</ 
 
 University of California Berkeley 
 

 WHAT IS MAN? 
 
 HIS NATURE AND DESTINY. 
 
 THE SPIRIT, OR SOUL; IS IT IMMORTAL? 
 
 DOES IT SURVIVE THE DEATH OF 
 
 THE BODY IN A CONSCIOUS 
 
 STATE ? 
 
 THE VIEWS OF MORTAL-SOULISTS EXAMINED AND REFUTED, 
 
 IN TWO PARTS, 
 
 BY ELDER J. R. LAMBERT, 
 
 Of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of 
 Latter Day Saints. 
 
 COPYRIGHT ASSIGNED TO BOARD OF PUBLICATION. 
 
 LAMONI, IOWA: 
 
 HERALD PUBLISHING HOUSE AND BOOKBINDERY 
 1914. 
 
Entered According to Act of Coqgress, in tr\e Year 1891, by 
 
 LAMBERT BROTHERS, 
 In tr\e Office of the Librarian of Coqgress, at Wasryrigtorv 
 
 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 
 
i o ' 
 
 PUBLISHER'S PREFACE. 
 
 IT is the duty of man to become acquainted 
 with himself; and so far as he can, to ascertain 
 the origin, history, and destiny of the race. 
 
 This work has been secured from its author 
 and publishers, by the Board of Publication, 
 and is offered to the public and the church, 
 because it affords one source of information 
 from the pen of a well-known able writer and 
 controversialist, with which to meet the more 
 or less alluring philosophies held and advanced 
 by cotemporaneous religionists, concerning the 
 condition of man after death, and, as a conse- 
 quence of his duty toward God; and also, 
 because it is one link in the great chain of 
 argumentative reasoning upon which the 
 church so justly congratulates the ministers 
 for Christ, when defending the latter-day 
 work against the attacks of those who "have 
 a form of godliness, but deny the power 
 thereof." 
 
iv PUBLISHER'S PREFACE. 
 
 It has been the desire and effort of the 
 Board of Publication to place in the hands of 
 all such works of our own authors as would 
 form the standard literature of the church; 
 and having secured "What is Man" from Bro. 
 Joseph R. Lambert, its author, it is now con- 
 fidently offered to the reader as a help in the 
 effort to comprehend the "Way of Life.'* 
 By order of the 
 
 BOARD OF PUBLICATION. 
 
 October 27, 1893. . 
 
AUTHOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 OF ALL the themes which engage the atten- 
 tion of man, the constitution and destiny of man 
 himself seems at once the most attractive and the 
 most important. Hence it is, that the literature 
 of the age since the advent of letters, is but a 
 record of man either his thoughts and acts, or 
 events, providential or otherwise, in which he 
 has a paramount interest. Thus history is the 
 story of man, imperfect and fragmentary, but 
 revealing one thing clearly and certainly, the 
 overshadowing importance attributed by the lead- 
 ers of thought in every age, to the creature man, 
 dignified in the beginning and rendered conspicu- 
 ous above all other creatures, by being placed in 
 charge of the creations of God. 
 
 Through the mists that have hung over the 
 intellectual and spiritual earth, occasional gleams 
 of light have come, dimly showing the constitution 
 and destiny of man; and during brief periods 
 strong light has been thrown upon his hopes for 
 the future. To collect and present as completely 
 as possible in one compact book these rays of 
 light, is one purpose of the present volume. 
 
 In ancient as well as modern times societies 
 have arisen, denying the doctrine of present im- 
 mortality in man. The representatives of these 
 bodies, partly relying upon certain poetic and 
 figurative statements of the Old Testament Scrip- 
 tures, partly by retranslating, repunctuating, and 
 paraphrasing many passages in the New Testament 
 Scriptures, and largely by attacking and success- 
 fully controverting certain traditional errors that 
 have obtained with some of their opponents, have 
 
vi AUTHOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 succeeded in convincing many that the doctrine 
 of present immortality is a myth. 
 
 The work we herewith present meets these 
 advocates of mortal-soulism in the following man- 
 ner: 
 
 1. What is believed to be a correct rule of 
 Bible interpretation is laid down. 
 
 2. The claim that the doctrine of present 
 immortality in man originated with the Egyptians 
 is overthrown; and the work throughout abounds 
 in evidence that it originated with God. 
 
 3. What are regarded by mortal-soulists as 
 well as their opponents as their Gibraltars Old 
 Testament declarations, especially those in the 
 Psalms of David and Book of Job; and the literal 
 meaning of the original words for soul and spirit 
 both in Greek and Hebrew, are attacked, and the 
 author believes entirely captured. The strongest 
 Old Testament passages are given and examined: 
 a,nd the original words cited and defined by refer- 
 ence to authors regarded as standard in both 
 America and Europe, and the fallacy and decep- 
 tion of clinging entirely to root-meanings is, it is 
 believed, completely and thoroughly exposed. 
 
 4. Such New Testament passages as the para- 
 ble of the rich man and Lazarus; the language of 
 Christ to the thief, and his language to his apos- 
 tles concerning the indestructible character of the 
 soul; Peter's announcement of Christ's mission 
 to spirits in prison; Paul's declaration concerning 
 a man caught up into paradise, and many others, 
 receive lengthy and careful examination, in which 
 the different renderings of several . important 
 translations are given. Such references however, 
 as well as standard authors and commentators, 
 are only used in a collateral way; the final appeal 
 being always made to the common version of the 
 Bible. 
 
AUTHOR'S PREFACE. vii 
 
 5. Leading- mortal-soulist authors, such a^ 
 Grant, Sheldon, Jones, and others, are permitted 
 to state their own propositions in their own words, 
 both in defending themselves and attacking others, 
 and the argument of the author is addressed to 
 the positions of these representative men. 
 
 In defense of the present immortality of man, 
 his constitution as a dual being is considered, 
 briefly scientifically, thoroughly scripturally; the 
 nature of life and death as used with reference to 
 both here and hereafter, man in Eden, man in his 
 passage to the grave, man at the final judgment 
 when the decree of "second death" is pronounced, 
 is examined with such a clearness and fullness that 
 the theme is seen to be one of light and hope; both 
 the possibility and the fact of conscious existence 
 out of the body are shown ; Christ as a proper 
 representative in himself of the conditions and 
 characteristics of life and death, is exhaustively 
 considered; the state of the dead between death 
 and the resurrection, the resurrection as a means 
 of redemption, and the final judgment as illustra- 
 tive of the condition of the whole race, wicked as 
 well as righteous, after death and the resurrection, 
 are all both minutely and comprehensively treated. 
 
 We ask for the work only such reception and 
 consideration as the importance of the subject 
 treated, and the merits of the treatise, demand. 
 We believe it is calculated to both lead the reader 
 to the truth, and fit him, so far as outside help 
 may do so, to defend it. 
 
 The work is not written to bind or in any waj 
 compromise any people; but the author believes il 
 fairly presents the faith of the people he repre- 
 sents. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 JOSEPH R. LAMBERT. 
 
PART I. 
 
CHAPTER 1. 
 
 THE BIBLE THE STANDARD OF EVIDENCE. HOW IT 
 SHOULD BE VIEWED. THE DIFFERENT CHARAC- 
 TERS IT PRESENTS. CAREFUL DISCRIMINATION 
 NECESSARY. 
 
 In order to profitably discuss and settle any 
 debatable question, it is essential that we should 
 have a proper standard of evidence, acknowledged 
 by all sides of the controversy. The clear state- 
 ments CL this standard should settle all disputes. 
 
 This little work is written in the interests of 
 the cause of truth, which is always more prec- 
 ious than gold ; and while designed for all who 
 will read it, is for the special benefit of those who 
 believe that the Bible contains a clear revelation 
 of God's will to man ; and that, therefore, that 
 which it sets forth as the truth, is indeed of 
 Divine origin. While, therefore, we may present 
 collatteral proofs from other sources, our constant 
 and final appeal will be made to the Book of 
 Books. 
 
 The Bible is a sacred volume, because it deals 
 with and teaches sacred things. It is a book of 
 history, prophecy and doctrine. As a history, it 
 reveals the evil as well as the good ; the imperfect 
 as well as the perfect. It tells of a people who 
 were inspired of God in exact proportion to the 
 character of the work they were called to do, their 
 faith in Him and diligence in keeping His com- 
 mandments. There are, therefore, degrees of in- 
 spiration. 
 
PBKSOKBL OF THE BIBLE. 
 
 Let us briefly glance at the personel of this 
 wonderful record. We have God ; His Son, Jesus 
 Christ ; the angels of God ; the authorized minis- 
 ters and servants of God and Christ, speaking 
 to us. In addition to these, unauthorized, and 
 perhaps uninspired, men, speak freely to us of the 
 things of God. On the other hand, we have the 
 Devil ; his angels, or demons, and wicked men 
 who talk to us on the great questions of duty to 
 God and each other, the future life, etc. 
 
 Thus we see that not all that is written in the 
 Bible is the word of God. We must discriminate 
 when we read. -In order to make plain the main 
 point which we desire to reach, the reader's atten- 
 tion is called to the book of Job. God, Satan, Job, 
 his three friends and Elihu, make up the personel 
 of this book. Job was severely tried, and his 
 mind became darkened. In this condition, his 
 statements are a mixture of truth and error. But 
 how can we know which of his statements are 
 true ? This is an important question. 
 
 I. We can know by their general agreement 
 with the word of God found elsewhere in the 
 Scriptures. 
 
 II. It is easily seen from Job's peculiar con- 
 dition and the general tenor of his speech, that 
 his error would be on the side of skepticism. 
 Hence whatever he said in favor of the resurrec- 
 tion of the dead, and the conscious existence of 
 man after death, may be relied upon as true ; for 
 he would not be at all likely to utter such things 
 except as his heart was moved by the Spirit of 
 God. (See Job 19 : 23-27 ; 14 : 14, 15.) 
 
 III. All who have properly obeyed the gospel 
 and live up to its just and pure requirements, are 
 entitled to the "Spirit of truth," whose special 
 office work is to "guide into all truth." (Jno. 
 14 : 15-18 ; 14 : 26 ; 15 : 26 ; 16 : 13-15 ; Acts 5 : 32.) 
 
