, " logically, involves the de
nial of the possibility of sin and holiness in man. For
matter," as he says, "is incapable of voluntary action, and,
of course, of moral action."
Perhaps, where that writer says "logically" he might
have said theoretically, for, practically, the doctrine has not
been found to " deny the possibility of holiness in man ; "
rather, it tends to develop holiness, as shown Chap. XIV.,
sec. II. Evidently, he has overlooked an essential element
in logical reasoning : — one's premises must be correct,
before his conclusion is a " logical " one. It is his opinion
that "matter is incapable of voluntary action." Ere he
establishes the correctness of that premise, he has a little
controversy to settle with Holy Writ, wherein we read:
" To dust shalt thou return ,• "— " When I go down to the
pit, shall the dust praise Thee ; "— " He remembereth that
we are dust!'
24

276 Non-Biblical Obfections Answered.
Then, he must annihilate the position, held by so many
physiologists, and which facts seem to sustain, that thought
is generated by the brain. The developing fatuities of
the child, keeping pace with the development of its ma
turing brain ; its intellect developed and strengthened by
exercises, as other bodily functions; the vigor of a man's
intellect proportioned to the depth and extent of the cor
tical, or cell portion, of his brain ; injury of the brain
attended by limitation of the mental faculties : all go to
show the absolute dependence of our thoughts upon the
function of this material organ ; as we learn, from the
revealed Word, that they perish altogether when this organ
ceases to act ; Psalm cxlvi. 4. And then, he may be asked
to explain what are known as strictly automatic actions,
performed entirely without one's consciousness ; as in the
familiar instance where a writer, reviewing his MSS., finds
that, for the word he intended, he has substituted another,
correctly written and spelled, of vv-hich he had not a
thought. And then, he must account for the fact of any
" voluntary action " at all, in the lower animals, which,
his theology tells us, are purely material ; and, especially,
for the premeditation and reason displayed by the dog,
the horse, the elephant, and other lower animals; which
reasoning faculty, as in man's case, is developed by educa
tion. Surely, he will not assign an "intellectual soul "•
to these animals !
The same writer argues for an immaterial entity in man
by the assumption, contrary to the experience of everyone,
that the mind (by which we judge he means the "ego,"
the personality), is never unconscious in sleep. But we
know better ; we know we have been unconscious. How
often one sleeps for an hour or two, and, on awakening,
supposes he had just fallen asleep ; where was conscious
ness all that time ? He brings forward what he thinks
two proofs of his position : first, the abnormal condition

Are We Unconscious in Sleep ? 277
of somnambulism, where one portion of the brain is
aroused even to exalted action, while the functions of
other portions are held in abeyance. Does he claim to
demonstrate to us the facts of ordinary, he.althy life from
this diseased condition? That, in some cases, would prove
as well a dual existence for the individual ; so strangely dif
ferent are his mental powers and moral instincts in the one
state, from what they ai-e in the other. His second proof
is the fact that we dream in sleep, in which state, then, he
would assume, that we are all the time conscious, and some
times are conscious of it ! But is it not well known that
sound sleep is dreamless? "One does not dream, except
from some cause he is disturbed ; then the brain is partially
roused to consciousness and activity ; and yet even then
but partially, as shown by the usual confusion of thought
in dreams.
But take his proposition that sleep affects the body only,
not the mind, and see where it brings us out. The argu
ment then is :
Sleep acts on the body, not on the mind ;
But profound sleep takes away consciousness ;
Therefore, consciousness is an attribute of the body,
not of the mind !
A query thrusts itself upon us here, whether indeed the
study of modern theology, involving the unavoidable
necessity of .awkwardly reconciling the doctrine of in
herent immortality with opposing Bible statements, does
not tend to restrain habits of close observation and exact
reasoning, which otherwise one might possess. Surely, it
cannot be beneficial to one's intellect to pass through life,
striving, however, honestly, to persuade one's self and
others that any error is a truth.
An incident in the experience of the present President
of Carleton College, Minn., so clearly shows that the very

278 Non-Biblical Objections Answered.
existence of one faculty, memory, depends upon a special
function of the brain, that we introduce it here, A few
years since, while in Hartford, Conn., in riding with the
President of the Deaf and Dumb Asylum of that city, their
vehicle was struck by a passing locomotive, his companion
was killed outright, and he, himself, by a severe blow on
the head, was knocked senseless. He remained unconscious
for some two or three days — every bodily function arrested
except those essential to life, and these in utmost jeopardy.
On coming to himself, he had no recollection of the acci
dent, and, what is especially to be noted, he had no mem
ory, not alone of the collision or of any apprehended danger
of it, but of everything that happened a number of minutes
previous to it. The last of his recollection was stepping
into the carriage, up to which point his memory was as per
fect as ever.
How can this be explained ? Certainly it was not that
the collision itself, or the fearful anticipation, however mo
mentary, did not make a sufficiently powerful impression
upon the mental faculty, or that there were no incidents
in the ride to the spot of sufficient interest to be retained.
It would seem to show that something beyond this is re
quired ; that the impression upon the brain, be it of a fact
or of a thought, must be somehow appropriated, worked
up, and finally stored awg,y (perhaps in one of those micro
scopic cells, which in such myriads crowd the cortical or
essential substance of the brain), ere memory of an event
can exist at all. If, through alteration of its structure or
violence done to it, the brain is unable to complete this
needful operation, then there is no resultant memory.' So,
in the case of any other bodily function — for example, the
secretion of bile ; it is not enough that the elements of that
secretion be supplied to the liver ; that organ has still^ its
own special work to do ere the bile is elaborated.
We daily witness a modified form of the experience here

Destroys Fear of Future Punishment. ^79-
related, in very elderly people, who tenaciously retain the
memory of what the brain stored away in early life, while
its functional activity was in full vigor} but when this
faculty is impaired or lost by age, they are wholly unable
to recall the events even of the day before. On the theory
that man's brain is but the material instrument of an im
material something, through which the latter acts upon the
external world, we can understand how the power of out
ward communication might be lost ;¦ but before this takes
place, how could the impaired function of the mere instru
ment affect the communings of this internal entity with
itself, on facts of its own past history? If this immaterial
something has no consciousness of its own past — that isj
if it does not even know itself, except through the brain,
we should conclude that when the brain entirely ceases to
act it would neither know itself nor anything else. And
such is the statement of Holy Writ, as we have already
seen. 4. Again, it is objected that this doctrine of literal
destruction takes away the fear of future punishment ; that
it robs the law of its terrors. To awaken the sinner, is it
indeed necessary to threaten him with such horrors as the
human mind cannot conceive, nor endure the thought of?
It is a fearful thing to fall, as a sinner, into the hands of
the living God, who can, and will destroy the whole being
in the fires of hell. Is it nothing — the loss of existence
forever ? Is it nothing — the looking forward to that fear
ful day of God's wrath, "that shall burn as an oven," and
utterly consume the wicked ? And yet this doom is not
such as would make the redeemed question the justice and
mercy of their Heavenly Father : it is not the frightful,
imaginary hell, which would send up shrieks and groans
forever, to mingle even with the harmonies of heaven ! In
reality, the penalty popularly attached to sin overleaps its
24*

28o Non-Biblical Objections Answered.
mark. It is so excessive that the sinner, feeling," he does
not deserve it, will not believe that it can ever be executed.
Or if, as in the case of the more unthinking, he really be
lieves in eternal torment, he quiets himself with the thought
that a God of mercy must be so reluctant to inflict such a
penalty, that he will, at the last moment, gladly accept of
even the semblance of repentance.
5. Another objection is founded upon our natural re
pugnance to lying in the grave till the resurrection. To
the survivors, it is indeed a sad thought ; for in truth, death
is "the last enemy," notwithstanding hymns may sing of
the angel Death, who brings us to our God ; and Young,
¦ in his " Night Thoughts," may even hail our dreaded foe
as the " Prince of Peace ! " But this sleep ^ what is it to
the sleeper himself? Closing his eyes to earth, at his next
conscious moment, the trump of God, on the resurrection
morning, peals through the chambers of the dead, and
calls him from his silent dwelling place. Do we call it
gloomy to lay ourselves down at night, and soundly, un
consciously sleep till the morning bell arouses us from
slumber to a new day ? If that sleep has been dreamless,
undisturbed, the bedtime and the waking hour are brought
into juxtaposition; — and the same were the case, were that
interval prolonged to years or to centuries. For, to the
sleeping, time is annihilated ; and so to Adam it will be
the same as to the last to whom death comes. Each will
deem it to be but the instant after Death's slumber over
took them.
The thought of this actual sleep of the dead was at
first most uncomfortable to the writer, with his early train
ing. But recently, he has had occasion, to test his present
belief, when, by a surgical disease, and so with unclouded
intellect, he was brought to the edge of the grave — life
for a fortnight but trembling in the balance, at one time.

Repugnance to Lying in the Grave. 281
apparently, but a few hours of it remaining. It seemed
sad to bid so early a farewell to life, it was painful to leave
loved ones, but he felt he could peacefully fall asleep, in
the watchful care of One who had brought him hitherto,
and in the joyous assurance that to him the next conscious
instant after death would be the great Day of Reward, when
we see him, "whom not having seen we love." For we
have his word, "because I live ye shall live also," and
"I will come again and receive you to myself." In that
hour when heart and flesh were failing, it was a joy to be
assured his hope was resting, not on uncertain human tra
dition, but on the sure word of God, and to feel the force
of those words, " I know in whom I have believed, and
am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have
committed unto him against that Day."
Jesus said to John the Revelator, Rev. xxii. 20: "I come
quickly! " How quickly? If six months were to inter
vene ere John should sleep in death, it were to the Apos
tles just six months to that coming day of the Lord. Nay,
rather, on this view, how solemn, how imposing the thought
that the day of Judgment is just before any one of us :
"The Judge standeth before the door; " Jas. v. 9. For,
by fire, by flood, by sudden violence, our life may at any
moment be taken — the next conscious moment and the
Judge has come ! With this thought in mind, how ap- ,
propriate our Lord's warning: "Watch, therefore; for
ye know not what hour your Lord doth come;" Matt.
xxiv. 42.
6. But A FINAL OBJECTION awaits us.
The advocate of popular theology has failed in his ap
peals to Scripture. Its uniform testimony, taken as it
stands, goes against him. But he h-as a last resort. He
questions whether that meaning of Scripture, which it
bears on its face, is the correct one. In vain we show him

282 Non-Biblical Objections Answered.
that this understanding of Scripture but follows the uni
form law of the literal and the figurative, which invariably
governs our understanding of all other written language.
He triumphantly inquires: "If this be the correct under
standing of Scripture language, if this be really the Bible
doctrine, why have not our religious teachers and Chris
tians generally so understood it? Why did not such a one,
of blessed memory, preach it?"
Let us see what this objection amounts to.
We observe, at the outset, that it is an appeal to mere
human authority. God has given us our intellect, and in
our hands placed his book of truth, that we may judge of
it as we are to be judged — each for himself. But we are
asked to yield this right and duty, and to receive God's
trath at the dictation of fellow-mortals. And for this the
appeal is not to our reason, but to the presumption that
numbers must be in the right.
An apparent Scripture basis is sometimes adroitly sug
gested for this course in the reference to a promise of Jno.
xvi. 13, the Spirit "will guide you into all trath." The
argument, then, were this :
God has promised his Spirit to guide believers into all
truth: But many believers, good and trae men, have not been
guided into this doctrine :
Therefore, this doctrine is not included in "all trath."
The argument looks fair, but it is easy to see there is a
flaw in it. Else, as the truth is one and the same, honest
and true believers, guided by the Spirit, would all be of
one mind on points of Christian doctrine, which notori
ously is not the case. And such an argument would arrest
every work of reform. Luther would have been asked :
" Has not God promised his Spirit to his church, to guide
them into all truth? Other good men do not understand
the trath as you do. Is it not your duty to yield your own

