il' 4^ ^^S^ SMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 21 12.5 no |: I.I 11.25 2.2 taut m ^111 .o vj % ^. V >>) Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 145S0 (716) 873-4503 ^< ^V •N? \\ ^\ Wk\ il" CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/iCMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notaa/Notat tachniquaa at bibliographiquaa Tha Inatituta haa attamptad tc obtain tha baat original copy avaiiabia for filming. Faaturaa of thia copy whicli may ba bibliographically uniqua, which may altar any of tha imagaa in tha raproduction, or which may aignificantly changa tha uaual mathod of filming, ara chaclcad balow. L'Inatitut a microfilm^ '• maillaur axampiaira qu'il lui a «t6 poaaibia da aa procurar. Las dataiis da cat axampiaira qui aont paut-Atra uniquaa du point da vua bibliographiqua, qui pauvant modifiar una imaga raproduita, ou qui pauvant axigar una modification dans la m^thoda normaia da fiimaga sont indiqufo ci-daaaous. Colourad covars/ Couvartura da coulaur I I Covars daniagad/ Couvartura andommagia □ Covars rastored and/or laminatad/ Couvartura rastaurte at/ou palliculAa □ Covar titia missing/ La titra da couvartura manqua □ Colourad maps/ Cartas g6ographiquas an coulaur □ Colourad pagas/ Pagas da coulaur □ Pagas damagad/ Pagas andommagAaa □ Pagas rastorad and/or laminatad/ Pages restaurtea et/ou paiiiculAes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d6colortes, tachettes ou piqutes □ Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or blacic)/ Encra da couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou iilustrationa en couleur □ Bound with other material/ Reli* avac d'autres documents D D Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serrie peut causer de i'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intArieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certainas pages blanches ajout6es iors d'une restauration apparaissent dans la texte, mais. lorsque ceia Atait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 film6es. r^K Showthrough/ [iLJ Transparence |~~| Quality of pririt varies/ D Quality in^gala da i'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprand du matAriei suppiimentaire Only edition available/ Seule Mition diaponibia Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have boebi refiimed to ensure the best possible image/ Lea pages totalament ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuiilet d'errata, una pelure, etc., ont *t6 filmAen 6 nouveau de fa9on A obtenir la meilleure image possible. D Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplAmentaires: This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. IPX 14X 18X 22X I y 26X 30X 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X ails du tdifiar une nage rrata o lalure. 32X Tha copy fiimad hera has bean raproducad thanks to tha ganarosity of: Harold Campbell Vaughan Memorial Library Acadia Univenity Tha imagas appearing hara ara tha bast quality possibia considering tha condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol •—»- (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, «. * may be filmed at different reduction ratios. I'hose too large to be entirely included in one exposure nre filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, (eft to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: 1 2 3 L'exempialra fi'mt fut reproduit grAce A la gAnArositA de: Harold Campbell Vaughan Memorial Library Acadia University Les imagas suivantes ont AtA raproduites avac la plus grand soin, compta tenu de 9a condition at de la nettatA de rexemplaire filmA, et en conformitA avac las conditions du contrct de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimAe sont filmAs en commengant par la premier plat at en terminant soit par la darnlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit pp*- la second plat, selon ie cas. Tous las autres exemplaires originaux sont filmAs en commen^ant par la premiAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration at en terminant par la darnlAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la darnlAre image de cheque microfiche, selon Ie cas: la symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", Ie symbols y signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre filmAs A des taux da rAduction diff Arants. Lorsque Ie document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clichA, 11 est filmA A partir de Tangle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, an prenant la nombre d'imagafi nAcessaire. Las dianrammes suivants illustrent la mAthode. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 j« it'^i^*' •-#>'*;^'' " Ti^sy A«ft thou .be ^^ meM fani^iifr.*>^tim«^j^ ■' ... ^^t.', IMP iM wsm IMMORTALITY f ^ VERSUS ANNIHILATION »T Rev. G. a. HARTLEY. PA8T0K or TBB F. C. BAPTIST GB17RCR, CABLETOV, ST. JODK. I CPubKsTied bj/ i^ lat can \ jiidg. lat this it not respect "The y out- r were •mina- trines to say at the vhero cally, uage, leath >eing ; tes- doc- doc- reely jring ighir ling, I \ and are not calclilatetl, as far as received, to undermine faith in the Word of Q-od, and lessen the reverence and confidence reposed in the Bible, then I do not know what language could produce such an effect. Blain, in his work called " Death not Life," after try- ing to make out that the doctrine of endless punishment in a state di conscious existence is unreasonable, says, "/j5 isasiti to believe a doctrine which impeaches God's attributes," and adds, " No doctrine injures his moral character but this." He calls it " the slander of the Almighty." Hastings, in his " PaUlihe Theology," yays, " The in- terpretation which finds such a doctrine in the Bible, is h.jaUe and horrible interpretation." Dobney, who in some respects is tnore cautions than some of his compeers, in his book on " t'uture Punish- ment," while speaking on the same subject, says " that anything more perfectly adapted to harden men's hearts against God, and hinder them from beginning to think aright of him, could not haveheen contrtved.^^ Another of the annihilation writers says : " The doctrine of eter- nal torment represents our loving God as an implacable tyrant^'' Theodore Parker is but little in advance of some of these expressions, when he says, " I believe that Jesus Christ taught eternal punishment, but I do not accept it on his authority. ^^ To show the sympathy be- tween these men and their doctrines, and Universalist writers and their doctrines, I need only quote a few lines. Storrs says : '* I am glad in my heart if I can approach one step towards Universaliam, without sacrificing truth:' Blain says, " It is a sad fact too, that more miUione of Universalists have been made by the popular doc- trine than real saints. * * The fact is, and Univer- salists see it, if the wicked are immortal, their doctrine is true. * * Orthodox churches, on this subject, are equal to the Catholics, and imoch worse than Univer- salists:' This style of assertion and such expressions are fa- miliar ; indeed they are one of the established methods 6 of reasoning resorted to by those men who have under- taken to give to the world a new interpretation of God*8 Word, and to overthrow the doctrine of the Christian world. They do not seem to labour po much to prove that God has not said he will punish the wicked with everlasting punishment, as to make out that he could not do so. What God will do with the wicked, is a vastly important question — one that can only be an- swered by the Lamp of Truth. What the Bible teaches, we are bound to preach and teach. In the language of President Campbell, of Bethany College, in his Essay on " Life and Death," we say : " Whatever reasons, then, justified our Saviour in holding forth a * fire unquencha- ble,' a * worm undying,' a * punishment everlasting,' will justify every other preacher in arraying the same awful issue of Gospel despising before the mind of every im- penitent sinner." Annihilationist writers say sucb a doctrine is so unreasonable and incredible, that any re- velation, purporting to have come even from Deity him? self, cannot prove it. These people in the United States are going on to the " Death an eternal sleep " doctrine. It cannot be denied that quite a proportion of them have already gone so far as to deny any resurrection of th'3 wicked. Indeed, even in this rrovince, where the theory has only been known a very few years, and where there are but a mere handful who have embraced it, there are some who have gone on from one step to another, until they have denied the faith, and, in opposition to Jesus and Paul, say the wicked will never nave a resurrection. I shall not be surprised to learn that the majority of them are tending to this point. These writers ridicule the men who, they say, have raised against them " the cry of materialism." Just let them speak for themselves, and the reader can then judge whether their expressions contain the materialistic theory or not." Storrs, in his " Six Sermons," says : " I cannot conceivejldo not see how it is possible to con- ceive of substance without matter. I regard the phrase "immaterial " as one which properly belongs to things fr B( ';r!;j'fl vo under- 1 of God's Christian to prove 'ked with he could fed, is a be an- teaches, ^uaeo of is Essay »ns, then, juencha- ng,' will ie awful ery im- snob a any re- ity him? Q to the denied ^oneeo indeed, y been a mere lohave denied ay the lot be snding I have ist let then ilistic says ; ► eon- irase lings which are noV Ellis and Kead say, " We shall prove from the Bible the corporeal heing and hobtality of the Boul, and the nature of the spirit of man, which spirit, not teing a living entity, is neither mortal nor immor' tal. * * A eoul is a creature that lives by breathing. * * A d^ad hod/v is a dead soul, ami a dead soul is a dead hody. It is therefore the,;^A that lives / the hody lives, and the spirit does not live at all. So wo ar^ue that as the body without the spirit is dead, so the spirit without the body is deadP If these quotations do not startle the reader, he must either have heard such heresy before, or else he is not easily startled. If they do not contain practical materialism, open and gross, I do not know where it is to be found. When men go so far as to say that they cannot conceive of " substance without matter," and that when the Scriptures say " God is a SpiBrr," they say the nature of God is not clearly deter- mined by such sayings, I ask, is it not materialism — un- deniable materialism^ That some sincere, well-meaning '^ersons have embra- ced these views, I am ready to belie ve. So much the worse. Having once committed themselves to such a craft, their danger has commenced, and however uncon- sciously it may be, they are drifting towards the sunken rocks and craggy shores of Universalism and Infidelity. Persons unacquainted with their writings, might, the first time they fall in with their books or hear their con- , troversialists, think from the fluent and frecjuent use they make of a few Scripture clauses and sayings, that they are very familiar with the Bible. Their Scripture quotations are few, and often varied in their uses. The}' remind one of the howling of wolves. It is well known that two or three wolves, by their ever-varying howls, can so fill the forest with their echoes, that one who is not accustomed to them would think the woods must be full of these beasts. j i 6 CHAPTER II. LIFE AND DEATH. All who are acquainted with the manner of contro- versy pnrBued by annihilationists, or the arguments used in their attempts to prove their theory, know the great stress tiioy lay upon the meanings they assign to certain words and terms, such as life and deaths destruction^ consume^ p&rish, out off^ hlot out^ and others. When the Bible gives to these, or any of these terms, two significa- tions—a higher and lower — they try to rob them of the higher, and force them into the lower, end deny to them but the one use. It is important that the true meaning and uses of these terms be understood, as it is a feature in the case that radically concerns their exposition of Scripture. The terms life and death are perpetually occurring in their books, and ara constantly used in their controver- sies. The meaning they assign to them is clearly defined in the following quotations. Let them again speak for themselves : "The law of God denounces the penalty of death for sin, and as death is a cessation of existence, and as the penalty of death is inflicted upon man, so man le mortal, soul and body, and soul and body alike must cease to Ivve.