YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

THE SOUL

HEEE AND HEEEAFTEE

•3 Btfilical Stutig,

BY
CHARLES M. MEAD,
PEOFBSSOE IN ANDOVEB THEOLOGICAL SBMINAET.

PUBLISHED BY THE
CONGREGATIONAL PUBLISHING SOCIETY,
BOSTON.

Copyright, 1879, by
The Congeegational Publishing Society.

Press of Wright & Potter Printing Company,
79 Milk Street, Boston.

STEREOTYPED BY
0. J. PETEKS & SON,
73 Federal Street.

PEEFAOE.

THE germ of the following work is contained in a few
articles published in the spring of 1878, in the
New- York "Independent," in criticism of Dr. C. L.
Ives's "Bible Doctrine of the Soul." These, however,
were very incomplete and fragmentary, considered as
a general discussion of the topics treated of in that
book. Moreover, the active and earnest efforts made
to disseminate the doctrines advocated, not only by Dr.
Ives, but by other writers of the same school, seemed
to call for a more exhaustive treatment of the funda
mental questions discussed in these works. Particu
larly Mr. White's " Life in Christ," and Mr. Pettin-
gell's " Theological Tiilemma," as having come
prominently before the public within a few years, — the
former in a third edition, pubhshed a little more than
a year ago, and the latter appearing for the first time
last spring, — appeared to merit some attention. Mr.
White's work, and the older one by Mr. Hudson
(" Debt and Grace "), are pronounced by Eev. W. E.
Huntington, in the preface to his book on " Conditional
Immortality " (pubhshed also last year), to be "the
classical authorities " on the subject of his work. Mr.

IV PBEFACE.
Pettingell's book is written in an impassioned style,
and evidently under the impulse of earnest conviction.
This passionate earnestness, and the vigorous though
not polished rhetoric with which he denounces those
whom he is opposing, will produce an impression on
many ; though the work, as a whole, is hardly fitted to
exert any lasting influence. Still it has seemed best to
subject his work, in some of its leading features, to a
careful criticism. Mr. Huntington's work contains
nothing that merits special attention ; and it has, there
fore, received none.
The object has been to present such a discussion of
the subject of annihilation, or, as it is now more com
monly called by its advocates, of conditional immor-
tality, as will be adapted to general use, and fitted to
meet the style of argument now made familiar to the
popular mind. Consequently, much more attention is
given to the work of Dr. Ives than its intrinsic merits
deserve ; and every thing like an abstruse and scho
lastic discussion of the subject has been avoided. No
attempt has been made to produce a learned work by
discussing and quoting a large number of authors, or
by such a minute exegesis as might be in itself valua
ble, yet would confuse the ordinary reader, and not so
well accomplish the purpose of the work. Accordingly,
also, when Hebrew and Greek words are given, they
are printed in English letters, so that those unac
quainted with those languages can at least know how
the words are pronounced. But, notwithstanding the
popular style of treatment adopted, it will be found, I
trust, that the biblical doctrine has been carefully
studied and presented, and that the arguments of others

PEEPACE. V
have been correctly apprehended and stated, and hon
estly refuted, if refuted at all.
Furthermore, it should be remarked that the aim of
this work is to present the biblical doctrine of the soul
and its destiny. Hence merely metaphysical argu
ments have been for the most part avoided. I have
also made no effort to satisfy such sceptical objections
as involve a rejection of biblical testimony. The
authors referred to appeal with great emphasis to the
Scriptures as the source of their doctrine, and de
nounce the so - called orthodox doctrine as being
founded on unbiblical, philosophical, and even heathen
conceptions of the soul. It will be found that the
challenge involved in these allegations has not been
evaded. I have also not entered upon that important field of
inquiry, an investigation of the history of the doctrines
of biblical psychology and eschatology. Such a dis
cussion would be very much in place, especially as the
advocates of the doctrine of conditional immortality
claim for themselves the support of the earhest Chris
tian teachers. Dr. Ives calls the current doctrine a
doctrine of "modern theology," asserting that it was
not the doctrine of the early, Church. He gives no
proof of his assertion ; and my silence should not be
interpreted as an assent to the correctness of it. On
the contrary, it m&y be affirmed that the evidence of
ecclesiastical history shows abundantly, that, whatever
individual utterances may be found here and there, in
the writings of the early church fathers, favoring anni-
hilatiouism, it was never the general doctrine of the
Church, But this is a department of research which

vi PEEFACE.
could not have been entered upon without too much
swelling the size of the work. The main question is,
after all, What saith the Scripture? and, for the an
swer to this question, we must carefully interrogate the
Scriptures themselves.
I am aware that the questions here considered have
been ably treated in other works, especially in Presi
dent Bartlett's "Life and Death Eternal." But cer
tain aspects of annihilationism are here discussed more
fully than in his work, particularly the materialistic
form of the doctrine ; and the method of treatment in
general, even where the same topics are handled, is so
far different from his, as perhaps better to meet a cer
tain class of minds ; while the chief reason for another
book is to be found in the new works, advocating anni
hilationism, which have appeared since Dr. Bartlett's
book was pubhshed.
It has been my aim to avoid acrimony and needless
severity in the polemical part of the work. Sometimes,
when it has been necessary to notice important mis
statements of facts, misinterpretations of Scripture,
or fallacious reasoning, plain and emphatic language is
used ; but I have not thought that the cause of truth
would be furthered by offensive personalities, or accusa
tions of dishonest intentions. No good can be accom
plished, on the one hand, by stigmatizing men as har
dened and irreverent because they do not accept all the
traditional dogmas of the Church ; nor, on the other
hand, by charging those who do accept those dogmas
with cowardice, narrowness, or an unwillingness to
judge evidence fairly. Whether the conclusions to
which I have come are correct or not, it is to be hoped

PEEFACE. vii
that this work will at least stimulate some to a more
careful study of the word of God, and so may lead
them nearer to Him who is the Way, the Truth, and
the Life.
C. M. M.
Andoyeb, Mass., March, 1879.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.
principles of interpretation.
Statement of the General Bules. — Dr. Ives's Law of the Lit
eral and the Figurative : Vagueness and Insufficiency of
it. — His own Application of it illustrated in Reference
to Gen. ii. 5, 7  1-10

CHAPTER II.
THE OLD-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF MAN S SPIRIT
UAL NATURE.
The Materialistic Doctrine of the Soul stated. — The Argu
ments for it. — The Old-Testament Doctrine: Meaning of
Nephesh, N'shamah, and Euahh. — Ruahh and Nephesh
compared. — Meaning of Leo, Rahamim, Me'im, K'layoth,
and Beten. — Conclusion  11-32
CHAPTER IH.
THE NEW-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF MAN'S SPIRIT
UAL NATURE.
Meaning of Psyche and Pneuma. — Psyche and Pneuma com
pared.— Mr. Heard's Trichotomy. — The Eeal Distinc
tion. — Meaning of Kardia, Nous, &c  33-67
ix

X TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CHAPTER IV.
DR. IVES'S DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL.
He makes the Soul the same as Organism. — Criticism: His
Argument derived almost wholly from the Old Testa
ment. — He misstates the Original Meaning of Nephesh.
— He is "Wrong in his Definition: Nephesh does not mean
Organism. — He insists that "Soul" must be made to
mean "Organism." — He insists on the Biblical Termi
nology as a Universal Standard. — He confines himself to
One "Word (Soul), and neglects to give the Meaning of
Others, especially " Spirit "  68-74
CHAPTER V.
BIBLICAL PROOF THAT BODY AND SPIRIT ARE
DISTINCT.
Preliminary Statements. — The Essential Indestructibility
of the Soul not maintained. — The Term "Annihilation-
ism," how used and understood. — Different Views of
Annihilationists respecting the Soul. — The Bible has
Distinct Terms to denote the Body and the Spirit. — In
this Eespect, like the Language of Men in General. — Dr.
Ives understands Men generally to say what they do
not mean. — Use of Personal Pronouns a Proof of the
Distinction: Illustration from Dr. Ives's Argument from
the Use of the Pronouns. — Biblical Passages proving the
Distinction  75-101
CHAPTER VI.
BIBLICAL PROOF THAT HUMAN EXISTENCE IS NOT
TERMINATED AT DEATH.
Discussion of Passages implying the Continued Existence
of the Spirit after Death, especially in Eeply to Dr. Ives's
Efforts to evade their Significance: The Eich Man and
Lazarus. — Christ's Argument with the Sadducees. —
The Eaising of Samuel. — The Transfiguration. — Christ's
Answer to the Thief. — Phil. i. 21-23. — 2 Tim. iv. 6. 
2 Cor. v. 1-8. — 1 Pet. iii. 18-20. — Heb. xii. 1, 23. —Eev.
vi-9.10  102-138

TABLE OF CONTENTS. xi
CHAPTER VH.
THE OLD-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE CONCERNING: THE
STATE OF THE DEAD.
Further Considerations indicating that Death was not re
garded as the End of Existence. — Connection of the
Jews with the Egyptians. —The Practice of Necromancy.
— The Dead said to "go unto," or "sleep with," or
"gathered unto," their Fathers. — The Description of
Sheol: Criticism of Dr. Ives's Statements respecting it.
— Biblical Passages examined: Gen. v. 24; Ps. xlix. 15,
lxxiii. 24, xvi. 10, 11. — The Eephaim. — Passages seeming
to imply the Non-Existence of the Dead . . . 139-166"

CHAPTER VIH.
THE NEW-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE
STATE OF THE DEAD.
The Intermediate State as described in the Passages dis
cussed in Chapter VI. — No Passage in the New Testa
ment affirming the Cessation of Consciousness. — The
" Sleep" of Death: Dr. Ives's Strange Interpretation of
it. — Hades, the Abode of the Dead, especially of the
"Wicked. — Alleged Proof of Annihilation from Acts ii.
34 and 1 Cor. xv. 17, 18  167-184

CHAPTER IX.
THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.
"What is raised at the Eesurrection? Not the Identical Body,
but the Same Person with Another Body: Criticism of
Dr. Ives's Theory. — Biblical Evidence of the Univer
sality of the Eesurrection. — The Eesurrection as a "Whole
still Future. — The Eesurrection of Men dependent on
that of Christ. — The Resurrection-Body of Believers like
that of Christ. — Spiritual Connection between Christ's
Eesurrection and that of Believers. — The Doctrine of the
Eesurrection, how far revealed in the Old Testament . 185-220

xii TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CHAPTER X.
LIFE AND DEATH,  THE LITERAL SENSE.
Definition of "Life:" Three-fold Distinction in the Literal
Sense, which is " Vitality." — Biblical Terms for " Life,"
Nephesh, Psyche, Ruahh, Pneuma, Hhayyim, Zoe, Bios. —
Definition of "Death," the Loss of Vitality, not of Ex
istence. — Dr. Ives's Self-Contradictions. — Mr. "White's
Definition of "Life" criticised. — Dr. "Whiton's Miscon
ception of the Orthodox View. — Eecapitulation . 221-251
CHAPTER XI.
LIFE AND DEATH,  TROPICAL SENSES.
Tropical Senses of "Life:" "Animation;" Life = Eight
Life; Life = Happy Life; "Life" applied to other than
Organic Things, to the Soul, or to God; " Live " = " Spend
Life."— Tropes in the Bible: Life = Vigor; Life = Normal
Life; Life = Enjoyment; Life attributed to God, the Soul,
&c; " Live " = " Spend Life." — Tropical Senses of
"Death:" " Dead " = " Inoperative," or that which re
sembles Death. — Biblical Tropes : Death = Cause of
Death; Death = the Danger of Death; Death of " Souls,"
"Heart," "City,"&c; Dead Faith and "Works; "Sin
was Dead," Eom. vii. 8; " I died," vii. 9; Death
= Insensibility; "Dead unto Sin," Eom. vi. 2, &c: Mr.
Davis's Evasion of the Meaning  252-275
CHAPTER XII.
LIFE,  THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
Spiritual "Well-Being expressed in the Bible by the Term
"Life." — This Sense derived naturally from the Literal
Sense, " Vitality." — The Claim of Annihilationists that
they always adhere to the Literal Sense shown to be In
correct: Departures from the Literal Sense resorted to
by them. — Spiritual Life is a Present Thing, and con
sists in a New Eeligious State: Biblical Proof. — Dr. Ives

TABLE OF CONTENTS. , xiii
on Eegeneration. — Mr. Pettingell's Treatment of the
Doctrine of the New Life. — Mr. White's Mode of ex
plaining the Biblical Language : The Figure of Prolepsis.
— Mr. Hudson on Rom. viii. 6. — Virtual Concessions of
Messrs. "White and Hudson. — Eternal Life called a Pres
ent Possession of Believers. — Eternal Life as a Future
Experience. — "Life" described as Something still Fu
ture. — The Different Representations harmonized. — Im
possibility of understanding them if " Life " means
"Existence." — Mr. "White's Admission that the Notions
of Blessedness and Holiness are associated with that of
Life: Fallacy of it on his Theory. — The Old-Testament
Use of the "Word "Life." — "Life" there often denotes
Continuance of Life on the Earth; also it denotes a
Prosperous Life on Earth; sometimes it is Symbolic of
all Prosperity, and denotes especially the Divine Favor.
— The New-Testament Doctrine found germinally in the
Old. — Annihilationism finds no Support in these Pas
sages  ..... 276-321

CHAPTER XIII.
DEATH,  THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
Antithetic to Life. — A Present Condition of the Unregener-
ate. — Biblical Passages adduced. — Mr. "White's Resort to
Prolepsis. — Death as a Future Condition, both a Eesult
and a Penalty of Sin. — Biblical Conception of Sin as its
own Avenger. — Synonymous Terms, " Destruction," &c.
— Destruction also described as a Present Condition. —
The Natural Mortality of Man: Mr. Hudson's View; Mr.
"White's View; Mr. Pettingell's View; Dr. Ives's View.
— The Tree of Life. — "What is meant by Natural Ten
dency to continue in Existence. — The Annihilationists
virtually affirm the Natural Immortality of Man. — The
Question is simply an Exegetical One. — Alleged Literal
Sense of the Word " Death." —The Absence of Figura
tive Vitality not Identical with Loss of Literal Existence.
— Mr. "White's Argument: Literal Death which is not
Actual. — Alleged Miraculous Suspension of Annihila
tion.— Mr. "White's Argument from Plato's Phaedo.—

xiv TABLE OF CONTENTS.
His Argument from the Death of Christ.— Recapitula
tion: No Proof of Literal Extermination being given,
the Presumption is that the Soul continues to exist. —
Proof that "Death" is often used in the Bible in a
Spiritual Sense.— Dr. Ives on John xi. 25, 26.— The
phrase eis ton aiona. — The Abolition of Death. — Paul's
Flexible Use of the Term "Death."— Death as an Evil
consequent on Sin, the Generic Idea in the Biblical Use
of the Term. — Death expressly denned in the Bible as
Something else than Annihilation. — The Punishment of
Sinners declared to be Eternal. — The Fire and the
"Worm. — Mr. White on Matt. xxv. 46. — The Word
"Eternal."— Dr. Whiton's Definition of "Eternal." —
Why Death is not called Eternal. — Passages in Revela
tion. — Manner in which the Annihilationists evade* the
Meaning. — Dan. xii. 2. — Isa. lxvi. 24 in its Relation to
Mark ix. 48. — Other Passages. — Conclusion . . 322-409

CHAPTER XIV.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.
Arbitrariness of Annihilationists in the Interpretation of
Figurative Language. — Illustration from Dr. Ives. — Mr.
White's Material Fire, which is yet Spiritual. — The Zeal
for Literal Interpretation exhausts itself in the Proof
that " Life " and " Death " are Literal. — The Argument
from New-Testament Greek. — Alleged Presumption that
the Doctrine of Eternal Punishment, if True, must have
been taught more early and universally. — Annihilation
as a Doctrine for Missionaries. — Argument from Reason.
— Alleged Incredibleness of the Doctrine of Eternal
Punishment. — Character of Modern Scepticism. — What
is the Penalty of Sin ? — Annihilation, or the Fear of it,
or the Antecedent Suff ering ? — Inability of Annihila
tionists to agree on this Question. — The Bible the Ulti
mate Authority. — Weak Arguments for the Biblical
Doctrine no Disproof of it. — The Infinite Evil of Sin. 
The Tendency of Sin to become fixed. — It is not Pos
sible for Reason to settle the Problem of Retribution. 
Demonstrable Errors in the Practical Judgments of Men

TABLE OF CONTENTS. XV
respecting the Hl-Desert of Sin. — Unfairness of assum
ing that the Coarser Statements of the Doctrine of Retri
bution represent the Biblical Truth. — Unjust Accusations
against those who hold the Biblical Doctrine. — Mr. Pet
tingell's Description of the Advocates of the Doctrine. —
The Proper Spirit to be cherished in discussing the Sub
ject. — The Justice of God a Fundamental Assumption
on any Theory  410-443

THE SOUL HEEE AND HEREAFTER.

CHAPTER I.
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.
IN entering upon a study of any such theme as
the one here proposed, it is fitting to state at
the outset what principles and methods should be
adopted in elucidating the biblical doctrine. The
matter, however, is not very complicated ; and
among those who hold to the divine authority of
the Scriptures (and it is for such that this work is
chiefly designed) there prevails now a good degree
of unanimity as to this point. The following
things only need be noted : —
1. The English Bible is a translation from the
Hebrew and Greek languages. One important
question, therefore, and one which concerns the
whole book, is, whether the meaning of the ori
ginal is correctly given in our version. This
is a question to be decided only by philological
scholars. l

2 PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.
2. The inspiration of the Scriptures being as
sumed, it follows that no substantial disagreement
among the several writers on any important matter
is to be found; and that, therefore, individual ex
pressions and statements, which seem to conflict
with others, are to be judged and modified accord
ing to the general drift of scriptural teaching,
provided this can be done without a violent per
version of its meaning.
3. The main object of the Bible being the reve
lation of religious truth, it should not be studied
as a general storehouse of miscellaneous informa
tion ; and what is said on other than religious
subjects should be regarded as subordinate and
subsidiary to the main design.
4. In other respects, the Bible is to be inter
preted as we interpret other books. Its language,
like the language of men in general, should be
understood according- to its apparent meaning;
according to the general drift of the context;
according to the general drift of the writer; ac
cording to the general laws of language.
Any more specific rules than these can hardly
be of much service in the study of the Bible. It is,
however, of immense importance to bring to this
study a devout spirit, — a spirit in sympathy with
that of the Bible itself. He who has this, and
combines with it the helps of scholarship and
sound common sense, cannot go far astray.
Dr. Ives, in his " Bible Doctrine of the Soul,"

DE. IVES'S EULE OF INTEEPEETATION. 3
lays down one principle as the all-sufficient and
infallible guide in the 'interpretation of the Bible.
It is this : " 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 ".(p. 22).
It becomes at once manifest that this principle
is designed by the author to have special applica
tion to the scriptural use of the terms "life " and
" death." He evidently thinks that the adoption
of this principle virtually settles the main question
in dispute. While he concedes that there are
passages, in which "death" or "dead "is figura
tively used, he holds that in all such cases we
must so interpret them, simply because we are
obliged so to do in order to make good sense.
We shall see, at a later point, haw much or how
little is thus gained by him for his main position.
We are here concerned with the principle as a
principle of interpretation. As such, we must pro
nounce it — though, of course, not without an
important element of truth — to be entirely insuf
ficient as a general guide. There are in particular
two defects in it, which make it quite unequal to
the office for which it is recommended.
1. Dr. Ives does not define the meaning of the
term " figurative." He uses it as the opposite of
"literal," or "natural." He gives as a specimen
of it (Isa. Iv. 12) : " All the trees of the field shall
clap their hands." Here, he says, we must under-

4 PEINCIPLES OF INTEEPRETATION.
stand the language as figurative. Very true. But
Dr. Ives also uses the terms "metaphorical,"
•' secondary," " derived," " remote," to denote the
meanings which words have other than the pri
mary meaning. Are these meanings " figurative,"
or "literal"? We are left quite in the dark.
The truth is, there are comparatively few words
in any language which do not have more than one
distinct meaning. Undoubtedly every word had
originally one literal meaning. In many cases
this so-called etymological (radical) meaning can
be traced. Very often it is involved in doubt.
But what we are chiefly concerned with is the
actual meanings of words ; and these, as we have
said, are generally various. One of these may be
called the literal meaning : but this may, or may
not, be the primary meaning ; for that may have
become wholly obsolete. Thus, when we use the
word "holy," who thinks of it as meaning originally
" whole " ? But is the ordinary meaning of " holy "
to be called figurative ? Of course not. " Right "
means primarily " straight," and we still speak of
a " right line ; " but, when we apply the same term
to moral conduct, no one would think of calling
this a figurative use of it.
All terms expressive of abstract relations or
purely intellectual and ethical conceptions were
originally used of material and physical things.
Sometimes (as in the case of "pure ") the primary
and the tropical use exist side by side. In other

DR. IVES'S RULE EXAMINED. 5
cases the original meaning is nearly or wholly
lost. When men first began to apply the word
" right " to moral conduct, that use of it may have
been properly termed figurative; but so soon as
the sense of the primary meaning became lost,
and men, in using and hearing the word, did not
think of physical straightness as the proper mean
ing of the word, the use of it in a moral signifi
cance was no longer figurative. That is a figura
tive use of language which consists in a compara
tively exceptional and striking use of a word to
denote something which it does not in ordinary
use denote, but to which, by an effort of the im
agination, it may be conceived to bear some resem
blance. 2. But, assuming that there need be no question
as to what is meant by figurative language, we
have yet to observe that Dr. Ives's rule for detect
ing it is inadequate. We are to exhaust, he says,
the possibility of the literal meaning being in
tended before assuming a figurative meaning. To
this we have to say, —
a. There may be more than one literal mean
ing, if by this is meant (as seems to be implied)
simply the opposite of figurative. It may be a
question which "literal " meaning is meant. Thus
by the word "door" we sometimes designate the
aperture through which a room is entered, and
sometimes the structure by which the aperture is
closed; but, though one of these senses may have

6 PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.
been secondary to the other, neither the one nor
the other can properly be called a figurative use of
the word. Both are literal. When Christ says, "I
am the door of the sheep," his language is figura
tive, pointing to one of these literal meanings;
but it might be equally well used figuratively with
reference to the other sense.
b. But the chief difficulty with Dr. Ives's
principle is, that, after all, every man must decide
for himself whether the possibility of the literal
meaning is exhausted. Thus, suppose we are to
interpret John vi. 53, " Except ye eat the flesh of
the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no
life in you." Dr. Ives would say, with other
Protestants, that this cannot be understood liter
ally ; but the Roman Catholics think that it can
be, through the doctrine of transubstantiation. To
them the possibility of a literal interpretation ex
ists. It is simply a case of difference of opinion.
The " law of the literal and the figurative " does
not of itself decide the case. Every thing depends
on our application of the law.
It is not, therefore, quite accurate to say that
the possibility of the literal meaning being in
tended must be exhausted before we resort to a
figurative interpretation. When Christ says (Luke
vi. 20), "Blessed be ye poor; for yours is the
kingdom of God ; " and (vi. 24) " Woe unto you
that are rich ! for ye have received your consola
tion," — it is certainly possible to understand him

DR. IVES'S EULE EXAMINED. 7
literally, to understand him as giving an unquali
fied promise of salvation to all poor men as such,
and to pronounce an unqualified sentence of con
demnation on all rich men as such. Some have so
interpreted these passages. And Dr. Ives's rule
of interpretation would require us so to interpret
it; and yet we doubt whether he himself would
call this a correct interpretation.
The simple truth is, every man must decide,
as best he can, not only whether the strictly literal
interpretation is possible, but whether it is, on the
whole, reasonable and probable ; and on this point,
in particular cases, opinions will vary. When,
therefore, Dr. Ives holds up his great " law of the
literal and of the figurative " as removing all am
biguity from the Bible, if men would only use it,
his real position amounts simply to this, — that all
ambiguity is removed, if only Dr. Ives's rule of
intrepretation is applied in Br. Ives's way. But'
the world in general will not be likely to regard
this solution of all difficulty in the exposition of
the Bible as entirely satisfactory.
That this language is not too strong will appear,
we think, from the following specimen of his ap
plication of his rule of interpretation. Gen. ii.
7, he says, even on the ground of " modern theolo
gy," decides against the immateriality of the soul ;
for, even assuming that man is a compound of
soul and body, we are obliged, he says, by this
passage, to reason thus : " Man was formed of the

8 PEINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.
dust of the ground. But man is soul and body :
therefore soul and body were formed of the dust
of the ground" (p. 35). This conclusion, says
our author, can be evaded only by resorting to the
theory of figurative language, — " the one resource
for all these difficulties." Modern theology " can
only say the word ' man ' [what was formed of the
dust of the ground] in this passage does not mean
man. It is figuratively used for the body alone "
(Ibid.). To prove the wrongfulness of this, Dr.
Ives appeals to Gen. i. 26, 27, and Gen. ii. 5, where
the word " man " is used literally, and then asks,
" Will the meaning of the word, thus established
in its literal signification, be changed in the im
mediate connection — the next verse but one — to
a figurative use, to mean only a part of the indi
vidual, and especially when a somewhat minute
account of the individual's formation is being
given ? "
We must confess that we cannot see the force
of this reasoning ; for, according to Dr. Ives him
self, the word " man " is used in these two contig
uous verses in two very different senses. In ii. 5
we read, " There was not a man to till the ground."
This, says our author, " is literal. The mere body
could not till." And yet in ver. 7 we are told
that the " lifeless form " was man. Could that
lifeless form till the ground ? If not, is the word
"man" used literally, or figuratively? There
seems to be no way of understanding the argument

DR. IVES'S RULE ILLUSTRATED. 9
here except thus: It is wrong in the author's
view, as being a resort to the assumption of figu
rative language, to suppose that the word " man "
can at one time be used for the mere body, and
immediately before for the body as possessed of
a soul ; but it is entirely legitimate for the word
to mean in one verse the lifeless form, and, just
before, the living form ! The absence or presence
of life would seem, according to this, to be of no
consequence whatever. This is all the more as
tonishing when we learn from the same authority
(p. ii), that, according to the Bible, "death
means death, the loss of existence." When a man
is drowned beyond the possibility of resuscitation,
says Dr. Ives, he becomes "a dead soul, as was
Adam when our Maker formed him of the dust of
the ground, ere he breathed into his nostrils the
breath of life, by which he became a live, a living
soul " (pp. 115, 116). So, then, since death means
non-existence, a dead soul is a non-existent soul :
and yet, to use the same word at one moment of an
existent being, and at the next of a non-existent
one, is quite legitimate ; but to apply the same
word to a body and to a body possessed of a soul
is to be denounced as an evasive and trickish use
of language !
We dwell the longer on this point, as it is fun
damental to the whole argument of the book. Man
was man, we are emphatically told, before he was
made a living soul. This lifeless form was precisely

10 PRINCIPLES OF INTEEPRETATION.
the same thing as a human form is after its life is
lost; i.e., it was a " dead soul." But death means
non-existence. Therefore, before this form was
animated, it was a non-existent soul. " Man was
man ; " but he was a non-existent man ! In other
words, man did not exist till the human form was
animated ; which certainly sounds much like say
ing that there was no man till there was a live
man. And yet in the same breath we are assured
that man was man before he became existent, and
ordinary readers of the Bible are sharply rebuked
for supposing that this non-existent man was any
thing less than man at the outset. This is what is
called a literal interpretation of the Bible !

THE MATERIALISTIC DOCTRINE STATED. 11

CHAPTER H.
THE. OLD-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF MAN'S SPIR
ITUAL NATURE.
HHHE preceding chapter has incidentally brought
-*- to light a doctrine concerning the human soul
which is advocated by Dr. Ives and many other
men, who yet unqualifiedly accept the Bible as
absolutely authoritative. That doctrine, briefly
stated, is this : There is no real distinction be
tween the soul and the body. The body is the
soul, and the soul is the body. " All that the Bible
has to say of a soul, we say of an organism. It ap
pertains to man and to all animals. It is material ;
it is liable to death " (p. 105). The word " or
ganism " is an exact synonyme for the " soul " of
the Bible. Hence death is the end of human
existence. In short, the doctrine is that of pure
materialism. This doctrine is not only held by men who
believe in the Bible, but it is put forth as being
pre-eminently the doctrine of the Bible. It is
thought to be proved by such arguments as the
following: 1. Man is said (Gen. ii. 7) to have

12 OLD-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL.
been made of the dust, and to have become a liv
ing soul: therefore the soul is "dust-made, or
material" (p. 322). 2. Man is said to be buried.
The person is put into the grave : for it is said,
e.g., "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou
return " (Gen. iii. 19) ; " When I go down to
the pit [or grave] " (Ps. xxx. 9). Therefore it is
said the soul, the person, is the bodily organism.
3. The soul is expressly said to die, or to be killed:
as, e.g. (Lev. xxiv. 17), " He that killeth any soul
of man " [E. V., " any man "] ; (Num. xxiii. 10),
"Let me [Heb., "my soul"] die the death of
the righteous." Hence it is inferred that the soul
is that which dies. 4. The soul is nowhere, as
distinct from the body, declared to be immortal or
imperishable. Hence, since the soul is sometimes
said to die, and is never said to be immortal, it
must be inferred that the current notion of a soul
surviving the death of the body is opposed to the
Bible. This, we think, is a fair, though succinct, state
ment of the essential features of the doctrine in
question, and of the arguments for it. Before
undertaking a direct criticism of it, we will first
examine the Bible itself with a view to deriving
from it the inspired doctrine concerning what is
variously called the soul, mind, spirit, — the higher
or immaterial part of man. Having taken a com
prehensive survey of the biblical representations
of the human spirit, we shall then be better able

MEANING OF NEPHESH (SOUL). 13
to pass judgment upon the doctrine above set
forth. In the present chapter we will confine our
selves to a consideration of the terminology of the
Old Testament.
There are three words that deserve special at
tention, — nephesh, n'shamah, and ruahh. As to
their radical meaning, they are essentially the
same, the words denoting primarily breath, or
wind. 1. The one most frequently used is nephesh : it
is used more than seven hundred times. Accord
ing to all lexicographers, the several meanings of
the word are (1) breath; (2) life, like the Latin
anima, originally breath, secondarily life ; (3) like
the Latin animus, the soul, especially as the seat of
the thoughts, emotions, and desires; (4) a living
being, especially a human being. For proof of
this analysis, we need only refer to the lexicons
most in use, and of recognized superior authority ;
viz., those of Gesenius and Fuerst. In the pri
mary sense the word is actually used in our Bible
only once ; viz. (Job xii. 21), "His breath kindleth
coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth." In
the second sense it is used very frequently, and is
then commonly rendered " life " in the English
version; e.g., Lev., xvii. 11, "The life of the flesh
is in the blood." 1 Kings xix. 4, " O Lord, take
away' my life." In many cases, when the word
has this meaning, it is rendered in our version by
"soul." Thus Job xxvii. 8, "What is the hope

14 OLD-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL.
of the hypocrite . . . when God taketh away his
soul?" In Lev. xvii. 11, above quoted, nephesh is
rendered in one clause by " life," and in another
by " soul : " " The life of the flesh is in the blood,
and I have given it to you upon the altar to make
an atonement for your souls."
The third sense is still more common. As cor
responding to the Latin animus, it most frequently
denotes the seat of desire, affection, and emotion ;
including, however, even the physical appetites.
Thus, in the more physical sense, Num. xxi. 5,
" Our soul loatheth this light bread." Deut. xii.
20, "When . . . thou shalt say, I will eat flesh,
because thy soul longeth for flesh, thou mayest eat
flesh, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after." More
commonly, however, it is used in the higher sense
of the sensibilities. E.g.: Gen. xiii. 21, "We saw
the anguish of his soul." Deut. vi. 5, " Thou shalt
love the Lord with all thine heart, and with all
thy soul." Judg. xvi. 16, "His soul was vexed
unto death." 1 Kings xi. 37, "According to all
that thy soul desireth." Job iii. 20, " Wherefore
is light given to him that is in misery, and life
unto the bitter in soul? " Job xxx. 25, " Was not
my soul grieved for the poor ? " Ps. xxxv. 9, " My
soul shall be joyful." Ps. xiii. 2, " My soul thirst-
eth for God." Ps. lvii. 1, " My soul trusteth in
thee." Ps. lxxxviii. 3, "My soul is full of
troubles." In this sense nephesh is sometimes
rendered in our Bible by " heart ; " as 1 Sam. ii.

MEANING OF NEPHESH (SOUL). 15
33, " To grieve thine heart ; " or by " mind," as
Deut. xviii. 6, " With all the desire of his mind ; "
or by " will," as Ps. xxvii. 12, " Deliver me not
over unto the will of mine enemies ; " or by " de
sire," as Mic. vii. 3, " He uttereth all his mischiev
ous desire; "or by "lust," as Exod. xv. 9, "My
lust shall be satisfied upon them ; " or by " appe
tite," as Prov. xxiii. 2, "If thou be a man given
to appetite;" or by "pleasure," as Jer. ii. 24,
" That snuffeth up the wind at her pleasure."
But nephesh is also used, though much less fre
quently, of the more strictly intellectual opera
tions. E.g. : Ps. xiii. 2, " How long shall I take
counsel in my soul?" Ps. cxxxix. 14, "That my
soul knoweth right well." Prov. xix. 2, "That
the soul be without knowledge it is not good."
Lam. iii. 20, " My soul hath them still in remem
brance." It is not difficult to see the connection between
the several meanings of this word. Breathing is
the most essential thing to the maintenance of
physical life. When the breath ceases to be
drawn, life comes to an end. It is natural, there
fore, that the impalpable, mysterious principle of
life should, in the infancy of language, be denoted
by the invisible element which is perceived to
be most essential to the preservation of life.
Again : the appetites, feelings, passions, and per
ceptions are manifestations of living beings. They
are closely connected with the physical nature as

16 OLD-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL.
vitalized. Thus we use the word "animated"
(properly meaning " endued with life ") to denote
a peculiar manifestation of feeling. So we speak
of one as of lively affections ; we speak of having
a living interest in a subject. The possession and
manifestation of passions and desires is so essen
tial a characteristic of living creatures, that it is
natural by one and the same word to designate
the life and that which is the sign of life.
We pass on now to notice the fourth meaning
of nephesh. From the meaning " life " the transi
tion to that of " living being " is easy enough.
In our own language " life " is seldom used in this
sense ; and yet we do sometimes so speak, as when
an infant is called " a young life," or when we
speak of land or water as " teeming with life."
In Hebrew nephesh is very often used in this
sense. Thus used it corresponds precisely to the
word animal, which means " possessed of anima,'"
— life. Our Bible commonly retains the word
" soul " as the rendering of nephesh in this sense,
but occasionally substitutes for it the term "per
son." We quote some examples : Gen. xlvi. 15,
" All the souls of his sons and his daughters were
thirty and three." Exod. i. 5, " All the souls that
came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls."
Lev. iv. 2, " If a soul shall sin through ignorance."
Lev. vii. 18, " The soul that eateth of it shall bear
his iniquity." Num. xv. 30, " The soul that doeth
aught presumptuously, . . . that soul shall be cut

MEANING OF NEPHESH (SOUL). 17
off from among his people." Josh. xx. 3, " The
slayer that killeth any person ... . may flee
thither." 1 Sam. xxii. 22, " I have occasioned the
death of all the persons of thy father's house."
In a few instances nephesh is used to denote
beasts. In this sense it is almost always con
nected with the adjective " living." E.g. : Gen.
i. 24, " And God said, Let the earth bring forth
the living creature after his kind." Similarly
Gen. ii. 19; ix. 10, 12, 15, 16. In Num. xxxi.
28 beasts and men are associated, and nephesh
(E. V., " soul ") used of both together.
In a few cases, also, nephesh is applied to the
body, even when lifeless. This seems very strange,
inasmuch as the word predominantly denotes life,
or living beings. Sometimes, when used of a
corpse, nephesh has joined to it the epithet " dead."
E.g. : Lev. xxi. 11, " Neither shall he [the high
priest] go in unto any dead body." So Num. vi. 6.
At other times nephesh is used alone in the same
sense. Thus Num. v. 2, " Command the children
of Israel that they put out of the camp every
leper, and every one that hath an issue, and who
soever is defiled by the dead " (literally, " defiled
in respect to a nephesh "). Similarly Num. vi. 11,
ix. 6, 7, 10 ; Hag. ii. 13.
It is to be noticed, however, with reference to
these latter instances, that the connection always
suggests that nephesh is used elliptically in the
sense of " dead nephesh" The passages have ref-

18 OLD-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL.
erence to ceremonial defilements which could be
contracted only by contact with a corpse. The
usage is similar to ours, according to which we
speak of medical men dissecting a body: it is
taken for granted that the body is dead. Or, to
take a still better illustration, it is as when we
speak of the stuffed animals of a museum. An
animal, strictly speaking, is a living thing; yet
we speak of a dead animal, and of the lifeless body
as the animal. Precisely so nephesh, meaning an
animal or a living person, was exceptionally used
of the form of the animal after the life was gone.
From the foregoing discussion it appears that
the central notion of nephesh is that of life, vitality ;
and that the bodily frame, as the vehicle of life, as
the animated thing, as the organ of the feelings
which betoken the presence of life, was prominent
in the mind when the nephesh was spoken of.
This word was, therefore, an appropriate one to de
note the whole man as a complex being, consisting
of body and soul. Accordingly, sometimes it is
appropriately rendered by " self." E.g. : Esth. ix.
31, " As they had decreed for themselves [marg.,
" their souls "] and for their seed." Prov. xiv.
10, " The heart knoweth his own bitterness " (lit
erally, "the bitterness of its soul"). So Jer.
xxxvii. 9, " Deceive not yourselves."
This substitution of the personal pronoun for
the word nephesh might be carried much farther.
In fact, in the great majority of instances, the

MEANING OF NEPHESH (SOUL). 19
phrases, "my soul," "his soul," &c, are nothing
more than periphrastic expressions for " I," " me,"
"he," "him," &c. ; and where it stands alone, as
we have seen, it might be translated "person" or
" man." Begin, e.g., with the Psalms, and make
the proposed substitution in every case, except in
those passages in which nephesh means "life," and
observe how almost uniformly the substitution
might be made without any real modification of
the sense. Ps. iii. 2, " Many there be which say
of my soul [of me], There is no help for him in
God ; " vi. 3, " My soul is [I am] also sore vexed ; "
vi. 4, " O Lord, deliver my soul [me] ; " vii. 2,
" Lest he tear my soul [me] like a lion ; " vii. 5,
" Let the enemy persecute my soul [me] ; " x. 3,
"The wicked boasteth of his heart's [his own]
desire;" xi. 1, "How say ye to my soul [me],
Flee as a bird? " xi. 5, "Him that loveth violence,
his soul -[he] hateth;" xiii. 2, "How long shall I
take counsel in my soul [in myself] ? " xvi. 10,
" Thou wilt not leave my soul [me] in hell ; " xvii.
9, where the English version reads " deadly ene
mies" (i.e., enemies against my soul), the exact
translation is doubtful, — we cannot, at any rate,
here substitute the pronoun ; xvii. 13, " Deliver my
' soul [me] ; " xix. 7, " The law of the Lord is per
fect, converting the soul," — here the true meaning
is, "restoring life;" xxii. 20, "Deliver my soul
[me] from the sword ; " xxii. 29, " And none can
keep alive his own soul [himself] ; " xxiii. 3, " He

20 OLD-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL.
restoreth my soul," — the same as xix. 7, properly
"restoreth my life;" xxiv. 4, "Who hath not
lifted up his soul [himself] unto vanity ; " xxv. 1,
" Unto thee, O Lord, do I lift up my soul [myself],"
¦ — though here the change is less easy; xxv. 13,
" His soul [he] shall dwell at ease." We might
keep on; but this is sufficient to illustrate the
point. The word nephesh became equivalent to our
word " self."
This signification of nephesh accounts for the
excessively frequent use of the word. The cor
responding word (psyche) in the New Testament
cannot generally, like nephesh, be replaced by the
personal pronoun. Hence it is used, not only ab
solutely, but relatively, vastly less often than
nephesh. It is in the light of this use of the word that we
are to judge those few passages in which the ne
phesh is spoken of as dying, or being killed. E.g. :
Num. xxxv. 30, " Whosoever killeth any nephesh "
(E. V., "person"). Judg. xvi. 30, "Let me
[Heb., "my soul"] die with the Philistines."
These expressions are no stranger than those above
quoted, in which the Hebrew has "my soul,"
where we should naturally only say " I." They
no more prove that the Old-Testament writers re
garded the soul as mortal than the same is proved
by the current language of all nations, according
to which men say, "J shall die," "Me is dead."
This is a universal mode of speech. These pro-

MEANING OF NEPHESH (SOUL). 21
nouns denote the person ; and yet the death is not
commonly understood to apply to the whole per
son in such a sense as it applies to the body. If
these few instances in which the nephesh is de
scribed as dying prove that what "we call " the soul "
is essentially mortal, it is equally easy to provo
from certain other passages that it is not mortal ¦
for we read in Gen. xxxv. 18, respecting Rachel's
death, "As her soul was in departing [literally,
was going out] (for she died)." The soul's going
out of the body is here made identical with dying.
In like manner, when Elijah raised to life the dead
son of the woman of Zarephath, he prayed (1
Kings xvii. 21, 22), " O Lord my God, I pray
thee, let this child's soul come into him again.
And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah ; and the
soul of the child came into him again [returned
into him], and he revived [lived]." The mate
rialistic doctrine that the soul is mortal cannot be
reconciled with these statements, according to the
literal tenor of them ; for here dying is occasioned
by the soul's going out of a man, and life is re
stored by its coming back. Is it a dead soul, which,
returning to a dead body, revives it ? If not, then
the nephesh is represented as having a separate ex
istence. Yet we lay no special stress on such lan
guage, since nephesh here may mean only life. But
it would be as fair to argue from this that the ne
phesh is immortal as to argue from the other pas
sages that it is mortal.

22 OLD-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL.
When now we consider the Hebrew word ne
phesh with reference to translation into English, it
is manifest that we have no exact equivalent. It
must be rendered variously, according to the vary
ing shades of meaning which it bears in the origi
nal. It is certain that our word " soul," though
the one most frequently used for it in our Bible, is
far from representing it. By " soul " at present is
ordinarily meant an immaterial and imperishable
part of man, distinct from the corporeal frame:
nephesh, on the contrary, though often verging on
this meaning, yet generally means either more or
less ; that is, it generally means either the sensi
bilities, or it means the whole person, inclusive of
what we call soul and body.
2. The next word to be considered is n'shamah.
This occurs much less frequently than nephesh, be
ing used in all only twenty-four times. N'shamah
is commonly rendered "breath," according to its
etymological sense, but with special reference to life.
E.g. : Gen. ii. 7, " The Lord God . . . breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life." So Isa. xiii.
5 ; 1 Kings xvii. 17. Sometimes, like nephesh, it
is used to denote living beings; as Deut. xx. 16,
" Thou shalt save alive nothing that breathe th "
(literally, "no breath"). So also Josh. x. 40;
xi. 11, 14. In Isa. lvii. 16 it is rendered " souls : "
"For the spirit should fail before me, and the
souls which I have made."
In none of the passages in which n'shamah de-

MEANING OF N'SHAMAH (SPIRIT). 23
notes a living being does it refer to brutes. The
passages above quoted are general in form, and
might be understood to include beasts as well as
men : but the context indicates that nothing but
men is referred to ; and in the parallel passage
(1 Kings xv. 29), " He left not to Jeroboam any that
breathed [any n'shamah']" it is certain that human
beings alone are meant. It is this fact — and not
the use of the phrase, " a living sold " — on which
any stress can be laid in the passage, Gen. ii. 7.
Brutes, also, are called "living souls;" but it is
nowhere said of brutes that God breathed into
them n'shamah, though in one case (Gen. vii. 22)
the phrase " n'shamah of the ruahh of life " is used
of men and brutes collectively.
Perhaps, therefore, no great stress ought in any
case to be laid on Gen. ii. 7 as proving a radical
distinction between men and brutes. But it is
important to notice some instances in which
n'shamah is used in a higher and more restricted
sense. Being the favorite term by which is ex
pressed that in man by which he is connected with
God as his Maker, it naturally came to be used of
that spirit by which man is allied to -God. Thus
Prov. xx. 27, " The spirit of man is the candle of
the Lord, searching all the inward parts of the
belly." So Job xxxii. 8, "But there is a spirit
\ruahh~\ in man, and the inspiration [n'shamaK] of
the Almighty giveth them understanding." Also
Job xxvi. 4, " To whom hast thou uttered words ?

24 OLD-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL.
and whose spirit [i.e., inspiration] came from
thee?" In these passages (especially the first)
n'shamah denotes the self-conscious, intelligent
principle ; and it is nowhere used, like nephesh,
of the animal passions and appetites.
3. Much more important, and more frequently
used, is the word ruahh, generally rendered
"spirit." It occurs about three hundred times,
and of these about seventy times of the Divine
Spirit. This word is used frequently in its pri
mary sense of " wind ; " as Gen. viii. 1, " God made
a wind to pass over the earth." Then, like nephesh
and n'shamah, it was also employed to denote life,
the vital principle. E.g. : Ps. civ. 29, "Thou takest
away their breath \ruahh~] ; they die, and return
to their dust." But in this sense ruahh occurs
very seldom. Perhaps this passage, and Gen. vi.
17, vii. 15, 22, Eccles. viii. 8, Job xii. 10, xxxiv.
14, 15, are all in which it can be so understood.
Some would include also Eccles. iii. 21, xii. 7.
But in all these passages it is to be noticed that
ruahh is used with special reference to a something
in man, the removal of which is followed by death,
and with special reference to the divine power as
that alone which gives and preserves it. Nowhere
is it used in such expressions as " fled for his life,"
" take his life." In fact it is never rendered by
"life," and never ought to be; but it is some
times used of the spirit in the lower sense of ani
mation, or feeling of life. Thus, after Samson had

MEANING OF RUAHH (SPIRIT). 25
grown faint through thirst, it is said of him (Judg.
xv. 19), that, " when he had drunk, his spirit came
again [his ruahh returned], and he revived"
(literally, "he lived"). So the same is said
(1 Sam. xxx. 12) of David after eating. It is a
somewhat different though analogous use of the
word when it is said of Jacob (Gen. xiv. 27),
" The spirit of Jacob their father revived." So of
the Queen of Sheba, after she saw the magnificence
of Solomon, it is said (1 Kings x. 5), " There
was no more spirit in her."
In one passage (Judg. viii. 3) ruahh is rendered
" anger." It is said of the Ephraimites, in refer
ence to Gideon, " Then their anger was abated
toward [their ruahh let go of] him." But this is
is an elliptical or pregnant expression.
In some relations ruahh and nephesh are closely
allied in meaning. Thus we read in Job iii. 20 of
the " bitter in soul " (nephesK), and, in Ps. cxliii. 4,
of a spirit " overwhelmed ; " in Lev. xxvi. 16,
" sorrow of heart " (nephesh) ; and 1 Sam. i. 15,
" a woman of a sorrowful spirit " (ruahh). That is
to say, ruahh is sometimes, like nephesh, used to
designate the seat of the emotions. Thus 1 Kings
xxi. 5, " Why is thy spirit so sad ? " Eccles. vii. 9,
"Be not hasty in thy spirit." So Gen. xxvi. 35;
Job vii. 11; Dan. ii. 1.
The predominant meaning of ruahh is almost
precisely what is denoted by our word " spirit."
It stands for the higher, divinely implanted organ

26 OLD-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL.
of thought and moral feeling. In the more strictly
intellectual sense it is used in Job xxxii. 8:
"There is a spirit in man, and the inspiration
[n'shamah] of the Almighty giveth them under
standing." Cf. ver. 18. So Job xx. 3, " The spirit
of my understanding causeth me to answer." Prov.
xxix. 11, "A fool uttereth all his mind [ruahh]."
But the more usual sense of ruahh is disposition, the
seat of moral or religious character. Thus Deut.
xxxiv. 9, " Joshua . . . was full of the spirit of
wisdom." Ps. xxxii. 2, " Blessed is the man . . .
in whose spirit there is no guile." Ps. li. 10,
"Renew a right spirit within me." Prov. xvi. 2,
"All the ways of a man are clean in his own
eyes ; but the Lord weigheth the spirits." Isa.
xxix. 24, " They also that erred in spirit shall come
to understanding." Isa. lxvi. 2, " To this man
will I look, even to him that is poor and of a con
trite spirit, and trembleth at my word." Ezek.
xviii. 31, "Make you a new heart and a new
spirit." Mal. ii. 16, " Take heed to your spirit,
that ye deal not treacherously." So we read of
the " patient in spirit " and the " proud in spirit "
(Eccles. vii. 8), of a "humble spirit" (Prov. xvi.
19), of a "faithful 'spirit" (Prov. xi. 13), of a
" haughty spirit " (Prov. xvi. 18), of a " steadfast
spirit" (Ps. lxxviii. 8), a "spirit of jealousy"
(Num. v. 14), a "willing [E. V., free] spirit"
(Ps. li. 12).
If now we compare nephesh with ruahh, we ob
serve the following things : —

RUAHH AND NEPHESH COMPARED. 27
a. Both nephesh and ruahh are used to denote
the principle of animal life ; but nephesh in this
sense is much the most frequent. ,
b. Both "words are used to denote the seat of
emotion or passion ; but in this sense nephesh is
the most often used.
c. Both words are used to denote the seat of
moral character or disposition; but in this sense
ruahh is much the most frequently used. We
often read, it is true, such expressions as " if a
soul sin " (Lev. v. 1) ; but here " soul " is equiv
alent to " person," and we cannot use the passage
as showing that the soul, as distinct from the spirit
or heart or any other part of man, is that which
sins. Perhaps Mic. vi. 7 is the only passage in
which such a phrase as " the sin of my soul "
occurs. d. Both words are used in descriptions of men
and of God : but, while nephesh is used hundreds
of times of the human soul, it is only a very few
times used of God, and then as an equivalent of
" self ; " whereas ruahh is the distinctive term for
the Spirit of God.
e. Nephesh often denotes the man as a whole,
and consequently is sometimes spoken of as mor
tal : ruahh is not so used, and is never said to die
or perish.
Besides these three words, there are some others
used in a similar sense, but originally used to de
note certain bodily organs.

28 OLD-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL.
4. The most important of these is leb (or lebab),
commonly translated " heart." In its literal sense
it is used, so far as we know, in only three in
stances, — 2 Sam. xviii. 14 ; 2 Kings ix. 24 ; Ps. xiv.
5. It occurs about eight hundred times. It is
very comprehensive in meaning, covering all acts
and states of the inner man. Thus it stands for
the will, as the seat of purpose and moral character,
and so is used like ruahh. E.g.: Ps. li. 10, "Create
in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit
within me." Ezek. xxxvi. 26, "A new' heart also
will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within
you." In this sense the word is used in Eccles.
viii. 11, " The heart of the sons of men is fully set
in them to do evil." So Eccles. ix. 3. Isa. x. 7,
" It is in his heart to destroy and cut off nations."
So we read of the " upright in heart " (Ps. vii. 10,
xxxii. 11,- xxxvi. 10), of " a rebellious heart " (Jer.
v. 23), of a " wicked heart " (Deut. xv. 9), of a
"perfect heart" (2 Kings xx. 3), of "pride of
heart" (2 Chron. xxxii. 26).
Still more often, perhaps, the " heart " is spoken
of, like nephesh, as the seat of the emotions, both
the higher and the lower. Thus Job xxix. 13, " I
caused the widow's heart to sing for joy." Ps.
xvi. 9, " Therefore my heart is glad." Judg. xvi.
25, " Their hearts were merry." Neh. ii. 2, " Sor
row of heart." Lam. i. 22, " My heart is faint."
The heart " loves " (Deut. vi. 5), " hates " (Lev.
xix. 17). In a few cases the word has reference

MEANING OF LEB (HEART). 29
to the feeling of physical strength : as Gen. xviii.
5, " Comfort [strengthen] ye your hearts [with
bread] ; " and Judg. xix. 5, " Comfort [strengthen]
thine heart with a morsel of bread."
The " heart " is, in the Old Testament, the only
word which corresponds to our word " conscience."
Thus it is said of David (1 Sam. xxiv. 5), "David's
heart smote him because • he had cut off Saul's
skirt ; " and 2 Sam. xxiv. 10, " David's heart smote
him after that he had numbered the people."
Very frequently also the "heart" corresponds
to what we call the mind, or intellect. E.g. : Judg.
v. 15, " There were great thoughts of heart." * 1
Sam. i. 13, " Now Hannah, she spake in her heart."
1 Sam. xxvii. 1, " David said in his heart ; " i.e.,
he thought. In fact, this is the specific way of ex
pressing the meaning of our word " think." See,
e.g., Gen. xxvii. 41 ; Ps. liii. 1, lxxiv. 8. In the
phrase, " Set the heart upon," the word means
" mind." Thus Job xxxiv. 14, 15, " If he set his
heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit
and his breath, all flesh shall perish together." The
meaning is, "If he turn Ms attention to man."
In Job i. 8 the same phrase is rendered " consider "
in our Bible : " Hast thou considered my servant
Job ? " It might well be also in Exod. vii. 23,
ix. 21 ; Job vii. 17. It is the heart which "medi
tates " (Ps. xix. 14, xlix. 3), which " devises "
(1 Kings xii. 33), which " understands " (Isa. vi.
10), which " knows " (Eccles. vii. 22, 25, viii. 5),

30 OLD-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL.
which "consults" (Neh. v. 7). Several times leb
(or lebab) is even translated by our word " under
standing:" viz., Job xii. 3, xxxiv. 10, 34; Prov.
vi. 32, vii. 7, ix. 4, 16, x. 13, xii. 11, xv. 32, xvii.
18, xxiv. 30; Jer. v. 21. We read often of an
" understanding heart " (1 Kings iii. 9 ; Prov. viii.
5, ii. 2), or of a heart of " wisdom " (Prov. xi.
29; Ps. xc. 12; Prov. xxiii. 15 ; Eccles. viii. 16).
And so when " wisdom " is used in the lower
sense of " skill ; " as Exod. xxviii. 3, xxxv. 10, 25,
xxxvi. 1, 2.- In a few cases leb is translated " wis
dom ; " as Prov. x. 21, xix. 8.
From the foregoing it is obvious' that the word
" heart," in the Old Testament, is by no means the
equivalent of " heart " as commonly used by us.
Sometimes it corresponds to our word ; very often
it does not. It embraces in its use the whole
range of mental, moral, and emotional activities
of man. While nephesh ("soul") is most promi
nently used of the emotional nature, and ruahh
("spirit") of the moral nature, leb ("heart")
more than either of the others is used of the more
strictly intellectual operations.
There are a few other words, primarily the
names of bodily organs, which are occasionally
employed to denote the organ of mental or moral
activities. 5. The word rahamim — a plural form, the sin
gular of which means " womb " — has in the plural
form the more general sense of "bowels," but is

OTHER PSYCHOLOGICAL TERMS. 31
always used in the tropical sense of "compassion."
The literal sense appears perhaps, to some extent,
in such passages as Gen. xliii. 30 and 1 Kings iii.
26, where our Bible has the phrase "his (her)
bowels yearned." More often, however, the word
is rendered "mercy" (Isa. xlvii. 6), "mercies"
(Jer. xvi. 5), " tender mercies " (Ps. xl. 11, ciii. 4),
or " compassion " (1 Kings viii. 50), or " compas
sions " (Lam. iii. 22), and has exclusive reference
to the emotion indicated by these words.
6. Another word, also meaning "bowels," or
" inward parts," and commonly rendered "bowels,"
is me'im. This, however, is most frequently used
in the physical sense : as in 2 Chron. xxi. 19, " His
bowels fell out by reason of his sickness ; " or Ps.
lxxi. 6, " Thou art he that took me out of my moth
er's bowels." Sometimes, however, it is used tropi
cally : as Jer. xxxi. 20, " My bowels are troubled
for him : I will surely have mercy upon him."
Once, however, it denotes, not a feeling of com
passion, but the inner man more generally as the
seat of the rehgious apprehensions and affections ;
viz., Ps. xl. 8, "Thy law is within my heart"
(marg., "in the midst of my bowels ").
7. Another word to be here noticed is k'layoth,
meaning "kidneys." This is often found in the
literal sense: as Exod. xxix. 13; Lev. iii. 4, 10, 15;
"Isa. xxxiv. 6, &c. It is used figuratively in Deut.
-xxxii. 14, " The fat of the kidneys of wheat ; " i.e.,
the kidney-fat of wheat, — the richest wheat. Fre-

32 OLD-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL
quently, however, like " heart," it is represented as
the organ of thought or feeling, and is then, in our
Bible, translated " reins." E.g. : Ps.* vii. 9, " God
trieth the heart and reins." So Ps. xxvi. 2 ; Jer.
xi. 20, xvii. 10. Prov. xxiii. 16, " My reins shall re
joice." Ps. lxxiii. 21, " My heart was grieved, and
I was pricked in my reins." Ps. xvi. 7, " My reins
also instruct [admonish] me in the night-season."
8. The word beten, commonly meaning, and com
monly rendered, either " womb " or "belly," is a few
times used figuratively for the mind or the heart.
Thus Job xv. 35, " Then* belly prepareth deceit."
So Prov. xxii. 18 ; xx. 27, 30 ; xviii. 8 ; xxvi. 22.
In conclusion, we remark, that, while no sharp
distinction between these various terms is uni
formly preserved, yet nephesh, n'shamah, and ruahh
may be said to denote the spirit of man as an
entity ; the other words, the spirit as a faculty.
The former (never the latter) are all used to
denote the vital principle by which lifeless dust
is made into living beings, but denote further the
higher principle (peculiar to man), which we call
the rational soul : more particularly, n'shamah
denotes the spirit abstractly, as the rational part
of man which allies him with God; ruahh, the
spirit or mind concretely, as the seat of thought
and character in manifestation ; nephesh, more com
prehensively the person, inclusive of physical as
well as spiritual affections. Leb, &c, correspond
rather to our words consciousness, will, &c.

MEANING OF PSYCHE (SOUL). 33

CHAPTER III.
THE NEW-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF MAN'S SPIR
ITUAL NATURE.
LET us now turn to the New Testament, and
examine its language in this relation. We
find a general correspondence between the two
Testaments. Following the same order as before,
we notice, —
1. The word corresponding to the Hebrew ne
phesh ; viz., psyche. It is most frequently rendered
"soul," but not much less frequently "life;" once
(Eph. vi. 6) " heart ; " once, with a preposition,
" heartily " (Col. iii. 23) ; and three times (Acts
xiv. 2, Phil. i. 27, Heb. xii. 3) " mind." It occurs
about one hundred times.
Its primary sense, like that of nephesh, is
" breath ; " but it is nowhere found in the New
Testament in this sense.
Next it denotes the principle of physical life.
E.g. : Acts xx. 10, Paul says of Eutychus, " His
life is in him." Rev. xii. 11, "They loved not
their lives unto the death." John x. 11, "The
good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep."

34 NEW- TESTAMENT DOCTEINE OF THE SOUL.
Rom. xvi. 4, " Who have for my life laid down
their own necks." Matt. ii. 20, " They are dead
which sought the young child's life." Matt. vi.
25, " Take no thought for your life, what ye shall
eat, or what ye shall drink."
Then, like nephesh, it denotes the soul, or the
seat of the affections (more exactly represented by
our word "heart"). E.g. : John xii. 27, "Now is
my soul troubled." Matt. xxvi. 38, " My soul is
exceeding sorrowful." Luke xii. 19, " Soul, . . .
take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry." Heb.
xii. 3, "Lest ye be wearied and faint in your
minds." Matt. xxii. 37, "Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God . . . with all thy soul." Some
times it denotes the whole of the higher part of
man : as when it is said of the elders of the church
(Heb. xiii. 17), " They watch for your souls ; " or
(Jas. i. 21), "Receive with meekness the engrafted
word, which is able to save your souls."
Then again, like nephesh, it sometimes denotes
a living being. Rev. xvi. 3, " Every living soul
died in the sea." Here it is used of the lower
animals. Generally, however, only of men : as
Acts ii. 43, " Fear came upon every soul ; " vii. 14,
"All his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls."
1 Pet. iii. .20, " Eight souls were saved by water."
But it is never, like nephesh, used of a dead body.
2. The most important and most frequently em
ployed .word in this relation is pneuma, commonly
translated " spirit." It occurs, in all, about three

MEANING OF PNEUMA (SPIEIT). 35
hundred and seventy-five times. In a considera
ble majority of these cases (about two hundred
and thirty) it has reference to the Spirit of God,
or the Holy Spirit. In about forty cases it is used
of demons, evil " spirits." In a few cases (five
or ten, not to decide on certain doubtful passages)
it denotes a spirit, neither specifically divine nor
human nor demoniacal. There remain, therefore,
about one hundred instances in which it has refer
ence to human beings.
The primary sense of pneuma, as of the Hebrew
word ruahh and our word "spirit," is "breath,"
or " wind." In one passage (John iii. 8) it retains
its original meaning, and is rendered " wind " in
our version. In 2 Thess. ii. 8 it seems properly
to mean "breath," though rendered " spirit."
Pneuma next was used to denote the principle
of life. In one passage (Rev. xiii. 15) it is so
rendered in our Bible ; and in some others it has
reference to the vital principle, though rendered
"spirit" in our Bible.. E.g.: Luke viii. 55, it is
said of the ruler's daughter, when raised from the
dead, " Her spirit came again." Similarly the word
is used in Rev. xi. 11 and Jas. ii. 26. So in the
phrase, " give up the ghost," in such passages as
John xix. 30 ; Matt, xxvii. 50. These, with per
haps one or two others, are, however, the only
instances of this sense of the word in the New
Testament. Ordinarily pneuma is used, as ruahh is in the

36 NEW-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL.
Old Testament, to denote the seat or organ of the
mental, and especially the moral and religious,
activities of man. A most emphatic and impor
tant passage is 1 Cor. ii. 11 : " What man knoweth
the things of a man, save the spirit of man which
is in him ? " There could not well be a clearer
statement of the proposition that the spirit is the
organ of self-consciousness. A similar sense be
longs to the word in Rom. viii. 16 : " The Spirit
itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are
the children of God." The organ by which we
apprehend the Divine Spirit's testimony concerning
our state is our spirit. So the spirit is that which
purposes (Acts xix. 21) and perceives (Mark ii. 8).
The same general sense belongs to the word
where we read of the spirit as contrasted , with
the body. E.g. : 1 Cor. v. 3, " For I verily, as ab
sent in body, but present in spirit, have judged
already." All the powers of the mind, the
thoughts, the apprehension of the circumstances
and relations of the Corinthian church, the faculty
of judging, — all this was designated by the term
"spirit," and by this as something distinct from
the body. The same conception lies in the word
in the next verse. So 1 Cor. vii. 34, "That she
may be holy both in body and in spirit." Matt.
xxvi. 41, "The spirit indeed is willing, but the
flesh is weak." Cf. Mark xiv. 38 ; Luke i. 80, ii.
40 ; 2 Cor. vii. 1 ; Col. ii. 5. This same contrast
of the spirit with the body, or flesh, is involved in

MEANING OF PNEUMA (SPIEIT). 37
those passages in which the word " flesh " is used
in a pregnant sense to denote sinfulness, or sinful
tendencies. E.g. : Gal. v. 17, " For the flesh lust-
eth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the
flesh." Rom. viii. 9, " But ye are not in the flesh,
but in the Spirit." Such a tropical use of the word
implies, that, in the more literal sense of the two
words, there must also have been a distinction
and contrast.
Sometimes the pneuma is spoken of as the seat
of emotion. E.g. : John xi. 33, " Jesus . . . groaned
in the spirit ; " xiii. 21, " He was troubled in spirit."
Similarly Mark viii. 12 ; Acts xvii. 16 ; Luke i. 47,
x. 21.
More commonly, however, when used of men,
pneuma denotes the seat of moral, and especially
rehgious, character. E.g. : Luke ix. 55, " Ye know
not what manner of spirit ye are of." Rom. i. 9,
" God is my witness, whom I serve with [in] my
spirit." 1 Cor. xiv. 14, " My spirit prayeth." Acts
xviii. 25, Rom. xii. 11, "Fervent in the spirit."
John iv. 24, " They that worship him must worship
him in spirit." 1 Cor. iv. 21, Gal. vi. 1, " The spirit
of meekness." 1 Cor. vi. 20, " Glorify God in your
body, and in your spirit." 2 Cor. iv. 13, "We
having the same spirit of faith;" vii. 13, "His
spirit was refreshed ; " xii. 18, " Walked we not in
the same spirit ? " Gal. vi. 18, " The grace of our
Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit." Cf. 2
Tim. iv. 22. Eph. iv. 23, "Be renewed in the

38 NEW-TESTAMENT DOCTEINE OF THE SOUL.
spirit of your mind." 1 Pet. iii. 4, " A meek and
quiet spirit." Heb. xii. 23, " The spirits of just
men made perfect."
In this connection we may notice how the human
and the divine spirit are so blended, that often it is
difficult to decide whether the one or the other is
meant. In fact, perhaps we may say that some
times, in a certain sense, both are meant in a single
use of the word. The higher religious life of man
is represented as produced by the influence of the
Holy Spirit. The Spirit of God becomes an inmate
of the human spirit. Thus Rom. viii. 11, "If
the Spirit of him that raised "up Jesus from the
dead dwell in you ; " viii. 14, " As many as are
led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of
God." 1 Cor. ii. 12, " We have received, not the
spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of
God ; " iii. 16, " Know ye not that ye are the tem
ple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in
you?" Consequently, in such passages as Rom.
viii. 4, " Who walk not after the flesh, but after
the Spirit," commentators differ as to whether the
human or the divine spirit is meant. So Gal. v. 16,
25, "Walk in the Spirit." Eph. iv. 3, "Endeavor
ing to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of
peace." There is here no sharp distinction main
tained between the Spirit that produces the new
life and the new spiritual life that is produced.
It is from this conception of the regenerate life,
as produced by the Spirit of God, that the adjective

PSYCHE AND PNEUMA COMPAEED. 39
"spiritual" (pneumatikos) comes to be used to
characterize the renewed man. E.g. : 1 Cor. iii.
1, " I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto
spiritual, but as unto carnal." Gal. vi. 1, " If a
man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual
restore such an one." So 1 Cor. ii. 15, xiv. 37.
These, however, are the only passages in which
the adjective is directly applied to persons. Else
where it is used of things ; as, " gift " (Rom. i. 11),
"drink" (1 Cor. x. 4), "body" (1 Cor. xv. 44),
" songs " (Eph. v. 19), &c.
Before speaking of other terms by which the
incorporeal part of man is designated in the New
Testament, it may be well here to compare more
particularly the " soul " and the " spirit," with a
view to determine whether, and how far, they are
distinguished. a. In reference to both words, we must remember
that they have a lower and a higher sense. Both
psyche and pneuma are used to denote vitality, the
principle of animal hfe. So psyche is used, e.g., in
Rev. viii. 9 ; Acts xx. 10, xxvii. 10. So pneuma
in Matt, xxvii. 50 ; Luke viii. 55 ; Jas. ii. 26. But
they are both used in a very different and higher
sense. Thus the psyche is that which is the organ
of emotion and the seat of character. Acts xiv. 2,
"The unbelieving Jews . . . made their minds
(Gr., psychas) evil affected against the brethren."
Rom. ii. 9, " Every soul of man that doeth evil."
So pneuma : Acts xvii. 16, " His spirit was stirred

40 NEW-TESTAMENT DOCTEINE OF THE SOUL.
within him." Acts xix. 21, "Paul purposed in
the spirit."
b. Both words are sometimes used to designate
man as a whole in the sense of " person." Thus
psyche : Acts ii. 41, " There were added unto them
about three thousand souls." So Acts vii. 14, xxvii.
37; Rom. xiii. 1. Likewise pneuma: 1 John iv.
1- 3, " Believe not every spirit. . . . Every spirit
that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in
the flesh is not of God." This, however, is the
only case : and here there is a reference to the
spirit of man as inspired to prophesy ; so that, per
haps, it cannot properly be adduced at all. Ruahh,
it will be remembered, is not used in this way;
though nephesh is so used very largely.
c. Both words are used to denote that in man
which is chstinguished from the body. Thus psyche :
Matt. x. 28, " Fear not them which kill the body,
but are not able to kill the soul." So pneuma: 1
Cor. v. 3, " As absent in body, but present hi spirit."
In this sense pneuma is much the most frequently
used. d. Both words are used to designate that which
constitutes the man after the death of the body.
Thus psyche : Rev. vi. 9, " I saw under the altar
the souls of them that were slain for the word of
God." So xx. 4. Likewise pneuma : Heb. xii. 23,
" The spirits of just men made perfect." 1 Pet.
hi. 19, " He went and preached unto the spirits in
prison." Whatever may be the correct interpreta-

PSYCHE AND PNEUMA COMPARED. 41
tion of this difficult passage, there can be little
doubt that the phrase " spirits in prison " denotes
those who, after death, are imprisoned in Hades.
e. Both words are used to denote that in man
which needs to be, and is, renewed by the gospel.
Thus psyche : 1 Pet. i. 22, " Seeing ye have purified
your souls in obeying the truth." The soul, like
wise, is said to be liable to be " subverted " (Acts
xv. 24) and "beguiled" (2 Pet. ii. 14). So the
pneuma is spoken of: 2 Cor. vii. 1, "Let us cleanse
ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit."
Eph. iv. 23, " Be renewed in the spirit of your
mind." The opinion advocated by many (e.g., by Weiss,
"Biblische Theologie des N. T.," p. 247), that the
pneuma does not belong to the natural man at
all, but only to the regenerate, though not without
plausibility, can hardly be substantiated. The
passages just quoted speak of the spirit as capable
of being defiled, and as in need of being cleansed.
If the spirit were something belonging to men only
as regenerate, then such language could hardly be
used. Even though the regenerate man might be
spoken of as still affected by evil passions, and in
need of more perfect purification, yet the spirit —
if by that is meant simply what comes to a man
by virtue of regeneration — would not be so de
scribed. Moreover, such passages as 1 Cor. ii. 11,
1 Cor. v. 3, in which the pneuma is described as
the organ of intelligence and self-consciousness,

42 NEW-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL.
and all passages in which the pneuma is represented
as the seat of emotion and of moral disposition (as
Matt. v. 3, xxvi. 41 ; Acts xviii. 5 ; 1 Pet. iii. 4),
show conclusively that it is something which, as a
faculty, belongs to man's constitution. Indeed, it
is almost inconceivable that what the spirit is rep
resented as being in the renewed man can be sup
posed to be an outright addition to man's natural
faculties. Regeneration is not the creation or su
pernatural impartation of new powers : it - is a
change in the direction and use of the powers
already ours. If we cannot be converted without
receiving a new mental outfit, then we can hardly
be Warned for being wicked. It is the perversion,
not the non-possession, of a spiritual nature, that
sinners are to blame for.
/. Both words are used to denote that which is
saved from death through faith in Christ. Thus
psyche: Jas. v. 20, "He which converteth the
sinner . . . shall save a soul from death." 1 Pet.
i. 9, " Receiving the end of your faith, even the
salvation of 'your souls." So Matt. xvi. 25 ; John
xii. 25. Likewise pneuma : 1 Cor. v. 5, " To de
liver such an one under Satan for the destruction
of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the
clay of the Lord Jesus."
The foregoing comparison of psyche and pneuma
may seem to indicate that the two words are exact
synonymes. And it certainly must be insisted that
the biblical usage does not warrant the sharp dis-

ME. HEAED'S TRICHOTOMY. 43
tinction which is often made between the soul and
the spirit. When, e.g., it is said, that, according
to the Bible, the soul is that which man has in
common with the brute, — viz., an animal nature,
involving passions, desires, and more or less of in
tellect, — while the spirit is that by which man is
distinguished from the brute, being the seat of
conscience and of the knowledge of God (as, e.g.,
in Dr. Mark Hopkins's book, " Strength and
Beauty "), we must reply, that this distinction is
wholly without biblical foundation. Nowhere is a
beast said to have a psyche, still less a psyche con
ceived as the organ of desire and intelligence :
while the psyche of man is described as the very seat
of religious character ; e.g., Eph. vi. 6, " DoiDg the
will of God from the heart [psyche]." And nowhere
is it so used as to refer especially to the intellect.
Mr. Heard, in his book on the " Tripartite Na
ture of Man," adduces a few passages, which, to his
mind, are absolutely conclusive as to this distinc
tion between soul and spirit. Let us examine them.
The first is 1 Thess. v. 23 : "I pray God your
whole sphit and soul and body may be preserved
blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ." This, he says (p. 74), " teaches us that
there are three parts in man, and not two only;
thus setting at rest the controversy whether the
dichotomist or trichotomist view of human nature
be that of Scripture." But, to say nothing of the
circumstance that this is the only passage in which

44 NEW-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL.
this combination of words occurs, the mere fact
that these three parts are mentioned, though it
does follow a prayer that the Thessalonians may
be "wholly" sanctified, does not by any means
prove that such a distinction is taught as Mr.
Heard assumes. It might almost equally well be
proved from Matt. xxii. 37 that the religious nature
of man consists of three distinct parts, — the heart,
the soul, and the mind, — because Christ says,
" Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."
Such language is nothing but an accumulation of
various words, which may or may not be some
what synonymous, for the sake of emphasis and
fulness. Just so the Psalmist says (lxxxiv. 2),
" My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth, for the courts
of the Lord ; my heart and my flesh crieth out for
the living God." Would it be reasonable for a
trichotomist to argue from this that the Bible
makes man's nature tripartite, consisting of flesh,
heart, and soul ?
The next passage is Heb. iv. 12 : " The word of
God is quick [living] and powerful, and sharper
than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the di
viding asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints
and marrow." But this does not mean, and does
not say, that the soul is separated from the spirit.
Mr. Heard says, however, that it does mean that
the word of God separates between them; but it
does not say even that. It simply says that the

MR. HEARD'S TRICHOTOMY. 45
word of God divides both soul and spirit. As a
sword may be conceived as piercing even into the
joints and marrow of the body, so the word of
God penetrates into the very inmost part of man.
This statement is immediately followed by another :
" And is a discerner of the thoughts and intents
of the heart." If, because we read of " soul and
spirit " in the preceding clause, we are to assume
that they form two of the essential and distinguish
able parts of man, then the "heart" here men
tioned ought to be regarded as another such part.
The case here is precisely as in 1 Thess. v. 23 :
different words denoting the seat of the mental
and rehgious activities are heaped together for the
sake of emphasis.
The other passages adduced as decisive of a dis
tinction between the soul and the spirit are those
in which the adjectives psychikos and pneumatikos
are used. The first is found six times : it is ren
dered four times " natural," and twice " sensual."
The first case is 1 Cor. ii. 14 : " The natural man
receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God;
. . . neither can he know them, because they are
spiritually discerned." And in ver. 15 it is added,
" But he that is spiritual judgeth all things." Here
undoubtedly there is a contrast, and not mere jux
taposition; and the spiritual is made decidedly
superior to the psychical. But the very fact that
this distinction is clearly found only in the adjec
tives weakens much the force of the argument.

46 NEW-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL.
Our own language illustrates this point. By a
spiritual man we mean a man of peculiarly high
religious character ; but a man of spirit is a very
different character. A spiritual man is not a
psychical man; but surely a spiritual man still
has a psyche. The same contrast is found in
1 Cor. xv. 44, 46, in reference to the " natural "
and " spiritual " body. In Jas. iii. 15 we read
of the wisdom which is " earthly, sensual [psychi
cal], devilish;" and, in Jude 19, of men "who
separate themselves, sensual [psychical], having
not the Spirit."
But, even if it were true that the New-Testa
ment writers were trichotomists, we should still
have to decide the question, what these three words
denote in biblical use. Mr. Heard says that " body "
denotes " sense-consciousness ; " " soul," " self-con
sciousness;" and "spirit," " God- consciousness"
(p. 351, et passim). He makes "soul" cover the
intellectual nature of man in general. These dis
tinctions are certainly arbitrary. Biblical usage
furnishes no warrant for them. It is remarkable
that "soul" (nephesh, psyche), when not denoting
the person in general, predominantly designates
the emotions or sensibilities ; whereas the intellect is
represented rather by " heart " (leb, kardia), or, in
the New Testament, by " mind," " understanding "
(nous). In general, "soul" comes much nearer
what Mr. Heard seems to mean by " sense-con
sciousness " than the word " body " does. More-

MR. HEARD VERSUS PAUL. 47
over, no clearer definition of the faculty of self-
consciousness could be given than Paul gives in
1 Cor. h. 11 ; yet here, according to him, it is the
spirit, not the soul, that " knoweth the things of a
man." The manner in which Mr. Heard refers to
this passage (p. 70) is significant. After quoting
it, he says, " ' But God,' he [Paul] adds, ' has re
vealed them to us by his Spirit.' " This statement
of Paul's, however, is not added to, it precedes,
ver. 11, where Paul speaks of " the things of a
man." Mr. Heard thus makes the passage illus
trate his statement, that the pneumatieal. "knows
itself because it knows God," while the psychical
"knows neither itself nor God," by making the
impression that " them " in ver. 10 refers to " the
things of a man " in ver. 11 ! This is amazing.
The things which God is said in yer. 10 to have
revealed to us by his Sphit are described in ver.
9 as the "things which God hath prepared for
them that love him." This is repeated in ver. 12,
where we read that "we have received . . . the
Sphit which is of God, that we might know the
things that are freely given to us of G-od;" and in
ver. 14, where it is said that what the natural man
cannot receive is " the things of the Spirit of God."
Nowhere does Paul say that the natural man does
not know himself; while ver. 11 affirms just the
contrary, — that the spirit of man which is in him
does know the things of a man. (See note at the
end of the chapter).