The Spirit Guides into all Essential Truth. 283
convictions to the authority ofa church divinely guided? "
Thus, ere it began, any investigation into trath were checked.
Where, then, is the error in this argument? It lies in
our understanding of " all truth ; " one of the terms of its
major premise. This evidently cannot be taken absolutely ;
it does not include physical ; plainly it must be restricted
to religious truth. But obvious facts require a still further
restriction. The honesty of Luther and of Zwingle we
cannot doubt. Yet they were never guided to see alike in
the question of the real presence in the sacramental bread.
Luther, for some reason here ignoring the law of the literal
and the figurative, believed Christ's words, "This is my
body," were literal; Zwingle more correctly recognized
them as figurative.
The context of Jno. xvi. 13 shows us that the promised
Spirit, in this guiding into all truth, is to testify of Christ.
Here, then, is the needful restriction. The Spirit is prom
ised to guide the believer into the truth of Christ ; into
"all truth," then, essential to his salvation: embracing-
his guilt and utter helplessness; his need of an atone
ment; the fulness of Christ's redemption; and God's
willingness to freely forgive and accept all in Christ.
With such necessary restriction, no one questions the
correctness of the syllogism and of its conclusion. Into
all truth, essential to salvation, the Spirit will guide every
honest inquirer.
But so understanding it, the argument is worthless as
against the Bible doctrine of the soul. For that doctrine
is not one essential to our salvation. Its belief may tend
to lead to, as its denial may tend to lead from, Christ,
but one actually accepts of the Saviour from sin, irrespec
tive of his belief in, or rejection of, the doctrine of the soul.
But will not God guide the Christian inquirer into this
doctrine, if it be a truth ? And are not those who reject
the doctrine honest and earnest in -it ? Yes, in rejecting

284 Non-Biblical Objections Answered.
it they are ; but in inquiring into it, — God forbids us to
judge any man's inner motive ; he alone is the searcher
of hearts. We cannot say, in things not essential to
salvation, that he will necessarily overcome all prejudice,
and the power of early and persistent education. Yet we
do believe that any one who, humbly laying aside the pride
of his own learning and acquirements, laying aside his
own will, receives the truth as a little child, as a helpless
sinner receives his pardon from his Maker, — we believe
that such a one "searching for truth as for hid treasure,"
will be led to see that the word of revelation is full of
this doctrine.
We may insist upon this requirement of entire self-ab
negation, for prominent religious leaders have not always
displayed such on doctrinal questions. In that contro
versy before alluded to between Luther and Zwingle,
the former did not display the teachable spirit which
every man should possess. When his positions had been
refuted by Zwingle, he fell back upon one dogged re
sponse ; pointing to the words which, just before the in
terview, he had chalked on the table before them, " hoc
est corpus meum" (this is my body), he but reiterated,
again and again, the sentence in dispute. Man's intellect
cannot reason with one in such a frame of mind, nor will
the Spirit of God. And (we say it in ¦ all charity and in
all sadness) such is too much the spirit in which the Bible
proof of this doctrine is met by many of our religious
leaders. When their attention is called to it, their desire
seems to be rather to sustain their position than to dis
cover whether they really are in the truth. Many stay
themselves on their previous education, retiring behind
the question, by which our Lord's truth was itself met
(directed not against the doctrine, but against the indi
vidual holding it), " Have any .of the rulers or of the
Pharisees believed on him? "

Satan Perverts What He Cannot Destroy. 285
And yet, it is said, this doctrine, though not essential,
you claim is of very great importance, reaching, as it does,
into all departments of Christian truth. Why has God
suffered so important a doctrine to escape the notice of
so many earnest men ?
Ah ! it is but the old question. Why is sin permitted in
any form? To ignore, or conceal, the truth is Satan's
favorite method of operation. He began in Eden by mis
representing the goodness of God. He asks, " Yea [is it
possible], hath God said, ye shall not eat of all the trees
of the garden?" It was craftily making prominent the
restriction, and overlooking the fulness of the permission.
God had said, "Of all the trees of the garden, with but
one exception, thou mayest freely eat."
So, ever since, it has been the constant endeavor of the
Evil One to prevent, or conceal the trath he cannot entirely
take away. And in the present world of testing and fitting
for eternity, God permits this to a certain extent, but no
fiirther. Do we need proof of this ? Look over the past history
of revealed truth. How continuously was the work begun
in Eden carried out. The truths of the real Creator, and
of man's dependence on him, were erelong hidden away
from man's sight..^ The very cherubic symbols, showing
what man may become in his association with deity, so took
the place in men's minds of the one only object of worship,
that the world became filled with idol images, " graven by
art and man's device." While man's accountability to the
unseen Holy One was so completely ignored, that a deluge
of water was needed to cleanse a world filled with impurity
and violence.
^ Not even God's chosen people have proved themselves
reliable conservators of the trath. Hardly had the echoes
of those fearful thunderings, and of that audible voice pro
claiming the law from Sinai, died away — while the cloud

286 Non-Biblical Obfections Answered.
even yet rested on its summit — those, but just before
trembling in terror, corrupt themselves; and bowing
before the work of their own hands, worship a visible
symbol of the unseen Jehovah, who had brought them
out from the house of bondage. " How oft did they pro
voke him in the wilderness, and grieve him in the desert !"
Psalm Ixxviii. 40. And such has been the story, succes
sively repeated from that day onward — lapse and reform,
and relapse into the bondage of error again. How sugges
tive of the spiritual darkness in the beginning of Josiah's
reign (and not of that day only !) was that announcement
of the high priest, " I have found the book of the law in
the house of the Lord ! ' '
And when at last those who sat in darkness saw a great
light ; when the knowledge of the glory of God in the face
of Jesus Christ shone forth — a light to lighten the Gen
tiles — how soon was the light then spread abroad again
dimmed ! But it was not at once that the church returned
to their image worship. Ensnared by the more subtle
influence of the most civilized nation of the age, they
bowed before the intellectual power of that philosopher
whose commanding genius has swayed the world of thought
to this day. They yielded up the Bible doctrine of condi
tional immortality, and from Plato accepted the pagan
doctrine of universal immortality. But it was the original
lie of the great adversary — that enemy of all truth — that
they thus accepted. And having begun by losing the
accessory truths of revelation, erelong the darkness of
"The Dark Ages" came down upon them, and again
priest and people bowed before the idolatrous shrines of
their graven images.
From that gross darkness, the Reformation of the XVIth
century was but partial. The essential truth of justification
by faith was plainly brought into sight ; but not so clear
was the recognition of all the truth that lay in that simple

The Reformation Arrested. 287
statement of revelation, " The just by his faith shall live!'
The Bible meaning of that word live, and the results grow
ing therefrom, it would seem Luther understood, in some
measure, at least. In his Defence, prop. 27, published
1520, three years aftet his first public controversy with
Rome, he says :
" I permit the Pope to make articles of faith for himself
and his faithful : such as that the soul is the substantial form
of the human body, that the soul is immortal, with all those
monstrous opinions to be found in the Roman dunghill of
decretals. ' '
Whatever his subsequent utterances, the preceding stands
a record of his convictions at that time. Perhaps the re
former thought it not* worth while to carry out the revealed
truth to its full length on points not essential.
But what has been the progress of truth since ? It has
been stayed ! It is a wonderful and sad fact that honest
and sincere followers of the Lord, claiming to take his
word as their only rule of faith and practice, should be
found separated into hostile camps, under the lead of dif
fering religious teachers ; clinging to the sayings of Calvin
or of Arminius, rather than going direct to the pure fount
of revealed trath ; that Protestants should take up again
that very yoke of bondage to human tradition and human
authority against which they uttered their protest. In his
address to the Pilgrim Fathers embarking for the New
World, their old pastor, Robinson, points out to them the
danger threatening the progress of truth, and gives them
words of advice — noble words, worthy to be inscribed on
the place of meeting of all religious assemblies :
" I charge you, before God and his blessed angels, that
you follow me no further than you have seen me follow the
Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord has yet more truth to
BREAK out of HIS HoLY WoRD. I Cannot sufficiently be
wail the condition of the Reformed churches, who have come
25

288 Non-Biblical Objections Answered,
to a period in religion, and will go at present no further
than the instruments of their reformation. Luther and Cal
vin were great and shining lights in their times, yet they
penetrated not into the whole counsel of God."
The old story of Satan's craft is still repeated in our
day. He would corrupt and pervert whatever truth he
cannot entirely take away. And so he makes use of this
subserviency to human authority in things divine, which
mankind has displayed in every age. In the very objection
we are considering, this craft appears — in thus making use
of the universal tendency to substitute the word of this or
that good or distinguished man for the simple word of
God. •
The argument really amounts to tikis: The individual
Christian, finding popular theology in some respects is
apparently not in accord with the Bible, quiets the rising
inquiry by the thought that Christians believe generally it,
and especially that some former distinguished theologian
taught it. Going back to that noted man, we find he was
carefully trained in his belief, and was not led to inqiiire
therein, for the great men of his day believed it. And so,
through unbroken human succession we trace the peculiari
ties of modern theology back to Luther and Calvin, and
other early reformers ; of whom it could hardly be expect
ed to detect and reject every error of the corrupt church
of their day ; who, in fact, as Pastor Robinson truly said,
"did not penetrate into the whole counsel of God." Yet
this argument insists that the progress they made must re
main the measure of ours ; the errors they failed to expose
must abide with the church forever !
Such an argument must highly gratify the arch-enemy of
all good.
The reader needs to be reminded that, to repress and
trammel God's revealed truth, forces are now at work which

Ministers Not Allowed Free Inquiry. 289
do not appear on the surface. The present is thought a
day of great religious enlightenment, the pulpit and re
ligious press are so busy spreading the truth. But just here
that great lie of the adversary makes its baleful influence
felt. We recognized it (Chap. XIV., sec. 9) as largely the
cause of the division of Protestantism into so many jarring
sects. Each preacher and religious editor is working to
sustain one of these denominations. We would not say
that, intentionally, any one sets the interests of his d^omi-
nation above that of Christ's cause, but if a question should
arise, which interest is the one to yield ? Each denomina
tion is so persuaded that its own cause is that of the Mas
ter, that no question can ever exist of a conflict between the
two. Yet it is most apparent that such conflict often must
exist. Christ's cause is one, its interests one ; the interests
of the different denominations are often opposed to each
other. If, then, a question arises between these clashing
interests, though both sides claim theirs is the cause of
Christ, evidently both cannot be ; one side at least is ar
rayed against him, one side, it may be both, in reality
choosing denominational advancement before that of the
Master's cause.
And so we find that each preacher or editor, in the
work of disseminating truth, is obliged to work within
denominational limits. It is not permitted him to in
vestigate very widely — he must confine his labors within
certain prescribed channels of thought.
Recently, a minister of some note in his own personal
standing, and in that of his ancestry, in his investigations
into " Certain Questions Awakened by the Bible," was led
into different views from those in which he had been
trained, but which he believed not only were sanctioned
by, but strengthened, the truth, itself He announced
these views. They were not in full conformity with
church standards, but so wide a latitude, in interpreting