-^ Blaih says, " Death is extinction of being." Dobney bays, " Death is a return to that state of nothingness from which the almighty fiat had so re- cently called us." They make great displays in Bound- ing out the expressions, " Life and death are opposites ;" "Life meauR existence, and deatli means non-existence;" " Life is to be, death not to be." If this be true, the first death must be the first non-existence, and the second death the second non-existence. If there be degrees in nonsense, such arguments manifest the first and second degrees. It is true that life and death are opposites, and that each kind of life has its opposite ; but to say that life, in the Scriptures, only means mere existence, or that death means non-existence, is to trifle with the "Word of God. The Scriptures contemplate man chiefly as a moral being, and as such address him and speak of \n[ exi tu] et aei til inwwvcMrtiaMMiM $t coniro- -nts used ^e great certain hen the gnifica- ofthe to them eaning feature tion of :roFer- efiued ak for lltjr of % and mn 18 )n of state re- und- es ;'* le;" the ond 1 in )nd md iat or be 37 of ■•'s* him, and bo they predicate the term of his epiritual existence, with its tendencies and resnlts. In the Scrip- tural use of the term, death does not mean, nor does it include, " extinction of being," nor " cessation of exist* &CiQ/e^^^ nor d, ''^ stcUe of nothingness.'^^ And for men to assume this, and then to build their whole structure upon such baseless assumption, is really to act like the foolish builders, who built upon the sand. Man, as a creatu/re^ has life as an existence, while man as a rruoral being has life or death in a moral sense — life being union with God, and death disseverance from God. There are just as many varieties of death as there are of life. Deatn is separation, not extinction. Do the Scriptures speak of natural, spiritual, moral or eter- nal life, they also teach just as many kinds of death* Of physical, natural, or corporeal death, I need onl^ sav, " It ie appointed unto men once to die." In this all agree, but this is not the only death man knows. The life of the body is its union with the soul, and the life of the sonl is its union with God ; and when death passes upon either soul or body, it affects it in accoj^d- anoe with the laws of its being. The Lord gave to Adam a command, and told him not to eat of the fruit of a certain tree, and that " in iJie da/y thou eatest thereof thou shalt surety die?^ Adam did eat. Did he die that day ? We say he did, al« though Adam did not experience physical death for some hundreds of years after that ; and if " death is a return to that state oi blank nothingness from which the almighty fiat had so recently called him," he did not die. In that sense he did not die that day. The fact is, the penalty affixed to that transgression was not merely a ** return unto the ground." Immediately after the trans- gression, man began to suffer the penalty : he was at once severed from tlie favour of Goa, and experienced guilt and shame. He heard the voice of God in th^ garden, and " was afraid^'* and " hid himself." On that very day he began to suffer, and experienced re- morse, sorrow, terror, shame, and dread. In Scripture language, a man may be dead in one sense, and alive in J ' 10 another, at the same time. " He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son hath not life." Here is a case of a dead living man, and of a living dead man. He was a living man, and yet had not life: , He had not life, and yet was a living man. Life, in this text, does not mean mere animal existence. The Saviour said, "Yerily, verily, I say unto you, he that he^roth my word, and bslieveth on him that sent me, ha.th eyer- lasting life, and cometh not into condemnation, but is passed from death v/nto lifeP John v. 24. Here is a case where a man was dead, and passed to life, anchyet bad human life While he was dead in that senpie Ih which he passed into life. This is spiritual life, or union with God through Christ, superadded to human lif$. Men pass from spiritual death to spiritual life, while living in this, world. Jesus plainly said, " He that be* lieveth in him that sent me, Aa^A passed from death unto life." Spiritual death is tlie antithesis of spiritual lifoj wMch life is only another name for true happiness, lit is not the life of the spirit of man, in the sense of the existence of that spirit, but in the sense of a happy state or condition. Our Saviour said to the man Who wished to be allowed to go and bury his father^ ''Let the d^ad bury their dead. ToUow m^." It is not possible one dead man can bury Another, unless it be possible that lie be diead in one sense and alive in another. " Is it not clear as demonstration," says Mr. Campbell, " that one may possess human life, and at the same time be as dead •to God as a man void of hiwian life is dead to the world." Jesus said to the riSch young man, "This do, and thou shalt liveP He had human life, and could ^* in this ® Sayiour lath ej^er- >n> bfit is ^iere i^ a an(%et sense Iti or union »ian Jife, e, while that be* ^thijnto «al Jifo, ess.. Ji Of the ^y state wished 9 dead 'le one hat iie it ti6% It one dead the J do, iouJd life, his der- A lile >08- m. pi- ritiially minded is life and peace." This is to the point, and is a definition in fact. " She that liveth in pleasure (wantonly) is dead while she IvvethJ^ 1 Tim. v. 6. Here is a person dead while she is living, or a living dead person. Surely her death was not extinction of being, nor even was she deceased. She was in a state of spi- ritual death oj alienation fro „» God, and without the true end and blessedness of life. " I know th^ works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead." " And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins. * * But God, who is rich in mercy, for hit great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ." Eph. ii. Here were persons " dead in sins," and yet in a state of activity in all manner of lusts and service of Satan. " And you, being dead in your sins and the un- circumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses." Col. ii. 13. To such a one the Saviour says, " If a man keep my sayings, he shall never see death." He does^ not mean that such will be translated, or that he shall not die physically. While the Scriptures do speak of life as an existence^ they also most emphatically speak of life as well-being, or proper existence. " Take no thought for your Z^/e," means natural life. ** The time paat of your life may suflSce," tinff to prove erialized into the passage, ;he;jr consume essive of the dured by the 7, are said to pairing their J the drouth ng the deep wakefulness, ef." Ps. vi. xxxi. 9. Of 3umed with y Scripture ig to ingraft ^ aining this ' to prove IT extinction. Sometimes this phrase refers to physical death ; sometimes it involves a threatened removal from ■^he blessings of God's people in this life ; sometimes it '*cven expresses a release from life afflictions. Job said, '*' That he would let loose bis hand, and cut me off.''^ 4In Matthew, we read that the Lord of the evil servant ?will " cut him asunder." And what beside ? Will he then be non-existent ? No. " And shall appoint him his portion with the hypocrites ; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teetli.'^ : The terms, as nothing, not he, naught, have also been ^whittled down to mean annihilation. " For yet a little '' while, and the wicked shall not he^ Here is the doctrine clearly proved, triumphantly exclaims Blain, and others. Let us see. Job, who was " perfect and upright," used just the same form of speech about himself "Thou shalt seek mo in the morning, but I shall not he^ If the term " not be " means non-existence, then Job ex- perienced the same fate claimed for the wicked. Such an inference would be preposterous. The words of Obadiah, " They shall be as though they had not been," are forced into the service, and a decided proof claimed. Of this text it is only necessary to say that it has no re- ference to eternity nor the future of the ungodly. The prophet only spoke of the temporal overthrow and ex- termination of the Edomites, and a little fi-rther on says, " There shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau." Another text claimed is Isaiah xli. 11, 12 : " They that war against thee shall be as nothina, and as a thing of naught ; and they that strive with thee shall perish." Certainly it must be manifest to the most careless reader, that to be as nothing, or as a thing of naught, in fighting against God, simply expresses the utter insignificance of God's enemies. " All nations be- fore thee are as nothing." Does this teach annihilation ? "Thine age is as nothing." Had the Psalmist no age? had he never been ? " Circumcision is nothing." Did Paul mean that it had been annihilated ? " An idol is nothing in the world." Does he mean it has no exist- ence ? " Though I be nothing." Was the Apostle, in 81 '((( ii (H , i ^ 18 the annihilationist sense of the term, nothing, really nobody ; notliing, soul nor body, neither as a man nor as an Apostle ? Again, " If a man thinketh he is some- thing, wlicn he "is nothing." "Bring to naught." ''Brought tJioir counsol to naught." " Set at naught;" and scores of texts might bo given which show Siat a man must sadly impose upon himself, in trying to prove annihilation by these terms. H^ncly is another term claimed to mean non-existence. "Whose (?