48 NEW-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL.
The case is simply this: Both pneuma and
psyche are sometimes used in their more original
sense of animal life ; but psyche is much the most
often so used. Accordingly, the adjective psychi-
kos, corresponding precisely in meaning to the
Latin animalis (English, "animal"), came to be
used by the New-Testament writers with special
reference to this lower sense of the noun ; whereas
pneumatikos (" spiritual ") was more specifically
used in reference to the higher sense of the noun :
yet even this higher sense it has only in so far as
the human spirit is conceived as having been re
generated by the Spirit of God.
But does not the fact that so sharp a distinction
lies in the adjectives show that there is at least
some distinction in the nouns? Undoubtedly.
What that difference is will appear from three
more points of comparison.
g. Psyche is used rather with reference to man
as a whole, — the natural, the animal man, inclu
sive of the body; while pneuma is used more es
pecially of that in man which is distinct from the
body. Matt. x. 28 is the only passage in which
the body and soul (psyche) are sharply contrasted.
But the spirit is contrasted with the body or flesh
in Matt. xxvi. 41 ; Mark xiv. 38 ; Luke xxiv. 39 ;
John iii. 6; 1 Cor. v. 3, vi. 20, vh. 34; Eph. iv. 4;
Col. ii. 5 : not to mention some other passages, in
which both " flesh " and " spirit," while contrasted,
are used in a pregnant sense. In one passage the

PSYCHE AND PNEUMA COMPARED. 49
no 'ins psyche and pneuma are contrasted: viz., 1
Cor. xv. 45, " The first Adam was made a living
soul : the last Adam was made a quickening [life-
giving] spirit." The context speaks of the natural
(psychical, animal) body as contrasted with the
spiritual body, the resurrection-body. Psyche here
then, as- is seen also in Gen. ii. 7, which is here
quoted, denotes the natural man as a whole, pos
sessed of this perishable body; while pneuma is
used of Christ as possessing and imparting a
higher imperishable life. Such an expression as
" Though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with
you in the spirit" (Col. ii. 5), could hardly be
used with " soul " substituted for " spirit."
h. It is only another form of the foregoing dis
tinction when we observe that pneuma is used
especially of God and angelic beings ; psyche being
never so used, with one exception (Heb. x. 38),
in which an Old-Testament passage (Hab. ii. 4)
is quoted according to the Septuagint version,
and in which " soul " is nothing but another word
for " self," " my soul " being equivalent to " I."
God is declared to be "Spirit" by our Saviour
(John iv. 24) ; and we read of the Spirit of God
more than two hundred times. Angels also are
called "spirits" by way of distinction (Heb. i.
14). Disembodied beings, or ghosts, are so named
(Luke xxiv. 37, 39; Acts xxiii. 8, 9). Moreover,
demons are none the less called " spirits," evi
dently not because they are especially " spiritual "

50 NEW-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL.
as being holy, but because they have no fleshly
bodies. i. In short, psyche is more comprehensive than
pneuma. The psyche is the person, composed of
sphit and body. Accordingly, it is sometimes
employed, like pneuma, to designate the seat of
religious character : at other times it denotes the
passions that have a physical basis. Just as in our
own- language we use the word "person," or the
personal pronouns, variously, sometimes referring
to the spiritual part, at other times to the physical,
so it is with the New-Testament psyche. But
pneuma is used in a more restricted sense, being
applied only to the intellectual and ethical part of
human nature.
From all this it is obvious that the pneuma is
not, as such, any more holy than the psyche. The
"spiritual" man, who is contrasted with the
" natural " (psychical) man in 1 Cor. ii. 14, 15, is
so called expressly because he has " received, not
the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of
God" (ver. 12). There are bad spirits as well as
good spirits. A man is spiritual, in the sense of
being sanctified, not because he has a sphit, but
because he has God's Spirit in him. Because the
natural man is characterized by a corporeal
(fleshly) nature, and is also characterized by
sinful tendencies and habits, the " flesh," though
not inherently sinful, or the seat of sin (cf. John
i. 14, Rom. i. 3, where Christ is spoken of as made

PSYCHE AND PNEUMA COMPAEED. 51
flesh, and Phil. i. 22, where living " in the flesh "
means merely this earthly life), came to be used,
especially by Paul, as a summary designation of
sinful propensities. God being a Sphit, and also
holy (not holy because a Sphit), those who received
God's Spirit were called spiritual in the sense of
having received God's Sphit. Hence we have the
antithesis of " spiritual " and " carnal " (fleshly) ;
but the very fact that generally Paul uses " car
nal," not " animal " (psychikos), as antithetic to
" spiritual," is an indication that in his mind the
soul (psyche) was not so distinguished from the
spirit (pneuma) that the latter stands for a re
hgious disposition, and the former for a sinful one.
In the two instances (1 Cor. ii. 14, 15 ; Jude 19)
in which they are so contrasted, the adjective
(psychikos) is used; and, as we have seen, the
'spiritual man is so called as having received the
Spirit of God.
The higher (intelligent, moral) part of man's
nature is, therefore, called spirit, as being allied to
God, who is Spirit. Man was created in the image
of God (Gen. i. 27) : but the resemblance was
not in the bodily form and functions ; for God is
not corporeal. The resemblance must have been
in that which we call the spirit. Both Testaments
are full of references to God's Spirit, but almost
never attribute to him a soul. If we bear his
image, as in some sense even fallen man is said to
do (Jas. hi. 9), it is as being spiritual beings like

52 NEW-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL.
him, possessed of capacities of thought and moral
action, which do not inhere in the flesh, but in the
incorporeal soul, or spirit. Hence we see the force
of such language as that of John iv. 24 : " God is
Spirit, and they that worship him must worship
him in spirit : " i.e., the worship of God is not an
act of the body, depending for its value upon its
being performed on Mount Gerizim or in Jerusa
lem ; but it is an act of the spirit, that part of man
which affiliates him with the Deity. Hence, too,
our Saviour says (John iii. 6), respecting the new
birth, " That which is born of the flesh is flesh,
and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit : "
that is, the thing born of a human body is a
human body ; but that which comes from the re
generating influences of the Holy Spirit is a regen
erated human spirit.
The pneuma, or spirit, is then, according to New-
Testament usage, that in man which is distinct
from the body (Matt. xxvi. 41) ; is the seat of self-
consciousness (1 Cor. ii. 11), of moral and religious
character (2 Cor. vii. 1) ; and is renewed by the
Spirit of God in conversion (Rom. viii. 9, 10). '
1 The foregoing analysis shows how little foundation there is
for such a statement as we find in Rev. J. H. Pettingell's Theo
logical Trilemma (p. 112): "The soul stands in the same relation
to the body that the spirit does to the soul. The soul is the life
of the body, and the spirit is the true normal life of the soul of
man." True, the soul (psyche) is often used in the sense of life, —
the life of the body; but so also is the spirit (pneuma) described
in Jas. ii. 26. And where is it said that the human spirit is the
life (normal or abnormal) of the human soul ? He says that the

MEANING OF KARDIA (HEART). 53
It is not something distinct from the soul ; but it is
the soul considered in certain special relations, and
as possessed of certain special attributes.
This appears all the more clearly when we
notice, that, besides psyche and pneuma, the New-
Testament writers use several other words to des
ignate the seat of mental and moral action.
3. A word frequently used is kardia, "heart."
It is equivalent, in general, to the corresponding
word (leb) ' of the Old Testament. It is a very-
comprehensive word. It means more than "heart"
does with us. It is not only the seat of affection
and emotion ; as John xvi. 6, " Sorrow hath filled
your heart " (cf. 2 Cor. ii. 4 ; Acts xxi. 13) : in fact,
it is very seldom used in this sense. Nor is it
merely the seat of religious and moral character or
disposition ; as Matt. xv. 19, " Out of the heart pro-
soul is " midway between " the body and the spirit, — "neither
flesh on the one hand, nor spirit on the other; and yet it may be
fleshly or carnal, or it may be spiritual, according to the choice
which it makes. In the one case it is called the carnal, sensual,
fleshly, or natural mind: ... in the other case it is called the
spiritual mind." But, if so, why is it that we never find such an
expression as "carnal soul "or "spiritual soul"? At other
times Mr. Pettingell represents the "spirit" as something not
possessed by the natural man at all. Thus he says (p. 152)
that the soul's " former life was a natural life only: this [the new
life] is spiritual." And (p. 153), " The old life of the soul is
mortal. . . . The new life in the soul is eternal, because it is
spiritual. It is the Pneuma, the breath of God himself." Inas
much, then, as we naturally possess only body and soul, and these
" in common with other animals " (p. Ill), there seems to be no
reason why other animals, too, should not receive thepneuma, and
inherit eternal life.

54 NEW-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL.
ceed evil thoughts, murders," &c. Mark vii. 6,
" Their heart is far from me." In this sense it is
used very largely. It is from the heart that one
truly forgives (Matt, xviii. 35). We read of purity
of heart (Matt. v. 8; Jasriv.8; 2 Tim. h. 22; 1 Pet.
i. 22), of sincerity or singleness of heart (Acts ii. 46 ;
Heb. x. 22 ; Eph. vi. 5 ; Col. iii. 22). It is the heart
that is hardened or darkened by sin (John xh. 40;
Mark iii. 5; Rom. i. 21, ii. 5). The heart errs
(Heb. iii. 10) ; is deceived (Rom. xvi. 18 ; Jas. i.
26) ; exercises faith (Rom. x. 9 ; Acts viii. 37, xv. 9 ;
Luke xxiv. 25 ; Heb. iii. 12), repentance (Rom. ii.
5 ; Acts ii. 37), and obedience (Rom. vi. 17). The
heart is described as the very centre of the man :
1 Pet. iii. 4, " The hidden man of the heart."
1 Thess. ii. 4, " God, which trieth our hearts "
(ef. Luke xvi. 15). 1 Thess. iii. 13, " To the end he
may stablish your hearts unblamable in holiness."
But kardia, like leb, is also used as a designation
of the intellect. Thus Matt. xiii. 15, " Understand
with theh heart." Mark ii. 6, " Reasoning in theh
hearts." Luke ii. 19, " Pondered them in her
heart." Luke ix. 47, " Perceiving the thought of
their heart" (cf. Heb. iv. 12). Rom. x. 6, "Say
not in thine heart." 1 Cor. iv. 5, " The counsels
of the hearts."
Kardia, like leb, also sometimes stands for the
conscience ;' as 1 John iii. 20, 21, " If our heart con
demn us. . . . If our heart condemn us not."
4. Still another word of similar import, though

MEANING OF NOUS (MIND). 55
less frequently used, is nous, commonly rendered
"mind," sometimes "understanding." It corre
sponds somewhat nearly in meaning to these
words, but is commonly used with reference to
the perception or understanding of sphitual things.
Thus Luke xxiv. 45, " Then opened he their un
derstanding, that they might understand the scrip
tures." In Rom. vii. 23, 25, the nous denotes the
natural mind, or judgment, as capable of under
standing the right, and approving it. "I see
another law in my members, warring against the
law of my mind." In Phil. iv. 7, " The peace of
God, which passeth all understanding," nous is
very well represented by this word. But in Rom.
i. 28, " God gave them over to a reprobate mind,"
the word carries with it an ethical sense, — not
only wrong perceptions, but wrong feelings. So
Rom. xii. 2, "By the renewing of your mind."
Eph. iv. 17, " In the vanity of their mind." 1 Tim.
vi. 5, " Men of corrupt minds." In 1 Cor. xiv. 14
the nous is contrasted with the pneuma : " If I pray
in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my
understanding is unfruitful." In general, there
fore, the word nous is used of the mind in its more
reflective and judicial capacity, but includes often
— like " spirit," " heart," " soul " — the conception
of the moral and spiritual disposition.
There are stiU other words, less often used, that
might be mentioned ; such as dianoia (similar in
meaning to nous, and also rendered " mind " and

56 NEW-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL.
"understanding"), noema ("mind," also kindred
in root and sense with nous), phronema ("mind"
in the sense of disposition, as Rom. viii. 6, 7),
eunoia (twice used, and in a similar sense), sunei-
desis (" conscience ") : but it is unnecessary for
our purpose to extend this discussion.
In general, now, we may observe that kardia,
nous, and these other words, though often appar
ently almost synonymous with pneuma and psyche,
are not used when there is any suggestion of an
antithesis between the mind and the body. The
nearest approach to this is 1 Thess. ii. 17: "Being
taken from you for a short time in presence, not
in heart." They correspond to our own words,
"heart," "conscience," " intellect," which are often
comprehensively used, but yet rather as something
possessed by, or characterizing, the person, than as
constituting him.
It is obvious, moreover, that none of these words
is used with scientific precision. As with our own
word "mind," for instance, which may mean the
whole immaterial man (as opposed to "matter"),
or the intellect (as opposed to the heart, the affec
tions), or an act or state of the will (as when we
say, " I have a mind to go "), or a moral state (as
when we say, "May he have a better mind"), so
it is with these biblical words. Their meaning is
flexible. It is only by surveying the general drift
of biblical teaching that we can get any accurate
knowledge of biblical psychology. For the bibli-

NOTE ON MR. HEARD'S BOOK. 57
cal doctrine on this point is conveyed indirectly.
No formal definitions are given. The meanings of
the words were presumed to be intelligible to those
who were to read them. This is not a disadvan
tage, perhaps ; but it should put us on our guard
against imagining that the same word is always to
be understood in the same sense.
Note. — The fundamental idea of Mr. Heard's book is,
that the soul stands midway between the body and the
spirit, neither of the latter being able to exist apart from
the other (p. 77). It is, perhaps, sufficient to say, that this
is pure speculation. He does not adduce any biblical proof
of his doctrine, for the good reason that there is none to
adduce. He does not agree with himself much better than
with the Bible. These three parts, he says, are " not
separable" (p. 119), and "the loss of one part would imply
. . . the utter uselessness of the other two" (p. 118). Yet
"the body must die, if the spirit would live" (p. 270) : the
spirit, united to the soul, survives the death of the body, and
in the intermediate state " attains to a higher consciousness
than before of things unseen and eternal" (p. 269); for
the " reason will get the victory over desire, and faith over
reason" (p. 304). But "spirit is found only in its composite
form, and defies our attempts to extract it pure " (p. 78).
He uniformly represents the body as the great hinderance to
sanctification, since it distracts the mind, and "draws us
away from communion with God " (p. 270). Nevertheless,
the doctrine of trichotomy is lauded as the only one which
explains the resurrection of the body. But in all these
speculations he makes no resort to the Bible for proof. He
gets from it the three words, " body," " soul," and " spirit,"
and thea makes out of them what he pleases.

58 DR. IVES'S DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL.

CHAPTER IV.
DR. IVES'S DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL.
TTTE are now prepared to consider whether the
VV materialistic doctrine of the human spirit
is the doctrine of the Bible. As we have seen, it
obliterates the distinction between soul and body.
" The English word organism," says Dr. Ives, "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 "
(p. 106). He is, indeed, not able to overlook the
fact that this does not hold true in all cases ; and
accordingly he states, that, besides this meaning of
nephesh, it also has a " secondary or derived mean
ing," life, and " a more remote meaning," the emo
tions (p. 108). But he says "the Bible gives us
as the original, the primary meaning of ' soul,' the
organism of man and of all animals ; the concep
tion embracing the organization, as making up one
entire individual. Tins is by far its most frequent
meaning" (p. 107).
In this chapter we will only make some remarks,
in a prehminary way, on these statements.

TOO LITTLE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 59
1. It is inauspicious for the soundness of the
doctrine that the biblical argument for it is found
almost wholly in the Old Testament. In his ap
pendix Dr. Ives gives a full list of the biblical
passages which he regards as substantiating his
views. This is the exhibit : Of eighteen passages
in which " soul " is used of the lower animals,
only two are from the New Testament (Rev. viii.
9, xvi. 3), and these from a book whose style is,
to a remarkable degree, borrowed from the Old
Testament. Of the forty-two passages adduced
to prove the material nature of the soul, all are
from the Old Testament; one of them only (Ps.
xvi. 10) being also adduced as quoted in the New
Testament (Acts ii. 27). Of the seventy-one pas
sages adduced in proof of the mortal nature of
the soul, only four are from the New Testament ;
and, of these, two are the same as are given above
.in the first list. The other two (Acts iii. 23;
Jas. v. 20) prove nothing to the point. Twelve
passages are referred to in which " soul " is used
with reference to dead bodies. These are all from
the Old Testament.
Now, we have, of course, no objection to the
Old Testament as a source of information on the
subject of biblical psychology. It cannot be neg
lected. But any theory which depends for its
support exclusively on the Old Testament is ex
posed to the suspicion of being false for that very
reason. There is a presumption that a false inter-

60 DR. IVES'S DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL.
pretation has been at work. If it is a biblical
doctrine that the soul is nothing but the bodily
organism, then this doctrine ought especially to be
found in that Testament in which we have the
most perfect revelation of religious truth. When,
now, we find that the New Testament is just the
one which furnishes the very scantiest support for
the theory in question, while its uniform drift is
in just the opposite direction, there can be no
question but that this circumstance of itself is
sufficient to throw discredit on the whole theory.
2. As to the question what the primary or origi
nal meaning of nephesh is, the Bible gives us no
information. When Dr. Ives says that " the Bible
gives us as the original, the primary meaning of
' soul,' the organism of man and of all animals,"
he makes an affirmation of which he gives no
proof whatever. Even if we admit that some
times the word does have this meaning, how, we
ask, did Dr. Ives learn that this is the original
meaning? This is a question for philologists' and
lexicographers to decide ; and on this point, as
we have remarked, their testimony is quite uni
form. They are agreed in the opinion that the
primary sense of nephesh is " breath ; " the second
ary, " life ; " the third, the " seat of the emo
tions ; " and the last, a " living being." In this
latter sense, when used of men, it might be gener
ally, as it is in our version sometimes, rendered
"person." When used, as it sometimes is, of

BAD ETYMOLOGY. 61
beasts, the term " animal " would he more appro
priate. But this latter sense Dr. Ives, on his own
sole authority, declares to be the primary one ;
though all scholars who may be supposed to know
any thing about the matter call it the last of all :
and the actual primary meaning he does not even
mention ! This is ah the more noticeable, inas
much as, in what he says about the kindred word
spirit (Heb., ruahh ; Gr., pneuma), he does give the
correct etymology ; recognizing the fact, that, " in
the original languages, it [life] was denoted by the
word primarily meaning 'breath,' as that is the
outward sign or manifestation of the presence of
the sphit, or hfe " (p. 39). He agrees with the
lexicographers that the words rendered "spirit"
primarily denoted "breath," and secondarily "life ; "
but, when they affirm the same thing of the words
rendered "soul," he quietly reverses-the order, and
leaves out the primary meaning altogether !
3. As to the question of the comparative fre
quency of the meaning organism, as the equivalent
of the words rendered "soul," Dr. Ives's state
ment, that it " is by far its most frequent mean
ing," is simply amazing in its inaccuracy. He
offers for this, also, no shadow of proof, seeming
to think that his mere assertion is sufficient to
demonstrate its truth. Of course the only way
in which this question can be decided is to look
through the Bible, and see the effect of substi
tuting "organism" for "soul." We cannot under-

62 DR. IVES'S DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL.
take to give a complete catalogue of the passages ;
but we will give enough to show how absurd Dr.
Ives's definition of nephesh is : " The sons of Jo
seph, which were borne him in Egypt, were two
organisms " (Gen. xlvi. 27). " If an organism
shall sin through ignorance " (Lev. iv. 2). "If
an organism swear" (Lev. v. 4). "No organism
of you shall eat blood" (Lev. xvii. 12). "I will
even set my face against that organism " (Lev.
xx. 6). "If the priest buy any organism with his
money " (Lev. xxh. 11). " When a man or
woman shall commit any sin, . . . and that organ
ism be guilty " (Num. v. 6). " The same organism
shall be cut off from among his people " (Num.
ix. 13). "The priest shall make an atonement
for the organism that sinneth ignorantly " (Num.
xv. 28). "These sinners against their own or
ganisms" (Num. xvi. 38). "Take heed to thy
self, and keep thy organism diligently " (Deut. iv.
9). "Take . . . good heed unto your organisms "
(Deut. iv. 15). "Let my organism die with the
Philistines" (Judg. xvi. 30). "As thy organism
liveth, my lord " (1 Sam. i. 26). " He loved him
as his own organism " (1 Sam. xviii. 3). " As the
Lord liveth, who hath redeemed my organism out
of all adversity" (2 Sam. iv. 9). " He teareth his
organism in his anger" (Job xviii. 4). "Against
Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified
his organism rather than God" (Job xxxii. 2).
"Many there be which say of my organism, There

ARBITRARY DEFINITIONS. 63
is no help for him in God" (Ps. iii. 2). "Thou
hast heard, O my organism, the sound of the
trumpet " (Jer. iv. 19). " Woe to the women that
sew pillows to all armholes ... to hunt organ
isms ! " (Ezek. xiii. 18.)
We might extend the specimens indefinitely;
but it is not necessary. Let it be observed now
that these are fair specimens of the passages in
which the word has, if anywhere, according to Dr.
Ives's classification, the meaning of organism. In
such a passage as Ps. xiii. 6, " My soul is cast
down within me," or Isa. Ihi. 12, " He poured out
his soul unto death," he himself would not propose
to understand " organism " to be the equivalent of
the original.
4. In fact, while we may admit that our word
" organism " sometimes answers reasonably well
to the Hebrew nephesh, yet, on the whole, it must
be affirmed that this 'definition, so far from cover
ing the majority of instances, is never the true
equivalent of the original. In the few cases in
which the word is used of dead bodies, it may be
conceded that " organism " seems not to be wholly
inappropriate ; yet even here nephesh is used with
reference to that which has been something more
than a mere material organism. In fact, this
usage is simply analogous to our own mode of
speaking when we call a corpse a dead person. It
is an exceptional mode of speech; and no one,
when he uses it, means to be understood as saying

64 DR. IVES'S DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL.
that the personality consists in the mere material
organism, apart from the intelligent soul. The
same may be said of the other few instances in
which the adjective "living" is applied to the
word rendered " soul." Dr. Ives lays great stress
on this fact also, arguing, from Gen. ii. 7 and other
passages, that man was a soul before he became
a living soul ; and inferring that, therefore, the
proper meaning of soul (nephesh) is organism, ir
respective of the question whether it is hving or
lifeless (pp. 33, 34). But the truth is, that this
phrase is precisely equivalent to " living animal."
The word " animal " itself means a living organ
ism (from anima, life). Yet, for the sake of pre
cision and emphasis, we may speak of a living
animal, and, in like manner, of a dead animal ;
though that, strictly defined, means a dead living
organism. But' the notion of life is primary
throughout. No one ever thinks of a dead (or
lifeless) animal but as an organism in which there
has been life. Dr. Ives's notion that Adam was a
lifeless organism before he became a living one is
as ridiculous as it would be to infer, from one's say
ing that an acorn planted in the ground has become
a living oak, that it had first been a dead oak.
The fact that nephesh is, in some cases, used to
denote beasts, does not warrant the definition " or
ganism." For whatever difference there may be
between men and beasts, yet aven the latter are
always conceived of as possessed of a certain intel-

FALLACIOUS REASONING. 65
ligence, of a self-moving faculty, in. short, of a
certain selfhood, which is quite distinct from the
mere bodily structure. He who affirms that the
prominent thought is of the material organism as
such is simply foisting his own materialistic no
tions upon the Bible. He is begging the question
in dispute.
Nor is this question at all affected by any thing
that may be proved or assumed respecting the
essential mortality of man. If we should even
concede, with Dr. Ives, that death ends all, — that
the soul is essentially perishable, — yet we should
not thus identify the soul with the physical organ
ism. To prove that the soul dies with the organ
ism does not prove that the soul is the organism.
5. It is a fundamental vice of Dr. Ives's reason
ing, that he assumes that what the Bible says of
the nephesh or the psyche must hold true of what
we call the soul. He says, indeed, that we have
come to attach a different meaning to soul from
what the Bible attributes to the nephesh; but
this, he says, is a perversion (p. 105). "Soul,"
in his opinion, ought to mean with us what it does
mean in the Bible.
But all this rests on an utterly perverse notion
respecting the relation of different languages to
one another. Any one who has had any thing to
do with the comparison of languages knows that
it is seldom the case that any two of them uni
formly use corresponding words in the same sense.

66 DE. IVES'S DOCTEINE OF THE SOUL.
No translation, therefore, can ever perfectly repro
duce to us a book originally written in a foreign
tongue; and it is essentially unfair to assume
that what is said of a particular thing in one lan
guage must hold true, in all respects, even of the
nearest equivalent of that word in another lan
guage. Now, our word " soul " denotes the intel
lectual, moral, and religious nature of man, as a
something within him which is distinct from the
body. This is what we mean by it when we speak
of the immortality of the soul. But it is little
less than puerile to argue that what we call soul is
not immortal, because what the Mebrews called
nephesh is sometimes said to die, or to be killed.
The thing necessary to be proved, in order to
make this reasoning conclusive, is, that the He
brews meant the same thing by theh word that
we mean, or ought to mean, by ours. This is
something which Dr. Ives simply takes for granted.
It is something which we utterly deny. Even if
it should be granted that nephesh does sometimes
denote the bodily organism, yet it is little less than
folly to argue that the Enghsh word " soul " is, or
ought to be, used in the same sense. Ah this
parade of passages, proving the mortal character
of the nephesh, is of no account in so far as the
force of the argument lies in the tacit assumption
that the Hebrew word is the exact equivalent of
the English. The real question to be discussed is,
whether, according to the Scriptures, our notion

BODILY "PAETS OF THE SOUL." 67
of the soul is correct ; and this, again, is not to be
settled by seeing whether the Bible has a word
exactly answering to our notion of the soul, but by
examining whether in any way the notion is there
conveyed. We shall soon present evidence that
this notion is- a bibhcal one ; and, if this is proved,
the proof will not be invalidated, even if it should
be shown that the Hebrew word nephesh does not
always, or even generally, correspond in meaning
to our word soul. Yet the whole argument of Dr.
Ives's book rests on this fallacious assumption.
That we do our author no injustice in what we
have said may be shown by quoting from p. 327 :
" 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. . . . This is just what the Bible
does; though our translators, apparently puzzled
with such language, have not always made evi
dent that which the original expresses." He then
quotes a number of passages in which the heart,
the bowels, the belly, and the kidneys are used, in
the Bible, of the human emotions. He also brings
in the liver by a mistranslation of a few passages
(Gen. xlix. 6 ; Ps. xvi. 9, cviii. 1) where our Bible
gives the correct rendering. We cannot suppress
an expression of surprise that the Bible fails, after
all, to come up to Dr. Ives's requirement. The
Bible, he says, should speak of the various organs

68 DE. IVES'S DOCTEINE OF THE SOUL.
of the human organism as parts of the soul. But
nowhere is the liver so spoken of, nor the lungs,
nor even the brain ; to say nothing of the more
external parts of the organism, as the limbs, the
neck, the head, the breast, &c. Dr. Ives (p. 329)
describes the organs that are thus spoken of in the
Bible as those which are " controlled by a special
nervous system, the great sympathetic, which
presides over 'organic life.'" He recognizes, as
a physician of the nineteenth century might be
expected to do, the supreme importance of the
neryous system. But how does it happen that
the Bible never mentions that, too, in its designa
tion of the various "parts of the soul"? Our
author complains of " the inroads of philosophi
cal ideas during centuries past " on this mode of
speech, but finds a little comfort in the fact that
" heart," " spleen," and " bile " still are used to
denote the operations of the soul. But the Bible
contains no recognition of this important function
of the spleen and the bile. Which is wrong, — the
Bible, or modern speech? Not the Bible, in Dr.
Ives's opinion; for he pronounces its psychological
terminology the true standard for us to follow. Its
mode of speech in this respect, he tells us, " is the
relic of a still earlier age, when God communed
with man face to face " (p. 330). According to
this style of conception, we do not see why it is
not our duty in ah things to adopt the biblical
phraseology. We ought to use the word " heart "

SHALL WE TALK HEBEEW, OR ENGLISH? 69
in the sense of " intellect ; " for, according to the
Bible, men "understand with their heart" (Isa. vi.
10). In fact, our authorized version needs a great
overhauhng generally. Instead, e.g., of rendering
Gen. xxx. 2 "Jacob's anger was kindled," we
ought to make it read " Jacob's nose burned ; "
and similarly in hundreds of other cases where
this phrase is used of God and men. We should
thus be restoring to honor a much disrespected
" part of the soul."
It is difficult to treat otherwise than with ridi
cule this strange assumption which runs through
Dr. Ives's book. Instead of recognizing the fact
that the Hebrew language was one of the lan
guages of men which God's revelation found in
existence, and which that revelation merely used,
he almost seems to imagine that the language was
given by revelation as the unvarying standard of
speech for all men. Thus, to give another instance
of this singular notion, he says (p. 46), " From
the language of Genesis already considered, we
understand that the word soul, applied to a human
being, denotes the man himself. If that is the cor
rect meaning of the word, it should be found so
used throughout the Bible by its different speakers
and writers." He then quotes a number of pas
sages illustrating this use of the word soul, and
particularly passages ' in which the soul is de
scribed as material and mortal; and then adds
(p. 47), " Nor can we find that the Lord uses the

70 DR. IVES'S DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL.
word ' soul ' in any other way ; certainly never, as
now used, to signify an immortal part of man.
And He changes not. What He said once is truth
for all time." To all which we have to say: 1.
When Dr. Ives says that we cannot find that the
Lord uses the word " soul " in any other way than
as denoting "the man himself" as material and
mortal, he forgets that he himself has admitted
that the word usually so rendered has three dis
tinct senses. 2. The Lord does not use the word
" soul " at all, but a word which King James's
translators have rendered by "soul." It is a
question for philologists, whether that is the
nearest equivalent, or whether there is any exact
equivalent, in English. 3. Though it were true
that the Lord never uses the word nephesh to
denote an immaterial part of man, yet it does not
follow that no other word or expression is used
which does imply or assert that there is an im
material part.
We must emphasize this point. It is true, as
Dr. Ives affirms, that sometimes the. nephesh is
said to die, or to be killed, and that the nephesh
is never directly declared to be undying. But this
is no proof, that, according to the Old Testament,
man is wholly material, unless it can be shown that
there is no other indication that he does live after
the death of the body. The fallacy of Dr. Ives's
argument may be seen when we state it thus:
"Nephesh means the same as our word ' organism.'

HASTY GENERALIZATION. 71
But nephesh is generahy translated by our word
' soul : ' therefore ' soul ' ought to mean the same
as ' organism.' " If this reasoning is good, we may
argue : The Hebrew word elon is always rendered
" plain " in our Bible. But it means the same thing
as our word "oak:" therefore our word "plain"
ought to mean the same as " oak " ! Even if we ad
mit that nephesh sometimes means "organism," it
does not follow that it always has that meaning : Dr.
Ives himself admits that it does not. Consequently,
even though the nephesh is said to die, it does not
follow that any thing more than the organism dies ;
and the question about a surviving soul is still open.
6. The one-sidedness of Dr. Ives's argumenta
tion strikingly appears in the fact that he con
fines his discussion so exclusively to the one
word nephesh (or psyche), and quite neglects (or
worse than neglects) to examine the other words
which the Bible employs to denote the higher
part of man. It is especially remarkable that he
almost wholly overlooks what is said about the
spirit. When we consider that this word occurs
in the Old Testament about half as often as
"soul" (nephesh), and in the New Testament
about twice as often as " soul," it certainly would
seem to be of some consequence to know what
the word means. What, now, does Dr. Ives tell
us about this question ? He says that the Hebrew
and Greek words for " spirit " (ruahh and pneuma)
mean "hfe," or "the vital principle." He tells us,

72 DR. IVES'S DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL.
that, " in the original languages, it [life] was de
noted by the word primarily meaning ' breath,' as
that is the outward sign or manifestation of the
presence of the spirit, or life " (p. 39). Very true ;
but he fails to mention the fact that the words
rendered " soul " (nephesh, psyche) also originally
meant "breath," and that, therefore, the etymolo
gical argument proves that the meaning of these
words is "life," as much as that of the others. He
also fails to mention, that, in the actual use of these
words, "soul" means "life" twenty times where
'"spirit" has this meaning once. He admits, it
is true, that both words have this meaning, but
represents " life " as a meaning of " soul," second
ary to the alleged primary meaning, "organism," —
a representation, which, as we have shown, is
entirely incorrect. He admits also that " spirit "
is sometimes used in a metaphorical sense. But
what is that metaphorical sense ? We will quote
what he says on this point : " As it is the spirit,
or vital principle, which sets in operation the func
tions of the organism, producing thought, feeling,
&c, when 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 ' (1 Kings
x. 5) ; or, to go back to the earliest meaning of
' spirit,' it took her breath away, as is still our Eng
lish expression " (p. 107). And this is positively

HIS DEFINITION OF "SPIRIT." 73
all that Dr. Ives has to say of any other meaning
of " spirit " than that of " life " ! This is surely
enough to "take one's breath away." The most
cursory reading of either Testament, especially
of the New, shows to any man of even mediocre
intelligence that " spirit " is ordinarily used to de
note the higher part of man, — the seat of thought,
of character, of the religious feelings and apprehen
sions. This has, we trust, been amply illustrated
and established (p. 34, seq.). In all the New
Testament there are only two or three passages in
which pneuma has the meaning " life ; " and in
the Old Testament this is a very rare meaning
of ruahh.
It is impossible to repress a feeling of astonish
ment at such a treatment of the Scriptures. It
would be unprofitable to speculate on the ques
tion, how a man of Dr. Ives's intelligence and
honesty could be content so utterly to misrep
resent the meaning of the Bible. We cannot
suppose that he deliberately intended any misrep
resentation. But those who judge of his book
simply by what they read in it, and not by what
they know about the author, could hardly avoid
the suspicion, that he has founded his argument
for the material nature of the soul on what is said
about the nephesh (psyche), as distinguished from
what is said about the ruahh (pneuma), for the
reason that his doctrine cannot be made to apply
to the latter. The truth is, as we have seen, that

74 DR. IVES'S DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL.
the word " spirit " is the word especially used to
designate the mind considered as distinct from the
body. To define " sphit " as meaning merely the
vital principle — utterly untrue as this is to the ob
vious and usual meaning of the word — looks like
an unfair attempt to remove a difficulty by a mis
statement. For the sake of his own reputation,
to which he is thus (unwittingly, we are sure) in
danger of doing serious injury, we trust he will
speedily correct so glaring a mistake.

EESPECTING A FUTURE LIFE. 75

CHAPTER V.
BIBLICAL PROOF THAT BODY AND SPIRIT ARE
DISTINCT.
THE foregoing chapter has incidentally antici
pated some of the scriptural arguments which
relate to the question of a life for the individual
succeeding the death of the body. But we need
to treat this point more directly. But let us first
make some preliminary statements respecting the
ground on which we stand.
The question under discussion is, what the Bible
teaches respecting a future life. Philosophical
doctrines or assumptions have, as such, no proper
place here. We freely admit that some men have
unwarrantably carried their preconceived notions
concerning the essential nature of the soul into
their exegesis of the Scriptures. We do not in
sist that the spirit of man is something essentially
imperishable. What God can create he doubtless
can destroy. We hold no dogma of the inherent
indestructibility of the soul. We know too little
of the physiology of the soul, if we may use such
an expression, to be able to affirm that it cannot be

76 SPIRIT AND BODY DISTINCT.
dissolved and destroyed. The old notion that the
soul is indivisible, and therefore indestructible, we
regard as a scholastic subtlety and assumption.
The premise is not evident; and, if it were, the
conclusion would not necessarily follow.
In combating the view of those who advocate
what is nowadays called the doctrine of " condi
tional immortality," we wish also to say expressly
that we disclaim all dependence on any scientific
truth respecting the fact of annihilation of sub
stance. If we sometimes use the term "annihila-
tionism " respecting theh doctrine, we do not mean
thereby to imply that they assume that the sub
stance of the soul is put out of existence ; and we
shall not combat their doctrine on the ground,
that, as the elements of the body after death are
nevertheless not annihilated, so the death of the
soul must be assumed to leave the soul in exist
ence. The point at issue is, not whether the physi
cal substratum of the soul, so to speak, continues
forever, or indefinitely, but whether the individual
consciousness and personality continues. If this
is permanently destroyed, it matters little to prove,
even if it could be proved, that the substance of
the soul remains in existence.
The object of the present chapter is to examine
what the Bible teaches respecting the distinction
and separableness of the body and spirit. If they
are spoken of as distinct from one another, and
the spirit as capable of existing apart from the

DISTINCT TERMS FOR BODY AND SPIRIT. 77
body, then we have a very strong presumptive
argument in favor of the view, that, according to
the Bible, the soul is imperishable. Yet we do not
affirm that the eternal continuance of conscious
being necessarily follows from any such representa
tions of the distinguishableness of soul and body.
It must be borne in mind that there are different
views prevailing among those who deny the essen
tial immortality of the soul. Some, like Mr. Con
stable and Dr. Ives, hold the materialistic view
that the soul perishes at death, being in fact only
a physical thing or phenomenon; but others, as
Mr. Hudson and Mr. Edward White, hold that
the soul survives the death of the body, but after
wards is destroyed. The materialistic form of the
doctrine of annihilation, however, is overthrown,
if it can be shown that the Bible so describes man
as to imply or assert that the spirit is something
essentially distinct from the body. Let us, then,
examine the Scriptures on this point.
1. The very fact that the Bible has distinct
terms to denote the body and the spirit is an im
portant one. If the soul is the body, and was so
regarded by the biblical writers, then it is singular
that they should have used words which . imply
that there is a distinction between them. In tins
respect the Bible agrees perfectly with our own
usage. For our notion of body the Hebrew has
distinct words. Thus g'viah is used precisely in
the sense of body, in relation to hving persons, in

78 SPIRIT AND BODY DISTINCT.
Gen. xlvii. 18; Neh. ix. 37; Ezek. i. 11, 23; Dan.
x. 6. It is used of dead bodies in Nah. iii. 3 ; Ps.
ex. 6 ; 1 Sam. xxxi. 10 ; and elsewhere. The more
usual word for corpse, however, is n'belah. Be
sides g'viah, and the poetic form of the same, geah
(Job xx. 25), our notion of body is conveyed in
the Hebrew by the word basar, commonly trans
lated "flesh." It corresponds in general to this
word in sense ; but it is sometimes used in the
more general sense of body. Thus Num. xix. 7,
" The priest shall . . . bathe his flesh in water."
So Ezek. x. 12 ; Isa. x. 18. Often the flesh and
the bones are together used as a designation of the
body. E.g. : Job ii. 5, " But put forth thine Jiand
now, and touch his bone and his flesh." So Gen.
ii. 23; Judg. ix. 2; 2 Sam. xix. 13. Sometimes
"bone " alone (Heb., etsem) is used in the compre
hensive sense of body ; as Lam. iv. 7.
In the New Testament there is a word, very
often used, still more precisely corresponding to
our word " body ; " viz., soma. A few examples
will answer as an illustration of the many. Matt.
vi. 25, " Take no thought for your life, what ye
shall eat ; . . . nor yet for your body, what ye shall
put on." Matt. xxvi. 12, "For in that she hath
poured this ointment on my body, she did it for
my burial." Mark v. 29, " She felt in her body
that she was healed." Soma also is used of a dead
body ; as Matt. xiv. 12, " His disciples came and
took up the body, and buried "it." This is the

BIBLICAL WORDS DENOTING BODY. 79
word which might be represented, by our word
" organism." Dr. Ives says (p. 115) that the soul
(psyche, nephesh) is the organism, and the body
(soma), as spoken of in the Scriptures (e.g., Matt.
vi. 25), " 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." Let us
see. In Rom. xii. 4 we read, "We have many
members in one body." Is Paul speaking of inert
matter, or of an organism ? 1 Cor. vi. 19, " Know
ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy
Ghost?" Does soma here mean the body con
sidered as inert matter ? When Paul tells of the
spiritual soma, is it of a body as mere inert matter
that he is speaking ? Dr. Ives himself insists that
the resurrection pertains to the organism (p. 121).
If so, then the spiritual body is an organism.
The New Testament also uses the word sarx
(" flesh ") to denote the bodily, as distinguished
from the spiritual, part of man. E.g. : Acts ii. 30,
" Of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh."
Cf. Rom. i. 3, ii. 28 ; Matt. xxvi. 41 ; Gal. ii. 20,
&c. Sometimes this word is combined with
" bones " to express the same meaning ; as Luke
xxiv. 39, "A sphit hath not flesh and bones."
The moral sense of depravity which the word
sarx so often has in Paul's writings presupposes
a contrast in the literal sense of "flesh" and
" sphit." This fact that the Bible has a distinct set of

80 SPIRIT AND BODY DISTINCT.
terms by which to designate the bodily organism,
and another set of terms by which it designates
that in man which thinks, wills, and feels, is of
itself almost or quite sufficient to overthrow any
theory which affirms that the Bible identifies body
and soul. It is a fact which shows that the Bible
agrees with the mode of thinking and speaking
which has prevailed among men of all nations.
Men, in general, have always conceived of the soul,
or mind, or spirit, as a something distinct from
the body, which is its organ. Some men have
theoretically denied this distinction, affirming that
the only real substance is mind, and that matter
is only an insubstantial phenomenon. Others
have held theoretically that mind is only a modi
fication of matter, and that matter is the only
real substance. But in either case the distinction
has been a matter of speculation, rather than of
practical belief; while most men have always held
to the essential distinction and separableness of
mind and body, and their language has always
testified to this belief. It is inwrought into the
very substance of all language. The universal
prevalence of terms which describe the soul, not
as a quality or affection or modification of the
body, but as a separate entity, is sufficient proof
of this. Dr. Ives himself would, we suppose, not
deny the truth of this statement.
Now, the Bible perfectly agrees, in its general
tone of description, with the universal language

BIBLICAL AND COMMON LANGUAGE AGREE. 81
of men in this respect. It speaks of the soul, the
heart, the spirit, the mind, as men ordinarily do,
making everywhere the impression that the writers
adopt the general view of mankind. Neverthe
less, Dr. Ives undertakes to say that they hold an
entirely different view. And on what ground?
Why, as we have seen, because sometimes the
Bible speaks of the nephesh as dying; because
the Bible often says of a man that " he " is buried :
whereas, if the soul is distinct from the body,
and is not dead, the principal part of man is not
buried, and therefore it would not be correct to say
that the man is buried ! But it is a notorious fact,
which Dr. Ives himself cannot deny, that men
ordinarily do use the same term, now of a living
person, and now of a dead body. We say, Mr-
Smith was troubled, and Mr. Smith was buried ;
and yet those who thus speak really hold that that
which is most essential to Mr. Smith's personality
was not buried. They hold that that which is the
seat of thought and feeling is not the body that
decays. This is the' actual fact with regard to the
use of language. Men, in general, have held that
the soul survives death, and continues to exist ;
yet men, in general, have always been wont to
say of men that they die, while yet referring
only to the dissolution of the bodily organism.
In other words, men, in general, have always been
accustomed to mean by death, not the .extinction
of the whole being, but only of a part of it. If,

82 SPIRIT AND BODY DISTINCT.
when tne Bible speaks of death, any thing more?
or different is meant, there must be some other
proof of such an opinion than the one above given.
It must be positively shown that the biblical notion
of death and of the soul is radically different
from the ordinary one, else it must be assumed to
be the same. But Dr. Ives's argument, if it
proves any thing, proves that the language of
mankind belies their opinions.
We must admire Dr. Ives's intrepidity, if not
his good judgment, when we find him boldly
occupying this position. The ordinary language
of men, he says, really means something else than
what men mean when they use it. What would
naturally be regarded as a disproof of his whole
argument he turns into a signal confirmation of
it. Thus, referring to such expressions as " Hun
dreds of souls perished in that shipwreck," used
by those who nevertheless do not really hold that
the soul of man perishes at all, instead of finding
in them an indication that similar phraseology in
the Bible does not imply that the writers really
believe that death annihilates the soul, he draws
just the opposite inference. " We here meet," he
says, "with a relic of ancient days. . . . This
form of speech has been handed down to us from
a period antecedent to modern theology, when the
fact was universally accepted, and indelibly im
pressed upon human language, that the soul, or
organism, is the man himself, and perishes in death;

DO MEN SAY WHAT THEY MEAN? 83
and it still holds its own against later innova
tions, a most telling witness of the present cor
ruption of old-time truth" (pp. Ill, 112). This
is, indeed, a startling revelation. It has been com
monly supposed that language is an instrument
suited to express men's thoughts and opinions:
but, according to Dr. Ives, it is an instrument
which often does not properly express our own
opinions at all, but those of generations so far
back, that there is no authentic record of them ;
opinions which have even been supposed not cur
rently to have ever prevailed; opinions of whose
original prevalence we have no evidence except
in Dr. Ives's own testimony, derived from the
language of men, who, so far as appears, have
generally united in disclaiming "any such opinions !
It is a bad omen when a man's cause has to be
maintained by such a mode of argumentation as
this. It is, in fact, almost impossible to reason
with one, who, in defence of his doctrine, can
deliberately maintain a proposition so preposterous
as the one just exposed. But let us proceed to
another point.
2. Closely akin to the argument derived from
the fact that the Bible makes large use of words
designating the soul, or spirit, as something dis
tinct from the body, is that derived from the use
of the -personal pronouns. This is a point of
special weight, and has always, in all discussions
of the general question of materialism, been justly

84 SPIRIT AND BODY DISTINCT.
regarded as of prime importance. When a man
says, "I see," "I hear," "J feel ; " when he says,
"My body," "my heart," "my memory," "my
thought," — such language implies irresistibly the
conception of a person, — a single person, distinct
from the body, or any part of the body. To the
thinking mind every part of the body is something
external, as really as the body of any one else.
Such language as we have alluded to cannot be
accounted for, except on the theory that the per
sonality is conceived as inhering in a something
which underlies all the physical and intellectual
operations of the man. It implies a belief in a
certain something which is single, and which con
tinues to be the same from day to day, and from
year to year.
Now, the biblical writers use language in this
same way : and from them the same argument
is to be derived; viz., that they conceived the
person to be something distinct from the body, or
any part of the body. The body is there, as
everywhere, spoken of as something possessed by
the thinking self. Take, for example, 2 Cor. v. 3 :
" If so be, that, being clothed upon, we shall not
be found naked." Paul here speaks of it as a
conceivable and possible thing that " we," the hu
man persons, may exist " naked ; " i.e., as the con
text shows, apart from the body, and apart from
any body. In all that the Bible says about the
resurrection, the same thing is most clearly im-

USE OF THE PERSONAL PEONOUN. ' 85
plied. We are to have glorified bodies, — not the
same bodies as here on earth, but spiritual bodies :
but "we" are the same persons, whether here or
there; and the language has no sense, except as
we assume that what is called " we " is something
entirely distinct from the perishable body.
Dr. Ives is not slow to avail himself of the
argument derived from the use of the pronoun
when it subserves his purpose. He endeavors to
prove that the whole man is buried in the ground
because God said to Adam, " In the sweat of thy
face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the
ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust
thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." This
proves, he thinks, that the man is nothing but the
bodily organism. Undoubtedly here, and. in simi
lar cases, the pronoun is used with special refer
ence to the body, just as it is often used of the
body of a living person ; as, e.g., when one says,
"I am hurt." The pronoun is not always used
exclusively of the immaterial or intellectual man
as -distinguished from the physical part, but very
often of the complex whole. So always when one
says, "I go," "I remain," "I work," &c. But all
this does not in the least invalidate the argument
which we have derived from the fact that the
general use of the pronoun necessarily implies the
conception of something distinct from the body,
and constituting the person. . And Dr. Ives's argu
ment is especially unfortunate, inasmuch as he

86 SPIRIT AND BODY DISTINCT
anconsciously contradicts himself, and indirectly
asserts what he directly denies ; for, in speaking
of death and the resurrection, he uses the personal
pronouns in such a way as to contradict his own
favorite doctrine, that the death of the body is the
loss of personal existence. For though at death we
become non-existent, yet he tells us (p. 37), that,
according to Paul, " we are to live again." Again
it is said (p. 42) that at the resurrection the good
and the wicked are to have "life restored to them."
So again (p. 129) it is said that "the wicked man
loses life a second time, after it had been restored
to him by a resurrection." We Italicize the pro
nouns here (and the cases might be multiplied)
for the sake of asking, Who or what is the " we "
or " they " or " he " that is to be raised ? Is it the
soul, as something that has remained in existence
after death, and distinct from the buried body?
No ; for Dr. Ives says there is no soul distinct
from a body. Is it the buried body itself ? No;
for he most vehemently opposes the doctrine of
the Westminster Confession, that " the selfsame
body" is raised (p. 121, seq.). What, then, is
raised ? Absolutely nothing ; for the dead, on his
theory, are non-existent : but this nothing may be
variously designated " he," " we," " they," and " I,"
— words which, if they mean any thing, denote
personality. To say, then, of a man, that after
death he is non-existent, but that, nevertheless,
" he " is to be raised to life again, is transparent

DR. IVES VERSUS HIMSELF. 87
self-contradiction. Dr. Ives, in spite of himself,
bears testimony to the doctrine he is opposing.
He affirms the non-existence of the dead, but in
the same breath implies, that, in some sense, they
still exist. Speaking of the rich man and Lazarus,
he says (p. 61), "What means this chasm fixed
between those lying dead? It is that irrevocable
division, which, the Bible tells us, death fixes be
tween the good and the bad at the close of their
earthly probation." But Dr. Ives has energetically
labored to prove, that, according to the Bible, the
good and the bad become non-existent at the close
of their earthly probation. There is, therefore,
an irrevocable division fixed between two kinds
of nonentities ! The good nonentities are care
fully distinguished from the bad nonentities ! In
spite of himself, our author shows that he con
ceives the dead to be still existent beings.
3. Let us now notice some passages in which
the Bible more formally recognizes and affirms the
reality of the distinction and separableness of soul
and body.
A very remarkable passage is Isa. xxxi. 3 : " Now,
the Egyptians are men, and not God ; and theh
horses flesh, and not spirit." Here, according to
the familar style of Hebrew parallelism, "men"
is parallel with "flesh," and " God " with " spirit."
The distinction between " men " and " God " is
analogous to that between "flesh" and "spirit."
It is clearly imphed that God is spirit, and not

88 SPIRIT AND BODY DISTINCT.
flesh. At all events, there is an antithesis between
" flesh " and " spirit " which is utterly irreconcila
ble with Dr. Ives's theory of the human soul.
According to him, the flesh (in the comprehensive
sense in which that word is used in the Bible) is
the whole of man. There is no soul or spirit
which can be regarded as something distinct from,
and capable of being set over against, the body.
But Isaiah evidently has a very different notion
of things. When he says that horses are flesh,
and not spirit, he must mean by "spirit" some
thing very different from the life or the intelli
gence which belongs to the horse. It is something
different from that which constitutes the essential
thing in the horse, — something different from that
bodily organism, which, Dr. Ives insists, is the
whole of man, -and of the brutes. 'It is, as the
parallelism shows, something which characterizes
God peculiarly, as distinguished from the fleshly.
form of men.
In like manner Isaiah (x. 18) speaks of the
Lord as consuming "the glory of his forest and
of his fruitful field, both soul and body ; " literally,
"from the soul (nephesh) unto the flesh." This
implies the conception of a clear distinction be
tween the flesh and the soul, — a distinction which,
on Dr. Ives's theory of the soul, is entirely unmean
ing and untenable.
Quite similar in import is the familiar passage
(Job xix. 26) where the patriarch says (according

BIBLICAL PASSAGES CONSIDERED. 89
to the English version), " Though after my skin
worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I
see God." This is certainly a mistranslation, even
though it is doubtful what the exact rendering'
should be. There is little doubt, however, that
the last clause should read, " Without my flesh I
shall see God." That is, Job says, "I know that
my Vindicator liveth, and, as the last one [in this
contest], will rise up over the dust [of my grave] ;
and, after my skin which is destroyed, — this [skin] ,
— without my flesh I shall see God." In any case,
he speaks of himself as something surviving the
wasting of the body.
The description given, in Job iv. 15, 16, of the
"spirit" which appeared to Eliphaz, may.be re
garded as poetic and imaginative ; but it is none
the less important as showing that a separate
existence of spirits was currently conceived as
possible. This spirit which " passed before " Eli
phaz, and whose form he " could not discern," but
which nevertheless caused his hair to stand on
end, was certainly not an ordinary form of flesh
and blood. So the disciples (Matt. xiv. 26),
when they saw Christ walking on the water, cried
out, " It is a spirit ! " showing that they had a con
ception of beings characterized predominantly, if
not wholly, by what in ordinary men is only a part,
though the most important part.
We have (p. 71, seq.) animadverted on Dr. Ives's
treatment of the biblical doctrine of the " sphit."

90 SPIRIT AND BODY DISTINCT.
It is significant, that, among the passages which
he quotes (p. 39) in illustration of his definition
(only four in all), is Eccles. xii. 7 : " Then shall the
dust return to the earth as it was, and the sphit
shall return unto God who gave it." Here there
is a manifest antithesis between the " dust " and
the "spirit." The dust, of course, denotes the
physical part, which is buried. Now, when we con
sider that "sphit" in the Old Testament com
monly designates the seat of thought, will, and
feeling, the most obvious conclusion certainly is,
that the preacher here recognizes that distinction
between spirit and body which is implied all
through the Bible ; and that, while he speaks of the
body as buried after death, he describes the spirit
as surviving, and as returning to the God who gave
it. What, now, does our author have to say con
cerning the usual interpretation ? He says, " The
popular misinterpretation of this passage, con
sidering the explicitness of the context, is indeed
something marvellous." And then he quotes other
verses in which man is represented as going into the
grave ; whence he concludes, that, if the " man "
goes into the grave, the " spirit," which returns to
God, cannot be the essential part of man, as it is
commonly understood to be. Probably not many
will sympathize with Dr. Ives's astonishment in
this respect. Inasmuch as we all continually
speak of " men " as being buried, and nevertheless
conceive that the " spirit," as being the essential

PASSAGES IN ECCLESIASTES. 91
part of man, continues in existence, it is not
particularly " marvellous " that we should under
stand the Bible to speak in the same way. And
when, as in the passage quoted, the "spirit" is
expressly contrasted with the " dust " which re
turns to the earth, the only "marvellous" thing
about the matter is, that Dr. Ives could quietly
ignore the ordinary meaning of " spirit " as used
in the Bible, and thus attempt to break the force
of this passage. This, be it remembered, is the
exegesis of a man who is very free in his denun
ciations of "human inventions, which make void
the word of God " (p. 118) ; and even takes it
upon himself to accuse the translators of the Eng
lish Bible of " a deliberate and persistent effort to
cover up the truth on this question of the soul " in
our English version (p. 101).
This passage in Ecclesiastes, especially when
connected with the parallel one in iii. 21, is of
great importance in reference to the question
before us. Singularly enough, Dr. Ives, though
he has quoted Eccles. iii. 19, 20, seems not to have
regarded the next verse as of any consequence ; for
he has nowhere noticed it. The preceding verses
speak of men and beasts as having a common
end. " All go unto one place ; all are of the dust,
and all turn to dust again." Then the Preacher
adds, " Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth
upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth
downward to the earth ? " There is little doubt,

92 SPIRIT AND BODY DISTINCT.
we think, that this ought to be translated, " Who
knoweth whether the spirit of man goeth upward,
and whether the spirit of the beast goeth down
ward to the earth? " But, in either case, a distinc
tion is conceived as possible. The spirit of man is
represented as having, in the opinion of some, a
different destination from that of the beast. As
we render it, the verse rather seems to deny that
the distinction is a real one. The context, as well
as the grammatical construction, favors this view.
But the writer here speaks as a despondent scep
tic. He doubts whether man is, on the whole,
better off than the brute ; but at last he surmounts
his doubts, and attains to the assured conviction
(xii. 7), that, when man dies, his spirit will " go
upward" to God who gave it. But if "sphit"
means, as Dr. Ives claims, nothing but "life,"
then all thought of a distinction between the
spirit of man and that of the brute is idle : the
question could never have been raised.
Similar to this passage in Eccles. xii. 7 are two
in the New Testament, which Dr. Ives treats in a
similar manner. The first is Luke xxih. 46,
where Jesus on the cross is described as saying,
" Father, into thy hands I commend my sphit."
The other is Acts vii. 59, where Stephen, in like
manner, at death says, " Lord Jesus, receive my -
spirit." Of this Dr. Ives says (p. 42), " He
intrusts to his Lord the principle of life he had
received." He understands these passages to

PROOF FROM MATT. X. 28. 93
refer to the resurrection, at which the principle of
life shall be restored to the dead one. We shall,
at a later point, have more to say about this con
ception. It is sufficient to remark here, that such
an interpretation makes something very near non
sense of the passages. What, on Dr. Ives's mate
rialistic theory, is a vital principle which is sepa
rated from a living organism ? Is it a part of the
material organism, or something distinct from it?
If a part of it, then not the whole man is buried,
as he repeatedly affirms that it is. If not a part
of it, then it must be something immaterial;
though Dr. Ives everywhere denounces the no
tion that there is any thing immaterial in man.
If the whole man is buried, then nothing is left
which can be commended to God.
More important are certain New-Testament pas
sages in which the soul, or spirit, is spoken of in
connection with the body as a distinct thing.
E.g. : Matt. x. 28, " Fear not them which kill the
body, but are not able to kill the soul." No
sharper or more emphatic expression could be
made of the fact that body and soul are not iden
tical, but entirely distinct. What does Dr. Ives
do with it ? The latter part of the verse (" but
rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul
and body in hell") he quotes at least in four
different places ; for it seems strongly to favor his
doctrine that the soul is annihilated. But the
first part he refers to only once (p. 116). He

94 SPIRIT AND BODY DISTINCT.
puts the question, " Can man literally destroy a
soul ? " and he answers it thus : " What does
the Bible say to this? It replies, Temporarily,
relatively to this life, Yes ! ' They smote all the
souls with the edge of the sword, utterly destroy
ing them.' But permanently, in relation to abso
lute existence here or hereafter, 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 tp destroy soul and body in Gehenna.' From
man's destruction there is a returning to life
again. . . . but in the destruction from God's
hand, in his Gehenna fire, there is no return to
hfe." This is certainly a very singular style of exegesis.
Dr. Ives, it must be remembered, is a champion
of "literal" interpretation. The question is, Can
man destroy a soul ? He says that the Bible re
plies, " Yes, temporarily." Where does the Bible
say "temporarily"? The simple fact is, that in
one place the Bible speaks of men destroying
souls, and in the other says that men cannot de
stroy the soul ; and this distinction of " tempo
rarily" and "permanently" is one invented by
Dr. Ives to explain the apparent inconsistency of
the Bible. We prefer another way, warranted by
acknowledged facts ; viz., to suppose that the word
" soul " is used in different senses. But this is not
the worst. Dr. Ives regards it as the great merit
of his book that he has proved that there is no

ABSURDITY OF DR. IVES'S EVASION. 95
distinction between the soul and the body. The
soul, he says, is the organized body : the several
parts of the body are "parts of the soul " (p. 327) ;
a dead body is a " dead soul " (p. 115). But Christ
tells us that men can destroy the body, and cannot
destroy the soul. But, if the soul and the body
are identical, this means that men can destroy the
soul, and yet cannot destroy it. It is true that Dr.
Ives admits a sort of distinction between soul and
body. The soul, according to him, is the organ
ism, — the bodily parts orderly arranged; while
the term " body," as distinguished from the organ
ism, has reference rather to the " physical mass,
made up of so many material, elements or particles
agglomerated together" (p. 114). But this is not
only utterly incorrect in itself, but, even if correct,
would be a mere distinction in idea, not in fact.
It does not in the slightest degree affect the inter
pretation of Christ's language ; and Dr. Ives him
self, though he has just been elaborating this dis
tinction, makes no use of it here. In fact, he seems
to be utterly oblivious of the fact that there is any
contrast between body and soul involved in the
verse. The case is as clear as possible. On Dr.
Ives's own theory of the soul, the distinction be
tween "temporarily" and "permanently" makes
not the slightest difference : for if Christ means
that men can destroy a soul temporarily, but not
permanently, then he must equally mean that men
can destroy a body temporarily, but not perma-

96 SPIRIT AND BODY DISTINCT.
nently ; for, according to Dr. Ives, the soul is the
body. Whatever is true of the one is true of the
other. Nor is this question affected in any degree
by the distinction which he afterwards makes be
tween the soul and the body with reference to the
resurrection. The resurrection, he says (pp. 120,
121), "is a resurrection of the soul, or organism:
it is not a resurrection of the body." For he is
there only denying the identity of the future body
with the present one. But it is impossible to
recognize even this distinction as admissible in Dr.
Ives's system : for he says expressly (p. 105) that
the biblical " soul " is the same as our " organism ; "
that " we use ' organism,' as the Bible does ' soul,'
as a practical synonyme for ' body ; ' " that " the
Bible speaks of the various bodily organs as parts
of a soul, or organism " (p. 112). Over and over
again he assures' us that the soul, the man, is noth
ing but an organized body. If, at the resurrection,
the soul raised is the same in any sense as the one
that died, then the same organized body must be
raised. But, be this as it may, Christ is speaking
of the present body and soul ; and, on Dr. Ives's
theory, he who kills the body must kill the soul.
That theory is utterly crushed by Christ's declara
tion. As Mr. Edward White remarks ("Life in
Christ," a work advocating the doctrine of con
ditional immortality, p. 302), "No even colorable
escape from this criticism seems possible, ex
cept by refinements unintelligible to the common
people."

PROOF FROM 2 COR. XII. 2. 97
Another passage, still more emphatically conclu
sive, if possible, against Dr. Ives's theory of the
soul as identical with the body, is found in 2 Cor.
xii. 2, where Paul says, " I knew a man in Christ
above fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I
cannot tell ; or whether out of the body, I cannot
tell : God knoweth) ; such an one caught up to
the third heaven." This is the description of a
vision which Paul had had. It is the ordinary
characteristic of visions, that the one who has
them seems to be transported into different sur
roundings from his actual ones. He sees what
no one else with him can see, or hears what no
one else can hear. Thus Ezekiel says of himself
(viii. 3), " He [Jehovah] put forth the form of an
hand, and took me by a lock of mine head ; and
the spirit lifted me up between the earth and the
heaven, and brought me in the visions of God to
Jerusalem." No one supposes that Ezekiel's body
was literally carried from Babylon to Jerusalem.
He might have described his case just as Paul de
scribed his, — " Whether in the body, or out of the
body, I cannot tell." That is, whether the sphit,
the ego, the man's self, was really taken out of his
body and transported to another place, the man
who had the vision could not tell: all he knew
was, that he had been supernaturally made to see
what was quite beyond the possibility of ordinary
experience. But the 'bearing of all this on the
question before us is very obvious. It is not

98 SPIRIT AND BODY DISTINCT.
necessary for us, any more than it was possible for
Paul, to decide whether he was in the body or out
of the body at the time referred to. The impor
tant truth clearly involved in the language is, that
Paul conceived it as a possible thing that he could
be taken out of his body. It would have been a
sheer impossibility for him to have used the lan
guage quoted, if he had had the notion of the body
which our author imputes to him. " Whether in
the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the
body, I cannot tell " ! Why, if Paul had learned
his psychology from Dr. Ives's book, he would
have had to suppose that there was nothing of hini
but the body. If he really did hold the doctrine
advocated in that book, then we must understand
him to say, fourteen years after the occurrence had
taken place, and when there had been ample time
for any temporary insanity to leave him, that he
did not know whether, on that occasion, his body
had been out of his body ! Though he knew that
his self consisted wholly of his bodily organism,
yet he could not tell whether he had been outside
of himself ! We do not know how Dr. Ives would
explain this passage. For some reason he does not
refer to it. But it is certain that it is utterly
irreconcilable with the doctrine, that, according to
the Bible, the soul is identical with the bodily
organism. We next call attention to certain passages, some
of which have pre viously been referred to, in which

OTHER BIBLICAL PASSAGES ADDUCED.' 99
a contrast more or less sharp is drawn between
the body and the spirit. In 1 Cor. v. 3 we read,
" I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit,
have judged already." Similarly Paul says, in
Col. ii. 5, " Though I be absent in the flesh, yet
am I with you in the sphit." This is not the lan
guage of one to whom flesh and sphit are identical
and inseparable.
Still more strongly is the distinction between
body and spirit implied in Christ's language:
Matt. xxvi. 41, " The spirit indeed is willing ; but
.the flesh is weak." Cf. the parallel passage in Mark
xiv. 38. Where, as above, the sphit and the flesh
are spoken of as in different places, it would be
possible to regard the language as somewhat figu
rative ; but here the contrast has reference to char
acter. Sphit and flesh are represented as in some
sense opposed to one another. Things that are
identical cannot be so described. If the flesh is
the spirit, it cannot be said th#t the flesh is weak
while the spirit is willing.
John hi. 6, " That which is born of the flesh is
flesh, and that which is born of the Sphit is
sphit." - Our Lord is supposed by many to use
here the word "flesh" in the ethical sense, which
it so generally has in the writings of Paul. That
is, he that is born of one who has a sinful human
nature is characterized by the same carnal nature ;
whereas he who is regenerated through the Holy
Spirit has a sphitual nature. Even if we admit

100 SPIEIT AND BODY DISTINCT.
that this is the exact shade of meaning, we have
still the fact before us of a contrast between the
ethical significance of these words, which would
and could never have arisen, if, in their literal sense,
they had been perfectly identical. But we think,
that, in this passage, "flesh" does not have a strictly
moral sense. Nicodemus has just been expressing
his surprise at Jesus' announcement of the neces
sity of a second birth. " How can a man be born,"
he asks, "when he is old? Can he enter the second
time into his mother's womb, and be born ? " It
is with reference to this notion of Nicodemus con
cerning physical birth that Jesus replies, "Except
a man be born of water and of the Sphit, he. can
not enter the kingdom of God. That which is
born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born
of the Spirit is spirit." As much as to say, " The
subject of physical birth is a human body, a fleshly
form. It is not the body that needs to be born
again, — to go a second time through the physical
process of being born : that which needs to be
introduced to a new life is the spirit. This it is
which is renewed by the Sphit of God." Thus
understood, the passage expresses in the strongest
manner the distinction between the body and the
spirit. ' The same thing is clearly indicated by such lan
guage as is found in Phil. i. 22, 24 : " If I live in
the flesh, this is the fruit of my labor. ... To abide
in the flesh is more needful for you." No one

BIBLICAL PASSAGES ADDUCED. 101
could so speak who did not regard himself as some
thing distinct from the flesh in which he describes
himself as living and abiding. In like manner
Paul speaks, in Gal. ii. 20, of "the life which I
now live in the flesh."
To the same effect are all those passages in
which the body and the spirit are spoken of to
gether as distinct though associated things. E.g. :
1 Cor. vi. 20, " Glorify God in your body and in
your spirit, which are God's." Paul has been
warning against sins which especially affect the
body; and now he adds this general precept to
glorify God both with the body and with the
sphit, — a precept which has no pertinence on the
materialistic theory that there is nothing of man
but the body. So in 1 Cor. vii. 34 it is said that
" the unmarried woman careth for the things of
the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and
in spirit ; " and in 2 Cor. vii. 1 we are exhorted
to "cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the
flesh and spirit."
Further confirmation of the conclusions here
reached will be found in the next chapter.

102 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH.

CHAPTER VI.
BIBLICAL PROOF THAT HUMAN EXISTENCE IS NOT
TERMINATED AT DEATH.
THE demonstration now given, that the Bible
everywhere recognizes a sharp distinction
between the material body and the soul, does not
of itself prove that the soul continues to exist as
a conscious person after the death of the body;
though it does furnish a strong presumption that
this is the case. Especially is this true of those
passages in which a contrast is made between body
and spirit. If spirit is only a set of physical phe
nomena or affections, then no general contrast
between spirit and body could be instituted. Still
it is important to examine what the Bible says
more directly on the question whether death puts
an end te* the spirit as well as to physical life.
Dr. Ives devotes a chapter (pp. 52-103) to an
examination of the passages which seem to imply
that the soul survives the death of the body. We
will here follow him in this discussion.
The story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke
xvi. 19-31) occupies the first and largest space in

THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS. 103
this chapter. He evidently feels this to be a seri
ous obstacle in the way of the acceptance of his
theory, that between death and the resurrection
the dead are non-existent. In the first place, he
calls the narrative a parable. To this we have no
objection ; for it must be remembered that a para
ble is, according to ah authorities, an account of
something which, though fictitious so far as the
personages and incidents are concerned, is never
theless true to nature. A fable assumes what is
both unreal and impossible to be actual (Jotham's
So-called parable — not so called in the Bible — was
a fable) : %a parable only assumes that to be true
which is in its nature possible. Thus all that is
said about the good Samaritan might have been a
fact of real life, so far as the nature of the inci
dents is concerned. But Dr. Ives, while calling
the story a parable, yet elaborately argues that we
cannot understand it literally, and that the details
of the narrative are, in part, such as could not have
been literally true; e.g., Abraham's bosom, and
the reference to the rich man's tongue, eyes, &c.
To this also we agree. Thegeneral definition of a
parable must be modified somewhat to meet the
present case. The language is more picturesque
than in ordinary parables. But, on the other hand,
we must remember that the scene is laid in the
future world, to describe which the language of
this world must' necessarily be inadequate. A
certain degree of figurativeness is, therefore, quite

104 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH.
indispensable in such a description. But still the
narrative is a parable. It is narrated for the pur
pose of conveying a moral lesson concerning the
folly of trusting in riches for happiness: it tells
us what is to be the issue of such a life compared
with that of a man who is pious, even though poor
as poverty itself: therefore we must understand
the parable as literally as possible. The objection
that we cannot understand the language about
eyes, bosom, &c, literally, is of no more weight
than the same objection would have with reference
to similar language used concerning God. But,
because we do not believe that God has literal
eyes and ears, we do not therefore doubt his
existence. We understand the language as liter-
erally as the nature of the case and the analogy of
Scripture permit.
What, now, does Dr. Ives make of this narrative ?
Having proved that in several respects the descrip
tion cannot be understood literally, he comes to
the conclusion that none of it is to be so under
stood. He explains it as " highly-wrought para
bolic imagery," like what is found in Isa. xiv.
9-11, where the dead in Sheol are represented as
rising up and exulting over the king of Babylon
as he comes down to join them (p. 59). The dead
men, though in reality absolutely lifeless and non
existent, are pictured as ahve, and anticipating the
experiences of the final state. * " The awakened
sleeper is depicted as already feeling the hot

DR. IVES'S THEORY OF THE PARABLE. 105
breath [of the fire of Gehenna] ; and in his de
spair he cries out for the smallest respite, though
but a drop of water" (p. 62). On this view,
thinks Dr. Ives, all " difficulties vanish, and all
the proprieties of time, place, and grammatical
construction, are strictly observed " (p. 63) ; for he
says (1), " It is most natural these dead Israelites
should be found where the parable locates them,
— in Hades, the grave, the house of the dead"
(p. 59). To which we reply, first, that Hades is
not the grave (as we shall later see) ; and second
ly, that, even if it were, only the rich man is lo
cated there. Lazarus is said to have been carried
directly to Abraham's bosom. This is absolutely
fatal to Dr. Ives's whole theory. Abraham's
bosom was the current designation of the con
scious state of happiness enjoyed by the departed
souls of the good. But (2) he says, " On this
view, neither the beggar nor the rich man have
received theh reward," according to the usual
representation that the judgment comes after the
resurrection (Ibid.). To which we reply, that
" this view " does not accord with the plain teach
ing of the parable, according to which the two
men in some sense have received their reward.
(3) This view, he says, unlike the other, " is fully
in accord with the Scriptures, which, while they
declare that the dead know not any thing, also in
highly-wrought parabolic imagery (Isa. xiv. 9-11)
represent the dead actually in theh graves rising

106 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH.
up to rejoice over the mighty conqueror who had
put them to death." And (4) we are told, " the
absurdities of the other method of interpretation
vanish on this." It is not at all incongruous, he
thinks, to speak of the dead having bodily forms
such as were laid in the grave ; while the imagina
tion only has to supply " life, and the consequent
power of speech and motion."
Let us see. If all this is so, then (1) we are
to understand, that, while it would be incongruous
to represent disembodied souls as having bodies, it
is quite natural to conceive of non-existent souls as
having bodies ! Moreover (2), some men, if not
Dr. Ives, will find it incongruous to suppose, that,
if Hades means the grave, two men, each in his
own separate grave, and carefully buried up,
should be considered as seeing one another, even
if our imagination has brought them into life and
new existence. (3) The reference to Isa. xiv. is
very unhappy : for there the dead are represented
a;.; not only in Sheol (Hades), but as having the
experiences of Sheol, not of an anticipated future
¦state ; whereas, according to Dr. Ives, Lazarus and
the rich man are pictured as anticipating the ex
periences of heaven and hell. (4) Still more fatal
is the objection, that there is no conceivable reason,
on Dr. Ives's theory, why the scene of the parable
should be laid in Mades, instead of being a direct
description of the final state of the dead. If Christ
meant, as he certainly did, to warn men against

REFUTATION OF DE. IVES'S EXPLANATION. 107
trusting in riches, then all he needed to do, and
all he did do on any view, -was to reveal what waj
ultimately to follow a life of worldliness. If the
retribution was in no sense to come till after the
judgment, then our Lord has deceived us. The
notion that this is highly-wrought parabohc im
agery is advanced to remove a difficulty. There
are none of the marks of such imagery as Dr. Ives
attributes to this passage. Compare the style of
it with Isa. xiv., and mark the difference. But
our author really makes it much more imaginative
than Isaiah's description. Not only are the dead
imagined to be alive, but the dead imagine them
selves to be ahve, and to be where they are not !
The case is as strong as possible. Christ plainly
says that the rich man went to Hades, and was
there in torment : Dr. Ives says that he went to
the grave, and became non-existent. Christ says
that Lazarus was carried to Abraham's bosom ; i.e.,
was taken into a condition of conscious felicity :
Dr. Ives says that he, too, was non-existent. Christ
gives not the slightest hint that his description
has relation to any thing but what it seems to
relate to ; viz., the state of men immediately after
death : Dr. Ives, on his own responsibility, transfers
the whole scene to the time after 4he judgment,
calling this an imagination of the non-existent
dead men; whereas it is evident that the only
violent stretch of the imagination is that of Dr.
Ives himself. One simple fact, unnoticed by Dr.