290 Non-Biblical Objections Answered.
these on other, and what seemed to him essential points,
had been allowed his fellow ministers, that he thought his
own divergence therefrom might also be tolerated.. But
he went too far — he assailed Satan's own lie of universal
immortality. In his probing about, he had struck the bed
rock upon which the peculiar errors of modern theology
rest. He was disturbing the foundations ; denominational
creeds were in danger. "Silence him! turn him out!"
was the cry. And it was done.
Well, that was perhaps the safer course ; it were easier
to crush him, if possible, by the weight of names and
numbers, than publicly to answer his arguments. And
then there was a show of reason in it. He had not been
authorized to preach what he found in the Bible ; he was
to confine himself to what "the church standards" teach.
He ., should have understood that to him the Bible is a
sealed book, except as Calvin and church authorities in
form him of its contents. He had accepted the situation ;
turn him out, if he proves restive ! What if there be yet
more truth to break out of God's Holy Word, and the
church at large and the world need that truth ; he has
struck a blow at denominational barriers, he is bringing
discredit upon the standards of our church ; silence that
uncomfortable investigator !
We need not say that with a ministry thus in fetters, with.
the religious inquiry of the present d^y still in the ecclesias
tical shackles of the church as it emerged from the igno
rance of the Dark Ages, the individual Christians of our
churches by no means have the opportunity they fancy
they have of attaining to the full revelation of God's
truth, jf&d the more rigid and unyielding those tradi
tional denominational rules, the less hope of progress, or
of reform, if such be needed.
The same restraint that is on the pulpit rests also on
our religious press. Our religious quarterlies and weeklies

JReligious Press Opposes Free Inquiry. 291
belong to this or that denomination ; they are committed
to specified views of religious truth. With 'appalling loose
ness they may discuss the inspiration of Gqd's revealed
word, but there is one question they may not venture upon.
That great lie of the adversary, immortality for all, must
not be touched ! (Except to sustain it !)
The writer's experience in this direction is instructive.
In Feb., 1871, he republished in this country an essay on
"The Nature and Duration of Future Punishment," by
Rev. Henry Constable, then Prebendary of Cork, Ireland.
In the following October, it was sharply reviewed by a
long article in the New Englander, a religious quarterly
published at New Haven. One of the " incontrovertible "
positions therein taken has already been noticed on page
179. Permission was requested to insert a reply. The
prospectus of the New Englander that year stated: "It
disclaims allegiance to any party in theology or politics ;
and signifies the independence with which it acts by adopt
ing as its motto the Horatian line, ' Nullius addictus ju-
rare in verba magistri ' ' ' (accustomed to swear to the
words of no master). The year previous, on personal
solicitation from its editors, the vvriter of this had sub
scribed fifty dollars to help in keeping so independent
a magazine above water. But the professions of its pros
pectus and classic motto, when put to the test, were com
pletely ignored, and the writer was in effect informed that
the magazine was no place for a reply to its own charges !
Was it fear of the truth, or fear for the article in ques
tion, or both, which prompted so ungenerous a response ?
The objection we have been discussing, drawn from the
attitude of the church generally towards our doctrine, rests
upon the presumption that, in this day of freedom, religious
truth is not bound, and that all good men are eager in the
search after it. We 'trust the objector perceives that, in
this, his position does not rest upon facts as they are.
25*

292 Non-Biblical Objections Ansivered.
Let it not, however, be thought that, during the centuries
succeeding the lapse of the church into its great error, there
have not been faithful ones who rejected all mere human
authority, and who received the truth only as they found
it in the Word of God. There were such before Luther's
day — there have been such since — but their voices were
drowned in the clamor of the multitude, or smothered in
the fires of persecution. One of these faithful witnesses,
"faithful unto death," was the early English reformer and
translator of the Bible, William Tyndale, who, for his belief,
was burned at the stake, in 1536. He thus quaintly but
forcibly replies to the Romanist, Sir Thomas More:
"In putting departed souls in heaven, hell, and purga
tory, you destroy the arguments wherewith Christ and Paul
prove the resurrection. What God doth with them, that shall
we know when we come to them. The true faith putteth the
resurrection, which we be warned to look for every hour.
The heathen philosophers, denying that, did put that souls
did ever live. And the Pope joineth the spiritual doctrine
of Christ, and the fleshy doctrine of philosophers together
— things so contrary that they cannot agree. And because
the fleshy-minded Pope c'onsenteth unto heathen doctrine,
therefore he corrupteth the Scriptures to establish it. If the
souls be in heaven, tell me why they be not in good case
as the angels be, and then what cause of the resurrection ? "
That all, before the Reformation, did not accept the essen
tial immortality of the soul, which to doubt our religious
teachers now deem almost heresy (heresy for a minister!), is
evident from the following article, adopted by the Council
of Trent, held a.d. 15 13, under Leo X. pontifix maximus :
"Whereas, some having dared to assert concerning the
nature of the reasonable soul, that it is mortal ; we, with
the approbation of the Sacred Council, do condemn and
reprobate all those who assert that the intellectual soul is
mortal, seeing that the soul is not only truly, and of
itself, and essentially, the form of the human body, as is

"What is Truth?" — a Question Still. 293
expressed in the canon of Pope Clement the Fifth, but like
wise it is immortal ; and we strictly inhibit all from dog
matizing otherwise, and we decree that all who adhere to
the like erroneous assertions shall be shunned and punished
as heretics."
There were such heretics then, there are many such
now, if judged by the standards of that council and of
Protestantism in general. But in this judgment from their
fellows, they stand with, as they rest upon, God's own
word of revelation.
That question, "What is truth?" so carelessly put to
our Lord by the Roman governor, is still the question of
the ages. And as One was there present who could rightly
reply, scf now God's book of revelation stands ready with
the answer. But, Pilate-like, most turn away to human
counsellors. The multitude still chooses the broad way of
destraction ; the way of life, but few find it. The Evil
One is still the "prince of this world " — of this dispensation.
Truth is here still struggling with error. Its victory is
sure, for God is on its side ; but not yet has it conquered.
Ever since it^ utterance, eighteen hundred years ago, the
Master's address has been a fitting one for his followers :
" Fear not, little flock, it is your Father's good pleasure to
give you the kingdom." And so we believe it will ever be
throughout this probationary world. We are told, at the
day of the King's coming, the flock of believers then living
¦ will be a Utile one still, for we read, even then, " When
the Son of Man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? "
Luke xviii. 8.

CIIAPTICR XVI.
Summary of the Bible Doctrine ; and its Appeal.
WE here complete ot(r study of the nature and destiny
of the soul, as revealed in Holy Scrijitiire.
As to its nature, wc have learned that the soul is
not a part of a man, but that it is the living organism, the
individual itself It is a term the Bible .applies to all living
creatures, on the land or in the sea. It is not something
immaterial (such were indeed nothing, as far as any knowl
edge of its nature possible to us); it is wholly ^naterial,
" formed of the dust of the ground " ((Jen. ii. 7), " formed
out of the ground " (Gen. ii. 19). So far from being im
mortal, its mortality — that its existence is terminated by
death — is as distinctly and fully stated as any fact in
Scripture. Such, then, the nature of man, what destiny is awaiting
him? A twofold destiny; and each individual decides for
himself the question, which of the two shall be his. All
de|)ends upon the fact of obedience or disobedience to the
will ofthe Creator, as that is revealed in his holy Word, or
simply written upon the heart in our innate consciousness
of right and wrong. See Rom. i. 20; ii. 15.
All mankind have sinned. That law, which (lod has
I'stablished as the condition of their being, they have vio
lated. Dejith is the penalty, the loss of life; — "the soul
that sinneth, it shall die." But in his dealings with our
guilty race, the Almighty displays the infinite .love of his
being. He himself has provided a ransom for us. His
Son, having been born into our race, and having jierfeclly
obeyed the law, gave his holy life for the life ofthe guilty.
The violated law has thus been honored, and God can par-
294

The Destiny of the Believer. 295
don the penitent transgressor who accepts the merits of One
sacrificed for him ; "God can be just and the justifier of
him that believeth in Jesus; " Rom. iii. 26.
What, then, is the destiny of the believer?
Joined to his Lord, he is "accepted in the Beloved,"
and so regains his forfeited right to the tree of life.
Though, at that death which he meets as Adam's descend
ant, he loses his life and ceases to exist, it is " not for eter
nity" {eis ton aidna) ; Jno. xi. 26. He who proclaims him
self "the Resurrection and the Life" promises: "Because I
live, ye shall live also; " Jno. xiv. 19. "Every one who
believeth on the Son may have everlasting life ; and I will .
raise him up at the last day;" as he says again, the be
liever "hath eternal life, and / will raise him up at the
last day ;" Jno. vi. 40, 54.
The future life of the believer is thus dependent entirely
upon his resurrection, upon what Paul styles " the hope and
resurrection of dead ones; " Acts xxiii. 6. The interven
ing time between his death and his resurrection, be it
actually centuries or but moments, is virtually the same to
the believer of every age. It is a period of unconscious
sleep till the awakening at the resurrection of the just,
which thus comes to each as the next conscious moment
after his falling asleep in death.
It is still in a body that the dead believer is restored to
life at his resurrection. He lives again as a soul, an organ
ism. But his body is not the selfsame body in which he
fell asleej). The old body was corruptible, the new incor
ruptible; the old was liable to weariness, sickness, death;
the spirit-body is subject to none of these things. See i
Cor. XV. 43 ; Isa. xxxiii. 24 ; xl. 30, 31. The same change
takes place also in the bodies of believers still living at the
time of this resurrection, which is at our Lord's Second
Coming. See i Cor. xv. 51-53; i Thess. iv. 16; Acts iii.
20, 21; Jno. xiv. 3.

296 Simmary of the Bible Doctrine.
Thus the believer follows his Lord into death, buri^, and
resurrection, with but one point of difference — the believer
sees corraption in the grave, while ' • He whom God raised
saw no corraption" (Acts xiii. 37), because "his soul was
not left in hades " (the g;rave) ; Acts ii. 31. .
At his resurrection, our Lord entered upon the new spir
itual life. In Scripture language, he was then "perfected."
^^"e read, Heb. ii. 10 : " For it became him, for whom are
all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many
sons unto glory, to make perfect [Gr. teleiosai, to perfect]
through sufferings the captain [Gr. archegos, leader] of their
salvation." Heb. v. 9 : ".\nd [Gr. teleiotlieis] having been
perfected, he became the author of etemal salvation." As
we read, Heb. vii. 28, of " the Son [Gr. teteleiomenon] hav
ing been perfected for evermore. ' ' In the new resurrection
body, he who before was mortal is now immortal. As he
himself says, "I became dead, and, behold, living am I
for the ages of the ages ; " Rev. i. 18. And by that awak
ening to the immortal life in the spirit-bod)', "by the
resurrection from the dead, he was declared to be the Son
of God with power; " Rom. i. 4. So it is stated. Acts
xiii. 33 : "He hath raised up Jesus, as also in the second
Psalm it is ¦written. Thou art my Son ; this day have I
begotten thee; " — Gr. gennao, brought thee forth — to the
new life. As our Lord himself prophesied : "And the
third day I shall be perfected ; " Luke xiii. 32.
So also believers, at their resurrection to life, are Bibli
cally said to be perfected ; they attain perfection. Thus
Paul expresses himself, Phil. iii. 11, 12 : " If by any means
I might attain unto the ' .£'.r-anastasis ' [the resurrection of
the just, that from dead ones]. Not as though I had
already attained it [Gr. elabon, received], or already have
been perfected [Gr. teteleiomai] ; but I follow after, if that I
may lay hold of that for which also I have been laid hold
of by Christ." As he expresses it, Eph. iv. 13 : "Till we