/ifZ is destruction." As destruction docs not mean annihilation, this end cannot mean cessation of existence. The same word is applied to the close of tlie life of the righieous. " Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last e7id be like his." Did he wish to be put out of conscious beinj^ ! JVo ! answers , every reasonable man. " And the end everlasting life," ^B what he desired. Burn,, or hum them up., are terms tliat have, with considerable display, been called to the rescue of this dismasted and sinking craft. Malachi iv. 1-3, is the stronghold : " For behold the day cometh that shall burn as an oven ; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall bo stubble : and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saitli the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch." The ma- terialistic inference from this, and a few other texts, con- cludes that the vengeance of God is directly like a fire of wood, and the soul of man like shavings or other com- bustibles, and they argue from the figure that because heat decomposes fuel, God's anger must decompose inan's soul and body. That^re, hurn^ and hum up,, arc used in the Scriptures to denote extreme suifering, or re- sistless vengeance, is clear. As Dr. Bartlett has forcibly said : " God's anger is a fire or a flame, afllictions and Fufferings are its heat and burning effect, sometimes a imrning in general ; and when that vengeance is perfect- ly irresistible, appalling, and overwhelming, it is repre- sented, as could be done in no other way so graphically, as a devouring and consuming fire, driving over the helpless stubble, reducing it to cliaf}* or ashes." Anger is very generally described as fire or heat. Leviathan is ihi ii Ith^ >tlnn^, really as a man nor 'til he is sorne- to nauglit." ^ at naught ;" show that a ■yhig to prove ion-existence, ion does not cessation of G close of tlie tleath of the 'Js." Bid he ^0/ answers 'lasting life " ^py are terms ■ called to the Malachi iv. day Cometh "<^^> yea, and the day that 'f hosts, that Tile ma- , sr texts, con- like a fire of other com- lat because decompose ^^7^ ^ip, are I'ing, or re- as forcibly 3tions and tnetimes a isperfect- t is repre- aphically, :^ oyer the Anger viathan is I 19 thus described : " Out of lila mouth go burning lamps, j|nd sparks of tire leap out. Out of his nostrils goeth imoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron, llis breath {:indlcth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth." In he terrific description given by the i)rophet Ezekicl, of iBod's threatonings to the house of Israel, no intimation lof annihilation is given. He says : " So will I gather 'tyow in mine anger and in my fury, and I will leave you ithcre and melt you ; yea, I will gather 3^ou, and blow ;iiipon you in the tire of my wrath, and ye shall he melted dn the midst thereof, .... and ye shall know that I the |Lord have poured out my fiery upon you." Terrible 'punishments, but not annihilation. Tlio fire of punish- iiment, in the New Testament, is described as the agent of iconscious, continued anguish. The rich man "lifted up 'his eyes, being in torments," and said, "I am tormented in this flame." " Into the lake of fire, and shall be tor- 7nented day and night for ever;" and many texts, full and explicit, show conclusively that fire symbolizes overthrow or suffering, but not extinction. i will not take time to speak of perishj lost, and a few other terms which have been kidnapped by these men, and forced to take up arms against the truth. Ima- ; gery has been detached and materialized, and with con- siderable ingenuity attempts have been made to convert them into literal propositions, but all has proved futile. Those who build tbeir hopes of annihilation upon such phraseology, should pause, and with a prayerful heart commence anew the reading of God's Word. CHAPTER IV. MAN'S SOUL IMMORTAL. As many of our readers may not know what annihi- lationists do believe and say about the soul, I give a few extracts from their own works as specimens. These quo- tations are from the books of Ellis and Read, Z. Camp bell, and T. Keed. Here arc some things they say : " A soul in Scripture phraseology means an animal or creature." "The soul of man can die, and does die." " Souls can be Jcilled or murdered.''^ " It is absurd and y i I it fee U 20 wicked to infer that the soul is immaterial and immor "^^ tal." " Man has no soul nor spirit thae can exist as a ■' living tiling, apart from his body ; his whole nature i? i^^ mortal." " If the soul is a part of the man, it also is of ^* the dust of tlio ground ; and if it is not a part of the •?* man, it is not liable to sin or punishment, and it is of Wi^ no consequence to the man what becomes ofiV " Christ's soul was not left in the grave : tlien it must have been in the grave and dead. It diedaliteral death.^^ To many . persons these sayings are startling. The same doctrine — ^^/ if doctrine it can bo called — was taught by Epicurus, J^^. Hobbes, and Voltaire. Perhaps our readers will say, ^H " It is a very worthy offspring from such a parentage." ^^' Be that as it may, I am sure it has no right to claim to ^^^ be the child of tfesus, Paul. Peter, John, or any of the *M whole fatherhood of inspired writers. This is wliat may ^^ be called dead-soulism and materialism hashed, a dish that few intelligent, pious Christians will care to partake of. It resolves man's immortal soul into matter, or a faculty resulting from the organization of his body. Mind is not the result of matter. Mind is an immate- rial and spiritual thing, and has its own powers and fa- culties. It can appreliend, reason, make deductions, compare, &c., as perfectly as the body can perform phy- sical acts. If matter can perform moral acts, and love or believe, why not a man love or believe with his head as well as with his heart ? Why not understand as clearly with his heel as with his head ? Mind is super- added to matter, and is different and distinct from it. If matter be cogitative, or possessed with the powers of thought, it must be so possessed as matter. If so, that same matter must be able to think independently of any action or influence upon it, and will continue to think uninterruptedly until it be annihilated. There can be no intermission of thought. Death cannot affect it, and according to this logic, man must think after he is dead and in the grave. But matter, however refined or cu- riously wrought, has no such power. It is the soul that is the conscious, acting being, that moves upon the brain. This j)ower within us — the existence of which every '^al and immor can exist as a '^ioJg nature U an, it also is of a part of the t, and it is of ^^•'\" Christ's "f ,/iave been w/^ To many »ne doctrine-l J>y Epicurus, dcrd will say a parentage."' 't to claim to )r any of the 3 ;s what may st^ed, a dish J*e to partake Ntter, or a ^t his body. ' an im matc- hers and fa- deductions, •erform phy- ;ts, and love ^th his head derstand as fid is super- 3t from it. 3 powers of ^/so, that 3tly of any eto think ere can be ect it, and "t is dead ed or cu- soul tliat the brain, ^ch every 21 man must feel certain — and the brain, are closely con- nected, but not identical. They possess separate sub- itances. It would be difficult to define the essence of |ho soul ; but of its existence and attributes we may Ipeak with confidence. The death of the body does not Intterrupt the conscious existence of this beinfij — the soul, {t is essentially active, and therefore can neither be the fesult of organization nor a function of the brain. Says fcandis, " How ineffably absurd would be the supposi- tion that all the intellectual powers, and the mental ac- tivity and volition, were dependent for tlicir entire ex- istence upon a piece of cuticle^ some two inches in diameter, which, of all the body, retained its sensibility, find that so soon as its susceptibility of sensation ceased, tall those powers should of necessity be blotted out of being." Man exists in the present in two states of life and perception, widely different from each other. Each has its own peculiar laws, and its own enjoyments and Bufferings. When the senses or appetites are affected jr " ratified, with things peculiar to them, he evidently lives m a state o^ sensation. But when none of the senses or appetites are so affected, and yet he perceives, reasons, wills, and acts, he lives in a state of reflection ; and there is so little connection between the bodily powers of sensation and the mental powers of reflection, that I can see no reabon to conclude that the death of the for- mer can interrupt or suspend the existence of the latter. What they term strong arguments against the exist- ence of a soul in man, are, by these mortal-soul theolo- fians, based upon the assertion that " pressure upon the rain produces unconsciousness," consequently taeir in- ference is that consciousness is only a faculty of the brain. In proof of this assertion, they state cases wheire persons have been so injured that they could not, during the intervals of apparent unconsciousness, remember anything. By this unconsciousness, thev mean the total Bu'spension of intellectual exercise. This is an unwar- ranted conclusion. The most that can possibly be claim- ed in such cases is, that in those specihc cases, the facul- ties are so affected as to prevent the reTnemhranoe of « 22 mental exercise during that interval. This is net denied. Nor does it conflict with alleged facts of cases where persons have been apparently unconscious, and yet were conscious, and could remember tlieir sensations during that time. Dr. Adam Clark stated to Dn Littson, of London, " that during the period of his apparent death or unconsciousness, from drowning, he felt indescribably happy, and did not, for a single moment^ lose bis con- sciousness." Similar fcccts have been given in the well attested case of the Rev. Wm. Tennet, of New Jersey, as well as of Mr. Thomas Say, and other reliable men in all ages. In the fourth volume of the Memoirs of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester, Eng- land, Dr. Ferrier has fully established the fact that every part of the hrain has been injured without affecting the dot ofihmigkt. Another remarkable case, is one. given by Dr.. Landis, in his work, of one Mr. Gage, who, at Caverdish, Vermont, in September, 1848, by an acciden- tal explosion of powder, had an iron bar driven through his head, in such a way as to tear out quite a quantity of brain. During all the time of his illness, lie retained his consciousness and power of thought, and ultimui,ely recovered his health. As Isaac Taylor says, " No-soul- ism, or materialism, can no more sustain itself against the testimony of facts like these, than a citadel of owls could sustain itself against a volley of musketry." If a dead body is a dead soul, and a dead soul is a dead body, it is impossible for any difference to be made between soul and body If the soul is not really dis^ tinct from the body, then it is inseparable, and positively essential to it as a body ; for that which is not distinct from the body, is essential to '\ta8 a hody. It is a con- tradiction in terms to say that a thing is without its essence. The Bible as distinctly teaches that men have souls, as that they have bodies, and that these souls pos- sess their own powers and essence, and are capable of fiurviving the most violent death of the body. Stephen, " a man full of the Holy Ghost," when dying, " looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on therighthandof God,'' and called Up ^a m nil tl li'« net denied. r cases where ^J}^ jet were Rations during /' liittBOn of [parent death tndescribablv l^osehisoon. pin the well jpfw Jersey, lablemenin loirs of the ctthat^^^^ effecting ^/,^ s one. given gre» who, at an acciden- en through quantity of s i'etained «itinaui,eJv *:fo-6oat 3if against '^ oi* owJs T-" . soul is a be made eallj dis- ositively ; distinct is a con- fiout its en have * '"^s pos- able of 'ephen, looked ' God, called 23 ttpon him, saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Stephen did not believe that his boi y or breath was goinff to Jesus, at the right hand of God. It was his mnrtt he committed to Him whose martyr he was. Pro- fcibly Ellis and Read think he committed his breath to the ^''four winds,"^^ It is bold trifling with Scripture, to pay that the dying martyr committed the last portion of air or breath ne exhaled, to the winds, or even to say that Stephen committed to Jesus a nonentity. How strange that persons professing to receive the Bible as the book of their faith, can doubt that man has a soul, which is separate and