LEADING WITNESSES OF TRUTH. 7 
 
 That not all which Job said can be relied upon 
 as the word of the Lord, is evident from God's re- 
 proof to him and his open confession to God. 
 "Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirl- 
 wind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth coun- 
 sel by words without knowledge?" Job 38: 1,2. 
 Tn chapter 42 : 3, Job says : "I uttered that I un- 
 derstood not ; things too wonderful for me, which 
 I knew not." Yerse 6, "Wherefore I abhor my- 
 self and repent in dust and ashes." 
 
 The testimony of Job's three friends is not ad- 
 missible. It constitutes a portion of the sacred 
 history from which we may learn a useful lesson, 
 but is not valid proof. By reference to Job 4 : 12- 
 17, with Job 5 : 1, it will be seen that Eliphaz, the 
 leader among them, talks more like a clairvoyant 
 and clairaudient medium than a servant of God. 
 In verse 18 of chapter 4, he certainly teaches that 
 which is false. So far as the teachings of these 
 men are concerned, when taken as a whole, im- 
 mortal-soulists have nothing to fear; but why 
 accept as witnesses those whom the Lord rejects 
 and condemns? Job had spoken foolishly, to 
 some extent, at least, but these had spoken wick- 
 edly, hence were commanded to make an offering 
 for sin. (Job 42: 7-9.) 
 
 Elihu seems to have enjoyed light and power 
 from God. The Lord does not condemn him, 
 hence we do not, but infer that he was an author- 
 ized servant of God. 
 
 We understand the following to be the leading 
 witnesses for truth, and properly authorized rep- 
 resentatives of God and Christ, according to the 
 Bible : Jesus Christ, "the messenger of the cov- 
 enant." The Apostles whom He chose and or- 
 dained, with all the prophets whom God sent and 
 inspired. All that which is shown to be support- 
 ed by, and is in harmony with the testimony of 
 
8 MORTAL-SOULISTS AND JOB. 
 
 these witnesses, is proved by the Bible; but that 
 which does not have such support, and is in con- 
 flict with such testimony, is not proved. It should, 
 however, be borne in mind that the silence of one 
 or more of these witnesses is no evidence against 
 what others plainly taught. If about fifteen hun- 
 dred years passed away before anything was written 
 concerning the resurrection of the dead, it by no 
 means proves what later witnesses have said con- 
 cerning that doctrine to be false. And upon the 
 same principle, two or three thousand years of 
 silence, concerning this or any other doctrine, 
 afterwards revealed and taught, would have pre- 
 cisely the same effect. Mortal-soulists gain noth- 
 ing by stating that nearly all that vast period of 
 time covered by Bible history (over four thousand 
 years) had passed away before the word immortal 
 was used; for if this proves that nothing was known 
 of the immortality of the soul prior to that time, 
 then it just as plainly proves that nothing was 
 known of the immortality of man in the resurrec- 
 tion; of the immortality of the angels, and of God 
 Himself! Surely, this would prove too much, and 
 hence proves nothing. 
 
 Again mortal-soulists quote largely from the 
 book of Job; but, so far as we have seen, (and we 
 have read a number of their works on this ques- 
 tion,) fail to make any distinction between the 
 teaching of Job and Elihu on the one hand, and 
 Job's three miserable comforters on the other. 
 They make no allowance for Job's tried and dark- 
 ened condition, at the time he uttered his most 
 skeptical sayings concerning the future life. 
 
 The books of Job and Psalms are highly poeti- 
 cal and full of Oriental figures; but mortal- 
 soulists, in their efforts to find support for the 
 dogma of unconsciousness after death, ignore 
 both of these important considerations. Hence 
 
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 9 
 
 their interpretations are wrong, and their conclu- 
 sions absurd. The same kind of interpretation 
 which is found necessary to a support of their be- 
 lief, when placed upon other passages of scripture, 
 (and sometimes the very ones used) will prove 
 that there is no resurrection of the dead, and that 
 men are actually unconscious before they die, and 
 while in the use of all their senses ! (See part II. 
 of this work). 
 
 Old Testament writers treat of man's duty to 
 God and to each other, and of the promises he 
 shall enjoy, if obedient, almost exclusively with 
 reference to this life. There are not many direct 
 proofs in favor of that great gospel principle, the 
 resurrection of the dead, in all the Old Testament 
 Scriptures, which, historically, cover a period of 
 about four thousand years. Nor would we inval- 
 idate our position in the least by conceding that 
 the proof for man's conscious existence beween 
 death and the resurrection is even more scanty 
 than the proof of the resurrection of the body. 
 
 It does not follow that because one principle, 
 or doctrine, is supported by a less amount of evi- 
 dence than another, it is therefore untrue. The 
 resurrection, as taught in the gospel, throws a flood 
 of light and hope on the purposes of God and the 
 eternal destiny of man ; but that these purposes 
 of the Infinite One concerning the righteous and 
 the wicked, in the resurrection state, may be ac- 
 complished, it is necessary, nay, absolutely essential, 
 that man should continue in a conscious state 
 after death. Were it not so, the connecting link 
 between this life and the resurrection would be 
 wanting ; all the valuable experiences had here as 
 a means of preparation for another and better 
 world, would be lost. What we call the resurrec- 
 tion would be a new creation, and the judgment 
 would be but a farce ! We are to be raised and 
 
10 SOLEMN OBLIGATIONS. 
 
 judged with direct reference to what we hare 
 done here ; hence it is necessary that conscious 
 identity be preserved. 
 
 In treating the subject before us, then, from a 
 Bible point of view, we are under the most solemn 
 obligations, so far as able, to do it properly and 
 intelligently. That which is literal must be so 
 regarded, while all figures must be accepted as 
 such, their character and purpose being carefully 
 considered. Every revelation of God is an emana- 
 tion from the Infinite Mind ; and when we inter- 
 pret in a narrow and superficial way, we are sure 
 to get into trouble and bring ourselves into con- 
 flict with some portion of truth. 
 
 It is important that we should be right. 
 Everything which we believe and do has one of 
 two tendencies. It will either bring us nearer to 
 God, thereby increasing our happiness and useful- 
 ness, or it will take us farther away from Him, 
 producing opposite results. While we essay an 
 important task, may the light of the Divine word 
 shine in upon us. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 AN EXAMINATION OF THE NATURE AND CONSTI- 
 TUTION OF MAN. 
 
 "What is man ?" The Psalmist makes the 
 following wonderful statement concerning him : 
 
 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, 
 and hast crowned him with glory and honor. Psalms 8:5. 
 
 The pronoun him with its antecedent ma, evi- 
 dently applies to the race. To attempt to limit 
 these terms to Adam is to deny a well established 
 fact ; outrage the sense of the chapter, and do vio- 
 lence to the context. Verses 6, 7 and 8, read as 
 follows : 
 
THE RACE OP MAN. 11 
 
 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of 
 thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: The 
 fowl of the air, the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth 
 through the path of the seas. 
 
 Man still holds and exercises this dominion, 
 which proves that the inspired writer referred to 
 the race. In verse 4, we read : 
 
 What is man that thou art mindful of him ? and the 
 son of man, that thou visitest him ? 
 
 This language compels us to believe that the 
 Psalmist's thought was on the mindful care of the 
 Divine being, for man, (the race) in the different 
 ages of the world. 
 
 If the pronoun him applies to Adam only, as 
 a minister and author of the Christian Advent 
 Church claimed in a late discussion with the writ- 
 er, then why is it that the verbs in verse 4 are 
 used in the present tense ? "Thou art mindful of 
 him," and "thou visitest him," can not be made to 
 apply to Adam alone. Indeed the grammar and 
 sense of the chapter as a whole, together with the 
 entire teaching of the Bible on this subject, com- 
 pel us to reject so narrow and unwarranted an in- 
 terpretation of the word of God. Does God visit 
 man today? Is he "mindful of him ?" Will he 
 be mindful of man and visit him in the future ? 
 If so, the proper application of the pronoun Aim, 
 found in our leading quotation, is settled. 
 
 In Job 7 : 17, 18, we have a parallel passage, so 
 far as the application of the noun man is con- 
 cerned : 
 
 What is man, that thou shouldest magnify him ? and 
 that thou shouldest set thine heart upon him ? And that 
 thou shouldest visit him every morning, and try him every 
 moment ? 
 
 With perfect assurance that the proper ap- 
 plication of this word is now settled in the minds 
 of all careful and intelligent readers, we proceed. 
 
 In what respect is man made u a little lower 
 than the angels? " In respect to the mortality of 
 
12 THE HOUSE IN WHICH WE DWELL. 
 
 the body with all its consequent conditions. The 
 body is called a house, or tabernacle. (2 Cor. 5:1; 
 Matt. 12 : 44 ; 2 Peter 1 : 14.) We are largely affect- 
 ed by the character of the house in which we 
 dwell. If it is a miserable shell with a leaky roof, 
 we are physically exposed and injured ; if the 
 windows are few in number, small, and the glass 
 partially opaque, we can not see well when we 
 look out, nor can we see well within. In this case 
 the defect is not in the eye, but in the windows of 
 the house. The great, the rich and the learned, 
 would, by actual occupancy, become subject to the 
 same conditions with the foolish, the poor and 
 illiterate. So we argue that all the peculiarities 
 and weaknesses resulting from the mortality of 
 the body, are not valid evidences against the capa- 
 bilities and immortality of the soul. 
 
 Christ, who dwelt with the Father in the 
 Spirit, and in glory, "before the world was ;" (Jno. 
 17:5,24) who took upon himself a mortal body 
 with all the peculiarities of our nature ; (Heb. 
 10:5-10; 2 : 14-18) was made "a little lower than 
 the angels" in the same sense that man was so 
 made. 
 
 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the 
 angels for (or t>y, margin) the suffering of death, crowned 
 with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should 
 taste death for every man. Heb. 2:9. 
 
 Jesus could not have escaped death any more 
 than we can, unless his body had been immortal- 
 ized by the power of God ; in which case his miss- 
 ion into this world to destroy death would have 
 been a failure ; though had he desired it, he could 
 have escaped death on the cross. (Heb. 2 : 14 ; 1 
 Cor. 15 : 26 ; Matt. 26 : 53, 54 ; Jno. 10 : 17, 18.) 
 
 Angels are evidently immortal and glorified 
 beings. 
 