N. T. Doctrine of Christian Perfection. 297
all come to a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature
of the fulness of Christ," — "our vile body fashioned like
unto his glorious body; " Phil. iii. 21. So our Lord speaks
of those in that resurrection life as being perfect. When
asked, " Good Master, what shall I do that I may have eter
nal life?" he replies, "If thou wilt enter into life," and
again repeating the thought, "If thou wilt be [Gr., dost
desire to he] perfect!' "To be perfect" is thus a syno
nym of " to enter into life," or " to have eternal life." *
The writer of Hebrews tells us that the ancient worthies
spoken of in Chap. XI. have not yet been perfected. Hav-
¦* 'We call attention to the fact that the N. T. idea of the true Chris
tian perfection is sadly obscured by our E. 'V. giving the same render
ing to two entirely different Gr. words, viz., teleios and its derivatives
and katartizo and its derivative. The former, teleios, from telos, end, is
defined "having reached its end, finished, perfect ;" the latter, katar-
tizo (compounds of kata, thorough, and artizo, get ready, perform), is de
fined to adjust, put in order again, rapair, reform, furnish thoroughly.
The former word is the one used in the passages above quoted, and,
d. g; in Heb. vi. I, "go on to perfection," teleiotes. The latter word,
katartizo, is found translated in E. ^V. " mending their nets," Matt. iv.
21, Mark i. ig ; " restore such a one, overtaken in a fault," Gal. vi. i ;
"the worlds -vitre framed" (fitted), Heb. xi. 3; "vessels of wrath
fitted to destruction," Rom. ix. 22. So where it is translated perfect
in E. v., it carries the idea of a fitting or training, as 2 Tim. iii. 17 :
"that the man of God may .be perfect [Gr. artios, able, ready], thor
oughly furnished \_ex-artizo\ unto all good works; " as, also, Eph. iv.
12: " For the perfecting [fitting, training] of the saints, for the edify
ing of the body of Christ." So, 2 Cor. xiii. 13: "And this we wish,
even your perfection ; " and so ver. 16. We read that the real perfec
tion, teleiosis, could not be by the Levitical priesthood (Heb. vii. 11) :
nor can it be till our Lord's High-priestly work is completed, and he
comes again to bring the " salvation ready to be revealed in the last
time.'' Now, believers are " those being sanctified " (so Gr. of Heb.
ii. II. X. 14); in training for that promised perfection, for "without
holiness no man shall see the Lord." Clearer views ofthe N. T. doc
trine of the soul and of Chrfstian perfection vvould save much needless
controversy.

298 Summary of the Bible Doctrine.
ing died in faith, in the sleep of the grave they await the
promised hour. " These all, having obtained a good re
port through faith, received not the promise, God having
provided some better thing for us, that they without us
should not be perfected" (Heb. xi. 40); so literal Gr. telei-
othosi. The same writer, referring to " the city of the living
God " (which, Heb. xiii. 14, he says is " one to come," as
John beheld it in the vision of a day yet to come, "de
scending from God out of heaven," Rev. xxi. 2) calls the
inhabitants thereof " spirits of just men perfected" (Heb.
xii. 23) ; Gr. teteleiomenos.
What, then, is this perfection thus spoken of? We have
read of our Lord, that he was "declared to be the Son of
God with power by the resurrection from the dead." The
believer, who follows his Lord in his path of self-denial and
humiliation, follows him also in his path of glory ! The
day of his resurrection is also for him the day of his recogni
tion as a son of God. So Paul declares what no uninspired
one would dare, to say :
" The Spirit beareth witness with our spirit that we are
the children [tekna] of God. And, if children, then heirs ;
heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ ; if so be that we
suffer with him, that we may also be glorified together. For
I reckon that the sufferings of the present time are not
worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be re
vealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature
waiteth for the manifestation of the sons [huioi] of God. . . ,
We ourselves, who have the first-fruits of the Spirit, groan
within ourselves, waiting for the sonship [' huio-thes\a!
E. V. adoption], to wit, the redemption of our body;"
Rom. yiii. 16-19, 23-
The Apostle John writes : "Beloved, now are we the chil
dren [tekna] of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall
be, but we know, when [Gr. ean, if, in case that] he should
appear, we shall be like him ; " Jno. iii. 2. As our Lord

772^ Resurrection — "In the Morning!' 299
says in his prayer : " And the glory that thou gavest me, I
have given them " (Jno. xvii. 22); and in his letter to the
churches: "He that overcometh will I grant to sit with
me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down
with my Father in his throne; " Rev. iii. 21. Well may
Paul speak of it as "a far more exceeding [Gr. kata hyper-
bolen eis hyperbolen, through excess to excess !], eternal
weight of glory ! ' '
Wonderful, indeed, how little the church of the present
appreciates the Resurrection-day, when all this glory is to
"be revealed in us!" Then, at last, our eyes behold
him "whom, not having seen, we love." Having gone
" to prepare a place for us, he comes again to receive us
unto himself" Then are reunited all who are Christ's;
the Christian friends whom we have lost or must leave ; the
faithful ones of all ages past are then awakened from their
long sleep. To their consciousness, as to ours, it is but
the moment after death ; and we all rise together on that
morning ! "And so shall we ever be with the Lord."
Our English translators, very likely through ignorance,
have concealed many an Old Testament allusion to the
Resurrection. In Psalm xc, "the prayer of Moses, the
man of God," when the greatness of God's power, the
eternity of his years, has been contrasted with our frailty
and impotence, how tame and flat our English version,
" O, satisfy us early with thy mercy! " The vision of
the inspired poet stretched far beyond this present. Be
yond this lifetime of sorrow and sin, his eager gaze rests on
that promised dawn of immortality and glory, whose radi
ance can gild even the dark clouds of his trouble. " O,
satisfy us," is his prayer, "with thy mercy in the horn
ing; that we may rejoice and be glad all our days;" —
in themorning, when satisfied we " awake in Thy likeness "
to everlasting joy. So Psalm xxx. 6 declares "Joy cometh
in the morning!' And, again, we read Psalm xlvi. 5 (mar-
26

300 Summary of the Bible Doctrine.
gin) : " God shall help her [the city of God] when the
morning appeareth. ' '
That here the original Hebrew, "in the morning," de
notes the resurrection morn, Lange demonstrates in "Intro
ductory Notes to Genesis; " where he shows this expression
is found " in the earliest language and thinking of our race. ' '
He quotes from ancient Arabian writers, and from one who
represents a beggar poetically saying of the donor of a
garment to cover his nakedness : " He shall be covered
to-dSy with my praise, and, in the morning, shall be en
robed with the silk of Paradise."
But there is another side of revelation ; a twofold des
tiny awaits the race. Some now are living not for that
future, but for the present ; they will not yield to the con
dition of obedience, on which alone the blood-bought par
don is offered them.
What shall their future be ?
There is a future revealed for them. There is a resurrec
tion for them also ; but- how suggestive the term our Lord
applies to it! It is not a "resurrection to life," but a
"resurrection to judgment." (See Appendix F.)
So fully has the fate of such ' been unfolded in these
pages, that . we care not to linger upon it now. Those,
"whose God is their belly," to use the old-time language
of Paul, who have lived but to gratify present desire, and
so judged themselves unworthy of everlasting life, " their
end is destruction; " Phil. iii. 19. Our Lord tells us, Matt.
xi. 28, man may kill the body, may totally end its existence
in those whom in the kindred passage (Luke xii. 4) Christ
addresses as "my friends; " but man cannot thus kill, or
totally end, the soul. The soul is " lost " (see Matt, xi., ver.
39, where psyche, soul, of ver. 28, is here rendered Jife) ;
but it is lost only temporarily. It is still kept in God's
remembrance ; and at the appointed time he will restore

For What Modern Theology Rejects It. 301
it as the same soul, or organism, in its memory, its con
sciousness, its individuality, though in a changed, an im
mortal body. But the restoration of the wicked will be
with their present mortal organization. And after the
Judgment, wherein the justice of their merited doom will
be fully manifested, he who created, destroys the entire
being," soul and body, in the Gehenna fire.
These truths, thus summarized, have been deduced from,
and sustained by, full Bible quotations, by a careful' com
parison of Scripture with Scripture.
But modern theology rejects them all, and, instead, has
constructed a system of theological belief which, we now
say, after full proof given, again and again contradicts
the Scriptures. Professing to take the Word of God as
its standard, it ignores and denies its plain declarations.
What does this mean ? How comes it that our enlightened
Protestantism is found in s6 false a position ?
The answer is found in the incomplete character of the
Reformation, whence Protestantism took its rise. The
Adversary's great lie, which led our first parents into sin,
which had so fearfully corrupted the church of that day,
was not then weeded out of received truth. Its statement,
as originally made to Eve, declared, "Ye shall not surely
die," — that is, "Ye shall live forever." (Surely, the
Evil One, when he spoke of dying, meant dying ; it cannot
be thought he was merely declaring that Adam and Eve
should never go off somewhere else to live ! — which is
the popular definition of the first death.) This doctrine
of universal immortality is the great, all-pervasive error
of the present day. To Eve's descendants it makes still
the statement first uttered by the Father of lies, " Ye shall
LI'V^ FOREVER."
The dogma of universal immortality thus stands dis
closed in its unholy parentage. But who can estimate the

302 Appeal of the Bible Doctrine
corrupting influence of such a falsehood, introduced — in
terwoven — into the very warp of the generally accepted the
ology. Briefly and imperfectly, we have endeavored to
show somewhat of the damage it has done to revealed
truth. It casts dishonor upon God and his Word. It
brings divisions and heart-burnings into the Christian
Church, It saps the strength of its defenders. It' dims
and blurs all views of the future. It leads multitudes of
the professed followers of Christ into carelessness and
lukevCarmness in his service. It confirms infidels and
despisers'of Christ in their rejection of the proffered sal
vation. The prevailing theology of Protestanism, though
holding on to the great central truth of Christ as a
Saviour from sin, is a Samson shorn of his locks. Like
the mixed iron and miry clay in the feet of Nebuchad
nezzar's image, it is "partly strong and partly broken."
The facts, which have now been laid before the reader,
strongly appeal to the judgment and the moral sense of
each individual.
Is the reader a professed minister of God's Word ?
There have been brought to your notice facts which you
cannot safely (in view of the future) ignore. You stand
in a position of peculiar responsibility. To you, in large
measure, the Church looks for its knowledge of the truth.
The Lord' said of the religious teachers of a former dispen
sation : " For the priest's lips should keep • knowledge, and
they [the people] should seek the law at his mouth ; ' ' Mal.
ii. 8. It is the first requisite of fitness for your work, that,
from study of the inspired Word, you know what the Lord
has really said.
It can,not be denied that you stand jn circumstances of
peculiar temptation ; — temptation to turn from the ques
tion whether this be God's truth or not. Satan may whisper
to you that your usefulness will be greatly impaired, if

To Ministers. 303
you be led to accept these obnoxious viefl«. And, more
over, your support and that of }-our family may be de
pendent upon your present position, from which the ec
clesiastical authorities of this world may thrust you out,
if you so widely depart from their creeds.
But when you entered upon Christ's service, did you not
resolve to forsake all for him ? As new duties rise in your
pathway, with them com^ the call to fresh sacrifice of self.
Can you hesitate for either of these reasons? "Whatso
ever is not of faith, is sin." " Now the just by his faith
shall live, but, if he draw back, my soul sljall have no
pleasure ijf him," saith the Lord. When Amaziah, king
of Judah, was forbidden by the prophet to take the hun
dred thousand men of Israel he had hired for his expedi
tion, he " said to the man of God, But what shall we do
for the hundred talents which I have given to the army of
Israel?" -A.nd the man of God answered, "The Lord is
able to give thee much more than this."
And your usefiilness, as of every Christian, is not to be
measured by apparent outward results, but by faithfulness
— in the tmknown acts of your life, those inner ques
tions of duty that continually arise. " Now he who fur-
nisheth seed to the sower and bread for food^ will fumish
and multiply your so-wing, and increase the fruits of your
righteousness ; " 2 Cor. ix. 10, so best MSS.
It were diflicult to express the damage the ministry suffer
from the false dogma so intricately interwoven with the
doctrine they are to teach. We have alluded to the in
jury done to one's reasoning faculty in the constant en
deavor to apparently reconcile the irreconcilable. But
beyond this, we charge that in the formal acceptance of
the church creeds of the present day, the ministry are
unconsciously taught the lesson of deception. On occa
sion of a late trial in Chicago, of one charged with heresy,
the fact was freely recognized in religious papers that the
26*