distinct from the body, and which in its existence is immortal. Equally strange is it that these persons undertake to prove that the soul of man is either the blood of the body, the breath inhaled by the lungs, or the mere life or consequence of bodily organization. But such is their position. Can such teaching look the language of the Son of God in the face without shame ? In Matt. x. 28, we have the " soul and BODY " spoken of by the Saviour himself, to show that the soul is separate and distinct in its being from the body ; that it does not depend upon the bodily or- ganization for its existence, and that they are distinct forms of existence, the soul TDOssessing properties and powers that do not belong to tlie body. While the body may be killed by a man, the soul cannot. This text says, God can " destroy both soul and hody in hell ;" but it does not say ^'kill both soul and body." The term "kill " is applied to the body. " Kill " and *' destroy " are different words, and have different significations. Men can kill the body wfth gibbets, fire or faggot, but " after that have no more that they can do." So said Jesus the Tsuth. If " souls can be kilM " or murdered by men, it is strange that Jesus did not know it. The Apostle Paul, in 1 Thes. v. 23, clearly distinguishes be- tween what of man is material and what is spiritual. In praying for their sanctification, he desired that their " whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord «Jesu8 Christ." Here the spirit and soul are spoken of to distinguish the spiritual X I 1 1 24 from the bodUv nature, and spirit, soul and body, to embrace the whole of man's compound being. He did not pray for the preservation of their breath, or of their lives. He knew they must cease to breathe, and die before the coming of our Lord Jegus Christ. The Apos- tle had a soul, and believed others had. The Bible has established the difference between the body and the soul, by asserting that one is constituted of " dust," and that the other is not, and has thus established a fundamental distinction between matter and spirit. That man had something imparted to him in connec- tion with his creatipn, superior to human life, and which vastly distinguished him from all other creatures, and made him in the image of God, is very evident. " Every creature that hath life," was created, and had life as the result or as part of their creation. No necessity existed for breathing into them. They were complete without it. Put of man it is said, "The Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and hreaihed into his nos- trils the breath of life : and man became a living soul." Was man a corpse ? or, as annihilationists say, " a dead soul," before or when God breathed into him ? I incline to the opinion that man received creature life through organization as its legitimate result, and that the imma- terial nature or immortal soul was imparted to man from God by the direct act of hreathing into him. In point of time, they were probably simultaneously received ; but they were different and separate possessions, im- parted by the Creator through different channels. But if the more common opinion concerning man's creation be the correct one — that it was the union of the imparted soul with the body that produced natural life, it amounts to the same thing in our present use. It must be admit- ted that the body was fofmed out of pre-existent matter, and that the origin of the soul is referred to God. It was " God who g(we iV^ Man's creature life is the life of the body ; his moral, intellectual, or spiritual being, is separate and distinct from that ; and for man to have such a possession, it wae necessary for the Almighty to breatne into him. P^g. He did f^Mr of their latiie, and die rand the soul, W'>d that fundamental P in connec- e, and which features, and ent. ^^E^ery adJifeasthe f ity existed Ijete without formed man into his nos- iving soul.'' tj,"adead [I -f mdine ^te through ' *he imma- > man from Jn point received • sions, im! ^els. But 8 creation imparted t amounts be admit- 't matter, &od. It 25 bd's breathing was something more than setting the •TDctionsof the body into operation. It was imparting. ~^hen the Saviour was qualifying his .disciples for impor- mt service, *'He breathed on them, and said unto iheiTi; Beceive ye the Holy Ghost." In making man In His own image, the Lord God breathed into him the (( IS a fs mora], distinct ssion, it 'to him. •1 preath of life. It was the breath of God, who ;^riRiT," and who is " the life." So man became a living ffiouL. The prophet, in speaking of the time and works ;of creation, says, " Thus saith the Lord, which stretchetli > forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, Vand formeth the spirit of man within himr This is the |;8ame operation spoken of in Genesis ii. 7. What Moses speaks of as breathing into man " the breath of life," ; Zechariah declares to be the " forming of the spirit of man within him." It was a separate and distinct act from forming the body. " There is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty givetli him understand- ing." (Job.) " The spirit of man which is in him." (Paul.) The separate and distinct existence of spirit and matter in man, and of their different destinies at death, is affirmed with equal distinctness. The part that is material, at death, goes back to its unorganized state ; but that which is spiritual cannot thus go, and continues to ex'st. The preacher, in Eccles. xii. 7, clearly under- stood and taught this fact. " Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was ; and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." The exposition given of this passage by Ellis and Head, in their book, is really ludicrous. They say : " Thus we see the rwaA. in Eccles. xii. 7, went to the four windsP Strange theology to be taught in a Christian country ! Has the God of the Bible been reduced to atmospheric air, or " four winds ?" Shocking infatuation ! And such is the extremity into which these men are driven, who labor to argue away the sim- ple and plain meaning of the word of God. " "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward V* asks the Preacher. If man's spirit is of the body, and dies with it, it must, like the spirit of the beast, go down- ward to the earth. '/ 'V r^ :!l '^/ ill 26 The Apostle Paul, in speaking of men's bodies, ani iP>: for the express purpose of distinguishing them from ers," SI hi„ th ' ®^<^^ys Dr. Bartlett, " teach men of the eternal relations I" Tf^J? ^'^^^ l^ey sustain to the government of God, and declare that fiiake ih^ ^^^ ^^ must enjoy endless holiness and well-being, or end* pan's ] ^^* ^^^ ^^® and punishment Inspeakinc of the righteoui, k> 14 ^^" ,^*s ^i^^y speak of eternal life, the eternal weight of glory, ^nd gkp ^ *^^* incorruptible crowns, inheritance incorruptible, und«- I it Ye ^^ ^led, and that fadeth not away, shining as the stars for ^^fioo^^ f*^^ .^ ®^®^ ' *^®^' state, in which they shall hunger no more^ inow' ' ^*^' ineither thirst any more, where there shall be no more ^ even"^ ^^^^ ,»death. Precisely so, on the other hand, of the wicked ej.g • ^ oiir 'I they speak in the same positive and awful assertions of a jjj * sepa- | their everlasting punUhnent — their never-dying worm, ijfj'jj j^^'^^d* I and unquenchable fire; their never receiving forgive- a viol y^^ ^ J^css in this world or in the world to come ; their eter- ri 1.. ^'l^ono, nal damnation ; the smoke of their torment that ascendeth up for ever .and ev«r ; their shame and ever- lasting contempt ; their departure into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels ; everlasting de- struction from the presence of the Lord; their being destined to the blackness of darkness for ever, and re- ceiving from God indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, at the day of judgment. It is little more than a quibble, then, to argue 3iat the phrase * immor- tal' is not applied to the soul itself, when it is so abundantly applied to its destiny and condition," 1 Tim. vi. 16 is adduced as positiveJy teaching that no being but God hath immortality — " Who alone hath immortality." This passage and its connections evidently mean that God only has underived and eternal life — that he only is without beginning or end. No one pretends that any otiier being has, or ever can have, immortality in this sense ; nor do we think that Dobney, Hastings, or even Storrs, would assert that man should or can seek such an immortality, or that it is possible for it t'^ be conferred upon him by grace, resurrection, or in any other way. But that the Lord only hath it, and hath it to impart to others, is perfectly consistent. God only can give immortality. Jesus taught that angels do not die. " Neither can they die any more, for they are equal unto the angels." Luke xx. 36. Angels, then, are y^l ho couJd "je spirit of ihis "dirt treasonable f .that any P^P^d that '8 spirit his IPardoned, '^. our Sa- tisania^ \ ^^8 own . Rephrase Neither is .^nt to 3lore sta- > phrase, 'g as the teaches ^^8 with - s exist- hstract 'hers," Mi 1 28 immortal, that is undying, beings. So that Paul could not mean that God is the only widymg heing. The text explains itself: "Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach imto.^^ This is evident. So man can approach unto the immor- tality God possesses. Angels have immortality, and man can approach unto that, and be " equal unto the angels." Besides this, Enoch and Elijah, long before the Apostle's time, had been in possession of immortal bodies as well as souls. Of course Paul did not use the term in the sense annihilationists say he did — ^meaning that God is the only undying being. If the resurrec- tion, as these men admit, confers immortality upon the bodies of the saved, why do they persist in using this text to prove that man has no derived immortality. The -resurrection immortality must be derived from God. God's immortality alone is underived. Man's, in any and every sense, is derived. God possesses it in the spe- cific sense— man in the general sense. Rom. ii. 7, teaches that " immortality " is to be sought, in connection with glory and eternal life, just as Phil. iii. 11, teaches that the resurrection itself is to be sought. We are repeat- edly assured in the Bible that all men will have a resur- rection, and yet the Apostle says, " If hy any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead." ^ Paul meant something more than being brought into existence after death. He meant a happy resurrection. So in seeking for *' immortality." It is more than immortal existence— it is a happy state of existence. All are sure of a resurrection — but the resurrection of tlie just is to be sought. All have immortal souls— but a happy state of the soul is to be sought. ' When our Saviour restored the damsel to life, her "spirit came again." When the Prophet raised the child to life, " his soul came into him again." Some of these modern wise men say soul means breath. Let us admit it, and accept such a translation, and what -have we ? " The hreaih of Jonathan was knit unto the breath ©f David, and Jonathan loved him as his own T>reathP " And I will say unto my Ireath^ Breathy thou hast m kai to *b( lou) *fir( |th| I thj |ar ;iiti ..^. pramorfcaJitj |f*f^^ty, and Pai nnto the rj^.^ before pr immortal pot use the meanine- I'esurrec- "pon the °?ing this *^ify. The f'^. Ood. ^' in any ^thespe- *i teaches '\^^ with ^^es that ® i*epeat- ■ a resii2'- *neans I '. Paul nstence ^ So in Ir mortal I 1*6 sure ^ ^t is to ^ state '» her J the lie of etus lave last 'J 29 Iftuch goods laid up for many years." "Myftrtfa^A piiall be joyful in the Lord." "Tell me, O thou whom \yhrmth loveth." "No man cared; for my JreaM." 