 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of 
 this world marry, and are given in marriage : but they 
 which shall be accounted worthy to obta'n that world 
 
MORTAL AND IMMORTAL BEINGS. 13 
 
 and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are 
 given in marriage : neither can they die any more : for they 
 are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, be- 
 ing the children of the rusurrection. Luke 20:34-36. 
 
 The leading difference between men and ang- 
 els being now settled ; and that which constitutes 
 man a lower being than an angel having been plain- 
 ly shown to be the mortality of the body and con- 
 sequent death, it becomes needful for us to note, 
 in few words, the difference between mortality 
 and immortality. It will be admitted at once, 
 that the difference is very great. We can hardly 
 think of two things, or beings, so widely different 
 from each other as an immortal and mortal being. 
 The finite mind can form but a faint conception 
 of it. The difference between light and darkness, 
 heat and cold, truth and error, right and wrong, 
 will serve to illustrate, in a degree at least, the 
 difference between immortal and glorified angels 
 and beings who are wholly mortal and altogether 
 of this world. And yet, the word says that God 
 made man "a little," only a little, "lower than the 
 angels 1 " 
 
 As, then, the difference between a being who 
 is wholly mortal and one who is wholly immortal, is 
 so inexpressibly great, we are compelled to believe, 
 by the force of evidence, that man is possessed of 
 immortality. 
 
 The great law of adaptability proves that 
 there is something in man which is immortal. If 
 he is wholly of the earth, as our opponents claim, 
 then the things of the earth only, are adapted to 
 his needs. He can have no desire (because there 
 is no capacity) for God, Heaven, or Immortality. 
 Perishable food would, in that case, satisfy his 
 strongest desires and highest aspirations. It 
 would be impossible for him to seek for immortal- 
 ity, for he could not, in any degree, comprehend 
 
14 "THE SPIRIT IN MAN." 
 
 what it is. He could not exercise faith in God, for 
 that would require him to look intelligently to an 
 eternal and immortal being. For the same reason 
 he could not "repent towards God," nor obey any 
 of His commandments ; for that obedience is not 
 acceptable unless it is yielded intelligently and in 
 faith. ("Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Kom. 
 14:23.) 
 
 As light and truth and purity can not be 
 appreciated, nor comprehended to any extent, 
 where they have no existence, so an eternal and 
 immortal God can not be sought and found, nor 
 an incorruptible Heaven desired and secured, by 
 any being who is wholly destitute of immortality. 
 
 In a little pamphlet written by Miles Grant, 
 and entitled "THE SPIRIT IN MAN," pp. 8 and 9, 
 we have the following statements : 
 
 Shall we dispute the record and say man was not form- 
 ed of dust, but only the house in which he was to live ? 
 Why not believe the Lord ? He says man was formed oi 
 the dust of the ground! When man is analyzed, he is 
 found composed of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, 
 sulphur, phosphorus, iron and lime. These are all earthly 
 substances. And when he created man from these mater- 
 ials, he made the most wonderful piece of mechanism of 
 which we have any conception. The lungs, with their mil- 
 lions of air cells, were prepared, in connection with the air, 
 to purify the blood that had passed through the system, 
 and fit it for another revolution. The atmosphere, or 
 "breath of life," is a material substance made to move the 
 wonderful machinery of the being called man. 
 
 The above is quite eloquent ; comes from an 
 able pen, and is, we presume, so far as it goes, a 
 fair representation of the views of modern mater- 
 ialists who accept the Bible. According to Mr. 
 Grant, "the whole man was made of dust," and at 
 death, "the whole man" returns "to dust." Now, 
 as man neither possessed life nor mind before God 
 "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life," it 
 follows that the mind is no part of man, proper ! 
 And if no part of man, what is it ? And how does 
 
DEMAND A1STD SUPPLY. 15 
 
 man, without mind, become accountable to God ? 
 
 Again : Can the man who is wholly composed 
 of "carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulphur, 
 phosphorus, iron and lime" comprehend, to any 
 extent, and seek after God? What about the 
 "inner" or "inward man" of the New Testament 
 to which the reader's attention will be called in a 
 subsequent chapter of this book? This "inner 
 man" is also called spirit, or soul, and is, as we 
 shall presently see, the intellectual, conscious 
 part of his being the part which returns to God 
 who gave it. (Eccl. 12 : 7 ; Luke 23 : 46 ; Acts 7 : 59.) 
 There is not even good sense manifested in the act 
 of specially commending the spirit into the hands 
 of God, at death, if the theory of mortal-soulists 
 be true. It would be far more consistent to com- 
 mend the body, "the whole maw," the man whom 
 God created ; (and the only one, according to the 
 position of our opponents) the man who dies, is 
 resurrected and rewarded, into the hands of God, 
 than to exercise so much solicitude and faith con- 
 cerning a little corrupted matter which is "breath- 
 ed out" at death I Jesus and Stephen were evi- 
 dently not mortal-soulists, for if they were, the 
 record shows that they indulged in the most con- 
 summate folly ! 
 
 The elements which compose our bodies are 
 found in what we eat and drink ; and the normal 
 and constantly recurring desire for them we call 
 appetite. Every normal demand is of God and 
 will, therefore, receive an adequate supply. We 
 hunger, and there is food to eat ; we thirst, and 
 there is water to drink ; but if the dust man is all 
 there is of the being whom God made "in his own 
 image," (Gen. 1 : 26, 27) and "a little lower than 
 the angels," (Psalms 8: 5) his desires and aspira- 
 tions can extend no farther. In that case, the 
 things of this world would supply all his needs. 
 
16 LONGINGS OF THE SOUL. 
 
 But how is it with man? All the things of this 
 world, including health, wealth and power, fail 
 to satisfy the earnest longings of the soul. Noth- 
 ing short of faith in God and a proper obedience 
 to His word will bring perfect peace and rest, and 
 satisfy the demands of the "inner man." This 
 proves the existence of immortality in man. 
 
 Man is a fallen creature, it is true, but he is 
 not totally depraved. If he is, then it follows, 
 logically, we think, that God becomes wholly re- 
 sponsible for his conversion and salvation. Little 
 children and infants, if the dogma of total deprav- 
 ity be true, instead of being proper types of inno- 
 cence and purity, would be wholly corrupt and 
 unfit for the companionship of God. How very 
 differently does the Master teach. ( Jno. 1:9; 
 Matt. 18:1-5, 10, 11, 14; Mark 10:13-16.) The 
 doctrine of total depravity and that of salvation 
 through a proper use of our agency, (so plainly 
 taught in -the Bible) are in direct conflict with 
 each other. If there is no good in man, then there 
 is nothing to be saved, no basis from which he 
 can build up a Christian character ; and it is this 
 character alone which will admit him through the 
 "pearly gates" into the "golden city." The same 
 is true of immortality. Where it does not exist, 
 in any degree, there can be no conception of God, 
 hence no faith in him ; no possible connection (in 
 harmony with the principle of agency) between 
 this world and that which is to come ; no possibil- 
 ity of feeding on the imperishable food provided 
 in the gospel, (the bread which "came down from 
 heaven") for there would be no adaptation 
 of the condition, desires and needs of the 
 wholly mortal man, to the pure and immortal 
 truth on which he is to feed. Jesus said : 
 
 Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word 
 that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Matt. 4:4 
 
IMMORTAL FOOD FOR IMMORTAL BEINGS. 17 
 
 Why not "live by bread alone" inasmuch as it 
 fully feeds and sustains what we are told is "the 
 whole man ? " The very fact that God has pro- 
 vided eternal and imperishable food for man, is 
 the best evidence that there is something 
 eternal and imperishable (deathless) in him which 
 needs to be fed. God made the body and has 
 provided suitable food for it ; He made the spirit, 
 or soul, at some time, and has provided suitable 
 food for it. Kedemption and salvation are accom- 
 plished through obedience to law ; and it is fitting 
 that the "Father of spirits," the "God of the spir- 
 its of all flesh," should furnish that which will, if 
 properly received, bring us back into a state of 
 purity, peace and eternal bliss. (Heb. 12:9; 
 Numbers 16:22.) 
 
 John 6 : 63, throws light upon this part of our 
 subject : 
 
 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth 
 nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, 
 and they are life. 
 
 The flesh (by itself) is of no profit ; but not so 
 with the spirit. This shows why Jesus and Steph- 
 en commended their spirits into God's special care 
 at death. The word of life, the spirit word, is 
 that upon which the spirit man must feed, and if 
 he will not, the result will be spiritual death. 
 
 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that 
 we should he a kind of first fruits of his creatures. J as. 
 1:18. 
 
 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth 
 through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, 
 see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: 
 being bom again, not of corruptible seed, but of incor- 
 ruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for- 
 ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as 
 the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower 
 thereof falleth away; but the word of the Lord endureth 
 forever. And this is the word which by the gospel is 
 preached unto you. 1 Pet. 1:22-25. 
 
18 THE GOSPEL FOR IMMORTAL BEINGS. 
 
 Thus we see that the whole gospel plan is 
 peculiarly adapted to the needs of the spirit man. 
 In a grand and gospel sense, we are begotten of 
 God "with the word of truth ; " by the same word 
 we are "born again," regenerated, made the child- 
 ren of God. Jesus said : 
 
 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which 
 Is born of the Spirit is spirit. Jno. 3:6. 
 
 It may be possible for immortality to exist 
 where there is no desire for God or understanding 
 of his character; but, in our judgment, it is 
 impossible for this desire and understanding 
 to obtain where there is no immortality. It 
 would be just as possible for us to teach the dumb 
 animals to believe in God, obey His laws and 
 preach the gospel to the people. Either one would 
 be stepping beyond and outside of the lines of de- 
 marcation established by the Infinite God ! 
 
 In reply to Mr. Grant's question and state- 
 ment ; "Why not believe the Lord ? He says man 
 was formed 'of the dust of the ground,' " we only 
 need say : We do believe Him. Not only do we 
 believe what He has said in Genesis 2:7; 3 : 19, 
 but we believe His word wherever we find it. We 
 believe the following statements found in Zech. 
 12:1. 
 
 The burden of the word of the Lord for Israel, saith the 
 Lord, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the 
 foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man 
 within him. 
 