304 Appeal of the Bible Doctrine
ministers of that denomination subscribe to the confession
of fa\t!n,, with mental reservations 1 That is, they accept
the church standards, in such sense as they choose to give
to them, not in the sense that the language naturally
bears. We should hardly have expected this of such a pro
fession, yet they are but men. And this line of action
they are virtually taught in their theological seminaries ;
as the Jesuit, we are told, is taught that the end justifies
the means. The professor of dogmatic theology, that he
may reconcile Scripture declarations with the false doc
trine of inherent immortality, is compelled ^o explain
away the natural meaning of Scripture, without appearing
to do so. What wonder that his pupil applies the same
principle to his acceptance of that particular creed, which
is demanded of him, ere he may enter upon the work of
preaching the glad tidings ! We need not state the effect
this must have on the moral sense of the young religious
teacher, for whom that old time injunction is still in force,
"Be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the Lord ! "
Why have we these church creeds ? — so lightly accepted,
so carefully worded, and yet of so little practical use, ex
cept when a ministerial incumbent breaks over them, in
certain directions only. Why is not the Bible the church
creed? Why is the Bible good enough as .a doctrinal
standard fbr Christian laymen (for them an infallible rule
of faith and practice), but for Christian ministers something
better, more exact is required? It is because the Bible
and church creeds do not fully agree ! The Bible con
tradicts the devil's lie ; the church creed upholds it !
We have already spoken of the loss of pulpit effective
ness from the indefinite ideas of truth prevailing among
our younger ministry. May not this partly explain the
strange fact that, with such demand for laborers in the
home and foreign field, so many give up the proper work

To Ministers. ^qc
of the ministry? The writer was told by a theological
student of a graduate of a year's standing frankly con
fessing to him his unsettled condition on points of Chris
tian doctrine. But, as he sadly said, with two sermons a
week to prepare, he had no time to investigate what was
the trath. And yet he was expected, licensed, to teach
others ! Wliat becomes of such a man? Either he setties
down to a blind reception of what he has been so un
satisfactorily taught, or else he breaks away, openly or pri
vately, from his faith in revealed religion.
It is not strange that a thoughtful, conscientious young
man hesitates to proclaim the doctrine of eternal misery.
Do our ministers indeed realize that, if it be untrue, it is
rank blasphemy against the Father of mercies, which they
teach in his name? How can one, with any knowledge
of the Bible facts already laid before the reader, preach
the doctrine of the church creeds ? How dares he publish
as God's truth that recognized lie of the Evil One — im
mortality for all, that all live forever. Read the word of
the Lord concerning his prophets, Ezekiel xiii. 22 : " With
lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I
have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the
wicked, that he should not return from his evil way, by
promising him life / ' '
Does any one say, "What can I do? — I am but one."
Your accountability is but for one. " Every one must
give account of himself to God." If each, who has
doubts of the theology he has been taught, were, without
waiting for others, to investigate the teachings of God's
Word on these points, and declare the convictions at which
he arrives, he would soon find himself not one alone. He
would be one of a mighty host to do battle for the truth,
and to drive into its merited darkness that flaunting lie of
Satan's device.
To the professed ministers of the Word, whose province

3o6 Appeal of the Bible Doctrine
it is to instruct our future religious teachers, the truths we
have studied make a most forcible appeal. But we can
only pray the Almighty to open their eyes ; that they may
be led to feed those under their charge with " the sincere
milk of the word," and no longer deal out to them the
poison of Satan's dogma.
Gentlemen of the Committee, English and American,
for the revision of the Scriptures : — A great responsibility
rests upon you. You have a rare opportunity to serve the
cause of God and, man, by furnishing us a literal interpre
tation of the Divine records; so pruning from our English
version the errors which the ignorance and superstition of
the dark ages have engrafted upon them. You possess
a more thorough knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek
languages, older and more trustworthy manuscripts, than
did the translators of our present version. You may not
think to shelter yourselves behind the errors of that ver
sion ; for the work given you is to correct those errors.
It is unquestionably your duty, without fear or favor, to
give the exact truth, as it is in the original, to the English
speaking public. Are you prepared to make your own the
dishonesty of concealing from the English reader the fact
that the Bible declares the lower animals have souls, as
that word is used in the Bible ? Will you also be guilty
of the deception of giving two words of different English
meaning, where in one connected sentence our Lord re
peats the same word (as in Matt. xvi. 25, 26 ; Mark viii.
35-37)? May the Spirit of all truth strengthen you so
to discharge your high trust, that the great Judge Him
self, " in that Day," may say to you " Well done ! "
To those who prepare commentaries upon the Bible, the
facts we have set forth make the appeal that in their publi
cations they give us the truth, and nothing but the truth.

To Bible Commentators. 307
The temptation is great, in the preparation of such works,
where the passage conflicts with the popular theory, to
ignore a- part of the truth, or so to color it that its objec
tionable features will be removed. As a sample of frank
statement of unwelcome truth, we quote from Prof Bush's
Notes on Genesis, on chap. ii. 7 :
"The phi-ase 'living soul' is in the foregoing narrative
repeatedly applied to the inferior orders of animals, which
are not considered to be possessed of a ' soul ' in the sense
in which that term is applied to man. It would seem to
mean the same, therefore, when spoken of man that it does
when spoken of beasts, viz. . an animated being, a creature
possessed of life and sensation, and capable of performing
all the physical functions by which animals are distin
guished, as eating, drinking, walking, etc. As to the in
tellectual faculties whicli raise man so far above the tribes
of the brute creation, we find no term that expressly desig
nates them in any part of the sacred naiTative. . . . In
deed, it may be remarked that the Scriptures generally
afford much less explicit evidence ofthe existence ofa sen
tient immaterial principle in man, capable of living and
acting separate from the body, than is usually supposed."
On the other hand, as a sample of the way in which
evidence to sustain the popular dogma is manufactured,
and the teaching of a passage bent out of shape to fit a
theory in the commentator's mind, we call the reader's
attention once more to the Transfiguration scene. We
have already (pages 71-7S) showed that it was what
: Christ calls it, a vision ; and that an eye-witness testifies
(;; Pet. i. 16) that the \ision displayed "the power and
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." But this is not what
some of our modern commentators want. So few are the.
p;i.ssages from which even the inference of a disembodied
state can be derived, that it is \-ery important to use tliis
tor that purpose. It is therefore important to show that
this is not exactly a \ ision after all ; because objects seen
in a \ ision do not neces&irily have a real existence. So,

3o8 Appeal of the Bible Doctrine
Prof Owen does not hesitate to declare it was " not a mere
vision," though our Lord himself speaks of it as a vision.
Rev. Lyman Abbott takes different ground. He ac
knowledges it was a vision ; but from him we learn that a
statement that anything is seen in a vision, far from raising
any question of, in reality proves its actual existence ! In
which discovery of the meaning of vision he succeeds in
contradicting himself, plain Scripture facts, and our mother
tongue, whose significance of the term vision-axy is then a
mistake ! *
¦* The reader may judge for himself. On Matt. xvii. 9, Rev. Mr.
Abbott says : " The Gr. orama, vision, is sometimes simply' equivalent
to sight or things seen, sometimes it indicates a spiritual ecstasy or
trance, or rather that which appears in the trance state, sometimes an
experience which may have been wrought through a dream." On Acts
ix. 10, he says : " By vision in the Bible is generally meant an experi
ence in which the person retains his consciousness, in which respect it
differs from a trance, and the object shown to him possesses a real ex
istence, in which respect it differs from a dream. Thus the Transfig
uration is spoken of as a vision," etc. Orama " indicates a trance" —
orama " differs from a trance; " and so orama differs from a dream;
orama shows objects which possess a real existence, as a dream does
not, according to this commentator.
Now, what does the New Testament itself say on these points? In
Acts X., Luke- calls Peter's trance, ver. 10, a vision {orama) in ver. 17.
Acts xvi. 9 : "A vision \oramii\ appeared to Paul in the night. There
stood a man of Macedonia." Does Mr. Abbott think a man of Mace
donia, " a real existence,'' came to Paul by night? Acts ix. 12, when
Ananias was directed to go to Paul to restore his sight, it is said " he
hath seen in a vision \orama'\ a man named Ananias coming in," etc.
Mr. Abbott thinks "in a vision " an addition by a copyist; then a very
early one, showing how orama was then understood, for it is the read
ing of the 'Vatican MSS., the earliest of all but one. But let Mr. Ab
bott himself refute his own finely-drawn distinction (in Acts ix. 10) of
the difference between a vision and a dream. His note on Acts xviii.
9, 'is " 'A vision^ that is, by some supernatural appearance to him,
though, very possibly, in a dream " ! [Italics our own.]
¦We would not be thought to condemn Mr. Abbott's commentaries in

To Christian Laymen. 309
Having thus wildly gone astray in a plain matter of fact,
it is not surprising to find his inference equally wild. He
informs us that the Transfiguration appears to him "to in
dicate that the departed dwell [now] in. glorified bodies,
though [notwithstanding] Paul appears, in i Cor. xv. 44,
5i-S3> to imply that the glorified body is raised at the
resurrection." "Appears to imply" !— as if there were
room for a doubt that Paul makes that explicit statement,
when he is answering the question, "How are dead ones
raised?" Surely, in view of all the facts, we have a right to ask
from commentators, that they will be careful to avoid
giving us mere human inventions, and that they will re
member that there are Christians to whom God's Word is a
sacred book.
But to Christian laymen, the truths we have considered
specially appeal. For, my Christian brother, you have not
the same temptations to ignore them that our professed
religious teachers have. Your acceptance of these views
does not interfere with your daily support. You have' not
been trained, by years of study and* special mental effort,
to think only in certain prescribed channels. You have
not been so carefully and thoroughly taught to cover up,
even from your own recognition, the Bible contradictions
of popular theology. You have not now hanging over you
the former dreaded charge of heresy, which still has terror
for your Christian brother in the ministry. For, although
a few years since, a Christian layman of unimpeached moral
character might be thrust out of the Congregational com
munion (as occurred in 1845, i^ I^"^- Bushnell's church, in
the absence of its pastor), that would not be repeated to
day. In the Presbyterian church recently, the question'
toto. 'We have found much profit in studying them, except where the
desire to uphold a false dogma leads their author into palpable error.