108 MAN EXISTENT AFTEE DEATH.
Ives, is sufficient of itself to overthrow this whole
fabric. The rich man begs Abraham to send Laz
arus to his father's house on earth, where he says
he has five brethren. But, if he is in imagination
already in a state of final reward, then his brethren
must be there too. If he imagines himself to have
got beyond the judgment, then why should he im
agine his brethren to be not yet even dead? " The
figurative understanding of the parable," says Dr.
Ives (p. 60), ..." has the advantage of plainness
and entire consistency in its details, which then
can be taken in a straightforward, literal sense."
Wonderful consistency this, that when the rich
man has not only imagined himself and Lazarus to
be in existence when they are not, and imagined
the non-existent Abraham also into existence, and
imagined himself to be in hell when he is in
reality in Hades, — that, after all this astounding
feat of the imagination, he should forget to
imagine that the fate of his brethren is by this
time as much fixed as his own !
In short, finding the parable in its plain teach
ings and implications utterly inconsistent with his
theory, Dr. Ives, abandoning the hteral interpreta
tion, not only makes it all figurative, but figurative
in such a way as would not naturally suggest it
self to one of a thousand readers of the Bible;
and, having adopted this theory, he has involved
the whole thing in a series of incongruities twice
as bad as those he seeks to avoid. And the chief

CHRIST'S ARGUMENT "WITH THE SADDUCEES. 109
and avowed reason of all is, that, since the dead
are absolutely extinct, we must resort to some such
theory. To which it is only necessary to reply,
that the very question in dispute is, whether the
dead are extinct.
Not more successful is Dr. Ives's dealing with
Christ's argument with the Sadducees, as recorded
in Luke xx. 27-38 (cf. Matt. xxii. 23-32 ; Mark
xii. 18-27). He evidently regards his treatment
of this matter as very momentous and decisive.
In fact, he looks upon this portion of Scripture as
proving the exact opposite of what it is commonly
supposed to teach. The greater interest attaches
to it, inasmuch as he tells us that it was just this
argument of Christ with the Sadducees, which,
when he was investigating the question of the
sleep of the dead, and was even struggling against
a growing conviction of its truth, " decided the
question for him." (p. 69). How did tins come
to pass ? He says (p. 70), " Christ's argument is
really this : God's words at the bush recognize a
life for dead patriarchs; but there is no life for
dead ones, except by a resurrection (or raising to
life again) ; therefore there must be a resurrec
tion : which was to be proved." Undoubtedly
there is some plausibility in this ; but the plausi
bility arises chiefly from the insertion of the minor
premise, — " there is no life for dead ones, except
by a resurrection," — which is not found in Christ's
own language. So far from this, he says, " God is

110 MAN EXISTENT AFTEE DEATH.
not the God of the dead, but of the living ; for all
live unto him." That is, he meets the Sadducees
— who disbelieved the continued existence of man
after the death of the body, and therefore, of
course, rejected the notion of a resurrection — by
arguing, from Jehovah's language at the bush,
that the dead patriarchs are not absolutely dead,
but are still living in relation to God, and there
fore may be raised in another body. In other
words, he says, " There will be a resurrection of
the dead; for the dead are still existent, and
therefore there is something to raise." Dr. Ives,
however, virtually says, " There will be a resurrec
tion of the dead ; for, though there is nothing to
raise, yet 'it will be raised." He speaks of the
trouble felt by some commentators in apprehend
ing the force of our Lord's argument. The trouble
is this : Christ seems to make more depend upon
the divine declaration, " I am the God of Abra
ham," &c, than it would seem fairly to warrant.
That is, Jehovah might naturally use this language ;
meaning, however, only, " I am he who was the
God of Abraham." And, further, even if this
use of the present tense did prove the continued
existence of the patriarchs, how does that prove
that there is to be a resurrection? In view of
these difficulties, Dr. Ives says, " He totally failed
to prove his point, if we accept modern theology's
interpretation of Christ's argument ; " and adds,
" It is only as freed from the popular delusion, that

CHRIST'S ARGUMENT WITH THE SADDUCEES. Ill
dead ones are actually living ones, that we find
ourselves also freed from all difficulty in the case."
How this is he proceeds to show by the above-
quoted syllogism. Only thus, he thinks, can we
explain the record that the Sadducees were -' put
to silence." But, for our part, we can still less see
why, on Dr. Ives's theory, the Sadducees ought
io have been put to silence. If Christ admitted,
with them, that the dead patriarchs were non-ex
istent, then his argument from Jehovah's addi'ess
to Moses depends for all its force upon the assump
tion that " I am " is equivalent, to " I will be."
But the ready retort to this might have been, " The
declaration ' I am ' may as well be replaced by
' I was ' as by ' I will be.' " Even on the assump
tion, therefore, that there can be no future life
except through a resurrection, the proof of that
future hfe must, on Dr. Ives's theory, have seemed
to the Sadducees to consist in the bare declara
tion, " There will be one, for there will be one."
But there is force in our Lord's argument, if we
take him at his word, and, when he says, " God is
not the God of the dead, but of the living," un
derstand him to derive from Jehovah's language
the very truth which he does derive ; viz., that the
patriarchs are not dead in the Sadducean sense,
but that they still live.1
1 We say, " dead in the Sadducean sense; " for Christ at the
same time affirms that all are ahve, in some sense at least, though
he yet speaks of the patriarchs as dead, — "that the dead are

112 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH.
According to Dr. Ives, the point of our Saviour's
argument rests on the assumption that there can
be no future life except by a resurrection of the
bodily organism. But, even if this were true, it
would have had no force with the Sadducees ; for
there is no evidence that they admitted any such
principle : there is good evidence that they did
not. According to Josephus (" Jewish War," ii.
8), the Essenes believed in the continued existence
of the soul after death, without any resurrection
of the body ; and even the Pharisees, he says, be
lieved that only the good would have other bodies
given to them, though both the good and bad
would continue to exist. The notion that there
is no soul that can exist apart from a bodily organ
ism, even if Christ held it, was not one that we
have any reason to believe had any existence
among the Jews : therefore any argument resting
on such a notion must have had no weight with
them. The reputed raising of Samuel, as recorded in
1 Sam. xxviii. 3-25, is another passage as to which
Dr. Ives energetically labors to overthrow the
natural and ordinary impression produced by it
raised." If we take the statement, " God is not the God of the
dead," strictly, or infer from it that the dead are really non-ex
istent, then it is a flat contradiction of what Paul says (Rom. xiv.
9), " To this end Christ both died and rose and revived, that he
might be Lord both of the dead and living." This, moreover, is
another passage (not noticed by Dr. Ives) most clearly implying
that the dead are not non-existent.

THE RAISING OF SAMUEL. 113
(p. 91, seq.). The upshot of his discussion is,
that the pretended raising of Samuel was a fraud,
cunningly practised on Saul by the necromancer ;
and that the Bible does not assert or imply that
Samuel really appeared. The main points of his
argument are these : 1. Since Saul had hardened
himself in sin, it is incredible that God would now
do what he had all along been refusing to do ; viz.,
grant him an audience. 2. The witch could not
bring Samuel up, and God would not : therefore the
whole thing was a fraud. 3. The appearance of
reahty is easily accounted for by the circumstances.
The woman could recognize Saul from his ex
traordinary size, but conceals her knowledge. She
feigns terror at the fictitious appearance of the
prophet, not because he has really appeared, but
because, while Saul has sternly forbidden all nec
romancy, " she has been unwittingly betrayed into
practising her unlawful art in his very presence "
(p. 94). In the conversation which f oho wed be
tween Saul and Samuel, the woman acted the part
of a ventriloquist, or had a confederate.
The opinion that the appearance of Samuel was
wholly fictitious is one which others have held,
and which is not enthely without plausibility. It
is possible that Saul might have been imposed upon
in such a way, under the circumstances. It is no
where said that he saw Samuel : it is rather implied
that he did not. The woman may have lied from
beginning to end. Nevertheless, Dr. Ives's argu-

114 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH.
ments in favor of this view are far from satisfac
tory. Let us consider them.
The notion, that because of Saul's wickedness
God would not have granted his desired interview
with Samuel, is any thing but conclusive. It is
certainly not an unbiblical conception of God, that
he may grant men's requests, and in so doing send
leanness into their soul (Ps. cvi. 15). If God had
granted what Saul really wanted, — viz., not only
an interview with . Samuel, but some comforting
communication from him, — then we might have
occasion for wonder ; but inasmuch as Samuel's
message was nothing but a brief, cold confirmation
of Saul's worst fears, there is nothing in the mere
granting of the desired interview which is incon
sistent with God's uniform treatment of him.
We admit, of course, that the woman could not
really bring Samuel up ; but, as has been seen, it
does not follow that God either could not or would
not do it.
As to the rest, all that can be alleged is,. that the
woman may have lied throughout. But something
more than this is needed in order to a proof. Her
expression of terror, Dr. Ives says, was occasioned
by her having been betrayed into the practice of
her arts before the king, who had prohibited it.
But if, as Dr. Ives assumes, she knew all the while
that the man was Saul himself, and she had refused
to use her incantations till she had secured from
him an oath that she should suffer no harm, it is

THE RAISING OF SAMUEL. 115
hard to see why, all of a sudden, in the midst of
her operations, this fear should have come over
her. In addition to ah this, it must be said : 1. The
theory that the whole thing was a fraud has to be
read into the text. The narrative itself nowhere
says it or implies, it. Particularly is this to be ob
served with regard to the conversation between
Saul and Samuel. The Bible says, " Samuel said
unto Saul," and that " Saul answered." The
theory, that not Samuel, but the woman, or some
accomplice, said what is here put into Samuel's
mouth, is one which has to be foisted into the
narrative in utter disregard of the plain statement
that Samuel himself spoke, and not somebody els©
We must take God's truth, Dr. Ives says, "pre
cisely as God gives it to us." 2. The tone of
Samuel's message to Saul is one which it is diffi
cult to attribute to an impostor who was playing a
trick on the king. Especially is it improbable that
an impostor would have ventured to make the
specific prediction, that Saul and his sons would
all be killed on the next day. In spite of all that
may be said by way of showing how a shrewd per
son might have acted the part of Samuel, and
might have conjectured that Saul and his sons
would certainly die on the morrow, it is next to
impossible ' to think that the narrator meant to
convey any other impression than that there was
a really supernatural appearance and message.

116 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH.
But aside from all this, even if we should admit
that the reputed appearance was wholly fraudulent,
we have not got rid of the difficulties which the
narrative throws in the way of Dr. Ives's theory.
At all events, the narrative shows that there was
a widespread belief in the continued existence of
the dead, and even in the possibility of holding
intercourse with them. It was' a belief having
such a prevalence, that even the king, who had
prohibited the practice of necromancy, himself, in
his desperation, resorted to a necromancer; thus
showing that he shared the belief, not only in the
continued existence of the dead, but in the power
of necromancy to bring them up. To all this it
may indeed be replied, that the whole notion was
nevertheless a superstition, and is shown to be
such by the very fact that necromancy was for
bidden by the Mosaic law. But this is by no
means satisfactory reasoning. The practice of
necromancy was undoubtedly an imposture, and
there was reason enough for forbidding it. But
the very fact that it was prohibited proves that
there was a common belief in the existence of men
after death; and it is well-nigh incredible, if
Moses held that death is the end of existence, that
he should not have given this as a conclusive
reason for not resorting to necromancers. There
is nothing of the kind. The argument derived
from this narrative for the continued existence of
man after death is, therefore, unshaken.

THE RAISING OF SAMUEL. 117
There is another very important feature in this
narrative. In his address to Saul, the prophet
says, " To-morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with
me." This, whether really the language of Sam
uel or the artful language of the woman imper
sonating Samuel, shows what was the prevailing
conception respecting the dead. The special point
to be noticed is this : Saul and his sons were to be
with Samuel before being buried. Reference, there
fore, cannot be made to their being put in the
grave. In what sense, then, were they to be with
him ? Clearly in the sense that the dead have an
existence independent of the defunct body. This,
at least,' is the conception underlying the predic
tion. Dr. Ives may say that it was a part of the
woman's lie. Very well; but why should she
have invented such a lie ? If she wished to make
on Saul the impression of a real communication,
must she not have accommodated herself to Saul's
own notion of the condition of the dead? The
only escape from this is to say that Saul himself
had a wrong notion concerning the whole matter.
But if we assume, as the narrative -clearly implies,
that Samuel himself was really speaking, we have
an absolute demonstration, that, according to the
Bible, there is an existence of the soul surviving
the death of. the body.
The account of the transfiguration (Matt. xvii.
1-8), as bearing on this question, Dr. Ives explains
away on the strength of Christ's declaration (ver. 9)

118 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH.
that it was a "vision." It was therefore, he
thinks, not an actual reality, but only a prophetic
view of something that was yet to be. " Like the
visions of the Apocalypse, and others foretelling
future events, it was in type or symbol " (p. 76).
He argues that the vision of the transfiguration
was the fulfilment of the promise made by Christ
six days before : " There be some standing here
which shall not taste of death till they see the
Son of man coming in his kingdom " (Matt. xvi.
28). Now, this kingdom, he says, was something
future, — something not to be realized till Christ's
second coming, according to such passages as 2
Tim. iv. 1 : " Christ, who shall judge the quick
and dead at his appearing and his kingdom."
Therefore, he concludes, Elijah and Moses ap
peared only in the sense that that which was to
be in the future was manifested to the disciples in
a state of prophetic inspiration.
But to this we reply : 1. It is not true, as Dr.
Ives asserts, that the kingdom of Christ is always
described in the New Testament as something
future, and contemporaneous with his second com
ing. Undoubtedly this is very often what is meant.
But how can this meaning be adhered to in such
passages as Matt. iii. 2, iv. 17, Mark i. 15, in which
it is said, " The kingdom of heaven is at hand " ?
Paul speaks to the Colossians (i. 13) of the Fa
ther, " who hath delivered us from the power of
darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom

THE TRANSFIGURATION. 119
of his dear Son." He says again (Rom. xiv. 17),
" The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but
righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy
Ghost." Surely this was not something which
was to be entirely unknown till the distant future.
In the very passage (Luke xvii. 21) which Dr.
Ives takes so much pains to interpret the same
thing is taught. It is true, as he says, that it
ought to be translated, " The kingdom of God is
among you." But this, no less than the rendering
of the English version, describes the kingdom of
God as something present, and not future. 2. The
statement that the sight of the transfiguration was
the direct and specific fulfilment of the promise
recorded just before is without sufficient founda
tion. That promise is precisely analogous to the
one in Mark xiii. 30, where it is said, in reference
to the predicted coming of the Son of man (ver.
26) and the accompanying events, " Verily I say
unto you, that this generation shall not pass till
all these things be done." We cannot stop to dis
cuss the problem suggested by this statement ;
but it is obvious that the promise here refers to no
mere vision of a future kingdom. These things
were to take place during the lifetime of the exist
ing generation. 3. A vision may as well have
reference to a present as to a future event. Thus
Stephen (Acts vii. 31) calls what Moses saw at
the bush a vision. The Lord spoke to Ananias
at Damascus concerning Saul, and the condition in

120 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH.
which he then was to be found. In fact, nowhere
in the New Testament, unless in the case before
us, is orama (vision) used in reference to any thing
future. 4. Having thus seen that there is nothing
requiring us to Understand this vision as relating
to the distant future, we find positive indications
that it does not have such a reference ; for we
read (Luke ix. 31) that Moses and Elijah not only
appeared, but spoke of Christ's "decease which
he should accomplish at Jerusalem." If the whole
appearance was a presentation of what was to be
long after Christ's death, how is it conceivable
that they should be represented as talking about
that death as something still future ? This, be it
remembered, is the only specific thing, besides the
bare fact of the appearance of the three persons
together, which is reported to us concerning this
remarkable event. 5. Dr. Ives says, that, " if a
real Moses and Elijah appeared thus to the dis
ciples, it contradicts other scriptures" (p. 77).
The contradiction consists, as he would have us
understand, in the fact, that, according to Acts
xxvi. 23 and Col. i. 18, Christ was to be " the first
that should rise from the dead." Therefore, says
our author, " It were impossible that Moses, by a
resurrection into glory, should thus precede his
Lord." But this is assuming that Moses and
Elijah had their resurrection-bodies, about which
nothing is said. The question before us is, not
whether they had their spiritual bodies, but wheth-

WHERE ARE ENOCH AND ELIJAH? 121
er they were in existence. 6. In another place
(p. 193) Dr. Ives considers the question, " Where,
on this view [of Sheol], do you put Enoch and
Elijah, who did not see death ? " He replies,
" The full answer to that question has not been
revealed to us." Tins is very true. But it would
be weh if. the bearing of these cases on his gen
eral theory had been more carefully considered:
without it, such reply has much the appearance
of an evasion of a difficulty. Dr. Ives holds that
there is no such thing as a man, as distinct from
a human organism. " The man himself,, as such,
is a soul " (p. 34) ; and a soul is nothing but an
organism (p. 107). Weh, then, either Elijah and
Enoch are still existing somewhere in the form of
their earthly bodies, or they are not. To suppose
that those same bodies are still somewhere exist
ent is too hard a supposition for any one. If Dr.
Ives believed this, he would find no difficulty in
supposing that Moses and Elijah (at least Elijah)
may have really appeared to the disciples. Evi
dently he assumes that they had not the same
bodies as when they were on the earth. But then
comes this dilemma : Either they had their resur
rection-bodies (which Dr. Ives denies), or they
had (on Dr. Ives's theory of the soul) some other
kind of body. But, if we make this supposition,
then we have a third kind of body, — something
intermediate, say, between the earthly and the
heavenly. And if so, then who shall say that

122 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH.
others, too, may not have some provisional body
between death and the resurrection ?
Our Lord's declaration to the thief on the cross,
" Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with
me in paradise " (Luke xxiii. 43), Dr. Ives dis
poses of very easily (p. 65, seq.). He transposes the
comma after "thee " to the next word, making it
read, " I say unto thee to-day, Thou shalt be," &c.
Inasmuch as, from the nature of the case, the ut
terance is made when it is made, i.e., to-day, the
reader's first reflection must be that "to-day" adds
nothing to the declaration. Of course the promise
was not made the day before, nor the day after.
Dr. Ives, apparently feeling this objection, thus par
aphrases the language : " In the unending glory and
joy of that paradise yet to be, thou shalt not only
be remembered by the King, but thou shalt be with
him ; for the King himself this day has said it " !
But the ordinary reader will still feel the difficulty,-
and will not be able to see the use of the phrase,
even though it be printed in small capitals: in
deed, the very fact that no emphasis can be put
into the word otherwise than by the mode of
printing it will be regarded as a most serious testi
mony against the doctor's efforts to amend the
punctuation of the passage.
The grammatical fact is, that the position of
emphasis for this phrase " to-day " is at the begin
ning of the sentence. Thus, in Mark xiv. 30, we
read, "This day, even in this night, . . . thou

CHRIST'S PROMISE TO THE THIEF. 123
shalt deny me thrice." So Luke iv. 21 : " He
began to say unto them, This day is this scripture
fulfilled in your ears." Acts xih. 33 : " Thou art
my Son ; this day have I begotten thee." Heb. iii.
7, 15, iv. 7 : " To-day, if ye will hear his voice,
harden not your hearts." So also Matt. xxi. 28,
the words in the Greek are in this order : " Son, go,
to-day work in my vineyard." Now, on any sup
position, the phrase is here emphatic. The pre
sumption, therefore, is, that it belongs to that
clause in which it occupies the emphatic position.
The simple truth is, that no one would ever have
thought of connecting the words in the manner
proposed by Dr. Ives and others, were it not for
the sake of harmonizing the passage with the sup
posed teachings of other parts of Scripture. Dr.
Ives lays great stress on the meagreness and irrele
vancy of Christ's promise on the common interpre
tation : " Irrelevant," he says, " because it ignores
the royal coming of which the suppliant speaks ;
niggardly, because it promises but a few hours of
companionship with the Lord" (p. 68). As if all
that future glory and permanent companionship
were not involved in the promise of immediate
fellowship ! The thief asks to be remembered
when the Lord comes in his kingdom. Jesus in
his answer promises him that, and even more :
"To-day — not in the distant future only — to-day
shalt thou be with me in paradise."
Phil. i. 21 : " For to me to live is Christ, and to

124 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH.
die is gain." Of this passage Dr. Ives says (p.
83), " Is it possible to believe Paul says, in speak
ing of magnifying Christ [as he does in ver. 20],
' For 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, except as, whether living oi
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." It may not avail with our author
to object that this exposition is contrary to what
readers and commentators generally and naturally
find the passage to mean. But we must call atten
tion to some strange inconsistencies in his own
explanation of this verse and the context. In ver.
20 Paul had said, " Christ shah be magnified in
my body, whether it be by life or by death."
Accordingly, says Dr. Ives, when in the next verse
he speaks of his death as a gain, he must mean a
gain, an advantage, to Christ. In reply to tins, it
is obvious to remark : 1. Paul says, " To me to die
is gain : " Dr. Ives makes him say, " To Christ to
die is gain." 2. If Dr. Ives's explanations were
correct, we should have to understand that Paul's
death would be a better thing for Christ's cause
than his living would be. But, on the contrary,
Paul immediately after says that " to abide in the
flesh is more needful " for the Philippian Chris
tians ; and therefore he is confident that he shah
continue with them. 3. In ver. 23 Paul says,

PAUL'S DESIRE TO DEPART. 125
" I am in a strait betwixt two, having a deshe to
depart, and to be with Christ, which is far better."
Dr. Ives says on this (p. 84), with reference to the
English version, " Certain words have been omit
ted, and others evidently modified in meaning,
seemingly for a purpose. Doubtful indeed the
cause which is upheld by any thing like unfair
dealing ! " This, by the way, is only one of many
insinuations sprinkled through the book against
the honesty of the translators of our Bible. Such
accusations are quite unworthy of one who pro
fesses to have the mind of Christ. In the present
case there is especially no occasion for them, inas
much as it is hard to see what essential difference
is brought out in Dr. Ives's own version of the pas
sage. He renders it (including the last clause of
ver. 22), " Which I shall choose for myself I know
not : for I am straitened [troubled] by both ; hav
ing the intense deshe for the departing and being
with Christ, for very much better is this." He
then goes on to say that "the departing" here
does not refer to his death, but to his hope of being
" caught up to meet the Lord in the air." The
departing, he says, means " that departing which
to his mind is inseparably associated with the mani
fested presence of his Lord." Now, as to all this,
it is certainly very singular, that after having just
before spoken about death and life, and weighed
theh several claims upon his choice, he should
now, when he speaks of " departing," have no ref-

126 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH.
erence to death at all. It is doubly strange, on
Dr. Ives's theory ; for, according to him, it is incon
ceivable that in ver. 21 Paul can be thinking at
all of his own advantage ; yet he implies that here,
in ver. 23, Paul is thinking of nothing else ! But
that which absolutely and irrefutably overthrows
Dr. Ives's exposition is this : In the following
verse Paul says, " Nevertheless, to abide in the
flesh is more needful for you." That is, he con
trasts his " departing " and his " abiding in the
flesh ; " and, while he longs for the former, he says
that the latter is more needful for the Phihppian
Christians. But if the departing means, as Dr.
Ives claims, the being caught up in the ah at the
coming of Christ, then, according to Paul's doc
trine, in the very passage which Dr. Ives refers
to (1 Thess. iv. 16, 17), all the living saints were
to share that blessing together, — the Philippians,
therefore, included. If, then, this is what Paul
referred to, there could have been no " strait " in
the case. What he desired for himself — viz., to
depart — he had equal reason to desire for them.
He could not have it without their having it too.
In short, there was no such alternative possible as
he describes between his departing and his abiding
in the flesh for the sake of the Phihppian Chris
tians. This reply is one from which there can be
absolutely no escape. This passage, therefore,
presents the clearest possible proof, that, when
Paul spoke of " departing," he meant the same as

BEING ABSENT FROM THE BODY. 127
when he had before spoken of " dying ; " and that
he regarded death, not as putting him out of exist
ence, but as ushering him into the presence of his
Saviour. This conclusion is confirmed (if confirmation
can be needed) by 2 Tim. iv. 6, where, unques
tionably, Paul speaks of death: "I am now ready
to be offered, and the time of my departure is at
hand." This passage, moreover, is to be added to
those introduced to us by Dr. Ives, which imply
that death is not the termination of existence.
How can such an extermination be called a depart
ure? It is impossible not to understand this to
imply that Paul meant that he, by his approach
ing death, was to be removed, not annihilated.
Not much more successful is our author in his
exposition of 2 Cor. v. 1-8. Paul says, in the
eighth verse, " We are . . . willing rather to be
absent from the body, and to be present with the
Lord." Dr. Ives understands this to mean simply,
absent from this body, " this temporary tent, and
to be present with the Lord" (p. 89). What
Paul desires, he says, as shown by the preceding
verses, in which he expresses a longing to "be
clothed upon," is to obtain the immortal resurrec
tion-body. Very, possible ; but the real pith of
the argument derived from this and similar pas
sages Dr. Ives wholly fails to see. Paul says, " In
this [house] we groan." "We that are in this
tabernacle." " We are at home in the body," &c.

128 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH.
According to Dr. Ives, the " house " (here figura
tively used for the body) is the man. Paul has
no right to speak of himself as in it : a house can
not be in itself. Moreover, in ver. 3, Paul says,
" If so be that being clothed we shah not be found
naked ; " or, more accurately, " If so be that we
shall be found clothed, not naked." What is the
nakedness here ? It is evidently the opposite of
being clothed, and the being clothed is evidently
being in a body. Paul, then, while deprecating
such a state, yet speaks of it as possible that he
could exist without a body. According to Dr.
Ives, this being naked can mean nothing but being
non-existent. If Paul " meant just that, why did
not he say just that ? " (vide Dr. Ives, p. 20.)
Another passage considered by Dr. Ives is 1
Pet. iii. 18-20, relating to Christ's preaching to
the spirits in prison. We are not disposed to lay
much stress on this obscure and much-vexed pas
sage ; but the treatment which our author bestows
upon it is so good an illustration of his style of
reasoning, that we dwell on it a moment. This
statement, he says, cannot be taken literally, be
cause the Bible tells us that " the dead know not
any thing " (Eccles. ix. 5) ; that, when men die,
their " thoughts perish " (Ps. cxlvi. 4), &c. : there
fore such beings cannot be preached to. But if
this is conclusive, then it is hard to see why so
long a book need have been written. The author
ueeded only to begin by quoting these and shni-

THE CLOUD OF WITNESSES. 129
lar passages ; and then, in reference to all other
passages which seem as clearly to show that the
dead are not non-existent, he might simply say, as
he does say here, " The Bible doctrine makes short
work with such a fancy" (p. 90). But this way
of applying the great " law of the literal and the
figurative " will hardly suit those who cannot see
why it is not just as easy to turn the whole argu
ment end for end, and to " make short work " with
all passages which seem to imply the cessation of
existence at death, by saying, that, as they are
inconsistent with the others, they must be under
stood figuratively.
Another passage is Heb. xii. 1 : " Wherefore, see
ing we are compassed about with so great a cloud
of witnesses," &c. Against the theory that this
describes the Old-Testament saints as existing wit
nesses of the Christian race which the readers are
exhorted to run with patience, Dr. Ives (p. 98) urges
that the phrase rendered, " are compassed about
with," literally translated, would read, "having ly
ing around us." He therefore regards it as point
ing to the dead saints lying in their graves. How
little is proved by this is shown by the fact, that
in no case, where the verb here used (perikeimai)
elsewhere occurs in the New Testament, does it
bear the literal meaning of lying. In Mark ix. 42,
and Luke xvii. 2, it is rendered " hanged about "
(used of a millstone about the neck) ; in Acts
xxviii. 20, " bound with " (of a chain) ; and in

130 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH.
Heb. v. 2, " compassed " (of infirmity). Dr. Ivea
next argues that martyrdn, here rendered "wit
nesses," does not mean " spectators," but those who
bear testimony, though it be by death. No doubt
that this is the primary notion : yet a man is quali
fied to act as witness by being a spectator ; so that
often the latter idea is clearly involved, and be
comes even the most prominent, as 1 Tim. vi. 12 :
" Thou . _. . hast professed a good profession be
fore many witnesses." Still we admit that the
meaning may be, " We are surrounded by a great
company of those who have borne testimony to the
truth." But if, as Dr. Ives would have us think,
these witnesses were wholly extinct, it is hard to
see what special stimulus there could be in the
fact of their lying round about the living. In
deed, it cannot properly be said that they were
lying there, or anywhere else. It might have been
said that the thought of what those saints had been
in their lifetime should serve as a stimulus ; hut
to represent them as then surrounding the hving,
whether in a recumbent posture or any other,
could have had no pertinence and no sense if the
writer really regarded them as non-existent.
In this connection our author refers to Heb. ,
xii. 23, where occurs the expression, " the spirits
of just men made perfect." Against the supposi
tion that this can refer to the saints that are de
ceased, and describes them as already " enjoying
the supreme felicity of the heavenly world," he

THE SPIRITS OF THE JUST MADE PERFECT. 131
adduces the passage in xi. 40, where, he says, we
are told that the dead saints are not yet made per
fect. This must be taken in connection with the
view which he elsewhere (p. 296, seq.) presents,
— that being "perfect" or "perfected" means the
same as attaining the resurrection-body.
Now, to this the reply is obvious. In the first
place, xi. 40 does not say that the dead saints are
not yet made perfect. It says, " God having pro
vided some better thing for us, that they [the dead
heroes of faith] without us should not be made
perfect." What that "better thing" is we are
clearly told in vii. 22, "By so much was Jesus
made a surety of a better testament; " and viii. 6,
" But now hath he obtained a more excellent min
istry, by how much also he is the mediator- of a
better covenant, which was estabhshed upon better
promises." In other words, Christians are de
scribed as enjoying the benefits of the new and
more excellent dispensation; while the ancient
saints "died in faith, not having received the
promises " (xi. 13, 39). Those saints were not
made perfect : for " the law made nothing perfect ;
but the bringing in of a better hope did " (vh. 19).
They therefore, " without us," could not be made
perfect; i.e., they could not, before the Christian
dispensation, enjoy the full benefit of it. Nothing
can be clearer than that the passage in question
does not say, that, after the introduction of the
better testament, they are not yet made perfect.

132 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH.
But, in the second place, it is not true that being
" perfect," or " made perfect," always, or general
ly, or in fact ever, means attaining a resurrection-
body. What sense would it make to read in Matt.
v. 48, "Be ye possessed of a resurrection-body,
even as your Father which is in heaven has a res
urrection-body " ? The same nonsense results in
1 Cor. ii. 6, " We speak wisdom among them that
are perfect," if we interpret " perfect " in the way
proposed. In Phil. iii. 15 Paul says, "Let us
therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded."
Does this refer to the possessors of glorified bodies ?
The word teleios has everywhere a moral sense
when it is applied to men. Cf. Jas. iii. 2, "If
any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect
man." Likewise where the verb (teleioo) is used.
It is commonly employed with reference to things,
as " days " (Luke ii. 43), " work " (John iv. 34),
the "scripture" (xix. 28), one's "course" (Acts
xx. 24), "faith" (Jas. ii. 22), "love" (1 John
iv. 17). When used with reference to persons, it
is several times applied to Christ as " made per
fect " by his sufferings and death (Luke xiii. 32 ;
Heb. ii. 10, v. 9, vh. 28). The other cases are as
follows : John xvii. 23, Christ prays that his dis
ciples may be " made perfect in one ; " 1 John iv.
18, " He that feareth is not made perfect in love."
The moral sense of the word is obvious enough
here. Equally so in Heb. ix. 9, " Sacrifices that
could not make him that did the service perfect ; "

THE SPIRITS OF THE JUST MADE PERFECT. 133
and Heb. x. 1, " The law . . . can never with
those sacrifices . . . make the comers thereunto
perfect." In Heb. x. 14 we are told that Christ
" by one offering hath perfected forever them that
are sanctified ; " which is manifestly antithetic to
the verse quoted just before. The law could not
make perfect ; but Christ has made perfect. Here,
then, we find also the meaning of xi. 40, already
quoted. As being under the law, they could not
be made perfect ; but the gospel does make perfect.
The verb in all these passages conveys the sense
of fully accomplishing the work of deliverance
which God purposes for his people. There remain
only two passages more, — Phil. iii. 12 and Heb.
xii. 23. In the former Paul says, "Not as though
I had already attained, either were already perfect
[perfected]." This is immediately preceded by
the passage, " If I might by any means attain the
resurrection of the dead ; " and one might natu
rally be tempted to suppose that here he means to
say, "Not as though I had already attained this
resurrection." But the verb in the Greek original
is not the same in the two verses ; and the object
of the verb in ver. 12 is left unexpressed, and is to
be gathered from what follows. It is the " prize "
(ver. 14) which, in the Christian race which he
pictures himself as running, he" is struggling to
gain. The perfection which in ver. 12 he says he
has not attained, but which in ver. 15 he implies
that in some sense Christians may already here

134 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH.
possess, is, as the whole drift of the passage shows,
a moral one. But, even if we should understand
the resurrection as the thing not attained, that
does not identify this with the being perfected;
for he says, "Not as though I had aheady at
tained, or were already perfect."
As to the passages in which Christ is described
as made perfect, Heb. h. 10 explains them all. He
was made perfect "through sufferings." As the
preceding verse affirms, " for the suffering of death
he was crowned with glory and honor." The same
connection between his sufferings and his perfec
tion is affirmed in v. 8, 9, where we read, " 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
them that obey him." Christ was perfectly fitted
for his work by his sufferings and death : in con
sequence of them he is exalted to be a Prince and
a Saviour unto all that accept him. In none of
these passages is there any specific reference to a
resurrection-body as constituting the substance of
what is meant by being "perfected."
So, then, we come again to Heb. xii. 22, 23, where
we read that Christians "are come unto Mount
Sion, and unto the city of the hving God, the
heavenly JerusaleTn, and to an innumerable com
pany of angels, to the general assembly and church
of the first-born which are written in heaven, and
to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just

THE SOULS UNDER THE ALTAR. 135
men made perfect." There is an express contrast
between what is enjoyed under the new dispensa
tion and what was experienced under the old one,
which was ushered in amidst " fire, and blackness,
and darkness, and tempest," and frightful demon
strations (vers. 18, 19). Who, then, are these just
men made perfect, into whose company we are in
troduced? According to Dr. Ives, they are those
who are yet to be made perfect; i.e., raised from
the dead. But we are told here that we are come
into this company, and that this is the difference
between us and the saints under the old economy.
But if it all refers to the future time, when all the
pious will have received theh full reward, then the
Old-Testament saints as well as others will be
sharing the blessing, and the contrast is entirely
obhterated. Inasmuch, then, as this heavenly com
pany is one to whose fellowship Christians are rep
resented as already introduced, and inasmuch as it
includes the spirits of just men already made per
fect, the passage furnishes a very important and
positive refutation of the doctrine that there are no
redeemed men now in heaven.
There remains but one more passage discussed
by Dr. Ives in the chapter under consideration;
viz., Rev. vi. 9, 10: "I saw under the altar the
souls of them that were slain for the word of God,
and for the testimony which they held ; and they
cried with a loud voice." This seems to be a very
explicit affirmation that "dead souls" are not

136 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH.
extinct souls. One who holds that "the possi
bility of the literal meaning's being intended
must be exhausted before a figurative meaning
can be considered" would be expected to see in
this verse a very clear recognition of the contin
ued existence and consciousness of souls after
death. But we have already seen how easily this
great principle of interpretation is abandoned by
our author whenever he finds a passage which
conflicts with his doctrine of the soul; and we
are, therefore, not surprised to find that he here
resorts to a figurative interpretation. The
" souls," he says, are nothing but blood (the blood
being called the life, or soul, in Lev. xvii. 14,
&c.) ; and the blood crying out is only the same
as when Abel's blood is said (Gen. iv. 10) to cry
unto Jehovah from the ground (p. 81).
It is hard to decide how to treat such a mode
of exegesis. A mind which is capable of taking
such a view of scriptural language seems to us
beyond the reach of conviction. Yet" we will
undertake to expose the untenableness of the
exposition. When Abel's blood is said to cry out
for vengeance, no one can for a moment mistake
the figurativeness of the language. There is
only one way of understanding it. No one would
imagine that the blood literally spoke. But here
it is not blood, but souls, that are said to cry out.
There is no incongruity between subject and
object suggesting a figure. To say that "souls"

THE SOULS UNDER THE ALTAR. 137
means "blood" is introducing an incongruity.
Moreover, the context makes such a substitution
(for which no excuse can be found in any parallel
passage in all the Bible) impossible ; for we read
not only that the souls cried, but that they called
for the avenging of their blood, (note, the blood of
the bloods!) and not only this, but that "white
robes were given unto every one of them ; and it
was said unto them, that they should rest yet for
a little season." Think of it ! White robes were
given to every one of those bloods! And the
bloods (ver. 11) " were told that they should rest
yet for a little season, until their fehow-servants
also and theh brethren, that should be killed as
they were, should be fulfilled " ! In precisely the
same way, moreover, John speaks of the souls of
the dead, when he says (Rev. xx. 4), "I saw the
souls of them that were beheaded for the witness
of Jesus." Does this mean blood ? Dr. Ives has
no thought of such a thing here, because it is
immediately said of them that "they lived and
reigned with Christ a thousand years." But the
parallelism between the two passages is perfect.
In both the Revelator is said to have seen the souh
of the dead. In the latter case it is not even said
that he saw them after they were raised from" the
dead: it is rather implied that it was before the
resurrection. We have now taken into view all the passages
which Dr. Ives regards as at all even seeming to

138 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH.
confirm the doctrine of an immortal, immaterial
soul ; and the reader may judge how much ground
there is for his conclusion, that " not a single pas
sage examined sustains the inference of an immor
tal, immaterial soul, but that each, judged by its
relation to the context and to other scripture,
directly condemns the inference " (p. 101). So far
from having made good this claim, he has in every
case utterly failed to overthrow the view which
he opposes. These passages stand as irrefragable
proofs, that, according to the Bible, death does not
put an end to the existence of the human spirit.

GENERAL PRESUMPTIONS. 139

CHAPTER VII.
THE OLD-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE
STATE OF THE DEAD.
WHAT has already been said has incidentally
anticipated in part the statement of what
is taught in the Old Testament respecting the
state of human souls after death. But it is neces
sary to treat this topic more particularly.
1. A very important fact, and one justly empha
sized in discussions of this question, is this, — that
the Jews came out from among a people who
strongly held to the belief of a future life for all
men. The Jews must have been familiar with
the notion; and, if Moses • regarded the doctrine
as a heathenish superstition, he would undoubt
edly have directly denounced it. But we find
nothing of the kind.
2. Another significant fact is the prevalence of
necromancy, — the practice of consulting the spir
its of the dead. Of course it is not to be denied
that the practice was undoubtedly an imposture.
But the point is, that such a practice implies a
prevalent belief in the continued existence 'of the

140 OLD-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY.
soul after death. It continued to be so exten
sive, that even Saul, who had tried to banish
necromancers from the land, yet resorted to one
in his extremity. When Moses prohibited this
practice (Deut. xviii. 11; Lev. xx. 27), he gives
no intimation that the reason for it is at all
that there are no dead persons to consult, as he
would naturally have done if that had been the
truth revealed to him : he simply forbids consult
ing them. The impression left is that the fact of
the continued existence of the soul, not being
denied, is virtually affirmed. The same remark
holds of the other passages in the Old Testament
in which this practice is alluded to.
3. Again : there are certain phrases used with
reference to death which are very significant.
Thus the deceased one is often said to be
" gathered unto his fathers " (e.g., Judg. ii. 10) ;
he is said to " sleep with his fathers " (1 Kings ii.
10, and very often of the kings in the Books of
Kings and Chronicles), or to "go unto his fathers"
(e.g., Gen. xv. 15). The sleeping is expressed by
two distinct words, — most often by shakab, which
properly means, and is more often translated,
"lie," or "lie down; " though it is very frequently
used with the accessory notion of going to sleep ;
as, e.g., in Gen. xxvhi. 11, where this one word
is rendered in our Bible "lay down to sleep."
Occasionally the word more properly meaning
" to sleep " (yashen) is also used respecting

SLEEPING WITH THE FATHERS. 141
death : as Job hi. 13 ; Jer. li. 39, 57 ; Ps. xiii. 3 ;
Dan. xii. 2. It is easy to say that this is merely
a euphemism, or that, when men were said to lie
down with, or to go unto, the fathers, this was
only another way of saying that they went into
the grave as the fathers had gone before them.
But this is too easy a solution. The sleeping
is often spoken of as preceding the burial (e.g.,
1 Kings h. 10, xv. 24) ; and often the burial-place
was distant from that of the fathers, as in the case
of David. So individuals are said to "go to"
individual friends who have died. Thus Jacob
expected to go to be with Joseph (Gen. xxxvii.
35) ; though he did not regard him as buried at
all, but devoured by wild beasts. So David said
of his dead child, "I shall go to him; but he
shall not return to me " (2 Sam. xh. 23). Even
if such language should be looked on as prompted
by a natural yearning for the departed, by a love
which imagines the dead to be still existent, this
only goes to show that there was an instinct in
the Hebrews inclining them to attribute continued
existence and a dwelling-place to the spirits of the
deceased. 4. But we are not confined to these few indica
tions. What is implied in these modes of expres
sion is more positively and clearly affirmed in what
the Old Testament says about Sheol, the place to
which the dead go. As is well known, this word
is mistranslated in our Bible. It occurs in the

142 OLD-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY.
Hebrew Bible sixty-five times. It is translated
thirty-one times by "hell," thirty-one times by
" the grave," and three times by " the pit."1 AU
scholars agree that the word means neither "hell"
nor "grave." For the latter the Hebrew has a dis
tinct word (keber). It would be better to transfer
the word " Sheol " into our Bible, and let it ex
plain itself. Any reader would then soon learn
that Sheol is described as a place to which the dead
go down (Num. xvi. 30) ; as a place in the lower
parts of the earth (Ezek. xxxi. 14, 15) ; as a large
place where 'multitudes are congregated together
(Isa. xiv. 9 ; Ps. xlix. 14 ; Prov. xxvii. 20) ; as a
place to which all men must go (Eccles. ix. 10),
though rarely good men in particular (Gen.
xxxvh. 35 ; Isa. xxxviii. 10 ; Job xiv. 13) are so
represented ; while frequently it is described as
the place to which the wicked are destined, and
Uniformly as. a gloomy and dreadful place (Ps. ix.
1 For the convenience of those who have not the means of
identifying the passages here referred to, we append a complete
list of the verses in which Sheol occurs in the Old Testament.
Translated by " grave: " Gen. xxxvii. 35, xiii. 38, xliv. 29, 31;
1 Sam. ii. 6; 1 Kings ii. 6, 9; Job vii. 9, xiv. 13, xvii. 13, xxi. 13,
xxiv. 19; Ps. vi. 5, xxx. 3, xxxi. 17, xlix. 14, 14, 15, lxxxviii. 3,
lxxxix. 48, cxli. 7; Prov. i. 12, xxx. 10; Eccles. ix. 10; Cant.viii.6;
Isa. xiv. 11, xxxviii. 10, 18; Ezek. xxxi. 15; Hos. xiii. 14, 14.
Translated by " hell: " Deut. xxxii. 22; 2 Sam. xxii. 6; Job'xi.
8, xxvi. 6; Ps. ix. 17, xvi. 10, xviii. 5, lv. 15; lxxxvi. 13, cxvi. 3,
cxxxix. 8; Prov. v. 5, vii. 27, ix. 18, xv. 11, 24, xxiii. 14, xxvii. 20;
Isa. v. 14, xiv. 9, 15, xxviii. 15, 18, lvii. 9; Ezek. xxxi. 16, 17, xxxii.
21, 27; Amos ix. 2; Jon. ii. 2; Hab. ii. 5.
Translated by " pit: " Num. xvi. 30, 33; Job xvii. 16.

SHEOL. 143
17, xviii. 5, xlix. 14, 15 ; Prov. v. 5, xv. 11, 24,
xxiii. 14 ; Isa. xiv. 11 ; Ezek. xxxi. 16). Accord
ingly, sometimes the pious are represented as
exempted from it (Ps. xvi. 10, as correctly trans
lated, see p. 155 ; Ps. xlix. 15, lxxxvi. 13 ; Hos.
xiii. 14).
If, now, we bear in mind that there is but one
Sheol, it is manifest that it is not the same thing
as the grave, there being as many graves as there
are individuals buried. That Sheol is not the
same as what ' is now understood by " hell " is
also commonly acknowledged; though, it being
predominantly described as a dolorous place, and
as the place whither the wicked are sent, the lat
ter rendering often seems not inappropriate. But
so much is certain : If the Old-Testament writers
had had no idea of a post-mortem existence of the
dead, if in theh minds death put an utter end to
human existence, it is impossible that this concep
tion of Sheol should ever have arisen, and obtained
general currency.
What, now, does Dr. Ives have to say on this
point ? On p. 193 he sets out to answer the
question, " What is the meaning of Sheol, as
used in the Bible ? " He opens the discussion by
remarking, "The question is much simplified in
that it really lies between two meanings, so
opposed to each other that both cannot be right.
Two renderings, the grave and hell, are used by
our translators, each in nearly equal proportion."

144 OLD-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY.
He then examines many passages in which the
word occurs, for the purpose of showing that in
them it cannot mean hell. This, of course, is
easily done. Then he concludes, " Thus it is
made apparent that the grave is the correct ren
dering of Hebrew Sheol" (p. 200). We are at a
loss to know how to characterize this specimen of
biblical interpretation. How, we ask, did this
question become so " much simplified " ? Inas
much as all respectable scholars agree that Sheol
means neither the grave nor hell, it is evident that
we are indebted to Dr. Ives's bare dictum for this
simplification. It sounds much as if one should
argue, "Horses are either bipeds or centipedes.
But they are certainly not centipedes: therefore
they must be bipeds." The strange character of
this arbitrary reasoning is enhanced when we find,
that, even according td Dr. Ives himself, Sheol
does not exactly mean the grave either : for he
says, " Sheol means not the separate grave of
each individual (a different Hebrew word ex
presses that thought) ; but it is a general term for
the state of the dead, whether they lie in careful
sepulture, or, as Jacob imagined of Joseph, they
are torn and devoured by beasts of the field"
(p. 198). On p. 193 he says that Sheol "denotes
the place or state of the dead." Here he calls it
only the " state " of the dead ; but adds, " This
general state of the dead was conceived of as a
vast pit in the darkness of ' the lower parts of the

DR. IVES ON THE MEANING OF SHEOL. 145
earth,' — a vast burying-place, or, as we call it,
cemetery" So, then, the " state " was a " pit,"
and must, therefore, have been a " place." It was
a " vast " place. It was in " the lower parts of
the earth." At any rate, it was so " conceived
of." He goes on to say, that in this cemetery,
according to the Bible, " the dead of all times
past lie stored away, like mummied forms, ' in the
sides of the pit ' (Isa. xiv. 15)."
The problem here presented is a puzzling one
indeed, from Dr. Ives's point of view. Several
questions press for an answer : (1) If the Bible
tells us of such a cemetery in the lower parts of
the earth, as something distinct from the graves
in which the bodies of individuals really he, then
how is it that that distinct place ought to be trans
lated by the same word as that which designates the
individual grave? The Hebrew Bible not only
means a distinct thing when it speaks of this
" cemetery," but designates it by a distinct word.
By what right does Dr. Ives insist that this dis
tinction between Sheol (the general place of the
dead) and keber (the place in which an individual
corpse is laid) shall be obliterated in our Bible,
and both words be indiscriminately rendered
" grave " ? But (2) does Dr. Ives really beheve
that there is such a cemetery in the interior of
the earth? Of course he does not. He holds
that the bodily organism, sooner or later after
death, is dissolved and destroyed. He does not

146 OLD-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY.
think there is any one common place to which
the dead go. On his theory of the soul, he can
not think so. Therefore we ask, (3) Does he
understand the biblical description of this ceme
tery as a " literal " one ? Of course he does not ;
for, if he does, then all his own theory of death
must be abandoned. He says that the place of
the dead was " conceived of " as such a " vast
burying-place ; " possibly implying that he does
not think the Bible requires us to believe that
there is such a place. The dead, he says, accord
ing to this conception, lie stored away like mum
mies. The implication seems to be that they are
not really mummies. He cannot himself so regard
them. Yet he tells us, that, in the Bible, all the
dead, even those whose bodies may have been
torn up and eaten by beasts, were conceived as
thus deposited, " like mummied forms," in the
sides of the pit. We are therefore driven to
ask, (4) Does Dr. Ives hold that the biblical de
scription of Sheol is to be understood as figura
tive ? There would seem to be no doubt that he
must so understand the descriptions. And yet it
is remarkable that he carefully avoids intimating
that this is the case. Moreover, in the first edi
tion of his work, he wrote, " This general state
of the dead, in the Oriental imagination, was con
ceived of as a vast pit." But the words we have
Italicized are omitted in the enlarged edition.
This omission must have had a reason ; and we

DR. IVES ON THE MEANING OF SHEOL. 147
are unable to conceive of any, unless the author
regarded these words as suggesting that the lan
guage is to be understood figuratively. Still the
same conception of the state of the dead is allowed
to stand. At first that was called a conception of
the Oriental imagination. Now we are simply told
that there was such a conception ; and we are left
to understand that perhaps it was not a mere flight
of the imagination, a poetic conceit, in which the
non-existent were imagined to be existent, — the de
composed bodies to be all restored to their original
forms, and laid away in the sides of the great pit.
And so we are driven back to our second question,
— the question, whether the biblical representation
is to be taken literally. But we can get no relief ;
for we are more certain that Dr. Ives does not
believe that there is such a general cemetery in
the lower part of the earth than we are that he
means to disavow what he said in his first edition.
Therefore we must ask, (5) Does Dr. Ives suppose
that the biblical writers really believed that there
was such a general cemetery down in the earth ?
If he does think that they so believed, then, inas
much as he himself cannot so believe, he must
regard the Bible as false. But this we know is
not the case. Therefore we must conclude that
he would say that the Old-Testament writers did
not really hold any such notion. But they wrote
as though they believed it. Dr. Ives says even
that they so " conceived of " the matter. He can

148 OLD-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY.
get his knowledge of their conception only from
their writings. This conception, moreover, ap
pears in the plainest prose, as well as in the
poetic writings. It appears from the beginning
to the end of the Old-Testament period.
The more we ask, the less light can we get, as
to Dr. Ives's real opinion concerning this matter.
We must bear in mind, that, in his view, the bibli
cal writers regarded man as material, and as put
out of existence at death. Nevertheless, those same
writers "conceived of" a vast pit low down in
the earth, into which "all the dead" are somehow
brought and stored away " like mummied forms."
Now, this Sheol of the Bible is either a fact or a
fancy. If it is' a fact, then Dr. Ives's whole theory
of death is overthrown. Decomposed and non
existent men certainly do not force their way
through solid earth down into this cemetery. If,
however, it is a fancy, then it is, on Dr. Ives's
theory, a most remarkable and powerful fancy.
The fancy that lifeless, buried bodies, putrefied
bodies, mangled bodies, bodies eaten up by beasts,
in short, destroyed, extinct, non-existent bodies,
all from their several places of death, with one
accord pick their scattered parts together, and
travel downward, through rock, water, gravel, and
loam, to this subterranean pit, and carefully be
stow themselves in the sides of it, — such a fancy
is certainly wonderful enough to be called " Ori
ental." And, what is more wonderful still, this

DR. IVES ON THE MEANING OF SHEOL. 149
fancy somehow became a stereotyped conception.
It was not merely the play of a single imaginative
mind: the whole nation shared it. They all, fan
cied that the dead bodies betook themselves, or
were somehow taken, down to this common re
ceptacle. But they knew, all the while, that there
was not a shadow of truth in the conception !
But it is time to speak plainly. Dr. Ives's state
ment that Sheol means either hell or the grave is
utterly without foundation. He ought to know
that the common opinion of biblical scholars, as
well as the natural impression derived from read
ing the Old Testament, is, that Sheol is neither
hell nor the grave, but the dwelling-place of
deceased men. Why does he ignore this fact, and
speak as if the only alternative were to render
it "hell," or the "grave"? His conceit about
"mummied forms" in the "sides of the pit" is
his own, not the Bible's. The phrase, " sides of
the pit," itself is a mistranslation. It should be
"the bottom of the pit." But, not to dwell on
this, he would say, we presume, that Sheol must
be nothing but a sort of enlarged grave, because
the Bible does not allow us to beheve that there is
any thing left of the dead but the buried bodies.
In other words, he would argue, that as the Bible
must be consistent with itself, and as it elsewhere
tells us that the souls of the dead are extinct,
therefore it cannot be that Sheol is described as
the abode of disembodied souls;1 and hence it must

150 OLD-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY.
be nothing but the grave. But we reply : Since
the Bible is consistent with itself, and certainly
does, even on Dr. Ives's own admission, describe
Sheol as a place distinct from the grave, and as a
place to which all the dead descend, therefore it
cannot be that the dead are conceived as non
existent. This argument is certainly as legitimate
as his ; and much more so, since it does not charge
upon the Bible a monstrous, meaningless, and
ridiculous fancy. In short, the biblical doctrine
of Sheol is itself sufficient to overthrow Dr. Ives's
whole theory. His own admission that the Bible
represents men who are never buried in a real
grave as, nevertheless, the inhabitants of Sheol (or
Hades), is a virtual confession that Sheol is not
the grave. His own fundamental principle, that
the Bible must be understood as literally as possi
ble, requires us to- believe that Sheol is something
distinct from the grave ; that it is a place inhabited
by real, existent beings ; and' that, therefore, death
is not the end" of existence.1
5. To the foregoing we may add an examination
1 Mr. Constable, in his book on Hades, affirms (p. 53) that beasts
p;o into it, as well as men ; and hence he infers that Hades (Sheol)
id the same as the grave. His proof is derived from a single
passage (Ps. xlix. 14) : " Like sheep they are laid in Sheol." Un
doubtedly this language, if confirmed by more of the same
import, might naturally be understood as implying that sheep
go to Sheol. But, when we consider that beasts are noiohere else
described as going thither, we are justified in doubting whether
this passage alone can be made to prove it. The passage is
highly figurative : men are said to be put into Sheol like sheep ;

ENOCH'S TRANSLATION. 151
of a few particular passages illustrating the fact,
that, in the Old Testament, death was not regarded
as the extinction of being.
In Gen. v. 24 we are told that " Enoch walked
with God : and he was not ; for God took him."
The phrase, "he was not," is the same that is
used, for example, in reference to Joseph, " one is
not," Gen. xlh. 13, 32, where it is equivalent to
the statement, " one is dead : " cf. xliv. 20. The
verse is in itself almost enigmatical in its brevity.
It might be understood, as the passage just referred
to shows, to be equivalent to the statement,
"Enoch" died." But we are told in Heb. xi. 5
that " Enoch was translated, that he should not
see death ; " and the form of the statement in
Gen. v. 24 well agrees with this inspired exposi
tion. Of course it may be said that this case proves
nothing as to the generahty of men, since Enoch
did not die. It is true that this passage does not
prove that the Old Testament represents all men
as surviving death; but it does prove that the
and then Death, it is added, is to be their shepherd (so according
to the only correct translation). That is, the men are represented
as being sheep, just as in Ps. xxiii. 1, 2, David speaks of himself as
a sheep. The simile passes' over into a metaphor. But, even as
a simile, it amounts to nothing more than that men are sent in
crowds down to Sheol as sheep are driven into their pens at
night. If one should say that a company of men entered a
church, foUowing one another like a flock of sheep, it would be
hardly proper to infer that sheep are accustomed to go into
churches.

152 OLD-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY.
author of this account recognized the possibility,
and in the case of Enoch the reality, of a human
being continuing to exist after the cessation of the
earthly life. If he had held the materialistic
notion that the soul is the body, he could not
have given such an account of Enoch, unless he
assumed that the original body of Enoch was
translated and still exists, or that his body was
transformed into the equivalent of a resurrection-
body. The first supposition probably no one
would defend: the second is not warranted' by
any thing in the Bible.
The significance of this account of Enoch's
translation is enhanced by the circumstance, that
the same verb (lakahh) which is here rendered
" took " is used in other passages with reference
to death. Thus, in Ps. xlix. 15, we read, "But
God will redeem my soul from the power of the
grave [of Sheol] ; for he shall receive me." The
word " redeem " here is used in contrast with
what is said in vers. 7-9, where it is affirmed con
cerning the wicked rich, that none of them can
" redeem " another, so that he shall " live forever."
After describing how these men shall all like sheep
be put into Sheol (ver. 14), the Psalmist says,
" But God will redeem my soul from the hand of
Sheol; for he will take me." A careful reading,
even of the English version, shows conclusively
that the verse cannot mean what, e.g., Dr. Ives
(p. 322) makes it mean; viz., that this denotes

PS. XLIX. 15. 153
the ultimate release from Sheol at the resurrection.
There is an obvious antithesis between the wicked
(vers. 7-14) and the righteous, as represented by
the Psalmist : " They cannot redeem one another
from dying, — from going to Sheol, from seeing
corruption " (or, rather, " the pit," — a synonyme
for Sheol : cf. Ps. xvi. 10). " They cannot by their
wealth enable one another to 'live forever.' But
God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol."
Of course, however, physical death is not expected
to be avoided, though the language might be
pressed to mean this by a rigidly strict interpreta
tion. The great idea of the passage is, that God
will take his chosen ones to himself. (Hengsten-
berg's statement, in his exposition of this pas
sage, that lakahh can mean neither receive, nor take
to one's self, is a most extraordinary mis-statement,
in view of the frequent use of lakahh in the phrase
" take," or " take to wife," in the sense of " marry,"
and such passages as Judg. xiii. 23.) But when
is this to happen ? The whole psalm has reference
to the apparent prosperity of the wicked as com
pared with the condition of the righteous, and the
solution of the problem is found in the different
end which awaits them. The wicked must die ; all
must die (ver. 10) : but the wicked shall be put
into Sheol, and Death shall be theh shepherd.
But the righteous shall be redeemed, saved from
this fate; for God will take them. This cannot
reasonably be understood otherwise than as de-

154 OLD-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY.
scribing what takes place at death, after this present
life is over. The saint is then " taken " to God :
he is not put out of existence.
Of precisely the same import is Ps. lxxiii. 24,
where also the same verb is used : " Thou shalt
guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive
me to glory." This is said after a description of
the despondency of the Psalmist in view of the
prosperity of the wicked. At length he had come
to see what their " end" was (ver. 17) ; his trouble
of mind was relieved; and he concludes, "i"am
continually with thee ; thou hast holden me by
my right hand. Thou shalt guide me with thy
counsel, and afterward receive me to glory."
There is some dispute about the translation. Some
would translate, " Thou wilt take me after glory ; "
i.e., " Thou wilt cause me to follow in the train of
glory." But this is hardly worth refutation, and is
adopted by few. Others would render, "After
ward thou wilt receive me in [with] glory
[honor]." This coines practically to the same
thing as our version. The important thing is that
God is to receive the Psalmist. He is to receive
him afterward. After what ? After being guided
by God's counsel. If we attempt to make it all
refer to this life, we make little less than nonsense
of it. The guidance cannot be any thing that is
to be succeeded in this life by the reception to
honor : the guidance cannot cease before the end
of life. Moreover, there is here a contrast be-

PS. LXXni. 24; XVI. 10, 11. 155
tween the Psalmist and the wicked, whose fearful
"end" has just been portrayed. It is evident,
therefore, that the meaning is, that, after the
Psalmist has been guided through this life, God is
to receive him to himself.
Another passage, strikingly confirming and illus
trating the view given of these two, is Ps. xvi.
10, 11 : " For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell ;
neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corrup
tion. Thou wilt show me the path of life : in thy
presence is fulness of joy ; at thy right hand there
are pleasures forevermore." Ver. 10 is mistrans
lated in our version, as all Hebrew scholars know.
It should read, " Thou wilt not leave my soul to
Sheol ; neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see
the pit." Comparing this with Ps. xlix. 9, 10, 14,
we see at once that going to Sheol, and seeing the
pit, are synonymous expressions, both being an
other way of expressing the notion of dying. The
wicked rich men cannot keep one another, by their
wealth, from seeing the pit : -they must all die, and
go to Sheol. But, says David, "Thou wilt not
abandon my soul to Sheol ; thou wilt not suffer
me to see the pit." That he has death in mind as
the thing to which he is not to be abandoned is
shown conclusivel)' by the next verse, " Thou wilt
show me [not the path of death, but] the path of
life." And what is that life ? It is " fulness of
joy " in the divine presence ; it is the " pleasures
forevermore " enjoyed at God's right hand. That

156 OLD-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY.
is, God will "take" the pious saint to himself.
Of course we are not to understand from this that
David expected to be exempted from the death of
the body. His language is poetic, and means just
what our Lord meant when he said to Martha
(John xi. 26), " Whosoever liveth and believeth
in me shall never die." All the bitterness of death
is to be removed : the saint's departure from this
life is to be so cheered by the assurance of God's
continued presence, that this dissolution no longer
deserves the name of death; it is life, rather.
There is to be no gloomy imprisonment in Sheol.
The future life is to be a continuation of the
present, of which it has already been said, " I have
set the Lord always before me : because he is at
my right hand, I shall not be moved " (ver. 8).
At a later stage we shall have occasion to refer
to other passages of the Old Testament, implying
the fact of a future life. But the question now
before us is not so much whether the fact of a
future life is taught, as whether death puts an end
to the existence of the spirit. All those Avho
accept the Bible as authoritative of course believe
in a future life : the point in dispute is, whether it
teaches that this life is a continuance of the pres
ent, or teaches that the future life begins with the
resurrection after a temporary interruption of
existence. As to this point, one section of the
annihilationists agree with us.
6. We may notice, further, a word, the force of

THE REPHAIM. 157
which is entirely concealed in our authorized ver
sion ; viz., Rephaim, as used of the dead. In form
it is in Hebrew the same as the word rendered
sometimes "giants" (e.g., Deut. h. 11, 20, iii. 11,
13 ; Josh. xh. 4, xiii. 12), and sometimes " Reph
aim " (as Gen. xiv. 5, xv. 20 ; 2 Sam. v. 18). But
there seems to be no perceptible connection be
tween this use of the word and the one by which
it is made to designate the inhabitants of Sheol.
In the latter sense it is employed eight times in the
Old Testament ; and in every case, with one ex
ception (Isa. xxvi. 14, where it is translated " de
ceased "), it is rendered in our version by the word
" dead." The passages are the following : Job
xxvi. 5 ; Ps. lxxxviii. 10 ; Proy. ii. 18, ix. 18, xxi.
16 ; Isa. xiv. 9, xxvi. 14, 19. In two of these
places it is parallel with methim, the "dead."
Thus in Ps. lxxxviii. 10 both words are used, and
both are translated " dead." So in Isa. xxvi. 14 :
" They are dead, they shall not live ; they are de
ceased [Rephaim], they shah not rise."
In Prov. ii. 18 it is said of the strange woman
that "her house inchneth unto death, and her
paths unto the Rephaim ; " and simharly she is
described in ix. 18, "He knoweth not that the
Rephaim are there, and that her guests are in the
depths of Sheol." And in Prov. xxi. 16 it is said,
" The man that wandereth out of the way of
understanding shall remain [dwell] in the congre
gation of the Rephaim."

158 OLD-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY.
This conception of the Rephaim as a " congre
gation " assembled in Sheol is found also in that
remarkable passage, Isa. xiv. 4-20. Here it is pre
dicted of the king of Babylon, that, notwithstand
ing his pride and power, he shall be destroyed.
He lies clown in -death (ver. 8) ; and then it is said
to him, " Sheol beneath is in commotion for thee
to meet thee at thy coming : it stirreth up for thee
the Rephaim, all the chief men of the earth; it
hath raised up from their thrones all the kings
of the nations" (ver. 9). Then in ver. 10 the
Rephaim are represented as addressing the new
comer, "Art thou also become weak as we? art
thou become like unto us?" After making all
allowance for the poetic and dramatic character
of this description, it must be conceded that the
prophet here makes the impression that the Reph
aim are real existent beings. They are the inhab
itants of Sheol. Though he may be supposed
to draw on his imagination in thus picturing
them as peculiarly excited by the advent of the
king of Babylon, we are not justified in inferring
that they were regarded by the prophet as non
existent; unless we adopt what seems to be Dr.
Ives's principle of interpretation, that, when there
is warrant for any departure from the strictly
literal understanding of a passage, we may depart
from it as far as we please.
In Isa. xxvi. 14 it is said of the Rephaim that
" they shall not rise ; " while in ver. 19 it is said

THE REPHAIM. 159
that the dead bodies shall arise, and that "the
earth shall cast out the Rephaim." The first pas
sage refers to the enemies of God's people; the
other, to God's people themselves. Clearly, if the
Rephaim are something that can be conceived as
cast out (literally, cause to fall; i.e., bring to
birth), they are not regarded as nonentities.
In Job xxvi. 5 we read, " Dead things [Rephaim]
are formed from under the waters, and the inhab
itants thereof." The word rendered " are formed "
really means " are made to writhe " with pain.
Job is answering Bildad, who had described God's
power and majesty as extending upwards to the
heavens ; and he says, " To whom hast thou ut
tered words? I know that God's dominion fills
the heavens ; and more, too, may be said. It reach
es down into Sheol likewise, and the Rephaim are
put into terror before him. Sheol is naked before
him, and destruction hath no covering." Job's
language, like Isaiah's, is poetic; but no decent
exposition can obliterate the impression produced
by such a passage, that the writer had in mind a
dwelling-place of existent beings when he wrote
of Sheol and of the Rephaim in it as filled with
terror before the majesty of God.
There remains only Ps. lxxxviii. 10, which reads,
" Shall the Rephaim arise and praise thee ? " In
the context the thought is expanded, and the
Rephaim are shown to be the same as the " dead "
(ver. 10) ; as those who have been buried (ver. 11),

160 OLD-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY.
and are now in " destruction " (Hebrew, Abaddon,
a synonyme of Sheol : vide Job xxvi. 6, xxvih. 22 ;
Prov. xv. 11).
Aside from the manner in which the Rephaim
are described, as seen in the foregoing, there is sig
nificance in the very fact that a name of this sort
should have been applied to the dead. The exact
meaning of the name is, indeed, a matter of dis
pute ; but it is certain that it is not derived from
any word which suggests that non-existence was
any part of the conception attached to the word.
According to Gesenius, it comes from a root mean
ing " to be silent ; " according to Fiirst, from a
root meaning " to be dark ; " according to Simonis,
from a root meaning " to be weak." All scholars,
however, agree that the word corresponds some
what to the Latin manes, the so-called " shades "
of the departed. In any case it is safe to say, that,
if the Hebrews had really regarded the dead as
non-existent, they would not have invented any
other name for them, unless the new name con
veyed that notion of non-existence. If the dead
were deemed to be absolutely extinct, no attribute
could have been imagined to belong to them ex
cept that of non-existence itself.
7. It is in the light of the foregoing positive
indications, in the Old Testament, of the continued
existence of men after death, that we are to explain
those passages which seem to affirm that death
puts an end to conscious existence. We do not

PASSAGES FAVORING ANNTHILATIONISM. 161
now refer to those in which merely the words
" die " or " death " are used ; nor even to the many
in which various terms, rendered " destroy," " con
sume," &c, are found : these we shall have occa
sion to consider when we come to discuss the bib
lical conception of life and death. We refer to
those which seem to declare that at death the
attribute of self-conscious individuality comes to
an end. Thus it is said (Ps. cxlvi. 4), " In that
very day [the day of death] his thoughts perish."
So Ps. lxxxviii. 10, " Wilt thou show wonders to
the dead? Shall the dead [Rephaim] arise and
praise thee ? " Similarly Isa. xxxvhi. 18, 19, " For
the grave [Sheol] cannot praise thee ; death cannot
celebrate thee : they that go down to the pit can
not hope for thy truth. The living, the living, he
shall praise thee, as I do this day." This was said by
Hezekiah, after recovering from the sickness which
¦ had threatened his life. So Ps. vi. 5, " For in death
there is no remembrance of thee : in the grave [in
Sheol] who shall give thee thanks?" Like sen
timents are expressed in Ps. xxx. 9, cxv. 17.
In the book of Ecclesiastes also we find some
passages of similar import. In ix. 5, 6, we read,
" For the living" know that they shall die : but the
dead know not any thing, neither have they any
more a reward ; for the memory of them is forgotten.
Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy is
now perished ; neither have they any more a portion
forever in any thing that is done under the sun."

162 OLD-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY.
In ver. 10 it is said, " There is no work, nor
device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave
[in Sheol] whither thou goest." And in iii. 19
it is said of men and beasts, " As the one dieth, so
dieth the other ; yea, they have all one breath : so
that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast."
These are the most positive and strong of the
passages of the Old Testament which seem to
affirm the destruction of personality at death.
What shall be said about them ?
It is obvious that the passages from Ecclesiastes
are of a peculiar character. If we take them liter
ally and without abatement, they prove too much.
The declaration that "a man hath no pre-eminence
above a beast " is certainly not in accordance with
the general drift of scriptural teaching : for, even
if it should be said that this only means that death
puts an end to human as well as bestial existence,
still, according to the Bible in general, there is a
future life for some men at least; so that, at the
worst, death has a vastly different relation to man
from what it has to the beast. Man has a pre-emi
nence above the beast ; he does not finally cease
to exist at the death of the body ; and therefore it
cannot be said in strict truth, that, " as one dieth,
so dieth the other." Any one who attempts to
take the language of the book of Ecclesiastes
throughout as undiluted and sacred truth will
certainly have to depart far from the literal inter
pretation, — so far as to make it say just what it

THE EVIDENCE OF ECCLESIASTES 163
does not say. Thus it is said in viii. 15, " A man
hath no better thing under the sun than to eat, and
to drink, and to be merry." In vi. 8 the Preacher
asks, " What hath the wise more than the fool ? "
The despondent, sceptical mood which pervades
much of this book shows conclusively that it is
descriptive of a process of mind through which
the author had gone, rather than a formal state
ment of his mature judgment. In fact, he con
tradicts himself, if we assume that he everywhere
is intending to state his present opinions. Hav
ing implied in hi. 19-21 that there is no differ
ence between men and brutes, he implies in xii.
7 that there is a difference. Having implied in
vi. 8 that the wise are no better off than the
fools, he affirms in vii. 19 that wisdom is a valua
ble thing. While he declares in ix. 1-3 that the
righteous and the wicked fare equally well, he
affirms in vih. 12, 13, that the righteous shall in
the long-run fare better than the wicked. While
he says (ix. 5) of the dead that they " have no
more any reward," he declares (xii. 14) that " God
shah bring every work into judgment, with every
secret thing, whether it be 'good, or whether it be
evil." In short, he is describing things as they
seem to one who looks on life according to the
outward appearance. Clearly, then, it will not do
to take every verse in this book as literal truth.
Nevertheless, the other passages above quoted
also present, it may be said, a similar view of the

164 OLD-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY.
state of the dead. And in general, it may be
argued, the Old Testament represents the state of
the dead as any thing but a state of enlarged capa
city and increased intelligence. As compared with
this earthly life, it is described as a state of weak
ness (Isa. xiv. 10) : it is pictured as a slumberous,
inactive state (Job iii. 13, 17, xiv. 12), from which
one is rarely (Isa. xiv. 9) or reluctantly (1 Sam.
xxvih. 15) aroused. It is called " a land of dark
ness and the shadow of death ; a land of darkness,
as darkness itself" (Job x. 21, 22). It is a state
which even the pious shrink from entering into
(Isa. xxxviii. 11, 18 ; Ps. ch. 24). We must admit
that this is the general tone of the Old Testament
with reference to the condition ensuing after death.
Now, these gloomy views of the state of the dead
might naturally be expected to lead to as intense
expressions as those which we have quoted. Yet
all the passages from the Psalms (with one excep
tion), and Isa. xxxviii. 18, merely speak of Sheol
as a place where the praises of God are not cele
brated : they do not affirm the cessation of con
sciousness. They do imply that death introduces
one into a state inferior to the present; but they
do not assert or imply that it is a state of non
existence. As to the other passage (Ps. cxlvi. 4)
in which it is said, " In that very day his thoughts
perish," it should be noticed, in the first place, that
the statement has reference to the futility of de
pending on men : " Put not your trust in princes,

CONCLUSION. 165
nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
His breath goeth forth ; he returneth to his earth :
in that very day his thoughts perish." In the next
place, it should be observed that the word ren
dered " thoughts " occurs in only tins one passage,
and properly means, not "thoughts," in the sense
which that word bears with us, as equivalent to
mental activity in general, but "devices," "plans,"
" purposes ; " so that the passage merely affirms
that death puts an end to the schemes of men,
because it puts them into a state where they can
no longer be carried out, and therefore renders
futile all dependence on human help.
We thus see to how small a dimension these
declarations are reduced, when regarded as affirm
ing or implying the total cessation of personal ex
istence. At the most, it would be hazardous to
derive any dogma from two or three poetic expres
sions. But, even if there were more, it would be
a reasonable explanation to say that death is often
described according to appearance. It puts an end
to all intercourse with the deceased : they have no
more " a portion forever in any thing that is done
under the sun" (Eccles. ix. 6). In fact, the
strongest possible expression which the Hebrew
language has for non-existence is employed with
reference to Enoch (Gen. v. 24), when it is said
that " he was not." Yet it is immediately added
that " God took him ; " from which it is manifest that
the non-existence has reference only to Enoch's ap
pearance on earth amongst those living there.

166 OLD-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY.
When, however, in addition to these considera
tions, we find many unanswerable indications in
the Old Testament of ,the fact that the writers did
believe in a continuation of human existence after
death, it is obvious that we are bound to interpret
the few according to the many, the obscure accord
ing to the clear. Even one clear, unambiguous
declaration that the human soul survives death is
enough to overthrow a dozen passages which only
apparently affirm the opposite ; for all nations often
speak of death as the end of a man, as terminating
a man's projects and hopes, as a perishing, &c. ;
while, nevertheless, it is not meant that there is in
death the literal termination of human existence.
We can account for such forms of expression on
the ground of the actual facts attending death;
but, on the supposition that the biblical writers
did not believe in a future existence, we cannot ac
count for language which implies such a belief. This
is a most weighty consideration. Let us illustrate
it by a familiar example. We can account for
men's speaking as if they regarded the sun as re
volving around the earth, while we know that they
really think that the opposite is the truth ; for
certain appearances make such language natural :
but, if we supposed that such language expressed
men's real belief, then we could not account for
language which implies that they regard the earth
as revolving around the sun.

NEW-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY. 167

CHAPTER VIII.
THE NEW-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE CONCERNING
THE STATE OF THE DEAD.
IT is very noticeable and significant that the
strong expressions adduced to prove the non
existence of the dead are aU derived from the
Old Testament. It is useless to deny the fact,
' that there is a difference between the two books
in this respect. Not that the difference amounts
to a contradiction. But the New Testament is
the fulfilment of the Old. It makes clear what is
there obscure. It brings life and immortality to
hght. The Old Testament is imperfect, as a reve
lation of divine truth : if not, what was the need
of another ? Any theory which rests on the Old
Testament, to the comparative neglect of the New,
must be erroneous. Yet this is what is done by
the materialistic advocates of the doctrine of
conditional immortahty.
What light, now, is shed on our theme by the
New Testament?
1. We have already had occasion (Chap. VI.) to
consider some passages which bear upon the point

168 NEW-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY.
now before us. Thus Phil. i. 23, "I am in a
strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and
to be with Christ," as we have seen, clearly im
plies that death brings, not annihilation, but
fellowship with Christ. The same is implied in
2 Cor. v. 1-3, and, indeed, in nearly all those
passages which affirm the essential difference be
tween body and soul; particularly Matt. x. 28,
" Fear not them which kill the body, but are not
able to kill the soul." The narrative (or parable)
of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke xvi. 19-31)
is explicit and directly to the point. It is ex
pressly taught there, that after death, before the
resurrection, while his brothers were yet alive on
the earth, and while he himself was in Hades, the
rich man was in torment. Equally explicit is the
doctrine involved in Christ's language to the thief
on the cross. It teaches that death is not the
extinction of being. The narrative of the trans
figuration likewise implies the continued existence
of the dead. To the same effect is the argument
of our Lord with the Sadducees. There is no
escape from the conclusion that he means what he
says when he declares respecting God that "he
is not a God of the dead, but of the living ; for
all live unto him" (Luke xx. 38). The passages
in Rev. vi. 9, Heb. xh. 1, 23, also point to the same
conclusion. Besides these passages, already dis
cussed in Chap. VI., we may adduce also 2 Pet.
h. 9, where it is said, " The Lord knoweth how to

PROOFS OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE DEAD. 169
deliver the godly out of temptation, and to
reserve [preserve] the unjust unto the day of
judgment to be punished." The verb terein —
here rendered "reserved " — is commonly rendered
" keep." It is the same word which occurs twice
in Jude 6 : " The angels which kept not their first
estate ... he hath reserved in everlasting chains
under darkness unto the judgment of the great
day." It is impossible to understand such lan
guage unless the persons kept are in existence.
But the case is still stronger than our version
makes it; for the word rendered "to be pun-
. ished " is the present passive participle, and should
be translated "being punished." That is, the
unjust are undergoing punishment while they are
kept unto the day of judgment.
2. Observe, moreover, that, besides these positive
testimonies, we have the important negative argu
ment, that the New Testament contains no state
ment which implies or asserts that death causes a
cessation, or even suspension, of consciousness.
3. Here we may remark upon the word " sleep,"
which is several times used with reference to the
dead. Two Greek verbs are so translated. The
one, katheudo, is commonly used in the literal
sense ; but once it denotes the state of death (1
Thess. v. 10), and twice it is used to designate a
state of spiritual sluggishness (Eph. v. 14 ; 1 Thess.
v. 6). It is also the word used by Christ with
reference to the ruler's daughter, when he said,

170 NEW-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY.
" The maid is not dead, but sleepeth " (Matt. ix.
24; Mark v. 39). Here "dead" and "sleepeth"
are antithetic to each other. If the first is to be
understood literally, then the other is also. But
if, as we are doubtless to assume, Christ only meant
to say that the death was to be so short in the
duration of its effects as not properly to deserve
the name of death, then the " sleep " also is to be
understood according to the same figure of speech.
It does not here denote literal sleep, but so brief
a suspension, through death, of the ordinary func
tions of life, that it may be compared with one's
daily sleep. These passages, then, are not to be
reckoned among those in which " sleep " is a
mode of designating " death." The terms are here,
not synonymous, but antithetic.
The other word translated " sleep " (not to
mention the noun "hypnos," which is also used
commonly in the hteral sense, and never as a syno-
nyme or euphemism for " death ") is koimaomai.
This also sometimes denotes literal sleep ; as Matt.
xxviii. 13, "His disciples . . . stole him away
while we slept." So also Luke xxii. 45 ; John xi.
12 (while in xi. 11 it is used respecting death, but,
as an ambiguous term, not so understood) ; Acts
xii. 6. In the other instances of its use, thirteen
in all, it has reference to the condition of the
deceased. In one of these (1 Cor. vii. 39) our
Bible translates it, "if her husband be dead."
The other cases are the following: Matt, xxvii.