 We believe that the "inner man" is a compo- 
 nent and very important part of man. (Eph. 3 : 16 ; 
 Rom. 7:22; 2Cor. 4:16; 12:1-4; 1 Peter 3:3,4.) 
 These texts do not refer to a new person intro- 
 duced at conversion, but to the spirit formed 
 within man by the Creator, which is tranformed 
 and renewed by the life and power of the gospel. 
 As we shall show in another place, we put on Christ 
 through faith, and obedience to "the word of 
 truth." 
 
BIBLE USE OF MORTALITY AND IMMORTALITY. 19 
 
 Notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Grant 
 ignores the idea of the body being a house in 
 which the conscious man dwells, it is so taught in 
 the New Testament, and we are not at liberty 
 to reject it. In 2 Cor. 5:1, the body is called 
 "our earthly house." In verse 4 we read : 
 
 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being bur- 
 dened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed 
 upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. 
 
 Mortal-soulists say the word "mortality, "found 
 in verse 4, applies to the whole man. Evidently not. 
 It applies to the tabernacle in which we "do groan 
 being burdened." The Eevised Version renders 
 it "that what is mortal may be swallowed up of 
 life," thus plainly implying that one part of the 
 man is immortal. The Douay Bible agrees with 
 the Revised, reading "that which is mortal." In 
 Matt. 12 : 44, the body is called a house. 2 Peter 
 1 : 13, 14, 15, is very plain : 
 
 Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this taber- 
 nacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; 
 knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle 
 even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath showed me. Moreover 
 I will endeavor that ye may be able after my decease to 
 have these things always in remembrance. 
 
 We put the foregoing testimonies to what Mr. 
 Grant has adduced on this point, and that he may 
 know our attitude towards the good book we kind- 
 ly inform him that we believe them all. 
 
 We now come to consider the Bible use of the 
 words immortality and mortality, with their adject- 
 ive forms. The word immortality is found but five 
 times in the entire Bible. It is somewhat strange, 
 but true, that Pan! is the only Bible writer who 
 used this word. We find it used twice in 1 Cor. 
 15 :53, 54, and applied to the body in the resurrec- 
 tion. Next, we find it in 1 Tim. 6 : 16, and ap- 
 plied, by mortal-soulists, to God, the Father. 
 And as this text is considered strong proof that 
 man is wholly mortal, we quote it, and examine 
 the character of the evidence. 
 
20 A FAVORITE TEXT EXAMINED. 
 
 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which 
 no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen nor 
 can see; to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen. 
 The text proves nothing for mortal-soulists, 
 unless it is accepted without the slightest modifi- 
 cation, in which case it proves too much, hence 
 nothing. These statements were made by Paul, 
 many years after Jesus had ascended into heaven 
 to sit down on the right hand of God. Was not 
 He immortal? "Enoch was translated that he 
 should not see death." (Heb. 11:5; Gen. 5:24.) 
 Did he go to dwell with God with a mortal body 
 of flesh and blood? (1 Cor. 15:50. "Flesh and 
 blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God ; neither 
 doth corruption inherit incorruption." ) "Elijah 
 went up by a whirlwind into heaven." Was not 
 he immortal when Paul penned these words? 
 What about the holy angels? Were they not, 
 are they not, immortal and glorified beings? 
 (Luke 20: 34-36.) More than thirty years before 
 this was written there was a resurrection of many 
 Saints: 
 
 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the 
 saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after 
 his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared 
 unto many. Matt. 27:52, 53. 
 
 Were not all these saints immortal ? 
 
 "Whom no man hath seen nor can see,." Can 
 we afford to accept this in an unmodified sense? 
 Do not our mortal-soulist friends believe and 
 teach that God is a material being, and that und- 
 er proper conditions he may be and has been seen ? 
 Do not the Scriptures plainly teach that God has 
 been seen ? and that, in a coming day, He will be 
 seen by all who are truly His children ? 
 
 And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man 
 speaketh unto his friend. Ex. 33:11. 
 
 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparent- 
 ly, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the 
 Lord shall he behold. Num. 12:8. See Deu. 34:10; 4:12. 
 
THE LORD HAS BEEN SEEN. 21 
 
 Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God. 
 Matt. 5:8. 
 
 We shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as he is. 
 Jno. 3:2. See 1 Cor. 13:12. 
 
 Now to modify all the leading statements of 
 this Scripture, but one, and insist that this one 
 must be received without modification, as mortal- 
 soulists are compelled to do in order to find any 
 support here, is to do violence to a well known and 
 leading rule of interpretation, which rule we 
 state in another place. There is, therefore, no 
 support to be found in this text for the belief in 
 man's entire mortality. The true idea seems to be 
 that God alone hath a fulness of immortality and 
 glory, of which he may impart to others at will ; 
 that He dwells in a fulness of light unto which no 
 man can approach and live except he be quicken- 
 ed by the Holy Spirit. All may believe upon evi- 
 dence ; but none can "see G-od " in the sense of the 
 statements and promises of the word, except they 
 have in themselves that which God alone can give. 
 John W. Haley, M. A., in "DISCREPANCIES OF 
 THE BIBLE," p. 186, makes the following state- 
 ments concerning the text under consideration : 
 
 By parity of reasoning the language employed in Rom- 
 ans 16:27, "God only wise," warrants the inference that God 
 is the only being who possesses wisdom! 
 
 The meaning in both cases obviously is that only God 
 possesses the given attribute, inherently and underivedly. 
 . . . . Upon no reasonable interpretation does the 
 passage collide with the derived and dependent immor- 
 tality of man. 
 
 The remaining two places in which "immor- 
 tality" is found, are Eomans 2 : 7 ; 2 Timothy 1 : 10 : 
 
 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek 
 for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life. 
 
 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Sav- 
 ior Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath 
 brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. 
 
 If the word immortality had the same significa- 
 tion in these last two passages as in the first three 
 
22 A SOPHISM EXPOSED. 
 
 cited, there would be no difficulty in turning aside 
 their supposed force ; but it is probable that it 
 does not refer to the same thing. The first three 
 come from the Greek athanasia, the root meaning 
 of which is deathless. The last two come from the 
 Greek aphtharsia, which is defined to mean incor- 
 ruption. The Revised Version renders it incorrup- 
 tfon instead of immortality, and so does the Douay 
 Translation. 
 
 Leading authors on the other side, such as 
 Miles Grant and Wm. Sheldon of the Christian 
 Advent Church, affirm that spirit and soul are not 
 synonymous because never translated from the 
 same Hebrew and Greek originals ; and yet they 
 are so forgetful of the rules of propriety and fair- 
 ness as to present the word immortality as used in 
 Romans 2 : 7 ; 2 Timothy 1 : 10, as supposed evi- . 
 dence against their opponents ; although, as we 
 have seen, they never come from the same Greek 
 word as that found in 1 Corinthians 15 : 53, 54, 
 and 1 Timothy 6 : 16. Now to be consistent and 
 fair, they must give up one of these positions. 
 Either admit that the argument made from Rom- 
 ans and 2 Timothy is no proof whatever for the 
 mortal-soul dogma, or that spirit and soul may be 
 sometimes used interchangeably in the Bible. 
 
 In Ephesians 6:24, aphtharsia is rendered sin- 
 cerity, margin incorrupt ion, and Revised Version, 
 uncorruptness. Haley says concerning Romans 2 ; 7, 
 p. 187, after referring to the claim of mortal-soul- 
 ists: 
 
 To this characteristic sophism, It is sufficient to reply 
 that, as every scholar is aware, the Greek word used here 
 is not "athanasia," immortality, but "aphtharsia," incor- 
 ruption, and points to that exemption from moral corrup- 
 tion which the saints are "seeking" here, and which they 
 will fully attain in heaven. The passage does not touch 
 the question of man's immortality at all. 
 
THE ADJECTIVE IMMORTAL EXAMINED. 23 
 
 The adjective immortal, is found but once in 
 the Bible. See 1 Tim. 1:11: 
 
 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the 
 only wise God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. 
 
 The Greek word here is aphthartos and in some 
 versions is rendered "immortal," in others "in- 
 corruptible." The Eevised and Syriac Versions 
 use the latter rendering. But as all admit that 
 God is both incorruptible and immortal, there is 
 no dispute over this text. However, mortal-soul- 
 ists frequently say to their hearers and readers, 
 that over four thousand years had passed away be- 
 fore the word immortal was found in the literature 
 of the Church ; and then it is applied to God only ! 
 Well, what of it? "Why it shows that man is 
 wholly mortal." Does it? Then it also shows 
 that for more than four thousand years God and 
 the angels were mortal beings ! That the Devil 
 with his army of demons are mortals! That 
 Enoch and Elijah are in heaven with their natur- 
 al bodies, composed of flesh and blood ! This looks 
 too much like talking solely for the effect it will 
 have on a certain class. 
 
 Mortality, the opposite of immortality, is found 
 only in 2 Corinthians 5:4: 
 
 That mortality might be swallowed up of life. 
 
 That the word here applies to the body only, 
 and not to the entire man, is evident from the 
 context as has already been shown. The Kevised 
 and Douay Versions use the adjective forms in- 
 stead of the noun. "That what is mortal," and 
 "That which is mortal may be swallowed up of 
 life." 
 
 The word mortal is found six times in the 
 Bible. Before calling attention to the passages in 
 which the word is found, we notice a sophism (this 
 seems to be the right word to use) largely indulged 
 in by our opponents. Show us," say they, "where 
 
24 BIBLE USB OF MORTAL. 
 
 the Bible says that man is possessed of an im- 
 mortal soul or spirit." Well, if the exact phraseol- 
 ogy which they demand must be found, we cannot 
 comply with their request. Can they show us 
 where the Bible says that man is possessed of a 
 mortal soul or spirit ? If so, let them give us 
 chapter and verse and settle this question at once 
 with the kind of evidence they demand of us ! 
 If they fail, then must we conclude that man is 
 neither mortal nor immortal ? 
 
 The Bible use of this word is largely in favor of 
 the immortality of the soul, while it affords no 
 valid support for the other side. It is applied 
 once to man, as a whole, and four times to the 
 body ; but never to the soul or spirit which God 
 placed in man. It first occurs in Job 4:17 : 
 
 Shall mortal! man be more just than God ? 
 