1 Converting the hreaihy Wo would have a whole Jible full of such meaningless passages. That man lias a soul, distinct in its nature from the body, is plainly laught in tile Bible ; and that immortality is applied ix) its existence and destiny, is a scriptural fact. Let /those who affirm their souls are mortal, feed their souls ion the same food they feed their bodies ; or if their souls *are wounded, let them apply the same balm to heal ;|them which they apply to bodily wounds, and see fwhether such things can either feed or heal them. Let ' them try if the cordials prepared for the body will revive their souls when faint or cast down. If they are mortal, and part of, or dependent on the body, it must do so, if . it does it for the body. President Mahen says, on the tendency of the annihi- lation doctrine : " 1. The doctrine, as far as the nature of the soul ia concerned, is opposed to the intuitive convictions of the race upon the subject. It has its exclusive basis in the dogma of the proper materiality of the soul. " 2. This doctrine is equally opposed to the most ab- solute deductions of science. " 3. If the mind is material, as this dogma affirms, God is material. " 4. If the soul of man is material, then all its activi- ties of every kind must be subjected to the immutable laws and principles of matter. In other words, such activities, intellectual and moral, must be subject to one unchangeable law— that of absolute necessity. The in- tellect, sensibility, and will, are only parts of one com- plicated machine, every movement of which can, by no possibility, be otherwise than it is. Mind, then, can no more be subject to moral obligation, or susceptible of moral right or wrong, or of the desert of moral retribu- tion, than a steamboat. " These are the necessary consequences of the funda- mental principles of this system, and there is no escape c3 n ill' 80 from ihem. If mind is material, all its activities are the exclusive result of chemical or other kindred affinities, and we might as properlj adopt codes of moral legisla- tion for the action of the acids and alkalies, or of the forces of electricity and galvanism, as for that of the human will. There is no such a thing as moral govern- ment, right and wrong, obligation, moral desert of ffood or ill, if this dogma be true. Morality and religion both are chimeras, born of ignorance and error, and tke judg- ment would be nothing but a senseless farce. No one can show that these are not the necessary bearings of the system upon the eternal principles of morality and religion. It annihilates every sphere for the action of the moral and religious principles and sentiments. Those who hold this dogma, and yet believe in either morality or religion, do so iu violation of the fundamental princi^ pies of their own system. " 6. This system of belief is held in opposition to the most direct and express teachings of Scripture conceiva- ble. Never was a system of doctrine developed with less regard to the plain and fundamental teachings of the Word of God." CHAPTER v. CONSCIOUSNESS BETWEEN THE DEATH AND EESUEEECTION OF THE BODY. That the disembodied spiiit exists iu a state of con- sciousness between the death and resurrection of the body, the Scriptures leave no room to doubt. I am aware that a great deal is said by soul-sleepers about " Romish purgatory " being based upon this doctrine ; indeed they would like to wiarge all who believe this truth with believing in a purgatory. Sensible men, how- ever, are not to be frightened with such a dash. We do not admit that Eomish purgatory is built upon this doctrine : but suppose it were built upon it Is truth to be discarded because the Romish priesthood have per- verted it ? Is not transubstantiation built upon the ex- pressions of the Saviour ? Shall we say the Bible does not teach the Lord's Supper, because of the abuse of the language of our Saviour by Romish priests ? If men aotr lot liicl El in ^rej luti| nnc ko ifities are the fe ^'^ of the )ra] govern. toon Both V ■'^o one gearings of >rahty and * action of '*s- Those • Diorality ^al princi. »'on to the coneeira. Ped with chingg of '^ op TSE ^^ Con- or the J am about ■trine ; e this . how- I this thto per- ex- foes the I en 31 ■orvert the truth, and build dogmas upon it, the truth is ^ne the less true, nor are its frienas responsible for ihch thi.i^. :^ Excepting the translated ones, and those who shall be ■ia the earth alive when Jesus shall come the second 0xne, all have or must die. £ut the question now is^ ;;i|re the souls of men conscious after death ? The dis80« jntion of the physical organization no more proves tho .Amconsciousness of the spirit, than the burning of a ^ouse proves the burning of tho family who occupied it. Before coming directly to the point of proving our position, let us notice the giant text, which everybody, who has ever heard anything said on the sleepy side of the question, must have heard. Here it is : ^^ The dead know not anything." Now, says Mr. Unconsciousness, with a great air of triumph, *' We have it right to the point. You say man is conscious, and knows more than the living ; God says he knows not anything. Who am I to believe — you or the God of truth ?" We answer, Believe the God of truth, and the truth of God. But, " Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures." Let us have the whole text (Eccles. ix. 6), " For the living know that they shall die ; but the dead know not anything, neither have they an/y more a reward^ for the memorv of them is forgotten." This is spoken of one class of the dead as fully as of the other, and if it be taken in its literal meaning, as these men say, then it declares that the dead ^^ Ha/ve no more a reward^'' and that there is no resurrec- tion or retribution for mankind after death, and that " the memory of them is forgotten." One part of the text is just. as explicit as the other. Who that has lost dear friends has forgotten them ? That this passage re- fers to the -present world, and teaches that the dead have " no portion for ever in anything that is done under the sun,^ every unprejudiced mind must admit. We won- der that this, and a few similar passages, have ever been Eressed into such an unnatural service as annihilationists ave tried to force them into. Let us here give a few of tbie many passages of Scrip- ture bearing upon this subject^ and which teach the doc- M ft ': 32 tnne we linlrl n^ him." ^Stn. 'J^st .f r '. ^'"'" ^^ Jat b^ f -".^ Jatter part is our \w , ^^^ ^^oted fromV^^A , ® liis. answer to thf?"!?^' ^^^P^anation ofTt Jhf f ' ^^^ quibblers trv fn P^xiducees. I am «wo ' S^^^^^ ^^s tiiat ouTsi^ ^'^ ^^^^e t^e force ofthi.7T ,*^^* s^me heaven 'U?f^P^^^<^ise," and ^'rnnti,^/ '^^« ^e was place " outoft u^'l '"^ ^n experiem.lf.1: ^* "^"^^ (( de » a mljj jP ttnght as though he had actually said he was " r A J, j^ . buried made an ^^18 feet -f,^P^"in ''Jce ilpoiii cave of ' buried ause t\^Q ^6 burial ►f Abra- ^b. God . The 5^»s, the ich TTas t some sajing ^esur- fiOt ftl] * there «^esus Qce of ^ tit is corn- was "in lust ken not the WAf enjoy the presence of the Saviour after death, and ^at its continuance in the body positively delays it« ihjoyraent in Christ's immediate presence. Pliil. i. 21, $4, *' For to me to live is Christ, and to die is oain / but if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour : yet #hat I shall choose, I wot not. For I am in a strait jjetwixt two, having a desire to depart and be with ^hriet, which is far better. Nevertlieless, to abide in fee flesh is more needful for you." Here the Apostle |>lainly contrasts departing and heing with GhAst with temainvng in the hody^ and continuing to labour for the tood of the Church. Such was his love for Christ, and is wish to be at home with him, that he was " willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord." If Paul went to the grave — soul and body how could he fee " with Christ," " with the Lord." Surely Christ is not in the grave, before that he had ascended to his father. If he thought he would be un- conscious from the time of his death until the resurrec- tion, how could he say " to die is gain," when by living he might have been happy in the Gospel, and rejoiced in the conversion of many souls. So full and decided is ; this language in proving that the Christian does actually enjoy the presence of the Lord after death, that one wonders how any who believe the Apostle was inspired when he wrote it, can believe that the spirits of God's children are insensible between the death and resurrec- tion of their bodies. According to 2 Cor. v., to be at home in the body, is to be absent from the Lord, and to be absent from tne body is to be present with the Lord : and the latter- was what the Apostle was willing to do. We cannot see how any honest interpreter of the passa- ges can escape the conclusion that life here detains the Christian from Christ's immediate presence, and that death introduces him into his preserice. Luke xxiii. 42, 43 : The penitent thief on his cross m / aljl \'. ^ \ cried, and " said unto Jesua, Lord, remember mo when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, verily, I say unto theo, to-day shalt thou be with mo in Paradise.** The meaning of this text lies plainly on the face of it, and is so clear that it has cost those who have laboured to argue away its meaning a great deal of twisting and hunting. If it were not for the waste of space, we would give quotations from some of those writers that would provoKe pity for them. Christ's promise is immediate fclessedness — ^''to-day with ine in Paradise." But these men do not seem to regard what Christ said. I do not pretend to know whether the dying thief was a Saddu- cee or a Nothingarian ; but have some knowledge of Jesus, and know that he meant just what he said. Much is said of the comma that occurs after the word " to-day," and with the usual flourish of triumph, as though some- thing had been discovered to settle the matter for ever ; it is said, " the comma is not inspired, nor put there by inspiration." Who says it was ? But if the comma was not put where we have it in our version, by inspiration, who allowed these men to change it, and turn the Scrip- tures into nonsense? Read the sentence according to their punctuation, and place the comma after to-day, and what have we ? Where, then, is the promise of Christ ? " I say unto thee to-day, shalt thou he with mo in Paradise." The last part of the promise then becomes a question, rather than a promise, and such a question as no one who knows anything about the character of the meek and loving Jesus, would ever believe came from his holy lips. It is a taunting^ sneering question. Shalt thou be with me in Paradise? What! a miserable, de- graded thief be with me? No one can believe the Saviour ever treated a penitent thus. Christ's promise is, " to-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise ;'* find most emphatically declares the presence of the crucified male- factor with Himself in Paradise on that very day. But, says Ellis and Eead, " Paradise is a location on the new earth ; and how could either Christ or the thief" be in Paradise that day, when Paradise does not actually » '■:TSimm.- V aaid unto ^^ be vrith .