3 10 Appeal of the Bible Doctrine
came up of ordaining a ruling elder who himself declined
the office because he held the views of the Bible herein
stated. The question was referred to the acknowledged
authority in that church on such points, and he decided
that such belief was no obstacle to his ordination, if he
did not preach his views.
You, therefore, as a layman, have a freedom in investi
gating the truth which the recognized minister does not
possess. You are free from the temptations and difficulties
which beset his path.
Surely, you can scarce read over the facts heretofore ¦
presented to you, showing the antagonism between the
Bible and modern theology, without feeling that reform in
the latter is loudly called for. A prominent minister, called
from the West to one of our largest cities, expressed to the
writer his conviction that " the whole science of theology
needs a thorough overhauling."
Now how can this be brought about ?
Paradoxical as it may seem, the responsibility of such re
form rests largely upon you, as a layman. The ministry
are fettered ; their hands are tied. God has given you
greater freedom, and it" is your duty to use it for his cause.
If you are Christ's, you have taken the rule of his life as
yours — " Seek ye first the kingdom of God." In bring
ing to you this little book, God in his providence has put
before you the duty of inquiring into the truth of its state
ments. .You are to do this carefully, and with prayer for
the wisdom promised to those that ask (Jas. i. 5).
If you find the Bible denies the universal immortality
which modern theology teaches, then it is your duty,
within the sphere of your influence, freely to declare so
important a fact. It is your duty to stir up your friends
and neighbors to study the neglected Word of God, and
to disseminate the knowledge of his truth, till a correct
public sentiment in our churches will uphold their pastors

To the Sceptic. 311
and religious teachers in breaking away from the trammels
of a corrupt past, and in standing boldly for the truth, as
God has revealed it to man.
Surely you cannot, in this day, find it right to sustain
the human dictation which prescribes how one must read
God's word. What is this but that spirit of Popery against
which you protest? ITiat denies to its laity the Bible
without note or comment. You say the very idea
that God has given a revelation to man which he may
not read, is false on its very face. But is not ju.st this
the jn-actice of Protestantism itself? That denies the
Bible to its ministers, to its religious teachers, except as
the church (by its creeds) interprets it to them. Will
you not help to free the ministry from their shackles?
Will you not do what you can to give to all the privi
lege of freely studying God's Book of trath ?
But, perhai)8, one who reads these words is a sceptic.
Openly, or in your heart, you deny that the book, which
professes to be a revelation from God, is really such. Then,
the facts we have considered specially challenge your investi
gation. Perhaps you have been led to doubt the inspiration
of the Bible, not from your personal knowledge of the book,
but from the ideas others have given you of it. In a ques
tion so important as that of your accountability to your
Maker, if there be an alleged revelation of his will to
man, is it not reasonable to investigate for yourself whether
such be the case ?
Will you believe the writer when he tells you that the
want of harmony and consistency which troubled his former
reat^ling of the Bible, disappears if we read it as written,
according to the universally accepted law of human lan
guage. And it certainly is a very strong argument for its
truthfulness that we discover the correct meaning of the
word life, though unrecognized by the church at large
27

312 Appeal of the Bible Doctrine
even now, rans like a golden thread through every part,
binding together in one harmonious whole portions written
fifteen hundred years apart.
The story of the fall of man presents difficulties to
many minds, as perhaps it does to yours. Do you notice
how strong the intrinsic evidence of its trathfulness, when
read in the light of the Bible doctrine of the souli" —
in that early revelation of hfe conditioned on simple obe
dience ; in the promise of the forfeited life restored through
a promised deliverer, corroborated as this is by the sugges
tive (otherwise most inappropriate) name of Eve, life, and
in the provision made to " keep the way of the tree of life. ' '
How strong the evidence in that simple allusion (Gen. iii.
2i), to what is thus recognized as a well-known fact, the
evident Divine unfolding of the principle of animal sacri
fice — life for life — as contained in the brief notice of
the covering of skins provided for the sinning ones. Ani
mal flesh had not yet been given for food (compare Gen.
i. 29 and ix, 3) ; the skins used, we then see, were those
of animals offered in sacrifice to typify the coming sacri
fice for sin. The fact of the institution of such sacrifices
is assumed in the concise narrative of the next chapter,
and also that the sacrifice of life, as offered by Abel, was
required of the sinner. And thus also is explained the
early and prevalent extension over the world of animal
sacrifice, which man's reason alone would never have con
ceived of — to think to propitiate an offended Deity by
taking the life of his creatures !
Will you not thoughtfully read the Bible with the light
thus cast upon it ? And may you thus be led to find in it
the way of eternal life !
And for you, my impenitent friend, whoever you may
be, "having no hope and without God in the world," this
question for you has a fearfully practical interest. It con-

To Every Impenitent. 313
cerns you directly — What- is there for you irt the future? It
may be you are flattering yourself with the thought that you
are immortal. This the Word of God, which alone can give
you any knowledge of the future, explicitly denies. Im
mortality is not yours by right. Yet most freely is it offered
to you if, " by patient continuance in well-doing," you will
"seek for it." In the coming future "all in their graves
shall hear the voice of the Son of Man, and shall come
forth." Which resurrection shall be yours — to life or to
judgment? Now is the time to secure that life; then it
will be forever too late. Cannot the love of our God, not
a stern, revengeful Judge, but a kind, infinitely loving and
forgiving Father to us all — cannot his love for your soul,
not wishing you to perish, but to have everlasting life, not
sparing his own Son to save you, — cannot such love reach
your heart ? Take the Saviour to be yours. He gave his
life for you, will you not give your life to him? Here you
will find that his service is a rich reward, and you " shall
receive, in the world to come, life everlasting." You
may make this promise yours : "When Christ, who is our
life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in
glory." For then, "raised incorruptible," the redeemed
from death "shall ever be with the Lord."
"Forever with the Lord,
Amen! so let it be!
Life from the dead is in that word,
'Tis immortality I"

APPENDIX

''P^HE Westminster Confession of Faith well says of Holy
j Scripture :
j^ The infallible rale of interpretation of Scripture is
the Sqripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question
about the trae and full sense of any Scripture (which is not
manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other
places that speak more clearly.
"The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of re
ligion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils,
opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men and private
spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are
to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in
the Scriptures;" Chap. I., sec. 8, 9.
The principle above enunciated we have endeavored con
scientiously to follow out in our preceding argument. We
then stated that fuller proof of the positions taken could
be given. Such, with regard to the nature of the soul, it
has been deemed best herewith to append. Also the ques
tion of the resurrection of the wicked has been discussed
at some length.

A.
In the Bible, the term " Soul " is used of the
Lower Animals, as well as of Man.
Gen. i. 20: "God said. Let the waters bring forth
abundantly the moving creature that hath a living soul"
27* 3'S

3x6 Appendix.
So the Hebrew, but the English version renders it " that
hath life."
Gen. i. 2r: " Every living soul [E. V. living creature]
which the waters brought forth."
Gen. I. 24: "God said. Let the earth bring forth the
living soul [E. V. living creature] after his kind, cattle,
and creeping thing, and beast."
Gen. i. 30 : " God said ... tor every beast ofthe earth,
and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creep-
eth upon the earth, wherein there is a living souP'^fi,. V.
life] ; or, as Bible usage defines it, a living organism.
Gen. ii. 19: "And out of the ground the Lord God
formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air;
and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call
them. And whatsoever Adam called every living soul [E.
V. creature] that was the name thereof." Read in this
connection the seventh verse of the same chapter: "And
the Lord God formed Adam of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and Adam be
came a living soul!'
Gen. ix. 10 : "And with every living soul [E. V. crea
ture] that is with you, of the fowls, of the cattle, and of
every beast of the earth."
Gen. ix. 12: "Between me and you and every living
soul [E. V. creature] that is with you."
Gen. ix. 15 : " Every living soul [E. V. creature] of all
flesh." Gen. ix. 16: "Every living soul -[E. V. creature] of all
flesh." Ten times is the Hebrew of " living soul " found in the
first nine chapters of ^Genesis. Once, where it refers to
man, it is literally thus translated. In nine other instances
it refers to the lower orders of creation, and the fact of such
reference is carefully concealed from the English reader
unacquainted with Hebrew. Please notice, also, in seven

Animals as Souls. 317
of these nine instances it is presented as the language of
Jehovah himself !
Precisely the same Hebrew words are found in Lev. xi.
10, referring to fishes: "All that have not fins and scales,
of all that move in the waters, and of any living soul [E.
V. thing] which is in the waters."
Also in Lev. xi. 46 : " This is the law of the beasts and
of the fowl, and of every living soul [E. V. creature] that
moveth in the waters ; and of every soul [E. V. creature]
that creepeth upon the earth." Jehovah is the speaker in
these two instances also.
Lev. xxiv. 18: Jehovah declares: "He that killeth the
soul of a beast [E. V. simply beast], shall make it good [or
recompense] soul for soul!' English version has "beast for
beast." Prov. vii. 23 : "As a bird hasteth to the snare and know
eth not that it is for his soul " [E. V.life].
Prov. xii. 10 : "A righteous man regardeth the soul [E.
V. life] of his beast" — regardeth, careth for, not its life
merely, but the comfort of its physical organism, its soul.
Num. xxxi. 25, 28 : "And the Lord spake unto Moses :
Levy a tribute unto the Lord, one soul of five hundred,
both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses,
and of the sheep."
Our English version here classes together souls of men
and of oxen, of asses and of sheep ! How came our trans
lators thus for once to give the literal rendering of the
Hebrew? Was it because they could not well avoid it;
because that all of their usual substitutes here failed them ?
They could not translate "soul " by "life," for that would
imply that the lives of these men and animals were to be
taken; they could not say one "person" of five hundred,
since animals are included in the enumeration ; they could
not well substitute "creature" or "thing," since men are
included. And so of all the instances where the original

3x8 Appendix.
Hebrew of the Bible speaks of the souls of animals, in this
instance only has the ¦ English reader had given him the
literal truth !
Ezek. xlvii. 9 : "Every thing that liveth [Heb. nephesh
chayah], whithersoever the rivers shall come, shall live :
and there shall be a very great multitude of fish."
Rev. viii. 9 : "And the third part of the creatures which
were in tlie sea, and had souls [plural Gr. psychas, E. V.
life], died."
Rev. xvi. 3: "And every living soul [so E. V., Gr.
psyche] died in the sea."
In these two quotations from Revelation, the Gr. psyche is
used of marine animals ; in the former case it is rendered,
though in the plural, by the abstract word "life" in the
singular ; in the latter case we have the literal rendering,
"soul." Psyche in the N. T. is translated soul, life, twice
heart, three times mind. In the latter of the two instances
above, the preceding word "living" rendered useless all
our translators' substitutes for soul, when that is used of
animals. Living life (or heart or mind) died, were too
absurd ; while the general acquaintance of scholars with
the Gr. would not permit the substitution of " thing " for
psyche, soul, as had been done with the less familiar Heb.
nephesh. Thus once in the New, as but once in the Old
Testament, the English reader has the opportunity to learn
that the Bible recognizes the soul as appertaining to the
lower animals. And yet still stronger is . the testimony of
our English version to the fact itself, in that it is so evi
dently the testimony of a most unwilling witness !
With all this Bible proof to the contrary, professed ex
pounders of the Bible tell us that the lower animals have no
souls — that the possession of a soul is what distinguishes
man from other animals !

Material Nature of the Soul. 319

In the Bible, the Material Nature of the Soul is
thus referred to.
It may touch various material objects :
Lev. V. 2 : " If a soul touch any unclean thing, whether
it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean
cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things." See
also Lev. vii. 21; xxii. 6; Num. xix. 22.
It may itself be touched, even when dead :
Num. xix. 11: "He that toucheth the dead soul of any
man shall be unclean." English Version for "soul"
gives "body," but in the margin " soul of man."
It may be hungry :
Prov. xix. 15 : "An idle soul shall suffer hunger."
Prov. xxvii. 7 : "The full soul loatheth [Heb. treadeth
under foot] an honeycomb ; but to the hungry soul every
bitter thing is sweet. " See Isa. xxix. 8.
It eats :
"Lev. vii. 20 : " The soul that eateth the flesh of the
sacrifice." — So also verses 25, 27; xvii. 12, 15.
It satisfies its hunger :
Prov. vi. 30: " Men do not despise a thief if he steal
to satisfy his soul when he is hungry."
Prov. xiii. 25 : " The righteous eateth to the satisfying
of his soul ; but the belly of the wicked shall want. ' ' See
Jer. 1. 19.
It enjoys eating and drinking:
Eccles. ii. 24: "Nothing better for a man than that he
should eat and drink and should make his soul enjoy good
in his labor." Our translators, in the margin explain
"his soul enjoy good " by "delight his senses."