 Eliphaz, the leader among Job's three friends, 
 is the author of this language; and while we 
 find no difficulty in the phrase, "mortal man," we 
 are certainly under no obligations so far as the 
 laws of evidence are concerned, to examine the 
 testimony of a worthless witness. (See chapter 1 
 on this point.) However, we condescend to a 
 brief examination, with the desire and hope of 
 benefiting all. 
 
 Synecdoche is using the name of a part for that of the 
 whole, the name of the whole for that of a part, or a defi- 
 nite number for an indefinite. Quackenbos. 
 
 This figure is much used, and abounds in the 
 Bible. The body of man is the mortal part. It is 
 the grossly material part with which we are con- 
 stantly coming in contact, and about which we 
 know vastly more than we do of the spirit within. 
 The body we see always, while the soul within is 
 invisible. "For the things which are seen are 
 temporal ; but the things which are not seen are 
 eternal." It is, then, neither strange nor im- 
 proper for one who believes in the immortality of 
 
CONCERNING DIRECT AFFIRMATIONS. 25 
 
 the soul to apply this phrase to man while he is in 
 the mortal state. 
 
 Again : It is not directly affirmed that man 
 is mortal, though mortal-soulists refuse to believe 
 in the dogma of the immortality of the soul with- 
 out just such an affirmation ! The entire verse 
 simply contrasts finite man with a mortal body, 
 from an infinite and wholly immortal God. "Shall 
 mortal man be more just than God ? Shall a man 
 be more pure than his maker ?" 
 
 So that, if the statement came from a valid 
 witness, which it does not, there would be no evi- 
 dence in it against the immortality of the soul. 
 
 In Kom. 6 : 12, Paul says : 
 
 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that 
 ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. 
 
 He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quick- 
 en your mortal bodies by his spirit that dwelleth in you. 
 Kom. 8:11. 
 
 And this mortal must put on immortality. And this 
 mortal shall have put on immortality, etc. 1 Cor. 15:53, 
 54. 
 
 Paul is treating upon the resurrection of the 
 body, and does not apply the word mortal to any- 
 thing else. He has no reference to the spirit 
 which goes to God at death. Eccles. 12 : 7. 
 
 That the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in 
 our mortal flesh. 2 Cor. 4:11. 
 
 Why talk about "mortal flesh" and "mortal 
 bodies," if the body is all there is of man, and when 
 every one knows that it is mortal ? When we con- 
 sider that the word- is nowhere applied to the soul 
 or spirit, we have a strong inferential proof that 
 the spirit, or soul, is immortal, and hence will sur- 
 vive the death of the body in a conscious state. 
 
 We are frequently told, by authors on the oth- 
 er side, that inferential evidence is not satisfac- 
 tory. They demand direct and positive proof. 
 But man is either possessed of immortality or he 
 is not ; he is either conscious or unconscious after 
 
26 INFERENTIAL EVIDENCE. 
 
 death. If wholly mortal and, therefore, uncon- 
 scious after death, where is the text that states it 
 directly and positively ? Let our opponents pro- 
 duce one upon which they can afford to squarely 
 stand. 
 
 Inferential or circumstantial evidence is some- 
 times the best. A thing may be directly and pos- 
 itively affirmed and yet be false ; and it is not 
 Infrequently the case that circumstantial and in- 
 ferential proofs are our best safeguards in fact, 
 the very means by which error and falsehood are 
 exposed. When but one legitimate inference can 
 be drawn, the proof is as good as the best. If, as 
 we claim, the immortality of the soul is conceded 
 in the Bible, and supported by its best witnesses, 
 it is not our privilege, nor the privilege of any 
 who accept the Bible as a standard of evidence, to 
 reject the evidence because not framed in the pe- 
 culiar phraseology of our choice. Who are we 
 that we should dictate to the Infinite One in what 
 particular form he must reveal his truth in order 
 to induce us to accept it ? The angels of God are 
 immortal beings, as we have already seen, but the 
 Bible nowhere affirms it in language of this kind ; 
 God is infinite in love and power, but it is not so 
 stated in the Bible. 
 
 Because God made man "in his own image," 
 and made "him a little lower than the angels," 
 just as he made Jesus "a little lower than the 
 angels for the suffering of death," we infer that 
 man is possessed of immortality. 
 
 Because the things of this world alone do not 
 afford perfect peace and rest which we so ardently 
 desire; but "as the hart panteth after water 
 brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God. My 
 soul thirsteth for God, for the living God : When 
 shall I come and appear before God ?" (Psalms 
 42 : 1, 2.) And because God has provided imperish- 
 
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 27 
 
 able food for man, which he is capable of receiv- 
 ing and assimilating, and which secures perfect 
 peace and satisfies the most ardent longings of the 
 soul, we unavoidably conclude that there is some- 
 thing more in man than the material elements of 
 this world. 
 
 Because God has required us to exercise faith 
 in Him, and we are able to do it; to repent 
 towards Him, and we are able to do that ; because 
 we have a longing desire for immortality and eternal 
 life, and are able, to an extent at least, to compre- 
 hend God ; and because God has made us directly 
 responsible to him for what we say, do and think, 
 (Matt. 12 : 36, 37 ; James 2 : 12 ; Eccles. 12 : 13, 14 ; 2 
 Cor. 5 : 10 ; Matt. 5 : 27, 28 ; 12 : 35) we conclude that 
 the spirit which God "gave" and which will "re- 
 turn" to Him at death, (Eccles. 12 : 7) is immortal. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 HISTORICAL EVIDENCE-THE DOCTRINE OF IMMOR- 
 TALITY ORIGINATED WITH GOD. 
 
 Mortal-soulists affirm that the doctrine of the 
 immortality of the soul had its origin with the 
 Egyptians, that it is, therefore, "purely of heathen 
 origin." 
 
 "THE DOCTRINE OF IMMORTALITY," by Whit- 
 more, page 3 : 
 
 It seems that the Egyptians not only originated the 
 notion of the immortality of the soul, but also held as a rad- 
 ical doctrine, that evil was an inherent property of mat- 
 ter. It will he seen hereafter, that the modern doctrine is 
 but a refinement of the Egyptian conception, and that so 
 far as the essential nature of man is concerned what is now 
 popularly regarded as a "fundamental article of revealed 
 religion" was held as a radical doctrine of religious belief 
 in Egypt three thousand years ago. 
 
 Also at the bottom of same page. 
 
 Although the Egyptians were the first who taught the 
 doctrine of the immortality of the soul, etc. 
 
28 ATHEISM NOT MORE ABSURD. 
 
 In "THE HISTORY OF AN IMMORTAL SOUL," 
 by Elder S. S. Brewer, pp. 14, 15, the writer 
 quotes Herodotus in order to prove that the Egyp- 
 tians were the first to originate this supposed 
 error. But his quotation does'not prove it. Her- 
 odotus simply says that he learned "these things 
 from the Egyptians," and "thought it necessary 
 to transcribe the result of" his "inquiries." . . 
 "They are also the first of mankind who have de- 
 fended [not originated. Author.] the immortality 
 of the soul." None of these authors prove that 
 the Egyptians originated the doctrine of the 
 immortality of the soul. They simply trace it 
 back to the ancient Egyptians and show that 
 they believed, taught and defended it, and then 
 affirm, without evidence, that they originated the 
 doctrine. This is done, it is probable, in order to 
 supply a missing link, and because they are not 
 able to go farther in this direction ; and it would 
 not do, you know, for them to admit that the 
 belief and knowledge of immortality is inherent 
 in man, for that would prove it to be of God. 
 
 If this "notion of the immortality of the soul" 
 had its origin with the Egyptians, then we are 
 asked to believe that a set of heathen idolaters 
 dust mew composed wholly of "carbon, oxygen, 
 hydrogen, nitrogen, sulphur, phosphorus, iron 
 and lime," actually originated the profound idea 
 of the immortality of the soul ! This is entirely too 
 wide a stretch for our credulity. To accept the 
 Atheistic presumption of the origin of this mate- 
 rial world, and the notions of R. G. Ingersoll with 
 reference to the origin of force (including that of 
 mind) would be no greater tax on our credulity. 
 
 S. S. Brewer begins to account for the origin of 
 this doctrine, on page 14 of his work, in the fol- 
 lowing remarkable manner : 
 
JOSEPHUS AND PLATO. 29 
 
 But we now return to the origin of the soul's Immortal- 
 ity. We are sometimes referred to Joseph us as authority 
 in proof of the soul's immortality. Please mark the 
 authority he quotes. In the discourse accredited to Jose- 
 phus, he says: 
 
 "This is the discourse concerning Hades, wherein the 
 souls of all men are confined until a proper season, which 
 God hath determined, when he will make a resurrection of 
 all men from the dead. Not procuring a transmigration of 
 souls from one body to another, but raising again those 
 very bodies which you Greeks, seeing to be dissolved, do 
 not believe (their resurrection.) But learn not to disbe- 
 lieve it, for while that the soul is created and yet made 
 immortal by God, 'according to the doctrine of Plato.' " 
 Josephus, p. 525. 
 
 You perceive that Josephus obtains his authority for 
 the soul's immortality from Plato, who was born 430 years 
 before the Christian era." 
 
 We have Josephus in six volumes, and in vol. 
 6, p. 251, we find the above quotation from which 
 these words have been omitted. The words "you 
 believe" should be inserted between the words 
 "while" and "that" near the end of the quotation, 
 making it to read, "while you believe that," etc., 
 instead of "while that the soul is created," etc. 
 One makes Josephus to endorse the doctrine of 
 Plato concerning the creation of the soul, while 
 the other simply represents him as referring to it 
 as the belief of the Greeks. A wonderful differ- 
 ence, you see ! Following this omission, and im- 
 mediately after the word "yet," should be inserted 
 the word "is" to make it read as it is in Whistson's 
 edition. Now the truth is that Josephus simply 
 and only refers to the belief of the Greeks as being 
 "according to the doctrine of Plato," and does not 
 even intimate that he got his ideas of the soul's 
 immortality from that source ! Why this perver- 
 sion? 
 
 Dr. Nelson, in his "CAUSE AKD CURB OF IN- 
 FIDELITY," p. 121, quoting -the words of another 
 which he accepts as true, says : 
 
30 IMMORTALITY UNIVERSALLY BELIEVED. 
 
 Your argument would be worthy of some consideration, 
 were it not for one cercumstance, which certainly abates its 
 momentum. You say that what the Israelites knew of 
 God, they learned of Plato; but Plato says, that what he, 
 and the Greeks in general knew of the gods, they learned of 
 the Israelites. 
 