THE "SLEEP" OF DEATH. 171
52 ; Acts vii. 60, xiii. 36 ; 1 Cor. xi. 30, xv. 6, 18,
20, 51; 1 Thess. iv. 13-15; 2 Pet. iii. 4.
What, now, is the significance of this mode
of speech? Perhaps from such a figurative ex
pression no very positive inference can be drawn
as to the question, whether the dead are in a
state of conscious existence. But it certainly
would seem difficult to infer from it that the dead
are non-existent ; and yet this is precisely .what
Dr. Ives does. Let us examine his argument.
It must be remembered that Dr. Ives insists on
the most "literal" interpretation possible. It is
with some surprise, therefore, that we find him
speaking after the following manner (p. 69) :
"When the writer [Dr. Ives] was investigating
the question of the sleep of the dead ; i.e., whether
the dead are actually dead." Inasmuch as with
him " death " means loss of existence, it follows
that this means that the phrase " sleep," as applied
to the dead, is an emphatic mode of affirming their
non-existence. " Sleep " thus, if possible, is (ac
cording to our author) a stronger word for non
existence than "death" is. But what shall be
said of Christ's declaration (Matt. ix. 24) con
cerning Jahus's daughter, " The maid is not dead,
but sleepeth " ? Does this mean, " The maid is
not dead, but is actually dead " ? Dr. Ives, speak
ing of this passage (p. 186), thus paraphrases it :
" Weep not : she is not dead, never to live again ;
this is but a temporary loss of life ; it is indeed a

172 NEW-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY.
sleep, a brief period of unconsciousness." Ac
cording to this, then, sleep means " a temporary
loss of life," " a brief period of unconsciousness; "
while " death," in contradistinction from it, denotes
a permanent loss of existence ; in other words, it
is a weaker term than " death." We will not
undertake to explain this inconsistency. The
remarkable thing is, that in either case there is no
intimation that " sleep " is used in a figurative sense.
He shnply identifies sleep with death, and death
with non-existence ! But he further defines this
sleep of death as a state of unconsciousness (e.g.,
p. 182). Now, it is obvious to remark that a state
of unconsciousness is not, as such, a state of non
existence. On any theory of " literal " interpreta
tion, Dr. Ives's doctrine is overthrown by the New-
Testament representation of the dead as being
asleep, and even by his own of the dead as being
unconscious. He relates the incident of a sus
pension of consciousness, caused by an accident to
the President of Carleton College, as an illustra
tion of his theory (p. 278). But does he mean to
affirm that the president was non-existent during
that period? on the contrary, no one ever uses
the term " unconscious " unless he is speaking
of some existent person or thing of whom the un
consciousness is affirmed.
But it is a very bold assumption to represent
sleep as a state of total unconsciousness. Dr. Ives
asks, " Is it not well known that sound sleep is

IS SLEEP NON-EXISTENCE? 173
dreamless ? " (p. 277.) We answer, that this is not
well known: on the contrary, it is a more prob
able opinion, that in all sleep the mind is active
(vide especially Hamilton's " Metaphysics," lecture
xvii.). But even if it were true that in " sound"
sleep there is enthe unconsciousness, yet where do
we learn that the sleep of the deceased is this
peculiarly "sound" sleep? The Bible nowhere
so defines it.
Dr. Ives asks (p. 186), "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 admit, that,
if this is the true representation of the mental
state of the dead, the term " sleep " seems to be
not an altogether appropriate term with which to
describe their mental condition. But we may
reply by asking, What kind of sleep is that in
which the sleeper is not even an existent being ?
A state of active consciousness is certainly much
nearer the state of ordinary sleep than a state of
total non-existence is. In fact, inasmuch as in
sleep the mind is certainly often, and probably
always, active, the doctrine of "modern theology,"
even assuming it to be what Dr. Ives represents it
to be, is quite consistent with that of the New
Testament. But Dr. Ives's doctrine is utterly
opposed to it. For, we repeat, sleep is not non
existence. We do not go out of existence every
night, and come back into it every morning. Of

174 NEW-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY.
all men, Dr. Ives should be the last to affirm this.
since with him the organism is the man ; and
even a dreamless, sleeping organism is alive and
existent. This New-Testament doctrine of the
sleep of the dead, therefore, is the last one to be
resorted to in proof of his doctrine. We might
expect him to try to explain away the apparent
implication of these passages ; but that he should
quietly appeal to them as signal proof of the cor
rectness of his view, on the assumption that
"sleep" means "actual death," and without the
faintest hint that " sleep " is even used figuratively,
— this is very strange.
Just what is meant when the Bible calls death a
sleep is a question which it is not now necessary
to discuss at large. Taken in conjunction with
those Old-Testament passages in which existence
in Sheol is portrayed as a slumberous, inactive, or
even unconscious state, they favor the impression
that at the best the so-called intermediate state
(between death and the resurrection) is inferior
to the present one in many respects, and greatly
inferior to the one ushered in by the resurrection.
But, on the other hand, it may be (and more
probably is) the case, that all these representations
are suggested, in part, by the appearance of the
dying and dead person, so closely resembling the
ordinary process of going to sleep ; the fact being,
that (as is intimated in the account of Lazarus
and the rich man) the condition of a man after

HADES. 175
death is actually one of full consciousness, and is
called sleep, as being a rest from the labors and
hardships of this present life. Such is the import
of Rev. xiv. 13, where the death of saints is so
described, and where, moreover, the continued
existence of the dead is distinctly implied.
4. We will next consider what the New Testa
ment says about Mades. This word was derived
from classic Greek, where it was commonly em
ployed to designate the abode of departed spirits.
In the English version it is usually, but wrongly,
translated " hell : " it certainly was not understood
by the Greeks to be equivalent to the grave. In
the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, this
word was used as the equivalent of Sheol. And
certainly no better word could have been found.
The same word was also employed by the New-
Testament writers in speaking of the state of the
dead: it occurs, however, much less frequently
than in the Old Testament; in all, only eleven
times. We will examine all the cases.
In Matt. xi. 23 and Luke x. 15 it is said of
Capernaum, " Thou Capernaum, which art exalted
unto heaven, shalt be brought down to Hades."
Here Hades, as that which is low, is contrasted
with heaven, as signifying that which is high.
The language involves no definite statement con
cerning Hades as the abode of the dead, and may
mean no more than Sheol does in such a passage
as Deut. xxxh. 22, " A fire is kindled in mine

176 NEW-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY.
anger, and shall burn unto the lowest Sheol." In
Matt. xvi. 18 we read, "Upon this rock I will
build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not
prevail against it." Here, too, nothing is defi
nitely taught concerning Hades as the dwelling-
place, of departed spirits. Hades is spoken of as a
power, yet under the figure of a palace or strong
hold, the strength of which is implied by refer
ence to its gates; though such a reference would
be rhetorically more natural and appropriate if
Hades were represented as the attacked, rather
than the attacking, party. Similarly is Hades
used in 1 Cor. xv. 55 : " O Death, where is thy
sting? O Hades, where is thy victory?" Here
Hades is personified, and associated with Death,
as is done in Hos. xiii. 14; from which passage
Paul's language is borrowed. Nothing distinct
is here taught concerning the meaning of Hades ;
the less, as the more approved reading substitutes
"Death" for "Hades "in this verse. The same
may be said of the four passages in Revelation in
which Hades is mentioned. In i. 18 we read, " I
am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I
am alive forevermore, Amen; and have the keys
of Hades and of Death." In vi. 8 it is said, " And
I looked, and behold a pale horse ; and his name
that sat on him was Death ; and Hades followed
with him." The other two passages are xx. 13,
14, where it is said, " Death and Hades delivered
up the dead which were in them," and "Death

HADES. 177
and Hades were east into the lake of fire." The
first of these seems to imply that Hades contained
the dead, and therefore it entirely coincides with
the Old-Testament description of Sheol. The
other is figurative in form, and adds nothing to
our knowledge on the question now before us.
The passage Luke xvi. 23, however, is unequiv
ocal in its teaching that the rich man there men
tioned went after death into Hades: "And in
Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torments."
We do not need to repeat what we have already
said in defence of this proposition. The passages
above referred to contain nothing inconsistent
with the doctrine that Hades is the abode of the
spirits of the deceased. They rather all imply it,
though the language used is somewhat figurative
and vague. Looked at in the light of Luke xvi.
23, and of the uniform language of the Old Tes
tament respecting Sheol, they are all to be under
stood as implying that Hades is a real place or
state of real beings.
There remain only the two passages, Acts ii. 27,
31, those in which reference is made to Ps. xvi. 10,
" Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades," &c.
This is here apphed to Christ. First, however, we
must observe that the Greek is mistranslated, just
as the Hebrew is in the Old Testament. The
preposition is not en ("in"), but eis ("unto");
and the passage really reads, " Thou wilt not
leave [abandon] my soul unto Hades." In other

178 NEW-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY.
words, it is said that Christ was not given over to
Hades, — was not abandoned to its power. We
are aware that many commentators find in this
passage a proof of the doctrine of Christ's descent
into Hades. But the passage, strictly interpreted,
teaches just the opposite. Nor is there any other
passage which does teach this doctrine. Reference
is generally made to Eph. iv. 9, " Now that he as
cended, what is it but that he also descended first
into the lower parts of the earth ? " It is true
that this may mean that he descended into Hades ;
for Sheol is in the Old Testament often spoken of
as in the lower parts of the earth. But, on the
other hand, the passage in question may mean
only that Christ first descended to the earth, —
this descent, undertaken in order to become incar
nate and work out man's redemption, being the
necessary condition of his ascending to heaven as
the Head of the Church and the dispenser of spir
itual blessings. Such a representation is much the
most consonant with the drift of the context and
with the general tone of Paul's doctrine. If we
found that in the New Testament any prominence
were given to the doctrine of Christ's descent into
Hades, this passage might fairly be understood to
refer to it; but, there being absolutely no other
unambiguous affirmation of" any such doctrine, it
is unreasonable to insist that this passage must
refer to it. Nor can the doctrine be proved
from 1 Pet. iii. 19, — a passage into the discussion

HADES. 179
of which we do not care to enter, since at the best
it is extremely obscure, and its elucidation is not
essential to our main object.
It appears, therefore, that the New Testament
has very little to say about Hades, and that it no
where unequivocally teaches that all men descend
into it. It may be inferred from Rev. xx. 13,
where Death and Hades are described as giving up
the dead that are in them ; that all the dead are in
Hades : but the passage does not say this. Luke
xvi. 23, the most important passage bearing on
our question, teaches that bad men go to Hades ;
but that the good go there cannot be inferred from
it, especially as Lazarus is not spoken of as being
in Hades, while the rich man is so spoken of. This
contrast goes far to favor the doctrine, that, accord
ing to Christ, the good do not go to Hades. His
promise to the thief, moreover, refers to Paradise,
not to Hades. And in general, wherever in the
New Testament Hades is mentioned, it is as being
an unattractive place, associated with the enemies,
not the friends, of the kingdom of Christ; and,
when it is last mentioned, it is as being cast into
the lake of fire.
Though less frequently mentioned than Sheol,
Hades is described in much the same way. In the
Old Testament Sheol is sometimes spoken of as
the destined abode of all men, but especially as
the abode of bad men ; while sometimes the good
are represented as escaping from it altogether.

180 NEW-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY.
The truth seems to be this : Hades was, in general,
conceived of by the Jews as the abode of the
dead. But the predominant associations with the
place (or state) were gloomy. The good longed
for an assurance of exemption from this subterra
neous and cheerless receptacle. Some of them
gained that assurance. In the New Testament
this assurance became confirmed, and the name
Hades (Sheol) became still more closely associated
with the wicked. The doctrine of hell (gehenna)
also was unfolded : a distinction was made between
the temporary and the ultimate abode of the lost.
As to the main question before us, the teaching
of -the New Testament concerning Hades is clear
enough. If the bad go to Hades after death, and
are not annihilated, but rather suffer torment, it
certainly can hardly be supposed that the good are
annihilated. Whether the place to which they go
is called Hades, or not, may be a question ; but it
is not a question, whether they continue in exist
ence. It has been our purpose in this chapter to sketch
the New-Testament doctrine., of the state into
which men enter immediately after death. This
so-called intermediate state is not minutely de
scribed. But the general purport of the few in
timations given to us is to the effect that the be
liever enters at once into a state of happiness and
of conscious fellowship with Christ (Luke xvi. 22,
xxiii. 43 ; Phil. i. 23), and that the wicked enter

ACTS H. 34. 181
into a state of unhappiness (Luke xvi. 23). The
greater part of the New-Testament passages re
specting the future state have reference, however,
to the final state, — to the state which follows the
resurrection and the judgment. That the good
continue to exist forever after this is generally
admitted by all believers in the Bible. Whether
the wicked also exist forever is a question which
we shall have occasion to consider at a later point.
Thus far we have aimed to show, that, according to
the Bible, the soul is not extinguished at the death
of the body. In this view we are supported by a
large portion of those who believe that the souls
of the wicked are ultimately annihilated. This
fact is a weighty confirmation of the conclusion
we have reached concerning the biblical doctrine.
5. Before proceeding to our next topic, we will
notice two passages which have been quoted as
conflicting with the views which we have advocated.
Acts h. 34 is several times adduced by Dr. Ives as
a striking proof of his doctrine (pp. 49, 99, 192,
247, 321). We are there told, he says, "that even
David, that man after God's heart, has not as
cended into the heavens" (p. 192). On p. 99 he
quotes Acts ii. 29 and ii. 34 consecutively, as if
they were directly and logically connected, as fol
lows: "Men and brethren, let me freely speak
unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both
dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto
this day. For David is not ascended into tha

182 NEW-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY.
heavens." This almost equals the combination,
•' Judas went and hanged himself. Go thou, and
do likewise " ! Ver. 34 is immediately connected
with the preceding verse. There Peter says,
" Therefore [Jesus], being by the right hand of
God exalted, and having received of the Father
the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth
this which ye now see and hear." Then follows,
"For David did not ascend [as the aorist should
be rendered] into the heavens ; but he saith him
self, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my
right hand," &c. Thus we see that Peter, instead
of connecting the statement about David's not
ascending into the heavens with his quotation from
Ps. xvi. 8-11 which he had made in vers. 25-28,
connects it with a quotation from Ps. ex. 1. And
he simply says that the declaration in Ps. ex. 1,
" Sit thou on my right hand," refers to Christ, not
to David: "for David did not ascend into the
heavens ; " he was still on earth when he said this.
The passage says absolutely nothing about the
question whether David is now in the heavens, or
not. Another passage on which Dr. Ives lays great
stress is 1 Cor. xv. 17, 18 : " If Christ be not raised,
your faith is vain ; ye are yet in your sins. Then
they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are
perished." Of this we are told (p. 71), " There is
but one way of understanding it : if there be no
resurrection, there is no hereafter to those who

1 COR. XV. 17, 18. 183
die. In that case, death, the loss of life, is a final
ity." The reply to this is easy. The point of
Paul's reasoning is this : The resurrection of Christ
is the decisive proof of the reality of Christ's aton
ing work. " If Christ be not risen, then is our
preaching vain, and your faith is vain. Yea, and
we are found false witnesses of God ; because we
have testified of God that he raised up Christ;
whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise
not " (xv. 14, 15). But what is the relation of
this to the living ? Does Paul say, that if Christ
be not raised, then no one now living will after
death be raised ? No : he says, " If Christ be not
raised, your faith is vain ; ye are yet in your sins."
In other words, " Unless Christ is risen from the
dead, he cannot have been the Saviour he gave
himself out to be. He is not what we have pro
claimed him to be. There is no forgiveness of
sins through him. Ye are yet in your sins." This
shows conclusively what is meant when he goes on.
to say, " Then they also which are fallen asleep in
Christ are perished." According to Dr. Ives, all
dead men are perished anyway, in the sense of
being extinct. But it is obvious that what Paul
means by perishing is explained by the previous
remark about what would be the condition of the
living in case there were no resurrection. In short,
Paul has in mind the ethical, not the physical, rela
tion of Christ to men. " If there can be no resur
rection," he says, "then there has been none; and,

184 NEW-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY.
if there has been none, then all our preaching about
the forgiveness of sins through a risen Christ has
been delusive. The living are yet in their sins:
and the dead likewise, having never been forgiven
before death, have no hope of forgiveness; they
are perished."
It is a fundamental principle with our author,
that without the resurrection there is no future
. existence. He calls this a doctrine of the Bible.
But the Bible nowhere lays down any such propo
sition, and nowhere necessarily implies it. We
have shown satisfactorily, we trust, that it teaches
the opposite. It is appropriate, however, at this
stage, to take up the topic of the resurrection.

WHAT IS RAISED AT THE RESURRECTION? 185

CHAPTER IX.
THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.
ALL agree that the Bible teaches the doctrine
of a resurrection of the dead. But various
questions are raised concerning the resurrection,
on which wide differences of opinion prevail. We
will, as briefly as we can, consider some of the
principal of these questions.
1. What is raised at the resurrection ?
There are those who answer this question by
saying that the thing raised is the soul, or sphit,
only; in other words, that the doctrine of the
resurrection is merely the doctrine of a future
existence. In favor of this may be urged that the
phrase "resurrection," or "resurrection from the
dead," contains no assertion respecting a bodily
resurrection : it meets the requirement of this lan
guage to suppose that the soul alone is raised ; i.e.,
continued in existence. The argument of Christ
with the Sadducees, it may be said, seems to prove
no more than the continued existence of the
dead: hence it is reasonable to suppose that noth
ing more was meant. The phrase "resurrection

186 - THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.
of the body," moreover, --nowhere occurs in the
Bible. But we need not dwell long on this answer. If
we turn to 1 Cor. xv., where we have the fullest
exposition of the doctrine, it becomes manifest
that the resurrection, in Paul's conception of it,
involves the raising of a body. It is inconceivable
that the mere affirmation of a future existence of
the soul could have occasioned any scandal or
serious question in the minds of those Corinthians.
Moreover, the objectors are represented as asking
(xv. 35), " With what [kind of a] body do they
come?" And Paul does not answer, as on this
theory he ought to answer, that they come with
no body at all ; but goes on to affirm that men rise
with bodies, though with incorruptible and spirit
ual ones. It is equally inconceivable that the
Athenians (Acts xvii. 32) should have been espe
cially offended by this doctrine, if it meant no
more than what they were already familiar with.
Moreover, Paul says, in Phil. iii. 21, that Christ
will " change our vile body, that it may be fash
ioned like unto his glorious body ; " and, in Rom.
viii. 11, that God will quicken (make alive) our
" mortal bodies." To this we may add all those
numerous passages (e.g., 1 Cor. vi. 14 ; Rom. vi. 5 ;
Acts xxvi. 23) in which the resurrection of Chris
tians is described as analogous to that of Christ;
but in his case there was most certainly a resurrec
tion of the body.

THE BURIED BODY NOT RAISED. 187
Another answer to our question is the extreme
opposite of the foregoing. It is, that the thing
raised is the exact body that was buried; or, if
not that, then the body as it had been at some
previous time ; or, if not- that, the same particles
as the buried body, though differently organized.
This is the crass, coarse; mechanical theory, repug
nant alike to the intimations of Scripture, of nat
ural science, and of refined feeling. It is sufficient
to say, that in 1 Cor. xv., where, if anywhere, we
may expect to find some hght on this question,
emphasis is everywhere laid, not on the sameness,
but on the difference, of the earthly and the heav
enly body : " That which thou sowest, thou sow-
est not that body that shah be. . . . But God
giveth it a bo'dy as it hath pleased him, and to
every seed his own body " (vers. 37, 38). A cer
tain relation, like that of the seed to the plant.
growing from it, is indeed said to exist between
, the two bodies ; but no identity of form, or chem
ical substance, or weight, or appearance, is either
asserted or implied. The only identity is the iden
tity of the person to whom the two bodies belong.
The two bodies are alike in that they serve as the
vehicle and minister of the same spirit. When,
therefore, we ask what is raised, the Biblical an
swer is easily given : The thing raised is the person.
Ordinarily, the subject of the verb is a personal
pronoun. Thus Mark xii. 25, "When they shall
rise from the dead." Luke xvi. 31, " Neither will

188 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.
they be persuaded though one rose from the dead."
John xx. 9, " They knew not the scripture, that
he must rise again from the dead." Acts x. 41,
"After he rose from the dead." Acts xvh. 31,
" He hath raised him from the dead."
When it is said that the dead are raised, nothing
more is said than that those who have died will be
raised ; unless, indeed, we assume that by " dead "
is meant " dead bodies." The latter might be re
garded as favored by Phil. iii. 21, Rom. viii. 11
(above quoted), and by the narrative in Matt.
xxvii. 52, where it is said, that, after the resurrec
tion of Christ, " many bodies of the saints which
slept arose ; " also by John v. 28, 29, " All that are
in their graves shall hear his voice, and shall come
forth." Nothing but dead bodies is in the grave.
Hence it would seem, that, according to this, the
dead bodies, and nothing else, are the things raised
at the resurrection. Indeed, Dr. Ives quotes the
latter passage very frequently (pp. 42, 59, 97, 157)
as a description of the resurrection, and as defining
clearly the place where the dead are ; but, on his
own theory, we cannot see how he can be so fond
of this passage. According to him, the dead are
non-existent : they are, therefore, nowhere. They
are no more in the grave than they are in the air.
And at any rate, since he holds that the new body
is in no sense the same as the old, he cannot hold
that it in any sense " comes forth " out of the
grave. But, on any theory of the future life, it

THE RESURRECTION IS OF THE PERSON. 189
would be unwarrantable to infer from these few
passages alone that the buried body is the same as
the resurrection-body. It is common to say of a
man that he is in the grave, though it is not meant
that the real person is there. In fact, no one holds
that such a remark is strictly correct. Yet, since
this is a common form of speech, it is perfectly
natural, in speaking of the resurrection, to repre
sent men as coming out of the graves.
We come back, then, to our question, What is
raised at the resurrection? According to the
Bible, it is the person who died ; and at the resur
rection this person is to be invested with a spirit
ual body, which has a certain relation to the first
body, though not at all identical with it : so that
sometimes, though rarely, the resurrection is spo
ken of as if it were a resurrection of the buried
body itself.
At this point we may notice the answer which
Dr. Ives gives to our question. One might have
anticipated that he would hold to the most literal
raising of the buried body, since, according to Mm,
there is no personal existence apart from the body ;
but he earnestly denounces this theory as unscrip-
tural. He vehemently combats the doctrine of
the Westminster Confession, that "the selfsame
bodies " shall be raised (p. 121). The body is to
be " an entirely different, a wonderfully changed,
body " (Ibid.). " The grosser elements of our
present earthy body are replaced by others more

190 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.
subtile, more highly vitalized " (p. 117). So, then,
the body that decays is not raised to a new life.
What, then, is to be raised ? Of course it is not the
soul, as an immaterial substance existing after the
death of the body, and distinct from it ; for there
is no such soul, in Dr. Ives's opinion. What can
it be, then ? He tells us : " The resurrection is of
the organism" (p. 121). But what is an organ
ism? He adopts the definition, "A structure
composed of, or acting by means of, organs, — an
organized being." And he adds, " The word ex
presses the idea of the orderly arrangement and
association of organs in one structure, with differ
ing functions, and yet mutually dependent upon
each other " (p. 106). When, now, the organism
is raised, are the organs raised of which it was
composed ? Impossible ; for then we should have
" the selfsame body." We must, therefore, have the
organism without the organs ! We must have " the
orderly arrangement and association " without the
things that were arranged and associated! If
this means any thing, it must mean, at least, that
the new organs — "the more subtile elements"
which are to replace the original ones — are to be
arranged and associated in precisely and identically
the same way as the original ones ; for, the organs
being "entirely different," there is nothing left for
the identity to consist in but the arrangement of
them. If we could assume that there is a soul
distinct from the organism, we should have no

DR. IVES ON THE RESURRECTION. 191
trouble ; for then the identity would inhere in this
soul. But Dr. Ives will not tolerate such an as
sumption. Every thing, therefore, so far as we can
see, must depend on the absolute identity in the
arrangement of the two sets of organs. We can
think of no other conception of the case which
leaves any sense in the theory ; and, even at the
best, it seems to us simply absurd. If it is tena
ble and true, then it would also be true, that, if a
machine is replaced by another consisting of simi
lar parts related to one another in the same way,
the second machine is identically the same as the
first. Indeed, it is not at all necessary that the
several parts should be of the same size or mate
rial. The second may be of gold, whhe the first
was of iron; yet, provided the arrangement and
association of the parts is the same, the two are
still identical. In fact, the one does not need to
succeed the other. There is no reason why we
cannot have two machines, side by side, differing
entirely in material, yet identically the same.
But this is only the beginning of difficulties.
We read on p. 119, where the author is speaking of
Christ's resurrection-body, " 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 or blood '] cannot inherit
the kingdom of God,' which is to come when
' this mortal puts on immortality.' " We are
therefore to understand, that, whhe the " sphit-

192 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.
body " may consist of flesh and bones, it cannot
consist of flesh and blood: consequently, blood,
at any rate, wih be wanting in the organism that
is to be raised. Dr. Ives asks, " What, in our
Lord's spirit-body, took the place of the circulating
fluid, of earthy, mortal blood?" And he wisely
answers, "We are not told. Probably we could
not now understand it" (pp. 119, 120). But,
while ordinary men might be satisfied with this
answer, Dr. Ives has no right to be ; for he has
found out, without being " told," that the arrange
ment and association of the new organs is to be
precisely the same as in the old ; and it is an es
sential feature of these present organisms of ours
that their very life and activity depend upon this
"circulating fluid," the blood. In fact, the Old
Testament repeatedly says that the soul consists
in the blood (Lev. xvii. 11, 14 ; Gen. ix. 4 ; Deut.
xii. 23). As between the blood on the one hand,
and the flesh and bones on the other, it would
therefore, according to the Bible, seem absolutely
necessary to regard the blood as the most essential
in the soul that is raised. In any case, according
to Dr. Ives, the organs of the immortal body are
" entirely different " from the present. They are
" more subtile " than these, and " replace" these.
At the best, then, it is by a sort of accommodation
that we give them the same name. The flesh is
to be entirely different from our mortal flesh ; the
bones are to be entirely different from our mortal

DR. IVES ON. THE RESURRECTION. 193
bones: yet they are sthl to be called flesh and
bones. Why, then, should we not give the name of
blood to that which "takes the place of" blood?
If it is to take the place of- the blood, then it sus
tains the same relation to the blood which the other
organs of the sphitual body do to the other organs
of the present body ; for those, Dr. Ives says, are
to "replace " these. Why, then, not call it blood?
We have, therefore, this dilemma: In the resur
rection-body either our blood is to be "replaced"
by something which answers the same ends, or it
is not to be thus replaced. If it is to be, then that
something ought to be called blood, as much as the
enthely different organs which replace the flesh
and bones of our present bodies deserve to be
called flesh and bones. If, however, our blood is
not to be thus replaced, then the " spirit-body " is
to be destitute of an essential feature of the organ
ism of the mortal body ; and consequently it can
not be the same organism. Which horn will our
author take ?
We dwell on this point the more because it
illustrates Dr. Ives's much-vaunted "biblical"
mode of educing doctrines. According to the
same method, one might gather from Matt. xvi.
17 — "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona; for flesh
and blood hath not revealed it unto thee " — that
either flesh or blood had revealed it to him. Or
when Paul says (Gal. i. 16), " I conferred not with
flesh and blood," we may suppose that he did con-

194 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.
fer with one or the other ; and when he says (Eph
vi. 12), " We wrestle not against flesh and blood,"
it is legitimate to assume that the contest is, after
all, with one of them. ' To be sure, it may be diffi
cult to determine which of the two the negation be
longs to ; but Dr. Ives, no doubt, has some " bibli
cal " way of finding out. But ordinary men will
certainly always understand Paul, in 1 Cor. xv. 50,
to mean that neither flesh nor blood can inherit the
kingdom of God ; for he has just said (ver. 49), " As
we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall
also bear the image of the heavenly ; " and surely
both flesh and blood are earthy.
But there are still other mysteries in Dr. Ives's
theory of the resurrection. Apparently feeling
that an identity of organism, or of life, is some
thing too coarse, if not too unintelligible, to meet
the notions of those who look upon personality as
consisting rather in the character resulting from a
life-long exercise of thoughts and feelings, he at
tempts sthl another statement. Speaking of death
as a " ceasing to exist," he adds, " 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 character, his old
emotions, habits of thought and purpose, and his
memory ; in fact, the same individual as before "
(p. 117). It is not entirely clear whether this
means that "the man himself" is the same thing

DR. IVES ON THE RESURRECTION. 195
as the " character, emotions," &c. ; but apparently
it does not. It is the man " with " these things
that is to be restored. At the same time, how
ever, it is evidently designed to make the impres
sion that the restoration of the old character,
thoughts, &c, is important, in order to make the
man "the same individual as before." At any
rate, there seems to be something restored besides
the "organism" or the "life." But we find it
impossible to understand this on Dr. Ives's theory
of the human soul ; for he has told us that it is a
"particular organization of matter in a body."
In fact, he has a great contempt for the philosophy
which assumes the existence of an immaterial sub
stance. He says of those who denounce his views
as materiahstic that they hold " that man himself,
the real man, is formed of — no matter, of noth
ing." In the place, of matter, he says, " they seem
trying to substitute something, or, more exactly, a
literal nothing, — at least, 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
revelation says nothing " (pp. 273, 274). Plainly,
then, according to this, thought, feeling, character,
memory, are nothing but certain operations or con
ditions of the material organism. When that
organism is destroyed, these mental operations or
states are extinct too. It would be no less absurd,
on this theory, to talk of preserving the barking of a

196 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.
dog when the dead dog is buried, than to talk
of preserving a man's character after the man
is buried; and yet we are asked to believe that
this extinct attribute of an extinct organism is to
be "restored," and attached to a new set of
organs ! The old organism is entirely done with ;
but the " habits " of those organs are to be re-cre
ated, and infused into " entirely different " ones !
No : our author must be held rigidly to his own
chosen doctrine. He must not at one time seek to
cast contempt on the notion of immateriality, and
then virtually avail himself of that notion in his
description of the resurrection. The " habits " of
an organism, as distinct from the organism, if they
are any thing, must be something immaterial ; for
they certainly cannot be recognized by any of
" the senses God has given us." Nor can he evade
this conclusion by saying that_the organism itself
is also restored ; for, as even a child must see, an
organism with " entirely different " organs must be
a different organism. No : we must speak plainly.
To say that moral and mental character, as distinct
from that in which it inheres, can be thus "re
stored" and attached to a new body, is, on any
theory, inconceivable. On Dr. Ives's theory, it is
rank nonsense; for, according to that theory,
the human "soul," the organism, after death, is
destroyed, is non-existent. To speak of "restor
ing " it is itself an abuse of language. It is not
restoration : it is an absolute creation. And to say

DR. IVES ON THE RESURRECTION. 197
that "character," "habits," are created, is like say
ing that Adam was forty years old the very second
he was created. Habits are the results of growth :
they require time for their formation. If abso
lutely put out of existence, they must require
more time again for a second formation. And
even then we cannot call the result the " same in
dividual;" for, developed under different condi
tions, the resultant person must be himself, and
not the same somebody that was put out of exist
ence centuries before.
Nothing can be clearer than that our author has
here involved himself in an inextricable self-con
tradiction. Wherein consists the identity of a man
who is raised from the dead with the one who
died? According to Dr. Ives, it cannot consist in
the organism; for the organs are, in his view,
" entirely different " from those of this life : yet
he over and over insists that the organism is the
man. Incidentally he speaks of the restoration
of the same character, memory, habits of thought,
&c, as though 'this were only a part, at most, of
that in which the identity consists. But, since the
organism is " entirely different," the identity, if
there is any, must consist wholly in the "habits,"
&c. ; but, in this case, the habits, &c, must consti
tute the man. They are something which, accord
ing to Dr. Ives, is separable from the original
organism, and is transferred to an entirely new
organism. Here, then, we find our author virtue

198 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.
ally resorting to the ordinary doctrine of the soul.
He implies a theory respecting " habits of thought,
memory, character," &c, which makes them iden
tical with the popular conception of the soul as
something distinct from- the body.
We hardly need to remark that this doctrine of
the resurrection is Dr. Ives's, not that of the Bible.
The Bible gives us, it is true, no theory of the
resurrection ; it does not go into particulars as to
the mode of it : but it certainly lays rj.o founda
tion for such a series of absurd conceptions as are
involved in Dr. Ives's description of the resurrec
tion. Where does the Bible say that the organ
ism is raised ? or even that the soul, in Dr. Ives's
sense of that word, is raised? Where does it
speak of life being " restored " to a non-existent
man ? This whole notion is utterly without war
rant in the Bible. Even though the biblical
writers, in a few cases, do represent the resurrec
tion as a making alive, they certainly do not fall
into the self-contradiction implied in the concep
tion of "restoring" life to a man -while yet there
is no man to restore it to !
Dr. Ives says much about the resurrection ; but
the idea of raising he makes httle of. The Bible
says that we shall be raised. It implies that there
is something to raise. Dr. Ives holds that there is
nothing left in existence that can be raised ; cer
tainly nothing that is raised. With him resurrec
tion is an outright creation of a new being, unless

ARE ALL MEN RAISED? 199
the " life " which is " restored " is the element of
identity : but, if it is, then the man never really
ceased to exist ; and Dr. Ives's whole doctrine of
death, as being the total termination of man's
existence, is overthrown.1
2. Another question relating to the resurrec
tion, on which opinions differ, is this: Are all
men raised ? The affirmative of this seems to be
estabhshed, especially by two passages. In John
v. 28, 29, Christ says, "The hour is coming in
the which all that are in the graves shall hear his
voice, and shall come forth ; they that have done
good, unto the resurrection of hfe ; and they that
have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation
[judgment]." Equally explicit is Paul in Acts
xxiv. 15, where he says he has " hope toward
God . . . that there shah be a resurrection of the
dead, both of the just and unjust." These are
the most unequivocal affirmations of the resurrec
tion of the wicked ; but they are sufficient, espe
cially as they are not contradicted by other

1 We have avoided making appeal to merely metaphysical or
psychological arguments in our discussions ; but Dr. Ives's theory
of the resurrection almost forces us to resort to them. According
to him, the resurrection must be a new creation of the same per
son (or organism) which had been previously put out of exist
ence ; but i{ is sufficient to reply to this, that such a thing is, to
our conception, an impossibility and an absurdity. If this uni
verse were absolutely annihilated, and then a new one just like it
should be created, the new one would still be a new one, — not the
same as the one annihilated. Sameness is not likeness. The
identity is irreparably destroyed by the annihilation.

200 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.
passages. We have, besides, such general state
ments as Mark xii. 26, "As touching the dead,
that they rise ; " and 1 Cor. xv. 22, " As in Adam
all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."
But inasmuch as in the New Testament generally,
and in this latter chapter particularly, the resur
rection is spoken of as the privilege of Christian
believers, these general statements might easily
be interpreted as relating to Christians alone, were
it not for those others in which the wicked also
are explicitly said to share in the resurrection.
In addition to the two passages above quoted
may be cited Rev. xx. 4, 5, 12-15, where the res
urrection is described as general, including those
whose names are found in the book of life, and
those who were cast into the lake of fire.
It is true that the wicked are nowhere explicitly
said to have new bodies at the resurrection ; and
there are those, who, while they accept the doctrine
that all men are raised, yet hold that only the
saints are raised with glorified bodies. But it is
manifest that ordinarily, when the resurrection of
believers is spoken of, reference is made to the
resurrection of the body. 1 Cor. xv. shows that
the general term "resurrection," or "resurrection
of the dead," was commonly understood to imply
resurrection with a body. The presumption is,
that, when the same general term is applied to the
wicked, the same implication as to the body is con
veyed. Of course, in so far as the possession of

THE RESURRECTION UNIVERSAL. 201
the spiritual body was an object of longing (Phil.
iii. 11), there must have been thought to be some
thing in the experience of the risen saint far
different from that of the risen unbeliever. The
very fact that Paul thus expresses a longing that
he "might attain unto the resurrection of the
dead " — the same thing apparently which he held
that all men would certainly attain to — shows
that he had reference to something more than the
mere resurrection, the mere acquisition of the
spiritual body. He longed for that fellowship
with Christ of which the resurrection was to be
the consummation.
The fact, that, according to the Scriptures, the
wicked as well as the good are to be raised from
the dead, is significant in connection with the
general question relative to the future fate of
men. According to the materialistic conception
of the matter, the wicked, at death, pass utterly
out of existence ; then, after an indefinitely long
interval, are re-invested with bodies ; and then,
immediately afterwards, are again put out of ex
istence. This doctrine is not only, metaphysi
cally considered, incredible and absurd, not only
contrary to the teaching of the Bible, but is also
intensely repugnant to all sound sense and moral
instincts. According to the materialistic Chris
tians, death, understood to mean extermination
of being, is the penalty of ungodliness. They
hold, moreover, that the death of the body is com-

202 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.
plete extermination; but, in addition to this,
there is to be a second extermination, preceded
and caused by fire, through which the sphitual
body is to be burned up (vid. Dr. Ives's " Bible
Doctrine," chap. xi.). If the thing deserved and
needed as the penalty of sin be extermination,
then it has already been secured, on this theory,
by the first death. Why should the sinner be
brought again into existence, and made to undergo
the penalty a second time? But if the mere
annihilation of conscious existence be not the true
penalty of sin, if the real penalty consist in the
antecedent pain of the sinner, then the whole
theory of the school referred to about death (i.e.,
extinction of being) as being the wages of sin is
overthrown. " Death," says Dr. Ives (p. 158),
" the loss of life [i.e., as he understands it, the
loss of existence], is the reward of disobedience ; "
and he quotes Ezek. xviii. 20, " The soul that
sinneth, it shall die," and Rom. vi. 23, " The
wages of sin is death," in proof of his proposition.
Hence, according to this view, the poor sinner
receives his wages twice over: he twice suffers
the literal penalty of extermination. It is cer
tainly natural to require irrefragable proof of such
a theory before accepting it. We have shown, as
we trust, quite clearly, that it has no foundation
in the Bible.
3. Another question is, When will the resurrec
tion take place? It would in many respects be

WHEN SHALL WE BE RAISED? 203
satisfactory, if we could answer this, with many,
by saying that every one receives his resurrection-
body immediately after his own death. It would
be involved in this answer, that the trial and sen
tence of every man immediately follows the end
of his earthly probation, — a view favored by all
those passages which represent retribution as hav
ing reference to the deeds done in the body. It is
favored, moreover, by the analogy of the resurrec
tion of Christ ; by Paul's conception of the spiritual
body as being related to the material body, as the
plant to the seed from which it springs ; and by
the cases of Elijah and Enoch. The doctrine,
moreover, seems to be supported by such declara
tions as 2 Cor. vi 1 : " We know, that, if our earth
ly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have
a building of God, an house not made with hands,
eternal in the heavens." This passage appears to
imply that the assumption of the resurrection-body
takes place immediately after death.
But notwithstanding these scriptural intima
tions*, and notwithstanding what may perhaps be
• one's instinctive preference, this answer to our
question hardly seems to be warranted by the
general drift of the New Testament. When Christ
says (John v. 28, 29), " The hour is coming, in the
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 ; and they that
have done evil, unto the resurrection of damna-

204 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD
tion," it is difficult, by any natural exegesis, to
reconcile this with the doctrine that the resurrec
tion of the dead has already taken place. To
say, as has been said (e.g., " Bibliotheca Sacra,"
1869, p. 608), that the resurrection here spoken
of may refer to the final rising-up for judgment,
and have no reference to the resurrection-body, is
not only contrary to the implication lying in the
phrase, " all that are in their graves," but is con
tradicted by numerous other still more explicit
passages of Scripture. There can be no question
but that Paul, in 1 Cor. xv., is speaking about the
resurrection-5o(iy. It is immediately after he has
been answering (vers. 36-50) the question, "With
what body do they come ? " that he says (vers. 51,
52), " We shall not all sleep, 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 dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we
shall be changed." Words could not more clearly
affirm that the assumption of the incorruptible
body is a thing yet future for all who are alrt ady
dead. Again : how can we explain Paul's charge
against Hymenseus and Philetus, when he says (2
Tim. ii. 18) that they have erred concerning the
truth, " saying that the resurrection is past al
ready," if the resurrection is already past? Even
though it may be supposed that they used the
word in a spiritual sense, and denied a bodily
resurrection, still Paul's characterization of their

THE RESURRECTION STILL FUTURE. 205
error implies that the resurrection, as a whole, was
still future. We might enlarge on this point ; but
it is unnecessary.
The resurrection, then, according to the New
Testament, is still future, and is associated with
the coming of Jesus in his glory (1 Cor. xv. 23 ;
1 Thess. iv. 16), and with the final judgment
(John v. 29). The dead are to be raised up " at
the last day" (John vi. 39, 40, 44, 54, xi. 24).
But whether all men are to be raised simulta
neously ; or, on the other hand, some of the saints
(especiahy the martyrs, as many infer from Rev.
xx. 4) are to be raised before the rest ; or, as still
others hold, all the saints first, and the unbelievers
afterwards (according to a different interpretation
of Rev. xx. 4, 5, according to 1 Cor. xv. 23, 24,
and according to a possible distinction between
the phrases " resurrection from the dead " and
" resurrection of the dead "), — these are questions
on which we will not enlarge.
4. What is the relation of the resurrection of
men in general to that of Jesus Christ ?
It is remarkable, that, though the New Testa
ment represents Christ as haying (in some sense
at least) risen with the same body which was
crucified and slain, so that, when he rose, the tomb
was empty, and, when he appeared to the apostles,
he showed them even the print of the nails in his
hands and the mark of the spear in his side (John
xx. 27), yet the resurrection of other men is de-

206 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.
scribed as analogous to his, although they do not
rise with the same body, but an entirely different
one. More particularly, —
(1) The resurrection of men in general is
represented as dependent on that of Christ. This
relation is set forth by Paul when he says (1 Cor.
xv. 20-22), "But now is Christ risen from the
dead, and become the first-fruits of them that
slept. For since by- man came death, by man
came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in
Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made
alive." The same doctrine is involved in the
language of John xi. 25 : "I am the resurrection
and the life. He that believeth in me, though he
were dead, yet shall he live." 1 Thess. iv. 14:
" If we believe that Jesus died, and rose again,
even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God
bring with him." In the last two passages, refer
ence is made to believers only; and there con
fronts us at once the question, whether the relation
is not limited to them. Is the resurrection of
unbelievers an effect of Christ's resurrection ? It
would, perhaps, seem unnatural to suppose this to
be the case. The fact that generally, where the
resurrection is treated of, behevers only are re
ferred to, and furthermore that there is certainly
a peculiar relation between Christ and behevers,
seems to make it improbable that the resurrection
of unbelievers can be regarded as dependent on
that of Christ. Still such a connection does seem

ALL MEN MADE ALIVE IN CHRIST. 207
to be affirmed. When it is said, " As in Adam all
die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive," the
statement, in form certainly, is absolute and uni
versal. Although the chapter generally deals
particularly with the resurrection of Christians,
yet here it would be unnatural to suppose, that, in
the second clause, " all " is more restricted than in
the first. The effect of the death of Adam is
universal. The whole force of the comparison is
weakened, if not destroyed, if the effect of Christ's
resurrection is less so. The death referred to is,
of course, physical death, as in the parallel passage,
Rom. v. 14 ; but this death passed upon all men, —
even those who had not, like Adam, transgressed
any known command (i.e., infants, imbeciles, &c).
In respect to this, now, Adam is called " the figure
[type] of him that was to come ; " i.e., Christ. In
short, Christ is called the second head of the race.
Adam, by his transgression, brought physical death
on all men: Christ, by his obedience, brought
physical life to ah men. " Since by man came
death, by man came also the resurrection of the
dead." The same doctrine seems also to be implied in
John v. 28, 29 : " The hour is coming, in the which
all that are in the graves shall hear his [Christ's]
voice, and shall come forth ; they that have done
good, unto the resurrection of life ; and they that
have done evil, unto the resurrection of damna
tion." Here the resurrection of all men is ex-

208 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.
plicitly affirmed, and this resurrection is described
as resulting from the dead hearing the voice of
Christ. He is thus the efficient cause of the
resurrection of all men. To all men he is "the
resurrection and the life."
This, however, does not invalidate the obvious
truth, that there is a peculiar connection between
the resurrection of Christ and that of believers.
We might adduce numerous passages in illustra
tion ; but those above quoted may suffice as
specimens, together with others which wih need
to be cited under the next head.
(2) The resurrection-body of believers is de
clared to be like that of Christ. Paul says (Phil.
iii. 21) that Christ " shall change our vile body,
that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious
body." Again (Rom. vi. 5), " If we have been
planted in the likeness of his death, we shall be
also in the likeness of his resurrection."
This doctrine is closely connected with that of
the union of Christians with Christ, which is so
prominent in the New Testament. Christians are
described as members of the body of Christ, even
"of his flesh and of his bones" (Eph. v. 30).
They are in Christ : they derive their life from
him, as the branches from the vine. Accordingly,
when Paul is struggling to express the earnestness
of his longing to " win Christ," and to " be found
in him," he makes it the climax of his aspiration,
that he may " know him and the power of his

UNION WITH CHRIST IN THE RESURRECTION. 209
resurrection" (Phil. hi. 10). The intimate connec
tion between our resurrection and that of Christ
underlies the discussion in 1 Cor. xv., though the
doctrine is not there often formally stated. But,
at the conclusion of his description of the spiritual
body, Paul contrasts (ver. 45) Adam with Christ,
calling Adam " earthy," and Christ " the Lord
from heaven" (ver 47). And then he adds (vers.
48, 49), "As is the earthy, such are they also
that are earthy ; and as is the heavenly, such are
they also that are heavenly. And as we have
borne the hnage of the earthy, we shall also bear
the hnage of the heavenly." The same truth is
intimated likewise in Rom. viii. 29 ; 2 Cor. iii. 18 ;
1 John iii. 2.
(3) The relation between Christ's resurrection
and that of believers is often depicted as a spiritual
one. Christians are described as having already
experienced both death and resurrection with
Christ. Thus Paul says (Col. h. 20), " Wherefore
if ye be dead [more correctly, "if ye died"] with
Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as
though living in the world, are ye subject to ordi
nances?" And, immediately after (iii. 1-3), he
adds, " If ye, then, be risen with Christ, seek those
things which are above, where Christ sitteth on
the right hand of God. Set your affection on
things above, not on things on the earth. For ye
are dead [i.e., died with Christ], and your life is
hid with Christ in God." Here the Christian is

210 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.
represented as having been associated with Christ
in his death and his resurrection ; and the death
and resurrection are both represented as spirit
ual experiences on the part both of Christ and his
followers. The death is a dying " from the rudi
ments of the world ; " i.e., a death which releases
one from bondage to the outward services of a
crude ceremonial system. The new life involves
the transfer of the heart's service to God and heav
enly things. If it seems almost impious to ascribe
such an experience to Christ, who never needed
to be absolved from any bondage to the rudiments
of the world, we can only say, that notwithstand
ing the undisputed fact of his sinlessness, and
notwithstanding the expiatory nature of Christ's
death elsewhere set forth by Paul, he yet, in the
passage before us, clearly speaks of Christians as
being, with Christ, released from the rudiments of
the world by death. If still this seems like a too
narrow forcing of the literal sense, we may turn to
Rom. vi. 9, 10, where the same thing is most un
equivocally affirmed : " Knowing that Christ, being
raised from the dead, dieth no more ; death hath
no more dominion over him. For in that he died,
he died unto sin once [once for all] ; but in that he
liveth, he liveth unto God." The conclusion is
(ver. 11), " Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to
be dead indeed unto sin, but ahve unto God
through Jesus Christ our Lord." This thought is
expanded and enforced throughout this chapter;

SPIRITUAL RESURRECTION. 211
and in the next (vii. 4) he says, " Wherefore, my
•brethren, ye also are become dead [ye were made
dead] to the law by the body of Christ, that ye
should be married to another, even to him who is
raised from the dead, that we should bring forth
fruit unto God." We find precisely the same
thought in Eph. ii. 4-6 : " But God, who is rich in
mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
even when we were dead in [by reason of] sins,
hath quickened us [made us alive] together with
Christ (by grace ye are saved), and hath raised us
up together [i.e., together with Christ], and made
us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus."
This same thought, that Christians died with Christ
in his death, and rose with him to a new life in his
resurrection, is found likewise in Rom. vi. 4 ; 2 Cor.
v. 14, 15 (where the correct rendering of "then
were all dead" is, rather, " then all died," i.e., with
Christ) ; Gal. ii. 20, vi. 14 ; Col. ii. 12.
The doctrine thus presented of a union between
Christ and his followers, which involves a spiritual
connection between his death and resurrection on
the one hand, and th6ir renunciation of sin and
introduction into a new life on the other, can
hardly be regarded as a mere figure of speech. It
is nowhere presented in the form of an illustrative
comparison : it is stated as an absolute fact. It
does not consist with our present object to dwell
on this point, and attempt to state philosophically
what is meant by these bibhcal declarations. If

212 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.
there seems to be a mystical character belonging
to the doctrine, this itself is a reason for avoiding
any minute analysis of it ; but it is not a reason
for discarding the whole thing as a mere rhetorical
flourish. It is interwoven with the very texture
of the New Testament, and cannot be eliminated
without rending the whole fabric.
At the same time it is to be observed that this
association of the Christian's present religious
experience with the accomplished death and resur
rection of Christ is brought into close connection
with the future experience of union with Christ in
his risen body. Thus Rom. vi. 4 represents us as
having already died with Christ, in order that we
may walk with him in newness of life. So in ver.
6 the old man is said to have been crucified with
Christ, and in ver. 11 we are "Represented as being
made " alive [after having died with Christ unto
sin] unto God through Jesus Christ." At the
same time, however, in ver. 8 the living is spoken
of as a yet future thing, " We beheve that Ave shah
also live with him ; " and in ver. 5 the assurance
is given, that, as we have been planted together
with Christ in the likeness of his death, we shall
be also in the likeness of his resurrection. So in
viii. 10 death and life through Christ are described
as a present fact; but it is immediately followed
in ver. 11 by the assurance, " If the Spirit of him
that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you,
he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also

SPIRITUAL RESURRECTION. 213
quicken [re-animate] your mortal bodies." A
similar representation is found in 2 Cor. iv. 10 -14.
The conclusion to be drawn is, that, in Paul's
conception, the spiritual and the physical in the
resurrection-life are not so distinct and diverse as
is commonly thought. In some sense regeneration
is not only the condition, but is the beginning, of
the resurrection. The final resurrection, so far as
it is a part of the Christian's peculiar experience,
is only the consummation of that spiritual life
which begins as soon as the soul is by faith united
to Him who is the resurrection and the hfe.
If any one shrink from so mystical a doctrine,
then at least this conclusion must follow: Paul
uses the physical fact of a resurrection as an appro
priate symbol of the sphitual fact of regeneration.
And he uses it not by way of formal comparison :
the figure is not a simile. Regeneration is called a
resurrection, — called such so often and so unqual
ifiedly as to make the impression that the bodily
resurrection of Christ is already shared in by every
one who has been renewed in spirit. We have
then here a usus loquendi remarkably analogous to
that which is commonly aheged to belong to the
terms " life " and " death '? in the Bible, especially
in the New Testament. But, before taking up the
topic here suggested, we will answer one more
question relating to the resurrection ; viz., —
5. Is the doctrine of a bodily resurrection taught
in the Old Testament ?

214 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.
It is obvious to any unprejudiced reader, that,
whereas the doctrine is abundantly taught in the
New Testament, the Old Testament contains al
most nothing clearly teaching or even implying
it ; and it is a striking proof of the warping
effect of a wrong theory on one's interpretation
of the Bible, that those who deny that the Old
Testament teaches that there is a future life imme
diately following upon the present life yet find
abundant evidence in the Old Testament that
there is to be a resurrection ! We have no dispo
sition to deny that there are some faint foreshad-
owings of the doctrine in the Old Testament;
but any reader of the Bible, not prejudiced by a
theory, must say that those intimations are very
few and very faint indeed. To what a desperate
pass Dr. Ives has arrived in his argument may be
well seen by reading his proof of a resurrection
derived from the narratives of the Tree of Life,
the Cherubim, the Deluge, the name of Eve, &c.
(pp. 126-142). To answer the argument would
be a waste of time. We will only attend to the
other alleged proofs.
"Although," he says, "our earliest records of
revelation do not explicitly mention the doctrine
of a resurrection, yet evidently it was fully under
stood by the men of that day; for it was abso
lutely essential to their idea of a future life. To
them life signified actual existence, and death the
cessation of such existence " (p. 142). But this

ALLEGED PROOFS FROM OLD TESTAMENT. 215
is simply a begging of the whole question. Such
reasoning is overthrown at once by asking, Where
is the evidence that to those patriarchs death sig
nified the cessation of existence? But if it did
signify this, then what is the evidence that they
had any idea of a future life at all ? If they said
nothing about a resurrection, and did say that
death is the end of existence, then surely, accord
ing to the "literal" mode of interpreting the
Bible, we ought to suppose that they had no idea
of a future life at all.
Dr. Ives's next proof comes from Job xiv. 14,
15 : " If a man die, shall he live again ? " To this
he adds the remark, " Rather — not a question —
he shall live again" (p. 143). We entered upon
an examination of this book fully convinced of the
author's honesty; and we shall not accuse him
even here of dishonesty. But we are utterly
unable to understand how he could make the
above-quoted statement deliberately. In the
original Hebrew, the interrogative particle, always
indicating a question, here stands undisputed.
Sometimes a sentence without this particle may be
rendered interrogatively; with it the sentence
always must be so rendered. Is Dr. Ives ac-'
quainted with Hebrew ? If he is, he is inexcusa
ble for making such a translation. If he had
bhndly followed other translators, he might be
excused; but most certainly no respectable and
honest translator ever so rendered it. Did he

216 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.
guess that it ought to be so rendered, and, on the
strength of his conjecture, make a bold venture in
his emendation ? We are entirely at a loss what
to think. And yet the one who does this assures
us (p. 31, footnote) that the correctness of his
renderings may be verified by any Hebrew or
Greek scholar ! But the author goes on to say,
"If it were a question, he answers it himself."
And then follows the remainder of the passage:
"Ah the days of my appointed time will I wait
till my change come. Thou shalt call, and I will
answer thee ; thou wilt have a desire to the work
of thine hands." Let it be remembered that Dr
ives is here in search of the doctrine of the resur
rection. The latter part of the passage does seem
to favor it somewhat. But why does he not quote
what precedes this in vers. 7-12, where, after say
ing that a tree cut down has hope of new life, Job
adds, " But man dieth, . . . and where is he ? . . .
Man lieth down, and riseth not." What follows is
only the expression of a wish : " Oh that thou
wouldest hide me in Sheol ! . . . that thou wouldest
appoint me a set time, and remember me ! "
Then, having thus been led to the thought of a
'new life, he puts the question to himself, " If a
man die, shall he live? [If this wish of mine
could be granted], ah the days of my appointed
time I would wait till my release should come.
Thou wouldest call, and I would answer thee."
So the best scholars .understand the passage.

ALLEGED PROOFS FROM OLD TESTAMENT. 217
Dr. Ives further adduces Ps. xvii. 15, " As for
me, I shall behold thy face in righteousness; I
shah be satisfied when I awake in thy likeness."
He three times thus misquotes the English ver
sion (pp. 99, 143, 299), and so mistranslates the
Hebrew again, though this time it is done tacitly.
Our version is much nearer right : " I shall be sat
isfied, when I awake, with thy likeness " (notice the
commas, — "satisfied with," not " awake with ") ;
though " likeness " should be " form." " I shall
be satisfied with [more exactly, "shall be sated
with ; " i.e., with a view of] thy form ; " the par
allel clause being, " I whl behold thy face in right
eousness." Comp. Num. "xii. 8, where God says
of Moses, " With him will I speak mouth to mouth,
. . . and the similitude [form] of the Lord shall
he behold." The Psalmist, then, affirms that, when
he awakes, he whl sate himself with a view of
God's form. We have no doubt that this pas
sage refers to an awaking from the sleep of death
(though many question this interpretation) : the
immediate context, which speaks of the death of
the wicked, almost requhes us so to understand
it. But yet we have here by no means any clear
intimation of a bodily resurrection.
The next passage quoted by our author seems
to be more explicit ; viz., Isa. xxvi. 19 : " Thy
dead men shah live ; together with my dead body
shall they arise [more correctly, my dead bodies
shah arise]. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in

218 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.
dust ; for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the
earth shall cast out the dead." But the notion
that this is a direct description of a general resur
rection of the dead cannot maintain itself. For
(1) in ver. 14 it is said of the enemies of God's
people, " They are dead, they shall not live ; they
are deceased, they shall not rise." Even if we
assume that a literal resurrection is meant, it is
positively affirmed that there is not to be a general
resurrection. But (2) vers. 17, 18 show that the
description in ver. 19 is probably not to be under
stood literally, but figuratively. It is there said,
" We have been with child ; we have been in pain ;
we have, as it were, brought forth wind : we have
not wrought any deliverance in the earth ; neither
have the inhabitants of the world fallen." It is
to be noticed that the word here rendered
" fallen " is the intransitive form of the verb ren
dered in ver. 19 " cast out," and is a term desig
nating birth. In the latter verse there is a direct
reference to this expression in ver. 18. That is,
after the prophet has mourned, that, with all the
mental pain through which the people of God
have passed, they have been unable to people the
land with inhabitants after their desolation, there
follows the expression of a hope or a wish that-
God would raise the dead of his people. The
notion of a resurrection of the dead is found here,
it is true ; but it is a resurrection confined to the
Jewish people, as contrasted with their enemies.

ALLEGED PROOFS FROM OLD TESTAMENT. 219
It is described as something on which the prosper
ity of the Jewish kingdom depended ; and it is at
the best very questionable whether the notion of
the earth casting out (bringing to birth) her dead
is not to be understood as a poetic mode of
describing the repeopling of the country in a
more natural way, as a compensation for the loss
they had sustained.
It is certain that Ezek. xxxvii. 12-14, next
quoted by Dr. Ives, does not refer to a literal
resurrection. These verses follow the account of
the vision of the dry bones. After Ezekiel has
seen them clothed with flesh, and re-animated,
God says to him (ver. 11), "Son of man, these
bones are the whole house of Israel : behold, they
say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost ; we
are cut off." Then follows (ver. 12) the com
mand, "Therefore prophesy, and say unto them,
Thus saith the Lord God ; Behold, O my people, I
whl open your graves, and cause you to come up
out of your graves, and bring you into the land
of Israel." The people are in captivity, and are
hopeless of returning to Judaea. Their hopeless
ness is symbolized by these dry bones. The per
sons addressed are themselves described as in their
graves, and about to be raised ; and yet they are
the same who just before are described as despair
ing. Nothing can be clearer than that there is
here nothing but figurative language.
The next passage (Dan. xii. 2) is more to the

220 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.
point. Yet here it is only said that " many of
them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall
awake ; " and the connection favors the supposi
tion that the Jewish people alone are referred to.
Certainly a general resurrection is not taught.
The most that can be said, then, is, that in the
Old Testament one or two passages faintly fore
shadow the New-Testament doctrine of the resur
rection, but none explicitly teach it as a general
truth. It certainly seems as if nothing but a strong
preconception could lead one to find more in the
Old Testament about the resurrection than about
an existence surviving the death of the body.
We now pass on to consider the more important
question, what the Bible teaches concerning the
future hfe in general.

DEFINITION OF LIFE. 221

CHAPTER X.
LIFE AND DEATH, — THE LITERAL SENSE.
fT^HE subject which we now take up is vital to
-*- the whole problem concerning the biblical
doctrine of the final destiny of men. Our first
duty is to investigate the meaning of the terms
" life " and " death " as employed in the Bible. A
neglect to define these terms, and loose assump
tions concerning the meaning of them, haye led to
an almost hopeless confusion with regard to this
topic. Let us first consider what is meant by "life."
Every one knows that the word in our language
(and its equivalent in other languages) has a
great variety of meanings. Webster gives no less
than fourteen definitions to the word; but the
first meaning defined by him is the primary and
most important one. We give it entire : " That
state of an animal or plant in which its organs are
capable of performing their functions ; animate
existence ; vitality ; also the time during which
this state continues, either in general, or in an
individual instance; as, the life of a tree or a

222 LIFE AND DEATH, — THE LITERAL SENSE.
horse." In this one definition, however, it may
be observed, three distinct meanings are recog
nized: (1) vitality, (2) the state of vitality, and
(3) the time during which a state of vitality con
tinues. The distinction between the first and the
second may seem to be somewhat subtile : it is
nevertheless real and apprehensible.
In the primary sense, life is the mysterious prin
ciple (vital principle) which distinguishes animals
and plants from inorganic substances. Whether
or not life, in this sense, is a distinct substance
infused into the organism ; whether it is the forma
tive cause of the organism ; whether it is an im
material principle, identical with mind, or distinct
from mind, — these are questions which it is not
necessary here to discuss. It is enough that all
agree that there is a certain something, obscure and
mysterious as it may be in itself, which character
izes all bodies called animals or plants. Different
in the animal from what it is in the vegetable, it
yet is sufficiently alike in the two to merit the
same name. Of course, however, we have here to
do more especially with animal life, and stih more
specifically with human life.
The next meaning of the word is that which we
have defined as the state of vitality. A living
organism is such because it possesses the vital
principle. In this sense we may say life is in it ;
but, on the other hand, we say a person or an
animal is in life, as opposed to being in death.

to

OLD-TESTAMENT TERMS FOR LIFE. 223
When we thus use the word "life," it has a shade
of meaning different from the other. In this sense
we could not substitute for it the synonyme " vital
principle." We could not say, a man is weary of
his vital principle; but we might say that he is
weary of life, meaning by this the condition of
being animated by the vital principle. In other
words, this secondary sense of the term is more
general and abstract than the first. It is this
second . sense of the term which is properly anti
thetic to " death." We might define it by coining
a word, " vitalizedness ; " death being a state of
Mwvitalizedness, or rather <#evitalizedness.
The thhd sense of the word is easily recognized.
When we speak of the length of a man's life, we
mean the length of the time during which he re
mains alive. "Life," in this sense, means the
period covered by the condition of vitality.
These are the primary and literal senses of the
word " life."
Let us now turn to the biblical words denoting
life. We have already had occasion to notice that
nephesh (Heb.) and psyche (Gr.) often mean and
often are translated " life," and that ruahh (Heb.)
and pneuma (Gr.) sometimes have the same mean
ing. When these words are to be so rendered,
they have the primary sense of vitality, — the vital,
organic principle. E.g. : Lev. xvii. 11, " The life
[nephesh] of the flesh is in the blood." Gen. i. 30,
"Everything . . . wherein there is hfe [nephesh]."

224 LIFE AND DEATH, — THE LITERAL SENSE.
Judg. xv. 19, "His spirit [ruahh, life, vitality]
came again " to Samson after he had grown faint
through thhst. So in the New Testament : John
x. 11, " The good shepherd giveth his life [psyche]
for the sheep." Luke vih. 55, "And her spirit
[pneuma] came again."
Both the Hebrew and Greek languages, how
ever, have distinct words for " life " as antithetic
to "death." That is, for the second and third
meanings of " life " as above set forth (viz., the
condition of vitality, and the time during which
vitality continues) these languages never use the
terms just spoken of. For these meanings of our
word "hfe" the Hebrew uses the word hhayyim.
This is in form a plural word ; the singular hhay
being sometimes, but much more rarely, used in
the same sense.1 It is the term employed when
life is contrasted with death. Thus Deut. xxx. 19,
1 This use of the plural in a singular sense is not without
frequent analogies in the Hebrew. The word for "face," for
example, is panim, a, plural form. Any attempt to find a special
or subtle significance in this idiom must be futile. Thus, in Mr.
Pettingell's Theological Trilemma (p. 106), we are told that Gen.
ii. 7 ought to be rendered, " God breathed into his nostrils the
breath of lives ; " i.e., " of both animal and spiritual life." Accord
ing to this, Gen. vii. 15 ought to be rendered, " They [the beasts]
went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein
is the breath of lives;" proving that brutes, as well as men,
possess a spiritual life. But this is just what Mr. Pettingell, on
the same page, expressly denies. Equally fanciful and ground
less is the notion advanced by Dr. Tayler Lewis (in The Inde
pendent, Nov. 11, 1875), that this plural form " seems to suggest
the thought of a life or lives other than this, higher than this,
the way to which is through death." On this theory, what cau

OLD-TESTAMENT TERMS FOR LIFE. 225
" I have set before you life [hhayyim] and death."
So the adjective hhay is used in a corresponding
sense : 1 Kings xxi. 15, " Naboth is not alive, but
dead." The same word hhayyim is also used in
the third sense (life, as denoting the length of
life) ; as when it is said (Josh. iv. 14), " They
feared him [Joshua], as they feared Moses, all the
days of his life."
These are the predominant senses of hhayyim.
We leave out of account for the present the
figurative or spiritual senses of the term. Not
to burden our pages too much, we will merely
refer to a few passages hlustrating these senses
of the word. In the sense of life as a state of
animation opposed to death, it is used, e.g., in
Gen. xxvii. 46 ; Exod. i. 14 ; 2 Sam. i. 23 ; Job ih.
20, x. 1 ; Ps. xvii. 14, lxiii. 3, lxvi. 9 ; Prov. xviii.
21 ; Jer. vih. 3. In the sense of life as the period
be made of Jacob's reply to Pharaoh (Gen. xlvii. 9)? — "Few
and evil have the days of the years of my life [hliayyimj been."
Jacob had just given his age as one hundred and thirty years, and
this he calls the length of his lives — the earthly and the heavenly
y-5tto follow — if this fancy is to be taken for fact. Mr. Heard
(Tripartite Nature of Man, p. 44, seq.), however, says, " The breath
of lives may be used in the plural to convey the deep truth, that
the spirit's life never can be solitary. While with regard to all
other created spirits we can lead a self-contained life, we cannot
live out of God's presence." It is easy to find deep truths by
such a process. But it is » truth, if not a deep one, that such
conceits are unworthy of sober students of the Bible. Any
Hebrew scholar should know that the plural form hhayyim is the
ordinary form for the abstract conception life, and that to find a
" deep truth " in this fact is no more easy than to find in the
plural form of the Hebrew word for face an equally deep truth.

226 LIFE AND DEATH, — THE LITERAL SENSE.
during which one lives, it is used, e.g., in Gen. xxiii.
1; Exod. vi. 16; Deut. iv. 9; Josh. i. 5; 2 Sam.
xviii. 18 ; 1 Kings xi. 34 ; Ps. xxiii. 6, cxxviii. 5 ;
Jer. lh. 34.
In some cases hhayyim is used in nearly the
same sense as nephesh or ruahh, when these denote
the vital principle. Thus Prov. xiv. 30, " A sound
heart is the life [hhayyim] of the flesh." So Gen.
ii. 7, " God . . . breathed into his nostrils the
breath of lhe " (n'shamah of hhayyim). And
Gen. vh. 22, " All in whose nostrils was the
breath of life " (literally, " breath of the spirit of
life "). So also we read in Ps. ciii. 4, " Who re-
deemeth thy life [hhayyim] from destruction ; "
while in Ps. xxxv. 17 it is said, " Rescue my soul
[nephesh] from their destructions."
If we turn to the New Testament we find a
closely analogous use of terms. While psyche
and (rarely) pneuma are used in the more con
crete sense of the individual lhe, or vital prin
ciple, we find a different word employed in the
more abstract sense of life as a state or condition
of being, and in the sense of life as a period of
existence. The Greek word corresponding in the
New Testament to hhayyim in the Old Testament
is zoe. This is the word which is antithetic to
" death : " as Rom. viii. 38, " Neither death nor
lhe ; " 1 Cor. iii. 22, " Life or death." So 2 Cor.
iv. 12 ; Jas. iv. 14. It is also used in the sense of
duration of life : as Luke i. 75, " All the days of

NEW-TESTAMENT TERMS FOR LIFE. 227
our lhe ; " and xvi. 25, " Thou in thy lifetime re-
ceivedst thy good things." So 1 Cor. xv. 19. In
the more primary sense of vitality the word may
perhaps be taken in Acts xvh. 25, " He giveth to
all lhe and breath, and all things."
But these uses of zoe are comparatively ram.
In the vast majority of cases it is used in a higher
and more remote sense, which we shall consider at
a later point. The verb zao-, of the same root, is,
however, most frequently used in the more literal
sense : as Matt. ix. 18, " Come and lay thy hand
upon her, and she shall live ; " Phil. i. 22, " If I
live in the flesh."
There is another word used in the New Testa
ment which is sometimes translated " life ; " viz.,
bios. It occurs, however, only eleven times : and,
in the majority of these instances, it denotes, not
hfe, but the means of living or subsistence; as
Luke vhi. 43, " A woman . . . which had spent
ah her living upon physicians." It is used in a
similar sense in Luke xv. 12, 30, xxi. 4 ; Mark xii.
44 ; 1 John hi. 17. It denotes, in other cases, the
condition, mode, or course of life ; as 1 Tim. ii. 2,
" That we may lead a quiet and peaceable life."
So also in Luke vhi. 14 ; 2 Tim. ii. 4 ; 1 Pet. iv.
3 ; 1 John h. 16. Once the corresponding verb,
bioo, is used; meaning " to live," "to conduct life "
(1 Pet. iv. 2).
The definition of " death " is a simple matter.
As already observed, it is antithetic to " hfe," the

228 LIFE AND DEATH, — THE LITERAL SENSE.
state of being vitalized. A live being is one pos
sessed of the vital principle: a dead being is
one deprived of this vitality. The word is not
properly used of lifeless things as such. Death
is not a property of rocks and water. We apply
the term to that which has been possessed of the
mysterious but easily recognized principle of or
ganic life, but which has lost it. Death is " that
state of a being ... in which there is a total and
permanent cessation of all the vital functions "
(Webster) .*
The importance of a clear conception of the
meaning of the terms " life " and " death " is
seen when we find many authors either asserting
or implying that life is synonymous with existence.
This is expressly given as a formal definition by
Mr. Constable ("Duration and Nature of Future
Punishment," p. 34), who says, " Lhe, in common
language, means 'existence.'" The same definition
is assumed by Mr. Dobney (" Scripture Doctrine of
Future Punishment," p. 173, seq.). Dr. Ives also
seems to regard this as so much an axiom, that he
does not take the trouble to state it, sthl less to
1 Dr. Ives says (p. 236), " According to Webster, death, in its
primary and in all its secondary meanings, is ' the termination
of existence.' 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."
The hasty reader who does not stop to verify this statement will
be surprised to learn that in none of the seven formal definitions
of death given in Webster's Unabridged is any such expression
found.

FALSE DEFINITION OF LIFE. 229
defend it: he simply assumes it. He opens the
subject (Preface, p. ii) by remarking, " It would
seem the simplest solution of the question [con
cerning the future life] to take Holy Writ to mean
just what it says, — that death means death, the
loss of existence ; that lhe means lhe, as the
promised reward." All through the book this
same assumption runs. Thus, e.g., on p. 239 we
read, "Death means what mankind understand
death to mean. . . . 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." It is true that the same book
(p. 108) concedes that "it is almost universally
taught, and as universally accepted, even among
disbehevers in revelation, that the soul is some
thing immaterial, and absolutely indestructible."
If this is so, then men do not understand death
to mean the termination of existence. We can
not conjecture how the author would try to
reconche these two statements. It is very certain,
however, that the second passage quoted tells the
truth, — men do not generally understand death to
mean the termination of existence ; and there
fore it follows that the definition of life as
existence, and death as the end of existence, is
entirely without foundation. For the question is
not what Dr. Ives himself, or a few others with
him, may think; but it is what men generally
think. The question is, What conceptions are

230 LIFE AND DEATH, — THE LITERAL SENSE.
commonly attached to certain words ? We have
Dr. Ives's own admission that death is not com
monly understood to mean non-existence, — an
admission not counterbalanced by his other state
ment, that death is commonly understood to mean
non-existence. Nothing can be plainer than the truth respecting
this matter. If life is synonymous with existence,
then whatever exists lives. If this definition is
correct, we ought to speak ordinarily of rocks as
living, of metals as vital, of the air as an animate
being. But no one holds that life is an attribute
of every thing that exists. Life is a property
of organic substances. More particularly it is
attributed to animal organisms. But the very
difference between organic and inorganic things is
that the former are living, and the latter are not
living. The best reply, therefore, to one who says or
implies that life means existence, is a simple con
tradiction. One who reasons on such an assump
tion not only contradicts simple truth, but can
hardly fail to contradict himself. If others have
not, most certainly Dr. Ives has done so. We will
give the proof of our statement.
On p. 106, speaking of the Hebrew word nephesh,
he says, that, while primarily meaning " organism,"
it has "a second or derived meaning. ... It is
used to convey the idea of life, which cannot be
manifested without a soul, or organism, to receive

DR. IVES ON THE MEANING OF LIFE. 231
and retain it." Here he evidently means by
" lhe," not existence, but substantially what is com
monly meant by it ; for what would be the sense
of saying, " It is used to convey the idea of exist
ence, which cannot be manifested without a soul, or
organism, to receive and retain it " ? But this is
not a mere accidental slip. On p. 115 he says,
"Let us suppose a healthy man falls into the
water, and is rescued just as life seems to be ex
tinct. You make every endeavor to resuscitate
him. . . . 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 ma
chinery in motion again." Here "life," "vital
principle," and " vital spark," are evidently differ
ent names for the same thing. Life is described
as something that leaves the organism, and may
be brought back to it. But it is equally evident,
that by "life" here Dr. Ives does not mean exist
ence. The dead organism is described as being
not only still existent after life had left it, but
even " intact." In ah this part of his book he has
entirely slipped away from his definition of lhe as
meaning nothing but existence. He says of the

232 LIFE AND DEATH, — THE LITERAL SENSE.
body (p. 106), " These organs are formed and thus
related for a special purpose, — to receive and car
ry on life." Life, as we have already found him
saying, " cannot be manifested without a soul, or
organism, to receive and retain it." But he cer
tainly would not say that existence is confined to
organisms. Again (p. 107) : " It is the spirit, or
vital principle, which sets in operation the function's
of the organism, producing thought, feeling, &c."
But even while viewing " lhe " more correctly, ac
cording to the common conception of it, untram
melled by his definition of it as synonymous with
" existence," he is yet unable to present a clear and
consistent theory of it : for, accordhig to him, life
is sometimes represented as a principle inherent in
an organism ; at other times as something " re
ceived" and "retained" by it. Adam, he tells
us, was an organism — a real man — before the
breath of life was breathed into him (p. 34). Yet
he admits that "the thought of life ... is sug
gested by the thought of organism. For when
the organism is destroyed, or its functions arrested,
lhe ends : on the other hand, when life is taken
away, the. organism comes to its end " (p. 106).
Still at the same time he insists that the thought
of lhe is " not absolutely indispensable " to that
of an organism. We are left thus in great doubt
as to what life is : it is distinct from the organ
ism ; it is " received " by the organism ; it " sets
in operation the functions of the organism ; " when

DR. IVES'S SELF-CONTRADICTIONS. 233
a man dies, his life "returns to" God (p. 39);
when Stephen died, "he prayed the Lord to take
his hfe into his safe keeping till the resurrection "
(p. 42); and our Saviour likewise "prayerfully
intrusted his spirit, the breath of life, the vital
principle, to his Father " (p. 43) : yet at death
life " ends." On the whole, however, the author
seems to represent life as a something imparted to
the human organism, and afterwards taken away
from it : it " proceeded from and returns to God "
(p. 274) ; when a man dies, " he parts with his
life " (p. 38) ; he loses his life (p. 42) ; at the
resurrection, life is " given back " (p. 43) ; it is
"restored" (p. 129) ; it is "regained" (p. 128).
It is manifest, however, that in all this our
author entirely loses sight of his definition of life
as being mere existence. What sense would there
be in asserting that the human " organs are formed
to receive and carry on " existence ? that a man's
existence "returns " to God, and is "kept " by him?
What hopeless confusion of thought would be in
volved in asserting that a man is non-existent, but
that his existence continues in existence, and is
eventually to be given back to the non-existent
being !
But, though this is somewhat of a digression,
we are tempted to follow our author a little far
ther. Does he hold life to be an entity, a material
substance ? It must be remembered that he utterly
rejects the doctrine of any thing immaterial. What

234 LIFE AND DEATH, — THE LITERAL SENSE.
men call immaterial substance he calls " a literal
nothing " (p. 273). Life, then, in his view, is not
an immaterial thing. Is it, then, a material thing ?
This seems to be the necessary conclusion. As
we have seen, he regards "spirit" as meaning
" life ; " and the spiritual body of the resurrec
tion is so called, he intimates, because the elements
of which it is composed are "more highly vital
ized, more fully endued with the spirit, or the
vital principle," than the present body is (p. 117).
And God differs in nature from men, according
to Dr. Ives, in that he " is spirit, — life itself " (p.
274). He is combating the notion of immaterial
existences : and in view of a possible objection
derived from John iv. 24, " God is a spirit," he lays
stress on the fact that it ought to be rendered
" God is spirit ; " and therefore he concludes that
this passage "has no bearing whatever on the
question." The meaning is, he says, that God " is
sphit, — lhe itself ; and so must the true worship
per worship him with that life which proceeded
from and returns to God, its giver."
The only conclusion we can draw from all this
is, that, according to Dr. Ives's philosophy, lhe is a
material but very subtile substance, which per
vades all active organisms now living on the earth ;
that the resurrection-body is to have more of this
vital substance than the present body has: and
that God consists wholly of this vital substance ;
he is "life itself." Here, to be sure, arises a new

DR. IVES'S SELF-CONTRADICTIONS. 235
difficulty. He has already told us that life is that
which " sets in operation the functions of the or
ganism, producing thought, feeling, &c." (p. 107.)
So far as man is concerned, it is the brain, he tells us
(p. 276), by which thought "is generated." Every
thing, he says, goes to show " the absolute depend
ence of our thoughts upon the function of this
material organ." Well, then, according to this, it
is not the " life " which thinks, feels, &c, but the
brain as excited by the life. But God thinks and
feels, — at least, it is to be presumed that Dr. Ives
so conceives him, — and he is nothing but life. He
has no brain, or any other bodily organ like ours.
In his case, then, it must be the life which thinks,
feels, &c. This suggests an important question :
If lhe is that which can think and feel ivithout. an
organism, may it not also think and feel with an
organism? And so we find our author virtually,
though quite unintentionally, justifying the popu
lar conception of the soul as something that uses
the material organs, especially the brain, but is yet
distinct from them. Indeed, in the passage above
quoted, we are told that we ought to "worship
God with that lhe which proceeded from him." If
this means any thing, it means that that with
which we worship is lhe. But worship is certainly
an act of the thoughts and feelings ; and so we
find Dr. Ives himself identifying " life " with the
thoughts and feelings, or with that in which these
inhere. Therefore, when he talks of the " life "

236 LIFE AND DEATH, — THE LITERAL SENSE.
which a man "parts with," which "returns" to
God, is "kept" by him, and at last "restored" to
the resurrection-body ; when, moreover, life is rep
resented as that of which God wholly consists,
and as that with which men worship God, — it is
certainly fah to infer that in such passages he
means by " life " substantially what ordinary men
mean by " soul," " spirit," or " mind." For he
surely cannot really mean to say that men ought
to worship God with their " existence," though he
elsewhere insists that life means existence.
But we are not yet through with the contradic
tions in which this author has involved himself
in his theory of life. It is something, he says,
which the organism "receives." It is the main
spring of all activity in man. Is it, or is it not, a
part of man? When it is lost, he tehs us, man
becomes non-existent. Surely it must be a part, if
not even the whole, of man. It is that without
which there is no thought, feehng, memory, char
acter; it is that without which even the bodily
organism soon falls into decay and non-existence.
It must, therefore, be regarded as a most essential
part of man, or even the very essence of man.
And at death, we are told, this life returns to God :
only the dead organism is buried. Now, the ques
tion we wish to ask is this: Is the whole man
buried? Dr. Ives does not weary of illustrating
the inconsistency of those who say of a deceased
man, "Me is buried," when yet they hold that in

DR. IVES'S SELF-CONTRADICTIONS. 237
reality the dead body is not the man at all. The
Bible, he continually insists, assures us that the
whole man is buried. In Gen. iii. 19, he says (p.
36), " the Lord God addresses Adam, the man, by
modern theology's own definition, a compound of
body and soul : ' And unto Adam he said, In the
sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou
return to the ground; for out of it wast thou
taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt
thou return.' " With this passage he refutes the
notion that man is a compound of soul and body ;
and yet he himself holds that the lhe on which
all thought and moral character depend — the lhe
" with " which we " worship " God — is not buried
with the defunct body, but " returns " to God, and
is finally " given back " to the raised organism.
Thus again it appears, that, after all his denun
ciation of ordinary men for holding that there is a
rational soul distinguishable from the body, Dr.
Ives himself virtually adopts the popular theory ;
only, in place of the soul (as generally under
stood), he substitutes the word "lhe." He de
nounces the notion of an immaterial substance as
an absurdity, because it is " utterly unrecognizable
by the senses God has given us " (p. 274) ;' yet
he believes in a " lhe " which is separable from the
body, and is "kept" by God for unnumbered cen
turies, but which is certainly quite as " unrecog
nizable by the senses God has given us" as the
popularly conceived " soul " which he ridicules.