^aceofit^ f. laboured ifiting and ^e^ould jat would ''jut tliesG i do not 'a Saddu- /j^^^e of d. Much to-da;^," r^ some- lor ever ; ^here by [nnia was PJfation, »e Scrip. ^}^S to to-dajr, ^iso of Bcomes tion as of the ' from SiaJfc ©J de^ B the se is, ^ost lale- But, new in 88 fit ?" liere we have Ellis and Read, vers^is Jesus and Bul. Need I ask who are wo to believe ? The former »y Paradise does not exist. Jesus said, " The tliief ould be with hira in Paradise that day." Paul speaks himself as having been " caught up into ParaaiseJ* bese are two of tlie three places where the ternv Para- ise occurs in tlie New Testament. The other is where e Revclator speaks of " the tree of life which is (not ill be) in the midst of the Paradise of God." None ut anniliilationists can imagine that Christ and the hief were that day in a place that does not exist, or that iPaul was caught up into nowhere. They say much about |the term being ambiguous. If ambiguous to them, it f was not so to tne Saviour and his Apostles, nor yet to I the Jews in the time of Christ. It was a common say- J ing amongst the Jews concerning the just dying man, *' To-day he shall sit in the bosom of Abraham." " Let his soul be in Paradise." " Seek Paradise, the glorious country of the soul." The Jews were familiar with the use of the word, and used it to describe the state and place of the righteous immediately after death. Another objection they raise to the truth is, that the Saviour said, " Touch me not, for I have not yet ascend- ed to ray father." This the Saviour himself makes per- fectly clear. In his dying prayer he said, " Father, mto thy hands I commend my spiriV The body which Mary wished to embrace did not ascend to the Father for forjy days after its resurrection. These objections may have some weight with those who believe that Jesus, the God- man, was extinct or annihilated during the period be- tween his death and resurrection. But with those who believe Jesus " spake of the temple of his body," when he said, " Destroy this temple, and in three davs /will raise it up," it cannot have the least weight. To such it is as clear as it can be that Jesus laid down his life, and took it again. That he as man was dead, and as God was alive. As the child born he died, but as the mighty God he lived. His body had been in the sepulchre, bis spirit into Paradise. To believe that Christ promised the thief that he should be in a state of extinction or A ^m I /A iudefinitely prolonged unconsciousness, is, to say the least of it, silh/. The case and language of the d; ing Stephen is equally decisive, when looking up steadfastly into heaven he said, " Lord Jesus, receive my spiriV^ Can any one doubt that Stephen expected his spirit to go immediately to Jesus at the right hand of God ? He used almost pre- cisely the same language used by our dying Saviour, when he said, " Father into thy hands I commend my ! spirit." Eccles. iii. 21 : " Who knoweth the spirit oimanih^X goeth ujpward, and the spirit of the heast that goeth downward to the earth." Of this passage Dr. Clark, whose knowledge of the Hebrew all admit to be exten- sive, says the literal translation is thus : " Who consider- eth the immortal spirit of the sons of Adam,which ascend- eth ?^ It is from above : and the spirit or breath of the cattle, which descendeth ? It is downward to the earth." Prefessor Roy, author of Roy's Hebrew and English Dic- tionary, renders the passage thus : " Who knoweth the spirit of the sons of Adam, that ascends upward to the liighest place : or even the spirit of the cattle, which de- scends downwards into the lowest part of the earth." Here the spirit of the man and brute are distinguished. The Psalmist believed he would leave the body at death. In speaking of life he says, " It is soon cut off ;" and what then ? " And we fly away." Can it be possible that the express'on " fly away " has reference to the body. Cer- tainly it refers to the soul that departs. Suppose, as Mr. Lee saj'^s, that a speaker whose opinions were unknown, was speaking before an audience equally divided upon this doctrine, and he should speak of death and say, " Life will soon be cut off, and we shall fly away," I ask who would claim him ? Those who believe in the conscious or the unconscious state ? Both parties would say that he took part with the conscious believers. Matt. x. 23 and Luke xii. 4, 6, not only prove the soul to be superior to and separate from the body, but that the soul does exist without the body. Men " are not able to kill the soul." Surely, then, it does not die with the body. How can ■t ; 4»i) h say the r.^'sequaij. I^Jeaven i/g F any one fJ^cdiateh hrnoBt pre. oavioup aend ' ,^m that ff • CJart, oeexten- consider- Rascend- '^ of the ,e earth." N^'shDic. Nth the 'd to the hich de- earth." ruished. t death. id what ^atthe Car- as Mr. nown, upon 'Life who us or It he and )r to xisfc uJ." can u ;g 37 m believe Bach a dogma ? These texts directly con- liRdict and overthrow an important article in the faith annihilationists. They argue the necessary uncon- ious state of the dead resulting from the death of the ly. If man can " kill the body," and cannot " kill le soul," what becomes of this article of faith, and the tructuro built upon such a foundation ? The assertion lat the soul or spirit is nothing more than a result of ie bodily organization, by which it is begotten, and ithout which it dies, cannot look these Scriptures in bhe face. Matt. xvii. 3, is another of our stubborn proof texts : f" And behold there appeared unto them Moses and Elias ! talking with him." This was on the Mount, at the time of the transfiguration of Christ ; in the presence of three of his disciples, Moses and Elijah appeared with them. Elijah, of course, appeared in the same body in which he had been translated ; but of Moses it is said (Josh, i. 2), " My servant Moses is dead." Moses died and was buried, and appeared on the Mount, in a conscious ac- tive state, nearly fifteen hundred years after his death. That he was not resurrected is clear from 1 Cor. xv. 20, "Now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept." The transfiguration was before Christ's death, and of course Moses was there be- fore Christ's resurrection, and " appeared in glory, and spake of his decease." No doubt but he was one of the *' spirits of just men " spoken of in Heb. xii. 23. There is not the slightest proof for the assertion that his body had been raised from the dead. His case is a clear proof that the soul lives fter the body is dead, and is a conscious personality. Dobney says on this passage, " Moses died and was buried, yet he appeared on Tabor with Elijah, and was visible or embodied J^ What autho- rity has he to add or say that he was embodied f The Scriptures say he was there ; they say he died ; and we may believe that in the time of Christ, as one of the Fathers, he was still dead (John vi. 49-58). They say that Christ was the first-fruits from the dead, and before Christ's death Moses was actually present on the Mount '% I; " in glory ;" therefore the body of Moses was not raised and he did not appear there " embodied." He waa there a disembodied spirit, representing the happy state of those who die in the Lord, and appeared in company with Elijah, showing that the souls of the pious dead and the translated ones are together. Did the disciples when they supposed Christ, as he walked on the water' was a spirit, think him to be an embodied spirit ? Are we to suppose the fire and horses mentioned in 2 Kings 11. 11, were embodied ? Or that the angels who appear- ed to Mary, the shepherds, and Zacharias, were embo- died? They admit that Moses was there, and that he was in a " glorified body ; and that he "put oiF this glo- riiied form, and returned again to the quiescence of the grave." Then Moses must have put oif Moses, and di- vested himself of himself, and died the second time. The first time in a mortal body, and the second time mi an immortal or glorified body. This position of annihi- lationists needs no comment : of both the logic and the- ology we leave the reader to judge for himself. Such arguments are absurd. The appearance of Moses in the Mount is positive proof of his consciousness after death. IJieir equivocations about the " vision," where Jesus said to his disciples, " Tell the vision to no man," are evidences of great weakness. Is vision opposed to re- autyf -Did Zacharias only imagine that he saw and talked With the angel in the temple ? Did the women on y imagine they saw angels at the sepulchre ? or Paul only imagine that the Lord met him ? Our Lord charged them^ to " tell no man wJmt things they had seen'' not imagined. ^ if > " ^/'^.f uH 'P^^^^'. ""^ r *^'® 'P"'^<^s of just men made perfect,'' '' the spirit of man which is in him," and of her spirit which came again," ,fec., as especially desig- nated and distinguished from the body. It speaks of the souls of them that were slain," Rev. vi. 9 Thev were the souls of martyrs, who had been slain, and were taen under the altar. Their bodies had been slain, and their souls were to be under the altar " until others were slam as they were." Not the souls that were slain, but e %h , ^^^ raised ®^aa there V state of ''?."8 dead Pi^e Heater, 1^^*? Are '^ appear- ^J^ emdo" ?J^^t he tills gJo. •e of the ' and di~ 'i time, June hi f annfhi- Pd the- ^ Such « in the ' death. ^» ' are to ^-^^ ^and omen -Pan] [i-ged not 39 li^e 50i*Z« of them that were slain for the witness of Jesus. tU these passages are positive proof against soul-sleep- g. Rev. xxii. 8, 9 ; Heb. xii. 23; Eph. iii. 15; and Irsry many other texts might be examined and used in jroving the same facts ; but it will scarcely be consider^ 3d necessary. Paul must have meant something when ^e said to his Hebrew brethren, " being yourselves also in thehod^y But now how is it with the wicked ? Jude i. 6 says, " The angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everr. lasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the yreat day^ Tha;t day has not yet come, and they are reserved for it. 2 Pet. ii. 4, " God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to nell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto Judg- ment.'' Yes, and says Jude 7, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, in like onanner^ gi'^ii^ themselves over to fornication, and gbing after strange flesh, arc set forth for an example, 5«(^e7'*w^ the vengeance of etevnal jvreP They are now suffering, and are now set forth rr an ex- ample. But, says I>obney, " Sodom and Gomorrah refers to the material houses, walls^" &c. If this be true, then the houses, walls, and materials of the city, *^ gave themselves over to fornication, and went after strange flesh." Consummate folly! It needs no comment. In Acts i. 25 it is said that "Judas by transgression fell, that he mi^ht go to his Q>viT\. placeP Are we asked what place or where he went, we give the reply in the lan- guage of one of the ablest scholars of modem times, to his " merited place — his place of punishment in hell." No doTibt the place for wiiich, by treason and covetous- ness, he was fully prepared. I Peter iii. 19, speaks of " the spirits in prison," and whether men agree about where or what Christ preached to tliem, or not, does not alter the truth, that Vi\e spiriti were in prison at the time referred to by the Apostle. Their bodies were drowned, and their spirits were cast into prison. We do not think Christ preached to them while in prison, but in the days of Noah, and that in the lays of reter they were in prison. In Luke xvi. we have, in the account 40 h'' of the history of the rich man and Lazarus, proof which settles beyond a reasonable doubt the conscious existence