320 Appendix.
It is thirsty :
Prov. xxv. 25 : "As cold waters to a thirsty soul, so is
good news from a far country."
It breathes :
I Kings XX. 32 : " Let now my soul [E. V. me] breathe."
// may be bought and sold :
Lev. xxii. 11: "If the priest buy any soul with his
money." Ezek. xxvii. 13: "They traded the souls
[E. V. persons] of men." Rev. xviii. 12, 13: "The
merchandise of . . souls of men."
// may be stolen :
Deut. xxiv. 7: "If a man be found stealing a soul''
(E. V. any of his brethren).
// is hunted (as a flea) :
I Sam. xxiv. 11, 14: David says to Saul, " Thou huntest
my soul to take it. After whom dost thou pursue ? "
Psalm vii. 5 : "Let the enemy persecute [Heb. pursue]
my soul and take it."
The pursuer overtaking it may tear it to pieces :
Psalm vii. 2 : " Lest h$., like a lion, tear my soul, rend
ing it in pieces."
// may be delivered to the sword :
Psalm xxii. 20 : " Deliver my soul from the sword."
It is destroyed by the sword :
Josh. xi. 11 : " They smote all the souls that were therein
with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them. ' '
// may escape physical danger by fiying :
Jer. li. 6 : " Flee out of the midst of Babylon, and deliver
every man his soul."
Gen. xix. 17 : "Escape ferthy soul" (E. V. life).
And by escaping danger it lives on :
Gen. xix. 20 : Lot said : " Oh, let me escape thither
[to Zoar], and my soul shall live." E. V. here renders
nephesh soul, in ver. 17, just quoted, also in ver. 19, it
renders same word life ; an apparent reason for which has
already been given.

Material Nature of the Soul, 321
It may escape that danger by aid of a horse :
Amos ii. 15: "Neither shall he that rideth the horse
deliver his soul " (E. V. himself).
It may be laid in iron :
Psalm cv. 18 : "He [Heb. his soul] was laid in iron."
So the margin gives it.
It goes into the grave :
Job xxxiii. 18 : "He keepeth back his soul from the
pit." Job xxxiii. 22: "Yea, his soul draweth near unto the
grave." Job xxxiii. 28: "He will deliver his soul from going
into the pit;" or "grave," as the same Hebrew word, in
verse 22, is translated.
Psalm xxX. 3 : " Thou hast brought up my soul from the
grave. " ¦ _
Isaiah xxxviii. 17: "Thou hast in love to my soul
delivered it from the pit of corruption."
It may be left there and " see corruption :' '
Psalm xvi. 10; Acts ii. 27: "Thou will not leave my
soul in hell [Heb. sheol; Gr. hades ; the grave] ; neither
wilt thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corraption." We
are expressly informed in Acts that this was not spoken of
David, whose soul we may then understand was left in the
grave, so that he saw corruption. As in Acts xiii. 36,
Paul declares: "For David, after he had served his gen
eration by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid
unto his fathers, and saw corruption." Observe these
verbs have all the same nominative : David fell on sleep ;
David was laid unto his fathers; David saw corraption.
(We find the same statement in another form in Acts ii. 34 :
"For David is not ascended into the heavens.") If it be
claimed, as we believe it is, that the David serving as
nominative to these last three verbs is David's body only,
then it may be asked, who (same nominative) served his

322 Appendix.
generation? David's body only? But this attempted
solution concedes the whole question. Popular theology
thus confesses that the Bible denominates the lifeless frame,
David. Just what we contend the Bible teaches : the
organized body is the man, is David, with the spirit, or
principle of life, David alive; without it, David dead.
Though the soul is left in the grave, it is not forever, for
we are told :
Psalm xlix. 15: "God will redeem my soul from the
power of the grave."
Recall now the fact stated in Gen. ii. 7. We there learn
that man, formed of the dust of the ground, became a soul.
As a soul, then, he was a dust-made or material soul.
Notwithstanding all these declarations of God's word,
theologians teach us that the soul is something 'immaterial I

c.
In the Bible, the Mortal Nature of the Soul is thus
referred to.
It should be observed that, in the account of man's cre
ation in Gen. ii. 7, the very term qualifying soul, viz.,
living soul, in itself implies the possibility of what we find
afterward spoken of, viz., dead sov\.
Gen. xvii. 14 : " That soul shall be cut off from his peo
ple." Gen. xxxvii. 21 : "Let us not kill his soul " [E. V. him].
Exod. xxxi. 14 : " That soul shall be cut off from among
his people."
Lev. vii, 21: "The soul that shall touch any unclean
thing shall be cut off from his people. ' '

Mortal Nature of the Soul. 323
Lev. vii. 25 : " Even the soul that eateth shall be cut
off," etc.
Lev. xix. 8 : The same.
Lev. XX. 6: "I will set my face against that soul, and
will cut him off," etc.
Lev. xxiii. 29, 30: "Soul shall be cut off." "Will I
destroy." Lev. xxiv. 17 : " He that killeth any soul of man " [E.
V. any man].
Num. ix. 13 : " Soul shall be cut off," etc.
Num. XV. 30, 31 : " That soul shall be cut off."
Num. xix. 20 : " That soul shall utterly be cut off."
Num. xxiii. 10: "Let my soul [so margin, E. V. text,
me] die the death of the righteous. ' '
Num. xxxi. 19 : "Whosoever hath killed any soul" [E.
V. person].
Num. xxxv. II, 15 : " Killeth any soul [E. V. person] at
unawares. ' '
Num. xxxv. 30 : " Whoso killeth any soul [E. V. person],
the murderer shall be put to death ; but one witness shall not
testify against any soul [E. V. person] to cause him to die."
Deut. xix. 6, 11: " Slay his soul " [E. V. him]. " Smite
his soul" [E. V. him].
Deut. xxvii. 25: "Taketh reward to slay an innocent
soul" [E. V. person].
Josh. ii. 13: "Deliver our souls [E. V. lives] from
death." Josh. x. 28: " He utterly destroyed all the souls." So
verses 30, 32, 35, 37, 39.
Josh. xi. II : " Smote all the souls with edge of sword."
Josh. XX. 3, 9 : " Whosoever killeth any soul [E. V. per
son] unawares." •
Judges V. 18 : "Jeoparded their souls [E. V. lives] unto
the death."
Judges xvi. 30 : Samson said, " Let my soul [so margin,
E. V. text, me] die with the Philistines."
28

324 Appendix.
I Sam. xxii. 22 : "I have occasioned the death of all the
souls [E. V. persons] of thy father's house."
I Sam. xxviii. 9 : " Layest thou a snare for my soul [E.
V. life], to cause me to die? "
2 Sam- xiv. 7 : " For the soul [E. V. life] of his brother
whom he slew."
Job xxxiii. 18 : " He keepeth back his soul from the
pit," — grave.
Job xxxiii. 22: "Yea, his soul draweth near unto the
grave. ' '
Job xxxiii. 28 : " He will deliver his soul from going into
the pit."
Job xxxvi. 14: "Let their soul [E. V. they] die in
youth." Psalm xxii. 20 : " Deliver my soul from the sword."
Psalm xxx. 3 : " O Lord, thou hast brought up my soul
from the grave ; thou hast kept me alive, that I should not
go down to the pit."
Psalm xxxiii. 19 : "To deliver their soul from death."
Psalm xxxv. 7 : "A pit they have digged for my soul,"
— "pit" translated "grave" in Job xxxiii. 22.
Psalm xlix. 15: "God will' redeem my. soul from the
power of the grave. ' '
Psalm Ivi. 13: "Thou hast delivered my soul from
death." Psalm lix. 2, 3: "Save me from bloody men; for, lo,
they lie in wait for my soul."
Psalm Ixxviii. 50: " He spared not their soul from death. "
Psalm Ixxxix. 48 : " What man is he that liveth and
shall not see death? Shall he deliver his soul from the
hand [or power] of the grave? "
Psalm xciv. 17: "Unless the Lord had been my help,
my soul had almost [Heb. quickly] dwelt in silence." Read
with this I Sam. ii. 9: "The wicked shall be silent in
darkness. ' '

Mortal Nature of the Soul. 325
Prov. xxiii. 14 : " Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and
shalt deliver his soul from the grave " (Heb. sheol, E. V.
hell). Isaiah xlvii. 14: "The fire shall burn them; they shall
not deliver their souls [E. V. themselves] from the power
of the flame."
Isaiah liii. 12 : " He poured out his soul unto death."
Jer. ii. 34 : " In thy skirts is found the blood of the
souls of the poor innocents."
Jer. xxxviii. 16 : " The King sware. As the Lord liveth
that made us this soul, I will not put thee to dfeath, neither
will I give thee into the hands of these men that seek thy
soul" (E. V. life).
Jer. xl. 14, 15 : "To slay thy soul" (E. V. thee).
Ezek. xiii. 19 : " To slay the souls that should not die,
and to save the souls alive that should not live."
Ezek. xvii. 17: "By casting up mounts, and building
forts, to cut off many souls " (E. V. persons).
Ezek. xviii. 20, 21: "The soul that sinneth, it shall
die ; but if the wicked turn, he shall surely live, he shall
not die."
Ezek. xxii. 25 : ' " Like a roaring lion ravening the prey,
they have devoured souls."
Ezek. xxii. 27 : " Like wolves ravening the prey, to
destroy souls."
Acts iii. 23 : " Every soul, who will not hear that prophet,
shall be destroyed from among the people."
James v. 20 : " Shall save a soul from death."
Rev. viii. 9 : " And the third part of the creatures which
were in the sea and had souls [Gr. plural of psyche ; E. V.
life] died."
Ezek. xvi. 3: "Every living soul died in the sea."
Notwithstanding all this, modern theology teaches fhat
the soul cannot die — in this literal way !

326 Appendix.

In the Bible, the Soul is represented as being an
Object Visible and Tangible, even after Life has
Departed.
Lev. xix. 28 : "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your
flesh for the dead." The literal Hebrew is "for a soul,"
the word "dead" being understood, from the fact that it
was only for one dead that this flesh-cutting would be
practised. Lev. xxi. i: "Defiled for the dead," — Heb. on ac
count of a soul, dead understood.
Lev. xxi. II : "Dead body," — Heb. dead soul.
Lev. xxii. 4: "Unclean by the dead," — Heb. by a
soul, dead understood.
Num. V. 2 : " Defiled by the dead," — Heb. by a soul,
dead understood.
Num. vi. 6 : "At no dead body," — Heb. dead soul.
Num. vi. II : " Sinned by the dead," — Heb. by a soul,
dead understood.
Num. ix. 6 : " Defiled by the dead body," — Heb. by a
soul, dead understood.
Num. ix. 7 : The same, — Heb. by a soul, dead under
stood. Num. ix. 10 : " By reason of a dead body," — Heb. of
a soul, dead understood,
Num. xxxi. 19 : " Hath killed any person [Heb. soul]
and hath touched any slain." Here the adjective " slain "
agrees in the Heb. with "soul," supplied from preceding
clause. Haggai ii. 13: "Unclean by a dead body," — Heb.
soul, dead understood.
The Hebrew for "the dead," or "dead" body," in the

' Dead. Soids Visible and Tangible. 327
passages above is "nephesh!' soul; twice with the Hebrew
adjective for dead expressed, in the remaining instances
understood from the context. In seven of the twelve in
stances, it is the language of Jehovah himself; he speaks
of the soul, after its death, as still perceptible to our senses.
Mark the contrast;. Modern theology teaches that the
soul is: I, the peculiar possession of man; 2, it never
dies ; 3, it is immaterial, and so of course intangible and
invisible. Every one of these particulars the Bible denies.
Our Scripture quotations show that — i , the soul is not the
peculiar possession of man ; 2, it does die ; 3, it is not
immaterial, for it can be touched and handled both when
alive and when dead.
Certainly, if any conclusion can be drawn from this
array of evidence, it is simply this :
Both cannot be righ'T. If the Bible doctrine of
THE soul is true, POPULAR THEOLOGY IS UNTRUE !