238 LIFE AND DEATH, — THE LITERAL SENSE.
Of course there can be no possible objection to
a man's using a word in two senses. If Dr. Ives
means to say that " life," both in popular speech
and in the Bible, sometimes means " existence,"
and at other times the "vital principle," we should
have to admit that such double use is not self-
contradiction. But our complaint is, that he no
where intimates or claims that there is any such
double sense of the word. The positiveness and
absoluteness with which he affirms that life means
existence, and death the termination of existence,
and that we should understand the biblical utter
ances concerning death literally, — i.e., as asserting
that death puts an end to existence, — this implies
that he does not recognize, even to himself, that he
attaches more than one sense to the word " life : "
if he did, common candor would require him to
take cognizance of the obvious objection, that, if
" life " has two senses, " death," its opposite, may
have two senses also ; in other words, it may mean
not only the end of existence, but the end of a
certain form of existence. The only indication
that he is aware of any more than one sense of the
word " life " is found on p. 107, where he compares
the Greek words psyche, bios, and zoe. He says,
"Psyche . . . denotes lhe, . . . with a manifest allusion
to the manner it acquired this meaning: it ex
presses what we might call organized life. So the
Greek bios denotes lhe, with reference to the
means of subsistence ; . . . while the Greek zoe

LIFE NEVER SYNONYMOUS WITH EXISTENCE. 239
denotes lhe in the abstract sense of the word."
But these are unimportant variations of the one
notion of "vitality." There is in all this no hint
of the meaning " existence."
The truth, however, is, that " life " never means
simply existence, either in biblical or popular
speech. It is almost pitiable to see the efforts
made to prove that the .two terms are synonymous.
Undoubtedly, in some cases, we may substitute
"exist" for "live," and not destroy the sense of
the passage. Thus Dr. Ives ("Independent,"
April 18, 1878) appeals to Gen. iii. 22, "And now,
lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the
tree of life, and eat, and live forever ; " and he tri
umphantly asks, " Is not that to say, lest he con
tinue to exist forever ; in other words, should never
die ? " Yet we must answer, It does not mean lest
he exist forever, but just what it says ; viz., lest he
live forever. Undoubtedly it would make sense to
say here, " lest he exist forever ; " and undoubt
edly this statement is involved in the other. And
so, in all cases where " forever " is joined with
" live," we might substitute " exist," and not re
verse or even materially alter the sense of the
declaration ; but equally well can we substitute
"exist" for other words. Thus, when it is said
(Exod. xv. 18), " The Lord shall reign for ever and
ever," it would make good sense to read, " The
Lord shall exist for ever and ever." But .who
would assert that " reign " m'eans " exist " ? Or

240 LIFE AND DEATH,— THE LITERAL SENSE.
to take a still better illustration : in place of " This
city shall remain forever" (Jer. xvii. 25), we
might say, " This city shall exist forever." But
does " remain " mean " exist " ? In short, whenever
the word "forever," or any word denoting con
tinuance, is joined to any verb, it will generally
be possible to substitute the verb " exist " without
making bad sense. One might say, " The moun
tain has been visited by travellers for centuries ; "
and it would be equally true to say, " The moun
tain has existed for centuries." The latter propo
sition is implied in the former ; but the two ex
pressions are certainly not synonymous. It. is a
general truth, that existence is implied and pre
supposed in any positive affirmation about any
thing. We cannot speak of a man's eating or
writing or walking without implying his existence ;
but all this is a very different thing from making
these words synonymous with existence.
Dr. Ives says, furthermore (Ibid.), "In Ps. xxi. 4
is an inspired definition of life : ' He asked life of
thee, and thou gavest it him, even length of days,
for ever and ever.' " This is given as a proof that
" life " means " existence." He Italicizes " length
of days," as if that were the crowning confirmation
of his definition of " life ; " but if that be a syno
nyme for "existence," then we might speak about
the proof of God's " length of days," instead of the
proof of his " existence." Of course " hfe " here
means continuance or preservation of life, and of

THE FALSE DEFINITION TESTED. 241
course the preservation of life involves the continu
ance of existence. But this is equally involved
when it is said (ver. 6), " Thou hast made him
most blessed forever ; " yet no one outside of an
insane - asylum would affirm that " being most
blessed " is synonymous with " existing."
It is difficult to be patient in dealing with such
arguments ; but this matter is so fundamental
that we must control our impatience, and depre
cate that of our readers, while we discuss it a little
further. It is obvious, that, if " live" is synonymous
with "exist," it may always be replaced by it.
Often, as is obvious enough, when it is so replaced,
the passage still conveys an intelligible and even
appropriate sense, though never the same sense.
But the true test of the definition in question is to
be sought in a uniform substitution of " exist " for
"live." If the definition is a good one, it must
serve well for ah cases. Let us, then, substitute
"existence" for "life," "existent" for "living,"
"-exist" for "live," in such passages as the follow
ing, and see the result : " If the theft be certainly
found in his hand existent, ... he shall restore
double " (Exod. xxii. 4). " When existent [E. V.,
"raw," the same word as is commonly rendered
" alive " or " living "] flesh appeareth " (Lev. xiii.
14). "Then shall the priest command to take . . .
two birds existent and clean " (Lev. xiv. 4). " He
shall bring the existent goat" (Lev. xvi. 20).
" This do, and thou shalt exist " (Luke x. 28).

242 LIFE AND DEATH, — THE LITERAL SENSE.
"Only Rahab the harlot shall exist" (Josh, vi
17). " Son of man, can these bones exist ? " (Ezek.
xxxvii. 3.) " Son, remember that thou in thine
existence receivedst thy good things " (Luke xvi.
25). "Understanding is a wellspring of exist
ence " (Prov. xvi. 22). Let the same experiment
be tried with the^same words in English literature,
and the same result will follow. While in many
cases " live " or " life " may be replaced by " exist "
or "existence," without materially marring the
sense, it is yet never the case that the two concep
tions are synonymous.
The importance of fixing attention rigidly on
the primary and ordinary meaning of " lhe " in its
more literal sense cannot be too much emphasized.
That primary notion is vitality, being animate.
Whatever lives of course exists. A thing cannot
be animate without being existent; but it is
equally true that an manimate thing is an existent
one. If it were true that life is synonymous with
existence, then it ought to follow that to be inani
mate is to be non-existent. Let it be borne in
mind, further, that living (being alive), whhe it
implies existence, no more implies it than any other
attribute does. A thing cannot be light or dark,
crooked or straight, hard or soft, without being
existent. The importance of this simple and incontroverti
ble proposition is seen when we come to consider
the pregnant, or figurative, use of the word "life."

MR. WHITE ON THE MEANING OF LIFE. 243
There are few, even among the annihilationists,
who deny that the Bible, especially the New Tes
tament, does present many instances of such a use
of the term. Edward White (" Lhe in Christ,"
p. 370), speaking of the word " life," says, " No one
ought to affirm that the bare idea of animate ex
istence is all that the term includes. No one of
any account does affirm it. Our position is, that
the idea of existence is included in the meaning,
is fundamental to it; the moral ideas associated
with it having this conception of eternal sentient
being in the complex humanity (in opposition to
death or destruction) as their basis." But, not
withstanding this concession, Mr. White sthl
everywhere implies, as he does here, that the idea
of existence is the primary and fundamental one
in the word "lhe." Thus on p. 213, quoting John
i. 4, " In him was life," he says that it is explained
by the preceding verse, " All things were made by
him," which, he says, "clearly indicates that the
Logos was not merely the fountain of happiness
only, or hohness, . . . but of all existence." So
also he argues (p. 218) from John vi. 57 that
Christ means, " ' He that eateth me, he also shall
live by me,' — shall derive not merely happiness,
but being, from me, as I derive mine ... by gen
eration from the Supreme God." And on p. 373
he says that " the synonymous terms employed in
the New Testament in explanation of the death in
which sinners lie [die ?] by sin compel the asser-

244 LIFE AND DEATH, — THE LITERAL SENSE.
tion that the conceptions of existence and non
existence are at the basis of the terms 'life' and
' death.' " The most that he can admit, is that cer
tain moral ideas are associated with this " funda
mental " notion.
But just here is the fatal weakness of the inter
pretation of the phraseology in question. If the
primary, fundamental idea of " life " were simply
existence, there is no rational way of accounting
for " the associated ideas of holiness and blessed
ness " becoming " included " in it, as Mr. White
(p. 370) says they are. Existence is the most
general, bare, and abstract of all. ideas. It be
longs alike to every thing. There is nothing spe
cific or suggestive in it. It is utterly empty of
any thing that, by any emphatic or pregnant use of
the word, naturally suggests any particular mean
ing. It would be entirely contrary to all the laws
of language for a word conveying primarily such
a conception to be employed with any such spe
cific notion as hohness or blessedness attached "to
it. When now, in addition to this antecedent im
probability lying in the nature of the case, we ob
serve the simple fact which lexicography, common
usage, and common sense alike attest so clearly
that the merest child cannot but acknowledge it,
— that the fundamental notion of "hfe" is not
existence, but vitality, — we see how little Mr.
White's admissions and assertions are worth.
We are surprised, however, to find this author,

MR. "WHITE ON THE MEANING OF LIFE. 245
usually not only able, but candid, using such lan
guage as this : " It follows from this statement
[the one quoted above from p. 370] that it is no
sufficient answer to our argument to go about to
prove that life carries with it an association of
moral ideas ; for this fact we, too, urgently affirm.
What must be established to overthrow our argu
ment is the difficult position that the terms ' life '
and ' hving forever ' exclude the 'idea which they
most naturally denote. What we maintain is,
that . . . the moral idea of eternal life in Christ
does not exclude, but imply, the underlying fact
of an eternal existence depending on union with
him as the 'life-giving spirit' " (p. 371). And he
says (p. 370), " An impression widely prevails
that the life spoken of by the apostle John (zoe)
does not include the idea of existence, which is
always presupposed, but signifies only a moral con
dition of holy union with God." If he had said
only that an impression widely prevails that " lhe "
does not properly denote " existence," we should
quite agree with him; and we have abundantly
shown, we trust, what yet hardly needs more than
a bare assertion for proof, that this impression is
correct ; moreover, not only that the life spoken
of by John, but that life in general, means some
thing utterly distinct from existence. When,
however, he says, that, iu order to overthrow his
argument, we must hold that life excludes the idea
of existence, we can only reply, that the assertion

246 LIFE AND DEATH, — THE LITERAL SENSE.
is simply preposterous and absurd. The attribute
of lhe, like any other attribute, necessarily pre
supposes existence.
There is a peculiar inconsistency in Mr. White's
doctrine on this point, inasmuch as he holds that
the dead (in the period between death and the
final judgment) are still existent. If " live " means
" exist," then he ought to understand Rev. xx. 5
to assert, " The rest of the dead existed not again
until the thousand years were finished." Simi
larly, wherever (as in Rom. iv. 17, 1 Cor. xv. 22)
the resurrection is described as a " quickening "
(" making alive "), he is logically bound to under
stand that those who are thus made alive (exist
ent) must before have been non-existent.
The point of difference between Mr. White and
us is very simple. He- holds that the notion of
" existence " is primary and fundamental in the
word "lhe." We hold that the primary notion is
vitality, — the possession of an animate organism ;
the notion of existence being of course included in
the conception of every thing that has hfe, but no
less of things that have not life. The importance
of this difference becomes obvious when we come
to speak of the antithetic term "death." If the
primary and prominent idea in " life " is existence,
then the primary and prominent idea in " death "
would seem to be non-existence, or the termination
of existence. Hence the temptation, on the part
of those who hold that death, as it is spoken of in

DR. WHITON'S GROUNDLESS CHARGE. 247
the Bible, means extinction of being, to affirm
that " life " properly means merely existence ;
whereas, if the primary meaning of " life " is
vitality, then the primary meaning of the anti
thetic term is simply the termination of vitality.
This quiet assumption that "hfe " means " exist
ence," utterly unwarranted, as we have seen by
lexicography and common usage, appears in an
almost amusing manner in Dr. J. M. Whiton's
article in " The New-Englander " for March, 1878.
He is speaking of the " qualitative " and " quan
titative " view of " iBonian life," and says (p. 206),
" Just here a curious inconsistency is apparent in
the reasoning of those who find in Christ's teach
ing the doctrine of endless conscious suffering.
On one side, to the annihilationist, who urges his
literal interpretation of ' life ' and ' death,' they
reply that 'hfe ' is not mere being, but well-being;
' death ' not mere loss of being, but ill-being. Here,
evidently, they hold that lhe and death, as terms
applied to the future state, must be taken quali
tatively, not quantitatively, and denote a kind, not
an amount, of existence. On the other side, to
one who doubts whether the duration, as distinct
from the kind or condition, of future existence
has been revealed in Matthew's picture of the
judgment, they reply that the promise of an end
less life to the righteous requhes us to infer, from
the antithesis, that the punishment of the wicked
will also be endless. . . . Here they cross over to

248 LIFE AND DEATH,— THE LITERAL SENSE.
the position of the annihilationist previously com
bated, that it is an amount, not a kind, of existence
which Christ promises or threatens : and they
assert what they had before denied ; viz., that the
quantitative, rather than the qualitative, idea is
the primary thought of the Master."
The answer to this is very simple. Because we
affirm, that, on account of the phrases "eternal
life " and "eternal punishment," the future happi
ness of the good and the future misery of the
wicked will be alike endless, Dr. Whiton says
that we " cross over " to the position that " life "
means " an amount, not a kind, of existence ; " i.e.,
mere being, and not well-being. How this is so,
probably no one but Dr. Whiton himself can see.
Take his first statement: We hold "hfe" to mean
" well-being." Well, then, " eternal life " means
" eternal well-being ; " does it not ? And, if one
enjoys eternal well-being, he must exist eternally ;
must he not? So, if one suffers eternal misery, he
must exist eternally ; but is it implied, and did one
ever hold, that "misery" means "being"? No:
the " quantitative " notion — i.e., the element of du
ration — is involved, not in the word "lhe," but in
the word " eternal." The " curious inconsistency "
in the case exists only in Dr. Whiton's gratuitous
imputation to us of a definition of "lhe" which
we do not hold, and which no one holds except
those who are trying to prove annihilationism
from the Bible. But, even were the imputation

EXISTENCE IMPLIED, NOT DENOTED, BY LIFE. 249
well grounded, his charge of inconsistency would
still be without foundation; for, even if we did
hold "life", to mean "existence," the "quantita
tive " idea in the phrase " eternal life " would sthl
be derived from the adjective, not the noun.
It need not be denied that sometimes the word
"live" is used when the notion of existence, or
the continuance of existence, is prominent in the
conception. Thus, when Jehovah says (Deut.
xxxii. 40), "I lift up my hand to heaven, and say,
I live forever," no doubt his eternal existence is
implicitly affirmed ; and it may be even said that
this is the prominent thing in the affirmation.
Still it does not follow that even here " live " is
synonymous with " exist." Whenever an affirma
tion of perpetuity is made, the adverbial phrase
denoting such perpetuity is apt to be connected
with a verb denoting the most essential or character
istic thing in the object spoken of. Thus we
might say, " The mountains shall stand for ages,"
and we thus implicitly affirm that they will exist -
for ages; yet we do not mean that "stand" is
the same as "exist." Daniel says (xii. 3), "They
that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the
firmament ; and they that turn many to righteous
ness, [shall shine] as the stars for ever and ever."
It is here implied that the stars continue to exist
in the firmament ; but the affirmation is made by
using a verb (" shine ") which expresses what is
most characteristic of the stars. Living is espe-

250 LIFE AND DEATH,— THE LITERAL SENSE.
cially characteristic of intelhgent beings; hence
their perpetual existence may be expressed by
saying that they live forever : but Ave should
never say that the mountains or the stars live
forever. The phrase "the living God" is often
adduced as being the biblical mode of designating
the existent God in contrast with false gods. Of
course the fact of existence is implied in the
phrase ; but still the two terms are far from
synonymous. When God is called the living God,
it is with reference to the lifeless, senseless idols
of the heathen, of whom the Psalmist says (cxv.
5), "They have mouths, but they speak not; eyes
have they, but they see not."
To recapitulate : Lhe, in the hteral and primary
sense of the word, denotes the peculiar, familiar,
though mysterious quality which characterizes
organic beings ; viz., plants and animals. From
the Latin equivalent, vita, we derive the English
word "vitality;" which is, perhaps, the nearest
synonyme of "life." But the latter word is not
closely confined to the primary sense conveyed by
" vitality : " it denotes also the vital state or con
dition, and the period during which that condition
lasts. All these modifications of the sense may
be called "literal" senses. Accordingly, to "live"
is to be possessed of life, or vitality, — to be or to
continue in a state of vitality. In the literal sense
of the word, we use it only of organisms. We do
not speak of the " life " of mineral substances :

RECAPITULATION. 251
if one should do so, he would be understood to be
speaking figuratively.
" Existence " is no synonyme of " life : " for rocks
exist as truly as trees and horses; but they do not
live. Every thing that lives exists ; but not every
thing that exists lives.
"Death" is the opposite of "life;" but it is
more limited in its meaning. As antithetic to
"living," we have not only " dead," but " lifeless,"
— " inorganic," destitute of vitality. Thus a mineral
is lifeless, but not dead. In the strict sense, death
is predicated of that which has had life, but has
lost it. Yet sometimes we speak in a looser sense,
e.g., of " dead matter," meaning inorganic, inani
mate substance.
It is important, in dealing with the tropical uses
of the words " hfe " and " death," to bear in mind
the hteral sense. We are now prepared to con
sider the tropical, or figurative, uses of these words.

252 LIFE AND DEATH.— TROPICAL SENSES.

CHAPTER XI.
LIFE AND DEATH. — TROPICAL SENSES.
TT is a law of language that the secondary or
-*- tropical senses of a word flow by some natural
connection of thought from the primary, or literal,
sense. In the case of the terms under considera
tion, this is a very obvious truth. It is not dif
ficult to see how all the various senses in which
these words are used are derived from the primary
sense of vitality.
1. A famhiar instance of the tropical use of
" live," "lhe," &c, appears in those senses to which
the terms " lively," " animated," " vivacious," &c,
correspond. It being a marked characteristic of
living things that they move of themselves, this
self-activity is sometimes spoken of as being itself
the life. Hence a sluggish, inactive body, though
living, is called lifeless. A person manifesting an
uncommon degree of this activity is called lively.
" Life," by a still bolder trope, is sometimes used
for an animated person ; as when we say of a man,
" He was the life of the company." Likewise Ave
speak of inanimate things as being lively when

TROPICAL SENSES OF LIFE. 253
in vigorous activity. We apply the same terms to
particular emotions or states of the mind; as
when we say that a person takes a lively interest
in a cause, or that a man is alive to the importance
of an event. So we apply similar language to the
product of an active mind when we speak of a
vivacious discourse, &c. It is nearly the same
trope when " life " is employed to denote vigor ; as
when we say that a child is full of life, meaning
that he has much animal force and energy. All
such tropical uses of "life " and the cognate words
naturahy flow from the primary sense of vitality.
2. It is another quite similar trope when " live,"
" life," &c, denote a normal, as distinguished from
an abnormal, development and use of the vital
force. When, e.g., we say of a man that he does
not live, but only exists, we mean that he does
not fulfil the proper object of lhe. The same
figure is employed in the famihar line, " It is not
all of lhe to live." Here the verb has its strictly
literal sense, while the noun has the pregnant
sense. So the verb, in the phrase, "Learn how to
live ; " i.e., to live rightly.
3. Again: these words are used tropically when
they describe a happy, as distinguished from a mis
erable, hfe. The old Latin maxim is " Bum vivi-
mus vivamus," — "While we live, let us live."
Our adjective " hvely " often conveys the sense
of "joyful" or "merry."
4. Again: it is a tropical use of these words

254 LIFE AND DEATH. — TROPICAL SENSES.
when they are applied to any thing but organic
beings. In the case of men who are regarded as
having souls which may exist separate from the
bodily organism, the word " live " is used of the
complex being. Hence it is natural to employ
the same term in reference to the soul as distinct from
the body. Thus, if we say the body dies, but the
soul lives on, we are understood to mean that the
functions of the soul continue after the physical
death. Still, this is a tropical use of the word,
though a very natural one. As the fact of organic
being is manifested by the action of certain phys
ical organs, so the fact of a spiritual entity is
manifested by the evidences of sphitual activity;
and, " life " being the term used of the physical
organism, it is most natural to transfer the same
term to the spiritual part, just as all the words
denoting mental and moral activity and sensation
are merely tropical uses of words originally used
of physical things and phenomena. Hence we
speak familiarly of the soul as being immortal (i.e.,
undying), or of its surviving the death of the body.
In all such cases the prominent thought is, that
the soul continues to possess and manifest its
peculiar characteristics after it is separated from
the earthly body. The figure is similar to that
which appears in a sthl more striking form when
we find water in the Bible spoken of as "living"
(e.g., Lev. xiv. 5, 52, E. V., "running water,"
John iv. 10, 11) ; i.e., flowing and fresh.

LIFE AS ATTRIBUTED TO SOULS AND GOD. 255
It is another instance of the same trope when
God is spoken of as living. He has no physical
organism; yet he is often said to live. When such
language is used, we speak anthropomorphically ;
that is, Ave describe God under a form which is
borrowed from human relations. If we speak
strictly, and more in accordance with our scientific
notions of the divine nature, we do not speak of
the life of God. If we wish to describe him as
eternal, we do not explain our meaning by saying
that he never began to live,, and will never die;
but we say, rather, that there was no beginning,
and will be no end, to his existence. But God
being conceived as hke man, especially as regards
man's spiritual nature, it is very natural to apply
the terms "live," "life," &c, to God. These
terms, however, mean more than mere existence :
they imply the possession of attributes Avhich belong
also to living beings. But material things, that
are neither organic nor intelligent and sentient,
are not said to live, though they exist as truly as
any thing else. If we ever do speak of lifeless
matter as hving, it is only when it is personified.
5. We may mention another use of the word
"live," which can hardly be called tropical, though
it is derivative. It often means to spend or pass
one's life, and, so used, is often substantially equiv
alent to " abide " or " remain." Thus we say of a
man, " He lived in England," — i.e., he dwelt there ;
or we say of a man that he lived fifty years, or

256 LIFE AND DEATH. — TROPICAL SENSES.
that he lived prosperously. In such cases the word
implies the possession and use of vital powers,
though the stress is rather on the concomitant;
that is, the place, time, or manner, in which the
animate existence is spent, are emphasized; and
other words might be substituted for " live " with
out essentially marring the sense. Yet the verb is
not equivalent to those other words, as is at once
seen when we notice that it is only of organic
beings that this verb is thus used.
If, now, we turn to the biblical use of the terms
under consideration, we shall find similar tropical
uses of them ; yet the usage whl not be found to
correspond precisely with our own. Every lan
guage has its own idioms ; and the Hebrew and
Greek languages naturally vary in some particulars
from the English in respect to the use of the words
"life," "live," "living," &c.
We have already spoken of the literal use of these
words in the Bible. In the Old Testament this
is the predominant use of them. In the New Tes
tament the verb zao is almost as largely used in
the same way ; as, e.g., Matt. ix. 18, " Lay thy hand
upon her, and she shall live." The nouns nephesh
and hhayyim, in the Old Testament, are also very
largely used in the literal sense. The New Testa
ment uses psyche very often, and zoe very seldom,
with reference to physical hfe. But we pass on to
notice the tropical uses. Following the same order
as above, we observe, —

BIBLICAL TROPES. 257
1. That in the Bible we hardly find "lhe " put
for animation or vivacity of manner : but it is used
in the sense of vigor; as, e.g., Exod. i. 19, where the
Hebrew, women are said to be " lively " (literally,
"living"), — i.e., strong, vigorous. It is a some
what simhar trope when Paul, in Rom. vii. 9, says,
" When the commandment came, sin revived."
Sin is here personified, and described as coming to
lhe. The lhe consists in a new vigor manifested
by it, by which it worked all manner of concupis
cence. Whereas it had before, as it were, been
slumbering, it now became active.
2. More frequently do we find instances of
" lhe " used in a pregnant sense, to denote true life,
normal lhe. In reference to physical life, it is thus
used when it is said (Judg. xv. 19) of Samson,
after he had almost fainted from thirst, " When
he had drunk his spirit came again, and he re
vived " (literally, " he lived "). His previous con
dition is thus represented as not normal, — not fit
to be called lhe. So Josh. v. 8: "They abode in
their places in the camp till they were whole "
(literally, "thi they lived"). Simharly 2 Kings
i. 2, vhi. 8, 9, xx. 7; Isa. xxxviii. 9, 21. We
give here only instances in which, even in the
tropical sense, nothing more is referred to than
physical hfe. Men are said to live in the true
sense when they are in a normal, sound, healthy
condition of body. We might enlarge this list in
definitely should we adduce all the cases in which

258 LIFE AND DEATH. — TROPICAL SENSES.
" live " and " life " have reference to the spiritual
lhe ; but, as this is a disputed question, we will
treat those passages by themselves. We will,
however, here quote one or two passages which
may serve as a transition to the higher sense. In
Luke xii. 15 Christ says, "Beware of covetous-
ness ; for a man's lhe consisteth not in the abun
dance of the things which he possesseth." It is
here implied that there is a normal and an abnor
mal kind of life, and that men are in danger of
laboring under mistaken notions as to what true
lhe is. Still more apposite, as being more akin to
the physical sense of the word, is the manner in
which " hfe " is used in Prov. iv. 22 : " They [the
words of wisdom] are lhe' unto those that find
them, and health to all their flesh." Here the
parallelism of "life" and "health" shows conclu
sively that the former word denotes vigorous,
healthy lhe. It is not necessary now to decide
whether there is here any reference to this lhe
or the future one. In either case the word in
question certainly refers, not to the fact, but to the
kind, of existence.
3. Closely related to this is the third kind of
trope ; viz., that by which " life " is put for enjoy
ment. Happiness is greatly dependent on health,
and may be regarded as in a sense the end of life :
so that it is natural, that, figuratively, happiness
itself should be expressed by the word " lhe." A
clear case of this trope is found in 1 Thess. iii. 8 :

LIFE DENOTING JOY. 259
" For now we live, if ye stand fast in the Lord."
This can mean nothing else than that the fidelity
of the Thessalonians would give Paul great joy.
A similar use of the verb is found in Rom. vii. 9 :
" I was alive without the law once." Here the
context shows, that, by being alive, Paul means
being relati\rely free from that distress which came
after sin revived, and which he describes by say
ing, " I died." Here, too, we might adduce num
berless other examples of "hfe" used to denote
the reward of godliness ; but this, again, would be
met by the allegation that in these cases " life "
means merely the opposite of extinction : and for
the present we refrain from referring to them.
We whl, howeArer, adduce a few in which this
alleged meaning is clearly not the true one ; e.g.,
Ps. lxxi. 20, " Thou, which hast showed me great
and sore troubles, shalt quicken me [make me live]
again." Here, manifestly, being made to live is the
same as being brought out of trouble. Precisely the
same trope is employed in Ps. lxxxv. 5, 6, where
we read, " Wht thou be angry with us forever ?
Wht thou draw out thine anger to all generations ?
Wht thou not revive us [make us live] again, that
thy people may rejoice in thee ? " Life is here
put for the joy of God's favor. Likewise in Ps.
cxxxvih. 7, " Though I walk in the midst of
trouble, thou wilt revive me" [make me live].
And Ps. cxlih. 11, " Quicken me [Make me live], O
Lord, for thy name's sake ; for thy righteousness'

260 LIFE AND DEATH. — TROPICAL SENSES.
sake, bring my soul out of trouble." Similarly
Hos. vi. 2, Isa. lvh. 15, Avhere " revive " has the
same tropical sense. The same may be said of
Gen. xiv. 27, where Jacob's spirit is said to have
"revived" (lived) after he Avas convinced that
Joseph Avas not dead; and Ps. xxii. 26, "Your
heart shall live forever ; " and Ps. lxix. 32, " The
humble shall see this, and be glad ; and your heart
shall live that seek God." Being glad is made
parallel with the heart's living.
4. The application of the Avords " hfe," " hving,"
&c, to other than organic beings, is not so fre
quent in the Bible as in our own language. God
is often called " the living God ; " and the phrase,
" As I live," is often put into his mouth (e.g., Ezek.
v. 11). Also material things are sometimes, though
rarely, called "living," as water (e.g., Lev. xiv. 5).
We do not refer here to such metaphors as that
of 1 Pet. ii. 5, where stones are called " lively "
(i.e., living). This is exceptional : men are called
stones, the figure of a temple being employed,
which temple is to be built up of men. We refer,
rather, to the more constant conjunction of the
epithet "living" with inorganic things, by which
the tropical character of the language becomes,
in a measure, obliterated. This is the case in our
language when life is predicated of disembodied
spirits, when we speak of the soul as living for
ever, &c. But the Bible nowhere so speaks of the
disembodied soul. To be sure, we often read there

DISEMBODIED SOULS NOT CALLED LIVING. 261
of " living souls." We occasionally meet such ex
pressions as " Thy soul shall live " (Jer. xxxviii.
17 ; cf. Ps. cxix. 175, Isa. Iv. 3, Ezek. xiii. 19).
But in all these cases the word " soul " (nephesh,
so psyche in 1 Cor. xv. 45, Rev. xvi. 3) stands
for "person" or "animal," and not for the spir
itual part as distinct from the physical. It is often
affirmed, as if the fact were of grave significance,
that the Bible nowhere speaks of the soul as
immortal, — nowhere says that the soul shall live
forever. Very true; but it is also true that the
soul, as such, — i.e., as distinct from the body, — is
never said to live at all. From this, of course,
materialistic theologians infer that the Bible recog
nizes no soul as distinct from the body ; but this
inference loses all its force when we remember
that the mere failure to say that the soul lives is
not the same as saying that the soul does not exist.
The fact is, that, in the Bible, life is specially pred
icated of men conceived as having bodies. Even in
the future life, in the perfected and final state,
they are still represented as having bodies,. As to
the intermediate state, it says little. Concerning
the spirit detached from the body, it is very
taciturn. It does say enough to show that such
spirits are conceived as existent. In one passage
(Luke xx. 38) Christ even says, "All live unto
him [God]," speaking of the dead patriarchs.
This is, perhaps, the nearest approach to an affir
mation that souls live apart from the body; but

262 LIFE AND DEATH. — TROPICAL SENSES.
the affirmation is made, not respecting spirits as
such, but of the persons generally.
The significance of the foregoing, so far as it
has any in point, is merely this : While in English
we often speak of the soul as living after the death
of the body, the Bible scarcely ever, h ever, uses
such language. Even in our language, " live " in
such cases is not equivalent to " exist ; " though
undoubtedly, in this connection, prominence is given
to the simple notion of existence, which is always
involved in the predication of life. It appears,
then, that, so far as this point is concerned, there
is less evidence that, in the Bible, "life " stands for
" existence " than in our own language ; but, as
we have seen, in our own language the two notions
are alAvays distinct. When the soul is spoken of
as living, the meaning is, that it continues to
manifest the same conscious activity as when con
joined with the body.
5. In the use of "live" in the sense of "spend
life," the Bible is also somewhat more restricted
than our language. While we often use the word
as nearly equivalent to " abide," the Bible never
uses it in that sense. We do find a few instances,
however, of " live " conveying the meaning of " de
port one's self ; " e.g., Tit. ii. 12, " Teaching us that
... we should live soberly, righteously, and godly
in this present world." So 2 Tim. iii. 12, and
Gal. ii. 14. These are the only instances we can
find of this sense of the word in the New Testa-

TROPICAL SENSES OF DEATH. 263
ment, and there are none even of this in the Old
Testament. When the verb conveys this notion
of spending life in a certain way, we eashy see
how it comes to be so used. All that ' is involved
in the simple notion of animate existence is still
retained, together with the additional" notion of
the voluntary agency of man in shaping the direc
tion of the hfe. The balder, more abstract notion,
which the verb often conveys in English, of dwell
ing or staying, — a notion which borders upon the
still more abstract notion of existence, — is not
found in the Bible at all. Thus we see that even
what faint appearances there are in our language
of the words " live " and " life " denoting mere
existence are wanting in the Scriptures. The
tropical senses all flow easily and naturally from
the primary sense of vitality.
Let us now turn to the tropical senses of the
antithetical words "die," "dead," and "death."
Inasmuch as " living " is antithetic not only to
"dead," but also to "lifeless," — not only to "de
funct," but to "inorganic," — it follows that the
tropical senses of " dead " must be fewer than
those of "living." The tropical senses are here
also derived dhectly from the literal one, — loss of
vitality. In consequence of the narrower sense of
"death" as compared with "life," it is much less
often used tropically of animate beings. It is used
of things as inactive or inoperative: e.g., we say

264 LIFE AND DEATH. — TROPICAL SENSES.
of a law that it is a "dead letter" when it has
ceased to take effect. It exists, but it does not act.
So we may speak of a dead calm ; i.e., a calm so
profound, that there is no motion, no activity, in
the atmosphere. We use the term with reference
to things that resemble death or the effect of death :
e.g., a dead sleep is one so deep that the sleeper
seems to be dead; a dead silence is silence like
that occasioned by the death of all animate things ;
dead coloring is that which lacks the appearance
of life.
We also use this trope in reference to particular
experiences or emotions of men. Thus we may
say that our hope or joy or grief or love dies
away ; i.e., it ceases to operate, to animate us. Of
course, in such cases, " death " practically becomes
synonymous "with extinction. We speak of a man
in general as dead to particular things ; i.e., as in
different to them.
The biblical use of these words in a tropical
sense is simhar to ours. In the Old Testament
they are, in the great majority of instances, used in
the literal sense of death, chiefly of men, some
times of beasts, and once of a tree (Job xiv. 8).
The following are, we believe, all the cases of
tropical use, aside from those in which the word
may have the pregnant sense of spiritual death:
the latter we reserve for future consideration.
" Death " is put by metonymy for the cause of
death in 2 Kings iv. 40, " There is death in the

TROPICAL SENSES OF DEATH IN THE BIBLE. 265
pot ; " and Exod. x. 17, " Take away from me this
death." It is put poetically for dead men in Isa.
xxxviii. 18, " Death cannot celebrate thee." In
Ps. xlix. 14 death is personified as the shepherd
of the dead. But such tropes are not specially im
portant to our subject.
In Gen. xx. 3, Exod. xii. 33, 2 Sam. xix. 28, men
are said to be dead, when the meaning is that they
are doomed to die, or are in danger of death.
The figure here does not lie in any tropical mean
ing attached to the word " dead," but rather in the
rhetorical figure of putting the present tense for
the future.
Other things than organic creatures are some
times said to die. With reference to the passages
which speak of souls as dying we need say noth
ing here, but refer to what was said on p. 20 seq.
We confine ourselves here to clearly tropical uses
of the word. Thus, in 1 Sam. xxv. 37, it is said
of Nabal that " his heart died within him " on
account of what his wife told him about David,
"and he became as a stone." In the previous
verse it is said, that, whhe he was drunk, his
"heart was merry within him." The meaning,
then, seems to be, that, instead of being merry as
before, he was filled with fear and despondency : he
lost all his life, — i.e., his joyous animation. It is
possible, however, that " heart " is here to be taken
in a more literal sense, and that the statement
means that it ceased beating. In either case, death

266 LIFE AND DEATH.— TROPICAL SENSES.
is put for a cessation of activity. In Job xii. 2
Job says to his friends, "No doubt but ye are
the people, and wisdom shall die with you." The
meaning is obvious : wisdom is personified, and is
ironically said to be destined to die — i.e., to disap
pear — when these three men die. Here dying is
practicahy the same as becoming extinct. In 2
Sam. xx. 19 we read, " Thou seekest to destroy
[literally, kill] a city." Similarly Gen. xlvii. 19 :
" Wherefore shall we die before thine eyes, both
we and our land ? " Here places are said to be
killed, when the meaning is that they are to be
desolated, their life and prosperity destroyed.
Turning to the New Testament, and reserving
as before, for the present, all discussion of the more
disputed passages in Avhich " death " is alleged to
have a spiritual sense, we find the following in
stances of tropical use : —
In Rom. iv. 19 the decay of generative power in
Abraham and Sarah is expressed by calling the
body " dead." The meaning is, that, as to that
function, their bodies had lost vitality, — had-
ceased exercising their functional activity.
Similar to this is the figure found in Jas. ii. 17,
20, 26, where faith without works is said to be
dead. The meaning is, certainly, not that faith is
non-existent, but that it is inoperative and useless.
Precisely the same trope occurs in Heb. vi. 1, ix.
14, where we read of "dead works:" that is, the
works have in them no spiritual vitality : they ara

TROPICAL SENSES OF DEATH IN THE BIBLE. 267
fruitless, like dead trees. In Eph. ii. 16, however,
where Christ is said to have " slain the enmity "
between Jews and Gentiles by the cross, the put
ting to death is equivalent to putting an end to.
In Rom. viii. 13, where the " deeds of the body "
are said to be "mortified," — i.e., put to death, —
the meaning is that the carnal passions are sub
dued, their activity and vitality destroyed.
A different, though yet tropical, use of these
words is found in Rom. vh. 8 -11. Paul says, " Sin,
taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in
me all manner of concupiscence ; for, without the
law, sin was dead " (ver. 8). Here sin is personi
fied, and is described as being dead until the
commandment came. Being dead is here put in
opposition to the working of concupiscence. After
the coming of the law, sin became active. Death,
therefore, is here the opposite of activity. In the
next verse the same thought is expanded : " For I
was alive without the law once; but, when the
commandment came, sin revived, and I died."
Here we find the activity of sin, which had been
more literally expressed in the preceding verse,
directly cahed life. Here, however, Paul says,
that, when sin revived, he died. What is this
death? Some understand it to be the eternal
death to which he became liable ; but the context
decides against this. "I was alive without the
law once," he says. The death which follows,
and which was occasioned by the coming of the

268 LIFE AND DEATH.— TROPICAL SENSES.
commandment, must be antithetic to this life.
Clearly, the life which he speaks of having had
before the coming of the commandment could not
have been mere physical life : that continued after
wards also. No less certain, however, is it that that
lhe cannot be the same as he afterwards (viii. 6)
speaks of as identical with a spiritual mind. It
is something which precedes conversion, and even
conviction. It can be nothing else than the state
of unconcern (perhaps also the relative innocence
of childhood) which resembles the peace of the
spiritual life, though vastly different from it. The
death which follows must be the unhappiness
which an awakened conscience occasions. It in
volves, indeed, forebodings of future evil; but
what is here spoken of is primarily the uneasiness
of one who is alarmed, but who has not yet become
reconched to God, leading him finally to exclaim,
"O wretched man that I am! who shall dehver
me from the body of this death?" Paul goes on:
" The commandment which was ordained to life I
found to be unto death; for sin, taking occasion
by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew
me " (vers. 10, 11). This being slain is, of course,
the same as the dying which is described in ver. 9.1
1 Mr. White (Life in Christ, p. 374) derives a singular argument
from this verse. If, he says, death, as used by Paul, means
merely moral death, and has no reference to existence or non
existence, "then it ought to make sense to say that a wicked
man is ' killed in sins ' (Eph. ii. 1), or that he is spiritually killed
by transgression, and will be slain and killed to all eternity in the

TROPICAL SENSES OF DEATH IN THE BIBLE. 269
In another class of passages death is put figura
tively for insensibility. Thus (Rom. vi. 2) Paul
says, " How shall we that are dead to sin live any
longer therein?" This verse is followed by a
development of the same thought, in which the
apostle represents the Christian as translated, by
his acceptance of Christ's redemption, into a new
state, Avith entirely new relations. We are buried
with Christ into death (ver. 4), and raised with
him in his resurrection (ver. 5). The old man is
crucified with Christ; so that henceforth the do
minion of sin is broken, and we serve it no longer
(ver. 6). " For," adds Paul, in a statement of a
general and popular character, " he that is dead is
miseries of hell. But ordinary preachers would not now think
of telling a wicked man that the law or curse of God would kill
him. That would not express their idea of ' death.' They would
be afraid, lest the sinful man should take it in the sense of liter
ally losing his life in hell. St. Paul, however, used the word
constantly and fearlessly as synonymous with death, — a decisive
proof that the radical meaning of death, the loss of literal life or
existence, lies at the basis of it wherever it is held forth as the
doom of the wicked." On this we remark : (1) Even if we might
always substitute "be killed" for "die," it would not follow
that it would always be rhetorically appropriate. It is common
to say that men die of consumption and other diseases. It is cer
tainly not so common, nor so appropriate, to speak of men as
being killed by consumption. Still less should we say that one
had been killed by a natural death. That we do not speak of
men being killed in sins is therefore, of itself, of very little
significance. But (2) Paul, we are told, "used the word* [apok-
teino, kill] constantly and fearlessly as synonymous with death."
The implication is, that we differ from Paul in our usage. What
is the fact ? Paul uses the word apokteino in all his Epistles four
times. In two of these cases — Rom. xi. 3,1 Thess. ii. 15 — it has

270 LIFE AND DEATH. — TROPICAL SENSES.
freed [justified, acquitted] from sin" (ver. 7):
i.e., when a man dies, he is no longer held to the
law which he has previously broken ; he is trans
ferred into new relations and a different state of
existence. So, "if we be dead [more exactly, "if
we died "] with Christ, we believe that we shall
also live with him" (ver. 8). "For in that he
died, he died unto sin once [once for all] ; but in
that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise rec
kon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin,
but alive unto God through Jesus Christ " (vers.
10, 11). There is only one meaning to be reason
ably attached to the phrase " dead unto sin " as .
here used. It means that the Christian is removed
to a sphere in which sin no longer claims his ahe-
the literal sense of putting an end to physical life. These cases,
therefore, have no bearing on the question in dispute. The other
two passages are Rom. vii. 11 (above discussed), and 2 Cor. iii. 6:
" The letter killeth; but the spirit giveth life." By the letter, as
the context shows, is meant the Mosaic law. The passage is
closely analogous to Rom. vii. 11. In neither case is there any
direct reference to any punitive or retributive working of law.
Paul nowhere speaks of God as killing the sinner; and yet, while
Paul uses "die" and "death" over and over, on almost every
page of his writings, as a designation of the effect of sin and the
doom of the sinner, Mr. White, after referringto these tioo passages
(one of which, moreover, certainly does not, and the other prob
ably does not, refer to the final doom of the wicked), is embol
dened to assert that Paul " constantly and fearlessly " uses the
word "kill" as synonymous with "death" ! In view of these
facts, it is clear, that, if Mr. White's argument is good for any
thing, it is good against Paul, or rather against himself. It
appears, that, instead of using words ' ' constantly and fearlessly "
otherwise than we do, Paul agrees remarkably with " ordinary
preachers."

THE PHRASE, " DEAD UNTO SIN." 271
giance. He is dead to it, insensible to its power ;
he is alive unto God ; he is no longer tne servant
of sin (vers. 16, 17), but of righteousness (ver.
18). Now he is "made free from sin," and has
his "fruit unto holiness" (ver. 22). Death to sin
is synonymous with freedom from sin.
The same thought is continued in chap, vii.,
Avhere the point is illustrated by the law of mar
riage, according to which the death of the hus
band releases a wife from her allegiance. So Paul
argues : " Ye also are become dead to the law
by the body of Christ, that ye should be married
to another, even to him who is raised from the
dead" (vh. 4). Here "law "is used instead of
" sin ; " but the meaning is substantially the same.
The law, according to Paul, is that which is found
to be unto death (ver. 10). Sin takes occasion
by the commandment, and develops all manner of
evil deshes (ver. 8). And in viii. 2 the sthl more
comprehensive phrase, "law of sin and death," is
used to denote that from which the Christian is
delivered. Precisely so Paul says, in Gal. ii. 19,
"I through the law am dead to the law, that I
might live unto God." How this is he explains
in the next verse, Avhere he says, " I am crucified
with Christ:" i.e., Christ died in order to satisfy
the demands of the laAv; he died "through the
law : " and I, sharing by faith in his death, am
become partaker of his life ; " I [my old self] live
no longer, but Christ hveth in me."

272 LIFE AND DEATH. — TROPICAL SENSES.
It has been attempted to dispose of this class
of passages by rendering the phrase in question
"dead by sin;" i.e., exposed to final extinction
by reason of sinfulness. This is done, for in
stance, by Rev. Thomas Davis, in an appendix to
his Avork on " Endless Sufferings not the Doctrine
of Scripture ; " and this interpretation is ap
proved by Mr. White (" Lhe in Christ," pp. 282,
371). Not to anticipate what we shall hereafter
urge in objection to the prolepsis, which is on
this theory assumed to be used, it is only neces
sary to study the passages in their connection to
see the impossibility of such an exegesis. Thus,
to begin "with the last passage quoted (Gal. ii. 19),
Mr. Davis quotes approvingly Dr. Burton's para
phrase, " The law denounces death. ... In con
sequence of the law, I was condemned to death by
the law, that I might be restored to life by God."
In the original Greek we have dia nomou nomo
apethanon ; dia meaning " through, " " by means
of." Then we have nomo, the dative case of nomos,
" law," which, it is true, also in some cases denotes
nearly the same relation of thought (e.g., in Eph.
ii. 1, 5, " dead through sins "), though more fre
quently it denotes the relation expressed in Eng
lish by " to " or " for." But here the case is
practically settled by the intolerable tautology
brought out by Dr. Burton's own rendering. It
amounts to this : " I through the law am doomed
to death through the law " ! As to Rom. vi. 2,

THE PHRASE, "DEAD UNTO SIN." 273
the context is decisive. Mr. Davis, indeed, claims
that, as " death " in the previous chapter is spoken
of as the consequence of sin, it must here have
the same sense. But the more immediate context
decides in favor of a different interpretation.
The next sentence (ver. 3) is, " Know ye not that
so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ
were baptized into his death ? " And throughout
the chapter this notion of union with Christ in his
death is the keynote of the apostle's argument.
We "died with Christ," he says (ver. 8). But,
when he died, "he died unto sin" (ver. 10).
Therefore we, having died with him, ought to
reckon ourselves to be " dead indeed unto sin, but
alive unto God through Jesus Christ" (ver. 11).
Mr. Davis is forced, for consistency's sake, to
render verse 10, " He [Christ] died by sin ; " i.e.,
" in consequence of man's sin." But what intel
ligible sense is conveyed by saying that we died
with Christ, if the meaning is, that before his
death we were (not dead, but) condemned to
death in consequence of our own sins, whhe he
was put to death, not in consequence of his own
sins, but the sins of other men, and, moreover,
his death was the very means by which our death
Avas abolished ? Furthermore : whereas Paul says
(ver. 11), " Reckon ye also yourselves to be dead
indeed unto sin, but alive unto God," this inter
pretation requires us to change the tense, and
make it read, " Reckon yourselves to have been for-

274 LIFE AND DEATH. — TROPICAL SENSES.
merly dead through sin, but to be now alive
through God." But it is hardly worth our whhe
to dwell longer on so forced an interpretation.
To the foregoing are to be added certain pas
sages already referred to in another connection
(pp. 209 seq.), in which Christians are said to have
died with Christ. In Col. ii. 20 this death is
expressly said to be a death " from the rudiments
of this world." In other passages (as 2 Cor. v. 14,
Gal. ii. 20, vi. 14) the language is more absolute.
But the fuller statements of Rom. vi. show con
clusively that what is meant is no literal death,
whether temporal or eternal, but a death to sin
involved in the beginning of a life of holiness.
The same is affirmed in full by Peter (1 Pet. ii.
24), who says that Christ "bare our sins in his
own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins,
should live unto righteousness." Here the word
(apogenomenoi) rendered " being dead " is an
unusual one, occurring only here in the New Tes
tament, and meaning literally "having become
away from." The obvious meaning is, that, Christ
having assumed the burden of our sins, we are to
forsake sins, become alien to them, and live unto
righteousness. In all these cases death clearly denotes insensi
bility, want of interest, want of inclination.
When men are said to be " dead to sin," it is _
meant that their vital energies and affections are
not exercised upon it.

CONCLUSION. 275
We thus see that the same word, when tropical
ly used, has widely different senses according to
the connection. At one time it has a bad sense, —
dead to that which is good ; at other times it has a
good sense, — dead to that which is bad. At still
other times (as Rom. vh. 9) it denotes unhappi
ness. It is used, with reference to things, in the
sense of inactivity. But the point to be here
especially noted is, that all these various senses
flow from the one literal and primary sense of the
loss of vitality. It is no material exception to
this, when, in a few instances where death is predi
cated of things, dying, or being put to death, is
synonymous with being put out of the way, or
with disappearing (Job xii. 2, Eph. ii. 16). The
death of a man involves his disappearance from
among the living. Naturahy enough we may
sometimes use the term figuratively to denote a
final termination of a particular appearance or
manifestation of an affection or feeling ; but it is
no less true that all these tropical senses have for
their basis the hteral sense of life as involving
organic activity.

276 LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.

CHAPTER XII.
LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
WE now take up that large class of passages
in which " lhe " and " death " are used
absolutely to designate the fact or result of a
right or of a wrong spiritual state. We treat
here especially of those which have predominant
reference to the future and final state of men.
No one disputes the fact that this usage prevails :
the only dispute relates to the meaning of the
terms when used with this reference.
The common impression of Christendom has
been that the word "hfe," when used in the Scrip
tures to denote the state or the destiny of good
men, means a right religious state, religious well-
being, a state in which one has the favor of God.
Happiness is, of course, involved in such a state ;
but it is a misapprehension of the bibhcal lan
guage to suppose that happiness is the central
idea of the word.
This tropical and pregnant use of the word
" life " is easily derived from the literal sense of
vitality. We have seen (p. 257 seq.) that such a

DERIVATION OF THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 277
pregnant sense is found in the Bible where the
reference is only to physical soundness, or to a state
of temporal comfort, and relief from trouble. It is
entirely natural that the same term should be
employed to designate a sound and undisturbed
state of the spirit, — a state in which the religious
affections attain their highest normal development.
Such a state may very appropriately be called one
of religious hfe. As the physical system may, in
an emphatic sense, be said to possess life when
all the physical organs are in a perfectly healthy
and vigorous condition, so the soul may appropri
ately be said to possess lhe when the affections and
the whl act normally and healthily according to
the divine law. Such a trope, we say, is natural
and intelligible.
But the advocates of the doctrine of conditional
immortality hold that the promise made to the
pious is the eternal prolongation of conscious
existence. This doctrine is founded on the as
sumption that the primary and hteral sense of
" lhe " is " existence." This, however, is so obvi
ously incorrect, that a mere contradiction is almost
sufficient for refutation. We need not, at any
rate, repeat what we have already said on this
point. So much maybe conceded, — that "hfe," though
primarily denoting, not existence, but vitality,
might come to be used respecting animate beings
with special reference to the mere fact of exist-

278 LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
ence. This sense is derived from the third modi
fication of the literal sense (see p. 222) ; viz., the
duration of the state of vitality. We may say,
" God is the ever-living one," or " The soul will
live forever," and have predominantly in mind the
notion of perpetual continuance of being.
But the advocates of this doctrine of condition
al immortality lay especial stress on the claim that
they take the term "life" in the literal sense,
whereas (they say) the traditional theory rests on
a figurative interpretation of the term. This
would, even if true, not be conclusive as to the
correctness of their interpretation. That depends
on the results of a fair exegesis. The literal
understanding of a phrase may be wrong, and the
figurative understanding of it may be right. But
we do not need to depend on such a reply. We
deny the correctness o'f the allegation itself.
While we admit that our view of the word " life,"
as used in the Bible (especially in the New Testa
ment), assumes a figurative, or pregnant, use of
the term, it is easy to show that the annihilation-
ist no less assumes a tropical sense ; nay, that he
has to depart farther from the primary sense than
Ave do. The proof of this statement is easy.
Inasmuch as the primary sense of "life" is
physical or organic vitality, we have to assume, on
our theory, a tropical sense two steps removed
from the primary one: that is, we have to as
sume (1) that " life," properly denoting the ani-

FIGURATIVE INTERPRETATION UNAVOIDABLE. 279
mating principle of a physical organism, comes to
denote the conscious activity and experience of
the immaterial spirit ; and (2) that it is used preg
nantly to denote a sound or perfect form of such
activity and experience. The annihilationist,
however, assumes a meaning of the term which is
always two, and often five or six, steps removed
from the primary one : that is, he has to assume
(1) that "life," properly denoting the vitality
which characterizes a physical organism, comes to
be used of the conscious person ; 1 and (2) that
the specific sense of vitality is replaced by the
general sense of existence. But in a large propor
tion of instances he has to assume (3) that the
meaning " existence " is replaced by the meaning
"continuance of existence," or "second exist
ence." But even this does not answer the pur
pose in most cases, and hence we find three more
tropes assumed in setting forth the " literal "
meaning of "hfe." It is assumed with regard to
a large class of passages (4) that there is em
ployed the figure of prolepsis, — i.e., that that is
ascribed to the present which really belongs to
the future ; and (5) it is assumed that with the
general notion of "existence" is associated the
collateral notion of happiness or well-being. But
1 Materialists like Dr. Ives of course would claim, that, the
person being the organism, there is no trope here; but, not to
argue that there is everi in their case a real, though not confessed
trope, what we have said certainly holds true of the school repre
sented by Mr. Hudson and Mr. White.

280 LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
even this will not satisfy the requirements of many
passages; and therefore it becomes necessary to
assume (6) that " life " denotes, not vitality, nor
existence, nor continuance of existence, but the
means by which the continuance of existence is to
be attained.
In view of this aspect of the case, one might
perhaps be excused for repelling with some ear
nestness the accusation that the common under
standing of the phrase in question rests on a forced
and figurative interpretaion, whhe the other rests on
a simple and literal interpretation. Considered as
a merely rhetorical and linguistic question, the
presumption is immensely against the advocates of
annihilationism. Their great argument is founded
on a misstatement of the- facts in the case. The
common interpretation is more simple, and involves
less recourse to tropical and derivative senses of
the word " life " than the interpretation boastfully
called the literal one.
The presumption thus gained at the outset is
greatly strengthened when we come to observe
the manner in which the Bible actually uses the
phraseology in question. We may distinguish
four different ways in which the NeAV Testament
speaks of the life which is peculiar to the Christian.
1. This life is represented as something imparted
by or through Christ, and as a peculiar and present
characteristic of the believer. The foundation of
this representation is to be found in the New-Tes-

SPIRITUAL LIFE A PRESENT THING. 281
tament doctrine of regeneration, as the introduction
to a new spiritual state. John tehs us, in the very
beginning of his Gospel (i. 4), that " in him [the
Word] was life, and the life was the light of
men ; " and (i. 12, 13) that " as many as received
him, to them gave he power to become the sons
of God, even to them that believe on his name,
which were born [begotten], -not of blood, nor
of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man,
but of God." Clearly the life of Christ, which
became the light of men, is here represented as
imparted to those who believe on him. They
are born (or, more exactly, begotten) again, _and
become the sons of God. A new lhe is given to
them. In John hi. 3, 5, the same truth is again
announced : " Except a man be born again, he can
not see the kingdom of God." In his First Epistle
John repeatedly makes use of similar language :
"Every one that doeth righteousness is born of
him [God] " (ii. 29). " Beloved, now are we the
sons of God" (iii. 2). "Whosoever is born of
God doth not commit sin" (iii. 9). "We know
that whosoever is born of God sinneth not "
(v. 18).
To precisely the same effect is the language of
Paul when he says (2 Cor. v. 17), that, " if any
man be in Christ, he is a new creature [crea
tion] ; " and (Gal. vi. 15) that " in Christ Jesus
neither circumcision avaheth any thing, nor uneir-
cumcision, but a new creature [creation] ; " and

282 LIFE, -THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
(Tit. iii. 5) that God in his mercy has saved us
" by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of
the Holy Ghost." The same thought lies in the
phrase " new man," which Paul represents Chris
tians as having " put on " (Col. iii. 10, Eph. iv. 24) ;
and in the " renewing of the mind," by which they
are "transformed " (Rom. xh. 2) ; and in the " new
ness of lhe " (Rom. vi. 4), in which they are to
walk. Peter hkewise describes Christians as those
who have been " begotten again unto a lively [liv
ing] hope " (1 Pet. i. 3), as those who have been
" born [begotten] again ... by the word of God "
(i. 23) ; and he therefore exhorts them (ii. 2) " as
new-born babes " to desire the sincere milk of the
word. According to James also (i. 18), God " be
gat us with the word of truth."
We have here the important fact, that the ac
ceptance of Christ as a Saviour is described by the
New Testament as involving a change in man
worthy to be called a new generation, the begin
ning of a new life. This new life is described as
a present condition of the soul. Thus Paul says
of himself (Gal. ii. 20, as correctly translated),
" I [my old self] live no longer, but Christ liveth
in me ; and the hfe which I now live in the flesh
I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved
me, and gave himself for me." So in 2 Cor. iv. 11
he speaks of the life of Jesus as " made manifest
in our mortal flesh ; " and in Col. iii. 3, 4, of our
hfe as being "hid with Christ in God," and of

WHY THE NEW LIFE IS DENOTED BY ZOE. 283
Christ as being "our life." In Rom. vih. 6 he
says, that "to be spiritually-minded is life and
peace ; " and in ver. 10, " If Christ be iu you, . . .
the Spirit is life [liveth] because of righteousness."
In Eph. ii. 5, and Col. ii." 13, he says that God has
" quickened " [made alive] those who were " dead
in [through] sins." This impartation of hfe is a
present fact.
In short, the doctrine of the New Testament is,
that, when sinners become Christians, they are
introduced into a new lhe, a state of spiritual
vitality. They receive " the spirit of adoption,"
and become "the children of God" (Rom. viii. 15,
16). It is to be noticed that the word rendered
" life " in this connection is zoe, — the word which,
as we have before observed, denotes primarily the
state of vitality. Psyche could not appropriately
be used in this higher spiritual sense ; for this
term denotes life, as the principle of animal vi
tality, — a meaning which easily passes over into
that of the soul, as the organ of thought and sen
sibility. Regeneration does not impart a new
organ of thought and feeling ; but it does intro
duce one into a new state of thought and feeling.
The psyche is spoken of as a thing that can be
saved (Mark iii. 4) or lost (Mark viii. 36). The
zoe, in the literal sense, is rather a condition, which
may be begun (Acts xvii. 25) or ended (Luke
xvi. 25) .-
1 This shows how little value there is in Mr. Pettingell's dis-

284 LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
Nothing can be clearer than that, as physical
generation is the beginning of physical life, re
generation — the being begotten by the Spirit — is
the beginning of spiritual lhe. If this new birth
(or generation) is not literal, but spiritual, then
the resultant life is not literal, but spiritual. The
true meaning lies on the surface. But Dr. Ives
(p. 118 seq.) undertakes to explain all this away
by an interpretation meriting notice as an exegeti
cal curiosity. Calling attention to the fact, that,
in the Greek of John hi. 5, the article before
"Spirit" is wanting, he makes the whole declara-
covery (?) that psyche and zoe are so related that the former " is
used when mere animal life is denoted; that it is identified with
that which is material and earthly, and never with that which is
immaterial and heavenly; " while "zoe seems to have a higher
and more spiritual signification," being " constantly used to des
ignate that higher and better life which is imparted by the Spirit
of God " (p. 24). The truth is, that these two words cannot be
compared in this way at all. Psyche, in its primary sense, does,
it is true, denote mere animal life: but so does zoe; only the
former denotes the principle of vitality, the latter the condition
or time of vitality. Paul could not have said (Acts xx. 10) of
Eutychus, " His zoe is in him; " but, on the other hand, Abraham
could not have said to the rich man (Luke xvi. 25), " Thou in thy
psyche receivedst thy good things." Yet both psyche, used by
Paul, and zoe, used by Abraham, are employed in the lower nense
of animal life. Zoe is likewise used in this same lower sense in
Jas. iv. 14, 1 Cor. xv. 19. On the other hand, psyche is often
used in a higher sense. No better illustration of the distinc
tion between the two words can' be given than is found in the
verse quoted by Mr. Pettingell (p. 25), John xii. 25, " He that lov-
eth his psyche shall lose it, and he that hateth his psyche in this
world shall keep it unto zoe eternal." The psyche, according to
this, is something that is to be preserved unto an eternal zoe.
Surely it cannot be something merely " material and earthly."

DR. IVES ON REGENERATION. 285
tion have reference to the resurrection!- This he
endeavors to substantiate by reference to the fact
that Paul (in Acts xhi. 33, and Rom. i. 4) speaks
of the resurrection of Christ as the fulfilment of
the declaration in Ps. ii. 7, " Thou art my Son :
this day have I begotten thee." And so he un
derstands being born of Spirit to mean " entrance
on the new spirit-life." Furthermore, he insists
that the clause, " So is every one that is born of
the Spirit," in the comparison of such a person with
the wind, must refer to the power which the res
urrection-body has of coming and going " hke the
unseen wind " ! He says, " 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.' " We do not apprehend that " modern
theology " will be much frightened by his denun
ciation of this interpolation, even when printed in
small capitals, especiahy when it is observed that
Dr. Ives himself makes free use of interpolations
whenever he thinks the true sense is elucidated by
them, and does so even in his interpretation of the
next verse but one in this very passage. But let
us see Avhat his interpretation involves. (1) If
the sonship of Christ began with the resurrection
of Christ, as Dr. Ives affirms, then it follows that
before Ms resurrection he was not God's Son.
And then what shall we do with such declarations
as John iii. 16, " God . . . gave his only-begotten

286 LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
Son"? (2) Furthermore, it follows that Chris
tians cannot be called God's children until after
the resurrection. But John tells us (1 John iii.
2), " Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it
doth not yet appear what we shall be." Dr. Ives
quotes the latter part of this verse, "We know
that, when he shall appear, we shah be like him,"
in this very discussion, in order to illustrate the
doctrine of the likeness of our resurrection-bodies
to Christ. But why does he omit the first part ?
And what does he have to say to all those other
passages which speak of Christians as those who
have been begotten? He has no explanation of
them to give at all. (3) Observe, that when Nico
demus, after Christ's comparison of the regener
ated with the wind, asks, " How can these things
be ? " Christ answers, " If I have told you earthly
things, and ye beheve not, how shall ye believe h
I tell you of heavenly things ? " This new bhth,
then, according to our Saviour, is among the
earthly things : according to Dr. Ives, it is among
the heavenly things. (4) Notice, further, that
whereas in ver. 3 Jesus says, " Except a man be
born again [or, from above]," he says in ver. 5,
"Except a man be born of water and of the
Spirit ; " evidently meaning the one expression to
explain the other. But what has the water to do
Avith the matter ? Manifestly there is a reference
to baptism as the external symbol of the internal
change. But Dr. Ives says (p. 120) of the risen

DR. IVES ON REGENERATION. 287
Saviour, "As one, before 'born of water, and
[now] born of Spirit ' (Gr., ek, from water, from
spirit, genitive of material, as John ix. 6 ; our
present body nine-tenths 'of water,' our next a
spirit-body), he had entered into the spirit-life."
According to this, then, we are to understand that
our Lord, deeply impressed with the scientific
though not commonly-understood fact, that nine-
tenths of the human body consists of water, took
occasion to inform this anxious inquirer after
rehgious truth that man for the most part is not
made out of dust, as had been commonly con
ceived, but out of water. To be sure, he rather
implies than declares it ; and, when he says that
a man must be born from water, he speaks some
what obscurely if he means merely that the man
when first born consists chiefly of water. But
this is what Dr. Ives is convinced that our Saviour
means; so that the upshot of his declaration is,
that, in order to enter the kingdom of God, first, a
man must come into existence with a very aque
ous body ; and, secondly, he must have a spiritual
body ! As to moral or religious character, not a
single word ! The fact, that, having come into ex
istence, he consists largely of water, is a piece of
scientific information thrown in by the way, being
of no sort of consequence to the main question.
The strangest of all is, that our Saviour immedi
ately proceeds to say, " That which is born of the
flesh is flesh [which, according to Dr. Ives, must

288 LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
be synonymous with water], and that which is
born of the Spirit is spirit." If by " water " iu
the first place he meant " flesh," how unfortunate
that he should have used two different words with
out indicating that they are synonymous ! How
almost impossible it is to imagine that they are
synonymous, considering that the being born of
water is coupled with the being born of spirit as
one and the same thing ; and no one ever thought
of making them antithetic till Dr. Ives had the
" hardihood to interpolate " the additions " be
fore " and " now " ! But we have given more
space to an examination of this interpretation than
it deserves ; yet it is perhaps well to exhibit the
quality of the expositions of Scripture given by
one who has very much to say about "modern
theology " as perverting the meaning of the word
of God.
We will here notice the manner in which Mr.
Pettingell (" Theological Trilemma ") treats this
question. He too, apparently, regards " life " as
properly denoting " existence ; " though we no
where find any clearer definition than such a state
ment as this : " Eternal life . . . means, literally,
eternal life " (pp. 17, 178). But, when he comes
to speak of the regenerate or spiritual state, we
find him strangely confused. His doctrine is this :
The psyche (soul, life) is "that which man pos
sesses in common with all animals " (p. 24). This
psyche, when denoting "life," he distinguishes

MR. PETTINGELL ON THE NEAV LIFE. 289
from zoe, which, he says, " has a higher and more
spiritual signification" (Ibid.). At regeneration
the soul receives a neAv hfe (pp. 56, 127). Man
" has the beginning of another life in his soul.
He does not lose his identity ; for it is the same
soul that receives this new life " (p. 152). " The
old hfe of the soul is mortal : " the new life " is
immortal" (p. 153). The soul thus has a "ca
pacity for a twofold life, — the one natural and
mortal, and the other spiritual and immortal "
(p. 127).
But what is the " soul " of which Mr. Pettingell
speaks? On p. 105, seq., he argues in favor of the
doctrine of trichotomy. He makes" a sharp dis
tinction between the soul (psyche) and the spirit
(pneuma). "Man, in his original state, was en
dowed with a threefold nature, — a body, soul, and
sphit " (p. 111). " The soul is the life of the body,
and the spirit is the true normal hfe of the soul of
man. But, when used distinctively in the word
of God with reference to fallen man, soul denotes
the mind in its Adamic, or what is called its natu
ral or sensual, relations ; and sphit designates that
which is heavenly and divine in him. In man's
pure and normal state the spirit dominates the
soul, and the soul the body ; but, in his fallen con
dition, the order is reversed, and man is in disorder
and ruin. The spirit' is the breath of God. It is
an immortal. principle: it cannot che. But the
soul can die spiritually, and it can die also natu-

290 LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
rally ; and, after it has lost its true spiritual life,
it must die naturally, as in all other animals "
(p. 112).
Nevertheless, the author makes the soul the point
of unity in man. " In the man that is born again
we do not see two persons ; for there is only one
soul. . . . The soul preserves its identity through
all this change, from the capacity it has for a two
fold lhe " (p. 127). But these two lives are the
spiritual (pneumatical) and the " natural or souli-
cal" (p. 128). The spiritual life " is designated
by zoe, in contradistinction from psyche, the soul's
lower or natural life " (p. 129). " The old life of
the soul is mortal : this [the new, spiritual lhe] is
immortal, and is as distinct from it as any other
two kinds of life in nature can be " (p. 153).
" The new life in the soul is eternal because it is
spiritual : it is the Pneuma, the breath of God
himself" (Ibid.).
We have quoted enough to give, on the one
hand, a tolerably full statement of Mr. Pettingell's
doctrine, and, on the other, a suggestion of the
utter confusion of thought which pervades his dis
cussion. What, besides the body, is mortal in
man ? At one time it is the soul itself (pp. 112,
113) ; at another it is the soul-life of the soul
(p. 153). Psyche is used sometimes to denote the
personality, sometimes the lower animal life ; and
the two things are conjoined, so that the " soul "
has a " soulical " hfe (p. 128). Man was naturally

MR. PETTINGELL ON THE NEW LIFE. 291
endowed with a spirit (pneuma) ; but, since the
fall, if his statement on p. 112, above quoted, is to
be taken as it reads, the spirit is dominated by the
soul, and the soul by the body. The spirit, then,
still remains, even in fallen man. Moreover, in the
same paragraph, we are told that the spirit " can
not die." The soul, to be sure, may lose "its
true spiritual life," and must, therefore, " die natu
rally." But is the spirit lost ? Does it die? He
tells us, that, being the breath of God, it cannot
die. What, then, becomes of it when the soul
becomes extinct? To be sure, he tells us, five
pages later (p. 117), that the thing addressed in
the threat, " Thou shalt surely die," " is not the
body alone, nor the soul alone, nor the spirit
alone, nor any two of them together, much less
the body on the one hand, and the spirit on the
other; while the soul, in which the personality
of man especially resides, is to live on forever.
But the whole man together, in the totality of his
being, is to die." If we can understand this, it
means that the threat of death included the spirit;
yet we are repeatedly assured that the spirit can
not die. Clearness and consistency are not marked
excellences of this treatise. If we should attempt
to help the author to express himself, we might
suggest, that, in his view, " spirit " means the same
as "spiritual lhe." So he seems to imply on
p. 153, where he says that " the new life in the soul
... is the Pneuma." If so, then in the natural

292 LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
man there is no pneuma at ah, and the statement on
p. 112, about the order of domination, is incorrect:
it should be rather said, that, by the fall, the spirit
was wholly lost. What, then, is this spirit ? As
we have suggested, it may be understood to mean
the new spiritual life of the converted man. But
is the new life a new set of faculties, a new ca
pacity for apprehending rehgious truth, and a new
will, disposed to serve God? He says (p. 152)
that this new life of the Christian is " not new in
some metaphorical sense, as denoting simply that
he is a reformed man; that he now forsakes his
old way of sin, and begins to regulate his life by
a higher standard of morality ; that he now seeks
and finds his enjoyment in higher things. It
means all this, but infinitely more. He is actually
a ' new creature.' He has the beginning of another
life in his soul. He does not lose his identhy ; for
it is the same soul that receives this new lhe."
We find no clearer answer to our question than
this; and this is no satisfactory answer at all.
Either the pneuma (spirit), which, we are told,
was one of the three parts of the original man,
was an organ of perception, will, and feeling, — in
short, was that in which the personality inhered, —
or it was not. If it was, and if it was lost at the
fall, and is recovered at conversion, then the iden
tity is lost. If a man is " actually a new creature,"
— i.e., literally so, — then he is not the same crea
ture. If a new set of faculties — a new intellect,

MR. PETTINGELL'S DOCTRINE EXAMINED. 293
new sensibilities, a new will — have been brought
into being, then not the old soul is transformed, but
a new person is created. But if the original sphit
was not that which constituted personality, but
merely denoted a normal state of the soul, which
soul did constitute the personality, then regenera
tion can mean nothing more than the restoration
of that normal state of the soul ; in other words, it
can mean nothing more than that the soul is " re
formed." But Mr. Pettingell persistently assures us that
the soul is more than reformed : it receives a new
life, a second life, "an actual life" (p. 155).
We are therefore obliged to remark, that this mode
of talking about " hfe " is utterly nonsensical.
The soul, he says, has a capacity for a twofold life.
The one life is mortal ; the other, immortal. Now,
the only just comment on this is to say, that, on
his theory, it has no meaning. It must be remem
bered, that, so far as Mr. Pettingell has given us
any definition of "lhe," it is that it is synony
mous with " existence ; " at least, all his argument
against the current theology rests on that assump
tion. If this is his definition, then he holds that
the one soul is capable of two existences, one of
which is mortal, the other immortal. "This new
hfe begins before the soul is dead in its lower na
ture, and continues on after this death takes place,
and is not affected by it" (p. 127). So, then, the
soul, after having had for a while an animal exist-

294 LIFE, —THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
enee, begins to have a spiritual existence; and
these two kinds of existence go on side by side.
Now, what intelligible sense is there in this, unless
lhe is understood to mean a certain condition or
quality of the soul? In fact, on p. 173, he calls
eternal life a " state which continues forever." He
says (p. 118) that "there are various kinds of life
in nature," and so also in man. But surely there
are not various kinds of lhe in one and the same
thing in nature. How, then, does this illustrate his
theory of two lives in one soul? If "life " is used
figuratively for condition or property, we can un
derstand him ; but this he disavows. If by it he
means "existence," his theory is only worthy to
be classed with the popular adage about the nine
lives of a cat.
That Mr. Pettingell really means by " lhe "
something else than " existence " is evident when
he says, e.g. (p. 153), "All the inferior forms of
life are transitory. The objects they animate are
earthly, and go to decay." If " existence " is sub
stituted for " lhe," the statement affirms that vari
ous forms of existence animate certain objects !
This is pure nonsense, unless " existence " means
vitality. In fact, he elsewhere speaks (pp. 120,
133) of the " moribund vitality " which the soul
may have after the death of the body. And all
through the book, Avhere the animal and the spir
itual life are spoken of, it is manifest that not
existence is or can be meant, but merely a certain

MR. PETTINGELL'S DOCTRINE EXAMINED. 295
condition or quality of the human being. In
view of this doubtless unconscious double use of
the word " life," it is almost amusing to find the
author indignantly commenting on the "double
game" and "logodsedaly," of which he alleges
his opponents to be guilty in their use of the
terms "hfe" and "death" (pp. 182, 183). One
who can say that the sphit " cannot die," and yet
" is to die ; " who can say that the same identical
soul can have two contemporary lives, whhe yet
by " lhe " he means " existence ; " who can say
that the sphitual lhe is not a condition (p. 160),
but is a state (p. 173), — such a man would do
weh to indulge less in declamation, more in defini
tion, and very sparingly in criticism.
If it were worth the while, we might fill many
more pages in exposition of the errors and confu
sion which characterize this book; but we for
bear. Our present object is to notice, that, amidst
a great cloud of verbiage, the author yet recog
nizes the truth which we are here setting forth ;
A'iz., that regeneration is represented by the New
Testament as the beginning of a new life. Under
the figure of a new birth, a new creation, a mak
ing alive of that which has been dead, there is ex
pressed the truth that the soul has entered into
a new, a radically changed, moral and spiritual
state; and this state is called "life."
Mr. White ("Life in Christ") is, as might be
expected, more sober and clear in his treatment of

296 LIFE, -THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
this topic. He defines regeneration as consisting
(1) in "transformation into the moral likeness
of Christ; (2) passing from death into life; enter
ing into that hfe of Christ, the second man, which
is eternal" (p. 279). He recognizes the true,
nature of the change wrought, and does not so
badly involve himself as Mr. Pettingell in confu
sion by using " life " in a double sense in relation
to the same thing. He holds that the life iuto
which one enters at regeneration is the certainty
of eternal life ; i.e., of endless existence. To be
sure, when he says that "the spirit enters into
Christ's ' eternal life ' now " (p. 281), his form of
expression seems to imply that he uses " lhe " in
the sense of moral state ; but he distinguishes
between these two things. We have a right to
object, however, to such phraseology. If the life
which is due to regeneration is nothing but the
certainty that the life which had begun before the
regeneration will continue forever, then it is mis
leading to speak of it as something " entered
into " at the time of regeneration. If by " life "
in this connection is not at all meant the moral
and spiritual change effected in the soul, but only
an existence that will never be terminated, then it
is not true that that life is entered into at regen
eration : it was entered into at the beginning of
the natural life. He says that " the result of true
regeneration is to bestow the gift of everlasting
life on the whole nature " (p. 280). But this gift,

MR. AVHITE'S DOCTRINE OF THE NEW LIFE. 297
in Mr. White's mind, can mean only the assurance
that existence will be everlastingly perpetuated:
so far as life (existence) is concerned, it is not
now given, nor entered into. At the best, there
fore, there is a figure here. " Life " stands for
" the certainty (or assurance) that life shall never
end," — a tolerably bold figure, it must be con
fessed, when it is considered that there is a pre
vious figure involved; viz., "life" put for "exist
ence." It is, moreover, absolutely impossible to push
this figure of prolepsis into all the passages which
describe the new life as a present possession. It
lies in the very nature of the figure involved in
the description of Christians as " born again "
that the new lhe is a present thing. In perfect
accordance with this, the New Testament repeat
edly speaks of this life as something now pos
sessed by the believer. We have already quoted
several passages. We will add a feAV more. In
2 Cor. iv. 10 Paul speaks of "bearing about in
the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the
life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our
body." This life of Christ, which in Gal. h. 20
he represents as having been substituted for his
own, he here speaks of as made manifest to others.
What sense would result if " life " here means
merely "existence," or rather "the certainty of
. eternal existence " ? John tells us (1 John v. 12),
" He that hath the Son hath life, and he that

298 LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
hath not the Son of God hath not life." Again :
Christ says (John v. 24), " He that heareth my
Avord, and believeth on him that sent me, hath
everlasting life, and shall not come into condem
nation, but is passed from death unto life."
Similarly it is said (1 John iii. 14), " We know
that Ave have passed from death unto life, because
we love the brethren. He that loveth not his
brother abideth in death." Dr. Ives does not
refer to this passage, but quotes John v. 24 as
follows : " ' But ia 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" (p. 156).
That is, when Christ tells us that we are passed
into life, he does not mean life (existence, i.e., Dr.
Ives's literal sense of life), nor men who are alive,
nor even men who are going to be alive, but men
who are going to live forever. This is the inter
pretation of one who says that we must take
God's truth "precisely as God gives it to us " !
Again: Christ says (John xvh. 3), "This is life
eternal, that they might know thee the only true
God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
Here the figure of prolepsis cannot be resorted to
by those who profess to adhere to the literal sense.
We have a definition of life ; and it is not defined
as existence, but as knowledge of God and of
Christ. Hence (as, e.g., Mr. Hudson, " Debt and
Grace," p. 173; "Christ our Life," p. 75) they

MR. HUDSON ON ROM. VIII. 6. 299
are obliged to resort to the explanation that here
life denotes the means of securing life. The same
device has to be applied to Rom. viii. 6 : "To be
spiritually-minded is hfe and peace." The possi
bility of such an interpretation may be admitted;
yet scarcely a parallel 'can be found in all the
Scriptures.1 And, even if we should admit the
possibility of such a rhetorical trope, we have
hardly got half way through with our problem.
According to Mr. Hudson, Paul's language signi
fies, not that a spiritual mind is the means of pro
curing a lhe not yet possessed, but that it is the
means of prolonging a life already possessed. So,
then, we have life put (1) for existence^ (2) for
1 We say, "scarcely a parallel;" for the parallel passages
adduced by Mr. Hudson are not exact parallels. He quotes
John i. 4, " In him was life, and the life was the light of men; "
John xi. 25, " I am the resurrection and the life; " John xiv. 6,
" I am the way, the truth, and the life." But Christ is called, by
way of emphasis, the Life, because he most eminently possessed
that life which he imparted to others. Moreover, he is here
described, not as the means of obtaining life, but as the one who
bestows it. Mr. Hudson also refers, without quotation, to " fre
quent expressions in the book of Proverbs " as supporting his
view. He probably has in mind such passages as Prov. iii. 22,
" So shall they [wisdom and discretion] be life unto thy soul, and
grace to thy neck." This passage is parallel to Rom. viii. 6 : but
it does not prove Mr. Hudson's point; for here, too, the true
explanation is, that "life" is used in a pregnant sense. The
same may be said of iv. 22, viii. 35, and all other passages which
might plausibly be adduced in this book. A happier citation
might have been made from Deut. xxx. 20, " It is thy life " (so it
should be rendered), and xxxii. 47, " It is your life," where these
statements are used with reference to obedience to the divine
commands; that is, obedience is the condition of the preserva
tion of life.