 So much for the supposed origin of what our 
 friends call the "Platonic philosophy." They have 
 certainly failed to prove that it originated with 
 the Egyptians, or that Josephus borrowed it from 
 Plato. 
 
 In "ABBOTT'S DICTIONARY OF RELIGIOUS 
 KNOWLEDGE, ART, IMMORTALITY," we have the 
 following statements: 
 
 Belief in the immortality of the soul is almost univer- 
 sal. It is true that some tribes have been found so 
 degraded as apparently to have exercised little or no 
 thought concerning the future; but these afford a rare 
 and unimportant exception to a rule so general that it 
 may, without impropriety, be deemed universal. 
 
 Wherever exceptions are found to the rule 
 referred to by Abbott, one of two reasons may be 
 properly assigned : Either there is not sufficient 
 intelligence to form any conception of the future 
 state, or they have been led away from it by the 
 force of education. Among all the vast multi- 
 tudes of nations and tribes and peoples, where 
 there is sufficient intelligence to admit of a con- 
 ception of God, and the future state, and where 
 the people have not been educated out of this 
 belief, it is found and remains as a fundamental 
 principle in their religion. This is virtually con- 
 ceded by our opponents, except in the case of the 
 ancient Hebrews, who, they claim, did not believe 
 in the dogma because "more directly under the 
 teaching of divine inspiration." 
 
 The ancient Hebrews have left but little on 
 record concerning the future life; but we have 
 several strong reasons. for believing that they con- 
 ceded the doctrine of the immortality of the soul 
 
BELIEF OF THE JEWS. 31 
 
 to be true. So long as it was believed by the sur- 
 rounding nations, there was no special demand 
 for them to directly affirm and defend it. Jose- 
 phus, the great Jewish historian, shows that a 
 belief in the immortality of the soul was almost 
 universal among the Jews in his time. See "ANTI- 
 QUITIES OF THE JEWS, Book 18 : 
 
 They (the Pharisees) also "believe that souls have 
 an immortal vigor in them, and that under the earth there 
 will be rewards or punishments accordingly as they have 
 lived virtuously or viciously in this life ; on account of 
 which doctrines they are able greatly to persuade the body 
 of the people. 
 
 But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this, that souls die 
 with the bodies. But this doctrine is received by but few. 
 But they are able to do almost nothing of themselves; for 
 when they become magistrates they addict themselves to 
 the notions of the Pharisees, because the multitude would 
 not otherwise bear them. 
 
 The doctrine of the Essenees is this, that all things are 
 best ascribed to God. They teach the immortality of 
 souls. 
 
 The Jews had had for a great while three sects of phil- 
 osophy peculiar to themselves, the sect of the Essenees, 
 the sect of the Saducees, and the third sort of opinions 
 was that called Pharisees. 
 
 But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophers, Judas the 
 Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other 
 things with the Pharisaic notions, but they have an Inviol- 
 able attachment to liberty. 
 
 All nations and all, or nearly all, tribes 
 believed in the immortality of the soul. That 
 many foolish and absurd things were held in con- 
 nection with this doctrine is no evidence that it is 
 false. Many of the most important truths of the 
 Christian religion have been held in a corrupted 
 form by the heathen nations, such as faith in 
 God, and in a Savior, who was crucified, resur- 
 rected, and who ascended into heaven. Because 
 of these matters of belief, and many others strik- 
 ingly similar to the Christian religion, it has been 
 
32 ORIGINATED WITH GOD. 
 
 affirmed by Kersey Graves and others that Chris- 
 tianity is of human and heathen origin, and 
 existed before Christ. That it did have an exist- 
 ence as a revealed system of truth, prior to the 
 Christian era, we are willing to admit ; but that it 
 was, in any sense, of human and heathen origin, 
 we deny. 
 
 That leading principles of the Christian reli- 
 gion, though badly corrupted, were held by the 
 Orientals, is too plain to be denied ; and that the 
 similarity among ancient religions with their 
 peculiar and in some cases striking resemblance 
 to the Christian system proves common origin, is 
 conceded. But whence this origin ? Either God 
 revealed it at an early day, and the scriptures cer- 
 tainly teach that he did, or there is in the human 
 soul that which imparts a knowledge of and a 
 desire for a divine Savior. Either one of these 
 positions proves Christianity to be of divine ori- 
 gin, and the same is true of the soul's immortal- 
 ity, so universally believed by the untutored 
 nations and tribes of the earth. 
 
 We commend the following statements and 
 conclusions as found in "DICK'S WORKS" vol. L, 
 pp. 9, 10, 11. 
 
 That the thinking principle in man is of an immortal 
 nature, was believed by the ancient Egyptians, the Per- 
 sians, the Phoenecians, the Scythians, the Celts, the Druids, 
 the Assyrians, by the wisest and most celebrated charac- 
 ters among the Greeks and Romans, and by almost every 
 other ancient nation and tribe whose record has reached 
 our time. They all embraced the idea that death is not the 
 destruction of the rational soul, but only its introduction 
 to a new and unknown state of existence. The ancient 
 Scythians believed that death was only a change of habit- 
 ation; and the Magian sect which prevailed in Babylonia, 
 Media, Assyria, and Persia, admitted the doctrine of eter- 
 aal rewards and punishments. The remains of this sect* 
 which are scattered over Persia and India, still hold the 
 game doctrines without any variation, even to this day. 
 
THE UNIVERSAL BELIEF. 33 
 
 The descriptions and allusions contained in the ancient 
 poets, are a convincing proof, that the notion of the soul's 
 immortality was a universal opinion in the times in which 
 they wrote, and among the nations to which their writings 
 were addressed. Homer's account of the descent of 
 Ulyssus into hell, and his description of Minos in the 
 shades below, distributing justice to the dead assembled in 
 troops around his tribunal, and pronouncing irrevocable 
 judgments, which decide their everlasting fate, demon- 
 strate, that they entertained the belief, that virtues are 
 rewarded and that crimes are punished, in another state 
 of existence. The poems of Ovid and Virgil contain a va- 
 riety of descriptions in which the same opinions are 
 involved. 
 
 There is scarcely a nation or tribe of mankind at pres- 
 ent existing, however barbarous and untutored, in which 
 the same opinion does not prevail. The natives of the 
 Society Isles, the Friendly Islands, and the New Zealand- 
 ers, the inhabitants of the Pelew Islands, the Kalmuc tar- 
 tars, the Samoeidans, the Birmans, believe in the conscious 
 state of existence for the soul after death. 
 
 The Mandingoes, the Jaloffs, the Feloops, the Foulahs, 
 the Moors, and all the other tribes who have embraced the 
 Mahometan Faith, recognize the doctrine of the immortal- 
 ity of the soul. The natives of Dahomy entertain the same 
 belief. The Persians are said to leave one part of the 
 graves open, from a belief that the dead will be reanimated 
 and visited by angels, who will appoint them to their 
 appropriate abodes in a future state. 
 
 The Japanese believe that the souls of men and beasts 
 are alike immortal. 
 
 When they die (the American Indians) they are per- 
 suaded that the Great Spirit will conduct them to this land 
 of souls. (Previously described.) 
 
 (In everything the consent of all nations is to be ac- 
 counted the law of nature, and to resist it is to resist the 
 voice of God. Cicero.) 
 
 Mortal-soulists present some testimony from 
 the "Christian Fathers" to sustain their belief. 
 We regret to state, what every careful reader of 
 church history must learn, that much contradict- 
 ory evidence, on some points, has been furnished 
 us by the "Christian Fathers." But it is quite 
 evident that the introduction of mortal-soul ism 
 into the primitive church was regarded as heresy, 
 
34 ' 'FALSE OPINIONS." 
 
 and the best talent and authority of the church 
 were employed to put it down. 
 
 But also about this time (A. D. 249,) other men sprung up 
 in Arabia as the propagators of false opinions. These as- 
 serted that the human soul, as long as the present state of 
 the world existed, perished at death and died with the 
 body, but that it would be raised again with the body at 
 the time of the resurrection. And as a considerable coun- 
 cil was held on account of this, Origen being again re- 
 quested, likewise here discussed the point in question with 
 so much force, that those who had been before led astray 
 completely changed their opinions. Eusebius, p. 238. 
 
 This great man (Origen) was now once more employed 
 in Arabia in confuting another error, namely, of those who 
 denied the intermediate state of souls, and this he man- 
 aged with his usual success. Millner's Church History, 
 vol. I., p. 250 
 
 Thus we see, according to the testimony of 
 Eusebius, the "father of church history," that the 
 mortality of the soul and its consequent uncon- 
 sciousness after death, were regarded as "false 
 opinions," and an effort to introduce them into 
 the church was made as early as 249, A. D. George 
 Storrs, it is said, was the first to revive these "false 
 opinions," in our day, giving them publicity in a 
 paper called the Bible Examiner in 1844-45. 
 
 Paul was a leading representative of the faith 
 of the early Cristian church, and in the Acts of 
 the Apostles (23 : 6-8) we have a plain statement 
 of his faith on this question : 
 
 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Saddu- 
 cees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, 
 Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee! 
 of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in 
 question. And when he had so said, there arose a dissen- 
 sion between the Pharisees and Sadducees; and the multi- 
 tude was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no 
 resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees 
 confess both. 
 
 Paul well knew what his words would convey 
 to both Pharisees and Sadducees ; and to affirm 
 that he only intended to announce his belief in 
 the resurrection without any reference to the 
 
PAUL AND PHARISEES. 36 
 
 nature of man and what is required to constitute 
 that resurrection, is to admit that he purposely 
 deceived the people with reference to the true 
 character of his faith. More than this, Paul says, 
 "Of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am 
 called in question." What was the "hope" of the 
 dead according to the belief of the Pharisees ? 
 That they would live as conscious, spirit entities, 
 after death, enjoying a comparative state of peace 
 and bliss till the time of the resurrection, if, 
 indeed, they had been faithful to God. 
 
 "But," say our opponents, "Paul could not 
 have been a Pharisee in belief for Christ con- 
 demned the doctrine of the Pharisees." (See 
 Matt. 16:6-12.) It is admitted that both the 
 Pharisees and Sadducees held to dangerous and 
 false doctrines. That of the Sadducees was the 
 mortal-soul dogma, while that of the Pharisees 
 was hypocrisy. "But the doctrine of the Saddu- 
 cees is this, that souls die with the bodies." 
 Josephus. 
 