of a wicked man after death, as well as of Abraham and Lazarus. To claim this narrative as a parable, is to gain nothing. Soul-sleepers say it is a parable. The Scriptures present it as a matter of fact. Some of Christ's parables are relations of real occurrences, and all are taken from real things. Luke says, " There was a rich man," and " there was a certain beggar named Lazarus." Our Saviour never employed proper names in parables. But what is gained, if it be called a parable ? Does it not teach the truth ? Can any man believe Jesus con- veyed false impressions by parables ? Who could possi- bly infer such a doctrine as the unconsciousness of the soul from this narrative ? " And it came to pass that the beggar died, and was carried by angels into Abra- ham's bosom. The rich man also died., and was buried : and in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and seeth Abraham afar oif, and Lazarus in his bosom." Much ingenuity has been exhausted in trying to explain away the plain meaning of this clear passage. Storrs and others say, " The rich man representea the Jews, and Lazarus the Gentiles." We know the Gentiles were looked upon as dogs by the Jews ; and this view of the matte *^ill prove that Lazarus was beggar and dog both, and that he lay licking his own sores. Grew, i^ a work published by him, called the " Intermediate State," asks the question, " By what process of reasoning do we infer the conscious misery of a disembodied spirit from the declaration that a man ^ lifted up ms etes in hell, and felt his tongue tormented in the name ?" With this same inquiry these quibblers everywhere tiy to turn the whole Scripture narrative into ridicule. Those sayings ^oue that he was alive, and suffeeed. And the same process of reasoning that represents the righteous as bemg re- freshed by living water, having crowns of glory, and Ealms in their hands, justify, not this inference only, ut ih\^ fact. The fire in hell need not be earthly fire, nor the water in heaven earthly water. It was the 41 " water of life " he wanted to " cool his tongue," while tormented in that flame. Dobney frankly acknowledges that " in this parable our Lord shows an ungodly man in a state of wretched- ness after death. How long it would last is not men- tioned. It is true there was no hope for him. But whether that torment should endure forever, or would ultimately destroy him, the parable doeb not say. It teaches a terrible and hopeless state for the wicked after death, and that is all." It may be necessary to remind the reader that this is Dobney, the English annihilation- ist writer, and when he says " that is a?^," you will con- sider that " all " considerable to be admitted by an author who elsewhere persistently denies a conscious state of existence between death and the resurrection. This " all " is all that we claim in this connection. Hud- son comes pretty well up to this in his admission. He says, " We therefore freely say that the parable, what- ever it may or may not teach, assumes and implies a judgment, or some kind of retribution aftev deaths Very well, if it teaches any retribution alter deaths it must be one of conscious suffering, and sufferiug that coiAmences at death. Grew again says, " It must be admitted that a part of our Lord's representation of the state of the rich man and Lazarus, seems to favour the opinion of conscious happiness and misery immediately alter death, especially the request of the former, that Lazarus should be sent to his father's house." These men themselves make out a pretty strong case in favour of our views. Now if " a part^' of our Saviour's teach- ings teach " conscious happiness and misery immediately after death," who that receives him as the Truth will believe that the other part teaches the opposite doctrine ? Who will set the Saviour against himself ? All the talk about the abolHion of the Jewish priesthood, &c., in connection with this chapter is passed over as unworthy of notice. The passage plainly teaches — 1. The rich and poor both die. 2. That the godly and ungodly are both conscious immediately after death : the one "comforted," the other " tormented." 3. That the suffering was con- s2 ^ Hi H i^ I i temporaneous with the joy. 4, That the snffering was actually taking place wnile the five brethren of the suf- ferer were living on the earth. The case is a clear one. In his lifetime tlie rich man had his good things ; after death he was tormented. No labour nor sophistry can weaken the solemn lesson taught by this passage, and we urgently warn triflers to be careful *' lest they go to that place of torment." If it were necessary to give other Scriptures that prove suffering between death and the judgment, we could do so. 2 Pet. ii. 9 says : " The Lor^ knowetli how to deliver the godly out of tempta- tion, and to reserve the unjust under punishment unto the day of judgment." The only objection that we have read or heard urged against this doctrine, that has any appearance of reason (not Scripture) in its favor, is, as the annihilationists state it, " that it makes the deau to be judged twice ; once immediately after death, and again at the general judgment." To this we give the reply of Landis, in his able work on " the Immortality of the Soul, and the final condition of the wicked." He says, " This would be plausible, to be sure, if the point we insisted on were mere hypothetical. But the reader will doubtless be inclined to do full justice to the exem- plary modesty of our opponents in producing this objec- tion. It has a peculiarly beautiful aspect, as coming from those who assert that the sinner is literally to suffer the penalty of the law twice. That penalty they aver is annihilation : it is inflicted upon the sinner when he dies, and then, as they inform us, he is to be raised from the dead, not to continue in existence, but merely to be annihilated over again ! We do not design the forego- jug remarks as a reply to the objection itself, which at best, however, is a mere equivocation on the word * judged.'' The spirit, when it has departed from the body, must, in the very nature of the case, be either in a happy or miserable condition, and take its position ac- cordingly, either among the happy or the unhappy. Its very existence and nature involve such a necessity. And the attempt to confound this necessity of its nature with the formal judgment which must be passed upon all at ' tl It 43 . the last day, in the presence of the assembled universe of angels, men, and devils, is the fatuity of inanity. Bnt f f the doctrine of the uninterrupted immortality of the soul did actually infer a two-fold judgment, this Would furnish no valid objection against it in the view of any believer of the Bible : for that man should be judged twice, constitutes no more a valid reason against the continuity of his existence during the interval which elapses between those judgments, than -it would form a valid reason against the uninterrupted existence of tlie fallen Angels during a similar interval. Now we read expressly that when angels sinned, they were immedi- ately condemned and adjudged to hell ; and not only this, but that they are reserved in everlasting chains of darkness unto the judgment of the great day. (See 2 Pet. ii. 4 and Jude i. 0.) Suppose then that the sinner is judged and condemned at the last day (as all. admit he will be), and what reason does this furnish for denying that he is likewise condemned and adjudged to hell im- mediately after death?" This is plainly and honestly presenting the case. The soul does exist, and must be in some place as well as in some state. Another mode of supposing and questioning (not rea- soning) referred to, to sustain the theory that the soul cannot be separate, nor separated from the body, is found in this fitrange quotation from a speech reported from their Goliah in debate, *' Supposing we put my brother here into a metallic coffin (hermetically sealed) ; he soon dies. Now let him show how the soul can get out. How large a hole does it take for a soul to pass through ? Can it go through the pores ? If not, how can it get out V The reader need not laugh, and say the man was insane ; he was not. He was doing the best he could for a bad Let us look at this question a moment. The soul cause. of man is that which loves, nates, perceives, reasons, re- members, hopes, adores, fears, thinks, anticipates, wills ; and as Job says, " his soul within him shall mo^^m." The soul suffers or enjoys from what it anticipates or dreads in the future. . The soul is affected by news, or mourns the loss of friends. But to the question about 44 k;! m i I tlie size of the hole it will take for the soul to pass through. It will take just as large a hole as it takes to think through, when you think of the folly of the ques- tion ; just as large a hole as you will require to remem- ber through, when you remember the silly question ; just as large a hole as it would take to perceive through, when you think of the extremity into which the man was driven when he supposed and asked that wonder- fully profound question. The walls and doors of the room where the disciples were, were no hindrance to the appearance of the Saviour. He entered without open- ing a door. Much less are material walls a hindrance to spirit. If the Spirit of God could not reach a man while thus shut up, it might be asked, how can he get out ? Matter does not hinder spirit. 1 wonder if that sage could tell us how many ounces, Troy weight, it would take to tell who wrote " Ecce Homo ?" or how many square inches there are in an hour's solid thinking ? Sometimes the coffin is called metallic and at other times glass. Of this coffin argument, a writer in the Morning Star says : — " When we first heard of such questions being propo- sed in a discussion, we thought them too puerile to be used by any man of sound mind and good sense, in any serious mood. But Mr. G. seems persistent in thrusting them upon the notice of his opponents, we are told, and evidently imagines that he gains an advantage by blind- ing the eyes of an audience by such silly queries, or else by making a little catch of them to take an opponent off his guard, either of which we regard as beneath the cha- racter of a candid Christian disputant, unless he really believes there is some solid reason in the questions. " Those who contend against the immortality of the soul, should know that before such questions can have 'any pertinence at all, they must first know what they aJJpear to assume, viz., that the soul is material. The Christian world, with few, if any exceptions, who believe in the immortality of the soul, believe in its immateri- ality as well. If the soul be immaterial, then it can go through a glass or metallic coffin a thousand feet thick, W^ 45 as easily as it can fly off in empty space. Does the ma- terialist say he cannot comprehend how it can be ? Of course he cannot, any more than he can comprehend how light can penetrate his ' glass coffin," or how heat can go through his sarcophagus, or how electricity can pass through the ocean bed to the European coast, pene- trating two or three thousand miles of metallic substance at a flash, or how the imaffe of an object can be found on the retina of the eye while the object is at a distance, and thus convey a definite impression to the mind — and a hundred other things which he knows to be facts ! " Is God material ? The materialist answers, * Yes.' "Well, then, how can the spirit of God, or even the love of God, reach the man who is sealed up alive in a coffin ? If