300 LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
the prolongation of existence, and (3) for the
means of prolonging existence ; and all this in
order to maintain a literal interpretation which
is not literal; while the simple explanation that
"life" denotes the new spiritual condition, Avhich
consists in. having a spiritual mind, — the obvious
meaning of the verse, involving only a simple and
natural trope, — is not only favored, but, we may
say, necessitated, by the uniform drift of the New
Testament in its doctrine of regeneration.
The exegetical violence which has to be prac
tised in order to maintain the assumed literal sense
of " life " strikingly appears where the statement
is in a negative form ; as John vi. 53, " Except ye
eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his
blood, ye have no life in you." To say, " Ye have
no existence in you," or " Ye have no eternal ex
istence in you," is very near to nonsense. It is
true, that, in the next verse, Christ says, " Whoso
eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal
life ; " but the very order in which the two expres
sions, " life " and " eternal life," occur, is a conclu
sive refutation of the theory we are opposing.
If the prominent thought were that eating Christ's
flesh and drinking his blood are essential in order
to the perpetuity of existence, then the adjective
ought to have been expressed, in the first instance ;
but even then the thought would have been
awkwardly and obscurely expressed. Even Mr.
White here almost forgets himself. He says

INCONSISTENCY OF ANNIHILATIONISTS. 301
(p. 218), "Bread was the symbol of lhe; but how
much more Avas blood ! ' The blood is the life there
of,' — not simply the happiness of a living being,
but its life. And here Christ declares that life
eternal depends on drinking his blood, which was
his life." Here the literal meaning of life is almost
recognized to be what it is ; viz., vitality. It inheres
in the organism which eats and drinks, and which
is sustained by eating and drinking. The eating
of Christ's flesh is admitted to be metaphorical.
By what right is the life claimed to be literal ?
Christ says (just what the metaphor requires), that,
unless one eats, he now has no lhe in him, — i.e., no
spiritual lhe ; but Mr. White makes him say,
" Unless you eat my body (metaphorically), you
whl not continue to possess life (literally), though
now you do have lhe." And, be it remembered,
all this straining of Christ's language is performed
in order to insist on preserving a literal inter
pretation of " hfe ; " which is not literal, after all.
The vhtual confession here almost made by Mr.
White, that " lhe " in this passage denotes, not
existence, but a vital principle, is still more nearly
made by Mr. Hudson ("Christ our Life," p. 78), who
says of 1 John hi. 15, " No murderer hath eternal
life abiding in him," that, in his view, " the phrase
' eternal lhe abiding in him ' is best explained of
the divine, life-giving power, working now as a
regulative principle, and as a germ of the future
lhe." This passage occurs in a chapter in which

302 LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
he is arguing that the Avord "hfe" may every
where be understood in the literal sense of exist
ence. Probably he would hold that this is only
another mode of saying what he had previously
said about Rom. viii. 6 ; viz., that " life " is put for
the way or means of life. But, if the term can and
must here be understood to denote " a regulative
principle," then it is hard to see why it may not,
and should not, be so understood in all similar
cases. And this is substantially the definition
which Ave have assumed to be the correct one.
When, however, Mr. Hudson adds that the term
may be explained of the divine life-giving power
" as a germ of the future life," he doubtless uses
the phrase " future life " in the sense of " future
existence ; " and therefore it must be asked, What
can be meant by calling this life-giving power a
germ of such future existence ? A germ is some
thing of the same nature as that which grows from
it. If this " regulative principle " is any part of
religious character (and so the author doubtless
means to be understood), then he can mean noth
ing but that holiness is a germ of eternal exist
ence; which is nonsensical. His real meaning
undoubtedly is, that holiness produces a salutary,
preservative effect on the soul, keeping it from
decay. But so salt keeps meat from decay ; but
who would think of saying that salt is the germ of
the preservation of meat ? The truth seems to be,
that this expression was selected for the purpose

INCONSISTENCY OF ANNIHILATIONISTS. 303
of suggesting that the life which is said to be im
parted to believers in Christ is of the same nature
as the continued existence which is the effect of
it; whereas, in fact, the two things are (and are
virtually confessed to be) utterly distinct. There
is the same confusion of thought here which per
vades the whole of Mr. Pettingell's book, — a
confusion which must exist so long as one at
tempts to represent eternal life (in the sense of
eternal existence) as the outgrowth of the life
which is introduced by regeneration. If that
Christian lhe is a " regulative principle," a renewed
disposition of the soul, then it can no more be iden
tified with abstract existence than the sap of a tree
can be said to be identical with the existence of
the tree. But if " hfe " is always to be taken as
denoting existence, then it is as absurd to call the
spiritual lhe of the Christian the germ or cause of
eternal existence as it would be to call the first
year of a man's lhe the germ or cause of ah the
remaining years.
Other passages representing this spiritual life as
a present reality are John v. 40, vi. 33, 47, 63, xx.
31; Rom. vhi. 2; ITim.vi. 19; 2 Pet. i. 3; l.John
i. 2 ; besides many others which might be shown to
imply the same thing. Of those here given, 1 Tim.
vi. 19, which in our version reads, " That they may
lay hold on eternal hfe," should be rendered (ac
cording to the correct text), " That they may lay
hold on the real lhe," — a very suggestive phrase.

304 LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
There could be no possible temptation to under
stand any of them otherwise than as implying that
the life spoken of is a present condition, were it
not for the notion that " life " literally means
"existence," and that somehow, by hook or by
crook, this literal meaning must be maintained.
But, when we bear in mind that " existence " is
not the literal meaning of " life," the whole founda
tion of these ingenious expositions crumbles away.
There is no longer any occasion for them. They
are brought into service only because a fictitious
meaning of "life" has been assumed to be the
literal one ; and then, in order to maintain tins
supposed literal meaning, a whole series of figures
is freely resorted to.
2. The Christian is sometimes represented, not
only as now having life, but as now having eternal
hfe. Thus John iii. 36, " He that believeth on the
Son hath everlasting [eternal] life." John v. 24,
" He that heareth my word, and believeth on him
that sent me, hath everlasting lhe." Similarly
1 John iii. 15, v. 13 ; John v. 39, vi. 54 ; 1 Tim. vi. 12.
There are several other passages* in which it is
somewhat doubtful whether only the future, or the
present with the future, is meant ; e.g., John iii. 16,
" God . . . gave his only-begotten Son, that who
soever believeth in him should not perish, but
have everlasting life." So in hi. 15, x. 28, xvii. 2 ;
1 John v. 11 ; Acts xiii. 48.
3. More commonly, when eternal life is ascribed

LIFE AS A FUTURE GOOD. 305
to the Christian, it is represented as a future ex
perience. Matt. xix. 29, " Every one that hath
forsaken houses," &c, "shall inherit everlasting
life ; " xxv. 46, " The righteous [shall go away]
into life eternal." In Rom. ii. 7 it is said that
God will render " eternal life " to those " who, by
patient continuance in weh-doing, seek for glory
and honor and immortality." Similarly is the
phrase used in Matt. xix. 16 ; Mark x. 17, 30 ;
Luke x. 25, xviii. 18, 30 ; John iv. 36, vi. 27, 51,
58, xii. 25; Rom. vi. 22; Gal. vi. 8; Tit. i. 2, ih.
7 ; 1 John ii. 25.
4. Sometimes, more briefly, the future condition
or experience of the Christian is simply designated
" life." Thus Mark ix. 43, " It is better for thee
to enter into lhe maimed, than, having two hands,
to go into hell." Matt. xix. 17, "If thou wilt
enter into life, keep the commandments." 1 Pet.
iii. 7, "Heirs together of the grace of hfe." So
Matt. vii. 14, xviii. 8, 9 ; Mark ix. 45 ; Rom. v. 17,
18 ; James i. 12. In other cases the present and
future are both included; or else it is doubtful
whether the language is to be understood of both,
or of the future alone. E.g., John v. 40, "Ye
will not come unto me, that ye might have life."
Rom. i. 17, "The just shall hve by faith." So
Luke x. 28; John v. 25, vi. 57, x. 10, xiv. 19;
Rom. vih. 13, x. 5 ; Heb. xii. 9 ; 2 Tim. i. 1.
According to the view which we have presented
of the significance of the term " hfe " as used in

306 LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
the New Testament, there is no difficulty in under
standing all these classes of passages. Inasmuch
as the sanctified state of the Christian is destined
to be perpetual, it may, with hardly a figure of
speech, be said of him that he has eternal life ; i.e.,
he has that lhe which is to continue forever. So
we may speak of a man as having acquired perma
nent possession of a piece of property ; meaning that
he already has it, and is sure of keeping it. In
those passages in which the eternal life is spoken
of as yet future there is also no difficulty, in so far
as they simply imply the perpetual continuance of
the life which has already begun ; and, even where
simply lhe is apparently described as something
wholly future, — something yet to be attained, —
there is no difficulty in explaining the representa
tion. The consummation of this regenerate life is
still future, and this perfected state may weh be
spoken of as life by way of emphasis. Just so
the kingdom of God is sometimes described as a
present thing, but more often as still future.
It is to be noticed, however, that many of these
passages represent the future life as a reward
of well-doing. This may seem to contradict the
theory that the term denotes a right spiritual
state begun at regeneration. Can the reward
of holiness be holiness? The difficulty at the
worst is no greater on our theory than on that
which we oppose; but there is no serious diffi
culty at all. The life which is ascribed to the

LIFE BOTH A STATE AND A REWARD. 307
Christian has a double side. It is not mere happi
ness on the one hand, nor mere holiness on the
other. It is that in the spiritual nature which
corresponds to healthful vitality in the physical
nature. A right state of the system is good in
itseh, and it is a state of enjoyment besides. A
right state of- heart" is a good thing in itself; but
it: is1 also, in a very true sense, its own reward.
Holiness cannot but be accompanied by happiness.
That right spiritual state which the Scriptures call
life may be viewed sometimes predominantly un
der the aspect of a holy state, sometimes predomi
nantly under the aspect of a happy state. Hav
ing the promise of divine help and fostering care,
the Christian is encouraged to regard this condi
tion of spiritual purity and joy as a permanent
one : hence the frequent assurances of eternal
life held out to him. In precisely the same way
is the word " peace " used, which we have found
conjoined with " hfe " in Rom. viii. 6. In Rom.
v. 1 we read, "Being justified by faith, we have
peace with God;" evidently a present experience.
But, in Rom. ii. 10, the things promised as the
future reward of the faithful are "glory, honor,
and peace." The peace spoken of in the latter
case is well-being in general, including what is
meant in Rom. v. 1, — the more special form of
well-being ; viz., reconciliation with God. No one
would think of resorting to prolepsis here, and
assuming that, when Paul says we have peace, he

308 LIFE, -THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
means that we are going to have it in the future.
Not even the diversity in the apparent sense can
be adduced as making such an assumption unne
cessary : but, if it should be, yet, when Christ says
(John xiv. 27), " Peace I leave with you," this
si lift is removed; for here "peace" has substan
tially the same meaning as in Rom. ii. 10 ; though
there it is a future reAvard, here a present expe
rience. The annihilationist certainly finds no easier
work than we in disposing of these last three
classes of passages. Of course, where eternal hfe
is promised as something future, it is easy to sub
stitute " existence " for " life," and leave an appro
priate sense ; and, where men are said now to pos
sess eternal hfe, he also may say that this means
only that they have an existence which is to con
tinue ; but, when simple life is promised as a
future good, the case is somewhat different. It
would certainly be a very singular mode of ex
pression to say, " Narrow is the way which leadeth
unto existence " (Matt. vii. 14) ; or, " They which
receive abundance of grace and of the gift of right
eousness shall reign in existence by one, Jesus
Christ" (Rom. v. 17). If " life " means a state of
the soul, it is easy to understand such passages. It
is put by way of emphasis for the highest and ulti
mate form of the rehgious state. But, if it means
existence merely, this explanation will not answer.
When we use " exist " or " existence " emphatically,

"EXISTENCE" HAS NO PREGNANT SENSE. 309
it denotes a lower rather than a higher condi
tion of the person or thing spoken of. To say that
a man exists may mean that he merely exists, but
has nothing worth existing for. Existence is an
attribute which cannot well be used in a preg
nant sense. It has in itself no positive meaning.
There is no content in the bare conception. Ex
istence is, strictly speaking, not an attribute or
quality at all. When any thing or any being is
affirmed to exist, all that is definite and positive
in the assertion is involved in the definition of the
thing or being of which existence is affirmed. It
adds nothing to the description of any thing to
say that it exists. Existence is implied in any
and every one of the actual qualities of an object ;
but it is itself an absolutely colorless conception.
It is impossible, therefore, for such a notion to
have a pregnant sense. Inasmuch as any real
attribute presupposes the existence of the thing
to which it is ascribed, an attempt to use " exist
ence "in a pregnant or emphatic sense would no
more emphasize one attribute than another.
Nor is any legitimate relief gained by the con
cession, that, while "life " primarily denotes exist
ence, the notions of holiness and blessedness are
associated with it (White, "Life in Christ," pp.'
109, 370). This association, says Mr. White,
arises "from a neAv relation to God, a spiritual
resurrection resulting from redemption." But
this new relation must, of course, be understood

310 LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
to result from a new and changed spiritual state.
Now, the question is, how the Avord " life " comes
to be used for this new spiritual state. The man
existed before regeneration as much as after it. If
life is properly nothing but existence, how can the
word be used to denote a moral condition which
neither introduces existence, nor modifies the fact
of existence? A wind blowing from frigid to
tropic regions becomes warm. It undergoes a
change of temperature, It sustains a new rela
tion to the principle of heat. But who would
ever dream of saying that with the, notion of blow
ing there has become associated the notion of
heat, so that the mere word " blowing " could be
used to suggest the conception of heat? How
could it be said that this term " includes the asso
ciated idea " of heat ? It is perfectly obvious that
such a representation would be regarded as sense
less, since the mere blowing of the wind no more
suggests or includes the conception of heat than
it does the conception of cold, or of lightness,
or of invisibility, or of density, or of rarity, or of
any other quality of the atmosphere. Still less
could any word denoting properly the mere exist
ence of the wind come to include the idea of heat.
And yet this is a fair illustration of what we are
asked to beheve has come to be the case respect
ing the word "life." It includes, we are told,
though primarily signifying mere existence, " the
associated ideas of hohness and blessedness.".

"EXISTENCE" HAS NO PREGNANT SENSE. 311
But Avhat is meant by calling these "associated
ideas " ? They are no more associated Avith the
bare notion of 'existence than misery and sinful
ness are, — no more than weight or color, materi
ality or immateriality. All agree that the regen
erate are holy and blessed ; not, however, because
they exist, but because they are regenerate. All
agree, also, that there is no peace to the wicked ;
not, however, because they exist, but because they
are wicked. It would be just as reasonable to say
of them that the term life (understood to denote
existence) " includes the associated ideas " of sin
fulness and misery as it is to say of the righteous
that the same term " includes the associated ideas
of holiness and blessedness." -
When we consider that the biblical descriptions
of the future state and reward of the pious consist
almost wholly of the simple promise of life, or
of eternal life, it is easy to see how annihilationists
1 This is certainly a fair and reasonable reply to Mr. White's
position, — much more so than his playful (?) argument (p. 357)
that " life " can as well be made to mean happy extinction as
"death" can be made to mean endless misery; the whole point
. of which lies in the false assumption, which we have exposed,
concerning the radical meaning of the terms life and death.
AVe may here also notice the suggestive fact, that sometimes
Mr. AVhite, in his definition of life as existence, slips in the adjec
tive " animate " (p. 370) or " conscious " (pp. 109, 357), as involved
in the radical idea. But this is a virtual abandonment of his
position. If "life" means "animate existence," or "conscious
existence," then its opposite, " death," is not " extinction of be
ing," as we are told (p. 357), but inanimate existence, or uncon
scious existence.

312 LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
are tempted to regard the notions of holiness and
blessedness as included in this term ; though, accord
ing to their OAvn definition of hfe, they are wholly
debarred from so doing. The more consistent of
them may say that the mere promise of continued
existence is enough, and that the blessedness of the
believer's future is something to be of course taken
for granted, though not involved in the mere notion
of life ; yet no fair-minded man can read the New
Testament with this theory of the meaning of
" lhe " without an instinctive feeling of astonish
ment that such exclusive prominence should be
given to the bare fact of continued existence, and
that, too, in those very parts of the New Testa
ment in which the tenderest and most impassioned
descriptions of the Christian's state are given.
5. We have reserved for separate consideration
the doctrine of the Old Testament on the point
before us. It is obvious to every reader that " hfe "
and " live " are there much less seldom used in any
other than the literal sense of .physical lhe than in
the New Testament; and hardly ever, perhaps
Ave may say never, are these terms used distinctly
of the future lhe as distinguished from the present.
Nevertheless, we find many instances of a preg
nant use of these terms. Life is often held out as
the result or reward of piety. In these cases, how
ever, it seems to denote predominantly the continu
ance of life; and the impression apparently designed
to be made is, that, by obedience to the divine law,

"LIFE" IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 313
men may secure long lhe upon the earth. This
use of the simple word "live," in the sense of
" continue to live," is often found in cases where
reference is clearly made only to prolongation of
physical life ; e.g., Jer. xxi. 9, " He that falleth to
the Chaldees, ... he shall live." So Joseph says
to his brethren (Gen. xiii. 18), " This do, and live."
In precisely similar form, but with a more general
and apparently higher sense, it is said (Prov. iv. 4,
vii. 2), " Keep my commandments, and live ; "
Amos v. 4, " Seek ye me, and ye shall live." Sim
harly Ezek. iii. 21. In the latter passages it may
indeed be alleged that the reference is to life in
the spiritual sense ; yet, when we remember that
this spiritual sense is at the most not frequent in
the Old Testament, it may well be queried whether
so sharp a distinction is to be made between the
two classes of passages. This doubt is confirmed
when we read, e.g., such a passage as Deut. xxx.
19, 20. Here God says, " I call heaven and earth
to record this day against you, that I have set be
fore you lhe and death, blessing and cursing:
therefore choose lhe, that both thou and thy seed
may hve." So far, all would seem most naturally
to be explained in the spiritual sense. But we read
on : " That thou mayest love the Lord thy God,
and that thou mayest cleave unto him ; for he [it]
is thy life, and the length of thy days : that thou
mayest dwell in the land which the Lord sware
unto thy fathers." Here ver. 20 lays stress on

314 LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
the length of days which the people would spend
in the promised land if they would love the Lord.
The offer of life seems, therefore, to be an offer of
long hfe, — of long earthly, physical life. Quite
similarly we read in Deut. xxxii. 47, "For it is not
a vain thing for you [to obey the law] ; because it
is your life : and through this thing ye shah prolong
your days in the land whither ye go over Jordan
to possess it."
Somewhat similar are many passages in the
book of Proverbs. In ih. 2 it is said of the com
mandments, " Length of days and long life [liter
ally, "years of life "] shall they add unto thee ; "
while in iii. 22 it is said, respecting wisdom and
discretion, " So shall they be life unto thy soul."
Likewise, in iv. 13, we read, " Take fast hold of
instruction ; let her not go ; keep her, for she is
thy life : " while in iv. 10 it is said, "Hear, O my
son, and receive my sayings ; and the years of thy
life shall be many." So ix. 11, " By me [wisdom]
thy days shall be multiplied, and the years of thy
life shall be increased." Thus the promise of life
as the consequence of right conduct seems to be
made parallel with the promise of long life ; so that
the reference is apparently only to the continuance
of physical existence on the earth. In accordance
Avith this view may be interpreted other similar
expressions : e.g., vi. 23, " Reproofs of instruction
are the way of life ; " viii. 35, " Whoso findeth
me [wisdom] findeth life ; " x. 16, " The labor of

"LIFE" IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 315
the righteous tendeth to life." Similar language
is found in ix. 6, xi. 19, xii. 28, xih. 14, xiv. 27,
xv. 24, xvi. 22, xxi. 21, xxii. 4.
In the Psalms " lhe " is sometimes used in a
similar manner. Thus xxi. 4, "He asked lhe of
thee, and thou gavest it him, even length of days
for ever and ever." Here life plainly seems to
mean continuance of life. So xxxiv. 12, "What
man is he that desireth life, and loveth many days,
that he may see good ? " In other passages, in
which hfe is described as a special boon of the
righteous; the language is more general : as cxix.
144, "Give. me understanding, and I shall live;"
xxxvi. 9, "With thee is the fountain of lhe; in
thy light shah we see light ; " cxxxhi. 3, " There
the Lord commanded the blessing, even hfe for-,
evermore." The question thus presented is this : Is not the
promise of life which is held out to the obedient
shown by these passages to be everywhere, in the
New Testament as well as in the Old Testament,
nothing, but a promise of the continuance of life;
i.e., of existence ? This question has already been
sufficiently answered, so far, at least, as. many
passages are concerned. Where this life is de
scribed as beginning with regeneration, and as a
pecuhar characteristic of Christians on earth, it is
impossible so to interpret the phrase. But it is in
point, to examine more narrowly the Old-Testament
conception of life, and to see how far, and in what
sense, the term has there a pregnant sonse.

316 LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
The general fact seems to be this : There is an
instinctive love of life manifested by both men
and brutes. Ah naturally struggle with the whole
force of nature against whatever imperils lhe.
Hence the proverb, " Skin for skin ; yea, ah that a
man hath" will he give for his life " (Job ii. 4).
The possession of healthy vitality is a condition
of the enjoyment of all other good. Death, on the
other hand, is the culmination of pain and priva
tion. Therefore life and death are put summarily
for all good and all evil. Hence it is said (Deut.
xxx. 15), " See, I have set before thee this day life
and good, and death and evil ; " and a little later
(ver. 19) the parallel is repeated with a variation
in the terms used, " I have set before you life and
death, blessing and cursing."
In the Old Testament the promise of life as a
reward of obedience is found predominantly in the
form of a promise of prosperous and prolonged
physical lhe on the earth, and nowhere in the
Old Testament is the regenerate state directly
described as life. We thus see that there is a
marked difference between the two Testaments.
In the Old Testament the future lhe is only rarely
and somewhat obscurely set forth ; whereas in the
New it is a conspicuous feature. In the Old Tes
tament regeneration — conceived as the beginning
of a new life, a state of spiritual vitality — hardly
appears at all : in the New Testament it is a fun
damental doctrine. In other words, "life," when

"LIFE" IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 317
used in the Old Testament in any other than the
bare and literal sense, is presented, not as the
synonyme of holiness, but rather as the consequence
of holiness. In the New Testament it appears
under both aspects. Furthermore : in the Old Tes
tament there is no sharp distinction between the
hteral and the pregnant sense ; but the one shades
off into the other, — often almost imperceptibly.
Lhe — the state of physical vitality — being the
condition of all the happiness and blessings which
men enjoy, that term becomes used compendiously
for those blessings themselves; so that often it
appears as essentially synonymous with " good,"
"peace," "prosperity," "blessing," and other terms
which denote well-being. And, as lhe — a state of
animation — is worth little if short, a rich promise
must involve an assurance of long life.
But it was obvious that mere animate existence
as such, though a condition of enjoyment, did not
certainly imply it The wicked often enjoyed long
life and prosperity: the righteous often suffered
grievously, and died early. Hence we read every
where in the Old Testament such complaints as
these : " Wherefore do the wicked live, become old,
yea, are mighty in power ? " (Job xxi. 7.) " I was
envious at the foolish when I saw the prosper
ity of the wicked" (Ps. lxxiii. 3). "Wherefore
doth the way of the wicked prosper? wherefore
are all they happy that deal very treacherously? "
(Jer. xii. 1.) Of himself the Psalmist says, "•!

318 LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
am afflicted and ready to die from my youth up "
(Ps. lxxxviii. 15). " My life is spent with grief,
and my years Avith sighing" (Ps. xxxi. 10). The
Books of Job and Ecclesiastes are full of this very
problem : " What hath the wise more than the
fool ? " (Eccles. vi. 8.) Such instances of complaint
could be multiplied.
Thus it resulted that the notion of life became
idealized. That which answered to the deeper con
victions respecting what a true and normal lhe is
was called life, though actual life often fell far short
of it. The term " life " thus became symbolic of all
the prosperity and peace which the heart desired,
especially of the experience of the divine favor.
Hence the Psalmist could say, " Thy loving-kind
ness is better than lhe" (Ps. lxiii. 3). And the
assurance of God's protecting presence was repre
sented as equivalent even to exemption from death ;
as where it is said (Ps. xvi. 10, 11), " Thou wht
not leave my soul to Sheol, neither wilt thou
suffer thy Holy One to see the pit. Thou wilt show
me the path of life : in thy presence is fulness of
joy, at thy right hand there are pleasures forever
more." So Ps. xxx. 5, " In his favor is lhe." And
repeatedly the Psalmist utters the prayer, " Quicken
me [make me alive] according to thy word " (cxix.
25, 154) ; " in thy righteousness " (ver. 40) ; " after
thy loving-kindness " (vers. 88, 159) ; " according
to thy judgment " (vers. 149, 156).
In short, we find in such language the germ of

"LIFE" IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 319
the conception, more fully developed in the New
Testament, that the true, ideal life consists in
fellowship with God. Though the more literal
sense lingers about the language, the higher sense
begins to make itself distinctly manifest. When
i t is said (Prov. iii. 18) of wisdom, " She is a tree
of hfe to them that lay hold upon her," and that
" the law of the wise is a fountain of life " (xiii.
14), and that " the fear of the Lord is a fountain
of lhe" (xiv. 27), and that "understanding is a
well-spring of life" (xvi. 22), something more than
mere animal lhe is certainly meant. The same
must be asserted concerning the other passages in
the same book, cited on p. 314. The same is true
of Ezek. xviii. 9, 17, 19, 21, 28 ; xxxiii. 13, 15, 16,
19, where it is said of the righteous, "He shall
surely live : he shall not die."
We are aware that it may be alleged that these
passages do not represent wisdom (or piety) as
constituting lhe, but rather as the source of it ; and
that the connection often shows that reference is
made to the continuance of life, so that the anni-
hilationist's doctrine may seem to be confirmed by
these declarations. We admit that the New Tes
tament doctrine of life is not distinctly found
here. Piety is represented apparently as the
source of life, or as the cause of the prolongation
of life. But the annihilationists of neither school
can find any support in these passages. If " life "
here means mere existence, then the materialistic

320 LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
doctrine, which makes the existence of all men
cease at the death of the body, is overthrown ; for
these passages, taken literally, and as illustrated
by actual experience, can at the most mean no
more than that the righteous shall live a few years
longer on the earth than the wicked, — a petty
advantage indeed. Not satisfied with this, Dr.
Ives undertakes to prove that these promises of
long lhe on the earth refer to the new earth
spoken of in Rev. xxi. 1 (p. 150). He even finds
such proof in Stephen's statement (Acts vii. 5),
" And he gave him [Abraham] 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, he says, " here declares
the promise of Gen. xiii. 17 has not been fulfilled.
Modern theology claims it has. Whence so radi
cal a difference on a question of fact?" (p. 149.)
We reply : Moses, referring to the promise made
by Jehovah to Abraham, said, in his farewell
speech to the Jews (Deut. i. 8), " Go in and pos
sess the land which the Lord sware unto your
fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give unto
them, and to their seed after them." No one can
doubt that this injunction was obeyed when the
children of Israel under Joshua went over the
Jordan, and conquered Palestine. If, then, Abra
ham has not yet received the promise, then his
seed came into the possession, not after him, as
Stephen declares, but before him. We might say

"LIFE" IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 321
more; but this is a sufficient reply to an inter
pretation which is literal only in so far as it is
convenient so to be. It is only, the resort of des
peration to claim that reference is had to the
resurrection as securing the continuation of the
lhe interrupted at death. The Old Testament
says almost nothing about- the resurrection. No
intimation of it can be found in any of these
passages. Nor can the other school of annihilationists
derive any argument from these passages. They
admit that the existence of the wicked is not ter
minated at death. Yet everywhere, in the pas
sages cited, "life" is constantly set over against
"death." If "life" means merely the continu
ance of existence, then "death" must mean the
cessation of existence. The only escape from the
dilemma is to make " death " mean, not the first,
but the second death, — a conception and form of
expression utterly unknown to the Old Testament.
All difficulty vanishes when we simply assume,
what can hardly escape any careful reader of the
Bible, that "life," even where it refers to the con
tinuance of lhe, does not denote mere existence,
but a happy existence in fellowship with God, —
the opposite of which is death, which consigns
men to gloomy imprisonment in Sheol, but not to
non-existence.

322 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.

CHAPTER XIII.
DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
DEATH being antithetic to life, it is to be ex
pected that whatever figurative use may be
made of the latter term will be made also of the
other. In examining the biblical doctrine on this
point, we make the following observations : —
1. As life is represented to be the present con
dition of the regenerate, so death is described in
the Bible as the present condition of sinners.
The spiritual state of the unregenerate is desig
nated by a term which is opposite to the one by
which the state of the regenerate is designated.
Men are said to be spiritually dead before they
are physically dead. The following passages
illustrate this statement : —
In Matt. vhi. 22, Luke ix. 60, Christ says to the
man who wished to go and bury his father, " Let
the dead bury their dead." It is clear that the
word " dead " in the first instance has a different
sense from what it has in the second. The com
mon and obvious interpretation is, that - Christ
means, "Let those who are religiously Iheless

DEATH A PRESENT STATE. 323
bury those who are physically Iheless." It is
equally obvious that the word is used in the same
sense in Eph. ii. 1, 5 : " You hath he quickened
who were dead in [through] trespasses and sins.
. . . God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love
wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead
in [through] sins, hath quickened us [made us
ahve] together with Christ." So in the parallel
passage, Col. ii. 13, " You, being dead in [through]
your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh,
hath he. quickened [made alive] together with him
[Christ]." So Rev. iii. 1, "Thou hast a name
that thou livest, and art dead." Jude 12, " These
are . . . trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit,
twice dead, plucked up by the roots." Any ordi
nary reader would naturally understand these
phrases to be figurative designations of the ab
sence of religious vitahty. Even Dr. Ives (pp.
21, 22) admits that in the first two passages and
1 Tim. v. 6 the word " dead " is used figuratively,
though he does not define in what sense he under
stands it to be used.
But Mr. White, appealing to Gen. xx. 3, Exod.
xii. 33, 2 Sam. xix. 28 (see p. 265), attempts to
transfer the figure from the word to the tense
(p. 281) ; that is, he holds that men are called dead
proleptically, the present tense being put for the
future. But, in the first place, such an interpreta
tion, even if possible, is exceedingly forced. The
passages referred to fQr proof are not parallel.

324 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
When this figure of prolepsis is used, the connec
tion always makes it obvious that it is used.
Where the figure consists only in putting one
tense for another, the whole force of it is lost if
there is any doubt respecting it. When the
Egyptians, in their fright over the death of the
first-born, are said to have exclaimed, " We be all
dead men ! " it is perfectly obvious from the con
nection that this is only an emphatic mode of
expressing the imminent danger of death. But
when Paul says, "You who were dead hath he
made alive," there is certainly nothing obviously
requiring the assumption of such a figure : on
the contrary, no one would think of such an
explanation, unless driven to it by the exigencies
of a theory. Moreover, life and death are here
confessedly antithetic. If, as Mr. White assumes,
"dead" means "certain to die," then "alive"
must mean " certain to live." But the Christians
were already alive in the literal (physical) sense.
The theory must, therefore, take " alive " to mean
" certain to live forever." Furthermore, " dead "
cannot, on this theory, refer to hteral (physical)
death : it must be made to mean " certain to be
finally exterminated." At the best, therefore, the
literal sense of " dead," to maintain which the
theory of prolepsis is resorted to, has to be aban
doned after all. The controversy is reduced to
the question, whether we shall assume one tropical
meaning with the prolepsis added, or another

NO PROLEPSIS ALLOWABLE. 325
tropical meaning with the prolepsis omitted. But
this is not all. We must add, in the second place,
that Mr. White's explanation is in some cases
impossible. Thus, in Col. ii. 13, the Christians
are not only said to have been dead, but to have
been already made ahve. But how has Christ
made them alive ? Paul answers, " Maving for
given you all trespasses." Previously, also, the
readers are described as those who "have re
ceived" Christ Jesus the Lord (ver. 6), as being
already " complete in him " (ver. 10), " buried
with him," and "risen with him." In fact,
throughout the chapter, Paul is describing the
past and present condition of the readers. The
phrases " dead " and " made alive " are inter
woven with the others in such a way as absolutely
to exclude any attempt to single them out from
all the rest as being proleptic references to the
future. The correctness of our interpretation of these
passages is further illustrated by the similar one,
1 Tim. v. 6 : " She that liveth in pleasure is dead
while she liveth." Here the death and life are
made simultaneous. They cannot be antithetic in
the same sense as above, where the life succeeds
and replaces the death. Here obviously " liveth "
is to be understood literally. It is as obvious that
" dead " cannot be understood literally. But if
we resort to the theory of prolepsis, as Mr. White
does, we not only, as before, fail to save the liter-

326 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
alness of the death, but we also obliterate the fine
force of the apostle's paradox. If " dead " means
merely " certain to die," then the addition, " while
she is living," instead of having any rhetorical
force, becomes a vapid superfluity. Of course the
danger or certainty of dying could come only
while she was living.
This same sphitual sense belongs to the word
"death" as used in John v. 24, 25: "He that
heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent
me, . . . is passed from death unto life. Verily,
verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and
now is, when the dead shah hear the voice of the
Son of God ; and they that hear shall live." 1 So
in the parahel passage, 1 John hi. 14 : " We know
that we have passed from death unto hfe, because
we love the brethren. He that loveth not his
brother abideth in death." It would be almost
impossible more strongly to describe death as a
present condition of the unregenerate than is done
1 The phrase "now is" shows conclusively that ver. 25 does
not refer to the final resurrection. Even Dr. Ives admits this.
But how does he explain the statement ? "In that passing
hour," he says, "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 "
(p. 156). But the previous verse refutes this: there Christ repre
sents the life which follows death to be the result of hearing his
word, and believing on Him that sent him. This is manifestly not
the resurrection. Accordingly, when he goes on to say that the
hour now is when the dead shall hear his voice, and they that hear
shall live, it is obvious that he has the same thing in mind. Of
course the class specified in the latter clause is not identical with

BIBLICAL DEFINITION OF DEATH. 327
in these passages. When a man believes, he is
said to pass from death unto hfe. If he refuses
to believe, and continues in the indulgence of
wickedness, he "abideth in death." When we
consider how frequently John describes the Chris
tian state as a state of life, this form of expres
sion, in itself almost perfectly incapable of being
twisted into meaning any thing else than that the
death spoken of is a present reality, cannot but
be understood to assert that the man who hates
his brother, so long as he continues in that frame
of mind, is in a state which is cahed death.
Paul likewise describes this death as a present
condition when he says, "To be carnally-minded
is death " (Rom. vih. 6). This is a definition of
spiritual death. According to Paul, it is not ex
termination, but it is carnal-mindedness. It is the
opposite of " hfe," which, in the same verse, is de
scribed as synonymous with having a spiritual
mind. the one denoted by the other. Christ means to say the dead
shall hear his voice, and those of the dead who hear (i.e., who
give heed) shall live. If he meant that all who hear shall live,
he would simply have said, " The dead shall hear his voice, and
shall live." Dr. Ives's effort to make this verse also refer to the
first resurrection (Rev. xx. 5), at which some of the dead, but
not all, shall be awakened to life, is too contrary to the plain
language of the verse to be entertained for a moment. Not only
does this contradict the assertion involved in the phrase "now
is," but it cannot be reconciled with yer. 28, where the resurrec
tion is spoken of. It would make Christ virtually say, " Marvel
not that I shall raise the dead; for the hour is coming when I
shaU raise all the dead " I

328 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
The same conception is involved in Eph. v. 14 :
"Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the
dead, and Christ shall give thee light." Here two
figures are employed ; but, as death is often called
a sleep, the two blend into one, and we simply
find the state of spiritual inertness called death.
The meaning is none the less clear for the fact
that the form of expression is somewhat more rhe
torical than the others. Here, as in Eph. ii. 5, Col.
ii. 13, the beginning of the new lhe is pictured in
language suggested by the doctrine of the resur
rection. It is difficult to conjecture by Avhat exe
getical legerdemain the obvious meaning of this
passage can be explained away.
2. More frequently, however, when " death " is
used as a designation of the sinner's state, it has
reference to his future or ultimate state. That the
spiritual condition which precedes regeneration
should be called " death " less frequently than the
regenerate state itseh is called " life " is just what
might be expected when we consider the figurative
and literal meaning of these terms. In so far as
regeneration is called lhe, it is compared with the
beginning of the natural life. Now, this natural
lhe is not preceded by physical death ; but the lhe
is an absolute beginning. Accordingly, it is not a
.necessary consequence of that figurative designa
tion of the regenerate state that the unregenerate
state should be called death ; though, as we have
seen, it is often so called. But, as physical death

DEATH AS A FUTURE STATE. 329
is the climax and culmination of physical evils, the
term " death " is very naturally used in a figurative
way to denote the consummate ruin of spiritual
health. As we have already remarked, however,
in relation to the double use of " life," so we may
say of the antithetic term, that there is no incon
sistency in designating, by one and the same word,
a wicked state of the heart, and the evil which is
to be visited upon the wicked person. Spiritual
deadness and ruin in the future life will be both
the continuation and the retribution of a sinful
character on the earth. Hence we may distinguish
two aspects under which death, as a future condi
tion, is presented.
a. Death is sometimes described as the natural
result of wicked conduct. In this aspect the ulti
mate state is the consummation of the present state.
Thus James says (i. 15), " Sin, when it is finished,
bringeth forth death." Here death is called the
product of sin, — its natural result. So Paul
(Rom. vi. 16) and John (1 John v. 16, 17) speak
of sin as being "unto death," — a phrase implying
that death is that to which sin tends. In Rom. vii.
5, likewise, " the motions of sins " are said to
" work in our members to bring forth fruit unto
death;" and in ver. 13 sin is said to "work a
death." In 2 Cor. vii. 10 it is said that " the sor
row of the world worketh death." In these cases
the figure is derived from physical death as pro
duced by the natural operation of physical causes.

330 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
b. But death, in the literal sense, has another
meaning. It is not merely the natural result of
natural causes : it is often a violent infliction; it is
a penalty visited upon a culprit. Hence, in the
spiritual sense, death is sometimes represented as
a retribution. This notion is involved in Paul's
language, Rom. vi. 23 : " The wages of sin is death."
It is found also in Ezek. xviii. 4, 20 : " The soul
that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear
the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father
bear the iniquity of the son." It is found (whether
in the literal or the figurative sense of death we
will not now try to determine) in Gen. ii. 17 : " In
the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely
die." In other passages the form of expression dcjes
not so clearly decide whether death is represented
as the natural result, or as the punitive retribution,
of sin. E.g., John viii. 21, 24, " Ye shall die in your
sins. ... If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall
die in your sins." Rom. vi. 21, " The end of those
things is death ; " viii. 2, " The law of the spirit of
life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the
law of sin and death." Jas. v. 20, " He which
converteth a sinner from the error of his ways
shah save a soul from death."
It is a very significant fact that the same term
should be used in this twofold sense. While it is
impossible to evade the conclusion that the doom
of the sinner is described in the Bible as a positive

SIN ITS OWN PUNISHMENT. 331
punishment, divinely inflicted, and therefore as
something more than the mere result naturally fol
lowing from the commission of sin, yet the use of
the word "death" — the same word which also
describes the sinful state — to designate that doom,
and the fact that Avhen used of the future state it
is often so used as to convey the impression that
it is a natural result of sin, — this is of great im
portance, as indicating, that, according to the Bible,
sin is, to a great extent at least, its own punish
ment. In the Old Testament the same words
which are commonly rendered " sin " (hhattath,
hhataah, &c.) and "iniquity" ('avon) also some
times denote the punishment of sin. E.g., Zech.
xiv. 19, " This shall be the punishment [hhattath]
of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that
come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles."
Gen. iv. 13, " My punishment ['«y<m] is greater
than I can bear." Moreover, sin is directly called
its own avenger. E.g., Num. xxxii. 23, " Be sure
your sin will find you out." Ps. xl. 12, " Innu
merable evhs have compassed me about: mine
iniquities have taken hold of me " (more exactly,
"have overtaken me"). Cf. Ps. xxxviii. 4. Some
what the same conception is involved when the
sinner is described as enslaved to sin (John viii.
34 ; Rom. vi. 6, 17, vii. 14). Sin is a tyrant, ex
acting hard service.
When death, as the punishment of sin, is set
forth in the Bible, it is more often described by the

332 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
use of other synonymous terms, especially "de
struction," "perish," &c. Sinners are said to be
" punished with everlasting destruction " (2 Thess.
i. 9), and to be " reserved unto fire against the
day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men "
(2 Pet. iii. 7). There is, however, no radical dif
ference in the thing so described and that described
by the term "death." Even this destruction is
sometimes spoken of as if it were merely the nat
ural result, rather than the supernatural retribu
tion, of a wicked life. E.g., Matt. vii. 13, " Broad
is the way that leadeth to destruction." Luke ix.
25, " What is a man advantaged if he gain the
whole world, and lose [destroy] himself?" On
the other hand it is pictured as a divine infliction,
coming even as a " sudden " (1 Thess. v. 3) and
" swift " (2 Pet. h. 1) destruction. It is also
represented as a being cast into consuming fire
(Matt. xiii. 42, xxv. 41 ; Mark ix. 43 ; Rev. xx.
15). _
This latter form of description is sometimes re
garded as showing that punitive death is extermi
nation of being. But it is fatal to this argument
that " destruction," so far from being limited in its
meaning to the specific notion of the final doom
of sinners as divinely inflicted, is also described
(as above observed) as a self-inflicted evil, and
(Avhat is still more significant) as a condition pre
ceding even physical death. The Enghsh version
often obscures this fact. Thus-, in Luke xix. 10,

DESTRUCTION AS A PRESENT THING. 333
Christ says, " The Son of man is come to seek
and to save that which Avas lost " (apololos, the per
fect participle of the verb, elseAvhere commonly
rendered, when transitive, " destroy," and, when
intransitiAre, " perish "). Here sinners are declared
to be destroyed in this life. But it is a destruc
tion which is not only not actual extermination,
but is not even a state which is certain to lead to
extermination; for Christ says that he came to
save them. In another form the same idea appears
in 1 Cor. i. 18, where Paul says, " The preaching
of the cross is to them that perish foolishness."
Here the present passive participle of the same
verb (apollumi) is used ; and a more exact render
ing would be, " to them that are being destroyed."
The opposite class are in like manner described
as those who are " being saved." The same an
tithesis appears in 2 Cor. ii. 15 : " We are unto
God a sweet savor of Christ in them that are
being saved, and in them that are being destroyed."
So again in 2 Cor. iv. 3, " If our gospel be hid, it
is hid to [among] them that are lost [being de
stroyed]." Also in 2 Thess. ii. 10, " With all de-
ceivableness of unrighteousness in them that per
ish [are being destroyed]." According to these
representations, destruction, in the spiritual sense,
is not merely something confined to the future
world, and there to be suddenly and finally in
flicted: it is also a state or process characterizing
the impenitent man throughout his lhe.

334 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
3. It is fitting at this point, in connection with
the topic of death considered as a divine and posi
tive infliction,~to make some observations on the
subject of the natural mortality of man. Anni
hilationists of every school lay it clown as a funda
mental and all-important point in their argument,
that neither reason nor the Bible shows that the
soul is inherently immortal ; that, on the contrary,
man is described in the Scriptures as being natu
rally perishable, like the brute. They attach great
importance to this point, as reversing what has
commonly been regarded as the presumption in
the case. Now, it whl have been noticed that we
have waged no discussion on this question. We
have made no affirmation that either the Bible or
reason establishes the doctrine of the essential
indestructibility of the soul. But we have a right
to hold the advocates of the opposite doctrine to
a somewhat rigid accountabhity as to their own
doctrine in this matter ; for they always make this
a fundamental point in theh reasonings. What,
then, do they hold ? Dr. Ives, and those of his
school, of course, hold that the soul not only is
mortal, but actually becomes extinct when the body
dies, being in fact identical with the body. Others
hold that the soul survives the death of the body.
But these, again, are not agreed in their statements.
According to some, the soul is miraculously pre
served in existence, though naturally inclined to
become extinct at the death of the body. Accord-

NATURAL MORTALITY : MR. HUDSON'S VIEW. 335
"ing to others, the soul has a sort of inherent vital
ity which enables it to continue a long time, though
sin may at" last reduce it to nonentity. This
seems to be Mr. Hudson's view when he says
("Christ Our Life," p. 76), "Who knows that
sin, separating the creature from the Fountain of
Life, may not be either a process of, or reason for,
a proper death ? " He seems, however, to have had
no well-defined or positive opinion. A "process
of " death is a very different thing from a " reason
for " death. In his " Debt and Grace " (p. 242),
in reference to the question, " whether the soul is
naturahy mortal or immortal," he says that " it
may be difficult to answer " it " if nature be abso
lutely distinguished from three other things, — mir
acle, judgment, and grace." He goes on to say,
however, that, " as man was created for immortal
ity, so that his endless lhe should come about in
the proper course of things, it was as natural as
it was proper ; and death may be regarded as un
natural, because judgment overrules nature. Yet,
if the forfeited boon is recovered both by special
power and as a special favor, we ought not so to
speak of man as naturally immortal as to overlook
the important fact of the redemption : and it will-
be better to say that man was made for immortal
ity ; or, with the early Christians, that his nature
is intermediate ; or, better still, that he is immor
tal by grace." His real opinion, so far as we can
gather it from these wavering statements, seems

336 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
to be, that, if man had remained holy, he would,
" in the proper course of things," — i.e., naturally,
— have continued in existence. The death of the
sinner is a "judgment "which " overrules nature."
Yet this comes at the conclusion of a chapter
devoted to a review and refutation of the several
arguments from reason for the immortality of the
soul. If, now, the doom of extinction is one which
" overrules nature," then this implies the natural
immortality of the soul as distinctly as any one
need care to affirm it. No intelligent man, nowa
days at least, would think of denying God's power
to annihilate the human soul. If sin is a sufficient
" reason for " such extinction, and if the Bible af
firms that it is really inflicted, this does not mili
tate against any reasonable doctrine of the soul's
natural immortality.
Mr. White's doctrine is somewhat different. He
denies (p. 117) that man is naturally immortal in
any sense. He holds (p. 100) that man was
" placed on probation in order to become " immor
tal. " The prospect of ' living forever ' by the help
of the ' tree of life ' was open to him upon the con
dition- of obedience." Just what would have hap
pened if Adam had obeyed, and yet had not eaten
of the tree of life, does not appear. Still the exclu
sion of Adam from all access to the tree is under
stood to be a direct act of divine power, put forth
in order that, " having chosen the creature rather
than the Creator, he should not possess that im-

MR. WHITE ON NATURAL MORTALITY. 337
mortal life, which, under the divine will, access
to the tree of life Avould have sealed to him in
obedience " (Ibid.). The threat, "In the day that
thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die " (Gen.
ii. 17), Mr. White says, must have meant, and
must by Adam have been understood to mean,
"immediate destruction" (p. 102). The subse
quent prolongation of his life was due to the fact
that " the action of redemption began at once to
unfold itself " (p. 116).
Now, in reference to all this, it is obvious to
remark, that, since holiness is undoubtedly the
normal and natural condition of man, — considered
as first created in the image of God, — and sinful
ness an abnormal and unnatural development of
human character, it is strange indeed that a natural
and normal action of the whl of man should have
counteracted a natural tendency to death ; in other
words, that the natural mortality of the soul should
be attained only by an unnatural action of the
soul. This is made all the stranger when we are
told, that, even after the sin, the threatened death
was not inflicted. The threatened death, it is
maintained, must have meant immediate and total
destruction, because Adam, from his observation
of animate nature, could have had no other idea of
it (p. 102). Yet this death, we are told, was sus
pended on account of the action of a redemption,
of which, so far as we know, no communication
was made to Adam. If, then, Adam could under-

338 DEATH, -THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
stand death to mean but one thing, — viz., total
extermination, — and yet found that the threat of
immediate death was not executed, what other
conclusion could he draw than that God had told
a lie, and the serpent had told the truth ?
Mr. Pettingell involves himself in a similar
dilemma. " We contend," he says, " that men, by
nature, are mortal and transitory ; that death,
since the fall, is a natural process ; and that im
mortality and eternal life are only offered them in
the gospel " (p. 34). " Reason, nature, and Scrip
ture all unite in declaring that our life is a condi
tional life ; that we must obey God if we would
live ; that we must preserve our normal state (or
be restored to it), or, like every thing else in
nature, come to certain ruin ; that purity and
blessedness are necessary, in the very nature of
things, to perpetuity of existence ; that there is
something in the nature of sin, which, like disease
or corroding leprosy, . . . will inevitably (unless
eradicated) work the utter ruin of the soul into
which it has entered" (p. 71). What is meant,
now, by saying that death is the natural lot of
men ? We are told, that, " since the fall," it is
natural ; the implication being, that, except for the
fall, it would not have been natural for the soul to
come to an end. This conclusion is confirmed
when extermination is represented as resulting
from something in the " nature of sin," which, as
being a sort of " disease," " works the utter ruin of

MR. PETTINGELL ON NATURAL MORTALITY. 339
the soul." If it is sin that effects this ruin, then
it is to be supposed, that, if sinless, men would
naturally continue in existence perpetually. In
short, the normal and natural destiny of man,
according to Mr. Pettingell himself, is immortality.
What, then, does he mean, when he says that we
must preserve our normal state, or, " like every
thing else in nature, come to certain ruin " ? Is it
meant that every thing in nature is in an abnormal
state ? If not, if brutes and trees come to an end,
notwithstanding that they preserve their normal
state, then what is the point of this comparison?
But this is not ah. Mr. Pettingell teaches (p.
118), that, when man loses his spiritual life, " there
remains to him only the soul and the body ; and
these he has in common with the lower animals."
Accordingly, the unregenerate sinner dies like the
brute. If he continues in existence after life is
departed, this is only " a lingering moribund vital
ity, such as a hmb of a tree has after it is severed
from the source of its life, or as the animal body
exhibits after the vital spark has fled" (p. 120).
And yet Mr. Pettingell holds that this " moribund
vitahty " is continued indefinitely by an exercise
of divine power ; that the soul is finally united to
a new body at the resurrection ; that the person is
capable of, and receives, severe pain in the future
state ; and that, in consequence of this, he ulti
mately undergoes a "second death," which is
extinction (pp. 120, 144). Thus ah this grand sub-

340 DEATH, -THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
structure for his argument, consisting in the doc
trine of the natural mortality of the soul, comes to
nothing. The first death, which is asserted to be
like that of trees and brutes, is utterly unlike it,
since it not only leaves a "moribund vitality"
which continues for thousands of years, but, in
order to the accomplishment of its proper end
(annihilation), has to be supplemented by a second
death ; which comes, moreover, by no process of
nature, nor, as he elsewhere affirms, by the natural
working of sin, but by a supernatural infliction of
dhdne power !
This is bad enough ; but it is not the worst. On
p. 122 he discusses the question, "What would
have been the fortunes of the human race had
there been no sin, and no loss of spiritual life ? "
And his ansAver is thus indicated : " By what
means were they [Adam and Eve] to rise to that
higher celestial life, that ' life and immortality ' that
are brought to light in the gospel ? May we not
inquire whether they could have been qualified
for this but by a knowledge of good and evil;
whether they could have risen to that life aboAre
without first having gone down to death through
the sad experience of sin?" Truly, this passes
comprehension. "Purity," we are told, "is the
soul's normal condition," and its " preservation is
absolutely essential to eternal life " (p. 91) ; and
yet the loss of this purity, the " sad experience of
sin," is also essential to the attainment of " that

DR. IVES ON NATURAL MORTALITY. 341
higher celestial life " ! It is the author of such
absurdities and self-contradictions, who, in his
most charitable mood towards orthodox Christians,
feels compelled to groan out, " Oh their logic ! "
(p. 75.)
Dr. Ives has a similar, yet not the same, concep
tion of this matter. According to him, man was
created essentially perishable, like the brute, but
with the offer of endless existence, to be obtained
by obedience. When Adam sinned, however, he
was sent out of Paradise in order "to take from
him the power to thwart that sentence of death by
a continuous eating of the tree of life " (p. 128).
It would appear from this that Adam would have
secured immortality by continuing to eat of the
tree . of hfe, if he could only have got at it, not
withstanding his disobedience, and notwithstand
ing the divine threat. That is, while we are
expressly told that eternal lhe had been held out
to Adam as the "reward of obedience," it is now
affir,med that an act of disobedience would have
secured the same reward, if Adam had only not
been by force made unable to commit the act of
disobedience ! If Adam had eaten of the tree con
tinuously, he would have " thwarted " the divine
sentence of death! That is, the tree had more
power than the omnipotent God himself! God
could not put Adam to death so long as he kept
eating of the tree of life ! This is the inevitable
inference from Dr. Ives's statement above quoted.

342 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
If God could have put Adam to death, even though
he -had continued to eat of the tree, then such eat
ing would not have " thwarted - the sentence of
death." Although, however, this tree was able, if
used, to annul a divine decree, and defy divine
omnipotence, yet, fortunately, God was able to
keep Adam from obtaining access to the tree ; and
so he managed to fulfil his threat. Threat, we say ;
and yet at this point we are informed, that, in
the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the garden,
"the infinite mercy of the Almighty thus mani
fested itself, keeping the tree of life from the
sinning, to whom endless existence were an endless
curse " (p. 137). So, then, it seems that death
was threatened as the penalty of disobedience ;
but, as soon as this penalty was incurred by actual
disobedience, the sentence is executed, not as an
act of punishment, but as an act of mercy ! From
all this we gather that Adam would not have been
immortal, even if obedient, unless he had eaten of
the tree of life; and inasmuch as, notwithstanding
his disobedience, he lived more than nine hundred
years, it would seem that the threat of immediate
death was, after all, nothing but a threat. But
this is not all. If the soul of man was naturally
mortal, then the mortality did not result from the
sin. Yet, iu the first and principal affirmation on
the subject of man's mortality in the primitive
history of man (Gen. ii. 17), it is implied that the
death was to be, not a natural experience, but a

MEANING OF GEN. III. 22. 343
supernatural infliction conditioned on sin. And
the only statement concerning immortality is
found in Gen. iii. 22 ; where, however, immortality
is not promised as a blessing conditioned on obedi
ence, but is indirectly spoken of as a boon which
might be secured even without obedience. Ac
cording to the doctrine of conditional immortality,
which, Dr. Ives says, appears as the fundamental
truth of revelation at the very outset (p. 126), in
stead of the threat of death to be visited upon
disobedience (a death which would come at any
rate, unless supernaturahy averted), there should
rather have been a promise of life as the reward of
obedience ; but there is nothing of the sort.1
With all the crudities and inconsistencies which
are intermingled with Dr. Ives's discussion of this
theme, he is yet more true to his fundamental doc-
1 If it is asked what the statements concerning the threatened
death of Adam and the effect of eating of the tree of life (Gen.
ii. 17 ; iii. 22) do mean, we reply, that, while some degree of ob
scurity must always rest upon them, the most reasonable view is
this: From the name, "tree of life," it cannot be inferred that
immortality would result from eating the fruit, any more than
from the name of the other tree, the " tree of knowledge of good
and evil," it could be inferred that its fruit had the power of
magically conferring intelligence. In the latter case the narra
tive itself clearly shows that it was not the eating as such, but
the disobedience in eating, which produced the knowledge. It is
only the indirect allusion to immortality in iii. 22, as attainable
by eating of the other tree, that gives any suggestion that the
fruit of it had the peculiar property of conferring immortality.
But the analogy of the tree of knowledge makes it most probable
that both trees had a symbolic or sacramental object. They stood
as outward signs of the promise and warning addressed to Adam

344 DEATH, -THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
trine of the essential perishableness of man than
the others. In his view, immortality for the first
pair could only be secured by eating a certain
fruit ; while for other men a resurrection from the
dead, effected by divine power, is necessary. Mr.
White, however, while theoretically insisting that
men naturally pass into non-existence, like the
brutes, yet practically holds to the opposite doc
trine, that the human soul has an inherent ten
dency to persistence. For it makes no real differ
ence whether the post-mortem existence of the
soul is due (as he affirms, p. 96) to God's work in
Christ's redemption, or to God's sovereign power
exercised in any other way. That any thing con
tinues to exist at all is due ultimately to the sus
taining power of God ; yet we none the less think
and speak of some things as having a stronger
and Eve. Whether, in case of obedience, they would have en
joyed physical immortality (which is not very probable), or
would (as is more probable) have undergone some kind of physi
cal transformation, the narrative does not tell us. But, when
they sinned, it was necessary to remove them from that tree
which had been to them the visible symbol of the divine promise
and favor. As they might naturally be inclined to grasp at the
mere symbol, as if the eating of the fruit could actually confer
only what it was designed to symbolize, it was necessary to the
complete execution of the divine threat that they should be kept
from all access to it. Those who press the phraseology of the
verse to a literal interpretation, and insist that the fruit had the
property of conferring immortality even in spite of the disobedi
ence, are logically bound to be as gross in their literalism in
interpreting the first part of the verse, and understand that as
affirming that the act of disobedience had literally transformed
Adam and Eve into a state of divinity.

INCONSISTENCY OF ANNIHILATIONISTS. 345
inherent durability than others. The hard granite
rock continues unchanged for centuries : the soap-
bubble gleams but for a few moments. We simply
infer from the fact of persistence the inherent
quality of persistence. That the soul does con
tinue in existence indefinitely must, according to
all analogy, be taken as a proof that God, in mak
ing it, endowed it with the quality of persistence.
This seems all the more reasonable on Mr. White's
theory, inasmuch as he holds that the wicked are
all destroyed together after ' the final judgment :
that is, those who Avill then but just have closed
theh physical life whl be (or, at least, begin to be)
exterminated at the same time with those who
have been passing a miserable existence in Hades
for thousands or millions of years. The end, when
it does come, is not a natural dissolution of the
elements of the soul, but a positive and punitive
infliction. This is utterly inconsistent with any
rational doctrine of the soul's natural mortality.
The doctrine that the soul, like the body, has, by
natural constitution, its youth, its maturity, and its
decay ; or the doctrine that sin has a wasting effect
on the soul, issuing in its gradual and ultimate ex
tinction, — either of these doctrines might reason
ably be believed on philosophical grounds, and the
first can be consistently maintained by one who
argues that the human soul is inherently perish
able. But he who holds that no soul is extermi
nated except by a direct and punitive infliction of

346 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
divine power virtually implies that the tendency
of the soul is to continue indefinitely, or even
eternally, in existence.
As for Mr. Hudson, he is hardly consistent with
himself. After having said that " death [as he is
here speaking of the soul especially, he must refer
to the final extinction of the soul] may be re
garded as unnatural, because judgment overrules
nature " (" Debt and Grace," p. 242), he says, in
treating of the resurrection of unbelievers, that
" it is hard to believe that they are raised up by a
miracle that ends in their destruction, or that ac
complishes nothing but a judgment, which, in this
view, must appear simply vindictive " (p. 263).
Hence he concludes that perhaps the souls of de
ceased unbelievers are kept in existence by the
influence of such truths as their souls have heard,
though not accepted; so that, "for judgment, it is
as if the unjust, hearing the voice of God in the
last call to life, should be putting on a glorious in-
corruption, and should perish in the act " (p. 264).
The most charitable comment to make on this is,
that it is the desperate conjecture of one whose
good sense and refined feeling revolt from the
logical result of his own theory. That in spite of
the scores of passages referred to by himself, in
Avhich the final destruction of men is described as
inflicted by an act of divine retribution, he should
describe it as nothing but an expiring struggle on
the part of the unsanctified soul after a purer and

NATURAL MORTALITY NOT PROVED. 347
nobler form of existence, and that this, neverthe
less, should be called the "judgment" which
"overrules nature," is something simply marvel
lous. The point to which we have been tending is
this : The argument for the doctrine of conditional
immortality, made so prominent by all its advo
cates, — viz., that man is naturally mortal, — is
not consistently held by any one, not even by the
thorough-going materialists. The fact that both
men and brutes are designated by the same term
nephesh hhayyah (living soul, living creature, &c),
if it proves any thing to the point, proves that the
first death puts an absolute end to the soul, or
even that men have no higher spiritual nature
than the brute. But, so long as one admits that
the soul survives the death of the body, he therein
asserts a radical distinction between the nature of
man and that of the brutes. He may hold that
the soul is miraculously preserved in existence;
but this is a mere theory, invented to save consist
ency, and without any support in reason or reve
lation. He may hold that the soul, though not
dying with the body, yet has its natural growth,
maturity, and decline ; or at least that sin has
brought the soul into a perishable state, so that it
will gradually come to nought. But these are
mere speculations. From the analogy of brute lhe
no argument can be drawn at all, unless the soul
dies with the body. From the analogy of physical

348 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
life no argument can be drawn ; for there is no
known analogy between a bodily organism and a
disembodied spirit as to this matter of natural
maturity and decay. No argument can be drawn
even from the destructive effect of sin upon the
soul; for there is no evidence that sin has any
tendency to annihilate personal existence. In
short, whoever rejects the materialistic doctrine,
that men, like the brutes, become absolutely and
finally extinct at death, has no proof of the essen
tial mortality of the human soul except the merest
conjecture, unless that proof is found in positive
biblical statements that human existence is termi
nated by natural law. And this evidence from the
Bible cannot be found. For on the assumption
that the soul survives the death of the body, even
if the destruction threatened against sinners is
annihilation, it is yet something denounced as a
positive and penal infliction. It is visited upon all
men at the same time, however great the difference
in the age of the sinning souls: it is therefore
clearly something which does not result from the
natural constitution of the soul, nor even from the
natural effect of sin upon it.
4. HaA'ing disposed of this presumptive argu
ment, of which so much is made, we are brought
back to the simple exegetical question, whether
the threatened death is absolute extermination of
being. The chief argument advanced in proof of
the affirmative is, that the Yeiy word " death," in

THE LITERAL SENSE OF "DEATH." 349
its literal and obvious sense, means the termina
tion of existence. To this we reply : —
a. The same term, as we have abundantly
shown, is used concerning the spiritual condition
of men before the first death. If, as used of the
future state, it denotes extinction of being, then it
is used in two radically distinct senses in describing
the sinner's condition in relation to God. This
being the case, all argument derived from the
alleged uniform literal sense of the word is over
thrown. b. But this assumption concerning the literal
sense of "death" is, as we have shown, utterly
erroneous. In the literal sense the word denotes
the loss of vitality. It is true, that, in the case of
the physical organism, this loss of vitality is fol
lowed by the decay and destruction of the organ
ism; but the two conceptions are, nevertheless,
distinct. c. If, however, it is argued, that as the death of
the body is followed by the dissolution of the
bodily organism, so the death of the soul must be
followed by the extinction of the soul's existence,
we reply : It is, at the best, a tropical use of lan
guage to apply the terms " lhe " and " death " to
the soul considered as distinct from the body.
The soul is not a physical organism, and there
fore cannot be called vital in the literal sense ; for
it is only of physical organisms that life in the literal
sense can be predicated. The organism, as an or-

350 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
ganism, falls into decay and extinction because
deprived of the vital principle. But the soul, as
mere soul, is not an organism possessed of a vital
principle, the loss of which causes the soul gradu
ally to fall to pieces. It is only when " life " is
assumed to be synonymous with " existence " that
there is any plausibility in this analogy. And
even then there is none ; for it would be the height
of absurdity to say that the soul (considered as an
organism), after being deprived of its existence,
passes gradually into non-existence. So, then, we
must come back to the notion of vitality. But
the vitality of the soul, if we may use such a
phrase at all, is a figurative vitality. There is,
therefore, not the least reason to assume, that, as a
matter of course, the loss of this figurative vitality
must be followed by literal extinction, as is the
case with the body. But all this is, after ah, aside
from the real point. Even if it should be admit
ted that the soul, like the body, is a sort of organ
ism, kept in operation by a sort of vital principle
of its own, distinct from that of the body, sthl the
argument of our opponents amounts to nothing;
for, —
d. Those with whom we are debating do not
hold that the soul, as distinct from the body, is to
undergo the second death. Dr. Ives and those of
his school do not believe that there is any such
soul. According to them, the second death, like
the first, is the extinction of a- physical organism,

LITERAL DEATH IS OF THE BODY ONLY. 351
and nothing else. The foregoing remarks are,
therefore, not especially applicable to them. They
are consistent in adhering to one uniform under
standing of death, as being the dissolution of a
bodily form. Our reply to them has been given
in the former part of this book, in the proof that
the soul, according to the Bible, is something
distinct from the body, and survives the death of
the body. Mr. White, however, and those of his
school, though they believe in an intermediate
state of disembodied souls, yet hold, that, before
the final death, the soul is to be invested with
another body. Since, then, according to them,
the first death only destroys the body, and leaves
the spirit still existent and active, and since they
insist that the second death is genetically like the
first, they are logically bound to assume that the
second death is the death only of the second body,
leaving the sphit still intact. To put the matter
in another form, —
e. Mr. White destroys the foundation of his
OAvn argument by a radical inconsistency in his
definition of death. He attempts to prove the
total extinction of personal being at the second
death by insisting on the proposition that the
literal sense of death is extermination of existence ;
yet he holds that the first death, which is certain
ly a literal death h there is any, is not a total
extinction of being, but that, on the contrary, the
conscious spirit survives the death of the body !

352 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
It is just here that his book is fatally weak. On
p. 95 he argues, that, according to the Bible, the
body " forms an essential element of man's nature ;
and, apart from its destined union with that or
ganism, the animating spirit is not spoken of as
the veritable humanity." Again he says (p. 97),
" The true idea of death is the breaking up of the
human integer. When the complex man is dissolved,
he is dead, no matter what may become of the
component elements of his being." " The dissolu
tion of the integer," he says again (p. 98), "is its
destruction." Thus he attempts to make death
mean as much as possible in the way of extinction
of being; yet, when he comes (p. 295 seq.) to
discuss Mr. Constable's doctrine, that the first
death is a complete annihilation of existence, he
combats it, although apparently feeling that his
main argument would be strengthened if he could
conscientiously adopt it. Still he says, "I am
compelled by the Scriptures to retain the persua
sion of the survival of 'souls ' in death " (p. 309).
And although he has previously represented this
disembodied state as a sadly defective one, as not
a state of " veritable humanity," yet it is this very
disembodied state which (p. 307) he understands
Paul to be speaking of when he expresses a desire
to depart and be with Christ (Phil. i. 23) ; so that,
whether a state of veritable humanity or not, Paul
looked upon it as preferable to the present cor
poreal state.

ALLEGED SUSPENSION OF LITERAL DEATH. 353
Nor is the self-contradiction here involved ma
terially relieved by his theory, that, except for
Christ's resurrection, there would not be even a
temporary survival of souls (p. 96). This doc
trine he applies to the wicked as well as to the
good. In reference to all men he says, " If any
element survive in the first death, it must be at
tributed to the supernatural action of redemption
alone, which operates to the abnormal preservation
of the sphitual essence in the dissolution of the
man, both for judgment and reward" (p. 309).
We do not find that he quotes any Scripture in
proof of this proposition, except 1 Cor. xv. 17, 18
(pp. 96, 297) ; but this, as we have already (p. 183)
shown, does not at all prove it. Even according to
his own principle of interpretation, it can be made
to prove no more than that Christians are kept in
existence by the redemption. Something may in
deed be said in favor of the proposition that the
resurrection of men is connected with that of
Christ ; but that " the Hades state is, for good and
bad, one of the miraculous results of a new proba
tion " effected by Christ's resurrection (p. 96), is
a doctrine for which it is impossible to find a single
proof-text. But, even if it were proved, nothing is gained as
regards the definition of death ; for this survival of
the soul is assumed to have been effected for all
men, of all races and all ages. In short, according
to Mr. White, all the death which men have ever

354 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
experienced has been this partial death only, — the
death of the body. It avails nothing, therefore, to
assume, that, without Christ, physical death would
have been entire extinction of being. It confess
edly never has been such extinction ; and conse
quently, wherever the Bible speaks of death in the
literal sense, it must have reference, not to that
extinction which might have constituted it except
for Christ's redemption, but to the actual death
which does not by any means involve annihilation,
but rather leaves the most essential element of
humanity intact. This, morever, is just what men
in general, even with no knowledge of Christ, have
assumed death to be. Accordingly, in Mr. White's
system, literal death is something which no man
has ever yet experienced: his literal death is a
purely hypothetical death.
Yet, when he comes to define the penal death
finally inflicted on sinners, he insists that this
death means literal extinction of the soul, — the
end of conscious existence. . No different phrase
ology is used here from what is used in reference to
physical death. This final death' is nowhere even
called eternal death. Yet it is held here to denote
the extinction of the whole being; though the
physical death, which is certainly literal death,
involves only the dissolution and destruction of
the body. Not to insist on what has been already
abundantly shown, — that life does not primarily
denote existence, nor death the end of existence, —

THE FIRST AND THE SECOND DEATH. 355
even on Mr. White's own ground he is involA'ed
in an inextricable self-contradiction. To prove
that 'the wicked are finally annihilated, he appeals
to the literal sense of "death," as meaning the
destruction of conscious existence; and then, Avhen
he is obliged to confess that the Scriptures repre
sent death in the ordinary and primary sense to
be not the destruction of conscious existence, he
satisfies himself with the doctrine (not taught
in the Bible) that death has been miraculously
kept from being literal !
Obviously nothing can serve Mr. White's pur
pose but some biblical proof that the second death,
so far from being the same as the first, is radically
different from it. But the Bible nowhere speaks
of the first death as being miraculously kept from
being what it naturally ought to be ; nor does it
make that distinction between partial and total
extermination which the exigencies of Mr. White's
theory requires. The death which is the final
doom of the sinner is called simply death, and the
other synonymous terms used are used equally of
the physical and the penal death. While it is
said that Christ came in order that men might not
perish (John iii. 15), — i.e., in the penal sense, — it
is also said that Zacharias perished between the altar
and the temple (Luke xi. 51). The same verb
(apollumi) is used of physical death frequently : as
Matt. h. 13, xii. 14 ; Mark iv. 38, ix. 22 ; Luke xiii.
33, &c. While we are warned against the broad

356 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
way that leadeth to destruction (apoleia, Matt. vh.
13), we are informed that it was not the manner
of the Romans to deliver any man to die (literally,
to destruction, eis apoleian, Acts xxv. 16) -1
Mr. White lays great stress on an argument de
rived from Plato's " Phsedo," where Socrates is rep
resented as endeavoring to prove the immortality
of the soul in reply to the doubts of some of his
disciples. He gives (p. 362, seq.) a number of
quotations from the dialogue, prefaced by the
remark concerning the terms used, "They are
precisely the terms generally chosen in the New
Testament to denote the punishment of the wicked ;
with this difference, that Plato says the soul will
1 One passage, indeed, there is, which may seem to assert the
extinction of the soul as distinguished from the body; viz., Matt.
x. 28, " Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill
the soul : but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and
body in hell." Not to insist that a doctrine has a precarious foot
ing which rests on a single passage, it is sufficient to say that even
this passage falls far short of asserting the extermination of the
soul. To derive this doctrine from it is to assume that death (or
destruction) literally and strictly means extermination, — an
assumption which has been abundantly shown to be without
foundation. Even the killing of the body is not identical with
putting an end to its existence. What the destroying of the soul
may be must be inferred from other representations of Scrip
ture. How little, at the best, can be fairly argued from the pas
sage before us,-- may be seen by comparing the parallel passage
(Luke xii. 4, 5), where, after saying, " Be not afraid of them that
kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do," our
Saviour adds, " Fear him which, after he hath killed, hath power
to cast into hell. ' ' Both this passage and the other, taken strictly,
imply that the body which is killed is afterwards cast into hell,
— an absurd representation, if the killing means annihilation,
and one which nobody can adopt.