 In the mean time, when there were gathered together 
 an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they 
 trode upon one another, he began to say unto his disciples 
 first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which 
 is hypocrisy. Luke 12:1. 
 
 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 
 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 
 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that ob- 
 serve and do; but do not ye after their works for they say, 
 and do not. For they bind heavy burdens, and grievous to 
 be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they them- 
 selves will not move them with one of their fingers. 
 Matt. 23:1-4. 
 
 It is clear, then, that Paul could have believed 
 with the Pharisees on the nature and destiny of 
 man without accepting their hypocrisy, pride, sel- 
 fishness and arrogance. (See Matt. 23rd chapter.) 
 
 Below, we present notes which were prepared 
 by a co-worker, as a fitting close to this depart- 
 ment of our subject. 
 
36 WHENCE THIS UNIVERSAL BELIEF. 
 
 Whence comes this universal belief ? Can it come from 
 anything less than a universal cause ? If not, it must come 
 from God, the only universal cause with which we are ac- 
 quainted. Apply to this evidence the calculus of probabili- 
 ties, and it will be found to be demonstrated, that the soul 
 is immortal. 
 
 Either God revealed the immortality of the soul to the 
 first family or families of the earth, or he has implanted in 
 the human mind an intuitive knowledge that it is immor- 
 tal; upon no other ground can we account for the univer- 
 sal belief of all nations in the immortality of the soul. 
 
 If it is untrue, and not natural to man to believe error in 
 preference to truth, whence comes this universal belief of 
 all nations? It must have some adequate cause assigned 
 for its existence, if the truth of the doctrine of immortal- 
 ity is denied. What is that cause ? The most civilized and 
 enlightened and the most barbarous and degraded agree as 
 to this doctrine. What is the cause of this agreement if 
 not the truth of the belief so universally found ? Those 
 who deny the explanation here given, must furnish some 
 other. 
 
 Error is continually changing, but this has been the 
 same from the earliest times till now. Man's immortality 
 and existence after death, being one of the truths of the 
 unchangeable God, has not changed, whatever the dress in 
 which different nations have clothed the thought. 
 
 For so grand and sweeping and universal a belief, there 
 can be no adequate cause assigned, except the fact that the 
 belief is true. It is the voice of God, either revealed to the 
 first men of earth, or to every nation since that time, de- 
 claring with unmistakable plainness that man is immortal. 
 
 Universality of sentiment argues God-given truth. It 
 could not be otherwise. Nothing but truth is universal in 
 essence except it be the God of truth ; and we prove his 
 existence in the same way in which we prove that the soul 
 is immortal; viz., by the universal consent of mankind. 
 
 That an error should have been universally received, 
 from the earliest dawn of our historical knowledge to the 
 present time is unreasonable; especially is this so, when 
 we consider that there has been no effort universally made 
 to perpetuate this error. 
 
 Universally accepted sentiments without any natural 
 cause for such acceptation, argue an inspirational cause 
 for it. What man has not caused and cannot, some higher 
 power must have caused. Man has not and could not have 
 caused the universal acceptation by mankind of a belief in 
 the immortality of the soul; God, therefore, must have 
 produced that effect. 
 
SCIENCE AND IMMORTALITY. 37 
 
 From the foregoing evidences, and many more 
 which might be produced, but one proper conclu- 
 sion can be reached, viz., that man is possessed of 
 immortality. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCES CONSIDERED THE TRUE 
 PROVINCE OF SCIENCE-IT CAN FURNISH NO 
 VALID SUPPORT FOR THE DOCTRINE THAT MAN 
 IS WHOLLY MORTAL AND UNCONSCIOUS AFTER 
 DEATH. 
 
 In Chapter II., we presented several reasons 
 for believing in the immortality of the soul which 
 may be properly denominated scientific. But as 
 Adventist authors claim that science supports 
 their side of the question, we give to this depart- 
 ment of the subject a more extended notice. 
 
 The writer is not a man of science. He 
 makes no pretensions in that direction. But 
 when an effort is made to make science speak in 
 favor of the mortal-soul dogma and unconscious- 
 ness after death, he believes that he may safely 
 speak in refutation of the claim; and that it 
 becomes his duty to examine the character of the 
 testimony adduced. 
 
 First, we call the reader's attention to some of 
 the points sought to be made in the chapter 
 referred to above. 
 
 If man is wholly mortal, then, as already 
 stated, he belongs entirely to this world is a 
 creature of time only and not of eternity. Hence 
 it is scientifically impossible for him to think or 
 talk about an eternal or immortal state. How 
 can he think or talk about that of which he can 
 have no conception ? And how can he have any 
 conception of that which is immeasurably beyond 
 and entirely outside of the domain in which God 
 has placed him ? 
 
38 LAWS OF ADAPTATION. 
 
 Science deals largely with the laws of adapta- 
 tion. The needs of the mortal body are supplied 
 with mortal food. The very elements for which 
 we have such a strong desire (called appetite) are 
 found in the composition of our bodies ; and, phys- 
 ically, we cannot desire anything else, because 
 there is nothing else in our bodies to produce that 
 desire ; and therefore, no other kind of food is 
 needed. But the mind and soul reach out after 
 that which is eternal, incorruptible and immortal 
 in its character. Hence there is a proper adapta- 
 tion between the soul or mind of man and the im- 
 mortal food provided in the gospel. He who 
 accepts the Bible record as true, and per conse- 
 quence, concedes that the spiritual food provided 
 in the gospel was prepared in the love and wisdom 
 of God for man, should be fully prepared to admit 
 that man is possessed of immortality. If not, 
 there is no adaptation between the being who is 
 to be fed and the food which is to be given. Thus 
 the doctrine of mortal-soulists as set forth by Ad- 
 ventists and Christadelphians, renders man wholly 
 incapable of obeying the requirements of the gos- 
 pel, and is in direct conflict with the laws of adap- 
 tation ; hence if the Bible be true, this doctrine is 
 false, and opposed to the facts and principles of 
 science. 
 
 In the discussion held between Miles Grant of 
 Boston, Massachusetts, and Harry A. Long of 
 Glasgow, Scotland, February, 1890, the former 
 affirmed the following proposition : 
 
 Resolved, That the Bible and Science teach that man is 
 wholly mortal and unconscious between death and the res- 
 urrection. 
 
 Mr. Grant devoted part of one speech only to 
 the introduction of scientific evidence, which is 
 to be found on pp. 43, 44, 45. The first is intro- 
 duced in the following manner ; 
 
VOICE OF SCIENCE. 39 
 
 What is the voice of science on this subject? Henry 
 Drummond, "NATURAL LAW IN THE SPIRITUAL WORLD," p. 
 223: "Unprejudiced philosophy is compelled to reject the 
 idea of an individual immortality, and of a personal con- 
 tinuance after death." Quoted from Buchner. I thank 
 God Science and the Bible are in perfect harmony, when we 
 have true science. 
 
 We have Prof. Drummond's work, "NATURAL 
 LAW IN THE SPIRITUAL WORLD," and after some 
 searching found the quotation referred to on p. 
 162. The one we have is for April, 1888, No. 41. 
 
 One might easily he led to suppose from the 
 manner in which Mr. Grant uses this testimony 
 that Prof. Drummond endorses the quotation from 
 Buchner, but he does not. He is writing on the 
 subject of "Eternal Life," and claims all the way. 
 through, that all who form a proper relation to 
 God here, will continue to live evermore. On p. 
 167, Prof. Drummond says : 
 
 In short, this is a correspondence which at once satis- 
 fies the demands of Science and Religion. In mere quan- 
 tity it is different from every other correspondence known. 
 Setting aside everything else in Religion, everything ad- 
 ventitious, local and provisional; dissecting into the bone 
 and marrow we find this a correspondence which can never 
 break with an Environment which can never change. Here 
 is a relation established with Eternity. The passing years 
 lay no limiting band on it. Corruption injures it not. It sur- 
 vives death. It, and it only, will stretch beyond the grave 
 and be found inviolate 
 
 "When the moon is old, 
 
 And the stars are cold, 
 And the books of the Judgment Day unfold." 
 
 Thus it will be seen that Prof. Drummond's 
 work is not in harmony with the views of mortal- 
 soulists, for he advocates the immortality of all 
 the children of God, at least, and he is in direct 
 conflict with the claims and doctrine of the mater- 
 ialist. He is writing from a scientific point of 
 view, using Herbert Spencer's definition of what 
 would constitute Eternal Life, as a basis. He 
 introduces his subject in the following manner: 
 
40 SCIENCE AND ETERNAL 
 
 One of the most startling achievements of recent sci- 
 ence is a definition of Eternal Life. To the religious mind 
 this is a contribution of immense moment. For eighteen 
 hundred years only one definition of Life Eternal was 
 before the world. Now there are two. 
 
 Through all these centuries revealed religion had this 
 doctrine to itself. Ethics had a voice as well as Christian- 
 ity on the question of the "summum bonum;" Philosophy 
 ventured to speculate on the Being of a God. But no 
 source outside Christianity contributed anything to the 
 doctrine of Eternal Life. Apart from Revelation, this 
 great truth was unguaranteed. It was the one thing in the 
 Christian system that most needed verification from with- 
 out, yet none was forthcoming. And never has any fur- 
 ther light been thrown upon the question why in its very 
 nature the Christian Life should be Eternal. Christianity 
 itself even upon this point has been obscure. Its decision 
 upon the bare fact is authoritative and specific. But as to 
 what there is in the Spiritual Life necessarily endowing it 
 with the element of Eternity, the maturest theology is all 
 but silent. It has been reserved for modern biology at 
 once to defend and illuminate this central truth of the 
 Christian faith. Pages 149, 150. 
 
 Adventists claim that we will not receive eter- 
 nal life until the resurrection ; but Prof. Drum- 
 mond claims (in harmony with the teachings of 
 the New Testament, we believe, ) that it begins 
 here when we bring ourselves into harmony with 
 God, the Eternal One, through obedience to His 
 spiritual laws. - 
 
 On p. 264, "ART, CLASSIFICATION, "Prof. Drum- 
 mond is seeking to show that while morality and 
 purity are commendable, they cannot produce 
 eternal life. He says : 
 
 On the one hand, there being no such thing as spontan- 
 eous generation, his moral nature, however it may encour- 
 age it, cannot generate life; while, on the other, his high 
 organization can never in itself result in life, life being al- 
 ways the cause of organization and never the effect of it." 
 