E.
The Soul and its Parts.

If the soul of man be the human organism, as we claim
the Scriptures teach, then the various organs, which make
up the organism, are parts of the soul ; and, if so, then the
Bible should thus speak of them. It should associate the
whole and its parts, assigning like attributes to each ; and
sometimes, by a true synecdoche, it should put a part for
the whole, declaring of that part what is true of the whole.
This is just what the Bible does, though our translators,
apparently puzzled with such language, have not always
made evident that which the original expresses.
28*

328 Appendix.
We select a few of many examples.
Gen. xlix. 6 : Jacob says, " O my soul, come not thou
into their secret : unto their assembly, O my liver [E. V.
mine honor!], be not thou united," thus addressing first
the conjoined organism, or soul ; in the next clause singling
out one of its organs, as the special object of his address.
Psalm xvi. 9 : " My heart is glad, my liver [E. V. glory !]
rejoiceth, my fiesh also shall rest in hope."
Psalm l-vii. 7, 8: "My heart is fixed. Awake up, my
liver" (E. V. gloi;y!).
Psalm cviii. i: "O God, my heart is fixed; I will sing,
and my liver [E. V. glory] shall give praise."
Psalm vii. 5: "Let him pursue [E. V. persecute] my
soul, and take it ; let him tread down my life, and lay my
liver [E. V. honor !] in the dust."
Lam. ii. 11: "Mine eyes fail, my bowels are troubled,
my liver [so E. V.] is poured upon the earth."
Psalm xxxi. 9 : "Mine eye is consumed with grief, yea,
my soul and my belly" — are consumed.
Prov. xiii. 25 : "The just eateth to the satisfying of his
soul ; but the belly of the wicked shall want."
Ezekiel vii. 19 : " They shall not satisfy their souls, nor
fill their bowels!' ^
Psalm xl. 8 : "Thy law is [margin] in the midst of my
bowels!' Jer. xxxi. 33 : "I will put my law in their bowels [E. V.
inward parts], and write it in their hearts!'
Prov. xxii. 18 : " For it is a pleasant thing if thou keep
them [words of wisdom, verse 17] in thy belly" (so the
margin, E. V. text, within thee).
John vii. 38 : " Jesus cried, saying. He that believeth on
me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow
rivers of living water."
Prov. xx. 30 : " So stripes [cleanse away evil from] the
inward parts of the belly!'

' The Soul and its Parts. 329
Job 3cx?;ii. 18: ''The spirit of my belly [marginal read
ing] constraineth me. "
Philemon 7 : Paul -writes, "The bowels of' the saints are
refreshed by thee, brother."
Philemon 12: "Therefore receive him, that is my- own
bowels!' Here Paul uses the expression " my own bpwels "
a.s standing for the whole organization, his soul, hiinself ; he,
says in effect^ "receive him as myself"
Psalm xvi, 7 : " My kidneys [E. Y,. reins] instract me in
the night season."
Jer. xii. 2 : " Thou art near in their mouth, and far
from their kidneys:" [E. V. reins].
Jer. xvii. 10: "I, the Lord, search the heart, I try the
kidneys" [E. V. reins].
Rev. ii. 23 : "I am he that searcheth the kidneys. [E. V.
reins] and hearts."
Mark xii. 29, 30: "Jesus answered, Thou shalt love
, the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,
and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. ' ' A^Vhat
is this but a cumulative form of expression, ¦where the whole
and one or more of its parts are brought together, as in
legal phrase, to cover the whole ground ?
Plainly, then, throughout the Bible, the various bodily
organs, the liver, the heart, the kidneys, the bowels or 'vis
cera, — those organs controlled by a special nervous system,
the great syrnpathetic, which presides over " organic life,", —
are put for the soul, or associated with it, as being allied in
their operation. This mode of speech has, at the present
day, in great measure passed away; and yet, notwithstand
ing the inroads of philosophical ideas during centuries past,
we find that in respect of one of these organs, the heart,
this usage in popular speech still holds good ; and traces of
the same are still apparent in our- not uncommon use of the
words "spleen" and "bile.,"
It may be objected that this is the mode of speech of a

330 V Appendix.
ruder age, when the true (philosophical ?) conception of
man's spiritual composition was not universally accepted as
now. On the other hand, is it not more just to say that,
like' the Assyrian and Egyptian traditions of the Cherubim
and the Sacred Tree, it is the relic of a still earlier age,
when God communed with man face to face ? It is quite
the fashion in our day to speak of the crude ideas concern
ing God and man's destiny which prevailed, even among
God's people, up to the Christian era. We flippantly say
the truth was never revealed to them. How do we know
that ? How do we know what communications of his will
God may have made in those earlier days of personal inter
course ? Even the heathen once knew more than we are apt
to imagine; for Paul says, Rom. i. 21, 28: "When they
knew God . . . , they did not like to retain God in their
knowledge. ' ' This prevalent decrying of the early revela
tions of the Old Testament, because we cannot make them
harmonize with our present theories, is a grievous sin. It
dishonors not only God's Word, but the Author of revela
tion himself As if he knew not how to reveal to man the
simple truths of his nature and destiny in terms that his
creature could comprehend ! For we cannot gainsay the
fact that the use of the language we are discussing is that
of our only repository of revealed truth. It is found in the
New and Old Testaments alike, and is indeed the language
of the Creator himself, as recorded in Jer. xxxii. 41 : "I
will plant them in this land assuredly, with my whole heart
and my whole soul. ' '

Have the Wicked a Resurrection? 331

Have the Wicked a Resurrection?
It may be thought this question has been already suf
ficiently answered. But some there are who accept the
Bible doctrine of death for sin, who yet deny that there is
any resurrection, or any fiiture judgment, for the wicked
dead ; for whom the first death they believe to be a finality,
as for the beasts. Such minds exhibit the peculiar obstacle,
in the power of early education, which the Bible doctrine
has to encounter. It is difficult for one habituated to a
special way of thinking, as the writer found in his own
experience, to shake off the power of such habit. In this
particular case, those emancipated from the popular method
of explaining away the Bible meaning of death, themselves
fall back into the same error, and explain away the pas
sages teaching the resurrection of the wicked. It may be
well for such to review the Bible proof on this question.
I. We find the resurrection of the wicked is taught in
Holy Writ by explicit statements to that effect.
Our Lord declares, Jno. v. 28, 29 : "An hour is coming
in which all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of
the Son of Man, and shall come forth ; they that have done
good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done
evil, unto the resurrection of judgment. ' ' Impossible that
of the " all," one part should " hear and come forth," liter
ally, to the resurrection, and the other part "hear and
come forth," figuratively, by remaining in their graves.
As to the true-N. T. meaning of Gr. mnemeion, correctly
rendered "graves," see its use, Jno. xi. 17, 31, 38; xii.
17; Matt, xxvii. 60, etc. See this passage with its con
text already fully noticed. Chap. X.
In Acts xxiv. 15, Paul says of himself: "A hope having

332 Appendix.
in God (which even they themselves [the Pharisees] ex
pect), a resurrection about to be of dead ones, both of
just and of unjust ones." The Gr. te kai, of the latter
clause, is rendered, by Liddell and Scott, "both, and,"
"not only, but also." It is impossible to understand that
the passage can be construed so as to make the resurrection
of both classes to be the expectation of the Pharisees, not
of Paul. If the clause referring to the Pharisees (in the
quotation in parentheses), be stricken out, the construction
of the sentence remains unchanged; — anastasin, resurrec
tion, in apposition with and defining elpida, hope. And
this hope expresses what Paul expected, waited for {pros-
dechomai). In Dan. xii. 2, we read : " Many that sleep in the dust
of the earth shall awake ; some to everlasting life, some to
shame [to be felt by themselves] and everlasting contempt,"
— to be felt by those surviving them.
In Rev. XX. 13, 15, we read of the future restoration of
the wicked : " And the sea gave up the dead which were
in it ; and death and hades [the grave, so margin] gave up
the dead which were in them : and they were judged ac
cording to their works. And whosoever was not found
written in the book of life, was cast into the lake of fire,"
— " which is the second death."
2. The resurrection of the wicked is taught by the fact
of a second resurrection, and a second death.
Rev. XX. 6 : " Blessed and holy he that hath part in the
first resurrection ; on such the second death hath no
power." Here the distinctive epithet "first" assumes a
second resurrection, which is spoken of ver. 5, and also
ver. 13 (quoted above) ; while the stated peculiarity of the
first resurrection, that on those having part in it the second
death hath no power, assumes that the second death has
power over those of the second resurrection ; as is explicitly
stated, ver. 15. The second death is a second loss of ex-

Have the Wicked a Resurrection? 333
istence ; it is for the wicked, who could not lose existence
twice, except that after its first loss, after the first death,
they have existence rest-ored to them by a resurrection.
3. The resurrection of the wicked appears from the
account of the final judgment, and of those who are to be
there judged.
Matt. xxv. 31-46 : "When the Son of Man shall come
in his glory, before him shall be gathered all nations ; and
he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd
divideth the sheep from the goats," etc.
It is the wicked of all time that are there gathered : —
2 Cor. V. 10 : " Fbr we must all appear before the judg
ment-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things
done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether
it be good or bad. Knowing, therefore, the terror of the
Lord, we persuade men " — men then living, to whom that
terror appealed as something to be dreaded by them.
Rev. xxii. 12, the Lord Jesus says he comes "to give to
every man as his work shall be."
Rom. xiv. 10 : " We shall all stand before the judgment-
seat of Christ," — not the Roman Christians only, to whom
he ¦writes, but the "all" referred to in ..the next verse:
" For as I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to
me." Rom. ii. 12, 16 : "For as many as have sinned without
law shall also perish without law; and as many as have
sinned under law shall be judged by law. [When ?] In
the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus
Christ." And so all the threatenings of a future doom refer to
what shall be inflicted upon the wicked of every age.
4. The truthfulness of certain Scripture statements are
conditioned upon a resurrection of the wicked.
Rev. i. 7 : "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every
eye shall see him, and they who pierced him ; and all kin-

334 Appendix.
dreds of the earth shall wail because of him." Remem
ber, this was written by one who, as an eye-witness of the
crucifixion, would recall the personal actors therein.
Matt. xxvi. 64, Jesus declares to the Sanhedrim : " I say
unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man coming in
the clouds of heaven." This was addressed to those in the
council, not lo their descendants of a far distant age.
Luke xiii. 28, Jesus says to the unbelieving Jews, " There
shall be the weeping and the gnashing of the teeth when
ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the
prophets in the kingdom of God, and you being thrust out."
It were useless to argue further with one who will not
accept the proof thus given. Nor do we care to argue
for the reasonableness of such a resurrection. It is enough
that the Word of God declares it.
The life thus restored to the wicked — their release from
the abyssos of death — is but for "a little season; " Rev.
XX. 3. Eternal life, the prize of our high calling, is now
forever lost to them. They will have their trial ; the jus
tice of their sentence will be made apparent ; and then, in
Gehenna, the lake of fire, they meet a "second death,"
amid " the weeping, and the wailing, and the gnashing of
the teeth. ' ' In circumstances of utmost horror they again
pass out of existence ; and that second death is an eternal
DEATH 1

THE END.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 03464 0418 J