MR. WHITE'S ARGUMENT FROM PLATO. 357
not suffer thanatos [death], apoleia, olethros [de
struction], pthora [corruption] ; that it is not des
tined to apolesthai, kataphtheiresthai, diaphtheires-
thai, apothneskein [to be destroyed, to perish, die] :
while the New-Testament writers declare that
wicked men shall suffer what is denoted by these
terms " (p. 361). Mr. White intimates (p. 366),
that, unless -these words in the New Testament
denote the annihilation of conscious personality,
the Greek world would have had " to learn a new
Greek language before it could understand the
apostles." But the argument is by no means so
cogent as he seems to esteem it ; for,
(1) In the " Phsedo," the whole point of the dis
cussion relates to the question, whether the soul,
as distinct and separated from the body, retains its
faculties and existence. No one need deny, that,
when the question is thus stated, the conception
of the annihilation of conscious existence might ap
propriately be expressed by the terms above cited,
especiahy when the question is discussed, as it is
in the " Phsedo," from a purely metaphysical, and
not a moral, point of view. But the Bible does not
so present the subject. Mr. White's own language,
above quoted, suggests the difference : " Plato says
the soul will not suffer death ; . . . while the New-
Testament writers declare that wicked men shall
suffer what is denoted by these terms." Moreover,
Plato goes farther than to use the phrases quoted
by Mr. White. The conclusion of Cebes' query

358 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
(the first part of which is given in Mr. White's first
quotation) reads thus : " But much persuasion and
many arguments are required in order to prove,
that, when man is dead, the soul yet exists, and
has any force or intelligence " (Jowett's " Plato," 2d
ed., vol. i. p. 443). Again : the destruction of the
soul is described as a being " dissolved like smoke
or ah" (Ibid.). And Simmias says, "That after
death the soul whl continue to exist [eti estai]
is not yet proven even to my own satisfaction. I
cannot get rid of the feeling of the many to which
Cebes was referring, — the feeling, that, when the
man dies, the soul may be scattered, and that this
may be the end of her " (pp. 452, 453). No such
language can be found in the Bible concerning
the soul. One might indeed quote Rom. vi. 21,
" The end of those things is death." But here
evidently "end" means final result or issue; for
we read in the next Averse, " Ye have your fruit
unto holiness, and the end everlasting life." This
is certainly not annihilation. The same is clearly
the case respecting the similar passage (Phil. iii.
19), " Whose end is destruction." The word " end "
does not define " destruction : " it is simply raid
that the destiny of bad men at the close of this
probation is to be destroyed. What the destruc
tion is must be elsewhere learned.
(2) Inasmuch as the Bible speaks of the penal
or spiritual death as the destruction of the man as
a Avhole, while at the same time the first (physical)

MR. WHITE'S DEFINITION OF " DESTROY." 359
death is described in the same manner, it follows
(as already indicated) that Mr. White's argument
from Plato, if it proves any thing, proves too much :
it proves the annihhation of the whole man at the
first death, and he is logically bound to take the
ground advocated by Mr. Constable and those of
the materiahstic school.
In connection with Mr. White's argument de
rived from the definition of death, we may briefly
notice his definition of apollumi, the Greek word
rendered "destroy." He says it means "thor
oughly to break up the existence of any thing as
an organic unity ; in the case of hving things, to
destroy their hfe " (p. 367). Not to speak of the
looseness involved in speaking of the organic unity
of wiorganic things, we must remark that the defi
nition seems (though doubtless unconsciously) to
have grown out of the writer's own desire to prove
his point. Thus, to mention only one instance of
the use of apollumi : it is used in Matt. ix. 17,
Mark ii. 22, Luke v. 37, with reference to the
bursting of leather bottles ; in the second instance
it is rendered " be marred ; " in the others, " per
ish." Any thing may be said to be destroyed
which is so injured as not to serve its proper end.
Would Mr. White say, that, when a rent in the
leather bottle has made it unable to hold wine, its
" existence " has been " broken up " ? There is,
therefore, absolutely nothing in the biblical use of
apollumi in the literal sense to warrant us in sup-

360 DEATH, -THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
posing, that, when applied to the human spirit, it
denotes any thing more than such a perversion of
its faculties, such a ruin of its purity and peace, as
renders the spirit incapable of fulfilling its proper
end. The case is made still stronger when Ave
add, that a frequent meaning of apollumi is " lose*; "
as, e.g., when a sheep (Luke xv. 4) or a piece of
money (Luke xv. 8) is said to be lost: so that
apollumi, when applied to the soul, may denote
most prominently its separation from God, — an
" everlasting destruction [olethros, from the same
root as apollumi] from the presence of the Lord "
(2 Thess. i. 9).
Mr. White makes prominent, as an argument
for his doctrine of death, that the death of Christ,
which was endured in order to save us from death,
was literal death; and that, therefore, the death
from which we are delivered must be literal
death also. " The death of the Lord Jesus being
placed in opposition to the impending death of
man, it cannot be supposed that the same term
has diverse significations in the two cases " (p.
242). But the literal death (so called) from
which men are delivered by Christ is, according
to him, utter and final extermination of being. Did
Christ suffer this ? What does Mr. White say to
this objection ? He says, " The objection would
be valid if the Saviour had been simply human.
If Jesus had been the son of David only, he
could not legally have risen from the dead : . . .

ARGUMENT FROM THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 361
he must have suffered everlasting destruction;
his human spirit must have passed aAvay forever.
. . . But the Saviour was divine. As man, iden
tified with human nature, he died, and his death
became a sin-offering: as God he could not die.
. . . And therefore, when the curse had taken
effect upon the manhood, it was still open to the
Divine Inhabitant, absorbing the Spirit into his
own essence, to restore the ' destroyed temple '
from its ruins, and, taking possession of it in vir
tue of his divinity (not legally as a man), 'to
raise it up on the third day.' He arose, therefore,
as the Divine Conqueror of death, ' God over all,
blessed for evermore,' . . . not in the image of
the ' son of Adam,' but as the ' Son of the High
est ; ' having delivered us from wrath by the
death of his humanity, to endow us with immor
tality through the life of his divinity " (pp. 243,
244). The foregoing seems plainly to affirm that the
atonement consisted in Christ's dying only as a
man. In fact, to quote another passage, Mr.
White directly asserts, "The curse of the law
which Christ bore was, as to its essence, and apart
from the accidents of suffering which led to it,
literal death, — a dissolution of his being as a man,
a curse which took no account of the subsequent
destiny of the component elements of his nature "
(p. 241). Again: " The fact that Christ bore this
death [literal dissolution], laid down his life as a

362 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL J3ENSE.
man, shed his blood for our redemption without
suffering in hell beyond, is proof that death in the
Bible signifies the dissolution of humanity, and
that life signifies literal lhe; since it was not
merely his 'happiness,' much less his •' holiness,'
Avhich the Saviour ' laid down for his sheep,' but
his life as a man" (p. 242). It is somewhat sur
prising, after reading such language, to find him
saying, " There is but one way open, say these
God-taught men [the apostles], that sinners, death-
doomed, may obtain life eternal. No innocent
creature must suffer, however willing. God him
self must suffer, in one exceptional sacrifice, if sin
ners are to be saved, and the stability of the
divine government within itself, and over other
minds, is to be preserved. . . . All the language
of Scripture respecting this sacrifice is based upon
this idea of God's sacrificing and suffering for us
as man" (pp. 254, 255).
Comparing now these different declarations, we
learn respecting Christ, that " as God he could not
die," while yet God himself suffered. We learn
that the death from which we are redeemed by
Christ is literal death; i.e., as is assumed, anni
hilation, complete and final, of personal existence.
That which redeems us is also literal death: in
fact, because it is this literal death, the death le
nounced against sinners is inferred to be the same.
Yet, in order that sinners may be saved, " God
himself must suffer," though he cannot die !

WHEREIN CONSISTED THE ATONEMENT?. 363
What does all this mean ? Is the essential thing
in redemption the death of the Son of man, or the
suffering of the Deity himself? If the punish
ment threatened to impenitent sinners is extermi
nation, because Christ died to save us, why may
we not as well assume that the threatened punish
ment is merely suffering, because, to save us, God
had to suffer, but could not die? To this Mr.
White replies, the sinner is to be visited with
both suffering and extermination, the one preced
ing the other (p. 377). This suffering, moreover,
he admits, may be mental as well as physical (p.
355). But this gives us little relief. Why must
the sufferings we merit be borne by God, while
the death we merit must be experienced by a man ?
The atonement, he says, must not be regarded as
the " substitution of an innocent sufferer, a man
who had 'done nothing amiss' " (p. 252). There
fore God must suffer. So that the atonement is
" not a blow falling on an innocent creature out
side the Godhead: it is a blow falling from the
sinful creature on the Godhead itself" (p. 255).
Mr. White here appends an excursus in defence of
the doctrine that "God as a being" is capable cf
suffering,- and does suffer. The blow falls on the
Godhead, " on that sensitive divine nature which
is extended through infinity " (p. 255) ; so that,
though he speaks of God's suffering for us " as
man," yet he plainly means that the Godhead, as
such, suffers. But the death of Christ cannot be

364 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
the death of God. Hence, in speaking of this,
Mr. White is careful to say that he died " as man."
But was not, then, this the death of a creature,
and an " innocent creature " ? The humanity of
Christ is surely not conceived as uncreated, co-
eternal with God's divinity: if it were, it could
not be said that the Word became flesh. So, then,
it would seem, (1) that, while an innocent creature
must not suffer instead of the guilty, an innocent
Creator may and must so suffer; and (2) that,
while an innocent creature must not suffer instead
of the guilty, an innocent creature may properly
die instead of the guilty !
But the strangest thing is yet to be noticed.
Death, literally, we are told, means extermination.
Jesus died literally: therefore the death we are
saved from is extermination. But was Jesus
really exterminated? and is the literal (physi
cal) death of men really extermination ? Oh, no !
neither the one nor the other is real extermina
tion. But, then, Christ's death would have been
extermination if he had not been divine as well as
human ; and our physical death would be extermi
nation, if his death had been extermination ! So,
then, the argument is this : Because hteral death
means extermination, though no literal death ever
yet has been extermination, therefore Christ's
death, which was literal death, yet not real exter
mination, was designed (being experienced on our
behalf) to save us from real extermination, because

CHRIST'S DEATH NOT EXTERMINATION. 365
the death threatened against us and the death suf
fered by him must be of the same kind! The
parallel of such an argument as this we might
search far without finding.
We will not stop to discuss the question, less
pertinent to our main object, whether Mr. White
takes scriptural ground respecting Christ's hu
manity and God's passibihty. On the latter point
we are inclined to agree with him. But just be
cause the atonement, however mysterious in itself,
and impossible to be described with philosophic
precision, is thus invested with an awful grandeur,
as consisting chiefly in a sacrifice which somehow
touched the very Godhead himself, it all the more
seems almost like solemn trifling to conceive that
a prominent and essential feature of the atonement
consisted in a three-days' interruption of the hu
manity of the God-man, which brief interruption
of one mere human existence was sufficient to
serve as a substitute for the absolute annihilation
of all the sinners of all ages ! Mr. White has
himself furnished the refutation of his own theory.
Hardly a more infelicitous argument could have
been hit upon for. his doctrine of conditional im
mortality than this argument derived from the
death of Christ.
Sthl, it may be said, stress is laid in the Scrip
tures upon the death of Christ as securing our
life ; and this death was certainly not the loss of
happiness or holiness; so that our death, thus

366 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
averted, cannot be the mere loss of happiness or
holiness. True, Christ did not lose his holiness;
and yet Paul says that he was " made to be sin
for us" (2 Cor. v. 21), — a very suggestive phrase,
especially as considered in connection with the
fact that Christ is declared to have come, not
merely to deliver men from death or from punish
ment, but "from their sins " (Matt. i. 21). When
it is said, however, that "it was not merely his
happiness . . . which the Saviour laid down," — if
Mr. White means, as he seems to mean, that the
Saviour's atonement in no sense consisted in his
laying clown his happiness, — then this is in opposi
tion to very many biblical testimonies ; notably the
exclamation on the cross, " My God, my God, why
hast thou forsaken me ? " (Matt, xxvii. 46.) If,
however, he simply means that the word " death,"
as describing the atoning work of Christ, can have
reference to his physical death alone, then we can
only reply that such a literalism betrays an utter
inability to apprehend the biblical mode of speech.
Of course " death," in the literal sense, denotes the
termination of physical life, and the destruction
of the physical organism ; and, undoubtedly, just
this was involved in the death of Christ (except
that, in his case, not even the physical organism
went to decay). But even the primeval threat of
death to Adam (Gen. ii. 17) — hoAvever true it may
be that physical death, in the literal sense, was
included — Avas at once shown, by the manner of

PREGNANT SENSE OF "DEATH." 367
the execution of the threat, to involve much more,
— the infliction of payi and suffering, wearisome
toh, expulsion from the delightsome garden, and
above all, and in all, the consciousness of the
divine displeasure. In short, as the infliction of
physical death is commonly regarded as the capital
punishment, — the acme of penalty which can be
visited by men upon offenders against society, —
death thus becomes a natural and appropriate
symbol of the severest punitive evil. He who
cannot apprehend the force of such language may
as well insist, that, because Christ speaks (John
hi. 5) of men as being "born of water," bap
tism produces real regeneration; or that, when
Moses said to the Jews, " Circumcise the foreskin
of your heart " (Deut. x. 16), and Stephen com
plained that they were "uncircumcised in heart
and ears " (Acts vh. 51), we are to understand
that it was the divine will that the physical opera
tion of chcumcision should be performed on the
heart and ears.
To sum up the results arrived at up to the pres
ent point : There is no proof of the doctrine of
annihilation from the natural mortality of man,
for there is no proof that man is naturally mortal ;
whhe the fact that the second death, even if it be
annihilation, is represented as a positive infliction,
indicates that the soul naturally tends to continue
indefinitely in existence. There is no proof of the
doctrine of annihilation from the literal meaning

368 DEATH,— THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
of- " death," " destruction," &c. ; for these words
do not literally denote the termination of human
existence. There is no proof from the Bible that
human existence comes to an end at the second
death: no expression of this sort anywhere oc
curs : the alleged proof is derived from the use of
terms which are also used of the first death, and
which, therefore, if they prove any thing, prove a
double extermination for every unsaved sinner.
There is no proof that there is such a double ex
termination, except that derived from the false
assumption concerning the literal meaning of
" death," &c. ; and the alleged proof is overwhelm
ingly refuted by the positive evidence from the
Bible that the human spirit exists after the death
of the body. On the other hand, there is proof,
that, as death can literally be predicated only of a
physical organism, it is figuratively used when
applied to the human spirit and its experiences.
There is proof that it is so applied to the spiritual
condition of sinners preceding the physical death :
in this case the notion of extermination is abso
lutely excluded, and a strong presumption is
created that the same phraseology, when used of
the same class of men in the future world, has the
same or a similar figurative sense.
In this state of the case it is manifest that any
biblical indication that the second death does not
put an end to human existence is sufficient to
settle the question in dispute. The presumption

PENAL DEATH NOT EXTERMINATION. 369
is, that this death does not denote annihilation.
A very slight amount of positive testimony raises
the presumption into a certainty. To this proof
we now address ourselves.
5. The passages which go dhectly to show that
the death which is the wages of sin is not extermi-
nalhn may be divided into two classes.
a. There are passages in which the words " die "
and "death" are so used that they cannot be
understood to have the literal sense. We refer
especially to those which affirm that believers in
Christ shall never die.
We begin with John xi. 25, 26 : " Jesus said
unto her, I am the resurrection and the life : he
that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet
shall he live ; and whosoever liveth and believeth
in me shah never die." If " die " here has its
literal sense, then it is affirmed that believers shall
not die at all, — not even the first death; but no
one so understands the passage. Such language
is especially troublesome to the materialists, to
whom death is always and everywhere literal ex
termination of being. Accordingly, Dr. Ives finds
it necessary to explain away the obvious meaning
of this declaration. He says, " As it stands, here
is an inexcusable ambiguity : our Lord fahs 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 indorsement, as far as
believers are concerned, of that original lie of the

370 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
Evil One,' if believers now living are never to die, —
if they themselves hve 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 translators
to the original. The Greek is, ou me apothane (two
negatives more emphatic) — he shall by no means
die — eis ton aiona — for the aeon, age, for eter
nity, as is the meaning the word often carries. . . .
Christ's language could not have been more pre
cise. 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
Avho have not life through Christ" (pp. 233, 234).
This exposition is preceded by an intimation that
the translators of our Bible were dishonest. " We
cannot but believe," he says, " those good men
thought it their duty, in giving the word of God
to the common people, to make the English Bible
at least teach those doctrines they thought it
ought." And the passage above quoted is given
as an illustration of this sarcastic sneer.
Let us, then, examine Dr. Ives's exposition.
The phrase, eis ton aiona, or variations of it, — such
as eis tous aionas ton aionon, &c, — occurs in the
New Testament more than sixty times. When
used without a negative particle, they are com
monly rendered " forever," " for ever and ever,"
&c. No one doubts the general correctness of this
translation; but the question now is, how they

DR. IVES ON JOHN XI. 26. 371
should be translated when connected with a nega
tive. We will adduce all the instances: there
are only eleven. In Matt. xxi. 19 Christ says to
the fig-tree, " Let no fruit grow on thee hencefor
ward forever." It is obvious that this means that
fruit was never more to grow on the tree. Dr.
Ives's exegesis would make it read, " Let no fruit
grow on thee for eternity," with the implication,
that, for the present, it might continue to grow.
Not a bad curse, surely. The parallel passage
(Mark xi. 14) reads, "No man eat fruit of thee
hereafter forever ; " and the same remarks apply
to this as to that. The negation is, of course, uni
versal, covering not the future lhe only (which
would, of course, be involved in the case of a fig-
tree), but especially the present. In Mark iii. 29
we read, " He that blasphemeth against the Holy
Ghost hath never forgiveness." Dr. Ives's exposi
tion would make this mean that the blasphemer is
not forgiven for eternity, — i.e., in the future life, —
but is forgiven in the present life ! Unfortunately
for this interpretation, however, it is said in Matt.
xii. 32, "Whosoever speaketh against the Holy
Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in
this world, neither in the world to come." In
John xiii. 8, Peter says to Christ, " Thou shalt
never wash my feet." The phrase here rendered
" never," be it remembered, is precisely the same
as the one in xi. 26. Dr. Ives, therefore, to make
out his case against King James?s version, must

372 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
understand Peter to mean, " Thou shalt not wash
my feet for eternity" — I.e., in the future world, —
"but mayest wash them at present"! In 1 Cor.
viii. 13 Paul says, " If meat make my brother to
offend, I will eat no flesh while the world stand-
eth" (eis ton aiona, — the same phrase again). It
is hard to see how the weak brother would be
helped if Paul meant only that he would not
eternally eat flesh, though he might keep on eat
ing it for the present. Yet this is what Dr. Ives's
exposition of the Greek phraseology drives us to.
There is one passage in which the same phrase
does have the sense of a partial negation; viz.,
John vih. 35 : " The servant abideth not in the
house forever, but the Son abideth ever." But
this is the only instance ; and here the antithesis
suggests the limitation. But even this is no exact
parallel for Dr. Ives's translation of xi. 26 : for, if
it were, he would have to- make that read, " Who
soever believeth in me shall not die forever ; " i.e.,
be forever dying.
The remaining passages are the following : John
vih. 51, " If a man keep my saying, he shall never
see death." John viii. 52, " He shall never taste
of death." John x. 28, " I give unto them eternal
life, and they shall never perish." John iv. 14,
" Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall
give him shall never thirst." These passages are
similar in general import to the one (xi. 26) under
consideration ; and, of course, Avhatever conclusion

DR. IVES ON JOHN XI. 26. 373
is arrived at respecting this applies equally to
those. These, therefore, cannot be adduced in
evidence against us. Dr. Ives refers to one of
these (viii. 51) as another instance of mistransla
tion. It is manifest, however, that the more am
biguous instances of the phrase in question (if
there are any) must be interpreted according to
the unambiguous ones. Of these we find that in
five cases the phrase undoubtedly means " never "
in the absolute sense. In one case it means " not
always." The prevalent usage decides in favor of
the universal, as distinguished from the partial,
negation. We may add, that no Greek scholar
worthy of the name ever dreamed of understand
ing the phrase in question in the foregoing pas
sages otherwise than by "never." Dr. Ives, we
presume, does not profess to know more about
the original Greek than all the doctors that
have deA'oted themselves to the study of the New
Testament. He himself, in the five passages first
examined, would not dare to translate the phrase
as he does in John xi. 26. What judgment, then,
shall be formed of his exegesis of this passage, but
that it is the desperate resort of one who cannot
otherwise save his own theory ? or else, that it is
the heedless and hasty conjecture of a man who
jumped at an apparent possibility of rendering
the phrase so as to make it harmonize with his
doctrine of death? Whatever explanation, chari
table or severe, may be made, it is certain that

374 DEATH, -THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
Dr. Ives's interpretation of John xi. 26 would
have been more gracefully prefaced with something
else than a charge of dishonesty brought against
the translators of our Bible for not having antici
pated him in his display of philological and exe
getical ignorance.
That " never " is the proper word in the above
passage is further illustrated by parallel expres
sions. E.g., John vi. 51, " If any eat of this bread
he shall live forever ; " and vi. 58, " This is that
bread which came down from heaven : not as your
fathers did eat manna, and are dead : he that eateth
of this bread shall live forever." According to
Dr. Ives's doctrine of death, these statements ' are
false ; for he holds that no one hves forever, but,
rather, that all men die : so that theh life, at the
best, suffers a long interruption. The latter pas
sage is peculiarly, instructive. The literal and the
figurative senses of death are used in the closest
conjunction, just as in Matt. vhi. 22 and John xi.
26, yet so that no one need mistake the distinction.
Dr. Ives refers to it on p. 129 in order to make a
point against the figurative sense of death. He
asks whether Christ means that those who eat of
this bread "shall be happy forever;" and adds,
" Then it should read, 'Your fathers did eat manna,
and are unhappy ' ! " His argument is certainly
very unhappy ; for (1) if what is said about both
classes of persons is to be understood with equal
literalness, then it follows, that, as the manna was

DR. IVES ON JOHN VI. 58. 375
literal manna, — food for the bodies of the Israel
ites, — the bread offered by Christ was literal bread,
to be eaten and swallowed into the stomach. (2)
According to Dr. Ives, since both the living and
the dying are to be understood literally, it follows
that Christ meant to affirm that the fathers would
not hve forever : otherwise there would be no con
trast between the two classes. But Christ says,
"Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead."
There is a contrast : what is it ? On Dr. Ives's
ground, there is no other conclusion possible than
that the fathers are not only annihilated, but shall
none of them attain eternal life ; for he does not
understand that those whom Christ addressed
would not die a temporal death. In other words,
the ancestors of the Jews are ah indiscriminately
assigned to everlasting perdition ! and this, appar
ently, for the reason, not that they were impeni
tent, but that they ate manna! Any one, not
burdened with a theory to maintain, must see that
the contrast between the manna and the bread of
life is precisely parallel with the contrast between
physical life and spiritual life. The manna was
designed to support physical lhe ; but it could not
make that lhe perpetual. The bread offered by
Christ, however, would be permanent in its effect.
When he says that he who eats of it shall " live for
ever," it is obvious that the language is as figura
tive as it is when he expresses the same thought
in the same discourse (ver. 35) by saying, " He

376 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that
believeth on me shall never thirst."
If any doubt can still remain concerning the
meaning of the passages above cited, it whl be
removed by John vi. 50, — a part of the same dis
course about manna, &c. : " This is the bread which
cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat
thereof, and not die." Here there is no eis ton
aiona which any one can torture into a reference
to the second death as distinguished from the first.
And if, as Dr. Ives admits, the common view finds
a strong support in xi. 26, provided it is correctly
translated in our Bible, then he must admit that
the same view is sustained by this passage, as to
which there is no doubt of the correctness of the
translation. The statement is absolute, affirming
that believers in Christ shall not die. It is entirely
irreconcilable with Dr. Ives's doctrine concerning
death. According to him, all men must die. This
passage must be, in his view, " a clear indorsement,
as far as believers are concerned, of that original
lie of the Evil One." Accordingly, he does not
refer to it in his book.
To the foregoing may be added 2 Tim. i. 10,
where Paul says that Christ " hath abolished
death." This again is absolute. On the theory that
death always denotes the termination of existence,
Paul here asserts an untruth. Dr. Ives quotes
this passage (p. 153), but not with reference to
this part of the verse ; and he seems to have over-

THE ABOLITION OF DEATH. 377
looked the force of it. The word here rendered
" abolished " (katargeo) properly means to render
inefficacious or useless; hence to put away, to de
stroy, &c. It is the word used in 1 Cor. vi. 13, -—
" God shall destroy both it and them." In vers. 8,
10, 11, of chapter xiii., it is variously rendered
" fail," " vanish away," " done away," " put away."
It is the word also used in Heb. h. 14, where we
have a passage parallel to the one before us, —
" That through death he might destroy him that
had the power of death ; that is, the devil." This
is only another way of saying the same thing as is
said in the passage above quoted. Christ by his
death has frustrated the work of Satan, who by
his Aviles brought sin into the world, — that sin
which is the "sting of death" (1 Cor. xv. 56).
The abolishing of death is, therefore, the removal
of the sting of it : so that, in view of what Christ
had done, Paul could exclaim, " O death, where is
thy sting? 0 hades [or, according to the best
attested reading, O death], where is thy victory? "
(ver. 55.) The significance of these declarations
is all the weightier for our purpose, inasmuch as
the reference is predominantly, if not wholly,
to the first death. The work of Christ in destroy
ing the Devil had for its effect to " deliver them
who through fear of death were all their lifetime
subject to bondage." And yet no one can imagine
that this physical death is, in any literal sense,
abolished. But the sting of it is taken away ; the

378 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
fear of it is removed. The sombre dread of the
" undiscovered country " into which it introduces
us is transformed into joyful assurance that " death
is swallowed up in victory" (1 Cor. xv. 54).
Physical death is represented as brought into the
world by sin (Rom. v. 12). It is the object of
universal and often of unspeakable dread to the
natural man. It stands as the perpetual symbol
of the divine displeasure towards sin. It is a mer
ciless, inexorable power, holding sway even over
those who have " not sinned after the similitude of
Adam's transgression " (Rom. v. 14) ; and is the
"last enemy " that is to be destroyed by the vic
torious Saviour (1 Cor. xv. 26).
In the last passage referred to, death is spoken
of as something yet to be destroyed ; though the
same verb (katargeo) is used as in 2 Tim. i. 10,
where death is spoken of as already destroyed.
This well illustrates how little the biblical- writers
are bound to strict exactness of speech. It sIioavs,
that, even in their conception of physical death, a
spiritual element entered : so that sometimes it is
difficult to determine whether literal or figurative
death is prominent in the conception of the writer.
Thus Paul, in Rom. v. 12 (as above remarked),
refers to physical death ; and so apparently, also, in
vers. 17, 21, where he speaks of sin reigning "unto
death." In vi. 16, again, Ave find the phrase " sin
unto death " followed by the statement that the
" end " of a wicked lhe is " death," and that " the

"DEATH" MUST HAVE A FLEXIBLE SENSE. 379
Avages of sin is death " (vers. 21, 23). Then he
goes on in chap. vii. to use similar language about
sin bringing forth fruit unto death (ver. 5), and
sin working death in him (ver. 13) ; and finally
he exclaims, " Who shall deliver me from the body
of this death?" (ver. 24.) Then, in chap, viii.,
where the dehverance is described, he says, " The
law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made
me free from the law of sin and death " (ver. 2).
In this discussion of the apostle's, closely con
nected as these chapters are with one another, a
coarse literalism cannot well avoid understanding
"death" to mean always one and the same thing;
viz., mere bodily dissolution, such as even infants,
and all who have not, like Adam, sinned know
ingly and whfuhy against the law, are subject to.
But even the regenerate are not delivered from
this death. The law of the spirit of life in Christ
does not free us from the law of death, if by death
is meant no more than bodily death. No one can
or does understand the declaration so literally as
that. There must be understood to be somewhere
a transition from the more literal to the less literal.
Something else than mere physical death must be
understood to be meant in many of these passages.
The annihilationist, no less than others, is obliged
to exercise his judgment in determining where he
shall abandon the strictly literal sense, and assume
that reference is made to something else than mere
physical death. The fact is, however, that he has

380 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
to be much more arbitrary in his exposition than
Ave : for while he maintains (erroneously enough)
that in both cases he adheres to the literal sense,
yet he has to make it at one time refer to the
death which all men, good and bad, experience ;
at another to the second death, which is experi
enced only by the condemned. If the only mean
ing attributed to the word is that of extermination
of being, it is impossible by any thing but the most
arbitrary process of interpretation to make sense
of the above-mentioned discussion of Paul. Mr.
White, indeed, from this very discussion derives
an argument for his view. In Rom. v. 14 he says,
it must be that Paul " intends no other death than
that which is so plainly described, — a dissolution
of humanity, without reference to a future eternal
state of suffering for the soul; else we shall find
ourselves called upon to receive the abominable
doctrine, that the souls of infants, children, idiots,
' from Adam to Moses,' went into a state of ever
lasting suffering after their natural death, and
that, as is specially pointed out, for no fault of their
own" (p. 107). Hence he argues, that in the
twelfth verse the same thing must be denoted by
" death." Very well : but in ver. 12, let it be
remembered, death is expressly declared to have
entered " by sin ; " and all along, through this and
the next chapters, death is unhormly represented
as resulting from sin. If, then, in ver. 12, nothing
but physical death is meant, logical consist-

DEATH THE RESULT OF SIN. 381
ency requires us to hold that nothing but physical
death is meant in vi. 23, where it is said that " the
wages of sin is death;" and, for the same reason.
that nothing but the first (physical) death can be
meant when Paul declares (vhi. 2) that he has
been made free from the law of death. But no :
somewhere Mr. White must assume that there has
been a leap from the strictly literal sense of physi
cal death, as the natural lot of all men, to that
very different thing, ultimate extinction, from
which he holds that Christ delivers only the be
liever. The logical vise which he prepares for his
opponents holds him also with at least as firm a
grip. There is, in fact, no natural and easy solution
of the problem thus presented but that which is
obtained when we observe that death, even when
predominantly or exclusively used with reference
to physical death, is yet everywhere spoken of in
these chapters as the result of sin. It is not the
outward physical phenomenon, but the ethical
relation of it, that is emphasized. That one feature
in the conception — viz., that it is the divinely ap
pointed consequence of sin — is held firm through
out the whole discussion. Sometimes the apostle
has especially mere physical death in mind ; but
even this is represented as occasioned by Adam's
sin. At other times he has something else in mind,
¦ — viz., some future retribution ; but still it is some
thing occasioned and merited by sin. The Avord

382 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
" death," from beginning to end, denotes an evil
visited on men because of sin. The physical death
which befalls all men is a result of Adam's sin : it
was the outward form of the penalty denounced
against him at the outset. The word denoting it
became thus appropriated to the generic notion of
the penalty of sin. Hence it is that Paul can
easily pass from the more literal and outward
sense to the more sphitual and inward.
When, now, we are told that the believer shall
not die, — shall never die ; that Christ has abol
ished death, &c, — the meaning is obvious : the
penal consequences of sin are averted from the be
liever. Death, considered as the result or punish
ment of sin, is abolished. Physical death, indeed,
is not abolished ; but the sting of it, the penal
character of it, is taken away : it becomes a sleep,
a departure, an entrance into nearer fellowship
with Christ. But, if we attempt to make " death "
always mean one and the same thing, — i.e., a ces
sation of existence, — such declarations as the above
have no clear sense. Dr. Ives and the materialists
cannot make them fit into their system at all.
And the other annihilationists are httle better off:
they have to understand " death," in the above-
mentioned passages Avhich declare the absolute
abolition of death so far as believers are con
cerned, as denoting future extermination to the
exclusion of physical death; Avhile in other passages,
in the same connection, they interpret the same word

BIBLICAL DEFINITIONS OF DEATH. 383
as denoting physical death to the exclusion of
future extermination.
b. The other class of passages which imply or
assert that the death which is the wages of sin is
not extermination consists of those in which the
final destiny of the wicked is described positively
as something else than extermination.
(1) There are passages which represent the
doom of the sinner to be a state of condemnation
or suffering. In Rom. ii. 6-10 are described the
opposite destinies of the good and the bad. Of
the former it is said that God will render unto
them " eternal life " (ver. 7) ; which is further
described (ver. 10) as consisting in "glory, honor,
and peace." But against the bad is threatened
(vers. 8, 9) " indignation and wrath, tribulation
and anguish." There is, perhaps, no place in the
Bible where the contrast between the sentence of
the righteous and that of the wicked is more fully
and formally set forth. Yet here Paul has noth
ing to say about extermination : he uses no word
which suggests such an idea.. In like manner,
when Christ, in John v. 29, treats of the same
point, he says that all men " shall come forth; they
that have clone good, unto the resurrection of life ;
and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection
of damnation [judgment]." Here, as in the pre
ceding passage, the promise of life to the righteous
would make one expect to find death denounced
against the Avickcd, if, as is assumed, lhe denotes

384 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
existence, and the ultimate fate of the wicked is
non-existence. But, instead of this, the opposite
of lhe is called judgment; not judgment in the
general sense, however, — for all men are to be
judged, — but judgment in the sense of condemna
tion. A similar representation is found in John v.
24. Again : in John iii. 36 it is said, " He that
believeth on the Son hath everlasting life ; and he
that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but
the wrath of God abideth on him." Here the con
trast is still more sharply put. It is said of the
unbeliever that he shall not see lhe ; but the op
posite, elsewhere called death, is here called di
vine wrath abiding on him. The whole cast of
the verse is utterly opposed to the doctrine of anni
hilation. The unbeliever shall not see life, — the
strongest mode of asserting that he now does not,
and never shall, see hfe ; i.e., live. Life, then,
here cannot mean existence; for the unbeliever is
surely existent. And if one were disposed to con
jecture that the phrase is a shortened form of the
frequent one, " eternal life," this conjecture, in
itself utterly unwarranted, is overturned by what
follows. Not seeing life is defined as abiding under
the Avrath of God. Instead of some expression
implying the termination of existence, we have
one which implies the opposite. Dr. Ives explains
it : " The wrath of God [as expressed in his de
struction] abideth on him" (p. 159). But the
wrath of God cannot well abide on a nonentity.

DEATH NOT ANNIHILATION. 385
We cannot make the expression convey such a
meaning without at least resorting to a very bold
figure ; and then what becomes of Dr. Ives's great
law of the literal and the figurative? But this is not
all. The destruction (annihilation), if that is what
is meant by wrath, must be something future ; but
it is described as something present, — something
simultaneous with the not believing. Nor can we
even plausibly assume* that the present is here
used for the future ; for the other and synonymous
statement made about the unbeliever, that he shall
not see lhe, is expressed in the use of the future
tense. If the meaning is, that the wrath of God,
as expressed in the unbeliever's destruction, shall
abide on him, the greatest possible pains seems to
have been taken by John to conceal his real mean
ing. Finally, if the wrath of God is expressed in
the sinner's destruction, how are we to reconcile
this with Dr. Ives's assurance, to which we re
ferred on p. 342, that " the infinite mercy, of the
Almighty" was manifested in keeping Adam
from the tree of lhe, since to him " endless exist
ence were an endless curse "? How is it that the
same destruction is at once the expression of wrath
and of mercy ?
Furthermore, the penalty of sin is described as
a being " cast out into outer darkness," where
" there shall be weeping, and gnashing of teeth "
(Matt. vhi. 12, xxii. 13, xxiv. 51, xxv. 30 ; Luke
xhi. 28) ; a being visited with " the mist of dark-

386 DEATH,— THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
ness forever " (2 Pet. ii. 17) ; a being " cast into a
furnace of fire " (Matt. xiii. 42, 50) ; a being cast
into hell (Matt. v. 22, 29, 30, x. 28, xviii. 9, xxiii.
33; Luke xii. 5), into unquenched fire (Matt. iii.
12 ; Luke iii. 17), with an undying worm (Mark
ix. 48) ; a being cast into a lake of fire (Rev. xix.
20, xx. 10, 15). Moreover, it is called a punish
ment (Matt. xxv. 46), and a being tormented
(Rev. xiv. 10, xx. 10). We are aware that all
this may be, and is, explained as being merely a
description of the suffering preceding or accompa
nying the destruction of which the result is the
extinction of being. In fact, it is argued that
the very representation that the punishment of
the wicked is to be effected by means of fire shows
that annihilation is taught, since it is the property
of fire to consume. To this we must reply, in the
first place, that the diversity in the description of
future suffering makes it impossible to understand
this language literally. If the place of suffering
is a lake, it is not a furnace ; if the instrument of
torture is fire, it cannot at the same time be a
worm, nor can it be the mist of darkness. The
only natural interpretation is that which makes all
these and other similar passages graphic pictures
of that suffering which will characterize the future
condition of the impenitent, and which needs to
be thus figuratively described because human lan
guage is unsuited to an exact description of a state
lying entirely outside of earthly experience. In

FUTURE PUNISHMENT ETERNAL. 387
the second place, we reply that some of these pas
sages, and others besides, positively represent this
suffering as not terminating in extinction. Let us
attend to this point.
(2) The future punishment of sinners is de
clared to be eternal. This is implied in the state
ment that the fire is unquenched, and the worm
dieth not (Matt. iii. 12; Mark ix. 48), and in the
epithet " everlasting " (eternal) applied to the
"fire" in Matt, xviii. 8, xxv. 41, Jude 7. We
are aware that it is replied to this (and some
times with a tone of great surprise that such a
doctrine can be derived from these, expressions),
that the eternity of the fire and of the worm by no
means implies the eternity of the person tormented
by them. Mr. White even thinks, that, in the pas
sage about the undying worm, he has found a
conclusive argument against his opponents in re
spect to the bibhcal- meaning of death : " Be it
observed, that, when it serves the purpose of the
doctrine of eternal misery to proA'e that the ' worm
of conscience will never cease to gnaw,' then the
verb to die must be taken in its natural and ob
vious sense of cease to be" (p. 406). To such a
* charge it may be sufficient to reply : (a) No one
ever thought of making the verb " die " always
mean " to be miserable," even when used of men,
still less when used of Avorms. (5) It is certainly
true that worms do cease to gnaw when they die,
whether they cease to be or not; and, beyond a

388 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
doubt, it is the perpetual gnawing, and not the per
petual existence, which Christ meant to emphasize.
(c) Furthermore : it is said, " Their worm dieth
not ; " which, on Mr. White's doctrine that the
worm is immortal, has little meaning. The worm,
itself undying, must cease to be their worm after
they are exterminated. In short, this mode of
evading the obvious meaning of the phraseology
under consideration is shown to be futile when
we observe that the Scriptures represent all the
condemned as cast into hell at the same time. If
the instrument of pain, whatever that may be, is
itself eternal, then there must be eternally some
thing for it to operate on. The allegation that the
fire, from its very nature, puts an end to the exist
ence of those cast into it, must imply, therefore,
that, after all men are exterminated, the fire itseh
continues to burn, and the worm to gnaw. To
avoid this absurdity, resort is had to the assump
tion, that, when the fire is said to be unquenched,
we are merely to understand that it will not go
out so long as there is any thing to burn. But
what about the eternal fire ? The annihilationists
have no resource but to shift their ground again,
and assume that the word rendered "eternal"
(aionios) here denotes a limited duration. The
fire, say they, lasts as long as there is any need of
it, and of course will not burn any longer.
But not only the instruments of punishment are
said to be eternal : the punishment itself is said to

MATT. XXV. 46. 389
be eternal (Matt. xxv. 46). It is called an "ever
lasting [eternal] destruction from the presence
of the Lord" (2 Thess. i. 9), and the judgment
visited on men is called an " eternal judgment "
(Heb. vi. 2). What shall be said of these expres
sions ? In reference to the first, Mr. White begins
by trying- to make the impression, that perhaps
Christ's language has not been correctly reported.
He then touches on the fact that some of the old
versions have " fire " instead of " punishment."
He next lays stress on the fact that "everlasting"
should be " eternal," and remarks on the limited
sense often belonging to expressions otherwise de
noting endless duration; but he finally settles
down into the conclusion that the phrase means a
punishment " extending in its results to eternity "
(p. 398). He comes to the same conclusion con
cerning 2 Thess. i. 9. We do not know why he
has so much to say by way of casting doubt on
•the authenticity of Matt. xxv. 46, unless he has
the feeling that his discussion is hardly conclusive,
and he wishes to open other doors of escape to
those who may prefer them.1
It thus appears that " eternal " is made to mean
infinite in duration, or indefinite in duration, or
1 Mr. Constable (Nature and Duration of Future Punish
ment) adopts a still easier method of dealing with Matt. xxv. 46.
In the chapter in which he professes " to give to some individual
texts that attention which from their prominent place in the con
troversy they deserve " (p. 194), he simply makes no reference to
it, as if it never had a prominent place at all.

390 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
producing effects that are infinite in duration, —
all according to the exigencies of the theory which
is to be maintained. But that aionios ever is used
in the New Testament of any future thing which
is limited in duration cannot be affirmed, unless it is
assumed to have this meaning in the cases above
considered. That it is ever applied anywhere else
to any thing as pointing to the eternity of effect
can also not be maintained. The only plausible
instances are Heb. vi. 2 (above referred to), where
the judgment is called eternal; Heb. ix. 12, where
we read of " eternal redemption ; " and Mark iii. 29,
where it is said that the blasphemer against the Holy
Ghost " hath never forgiveness, but is in danger
of eternal damnation ; " where, however, the best
manuscripts have " sin " instead of " damnation "
(judgment) ; so that we should read, " is guilty of
an eternal sin." But in Heb. vi. 2 the Greek word
is krima, which denotes not merely the act of
judging, the judicial sentence (denoted by krisis),
but the thing adjudged. Thus Paul says in Gal.
v. 10, " He that troubleth you shall bear his judg
ment [krima], whosoever he be." Judgment, in
this sense of something to be borne, may as ap
propriately be called eternal as any thing else. So
the phrase " eternal redemption," like the similar
one, "eternal salvation" (Heb. v. 9), requires no
assumption of any peculiar sense of the adjective.
In one sense the act of salvation or redemption
may be regarded as instantaneous ; but in another

"ETERNITY OF EFFECT." 391
it is a process. The instantaneous act is only the
beginning of a continuous work of grace. Hence
we read of those who are "being saved" (as the
present passive should be rendered) in Acts h. 47,
2 Cor. ii. 15, &c. As to the phrase " eternal sin,"
the connection plainly shows what is meant. It is
the sin against the Holy Ghost which is called
eternal, not merely because eternal in its effect,
but because, being eternally unforgiven, it is to
continue forever as a sin. Guilt is to be forever
charged against the sinner : the sin is never to be
blotted out.
But, even if it could be shown that aionios may
be used with 'reference to eternity of effect, it is
obvious that it is, only when the nature of the
thing to which it is apphed requires such interpre
tation that we are warranted in making it. In the
case of "eternal punishment," the nature of the
thing is such that the proper sense of " eternal "
is the only one that can without violence be given
to it. It is only by changing the word " punish
ment " to " death," or something similar, that any
plausibility can be attached to the other interpre
tation; and even then it is no more plausible
than it would be for one to say of a man who has
been hung, that he is suffering perpetual agony,
meaning that the man suffered a mpmentary agony
which resulted in perpetual insensibility.
Stress is sometimes laid on the fact that death is
never called eternal in the Bible. Dr. Whiton

392 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
("Is 'Eternal' Punishment Endless?" p. 58, seq.)
undertakes to explain this noticeable fact. He
says, that, if the future death is conceived by the
biblical writers as a state (as the word is sometimes
used respecting sinners in this lhe), there would
seem -to be no reason why it should not be called
an eternal death, especiahy as the antithetic phrase
" eternal life " is so often used. Hence he infers,
that, in this connection, " death " denotes " a limit
of existence reached : " so that the phrase " seonian
death" is avoided as being misleading. The word
" destruction " being more definite than "death,"
it is, he says, less misleading to call it " eter
nal." But what has he to say of the phrase
" eternal punishment " ? This, he says (p. 55),
means simply "punishment taking place in eter
nity'' 1 If so, then why might not " eternal death "
be freely used, the meaning being " death taking
place in eternity " ? How is this phrase more
likely to mislead than the other ? But in another
place (p. 48, seq.) he attempts another definition
of the adjective, giving it a qualitative rather than
a quantitative sense ; i.e., making it denote a cer
tain kind rather than a certain duration of life.
But what kind ? " The seonian life, primarily, as

1 He fortifies himself in this definition by a reference to Rob
inson's definition of " judgment " as used in Heb. vi. 2 ; neglect
ing to state, however, that Robinson, so far from sustaining his
definition of aionios, defines it as, in this very passage, meaning
eternal in the proper sense of unlimited duration.

WHY "DEATH" IS NOT CALLED "ETERNAL." 393
defined by its Divine Author himself [John xvii.
3], is that kind of life which is vitalized, formed,
and blessed by knowing God and his Son." But
how does the idea of perpetuity come in at all?
Because, he replies, " the qualities which char
acterize that hfe are vital, progressive, and endur
ing." According to this, aionios itseh conveys
no conception of time at all, any more than the
word " strong ; " which, however, may suggest the
notion of time by the quality of endurance which
inheres in it. To this we reply, not only that
this is an utter misrepresentation of philological
fact, not only that the thing defined by Christ in
John xvii. 3 is life, not eternal, but that Dr. Whi-
ton's definition of aionios here is in contradiction of
the one which he afterwards gives, — "taking place
in eternity," — in which the notion of time, and
nothing else, enters. Indeed, it seems to be the
general characteristic of this work of his to use
arguments of all sorts against the usual interpreta
tion, even though one argument entirely over
throws another.
That the Bible nowhere uses the phrase " eternal
death " is easily explained by the consideration,
that whhe " death " is used in the spiritual and
penal sense, yet the form of the phraseology em
ployed is shaped somewhat according to the literal
sense. As " lhe," in the literal sense, is often used,
not only to denote a state of vitality, but the time
during which that state continues, an adjective

394 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
denoting perpetuity may naturahy be applied to
it : hence, in the tropical sense, life may naturally
be called eternal. But " death," in the literal sense,
ordinarily denotes, not the time during which the
state of death continues, but the temporary event
which begins it. Hence the phrase " eternal
death," which could not be used properly of phys
ical death, is also not used of spiritual death;
though there would be no absolute impropriety in
using it, as is seen in the use of the phrase " eternal
destruction," in which all agree that "destruction"
is synonymous with " death."
We proceed to notice some passages in the book
of Revelation in which the notion of the perpe
tuity of conscious suffering in the future world is
still more clearly affirmed, if possible, than in those
already considered. In Rev. xiv. 10, 11, it is said
of him who worships the beast and his image, "He
shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the
presence of the holy angels, and in the presence
of the Lamb ; and the smoke of their torment
ascendeth up for ever and ever ; and they have no
rest day nor night." Here the declaration seems
to be absolutely unequivocal. The effect of the
fire is plainly declared to be, not to extinguish, but to
torment forever. This is still more directly asserted
in xx. 10, which says of the devil, the beast, and
the false prophet, that they were cast into a lake
of fire and brimstone, and " shall be tormented day
and night for ever and ever."

PASSAGES IN REVELATION. 395
How, now, can the meaning of this be misappre
hended? Dr. Ives (p. 206) understands literally
the statement in Rev. xx. 15, that those whose
names are not found in the book of life are to be
" cast into the lake of fire." Now, in xix. 20 we
are told that the beast and the false prophet were
" cast alive into a [the] lake of fire burning with
brimstone." In xx. 10 we are told that the devil
was cast into the same " lake of fire and brim
stone; " and then, in xx. 15, that all whose names
were not found in the book of life were cast into
" the lake of fire." No one can mistake the iden
tity of the lake in these three passages, nor doubt
that the " fire and brimstone " here spoken of are
the same as in xiv. 10, where, however, no "lake"
is mentioned. Not even Dr. Ives questions this.
But he says (p. 177) that the " torment " in xiv.
10 is to be explained by the same phrase in xx. 10.
As to the latter passage, he obser\*es that the
"beast" cannot be understood literally, being
shown by Dan. vii. to mean a kingdom. Now,
a government cannot be " literally forever tor
mented," since otherwise it would have " to exist
forever." Therefore the eternal torment simply
means, " that that fearful ending of existence,
whenever it rises before the mind of the surviving
beholders, is as if the smoke of that burning were
sthl ascending before one's actual vision " ! Let
us examine this. Dr. Ives does not deny that the
beast and the -false prophet mean something : and

396 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
he seems to admit, that, whatever they were, they
were, or are to be, literally cast into fire ; for he
speaks of "the smoke of that burning." At all
events, admitting that " beast " symbolizes a gov
ernment, yet we must ask, What is a government
but a person or persons exercising power ? Most
obviously, then, when the government is said to
have been cast into the lake, it must mean that
the persons representing it were cast in. More
over, the devil was cast in with the beast and
false prophet, and with them is to be tormented.
Dr. Ives does not understand him to be symbolic,
but literal. Thus it seems, that, according to this
author, the lake of fire is literal ; the devil is literal ;
the wicked men, who in xiv. 10, xx. 15, and xxi. 8,
are said to be doomed to be cast into the lake, are
literal ; and even the torment is literal : but be
cause another class of persons, also declared to be
cast into the lake, is symbolically described, there
fore the perpetuity of the torment is to be under
stood figuratively ! With such an elastic principle
of interpretation, it is obvious that a man can come
to any result he pleases.
Dr. Whiton, in like manner, falls back on the
figurativeness of the book as a sufficient solution.
Because, in xx. 14, Death and Hades are said to be
cast into the lake of fire, and this cannot be un
derstood literally, therefore he concludes respect
ing this and ver. 10 that "one of these neighboring
expressions is probably just as literal, or just as

EVASIONS OF JOHN'S REVELATION. 397
figurative, as the other " (p. 25) ; but whether
either expression means any thing, or what either
of them means, he does not undertake to say.
Mr. Pettingell's method of disposing of these
passages is characteristic. After having descanted
upon the great difficulty of interpreting the in
tensely figurative language of Revelation, he settles
the whole matter by reference to Rev. xx. 14, the
most figurative passage of all: "Death and hell
were cast into the lake of fire." Here, he says,
we are " told that not only death, but hell also, is
cast into this all-consuming lake of fire," and is
therefore destroyed. " Could there be," he asks,
" a more clear and positive description of the utter
destruction of all evil of every sort than this ? "
(p. 222.) Mr. Pettingell sometimes shows evi
dence of having looked into the Greek Testament.
Does he, or does he not, know that the word here
rendered " hell " is not Gehenna, but Mades ? Was
he in so great a hurry to proclaim the truth of
conditional immortality to the world, that he had
no time to consult the Greek original at this
point ? On p. 131 he distinguishes between Mades
and Gehenna, showing that he is not unacquainted
with the difference. But, not to dwell on this,
ver. 10 says that the devil, the beast, and the false
prophet are to be tormented for ever and ever
(eis tous aionas ton aionon). What has Mr. Pet
tingell to say to this? Simply that this phrase
means "to the end of time" (p. 221). Then he

398 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
informs us (for the information does not come from
the Bible), that, after this, "the vision changes;
time has passed away; eternity begins." Con
sequently, all evil, when eternity has begun, is
destroyed. But where did he learn that the
Greek phrase above quoted means " to the end of
time " ? If it does, what does it mean, when, after
"time has passed away,," it is said of the saints
(Rev. xxii. 5) that " they shall reign for ever and
ever " ? What does it mean in the doxologies, —
e.g., Gal. i. 5, 2 Tim. iv. 18 ? and in Rev. v. 14,
" him that liveth for ever and ever " ? Does Mr.
Pettingell know what he means in saying that
" time has passed away " ? If, after that strange
event, eternity begins, how are we to understand
this beginning ? Is not the notion of time implied
in the notion of beginning? Unless eternity ends
the instant it begins, there must be a continuance
of it ; but this implies time. Shall we conclude
that Mr. Pettingell has invented a definition of
eis tous aionas ton aionon which will enable him to
say that the torment is to have an end, and then
invents a piece of information about time's coming
to an end, in spite of the absolute inconceivability
of the notion, all in order to get rid of the doc
trine of eternal punishment? But, in any case,
how are we to understand his statement (p. 196)
that the phrases translated "eternal," "forever,"
&c, " are never employed* to define . . . the dura
tion of the sufferings of the wicked " ? According

MR. PETTINGELL'S REVELATION. 399
to his own confession on p. 221, one of them is
employed to denote the duration of torment ; only
it is discovered to be limited duration. How the
discovery is made is indicated on p. 195, where we
read, "When the term [aion, &c] is applied to
that which might be supposed to be endless with
out doing' violence to reason, or to that concerning
which we have no other evidence whatever but
such as we find in this word or phrase, all we can
do is to give to the expression that very indefinite-
ness which is its peculiar characteristic." We are
then to conclude that the torment is limited, either
because it is contrary to reason to suppose other
wise, or because there is nothing else to prove that
it is endless. As to the latter point, it is difficult
to see how, according to Mr. Pettingell, the eter
nity of the suffering could be expressed at all, since
it is expressed as strongly as the eternity of God
is ever expressed ; it being impossible to find a
stronger expression in the New Testament. As
to the former point, we can only say, that if Mr.
Pettingeh means (as he probably does) that the
doctrine of eternal punishment does violence to
reason, and that, therefore, every thing that seems
to teach it must be made to mean something else,
then it is difficult to see why he wrote his book.
Those who already agree with him do not need his
arguments, and those to whom the hated doctrine
is not irrational are not 'likely to be convinced by
a style of exegesis which is adopted only to save a

400 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
foregone conclusion. After seeing such treatment
of this passage, we may well be almost in doubt
who is referred to when we read farther on
(p. 223) : "And yet, strange to say,. we find pious
and otherwise rational men so blinded by this
dogma, and so hard pressed for arguments to sup
port it, eagerly catching up such of the figures
and phrases of this vision as whl suit theh pur
pose." Mr. White gets around the difficulty simharly.
Having shown that the destruction visited on the
wicked is called death, or the second death, and
assuming, as usual, that this must mean extermi
nation, since "there must be a generic likeness
between " the first and the second death (although,
as we have seen, he himself really makes them
genetically unlike, since, according to him, the first
death is not extermination), he concludes (p. 411)
"that the passages in question in Rev. xiv., xix.,
and xx., delivered in the symbolic language of
prophecy, must be interpreted so as to accord with
these facts." He satisfies himself, like Mr. Pettin
gell, with the assumption, that as the phrases trans
lated "forever," &c, do not always mean literal
eternity, therefore in this case the punishment
may be " a long but limited infliction " (p. 413).
He even goes so far as to say, Avhen speaking about
the threatened destruction, "Nothing is affirmed
by them [Christ and his apostles in reference to
the duration of the sufferings] of ' untold ages ' '

DAN. XH. 2. 401
(p. 353). This is a surprising statement when we
consider that Christ himself calls the sufferings
eternal, and John says that they are to be endured
"ages of ages" (Rev. xx. 10), — the strongest ex
pression known to the New-Testament writers for
unlimited duration ; in the latter case with noth
ing in the context to suggest a limitation, and in
the former case "with the antithetic phrase " eternal
life " positively suggesting that there is no limita-
. tion. Such a mode of dealing with the case throws
light on his principle of interpretation above quot
ed, that the language of John "must be interpreted
so as to accord " with his assumption that death
means extermination. Whatever must be done
of course can be done, even though some violence
is required in order to do it.
Similar distortion of an obvious meaning is prac
tised upon Dan. xh. 2 : " Many of them that sleep
in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to ever
lasting life, and some to shame and everlasting
contempt." Dr. Ives says, " ' shame [to be felt by
themselves] and everlasting contempt,' to be felt by
those surviving them" (p. 332). Mr. Pettingell
makes a similar distinction (pp. 167, 203). This
passage, he says, seems to favor the doctrine of eter
nal suffering " only because it is misquoted ; " i.e.,
as he complains, by applying "everlasting" to
" shame " as well as " contempt." The shame
" which the wicked feel themselves," he says, will
continue only " as long as their miserable lives con-

402 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
tinue ; " but the contempt felt for them by others
will be everlasting. The simple fact is, however,
that neither of the words rendered " shame " and
" contempt," either here or elsewhere, denotes the
emotion of shame or contempt. The first word,
hherpah, is almost always rendered " reproach " in
our Bible, and means either an object of reproach
(Dan. ix. 16), or a cause of reproach (Gen. xxxiv.
14), or the act of reproaching (Neh. iv. 4), or a
condition of reproach (Neh. i. 3). In the passage
before us, the meaning, therefore, must be, that the
second class of persons are to rise unto a condition,
or so as to become an object, of reproach and of
everlasting abhorrence. This, now, may seem to
make the case all the stronger for the authors above
named. But observe that Daniel says that those
who have been asleep (i.e., dead) are to rise unto re
proach and abhorrence. The interpretation under
consideration quietly interpolates what Daniel says
nothing about, — a destruction (annihilation) of
the wicked as following the resurrection. Ac
cording to Dr. Ives, they have before been extermi
nated, and now they are restored to existence (for
this is what he understands by resurrection). So
that, when Daniel says that those who have been
exterminated are restored to existence so as to be-
become objects of perpetual abhorrence, Dr. Ives
understands this to mean that they are put out of
existence so as to become such objects of abhor
rence ! No one, not precommitted to an opposite

ISA. LXVI. 24. 403
view, could naturally understand the passage oth
erwise than as asserting that the second class of
persons mentioned, after having lain dead in the
grave, are to rise from the grave, and come into a
condition of perpetual disgrace.
We refrain from a prolonged examination of- the
various ways in which the apparent meaning of
the foregoing and other passages is explained
away. One favorite method is to find that the
language of the New Testament is a quotation
or accommodation of something taken from the
Old Testament. Thus the worm and the fire of
Mark ix. 48 are said to be evidently borrowed
from Isa. Ixvi. 24, where it is said of the Lord's
worshippers that "they shall go forth and look
upon the carcasses of the men that have trans
gressed against me ; for their worm shall not die,
neither shah their fire be quenched." This, say
Mr. Constable (p. 195) and Dr. Ives (p. 174),
shows what Christ meant: it is "not the living
but the dead" — carcasses — that the worm and fire
are to consume. No doubt Isaiah so seems to put
the matter, and no doubt our Saviour's language
is borrowed from Isaiah. No doubt, also, literal
worms generally attack the body only after it has
become a corpse. But what then ? Do these au
thors mean that the threat of the fire and the
worm has reference only to that which the lifeless
corpse is to experience in hell ? No : both of them
over and over emphasize the doctrine that literal

404 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
suffering is to be endured there. " How pro
tracted may be the act of dying in each case in
that furnace of fire the Lord does not reveal"
(Dr. Ives, p. 163). "Hell is not to all a sudden
cessation of existence. There is hfe in that fear
ful prison, though it continues not forever " (Mr.
Constable, p. 207). But, if so, wherefore this
emphasizing and Italicizing of the word "car
casses " in Isa. Ixvi. 24? Either Christ means the
same thing as Isaiah is said to mean, or he only
borrows his language, and means a different thing.
If he means the same thing, then his doctrine
of hell is simply that it is a place where corpses
are consumed; but he elsewhere so manifestly
pictures hell as a place of suffering, that even
these boldest of materialists have to admit that
hell is something more than a furnace where life
less bodies are consumed. Consequently it is
clear that Christ means something radically differ
ent from what Isaiah is said to mean. And, h so,
what honest purpose is served by this appeal to
Isaiah as a commentary on Christ? It would be
as legitimate to argue that hell ( Gehenna) itseh is
nothing but the valley of Hinnom, because the
Greek name of it is nothing but the Hebrew word
for that valley. Mr. White is more cautious.
He, too, refers to Isaiah ; but his inference is, " In
either case [at the destruction of -Jerusalem, and
at the final judgment] the effect wih be death:
the Avicked. will become dead corpses" (p. 408),

MR. AVHITE ON ISA. LX"VT. 24. 405
On the same page he speaks of the term " carcass
es" used by Isaiah as describing "the condition
of these victims of the worm and the fire," and
infers that the worm must symbolize absolute
death, not the gnawing of conscience. But, we
must ask, does Mr. White mean that men " become
dead corpses " through the action of the worm and
the fire ? He says that the passage in Isaiah evi
dently refers to the Assyrian slaughter (2 Kings
xix. 35). But were the Assyrians slaughtered by
fire and worms ? Mr. White cannot help implying
a distinction between the two cases, even while
trying to conceal it. On p. 407, speaking of the
passage in Isaiah, he says, " The ' worm ' stands
naturahy for putrefaction, the concomitant of death: "
thus probably meaning to intimate that the worm,
both there and in Mark ix. 48, is not to be under
stood literally, but is to be taken to mean some
thing which it "naturally" symbolizes; viz., the
" concomitant," or, more exactly, the sequel of
death. But, if it "naturahy" symbolizes that
which follows death, it does not naturally sym
bolize that which precedes and causes death. If
Christ's language is to be explained by Isaiah's,
and if the symbol is to be limited to the natural
relation of worms to literal death, then the analogy
must be carried through, and we must not tacitly
abandon it by saying that "the effect" of being
given over to the fire and the worm "will be
death."

406 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
While saying this, we do not admit that Isaiah
is to be understood so literally as is implied by
the writers above mentioned. What he says has
express reference to "the new heavens and the
new earth " which the Lord is to make (ver. 22) ;
and the phraseology of the concluding verse of the
chapter, though in form borrowed from the phe
nomena of the present earth, is yet descriptive
of future retribution. The worm undoubtedly
is suggested by what is found in putrefying
corpses; but so in Isa. xiv. 11, where the king
of Babylon is addressed as if still living while he
descends into Sheol, it is said, " The worm is spread
under thee, and the worms cover thee." More
over, Avhatever may be said of the naturalness of
symbolizing putrefaction by worms, it is not natural
to associate them with fire. Hence Knobel, a most
able commentator, but one who would be one of
the last to depart unnecessarily from a literal inter
pretation of the passage, says, " The corpses of the
fallen, therefore, lie unburied, as a punishment (vide
xiv. 19) ; and Jehovah will cause them still to
retain sensibility (Job xiv. 22), and to be inces
santly and painfully eaten by worms, and the fire
by which he has slain them (ver. 16) to burn con
tinually, and to cause them uninterrupted pain."
In this view commentators of all schools, as Gese
nius, Vitringa, Umbreit, Drechsler, Delitzsch,
Cowles, Alexander, Maurer, Barnes, Ewald, sub
stantially agree. When, therefore, Mr. Pettin-

THE WORM AND THE FIRE. 407
gell (p. 208), quoting from Barnes on Mark ix.
43-48), attempts to make the impression that he
understands Isaiah to mean " no more " than that
the worm shall eat and the fire shall burn only
" as long as there are carcasses to be devoured,"
and adds, " No sensible man thinks of giving it
any other interpretation as originally used by the
prophet," notwithstanding the fact that Barnes
says in his Commentary on Isaiah that the prophet
describes "punishment loathsome like that of ever-
gnawing worms on the carcasses of the slain, and
interminable and dreadful, like ever-consuming and
inextinguishable fires," the necessary conclusion
seems to be, that whether or not any are " sensi
ble," except Mr. Pettingell and those who agree
with him, 'his own " sense " is of a sort not closely
related to accuracy.
A somewhat similar comment might be made
on Isa. xxxih. 14: "Who among us shah dwell
with the devouring fire ? who among us shall
dwell with everlasting burnings ? " We attach no
decisive importance to it as a proof-text concern
ing the doctrine of future punishment ; but, like
Ixvi. 24, it refers to the summary vengeance taken
by Jehovah upon the wicked. And the epithet
"everlasting," here as elsewhere, when applied
to the instrument of punishment, most naturally
implies that the punishment, the suffering, is to be
perpetual. Much more significant is 2 Thess. i. 9, already

408 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE.
quoted, where there is threatened a destruction
which is not only " eternal," but which has for its
result that it separates men "from the presence of
the Lord, and from the glory of his power." The
punishment is thus designated as consisting prom
inently in the perpetual exclusion of the wicked
from the presence of Christ. If the punishment
were to be extermination, such a description would
be without point, and, indeed, almost without
meaning. The verse finds its parallel in Matt.
xxv. 41, Luke xiii. 27, 28, where the King is
represented as saying to the wicked at the judg
ment, " Depart from me ; " and the reason given
for the weeping, and gnashing of teeth, is, that they
are " thrust out ; " and, in the antithetic descrip
tion of the blessedness of the righteous', that it is
to consist largely in their being "ever with the
Lord" (1 Thess. iv. 17). We are aware that
some commentators explain the verse under con
sideration as meaning " destruction [which issues]
from the presence of the Lord." The possibility
of such an interpretation may be admitted; but
it is less simple and natural than the other. The
ellipsis thus assumed is harsh and without parallel,
and, if assumed, makes the verse little more than
a mere repetition of what is said in the previous
verse. But we will not enlarge. Enough has been said
to show that a natural, unforced interpretation
of the Scriptures finds there the doctrine of a

INFLUENCE OF PREPOSSESSIONS. 409
future and perpetual punishment of the impeni
tent clearly taught. The methods by which the
obvious meaning is evaded are such, that it may be
safely said that the doctrine could not have been
set forth so plainly but that some mode would
be found of explaining it away. It is difficult to
see how the doctrine could have been stated so as
to carry conviction to the minds of those who show
such a persistent determination not to accept it.
The mood with which the question is approached
is well indicated by Mr. Pettingell's language
(p. 22): "If it [the Bible] does [teach the doc
trine of eternal misery], — well, we will try to
believe it ; for the Bible is the word of God : but
it whl need to be made very plain." It needs
little prophetic insight to conjecture what result
wih be reached by one who enters upon his
investigation in this spirit.

410 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

CHAPTER XIV.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.
IN conclusion, we touch upon some considera
tions of a general character bearing upon the
questions which have been discussed.
1. The advocates of the doctrine of conditional
immortality are entirely arbitrary in their interpre
tation of figurative language. Whenever a literal
interpretation runs across a favorite or fixed behef,
then they reject it ; when it favors their behef, they
adopt it : but there seems to be no other principle
of interpretation followed. Thus Dr. Ives, in ac
cordance with his materialistic conception of man,
understands the " fire," so often spoken of as the
instrument of divine vengeance, as literal fire.
According to him, the wicked are to be literally
burned up. In elucidating this doctrine he ap
peals (p. 162) to Ps. cxii. 10, which he calls " an
inspired comment " on Christ's language concern
ing the burning of the tares : " The wicked shall
see it, and be grieved ; he shall gnash Avith his
teeth, and melt away." The last words are Itali
cized by Dr. Ives, and the impression made that

ABUSE OF LITERAL INTERPRETATION. 411
they describe the result of being put into the fur
nace of fire. But the word here rendered " melt "
(masas) is never used in the sense of being con
sumed, or even melted, in fire. Twice it is used
in the literal sense of melt; viz., of the manna
"when the sun waxed hot " (Exod. xvi. 21), and
of wax " before the fire " (Ps. lxviii. 2). Most fre
quently it is figuratively applied to the " heart ; "
as Josh. h. 11, " Our hearts did melt " (i.e., we
became discouraged). Twice it is used in highly
poetic language of the mountains : Isa. xxxiv. 3,
"The mountains shall be melted with, their
blood ; " Mic. i. 4, " The mountains shall be
molten under him [Jehovah]." These examples
show that the word properly means to become
liquid, as is sthl more clearly indicated in Josh.
vii. 5, where it is said, " The hearts of the people
melted, and became as water." When, now, we
turn to Ps. cxii. 10, we observe that only here is
the verb rendered " melt away : " there is no
reason for adding " away " here. The verse ex
presses only extreme unhappiness, and in no way
suggests extermination of existence. So much for
the "inspired comment."
But Dr. Ives, in adducing biblical proof of the
fact of a literal fire which is to extinguish the
ungodly, quotes such passages as Jer. xxiii. 19,
"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 : " and

412 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.
•
Luke xx. 18, " Whosoever shall fall upon that stone
shall be broken ; but on whomsoever it shall fall
it whl grind him to powder" (pp. 164, 167). But
how is destruction effected by a whirhvind proof
of a literal fire? If a man is to be ground to
poAvder, how can he be put to death by being
burned up? We may add, that in other places
we read that God's enemies will be punished
by a sword (Deut. xxxii. 41) ; that they are to be
dashed in pieces like a potter's vessel (Ps. ii. 9) ;
that they shall wither as the green herb (Ps.
xxxvii. 2) ; that they shall be consumed with the
pestilence (Deut. xxvhi. 21) ; that they shall be
crushed by a falling tower (Luke xhi. 5). It
cannot be objected by Dr. Ives that these passages
from the Old Testament refer to temporal destruc
tion, — the first death ; for the passages from the
Old Testament quoted by him, which threaten fire
as the agent of destruction, have the same appear
ance of referring to the first death. We ask him,
then, Are all these descriptions to be understood
literally ? This is, of course, impossible. He says
plainly (p. 167), that we are not to understand
Luke xiii. 5 to mean that the impenitent Jews
were all to be killed by a falling tower. We pre
sume that he thinks (though he expresses no
positive opinion) that the worm of Mark ix. 48 is
also not to be regarded as a literal worm. No:
none of these material and earthly instruments of
suffering and punishment are to be taken literally

ARBITRARY LITERALISM. 413
but one ! Having decided 'that this one — fire —
is literal fire, it becomes, of course, necessary to
decide that the others are to be understood
figuratively. If we ask by what right the fire is
declared to be literal fire, the answer is, that we
must follow the great law of the literal and the
figurative. We must exhaust the possibility of
understanding the descriptions literally before we
resort to a figurative interpretation. It is possible
to suppose that literal fire will be the agent of
extermination in the future life : therefore we
must believe that literal fire will be employed.
But, if we know enough about the nature of the
spiritual body and the future mode of existence
to know that .literal fire may be used as a means
of extinction, may we not equally well assume
that literal worms and swords and pestilences and
whirlwinds may be so employed also ? Certainly
this may be assumed of any of them as well as of
fire. But (we are told) they cannot be employed
together with fire : therefore the fire is literal, and
they are figurative !
Mr. White, while also insisting on understanding
the fire literally, attempts to soften the doctrine
by saying that "the fire threatened may not be
the less spiritual because ' material ; ' for material
is not far from spiritual anywhere. It is ultimately
God who is the ' consuming fire ; ' and nothing is
gained by dismissing the idea of an external agent
of destruction, if there still remains to be con-

414 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.
fronted Him [He?] who is said to 'burn up the
chaff with unquenchable fire ' " (p. 353). We
hardly know what to say to such a method of in
terpretation. So far as we can see, every thing
called figurative can thus be declared to be
literal. God is called a rock, a sun, a shield, a
tower. But "material is not far from spiritual
anyAvhere ; " and may not God be literally a rock,
only a " spiritual " one ? The worm, too, may be a
literal one, but yet spiritual. In fact, all these ap
parently sensuous representations of future things
may thus be affirmed to be strictly literal, if we
will only assume that the material and the spiritual
are substantially one. Any thing, in fact, may be
called spiritual, except — death.
2. This leads us to observe that the zeal of the
annihhationists for a literal interpretation of bibli
cal language exhausts itself on the one point of
insisting that "life" and "death" must be under
stood literally. Any thing else may freely be taken
figuratively in order to save the literalness there,
and every thing must be understood literally which
confirms the literal interpretation of those terms.
We will not here repeat the proof that the assumed
hteral sense of those terms (" existence " and "non
existence," or " loss of existence ") is not the literal
sense, after all. What we now emphasize is the fact
that every thing which seems to conflict with the
doctrine assumed to be taught by these terms is
freely explained away by resort to figurative inter-

ONE-SIDED LITERALISM. 415
pretations, even though these are of the most vio
lent sort. We have illustrated at length how Dr.
Ives makes every thing bend to his so-called literal
definition of " life " and " death." Whhe the Bible
says that Samuel spoke to Saul, Dr. Ives reveals
to us that this is not to be understood literally,
but that it was the woman or some accomplice
who was speaking. While the Bible tells us that
the rich man was in torment in Hades, Dr. Ives
tehs us that none of the statements in the parable
are to be understood literally. While the Bible
cahs death a " sleep," Dr. Ives informs us that this
is an emphatic mode of describing non-existence.
Every thing, in short, which asserts or implies that
death does not put an end to existence, is explained
away by any process, violent or even absurd, pro
vided it is necessary in order to maintain the doc
trine that death is the end of existence. Life is
defined as existence : but then we are told that at
death one's lhe returns to God, — is kept by him,
and restored at the resurrection ; i.e., while death
is the end of life, this same life, so far from being
annihilated, is preserved ! The Bible represents
regeneration as a new life. Of course this hfe can
not mean existence. What, then, shall be done in
order to save the hteralness of " life " ? Mr. Hud
son and Mr. White accomplish the object by every
where assuming the figure of prolepsis; that is,
whhe the Bible in all sorts of ways represents the
new lhe as a present thing, these expositors dis-

416 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.
cover — what no one would dream of who had no
pet theory to support — that the Bible only means
that the regenerate are going at some future time to
exist. But not even this will answer; for that
would imply that they do not now exist. Hence
"life" and "live" are transformed into "eternal
life " and "live forever; " and so, by this monstrous
distortion of simple language, the literal sense of
" life " is maintained ! Mr. Pettingell, however,
finds a different way of escape. With" him, too,
"life " means "existence; " but the new lhe begun
at the new birth he admits to be a present reality:
it is immortality begun. But how, then, can " hfe "
mean " existence " ? Is it meant, that, after a man
has existed, say, twenty years, he begins to exist
again? Apparently. And so the one man has two
existences running along side by side ! What Mr.
Pettingell implies, but fahs to say explicitly, Mr.
Litton (" Life or Death," p. 218) directly asserts
in speaking of the new birth : " A new bhth im
plies a new existence." To such a pitch of non
sense can men attain in the attempt to explain the
Bible "literally."
3. Akin to the allegation that " life " and " death"
must always be understood in their literal sense is
the assumption that these terms cannot be supposed
to have a meaning in the New Testament mate
rially different from what they have in classical
Greek.- We have already referred to Mr. White's
argument on this point. He says (p; 366), "When

ARGUMENT* FROM CLASSICAL USAGE. 417
Luke wrote a gospel for the churches planted by
Paul in Achaia or Macedonia or Asia Minor, or
when St. Paul wrote two letters to the Corinthians
recently converted from heathenism, who can im
agine, except one who has a theory to obey, that
these compositions Avere set forth in words which
were employed in senses previously unknown to
the readers at Corinth, Philippi, Athens, or Thes-
salonica?" It might have no weight with Mr.
White to ask him in reply, how it could be that
the Christians of succeeding generations to whom
the Greek language continued to be the vernacu
lar tongue came to understand the Greek words
used by Paul and Luke in a different sense from
the classical. Yet here is certainly food for reflec
tion. But, if this could somehow be accounted
for, we sthl must ask whether Mr. White will
deny that Greek words, when they became used
as the medium of communicating Christian truth,
were often transformed in meaning, so that no
equivalent can be found in classical usage. Where,
for example, in classical Greek, can the words pater
audhuios ("father" and "son") be found bearing
the peculiar sense which belongs to them in the
New Testament, where they describe the spiritual
relation of God to men as regenerated, as possess
ing the "spirit of adoption," and introduced into
" the household of faith " ? Jupiter is indeed often
called the father of gods and of men, but only in
the general sense of producer, lord, or protector.

418 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.
Nowhere in heathen writers can any thing be found
analogous to Paul's description in Rom. vih. 15,
16. Yet this is the fundamental element in the
New-Testament conception of the fatherhood of
God. Or to take a still more striking example :
nowhere in classical Greek is the word, pneuma used
in the sense which it almost uniformly has in the
New Testament. Here is one of the most fre
quent and important words of the Bible, describ
ing one of the persons of the Trinity and the
highest attribute of humanity, and bearing a sense
which is perfectly familiar to us, and which, we
must assume, was equally intehigible to the first
Christian readers of the original books of the New
Testament; and yet it is indisputable that the
word, as compared with its classical sense, under
went a change greater than the one which is
alleged to have taken place in the case of the
words " life " and " death," notwithstanding Mr.
White says that it is "evident that old words
would not be used in new and strange senses,
such as making death (thanatos or phihora) stand
for endless misery, without full warning from such
conscientious correspondents" (p. 367). What
would Mr. White say to one, who, following his
example of getting his definition of the New-Tes
tament thanatos (death) from Plato, should in like
manner go to the classical writers for his definition
of the New-Testament pneuma, and, because he
finds that there it uniformly has the lower sense

AN ARGUMENT THAT PROVES TOO MUCH. 419
of wind or breath or vitality, should infer that it
cannot possibly have any essentially different sense
in the writings of John and Paul ? Dr. Ives, and
some others, have, indeed, thus defined the New-
Testament pneuma. But Mr. White is too intelli
gent and too candid to do so ignorant or dishonest
a thing ; and yet the argument he uses respecting
the New-Testament meaning of "death" is no
more plausible or cogent than would be the sup
posed one respecting pneuma.
4. An objection much urged against the current
interpretation of the biblical doctrine is, that a
truth of such tremendous practical importance to
men as that of the endless punishment of the
wicked must needs have been taught, not only
more distinctly in the New Testament, but equally
also in the Old Testament, and to the earliest
members of our race. Plausible as such an objec
tion may sound, it is a sufficient reply that it
weighs equally against other doctrines. Why was
the doctrine of the future life in general so ob
scurely taught in the Old Testament that many
excellent and learned Christians are constrained
to beheve that it was not taught at all? Why
was not Christ incarnated, and salvation through
him made knoAvn, as soon as Adam fell ? Surely
here we have a truth of most momentous conse
quence to the spiritual and eternal welfare of men,
the clear revelation of which was delayed as long
as the doctrines concerning the future hfe. The

420 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.
objection against the doctrine of endless punish
ment now under consideration, if valid, would
oblige us to conclude that the common interpreta
tion of the New-Testament doctrine of salvation
through Christ is false, or else that all which he
came to communicate concerning himself as the
light and life of the world was equally well known,
not only to the ancient Jews, but also to all the
heathen from the earliest times. An argument
which logically leads to this result must be con
demned as proving too much, and therefore prov
ing nothing.
5. Great stress is laid by the advocates of the
doctrine of conditional immortality upon the prac
tical effect which is to be anticipated from preach
ing it both in Christian and heathen nations. We
are told that men will not believe so fearful a
doctrine as that of endless misery, and that this
is the reason why so few of the heathen and
Mohammedans are converted to Christianity.
Glowing pictures are presented of the great suc
cess which will probably attend Christian missions
as soon as the doctrine of conditional immortality
shall be boldly and universally proclaimed. The
ground on which this prediction is founded is the
disagreeableness of the doctrine of eternal punish
ment. The heathen, we are told, will not adopt a
religion which declares their ancestors to be des
tined to endless suffering, though they may be
expected to embrace one which only declares those
ancestors to be annihilated.