the spirit of man cannot get out, the spirit of God cannot get in, and therefore * height, or depth, or any other creature,' * can separate one from the love of God.' If this theory bo correct, then a man who should be sealed up could never again be reached by the re-anima- ting power of God, until a hole should be knocked through his coffin. Many men were confined alive in a wall of masonry, surrounded by cement, for Christ's sake, in former centuries. Can they have a resurrection before the wall is torn down ? Can they be reached by the spirit that will raise all from the dead 1" 1 think it has been shown from reason and revelation, that a severance from the body does not interrupt the conscious existence of the soul. Now if the soul dies as well as the body, why do not the Scriptures somewhere speak of the resurrection of the soul. " The resurrection of the body " is spoken of, but nothing is said about the resurrection of the soul, for the very plain reason that the soul does not die. It has been asserted that the doctrine of disembodied spirits originated with Socrates, Plato, or some other of tne heathen philosophers. In reply to this, it is sufficient to remarkj that lonff before the age of philosophy and speculation; began, Moses and Job understood this doc- trine. Gvar a thousand years before the time of Socra- tes or Plato; Job said, " Then a sjpirit passed before my # 46 fjicc : the hair of my flesh stood up. It stood still, but I could not discern the shape thereof: a form was before mine eyes." That sph'U was not the oflfepring of Egyptian, Chaldean, or Grecian speculation. The belief .that human spirits exist separate from the body, came into the world by revelation, not by philosophy. Soul- sleepers deny the possibility of conscious spiritual exist- ence, separate from material organization. To admit its poscibility under any circumstances, would be to de- stroy their whole fabric, consequently they deny the consciousness of the blessed Lord Jesus from the time of his crucifixion until his resurrection. This of course necessitates the denial of his immortality, and robs him of his divinity, and renders the declarations of Scripture concerning him untrue. The Scriptures declare his ex- istence '* trom everlasting to everlasting."^ They say that he is " Christ, who is over all, Qov> blessed for ever!^^ Now if there ever was a moment when Christ was un- conscious, his eternity of existence has been as effectual- ly destroyed by that single moment, as it would be by a continuation of unconsciousness for millions of years. The body of Jesus died. That body he called a temple, and told the Jews they might destroy it, and that He, as distinguished from tlie temple, would raise it up again. When Joseph went to Pilate, he did not ask for the di- vine Jesus, nor yet for his spirit, but ho ** bbgged the body of Jesus." When the women went early in the morning to the sepulchre, "they entered in and found not the body of the Lord Jesus." Now if there was nothing of the Saviour but body, why call the material organization " the body ^" Why not call it "the Son of God ?" or " God over all ?" So with the saints whose bodies arose at the time of the resurrection of the Sa- viour. Had the saints been in the graves, thwe could have been no consistency in saying that their bodies, e^ distinguished from themselves, came out of the graves. Matthew says : " Many bodies of the saints came out of the graves, ' unquestionably teaching that the saints themselves were not in the graves. Peter called his body, " this my tabernacle." Paul called his body an 47 " earthly house." Tlie Saviour his body a " temple." All declaring that in this tabernacle, house, and temple, there were occupants superior to the tenements. The " unclean spirits" and " wicked spirits" of our Saviour's time were finite spirits. It matters not whe- ther they ever existed in boaiea as our spirits do, or not. We know that they existed out of hodies^ and took pos- session of bodies, and were real existences. What now becomes of the materialistic theory ? It falls upon its knees, and begins to pray for evidence. Let all who possess souls and who love the truth, pray for the poor deluded ones who have been deceived by this chilling heresy. CHAPTER VI. THE PUNISHMENT OP THE WICKED WILL BE ETERNAL CONSCIOUS BUFfEKING— NOT ANNIHILATION. The theory we ojmose teaches that the penalty of the Divine law to be inflicted upon the wickea at the general judgment, is death, in the sense of cessation of being ; or, in plain words, will be annihilation. Its advocates admit that it will be everlasting or endless punishment ; but claim that the punishment will be non-existence, or an eternal not-being. The argument, as we have seen and heard it stated, is, that everlasting punishment is everlasting privation of being ; and to deprive one of his existence for ever and ever, is to take from him his only really valuable possessic*^., and hence to punish him witli eternal lessor everlasting punishment. Is this correct? Punishment is an infliction or a privation. To punish by privation is to take from the punished something that is really valuable, or that aflbrds happiness or hope. What of this nature will the wicked possess in the judg- ment ? Keeping in mind the fact that the ungodly will be tesurrected impure, wretched, miserable, with shame and contempt beyond description, with no possible hope of pardon or moral improvement, and that their exigtence will be positively and necessanly a most wretched state, we ask — could the annihilation of such an existence be, in any meaning of language, a ourse or a loss f Annihi- lation cannot be considered the penalty of the law, or 48 N an evil to such persons under such circumstances. If the argument were, that the righteous are to be annihi- lated, then it might be admitted that 'n their annihila- tion loss would be experienced. But in the case of the wretched wicked it would be a blessing rather than a curse. Annihilation then cannot possibly be the penalty of God's law. Some of these teachers say, the penalty consists partly in the suffering that precedes extmction, and partly in the extinction itself : they admit there must be suffering in or connected with punishment, and say that, as the extinction is to be eternal and the sinner must suffer before ho will be extinguished, that, conse- quently, he will suffer everlasting punishment. To this unreasonable attempt at reasoning, we only say that, if everlasting is to be applied to either part of this penalty, we claim that it be applied to the suffering. If these two things — suffering and cessation of being — are meant by the term punishment, then the word everlasting, as associated with that term, is quite as applicable to the former as the latter ; and we have as good reasons for asserting that it teaches that the suffering is to be end less, as any other can have to claim that it teaches thai the non-existence will be eternal. But we deny that the penalty of God's law teaches or implies extinction of being. If this theory be true, all the dead must now be in the same condition that the wicked will be in after they receive their punishment. They had nothing but material bodies, and these have gone to the dust, so that according to this dogma, they do not exist : this is all they claim for the wicked-r-that they will be put out of existence. "Who believes that Moses, Paul, and Steplien, have been suffering the penalty of the law of God since the time of their deaths, just as the wicked will experi- ence it for the same lengtn of time during their punish- ment ? That the wicked will be punished in the future for the sins of this life, the Scriptures distinctly teach. *' Depart from me ye cursed, into everlasting fire, pre- parea for the devil and his angels." " These shall go ^way into everlasting punishment." " Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished." But (( 49 the question is, in what will the punishment of the wicked consist ? Will it bo conscious siitterin^, or will it be cessation from conscious suffering ? Shall they exist or not exist? Sin is the transgression of the law. A law, or what might by some bo called a law, without a penalty, is nothing more than advice, and cannot be called law. Punishment is the penalty. Punishment clearly expresses the idea of vindication against ti I'^s- gression, and si(/f*mMy judicially inflicted as a satisfaction to justice. Tt is suffering for ill-desert, and its essential element is retribution. This will be inflicted upon the wicked. God has a right to txecuto the jienalty sin de- serves. He has certainly threatened to do so, and not without intending it. The Saviour says the punishment of the wicked will be "everlasting," or 52 and the fire continue. What necessity, then, of the fire being everliisting ? There is nothing more alarming in being burned up in a fire that will burn for ever, tlian in one that only burns long enough to consume the sin- ner. The term is evidently employed to express the terribleness of the suffering of the ungodly. The doc- trine of degrees of punishment is taught in the New Testament, which "is entirely inconsistent with annihila- tion. " It shall be more tolerahle for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city." '' And that servant which knew his Lord's will, and prepared not himself, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes." '' Therefore ye shall receive the greater condemnation." Here, degrees of severity, proportioned to the guilt, are taught. Of extinction there can be no degrees — no more nor less. Of the punishment that exists in con- scious suffering there can be degrees. The duration of the su'ffering, and the terrible nature of the punishment, is so plainly taught in the word of God, that we tremble to think of men trifling with these momentous truths. The terms, "everlasting fire," " everlasting punishment," " everlasting destruction," " unquenchable fire," " tor- mented for ever and ever," " the smoke of their torment ascendeth np for ever," " go into hell," " outer dark- ness," " salted wifh fire," " where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched," "furnace of fire," " lake of fire and brimstone," " bottomless pit," "the wrath of God," "indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil," " they that have done evil to the resurrection of damnation," " weeping and gnashing of teeth," and hundreds of others, distinctly teach the continued existence and per- ])etual suffering of the finally impenitent. The suffer- ing of the wicked is described as co-existent and co- eternal with the bliss of the saints, aid as going on si- multaneously. Both classes at the judgment, will, at the same time, enter upon opposite destinies, one tO "inherit the kingdom," the other "into everlasting fire." »1 63 No luoi^ in the one case than in the other, will there be a cessation. That man's soul is immortal, and that the punishment of the wicked will be eternal suffering, we tamk the Scriptures teach as clearly as any doctrine of the Christian religion is taught, the whole exhibition ot the impending vengeance of God that awaits the sinner, impresses our mird with awful solemnity. With tears m our eyes, we beseech the sinner to think care- tully and decide honestly and quickly, to flee to Christ, and lay hold of the salvation that is so freely and fully offered, that you may escape the wrath to come. Christ, by the grace of God, has tasted death for every man. He that^ will come, may come; but "he that believeth not, shall he damned.''^ m.: •