ADAPTING TRUTH TO HEATHEN TASTE. 421
It*is obvious to remark, in the first place, that
even though it be true that the doctrine of anni
hilation would gain> more and more ready ad
herents among heathen and unbelievers than that
of eternal punishment, yet that would not prove
the latter to be false, and the former to be true.
Paul was not in the habit of accommodating his
preaching to the tastes of his auditors, so as to
avoid making it a stumbling-block to the Jew, and
foolishness to the Greek. It does not require
much knowledge of human nature to perceive that
men love the agreeable rather than the true.
There is hardly a characteristic doctrine of Chris
tianity which is not disagreeable to many men, or
even to the most of men, when it is addressed
to an impenitent and hardened heart. The doc
trine of native depravity, of the necessity of re
generation, of salvation through the atonement
of Christ alone, — these have met with most bitter
opposition, as being intrinsically unreasonable and
repulsive. But shall we therefore abandon them,
or modify them so that they shall be conformed
to the tastes of the natural man? All this argu
ment and' appeal addressed to missionaries and
missionary societies, resting on the supposed ad
vantage which would be gained in preaching the
gospel to the heathen by substituting the doctrine
of conditional immortality for that of eternal pun
ishment, is entirely out of place. If the doctrine
in question is true, then of course it ought to be

422 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.
preached, even though the apparent success of
missions should be retarded by preaching it ; if it
is false, then that fact, and not the offensiveness
of the doctrine, should be made the reason for not
preaching it.
But, in the second place, even these alleged
advantages are only hypothetical. The proposed
doctrine, as a practical power, has not been tested.
The early Christians did not gain their successes
by preaching the doctrine of annihilation. No
more striking proof that eternal punishment had
been commonly preached can be found than the
.fact, that even Origen, while privately believing
in the ultimate restoration of all men, yet preached
the doctrine of eternal punishment, for the reason
that it was currently accepted, and that God him
self had appointed the fear of eternal punishment
as a salutary doctrine. The success of Francis
Xavler in the East was not due to his rejecting
the doctrine of eternal punishment ; for he did not
reject it. If it was due to his skilful accommo
dation of Christianity in other respects to the
notions of his auditors, or to his appeal to the
sensuous tastes of the heathen, is this to. be re
garded as an argument in favor of the method
employed? Mr. White alludes (p. 517) to the
Buddhist notion of nirvana, — the notion that the
highest good to be desired and hoped for is the loss
of individual being. But surely this weighs little
in favor of his doctrine. Here we have a system

MR. WHITE'S FALLACIOUS REASONING. 423
of religion, which, in a comparatively short time,
gained more votaries than Christianity has gained
in nearly nineteen centuries ; and yet (according
to Mr. White's representation, not assented to by
all, that nirvana means the absolute loss of indi
vidual existence) it taught, that for the unbeliever
there was nothing to expect but an endless series
of wearisome transmigrations, whhe the highest
good to be striven after by the faithful Buddhist
was ultimate extinction of being. In other words,
the worst that Mr. White holds out to the unbe
liever is the best which Buddhism offers to the
believer; and yet this system gained unparalleled
triumphs over the mhlions of India and China.
How is the success of Mohammedanism to be
accounted for? The doctrine of eternal punish
ment for the infidel was as fixed a dogma in that
system as in the Christian ; and yet how rapidly
it gained adherents ! In view of such patent facts,
that must be pronounced shallow reasoning which
seeks to account for the slow progress of Chris
tianity by the offensiveness of its doctrine of future
punishment. In reply to this, it can only be said
(and this is virtuahy said by Mr. White) that the
present age is more enhghtened than the former,
and that what once was blindly accepted will be
accepted no longer. But it is no new thing to
hear this sort of argument. The French infidels
of the last century thought the world too enlight
ened to continue to hold any of the characteristic

424 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.
doctrines of Christianity; but somehow the Chris
tian Church seems to hold its own in spite of the
repeated predictions of its overthrow. And as to
Christian missions in the East, that which mission
aries have most to contend against is the influx
of the works of English and French infidels, in
which the very foundations of all revealed religion
are assailed.
6. But a more radical objection brought against
the doctrine in question is, that it is inherently
unreasonable and incredible. We must teach a
doctrine of future punishment, Mr. White says,
"which men cannot put aside, saying, 'It is too
horrible to be true"' (p. 495). "There is no true
doctrine which will not bear thinking of" (p. 465).
" The more earnestly it [the doctrine of an eter
nal hell] is studied, the less it is believed in,
whether by clown or phhosopher, wise or unwise "
(p. 489). " There can be no surer indication of the
deep popular disbelief than this, — that the habit
ual language of profane cursing and swearing, which
nominally is derived from the orthodox doctrine
of damnation, runs from the lips of the utterers
without the faintest sign of faith in the reality
of what they imprecate on each other's heads"
(Ibid.). "The general alienation from Christiani
ty of the scientific, literary, and laboring classes
of Europe, so far as it is speculative, is the final
result of a scepticism which began with a denial
of the endless torment of the lost" (Ibid.). Fur-

THE ARGUMENT FROM REASON. 425
thermore, he adduces the testimony of a converted
Roman Cathohc, to -the effect, that, so far as his
experience had indicated, "the dogma of hell . . .
did no moral or spiritual good, but rather the
reverse. ... It appealed to the lowest motives
and the lowest characters. ... It never (except
ing in the rarest cases) deterred from the commis
sion of sin " (Preface, p. viii). In short, the allega
tion is, that the doctrine is contrary to the reason
and moral sense of enlightened men; that it is
practically injurious so far as it is believed ; and
that, therefore, it is generally, and ought to be
universally, rejected.
Some of the reasoning here involved is certainly
not very conclusive. The proof of "the deep pop
ular disbelief " of the orthodox doctrine of future
punishment, derived from the imprecations thought
lessly uttered by profane men, would equally
prove their "deep disbelief " of the existence of
God, whose name is uttered " without the faintest
sign of faith in the reahty of" the Being whose
name is thus profaned. Shall we therefore begin
to abandon the doctrine of God, so as to conform
our doctrinal system to the popular conception as
manifested in the language of swearers ?
The statement that the prevailing scepticism of
the age began with a denial of the doctrine of
eternal punishment is merely an assertion unac
companied with proof, and much more easily made
without proof than furnished with it. It is cer-

426 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.
tain, that, in sceptical works attacking the foun
dations of Christianity, very little prominence is
given to the doctrine in question. The scepticism
of the present day is essentially of a materialistic
or pantheistic type. Its fundamental principle is
that of the uniformity and necessity of natural
phenomena. Its great bugbear is the miraculous
and the supernatural. It is less apt to question
the quality, than to deny the fact, of a revelation.
If it admits the doctrine of any future existence
of man, it finds no special trouble in believing in
his eternal existence. If it holds to any sort of
retribution, it inclines to one that comes by natu
ral law, and works by an inexorable, impersonal
necessity. If, in respect to the matter of future
retribution, we are to aim to adapt the Christian
system to the taste of these sceptics, one of the last
things to be done is to set before them the doc
trine of a miraculous bodily resurrection of the
dead, followed by a miraculous plunging of them
into a material fire which is to burn up the body
and extinguish the soul. Yet this is the substitute
Avhich Mr. White offers them.
It is true, that, after stoutly advocating this doc
trine, he himself seems to be somewhat dubious
about it, and suggests the possibility that mental
sufferings may be the only positive inflictions pre
ceding the extinction (p. 355). And Mr. Hudson,
more disinclined to believe in physical sufferings
as the doom of the unbeliever, says, " Who knows

DISAGREEMENT OF ANNIHILATIONISTS. 427
that in the hour of dissolution the thought may
not wander through the eternity that eludes his
grasp, and reckon against the burden of his guilt
the eternal weight of glory that was offered in his
ransom ? " (" Debt and Grace," p. 423.) Mr. Pet
tingell declines to express an opinion whether the
fire is literal or not. Dr. Ives, however, is sure
that there is to be a hteral fire, literally burning
the sinner up. Mr. Hudson's view, which at first
sight seems the most tender-hearted, is, if intelligi
ble at all, in some respects the seArerest. If, as he
says, the lost soul may, " by some law of its nature, '
so transcend the laws of time and space as to
apprehend a certain boundlessness of its woe "
(Ibid.), then this means, that, in that one moment
in which the sinner at once awakes and exphes,
he suffers an eternity of woe. If this is con
ceivable and possible, then how is it any better than
an actual eternity of suffering ? If an eternity of
suffering can be concentrated into a point, then
(always supposing that any thing intelligible is
thus expressed) it is equivalent to the same eter
nity of suffering spread out. But, not to dwell on
this point, the noteworthy fact is, that the various
annihilationists are unable to agree upon any
thing respecting the ultimate fate of the wicked,
except that their existence is to come to an end.
In theh expositions of the doctrine, sometimes
"eternal" is understood to mean "eternal," at
other times only " long," and at other times eter-

428 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.
nal in regard to the effect. Some of them believe
" fire " to be literal fire, and others something else ;
some of them threaten to the sinner a long period
of suffering, and others only a moment of it ; some
of them believe in a future probation, and others
do not ; some of them make the punishment con
sist in the annihilation, and others in the physical
pain preceding it, or in the mere mental anticipa
tion of it ; some of them make both the first and
the second death mean extermination, others make
the first death mean only the death of the body,
and others 'still make " death " sometimes denote
spiritual obduracy.
But the fact of special significance is, that the
fundamental doctrine of the annihilationists con
cerning death, when viewed in the light of reason,
is inherently seh-contradictory. What, according
to them, is the real penalty of sin ? If they -"-ay it
is simply the termination of existence, then the
objection at once occurs that this of itself cannot
be called punishment, since it is something of
which, from the nature of the case, the sinner him
self, strictly speaking, has absolutely no experience.
It is to him no pain : it is nothing to him ; for, the
instant the penalty is inflicted, he becomes nothing
himself, and cannot feel it. A man cannot be
punished who does not exist. As an influence for
other beings, or as a means of ridding the universe
of moral evil, this kind of retribution may, on
rational grounds, be advocated; but, as a penalty

IN WHAT CONSISTS THE PENALTY OF SIN? 429
known and felt by the guilty person himself, it is
absolutely nothing. If, however, the penalty is
said to consist in the anticipation of annihilation,
then it does not consist in annihilation, but in the
antecedent dread of it. So, if the sinner is said
also to undergo physical pain or remorse of con
science before passing into nothingness, the real
penalty here also consists in the pain, not in the
termination of it. In fact, annihilation in this
case becomes an act of mercy. That which the
Bible threatens as " the wages of sin " becomes
simply the termination of the payment of the
wages. Should it be said, that, so long as the fear
of annihilation produces unhappiness, this itself is
retribution enough, even though the annihilation
is not felt as an evil when it comes, we reply : If
annihilation is, on the whole, dreaded, then this
implies that existence is preferred to non-exist
ence. It implies, that, however much unhappiness
may be experienced, there is not so much of it, but
that, on the whole, the sinner enjoys existence too
much to be willing to give it up. But this surely
is not the condition which the annihilationists un
derstand to be meant in the passages which speak
of "indignation and wrath, tribulation and an
guish," the burning fire, the gnawing worm, and
the " wahing, and gnashing of teeth. ' Men wih
sometimes endure much when there is a hope of
relief and happiness following ; but if this hope is
cut off, and existence is nothing but wretchedness,

430 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.
nothing could be more to be longed for by the
inhabitants of hell than extinction of being. To
such persons, therefore, neither annihilation nor
the anticipation of it is any punishment. Our
Saviour's declaration, that the reprobate shall go
into " everlasting punishment," cannot possibly be
reconciled with the annihilationist's doctrine. Dr.
Ives (p. 171) constructs this syllogism: "The
punishment of sin is death: but that death is
eternal; therefore the punishment is eternal."
Not to insist that it is a misuse of the word " eter
nal " to apply it to an event which is not eternal
in itseh, it is sufficient to observe, that, according
to Dr. Ives himself, the real punishment is the
consuming fire ; and the termination of this suffer
ing by annihilation is called by him "an act of
infinite mercy." Death, therefore, on his own
showing, is not the punishment of sin.
Mr. White, feeling this difficulty, reheves him
self by the simple process of giving a convenient
definition of the word "death." It is, he says
(p. 377), " one of the most ordinary usages of
speech to convey the compound ideas of suffering
and final cessation of lhe by each one of the very
terms [" death," &c] under examination ; " and
he proceeds to substantiate this statement by ap
pealing to such phrases as "painful death," "vio
lent death," "miserable destruction," &c. Now,
while it is true that Ave sometimes use the word
" death " so as to include in it the conception of

IN WHAT CONSISTS THE PENALTY OF SIN? 431
the immediate concomitants of death, yet Mr.
White's statement is utterly incorrect. We "not
only speak of a painful death, but with equal pro
priety of a painless or a happy death. Are we to
conclude that the Avord " death," therefore, con
veys the "compound ideas of" happiness "and
the cessation of life " ? It is obvipus that the
notion of suffering, or the opposite, is expressed
in all these cases by the adjective, not the- noun.
The same reasoning as that of Mr. White would
warrant us in saying that the word " hfe " conveys
the compound ideas of suffering and existence,
because we often speak of a "miserable life," an
"unfortunate life," &c. This attempt, therefore,
to make the word "death" itself designate, to
gether with annihilation, the sufferings which pre
cede and cause it, is quite fallacious. Is it not
significant, also, that the Bible, when it speaks of
suffering as the wages of sin, never speaks of it as
issuing in death ?
Annihilationists thus show themselves incom
petent to settle, or even to agree upon, the
simplest principles underlying God's punishment
of sin. On the fundamental questions, whether
the sinner is punished before death or by death,
and whether death is a natural termination of
existence or a positive and penal infliction, they
contradict one another, and each one contradicts
himself. On the more subordinate questions, what
kind of suffering, and how much of it, the sinner

432 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.
undergoes, their answers are equally indeterminate
and self-contradictory. The only thing on which
they are thoroughly agreed is, that somehow, at
some time, and for some reason, impenitent sinners
will cease to exist. The tendency of the doctrine
is to make little or nothing of retribution con
sciously experienced as the merited reAvard of
guilt. The practical effect of the advocacy of it
will be that men will accept it, if at all, in its least
offensive form ; viz., that of mere annihilation, un
accompanied with retributive pain. The impelling
motive which leads to the advocacy of the doctrine
is everywhere, and often avowedly, not primarily
a desire to inquire, without bias, what the Bible
says, but a deep dislike of the doctrine of eternal
punishment, and a determination to explain it out
of the Bible if possible. We must be excused
if we feel constrained to withhold our confidence
from those who thus begin their investigations
with a determination to make the Bible teach a
certain negative doctrine, and whose positive
enunciations of it are marked by such confusions
and self-contradictions.
We are aware that to expose the inconsistencies
and defectiveness of the arguments brought against
the doctrine of eternal punishment is not a demon
stration of the truth of the doctrine. But it is
important in this way to show how incompetent
the human reason is to settle such an immense
problem as the one in consideration. It is im-

UNREASONABLE REASONING. 433
portant to insist that it is from divine revelation,
and not from unaided reason, that those ruling
conceptions of the divine character are derived,
which, it is alleged, are inconsistent with the end
less punishment of the disobedient. But if this
revelation gives, as it does, a vastly brighter pic
ture of God's love and compassion than the
merely natural reason ever dared to picture to
itself, this very fact should lead us to accept, ac
cording to its natural import, whatever the revela
tion has disclosed respecting the , doom of the
finally impenitent. It is essentially unfair and
unreasonable to use one portion of the revelation
as a ground for rejecting another. It should espe
cially be remembered, that the clearest and most
emphatic utterances concerning the endless punish
ment of the wicked come from the very Saviour
who came to reveal and execute the loving pur
poses of God.
It is natural to attempt to defend philosophically
the doctrine which is derived exegetically from
the Bible. Hence many have undertaken to show
that the doctrine of endless punishment not only
is, but must be, true. And it often seems as if
such men rested the whole, case on the verdict
of simple reason concerning the intrinsic desert of
sin. Consequently, any flaw in these reasonings
is caught up as a striking proof of the weakness
of the cause which is defended by so poor argu
ments. For example : the metaphysical argument,

434 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.
formerly employed, that sin deserves an infinite
punishment, because committed against an infinite
God, is justly condemned as fallacious, and even
foolish. But it does not follow that the doctrine
is refuted when this defence of it is proved to
be unsound ; nor would the refutation of any
number of fallacious arguments of human inven
tion demonstrate that the doctrine is not revealed
as true. The doctrine of the trinity, or the doc
trine of the atonement, can as easily be over
thrown as that of eternal punishment, if Ave are
to discuss them purely on metaphysical grounds.
It is not our purpose to weigh the several argu
ments, more or less plausible, which have been
resorted to in justification of the divine treatment
of sin. One only we may notice in passing, since
it is, perhaps, now more prominently put forward
than any other ; viz., the argument derived from
the tendency of sinful habits to strengthen them
selves, so that the sinner continues to sin in the
future hfe, and so continues to deserve punish
ment. This argument is certainly not overthrown
by the dogmatic assertion of Mr. Constable (" Du
ration and Nature of Future Punishment," p. 154),
that the lost in hell are not " capable of sinning,"
because, being denied all the benefits of law, they
are under no obligation to law. According to
this, Satan, whom Mr. Constable (p. 210) calls
" that arch-fiend," and all the demons who with
him are obliged to " look forward to their being

TENDENCY OF SIN TO FIX ITSELF. 435
destroyed in hell" (Ibid.), since they are deprived
of the benefit of law, must likewise be incapable
of sinning. But, if so, why call the poor Devil an
"arch-fiend"? If those who are undergoing pun
ishment are incapable of sinning, it must be be
cause they have lost all moral sense, and sense of
responsibility ; and, if so, they are incapable of
feehng the justice of their own punishment, — a
monstrous assumption.
Nor is this argument refuted by the allegation,
that, according to the Bible, sinners suffer in the
future world for the sins done in the present. It
is true that the present life is represented as a
probation, and judgment is said to follow death
(Heb. ix. 27) ; but it is nowhere said that eter
nal punishment is inflicted on men merely for the
deeds done in the body. Nor is there any thing
to be found inconsistent with the supposition that
the probation here is a probation in which charac
ter is formed ; so that the future life is not merely
a state in which one is punished or rewarded for
the things done in this life, but is a state in which
one finds himself fixed in the character formed
during his probation, so that the continued indul
gence of sinful propensities continually merits and
receives punishment. Such a view does not ex
clude the doctrine that positive punishments also
are inflicted for the sins of this life. It must be
borne in mind, however, that this argument should
not be presented as a positive and independent

436 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.
demonstration of the doctrine of endless punish
ment, but merely as a reasonable and probable
hypothesis, which at least is adequate to rebut the
objections urged on rational grounds against the
current doctrine.
We do not profess to be able to demonstrate
from reason either the reality or the justice of
eternal punishment ; but quite as strongly do we
maintain that reason cannot disprove its reality or
justice. We prefer to take the ground, that the
question is one which unaided reason is utterly
unqualified to settle. That persons who have in
curred a penal sentence should themselves assume
the part of judges concerning the justice of their
sentence is certainly not an intrinsically proper
thing; yet this is what is practically done by
those who undertake to determine how much of
punishment is due to those who deliberately and
persistently refuse to submit to the Almighty
Ruler. We are all convicts. Many are pardoned
on condition of repentance. But all either receive
or deserve condemnation. Yet it is those crimi
nals who assume to pass judgment on the ill desert
of sin. The impossibility of their deciding accu
rately might be argued from the intrinsic impossi
bility of any man's being able to adjudge to
spiritual guilt its proper penalty. This is some
thing surely which only Omniscience is adequate
to decide. But what would in any case be beyond
human capacity becomes simply audacious fohy

INCOMPETENCY OF REASON SHOWN. 437
when the judgment is passed by those who have
themselves incurred the guilt. We do not need
even to rest the case here, though this ought to be
sufficient to make us modest in regard to such a
matter. It is easy for the reason itself to demon
strate the utter incompetency of reason to deal with
this question. Thus : How many, even among
those who are professedly religious men, habitu
ally suffer more distress of mind in consequence
of the consciousness of displeasing God by sinful
feelings than in consequence of the misfortunes
and blunders, which, even with no fault of theirs,
expose them to the loss of temporal comforts, or
of the respect of men? Is it not notorious that a
mere unintentional breach of etiquette, involving
a temporary loss of the esteem of some human
being, often causes far more mental uneasiness
than the thought of spiritual impurity, of selfish
ness or uncharitableness, of resentment or malice,
or of any other form of sin, while yet the person
knows that the latter is infinitely more fitted to
awaken trouble of mind than the other ? Nothing
is easier than for a man thus to convict himself of
being altogether wrong as to his feelings with
respect to the comparative fitness of sin and dis
comfort to cause unhappiness. But it is in these
feelings that men's practical views of the evil of
sin disclose themselves. And is it possible that
our theories can be depended on, when our prac
tical judgments are so demonstrably wrong?

438 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.
If we really know any thing about the future
retribution of sin, our knowledge must come from
a supernatural source. The human reason and
•conscience may ratify or condemn certain forms
of doctrine respecting the matter, but can of
themselves establish nothing. If all men were
absolutely sinless, and if all were agreed as to
what sin would deserve, their judgment might be
of some value. But, as men are, .they are bhnded
and partial ; absolutely incapable of passing judg
ment on a matter of such a character. Moreover,
they cannot agree among themselves what the
proper retribution of sin is ; the general fact being,
that, the worse a man is, the less severe is his judg
ment of the ill desert of sin. Manifestly we are
left in total darkness concerning the real facts
of future retribution, unless we get light from
divine revelation. And here, more, if possible,
than anywhere else, does it behoove us humbly
and reverently to inquire, What saith the Scrip
ture? — not, What do we think it ought to say?
nor, What do we wish it to say? And in the
investigation of the biblical doctrine of retribu
tion, if sober interpreters disagree in their inter
pretations of its import, it is manifest, that, since
Ave are naturally inclined greatly to underrate the
evil of sin, the presumption is in favor of the
severer doctrine. In other words, any effort to
tone down the meaning which the Bible conveys
to the ordinary reader, any straining' of the obvi-

THE BIBLE THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY. 439
ous significance of its language, practised for the
sake of avoiding the more disagreeable form of the
doctrine, must be presumed to be false exegesis.
It does not follow from this that the most ex
treme form in which the doctrine of future pun
ishment can be presented is, therefore, the most
correct. We do not defend the indiscretions of
those who have undertaken to portray in savage
literalness and particularity what the Bible teaches
only in general and figurative language.. It is
easy, by culling out the grosser and more repulsive
pictures which have been drawn of the horrors
of hell by Christian writers of different periods,
to seek to make the impression that the doctrine
of eternal punishment implies the unending con
tinuance of just that kind and degree of physical
torture which these men have been led to describe
damnation as consisting in. But, on the other
hand, it is doing such men the grossest injustice
to represent them as inventing a hell for the
gratification of their own malicious passions, or
as enjoying a savage pleasure in the sufferings
of other men. There must always be a strong
presumption that no one — certainly no Christian
— would advocate the doctrine of endless punish
ment, unless convinced that a fair interpretation
of the Bible leads to it ; or if some, irrespective
of the Bible, are convinced that it is most rational
to hold the doctrine, it is certainly not a mere
brutal dehght in contemplating the misery of the

440 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.
lost that recommends the doctrine to them. Yet
this is virtually the accusation brought by Mr.
Pettingell (pp. 210, 211) against many of those
who hold the doctrine he opposes. He tells of a
painting in Rome which represents purgatory, and
its "wretched victims writhing in agony. " But,"
he adds, " more prominent than these victims, or
the devils that are tormenting them, are the stokers
standing by, and with long poles stirring the fire.
The eager satisfaction they take in their pious
work manifests itself in their countenances, and
in the earnestness with which they address them
selves to it. The only drawback to their complete
happiness would seem to be the fact that these
fires are not ' unquenchable and everlasting,' but
only purgatorial, and these wretched victims may
yet find relief. But there is no such drawback to
the happiness of those who advocate the doctrine
of endless torment, and who seem determined, if
it were possible, to make it true, whether they can
prove it or not." Those who disagree with this
author in their views of retribution are thus plainly
charged by him with advocating a certain doc
trine, not because they are honestly convinced
that it is taught in the Bible, nor because they are
persuaded of its truth by any valid arguments
whatever, but because, in spite of evidence to the
contrary, they wish it to be true. Moreover, the
reason why they wish it to be true is alleged to
consist in a fiendish delight in the assurance that

ORTHODOXY NOT FIENDISHNESS. 441
men are going to suffer endless torment. That
is, they are accused of flagrant insincerity and
dishonesty ; and the motive for such dishonesty is
found in a demoniacal ferocity that dehghts in
torture for torture's sake. If any thing more is
wanting to complete the picture' of a demon, we
do not know what it is ; and this clergyman, who
bewahs the lack of tenderness in those who dissent
from his views, presents this picture as a fair de
scription of his fellow-Christians who advocate
the doctrine which he denounces. If we did not
suppose that Mr. Pettingell wrote in too much
heat of sphit to be conscious of the real import of
his words, we should feel constrained to suggest
to him that there is an inhumanity which is worse
than that which finds delight in witnessing, or
even inflicting, physical torture, — the inhumanity
of one who scatters slanderous aspersions broad
cast over the land.
It is indeed to be desired that those who treat of
this subject should avoid ah undue severity, as weh
as ah levity, and manifest a spirit in keeping with
the solemn import of the theme. But an exegetical
or scientific investigation of the theme, especially
when the discussion partakes of a controversial
nature, should not be expected to be character
ized by the same display of tender feeling which
might be appropriately required in a homhetic
discourse ; and it is a grievous wrong to make the
positiveness, or even the vehemence, with which

442 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.
some advocates of the doctrine of eternal punish
ment combat the shallow, perverse, or outrageous
exegesis of their opponents, an evidence that they
have no sense of the awfulness of the doctrine
which they defend. There is a tenderness which
shrinks from severe truths and disagreeable duty :
it is no merit in a man to possess it. There is also
a tenderness which can face repulsive scenes, and
give credence to unwelcome truths, for the sake
of saving men from present suffering or degrada
tion, and from the greater evil of .the world to
come : it is weh for all to have it.
Let it also be borne in mind, that those who be
lieve in the doctrine of endless punishment, hold,
no less firmly than any others, that God is a God
of love and of justice. Whatever he does is right;
whatever punishment he inflicts, he inflicts in spite
of his desire to bless. But we hold that it is not .
the province of sinful and narrow-minded men to
decide for him what he may or may not do. It is
enough to know that the whole purpose of his
revelation of himself is to draw men towards him
in love and service ; that he promises unspeakable
good to those who forsake sin, and walk in the way
of holiness ; and that upon those who wilfully re
ject his offers of grace he puts the responsibility
of theh own doom. That doom will be just, what
ever it is. Neither the Bible nor reason pro
nounces the retribution of all the lost to be
equally severe. The obstinately wicked whl be

GOD IS JUST. 443
more severely punished than the less guhty (Luke
xii. 47, 48). God is just: the Judge of all the
earth will do right. But, while this very proposi
tion imphes that in some sense the Deity is under
obhgation to immutable laws of righteousness, it
must be insisted, on the other hand, that no one
but God is perfectly qualified to determine what
those laws require in the divine government. If,
therefore, he has given us glimpses of his retribu
tive dealings with men in that world which is
opened to us only by his revelation, it belongs to
us to say, not that such things are not just, and
therefore cannot be, but that they must be just,
because they are the doings of Him whose judg
ments are true and righteous altogether.

TOPICAL INDEX.

Abraham, the promise made to,
320.
Abraham's bosom, 105.
Adam, the death threatened
against, 337-343, 366, 367.
Aionios, the meaning of, 388-394.
Annihilation, as argued from
the death of Christ, 360-366.
double, 202, 368.
as a doctrine for missionaries,
420424.
not synonymous with death,
86, 102-138, 368, 382-409.
apparent proof of, in the Old
Testament, 160-166.
as a punishment, 428-432.
the term, how used, 76.
Annihilationists, different
schools of, 77.
disagreement among, on fu
ture penalty, 428-432.
Atonement, Mr. White on the,
360-366.
Barnes, Rev. Albert, on Isa.
- Ixvi. 24, quoted, 407.
Beasts and men, distinction
between, 23, 53, 91.
called nephesh, 17, 64.
Bios, meaning of, 227.
Blood, as representing the life,
136, 192, 301.
alleged absence of, in the
resurrection-body, 192.
Bodily organs denoting mental
qualities, 30-32, 53, 67.
Body, being absent from the, 127.

Body, biblical terms for, 77-79.
prominence of the, in the
future life, 261.
resurrection of the, 86, 185-
187, 208, 217-220.
and soul contrasted, 93, 356-
358.
and spirit contrasted, 36, 40,
75-101.
Christ, death of, as a dying to
sin, 210.
death of, as a proof of annihi
lation, 360-366.
his descent to Hades, 178.
testimony of, on future pun
ishment, 433.
resurrection of, 186, 205, 285.
the author of resurrection, 206.
Conscience, biblical terms for,
29, 54, 56.
Consciousness not suspended at
death, 169, 172.
Constable, Rev. H., his defini
tion of " life," 228.
on Isa. Ixvi. 24, 403.
on Matt. xxv. 46, 389.
on moral responsibility, 434.
on Satan, 434.
on Sheol, 150.
Corpse called nephesh, 17, 63.
Davis, Rev. Thomas, on " dying
unto sin," 272-274.
Death, abolition of, 376-378.
as threatened to Adam, 337-
341, 366. 4)5

446

TOPICAL INDEX.

Death, why not called eternal,
391-394.
not the end of existence, 86,
102-138, 369409.
figurative senses of, 263-275.
flexible sense of, 378-382.
as a future experience, 328.
literal sense of, 228, 246, 251,
311,319,351,360,414,430.
longed for by Paul, 123-126,
352.
as a punishment, 330, 336, 354,
369, 382, 430, 431.
the second, 340, 351.
as a consequence of sin, 329-
331, 338, 345, 34«, 381.
of the soul, 12, 20, 81, 350, 356.
spiritual sense of, defined, 322,
327, 375, 378.
Mr. White on the meaning of,
323-325, 360-366, 430.
Destruction of sinners, 332, 333,
359, 392, 408.
Dobney, Mr., his definition of
"life," 228.
Dying unto sin, 209-211, 269-274.
Ecclesiastes, significance of its
testimony, 162.
Elijah and Moses, 120, 121.
Emotions, biblical terms for
the, 14, 25, 28, 34, 37, 53.
Enoch, translation of, 151, 165.
and Elijah, 121, 203.
Eternal, meaning of the term,
388-394.
biblical terms for, 370,388-393,
397.
Eternal life as a future pos
session, 305-308.
as a present possession, 304.
Eternal punishment, 387-408.
a doctrine of revelation, 433,
438.
coarse statements of the doc
trine of, 439.
doctrine of, as related to mis
sions, 420.
animus of the opponents of
the doctrine of, 409, 432.
as related to the sins of this
life, 435.
Existence not terminated at
death, 102-138.

Existence not synonymous with
life, 228-230, 239-L42, 244,
249-251, 278-280, 303, 309-
312, 416.
the term cannot be used preg
nantly, 244, 309.
Ezekiel's vision of the dry-
bones, 219.
Fatherhood of God, 417.
Figurative language, test of,
3-7.
Fire as an instrument of pun
ishment, 386, 395, 403-407,
410-414, 426, 427.
Flesh, biblical use of the term,
50, 78, 79, 87, 99, 192, 288.
Gehenna, 180, 404.
God, fatherhood of, 417.
justice of, 442.
spoken of as living, 255, 260.
passibility of, 362-365.
Grave , as translation, of " Sheol,"
143.
Greek, classical and biblical,
356-358, 416-419.
Habits, as distinct from per
sons, 196.
Hades, 105-108, 150, 175-180.
Happiness as a synonyme of
hfe, 253, 258-260, 279, 307,
309-312.
Heard, Rev. J. B., on the word
hhayyim (life), 225.
on the soul and spirit, 43-47,
57.
Heart, bibhcal terms for, 28, 31,
32, 53.
Hell, 143, 175, 180, 404.
alleged popular disbelief m,
424.
Hengstenberg on Ps. xlix. 15,
153.
Hhayyim, definition of, 224-226.
Hopkins, President Mark, on
the soul and spirit, 43.
Hudson, Mr. C. F., on the
meaning of " life," 299, 301,
302.
on natural mortality, 335, 346.
on the penalty of sin, 427.

TOPICAL INDEX.

447

Identity of the present and the
future body, 187, 197.
Image of God, man made in, 51.
Immortality of the soul, 75, 334-
348.
Intellect, biblical terms for, 15,
26, 29, 32, 36, 55.
Intermediate state, Old-Testa
ment doctrine of, 112-117,
139-166.
New-Testament doctrine of,
102-112, 167-184.
Interpretation, principles of,
1,2.
Dr. Ives's rule of, 3-10.
Ives, Dr. C. L., his definition of
death, 188, 231, 430.
on Dan. xii. 2, 401.
on Eccles. xii. 7, 90.
his law of interpretation, 3-
10.
on Isa. Ixvi. 24, 403.
on John iii. 36, 384.
on John v. 24, 25, 326.
on John vi. 58, 374, 375.
on John xi. 25, 26, 369-374.
on the abuse of language, 82.
on Lazarus and the rich man,
102-109.
his definition of life, 228-241,
. 320.
on natural mortality, 341-343.
on penal fire, 410-413, 427.
on Paul's desire to depart,
124-127.
on regeneration, 284-288.
on the resurrection, 109, 183,
189-199, 234, 326, 402.
on the Old-Testament doc
trine of the resurrection
214-219.
on the raising of Samuel, 112-
116.
on Rev. xiv. 10, &c, 395.
on Sheol, 143-150.
on the sleep of death, 171-174.
his doctrine of the soul, 58-74.
on the souls under the altar,
135-137.
his definition of spirit, 61, 71.
on the spirits of the just made
perfect, 130-135.
on Christ's language to the
thief, 122.

Ives, Dr. C. L., on the trans
figuration, 117-121.
on the cloud of witnesses, 129.
Josephus on the resurrection,
112.
Judgment, relation of the, to
the present life, 435.
Just men made perfect, the,
130.
Justice of God, 442.
Kardia, definition of, 53.
Kidneys as seat of thought,
&c, 31.
Kingdom of God both present
and future, 118.
Knobel on Isa. Ixvi. 24, quoted,
406.
Language, laws of, 65-70, 82.
used, not given by inspira
tion, 69.
Lazarus and the rich man, 87,
102-109, 168, 174, 177.
Leb, definition of, 28.
Lewis, Dr. Tayler, on the mean
ing of hhaytjim, 224.
Life, biblical terms for, 13, 22,
24,33, 35, 39, 223-227, 256, 283.
denoting continuance of life,
249, 312-315, 393.
not synonymous with exist
ence, 228-230, 239-242, 244,
249, 278-280, 303, 309-312.
figurative senses of, 213, 242,
247, 252-263, 316-319.
as a future possession, 305-308.
literal sense of, 221-223, 242,
250, 284, 288, 301, 414.
in the Old Testament, 312-321.
restored at the resurrection,
93, 198, 246.
as a reward, 306, 319.
and soul, connection between,
15, 283.
spiritual sense of, 276-321.
spiritual sense of, defined, 155,
277, 298, 300, 303, 307, 321,
415.
the tree of, 336, 341-344.
Mr. Hudson on, 299-303.
Dr. Ives on, 8, 9, 228-241.
Mr. PettingeU on, 288-295.

448

TOPICAL INDEX.

Life, Mr. White on, 243-247, 295-
297, 301, 309-312.
Literal sense of Scripture, 3-7,
158, 414.
Litton, Mr. E. F., on the new
life, 416.
Man, Dr. Ives's definition of, 8,
69, 197, 236.
Materiality of the soul, alleged,
58, 67, 96, 148, 195, 201, 234,
237, 261.
refuted, 77-101.
Mind, biblical terms for, 15, 26,
29, 30, 55.
Missions and the doctrine of
eternal punishment, 420.
Mohammedanism and eternal
punishment, 423.
Moral character, seat of, biblical
. terms for, 26, 28, 37, 53.
responsibility after the close
of probation, 434.
Mortality of man, natural, 334-
348, 367, 431.
of the soul, 12, 20, 81, 82, 356.
Moses and Elijah, 120.
Necromancy, 113, 116, 139.
Nephesh, meaning of, 13-22, 60,
65-71, 223, 230.
English equivalent of, 22.
and ruahh compared, 27.
New Testament and classical
Greek, 356-358, 416-419.
on the intermediate state, 167-
184.
names for " soul," &c, 33-57.
Nirvana, the Buddhist doctrine
of, 422, 423.
Nous, definition of, 55.
Nshamah, definition of, 22.
Old Testament, argument from,
for annihilation, 160-166.
on eternal punishment, silence
of, 419.
on the intermediate state, 139-
166.
Dr. Ives's excessive use of, 59.
on the resurrection, 213-220.
names for " soul," &c. , in 13-32.
Organism, alleged resurrection
of, 190.

Organism, Dr. Ives's synonyme
for soul, 11, 58, 61-65, 96, 230-
232.
Origen on eternal punishment,
422.
Parable, definition of, 103.
Paradise, 122, 179.
Possibility of God, 362-365.
Paul's desire to depart, 124-127,
352.
vision of Paradise, 97.
style of preaching, 421.
Penalty of sin, what it is, 202,
382-386, 428-432.
"Perfect," biblical use of the
term, 131-134.
Person, biblical term for, 16-21,
34, 40, 50, 290.
Personal - pronoun, argument
from the use of, 83-87.
periphrasis for, 18.
Pettingell, Rev. J. H., on Dan.
xii. 2, 401.
on the doctrine of eternal mis
ery, 409.
on the word hhayyim, 224.
on Isa. Ixvi. 24, 407.
on the natural mortality of
man, 338-341.
on the new life, 288-295, 416,
on psyche and zoe, 283, 284,
288.
on Rev. xiv. 10, &c, 397-400.
spirit, soul, and body, 52, 289.
his severe language, 440.
Plato's "Phsedo," Mr. White's
argument from, 356-359, 418.
Pneuma, meaning of, 34-38, 61,
223, 226, 289, 418.
whether an essential part of
man, 41, 53, 291, 292.
and psyche compared, 39-53.
Profane swearing, Mr. White
on, 424.
Prolepsis, rhetorical figure of,
265, 272, 279, 297, 323-325,
415r
Psyche, meaning of, 33, 39-53,
223, 283, 284, 288.
Punishment defined and de
scribed, 382-386, 428-432.
double, according to annihila-
tionism, 202.

TOPICAL INDEX.

449

Punishment, eternal, 387-408.
eternal, weak arguments for,
no disproof of it, 433.
eternal, silence of Old Testa
ment on, 419.
in the intermediate state, 107,
169, 180.
both natural and positive, 331,
435.
reason on the doctrine of, 424-
438.
and sin identified, 330.
Purgatory, Mr. Pettingell on a
picture of, 440.
Qualitative and quantitative
senses of " life," 247.
Reason and the doctrine of pun
ishment, 424-438.
Regeneration, 41, 100, 209-213.
the beginning of a new life,
281-284, 415.
and sonship, 417.
Dr. Ives on, 284-288.
Mr. Pettingell on, 288-295.
Mr. White on, 295-297.
Religious character, biblical
terms for seat of, 26, 37, 53.
Eephaim, the, 157-160.
Resurrection, the, 86, 96, 185-220.
of the body, 185-187, 234.
of Christ, 183, 186, 205.
through Christ, 206.
Christ and the Sadducees on
the, 109-112, 168, 185, 261.
relation of, to future exist
ence, 183, 353.
Dr. Ives on the, 120, 189-199.
. Josephus on the, 112.
the Old Testament on the, 213-
220 321
time of the, 202-205.
of the wicked, 200.
Retribution, 202, 330, 432.
Buahh, definition of, 24-27, 61,
223.
Samuel, the raising of, 112-117,
415.
Satan, Mr, Constable on, 434.
Scepticism, character of mod
ern, 426.

Self-consciousness, biblical term
for, 36, 47.
Sheol, biblical doctrine of, 141-
143, 155, 158, 164, 174.
Mr. Constable on, 150.
Dr. Ives on, 106, 143-150.
Sin its own avenger, 330, 434.
as the cause of death, 335, 338,
345 348 381
dying unto, 209-211, 269-274.
eternal, 390.
as an infinite evil, 434.
erroneous practical judgments
of, 437.
as self-perpetuating, 434.
Sleep of death, the, 140, 169-175,
217, 415.
Soul, biblical terms for the, 13,
34.
and body contrasted, 93, 356.
death (mortality) of the, 12,
- 20, 81, 82, 356.
Dr. Ives's definition of, 11, 58,
69, 77.
indestructibility of the, 75.
life of the, 254, 261, 262.
meaning of the term, 66.
Mr. Pettingell on the, 290.
popular notion of the, 80.
and spirit, distinction be
tween, 39-53, 289.
Souls under the altar, the, 135-
137.
Spirit, biblical terms for, 23, 24,
34.
and body contrasted, 36, 40,
75-101.
divine and human, blended, 38.
Dr. Ives's definition of, CI, 71.
Mr. Pettingell on the, 289-292.
Spirits in prison, the, 40, 128.
Spiritual body, the, 186, 203, 208,
234.
men why so called, 38, 48, 50.
resurrection, 209-213.
Suffering as denoted by "death, "
383-386, 430.
Thief on the cross, the, 122.
Time and eternity, Mr. Pettin
gell on, 398.
Torment, eternal, 394-401.
Transfiguration, the, 117-121.
Tree of life, the, 336, 341-344.

450

TOPICAL INDEX.

Trichotomy of man, 43-52, 289.
Tropical meanings of " death,"
263-275.
of " life," 252-263.
Unconsciousness of the dead,
alleged, 161, 169, 172.
Union of Christians with Christ,
209-213.
Universality of the resurrec
tion, 199.
Visions, character of, 97, 118-
120.
Vitality as a synonyme of life,
222, 242, 246, 263, 275, 294.
Webster, Noah, his definition of
death, 228.
his definition of life, 221.
Weiss, Dr., on the pneuma, 41.
Witnesses, the cloud of, 129.
White, Rev. Edward, on the
literal sense of death, 246,
352, 430.
on the death of Christ, 360-366.
on the spiritual sense of death,
323-325.
his definition of "destroy,"
359.

White, Rev. Edward, on Paul's
use of " kill " and " death,"
268-270.
on Isa. Ixvi. 24, 404.
on the meaning of "life," 243-
247, 301, 309-312.
on Matt. xxv. 46, 389.
on natural mortality, 336-338.
on penal fire, 413, 427.
his argument from Plato, 356-
359.
on eternal punishment, 389,
400, 422-424.
on regeneration, 295-297.
on the suspension of annihi
lation, 353-355.
on the undying worm, 387, 404 .
Whiton, Dr. J. M., on " aeonian
life," 247-249.
on the meaning of " eternal,"
392.
on Rev. xx. 10, 396.
Will, biblical terms for, 28, 37.
Worm, the undying, 386-388,
403407.
Xavier, Francis, 422.
Zoe, meaning of, 226, 283, 284,
290.

INDEX

BIBLICAL PASSAGES REFERRED TO.

FAGE
Gen. i. 24  17
i.26, 27  8
i.27  51
i. 30  223
ii. 5  8
ii. 7 . . .7,8,11,22,23,49,64, 224,226
ii. 17 . .330,337,342,343,366
ii. 19  17
ii.23  78
iii. 19  13,85,237
iii. 22 . . . 239, 336, 341, 343
iv. 10  136
iv. 13  331
v.24  151,165
vi. 17  24
vii. 15  24,224
vii. 22  23, 24, 226
viii. 1  24
ix.4  192
ix. 10, 12, 16, 16 .... 17
xiii. 17  320
xiv. 5  157
xv. 15  140
XV. 20  157
xviii. 5  29
xx. 3  265, 323
xxiii. 1 .•  226
xxvi.35  25
xxvii. 41 .._.... 29
xxvii. 46  225
xxviii. 11  140

PAGE
Gen. xxx. 2  69
xxxiv. 14  402
xxxv. 18  21
xxxvii. 35  141,142
xiii. 13, 32  151
xiii. 18  313
xiii. 21  14
xiii. 38  142
xliii. 30  31
xliv. 20  151
xliv. 29, 31  142
xiv. 27  25,260
xlvi. 15  16
xlvi. 27  62
xlvii. 9  225
xlvii. 18  78
xlvii. 19  266
xlix.6  67
Exod. i. 5  16
i. 14  225
i. 19  257
vi. 16  226
vii. 23  29
ix. 21  29
x. 17  265
xii. 33  265,323
xv. 9  15
xv. 18  239
xvi. 21  411
xxii. 4  241
xxviii. 3  30
13  31
451

452

BIBLICAL INDEX.

Exod. xxxv. 10,
xxxvi. 1, 2 . .
Lev. iii. 4, 10, 15
iv. 2 . .
v. 1 . .
v. 4 . .
vii. 18 .
xiii. 14 .
xiv. 4 . .
xiv. 5. .
xiv. 52 .
xvi. 20 .
xvii. 11 .
xvii. 12 .
xvii. 14 .
xix. 17 .
xx. 6 . .
xx. 27 .
xxi. 11 .
xxii. 11 .
xxiv. 17 .
xxvi. 16 ,
Num. v. 2 .
v. 6 . .
v. 14 . .
vi. 6, 11 .
ix. 6, 7, 10
ix. 13. .
xii. 8 . .
xv. 28 .
xv. 30 .
xvi. 30, 33
xvi. 38 .
xix. 7
xxi. 5
xxiii. 10 .
xxxi. 28 .
xxxii. 23
xxxv. 30
Deut. i. 8
ii. 11, 20
iii. 11, 13
iv. 9 .
iv. 15 .
vi. 5 .
x. 16 .
xii. 20
xii. 23
xv. 9 .
xviii. 6
xviii. 11
xx. 16
xxviii. 21

25.

13,

14,

192

30
3031
16,62 27 62 16
241241
254, 260254 241
,223 62
136, 192 2862
140 1762 12251762
26 1717C2
217 62 10
142 62 7814 1217
331 20
320157157
62, 226 62
14,28 367 14
192 2815
140 22
412

PAGE
Deut. xxx. 15  316
xxx. 19  224,316
xxx. 19, 20  313
xxx. 20  299
xxxii. 14  31
xxxii. 22  142,175
xxxii. 40  249
xxxii. 41  412
xxxii: 47  299,314
xxxiv. 9  26
Josh. i. 5  226
ii. 11  411
iv. 14  225
v. 8  257
vi. 17  242
vii. 5  411
x. 40  22
xi. 11, 14  22
xii. 4  157
xiii. 12  157
xx. 3  17
Judg. ii. 10  140
v. 15  29
viii. 3  25
ix. 2  78
xiii. 23  153
xv. 19 .... 25,224,257
xvi. 16  14
xvi. 25  28
xvi. 30  20,62
xix. 5  29
1 Sam. i. 13  29
i. 15  25
i. 26  62
ii. 6  142
ii. 33  15
xviii. 3  62
xxii. 22  17
xxiv. 5  29
xxv. 37  265
xxvii. 1  29
xxviii. 3-25  112
xxviii. 15  164
xxx. 12  25
xxxi. 10  78
2 Sam. i. 23  225
iv. 9  62
v. 18  157
xii. 23 ........ 141
xviii. 14  28
xviii. 18  226
xix. 13  78
xix. 28  265,323

BIBLICAL INDEX.

453

6,9

2 Sam. xx. 19
xxii. 6
xxiv. 10
1 Kings ii.
ii. 10 .
iii. 9 .
iii. 26 .
viii. 50
x.5 .
xi. 34.
xi. 37 .
xii. 33
xv. 24
xv. 29
xvii. 17
xvii. 21, 22
xix. 4 .
xxi. 5 .
xxi. 15
2 Kings i. 2
iv. 40 .
viii. 8, 9
ix. 24.
xix. 35
xx. 3 .
. xx. 7 .
2 Chron. xxi.
xxxii. 26
Neh. i. 3
ii. 2 .
iv. 4 .
v.7. .
ix. 37 . .
Esth. ix. 31
Job i. 8 .
ii. 4 .
ii. 5 .
iii. 13 .
iii. 17 .
iii. 20.
iv. 15, 16
vii. 9 .
vii. 11
vii. 17
x. 1 .
x. 21, 22
xi. 8 .
xii. 2 .
xii. 3 .
xii. 10
xiv. 7-12
xiv. 8
xiv. 12

19

PASS 266 142 29
142
140, 141 3031
31
25,72 226 14
29
141 23
2221 13
25
225
257 264
257 28
405 28
257 31 28
402 28
402 30781829
316 78
141, 164164
14, 25, 225 89
142 25 29
225 164142
266, 275 30 24
216 264164

Job xiv. 13
xiv. 14, 15
xiv. 22 .
xv. 35 .
xvii. 13 .
xvii. 16 .
xviii. 4 .
xix. 26 .
xx. 3 . .
xx. 25 .
xxi. 7 . .
xxi. 13 .
xxiv. 19 .
xxvi. 4 .
xxvi. 5 .
xxvi. 6 .
xxvii. 8 .
xxviii. 22
xxix. 13 .
xxx. 25 .
xxxii. 2 .
xxxii. 8 .
xxxii. 18
xxxiv. 10, 34
xxxiv. 14, 15
xii. 21
Ps. ii. 7 .
ii. 9 .
iii. 2 .
vi. 3 .
vi. 4 .
vi. 5 .
vii. 2 .
vii. 5 .
vii. 9 .
vii. 10
ix. 17 .
x. 3 .
xi. 1 .
xi. 5 .
xiii. 2
xiii. 3
xvi. 7
xvi. 8
xvi. 8-11
xvi. 9
xvi. 10 19
xvi. 10, 11
xvii. 9 .
xvii. 13 .
xvii. 14 .
xvii. 15 .
xviii. 5 .

59,

142,143,

PAGE 142215
406 32
142
142 62 882678
317 142
142 23
157, 159
142, 160 13
160 28 14
62
23,26 2630
24,29 13
285
412
19,63 19
19
142, 161 191932
28
142 1919
19
15,19 141 32
156182
28,67
153, 177
155, 318
. 19
. 19
. 225
. 217
142, 143

454

BIBLICAL INDEX.

PAGE
Ps. xix. 7  19
xix. 14  29
xxi. 4  240,315
xxi. 6  241
xxii. 20  19
xxii. 26  260
xxii. 29  19
xxiii. 1, 2  151
xxiii. 3  19
xxiii. 6  226
xxiv. 4  20
xxv. 1  20
xxv. 13  20
xxvi. 2  32
xxvii. 12  15
xxx. 3  142
xxx. 5  318
xxx. 9  12, 161
xxxi. 10  318
xxxi. 17  142
xxxii. 2  26
xxxii. 11  28
xxxiv. 12  315
xxxv. 9  14
xxxv. 17  226
xxxvi. 9  315
xxxvi. 10  28
xxxvii. 2 ...... . 412
xxxviii. 4  331
xl. 8  31
xl. 11  31
xl. 12 . .  331
xiii. 2  14
xiii. 6  63
xiv. 5  28
xlix. 3  29
xlix. 7-9  152
xlix. 7-14  153, 155
xlix. 10 ....... 153
xlix. 14 . . . . 142, 150, 265
xlix. 14, 15 . . . 142, 143, 152
• li. 10  26, 28
li. 12  26
liii. 1 . .  29
lv. 15  142
Mi. 1  14
lxiii. 3  225, 318
Ixvi. 9  225
lxviii. 2  411
lxix.32  260
lxxi. 6  31
lxxi. 20  259
Ixxiii. 3  317

PAGE
Ps. Ixxiii. 17  154
Ixxiii. 21  32
Ixxiii. 24  154
lxxiv. 8  29
lxxviii. 8  26
lxxxiv. 2  44
lxxxv. 5, 6  259
lxxxvi. 13  142, 143
lxxxviii. 3  14, 142
lxxxviii. 10 . . 157, 159, 161
lxxxviii. 11  159
lxxxviii. 15  318
lxxxix. 48  142
xc. 12  30
cii. 24  164
ciii. 4  31,226
civ. 29  24
cvi. 15  114
cviii. 1  67
ex. 1  182
ex. 6  78
cxii. 10  410,411
cxv. 5  250
cxv. 17  161
cxvi. 3  142
cxix. 25, 40, 88, 149, 154,
156,159  318
cxix. 144  315
cxix. 175  261
exxviii. 5  226
exxxiii. 3  315
exxxviii. 7  259
exxxix. 8  142
exxxix. 14  15
cxii. 7  142
cxliii. 4  25
cxliii. 11  259
cxlvi. 4 .... 128, 161, 164
Prov. i. 12  142
ii. 2  30
ii. 18  157
iii. 2  314
iii. 18  319
iii.22  299,311
iv. 4  313
iv. 10  314
iv. 13  314
iv. 22  258,299
v. 5  142,143
vi. 23  314
vi. 32  30
vii. 2  313
vii. 7  30

BIBLICAL INDEX.

455

"Prov. vii. 27
viii. 5
viii. 35
ix. 4, 16
ix. 6 .
ix. 11.
ix. 18.
x. 13 .
x. 16 .
x.21 .
xi. 13.
xi. 19.
xi. 29.
xii. 11
xii. 28
xiii. 14
xiv. 10
xiv. 27
xiv. 30
xv. 11
xv. 11, 24
xv. 24
xv. 32
xvi. 2
xvi. 18
xvi. 19
xvi. 22
xvii. 18
xviii. 8
xviii. 21
xix. 2
xix. 8
xx. 27
xx. 30
xxi. 16
xxi. 21
xxii. 4
xxii. 18
xxiii. 2"
xxiii. 14
xxiii. 15
xxiii. 16
xxiv. 30
xxvi. 22
xxvii. 20
xxix. 11
xxx. 16
Eccles. iii.
iii. 19-21
iii. 21
vi. 8
vii. 8
vii. 9

19

242

. 142 30
299,314 . 30
. 315
. 314
142, 157
. 30
. 314
. 30
. 26
. 315
. 30
. 30
. 315
315, 319
. 18
315, 319
. 226
. 160
142, 143
. 315
. 30
. 26
. 26
. 26
315, 319
. 30
. 32
. 225
. 15
. 30
23,32
. 32
. 157
. 315
. 315
. 32
. 15
142, 143
. 30
. 32
. 30
. 32
. 142
. 26
. 142
. 162
91, 163
. 24
163, 318
. 26
. 25

Eccles. vii. 19

163

vii. 22, 25 .

29
viii. 5
29
viii. 8
24
viii. 11 .
28
viii. 12, 13
163
viii. 15 .
163
viii. 16 .
30
ix. 1-3 .
163
ix. 3 . .
28
ix. 5 . .
128, 161, 163
ix. 6 . .
. .161,165
ix. 10 . .
. . 142, 162
xii. 7 . .
24, 90, 92, 163
xii. 14 .
... 163
Cant. viii. 6
... 142
Isa. v. 14 .
... 142
vi. 10 . .
. . 29, 69
x. 7 . .
... 28
x. 18 . .
, . 78, 88
xiv. 4-20
... 158
xiv. 8 .
... 158
xiv. 9
157, 158, 164
xiv. 9-11
. .104,105
xiv. 9, 15
... 142
xiv. 10 .
. .158,164
xiv. 11 .
142, 143, 406
xiv. 15 .
... 145
xiv. 19 .
... 406
xxvi. 14
157, 158, 218
xxvi. 17, 18
... 218
xxvi. 19 .
•157, 158, 217
xxviii. 15, *
8
... 142
xxix. 24 .
... 26
xxxi. 3 .
... 87
xxxiii. 14
... 407
xxxiv. 3
... 411
xxxiv. 6
... 31
xxxviii. 9, 21
... 257
xxxviii. 10, 18
... 142
xxxviii. 11, 18
... 164
xxxviii. 18
... 265
xxxviii. 18, 19
... 161
xiii. 5 . . .
... 22
xlvii. 6 .
... 31
liii. 12 .
... 63
Iv. 3 . .
... 261
Iv. 12 . .
... 3
lvii. 9 .
... 142
lvii. 15 .
. ... 260
lvii. 16 .
. . . . 22
Ixvi. 2 .
. . . . 26
Ixvi. 16 .
. 406
456

BIBLICAL INDEX.

PAGE
Isa. ixvi. 22 . ... 406
Ixvi. 24  403-407
Jer. ii. 24  15
iv. 19  63
v. 21  30
v. 23  28
viii. 3  225
xi. 20  32
xii. 1  317
xvi. 5  31
xvii. 10  32
xvii. 25  240
xxi. 9  313
xxiii. 19  411
xxxi. 20  31
xxxvii. 9  18
xxxviii. 17  261
li. 39, 57  141
Iii. 34  226
Lam. i. 22  28
iii. 20  15
iii. 22  31
iv.7  78
Ezek. i. 11, 23  78
iii. 21  313
v. 11  260
viii. 3  97
x. 12  78
xiii. 18  63
xiii. 19  261
xviii. 4  330
xviii. 9, 17,-19, 21, 28 . . 319
xviii. 20. "... .202,330
xviii. 31  26
xxxi. 15  142
xxxi. 16  143
xxxi. 16, 17  142
xxxii. 21, 27  142
xxxiii. 13, 15, 16, 19 . . 319
xxxvi. 26  28
xxxvii. 3  242
xxxvii. 11  219
xxxvii. 12-14  219
Dan. ii. 1  25
vii  395
ix. 16  402
x. 6  78
xii. 2  141, 219, 401
xii. 3  249
Hos. vi. 2  260
xiii. 14 ... . 142, 143, 176
Amos v. 4  313
ix. 2  142

PAGE
Jon. ii. 2  142
Mic. i. 4  411
vi. 7  27
vii. 3  15
Nah. iii. 3  78
Hab. ii. 4  49
ii. 5  142
Hag. ii. 13  17
Zech. xiv. 19  331
Mal. ii. 16  26
Matt. i. 21  366
ii. 13  355
ii. 20  34
iii. 2  118
iii. 12  386, 387
iv. 17  118
v. 3  42
v. 8  54
v. 22, 29, 30  386
v. 48  132
vi. 25  34, 78, 79
vii. 13  332, 356
vii. 14  305,308
viii. 12  385
viii. 22  322, 374
ix. 17  359
ix. 18  227,256
ix. 24  170, 171
x. 28 . 40, 48, 93, 168, 356, 386
xi. 23  175
xii. 14 . . "  355
xii. 32  371
xiii. 15  54
xiii. 42  332, 386
xiii. 50  386
xiv. 12  78
xiv. 26  89
xv. 19  53
xvi. 17  193
xvi. 18  176
xvi. 25  42
xvi. 28  118
xvii. 1-9  117
xviii. 8  387
xviii. 8,9  305
xviii. 9  386
xviii. 35  54
xix. 16  305
xix. 17  305
xix. 29  305
xxi. 19  371
xxi. 28  123

BIBLICAL INDEX.

457

Matt. xxii. 13
xxii. 23-32
xxii. 37 .
xxiii. 33 .
xxiv. 51 .
xxv. 30 .
xxv. 41 .
xxv. 46 .
xxvi. 12 .
xxvi. 38 .
xxvi. 41 .
xxvii. 46
xxvii. 50
xxvii. 52
xxviii. 13
Mark i. 15
ii. 6 .
ii. 8 .
ii. 22 .
iii. 4 .
iii. 5 .
iii. 29 .
iv. 38.
v.29 .
v.39 .
vii. 6 .
viii. 12
viii. 36
ix. 22.
ix. 42.
ix. 43 .
ix. 43-48
ix. 45.
ix.48.
x. 17, 30
xi. 14. .
xii. 18-27
xii. 25
xii. 26
xii. 44
xiii. 26
xiii. 30
xiv. 30
xiv. 38
Luke i. 47
i.75 .
i. 80 .
ii. 19 .
ii. 40 .
ii. 43 .
iii. 17 .
iv. 21 .
v. 37 .

305

36,

42,

386,:

PAGE
. 385
. 109
34,44
. 386
. 385
. 385
332, 387, 408
, 386, 389, 430 78 34
48, 52, 79, 99
. 366
35,39
170, 188
. 170
. 118
. 54
. 36
. 359
. 283
. 54
371, 390
. 355
. 78
. 170
. 54
. 37
. 283
. 355 129
305, 332
. 407
. 305
405, 412
. 305
. 371
. 109
. 187
. 200
. 227
. 119
. 119122
36, 48, 9937
226 3G
54 30
132386
123 359

387, 403,

Luke vi. 20
vi. 24.
viii. 14
viii. 43
viii. 55
ix. 25 .
ix. 31 .
ix. 47 .
ix. 55 .
ix. 60 .
x. 15 .
x.21 .
x.25 .
x. 28 .
xi. 51
xii. 4, 5
xii. 5 .
xii. 15
xii. 19
xii. 47, 48
xiii. 5
xiii. 27, 28
xiii. 32
xiii. 33
xv. 4 .
xv. 8 .
xv. 12, 30
xvi. 15
xvi. 19-31
xvi. 22
xvi. 23
xvi. 25
xvi. 31
xvii. 2
xvii. 21
xviii. 18,
xix. 10
xx. 18
xx. 27-38
xx. 38
xxi. 4
xxii. 45
xxiii. 43
xxiii. 46
xxiv. 25
xxiv. 37,
xxiv. 39
xxiv. 45
John i. 4
i. 12, 13
i. 14 .
iii. 3, 5
iii. 4, 5

227

30

39

PAGE 6 6
. 227227
35, 39, 224
. 332
. 120
. 54
. 37
. 322
. 175
. 37
. 305
241, 305
. 355
. 356
. 386
. 258
. 34
. 443
. 412
385,408 . 132
. 355
. 360
. 300
. 227
. 54
87, 102, 168
... 180
177, 179, 181
, 242, 283, 284
. 187
. 129
. 119
. 305
. 332
. 412
. 109
168, 261
. 227
. 170
122, 180
. 92
. 54
. 49
48, 79, 191 55
281, 299
. 281
. 50
281, 286
. 100

243,1

458

BIBLICAL INDEX.

John iii. 5
iii. 6 .
iii. 8 .
iii. 12 .
iii. 15 .
iii. 16 .
iii. 36 .
iv. 10, 11
iv. 14 .
iv. 24 .
iv. 34 .
iv. 36 .
v. 24 .
v. 25 .
V. 28, 29
V. 29 .
V. 39 .
V. 40 .
vi. 27 . ,
vi. 33, 47
vi. 35 .
vi. 39, 40
vi. 50 .
vi. 51 .
vi. 53 .
vi. 54 .
vi. 57 .
vi. 58 .
viii. 21,
viii. 34
viii. 35
viii. 51
viii. 52
ix. 6 .
x. 10 .
x. 11 .
x.28 .
xi. 11 .
xi. 12 .
xi. 24 .
xi. 25 .
xi. 25, 26
xi. 26.
xi. 33.
xii. 25
xii. 27
xii. 40
xiii. 8
xiii. 21
xiv. 6
xiv. 19
xiv. 27
xvi. 6

188,

37

298, 304

199, 203

63
44,

51

24

284,286,367 48, 52, 99
35, 285
. 286
304, 355
285, 304
304, 384
. 254
. 372
49, 52, 234
. 132
. 305
326, 384
305, 326
207, 327
205, 383
. 304
303, 305
. 305
. 303
. 375
. 205
. 376
305, 374
6,300
. 304
243, 305
305, 374
. 330
. 331
. 372
. 372
. 372
. 287
. 305
33, 224
304,372 . 170
. 170
. 205
206, 299
369-374
374, 376
. 37
281, 305 34
54
371 37
299303
SOS 53

156, 42

John xvii. 2
xvii. 3
xvii. 23
xix. 28
xix. 30
xx. 9
xx. 27
xx. 31 .
Acts ii. 25-28
ii. 27 .
ii. 29 .
ii. 30 .
ii. 31 .
ii. 33 .
ii. 34 .
ii. 37 .
ii. 41 .
ii. 43 .
ii. 46 .
ii. 47 .
iii. 23 .
vii. 5 .
vii. 14
vii. 31
vii. 51
vii. 59
vii. 60
viii. 37
x. 41 .
xii. 6 .
xiii. 33
xiii. 36
xiii. 48
xiv. 2
xv. 9.
xv. 24
xvii. 16
xvii. 25
xvii. 31
xvii. 32
xviii. 5
xviii. 25
xix. 21
xx. 10
xx. 24
xxi. 13
xxiii. 8, 9
xxiv. 15
xxv. 16
xxvi. 23
xxvii. 10
xxvii. 37
xxviii. 20

PAGE
. 304
.298,393 . 132
. 132
. 35
. 188
. 205
. 303
. 182
59, 177
. 181
. 79
. 177
. 182
. 181, 182
. 54
. 40
. 34
. 54
. 391
. 59
. 320
34,40
. 119
. 367
. 92
. 171
. 54
. 188
. 170
. 123, 285
. 171
. 304
33,39
. 64
. 41
37,39
. 227, 283
. 188
. 186
. 42
. 37
36, 40
. 33, 39, 284132 53 49
199
356
. 120, 186 39
40
129

BIBLICAL INDEX.

459

Rom. i. 3
i. 4 .
i. 9 .
i. 11 .
i. 17 .
i.21 .
i.28 .
ii. 5 .
ii. 6-10
ii. 7 .
ii. 9 .
ii. 10 .
ii. 28 .
iv. 17 .
iv. 19.
v. 1 .
v. 12 .
v. 14 .
v. 17 .
v. 17, 18
v. 17, 21
vi. 2 .
vi. 3 .
vi. 4 .
vi„5 .
vi. 6 .
vi. 6, 17
vi. 7 .
vi. 8 .
vi. 9, 10
vi 10, 11
vi. 11.
vi. 16.
Ti. 17.
Ti. 18 .
Ti. 21 .
Ti.22.Ti. 23 .
vii. 4 .
Th. 5 .
Tii. 8 .
Tii. 8-11
Tii. 9 .
Tii. 10
Tii. 11
Tii. 13
Tii. 14
Tii. 23, 25
Tii. 24
Tiii.- 2
viii. 4
Tiii. 6

. 50,79
. . 285
. . 37
. . 39
. . 305
. . 54
. . 55
- . 54
. . 383
. . 305
. . 39
.307,308. . 79
. . 246
. . 266
. . 307
. 378, 380
207, 378, 380
. . 308
. . 305
. . 378
.269,272
. . 273
211, 212, 269, 282
186, 208, 212, 269
212, 2G9, 331
... 331
... 270
212, 270, 273
... 210
. .270,273
. .210,212
271, 329, 378
54, 271, 331
... 271
330, 358, 379
271, 305, 358
202, 330, 379, 381
. .211,271
. .329,379
... 271
. 267, 268
257, 259, 275
... 271
... 270
. .329,379
... 331 55
'. !268, 379
271, 303, 330, 379, 381
 38
268, 283, 299, 302, 307, 327

Rom. Tiii. 6, 7
Tiii. 9
Tiii. 9, 10
viii. 10
viii. 11
Tiii. 13
viii. 14
Thi. 15, 16
Tiii. 16
viii. 29
Tiii. 38
x. 5 .
x. 6 .
x. 9 .
xi. 3 .
xii. 2 .
xii. 4 .
xii. 11
xiii. 1
xiv. 9
xiv. 17
xvi. 4
x-vi. 18 .
1 Cor. i. 18
ii.6 .
9 .
ii. 10 .
ii. 11 .
ii. 12 .
ii. 14 .
ii. 14, 15
15 .
iii. 1 .
iii. 16 .
iii. 22 .
iv. 5 .
v. 21 .
v. 3 .
T.3,4T. 5 .
Ti. 13 .
Ti. 14 .
vi. 19 .
-vi. 20.
vii. 34
Tii. 39
Tiii. 13
x. 4 .
xi. 30 .
xiii.- 8, 10,-11
xiT. 14
xiv. 37 .
xv. 6, 18, 20,

.38,

186

36,41

56 37
52
212, 283
188, 212
267, 305 38
,283,418 . 36
. 209
. 226
. 305
. 54
. 54
. 269
55, 282
. 79
. 37
. 40
. 112
. 119
. 34
. 54
. 333
. 132
. 47 47
, 47, 52
38,50
. 47
45, 50, 51
39,45 39

, 40, 41,

51

226 54 37
48,99 3642
377 186 79
37, 48, 101
36, 48, »1
. 170
. 372
. 39
. 171
. 377
37,55
. 39
. 171

460

BIBLICAL INDEX

PAGE
1 Cor. xt. 14, 15 .... 183
XT. 17, 18  182, 353
xv. 19  227, 284
xv. 20-22  206
xv. 22  200,246
xv. 23  205
xt. 23, 24  205
.26  378
 186

XT. xv. 35
XV. XV.

,36-50  204
, 37, 38  187
xv. 44  39,46
xt. 45 .... 49,209,261
xv. 46  46
xv. 47, 48, 49  209
XT. 49, 50  194
xv. 51, 52  204
xv. 54  378
xt. 55  176,377
xv. 56  377
2 Cor. ii. 4  53
ii. 15  333, 391
iii. 6  270
iii. 18  * . . 209
iv. 3  333
iv. 10-14  213

iv. 10 . .

 297

iv. 11 . .

 282

iv. 12 . .
iv. 13 . .

 226
 37

T. 1-3 .
T. 1-8 .
T. 3 . .

 84

v. 14 . .

 274

T. 14, 15 .
T. 17 . .

 281

T. 21 . .

 366

. . 36, 41, 52, 101

Tii. 10 .
TU. 13 .
xii. 2 . .

 97

xii. 18 .
Gal. i. 5 .

 398

i 16 .

 193

ii. 14 . .
ii. 19 . .
ii. 20 . .
T. 10 .

 262
271 272
79, l'oi', 211, 271,' 274,
282, 297
 390

v. 16, 25
v. 17 .

 38
 37

Ti. 1 .

 37,39

Gal. Ti. 8 . . .

.... 305

vi. 14 . . . .

. . .211,274

Ti. 15 . . . .

.... 281

vi. 18 . . . .

.... 37

Eph. ii. 1 . . .

.... 208

ii. 1, 5 . . .

. . .272,323

ii. 4-6 . . .

.... 211

ii. 5 . . . .

. . .283, 328

ii. 16 . . . .

. . .267,275

iv. 3 . . . .

.... 38

iv. 4 . . . .

.... 48

iv. 9 . . . .

.... 178

iv. 17. . . .

.... 55

iT. 23. . . .

. . . 37,41

iT. 24 . . . .

.... 282

T. 14 . . . .

. . .169,328

v. 19 . . . .

.... 39

T. 30 . . . .

.... 208

vi. 5 . . . .

 54

Ti. 6 . . . .

. . . 33,43

vi. 12 . . . .

.... 194

Phil. i. 20 . . .

.... 124

i. 21-23 . . .

. . . 123-126

i. 22 . . . .

. 51, 100, 227

i. 23 . . . .

. 168, 180, 352

i. 24 . . . .

. . . --lOO

i. 27 . . . .

.... 33

iii. 10 . . . .

.... 209

iii. 11 ... .

.... 201

iii. 12 ... .

.... 133

iii. 14. . .

.... 133

iii. 15. . . .

. . .132,133

iii. 19 ... .

.... 358

iii. 21 . . .

. 186,188,208

iv. 7 . . . .

.... 55

Col. i. 13 . . .

.... 118

i. 18 . . .

.... 120

ii. 5 . . .

. 36, 48, 49, 99

ii. 6 . . .

.... 325

ii. 10 . . .

.... 325

ii. 12 . . .

.... 211

ii. 13 . . .

283, 323, 325, 328

ii. 20 . . .

. . .209, 274

iii. 1-3 . .

 209

iii. 3, 4 . .

 282

iii. 10 . . .

 282

iii. 22 . . .

 54

iii. 23 . . .

 33

1 Thess. ii. 4 .

 54

ii. 15 . . .

 269

ii. 17 . . .

 56

iii. 8 . . .

 258

Ui. 13 . . .

 54

BIBLICAL INDEX.

461

PAGE
1 Thess. iT. 13-15 .... 171
iT. 14  206
iv. 16  205
iT. 16, 17  126
iT. 17  408
T. 3  332
T. 6  .169
v. 10  169
T. 23  43,45
2 Thess. i. 9 . 332, 360, 389, 407
ii. 8  35
ii. 10  333
ITim. ii. 2  227
T. 6  323,325
Ti. 5  55
Ti. 12  130, 304
Ti. 19  303
2Tim.i. 1  305
i. 10  376,378
ii. 4  227
ii. 18  204
ii.22  54
iii. 12  262
iT. 1  118
iT. 6  127
iT. 18  398
iT. 22  37
Tit. i. 2  305
ii. 12  262
iii. 5  282
iii. 7  305
Heb. i. 14 ...... . 49
ii. 10  132, 134
• ii. 14  377
iii. 7, 15  123
iii. 10..  54
iii. 12  54
iv. 7  123
iv. 12  44,54
T. 2  130
T. 8, 9  134
T. 9  132,390
vi. 1  266
Ti. 2  389,390,392
Tii. 19  131
Tii. 22  131
Tii. 28  132
Tiii. 6  131
ix. 9  132
ix. 12  390
ix. 14  266
ix. 27  435
x. 1  133

Heb. x. 14

. . 133
x. 22 .
. . 54
x. 38 .
. . 49
xi. 5 .
. . 151
xi. i3, 3£
. 131
xi. 40 .
. 131, 133
xii. 1 .
129, 108
xii. 3 .
33,34
xii. 9 .
. 305
xii. 18, 19
. 135
xii. 22, 23
. 134
xii. 23 .
38
,4
V
30
133, 168
xiii. 17
. 34
Jas. i. 12
. 305
i. 15 .
. 329
i. 18 .
. 282
i. 21 .
. 34
i. 26 .
. 54
ii. 17, 20,
26
. 266
ii.22 .
. 132
ii. 26 .
i
3, 39, 52
iii. 2 .
. 132
iii. 9 .
. 51
iii. 15 .
.' 46
iT. 8 .
. 54
iT. 14 .
226,284
T.20 .
4i
, 59, 330
1 Pet. i. 3
. 282
i. 9 .
. 42
i. 22 .
41,54
i. 23
. 282
ii. 2 .
. 282
ii. 5 .
. 260
ii. 24 .
. 274
iii. 4 .
r.
8,42,54
iii. 7 .
. 305
iii. 18-20
. 128
iii. 19 .
40,178
iii. 20.
.. 34
iv. 2 .
. 227
iT. 3 .
. 227
2 Pet. i. 3
. 303
ii. 1 .
. 332
ii. 9 .
. 168
ii. 14 .
. 41
ii. 17 . .
. 386
iii. 4 .
. 171
iii. 7 .
. 332
1 John i. 2
. 303
ii. 16 .
. 227
ii. 25 . .
. 305
ii. 29 .
. 281
iii. 2 .
2
)9,
281, 286
462

BIBLICAL INDEX.

1 John iii
iii. 14 .
iii. 15 .
iii. 17 .
iii. 20, 21
iv. 1-3
iT. 17 .
iT. 18 .
t. 11 .
v. 12 .
T. 13 .
T. 16, 17
v. 18 .
Jude6 .
7 . .
12 . .
19 .
Bev. i
iii. 1
t. 14
Ti. 8
vi. 9

.18

PAGE
. 281
298, 326
301,304 . 227
. 54
. 40
. 132
. 132
. 304
. 297
. 304
. 329
. 281
. 169
. 387
. 323
46,51
. 176
. 323

176
40, 135, 168

PAGE
Rev. Ti. 10  135
vi. 11  137
Tiii. 9  39,59
xi. 11  35
xii. 11  33
xiii. 15  35
xiT. 10 .... 386, 395, 396
xiv. 13  175
xiT. 10, 11  394
XTi. 3  34, 59, 261
xix. 20  386, 395
xx. 4  40, 137, 205
xx. 5  205, 246, 327
xx. 4, 5, 12-15 ..... 200
xx. 10 . . 386,394-397,401
xx. 13  179
xx. 13, 14  176
xx. 14  396, 397
xx. 15 . . 332, 386, 395, 396
xxi. 1  320
xxi. 8  396
xxii. 5  398

Stereotyped by C*J. Peters <t Son, 73 Fedtral Street, Boston.