 Adventist authors teach that organization pro- 
 duces mind, life and consciousness. It is plain, then 
 that "NATURAL LAW IN THE SPIRITUAL WORLD" 
 is against the doctrine of the mortal-soulist. As 
 
SCIENTISTS AND SCIENCE. 41 
 
 to the quotation from Buchner, it is only part of 
 what Prof. Drummond furnishes, and is but the 
 strong expression of opinion at the best. The 
 opinions and inferences of scientists and science 
 itself, "true science," (which Mr. Grant says is 
 always in harmony with the Bible) are not always 
 identical. Just as the opinions and teachings of 
 theologians are sometimes in conflict with the 
 facts and truths of the Bible, so are the opinions 
 and teachings of scientists sometimes in conflict 
 with science. Again, there is no more room ir 
 Buchner's philosophy, as furnished by Mr. Grant, 
 for a resurrection state, and conscious existence 
 therein, than there is for consciousness immedi- 
 ately after death. To him, death ends all. Is 
 this the kind of science for which Mr. Grant 
 thanks God because of its harmony with the 
 Bible? 
 
 Mr. Grant's next quotation is from Prof. Lee- 
 body : 
 
 The doctrine of immortality cannot be proved by science 
 Another opinion, which, if true, by no means 
 proves that science teaches that man is wholly 
 mortal and unconscious between death and the 
 resurrection. If the doctrine of immortality can 
 not be proved by science, then this witness is as 
 much opposed to immortality in the resurrection 
 as it is to its existence in man prior to that time. 
 Hence it proves entirely too much for Mr. Grant 
 and all others who believe the righteous will be 
 raised to immortality. The proper question is not 
 whether scienceproves the doctrine of immortality; 
 but is the doctrine in harmony with its facts and 
 truths ? If it is, it is enough. Can we prove, by 
 science alone, the doctrine of the resurrection, 
 and the immortality of the children of God at that 
 time? But when we accept these doctrines in the 
 light of revelation, they are found to be in har- 
 mony with the facts and truths of science. 
 
42 DRS. YOUNG AND LEIDY. 
 
 Next, we have the opinions of Dr. C. A. Young, 
 Professor of Anatomy in Princeton College, N. J. 
 It must be frankly admitted that what is known about 
 the functions of the brain and nervous system, does to a 
 certain extent, tend to make it difficult to believe in the 
 immortality of the personal consciousness. 
 
 What kind of proof is this ? Certain things 
 are "known of the functions of the brain and ner- 
 vous system," which does, "to a certain extent," 
 (but to what extent Dr. Young does not say) 
 "tend to make it difficult to believe in the immor- 
 tality of the personal consciousness." That there 
 is much concerning the brain and nervous system 
 which scientists do not yet know will be conceded. 
 And for aught we know, the unknown is much 
 greater than the known, which, if true, renders 
 the scientist incapable of passing, with any degree 
 of certainty upon the "immortality of the personal 
 consciousness." Mr. Grant is certainly aware that 
 it is this unknown quantity in science which has 
 caused so many erroneous opinions and conclu- 
 sions, many of which have been reversed with the 
 increase of knowledge. However, Dr. Young is 
 very modest in his statements. It is not impossi- 
 ble to believe it, but what little is known in one 
 particular direction, has a tendeney to make it 
 difficult. I wonder if what is known by scientists 
 does not make it equally difficut to believe in the 
 conception of Christ the Christ who dwelt with 
 the Father in glory before the world was as 
 stated in the New Testament Scriptures ? 
 
 The next testimony adduced is from Dr. Joseph 
 Leidy, Professor of Anatomy and Zoology in the 
 University of Pennsylvania : 
 
 Personal consciousness is a condition of each and every 
 living animal ranging from microscopic forms to man 
 The condition Is observed to close at death ; and I know of 
 no facts of modern science which make it otherwise than 
 difficult to believe in the persistence of that condition, 
 that is, "the immortality of the personal existence." 
 
PERSONAL CONSCIOUSNESS. 43 
 
 This needs no special examination as it is very 
 similar to what we have already disposed of. It 
 may be well, however, for the reader to note, that 
 to know that personal consciousness ceases at death 
 is, in the very nature of the case, beyond the prov- 
 ince of scientists. That Dr. Leidy himself was 
 conscious of uncertainty concerning that which he 
 affirmed, is evident from the modifying words 
 which he immediately adds: "And I know of no 
 facts of modern science which make it otherwise 
 than difficult to believe in the persistence of that 
 condition," etc. To believe that conscious exist- 
 ence positively closes at death, and at the same 
 time that "the immortality of the personal exist- 
 ence" may continue, is impossible. 
 
 The next and last testimony introduced by 
 Mr. Grant is from Lester F. Ward, Smithsonian 
 Institute, Washington, D. C.: 
 
 Consciousness, when scientifically examined, reveals 
 itself as a quality of brain. . . . It is a universal induc- 
 tion of science, that modification of brain is accompanied 
 by modification of consciousness, and that the destruction 
 of brain results in the destruction of consciousness. No 
 exception of this law has ever been observed. 
 
 Mr. Ward uses three sentences in presenting 
 his views of the teachings of science on this sub- 
 ject, as furnished by Mr. Grant. From these 
 views, as is well known, many earnest students of 
 science dissent. It is the peculiar province and 
 duty of scientists to furnish us with truths and 
 facts concerning this material world. When they 
 have done this these same facts and truths be- 
 come the common property of all. Were this not 
 so, we would be required to blindly accept the 
 opinions and conclusions of men who have furn- 
 ished us with abundant evidence of their fallibil- 
 ity in common with all other professors. Scient- 
 ists, we need hardly affirm, hold to many conflict- 
 ing opinions and announce many conflicting con- 
 
44 CONFLICTING OPINIONS. 
 
 elusions. As ministers of the gospel do not always 
 teach the same doctrine, though they appeal to the 
 same standard of authority, so scientists do not al- 
 ways draw the same inferences from the revelations 
 of science. When controversy occurs among pro- 
 fessed Christians, it must be settled, if settled at 
 all, by a direct appeal to the Bible, their standard 
 of authority, and not by what the preachers may 
 say. When it is needful to determine what are 
 the teachings of science on any particular topic, it 
 is necessary to appeal to the principles of science, 
 rather than to the opinions of its devotees. Why 
 should we place implicit confidence in the un- 
 proved statements of the devotee of science any 
 more than in the unproved statements of the min- 
 ister of the gospel ? 
 
 The question involved in the above quotation 
 is, substantially, the one passed upon by Mr. R. G. 
 Ingersoll in his lecture on " THE GODS. "Mr. Inger- 
 soll says : 
 
 Thought is a form of force. We walk with the same 
 force with which we think. Man is an organism, that 
 changes several forms of force into thought force. Man is 
 a machine into which we put what we call food, and pro- 
 duce what we call thought. Think of that wonderful chem- 
 istry by which bread was changed into the divine tragedy 
 of Hamlet. 
 
 R. S. Dement, in a work entitled "INGERSOLL, 
 BEECHER AND DOGMA," makes a telling reply to 
 Mr. Ingersoll, a part of which we herewith pre- 
 sent. Mr. Dement's work shows him to be an able 
 and earnest student of science, and withal, an 
 independent thinker. Referring to Mr. Ingersoll's 
 assertions, he says : 
 
 The question which he disposes of here so summarily, I 
 need hardly state, is one with which the greatest minds 
 have been struggling for centuries; the brightest lights of 
 his own philosophical household his very household gods, 
 as it were have trembled in the presence of the awful 
 responsibility of pronouncing upon it; and yet, with all the 
 assurance of a mountebank, this man simply waves hia 
 
INGERSOLL ANSWERED. 45 
 
 quill In air, It poises but a moment, descends, traces a few 
 brief lines on the page, and lo! the mystery of mysteries is 
 solved! 
 
 Through all the years of the past, In which scientists 
 have wrestled with fact and philosophy, the- principle in- 
 volved here has exhausted the highest resources of all 
 schools. In this struggle have been numbered the bright- 
 est geniuses and most profound philosophers, the astute 
 scholars of the world. Honest, sincere, noble, genuine 
 men have devoted their lives to this one great problem 
 that underlies all others. 
 
 It has appeared in a multitude of forms, and has been 
 considered from as many different standpoints. 
 
 It is presented here In its latest form which resolves 
 itself into this: Whether the action of the brain causes 
 thought, or whether thought, an extraneous something 
 which we cannot comprehend, causes the action of the 
 brain. 
 
 But the clouds which have so long obscured the horizon 
 of faith have, at last, been dispelled by the sunlight of sci- 
 ence, thank God, and now we may walk out in the morning 
 of the glorious day! The path is very plain and very sim- 
 ple. We have only to start right, and then keep straight 
 ahead. Truths that are of most value are usually 
 expressed in simplest form; they are seldom found in the 
 labyrinthine depths of indefinite metaphysics. 
 
 Now, had Mr. Ingersoll even consulted the very primer 
 l>f science, he would have found, standing out prominently, 
 as the first letter of its alphabet, this incontrovertible truth 
 Matter is inert. 
 
 Had he taken the trouble to consult Prof. Bain, who is 
 the acknowledged leader of the most recent school of ma- 
 terialists, a school which embraces the acute scholars and 
 brightest minds of that philosophy he would have found 
 even him admitting that matter ia inert and cannot origi- 
 nate force. 
 
 Had he read a little farther in his primer he would have 
 found that there are but two things in the universe- 
 matter and mind. 
 
 It would have required but a very gentle exercise of 
 his reasoning faculties to show him that since matter is 
 inert and cannot originate force or motion, and mind is the 
 only other existence in the universe, force or motion must 
 emanate from mind. 
 
 And then he could, surely, have endured the further 
 mental effort necessary to show him that (as he had 
 already committed himself to the proposition that thought 
 is a form of force) thought must emanate from mind, not 
 matter, or bread, as he puts it. 
 
16 VIEW ED FROM ANOTHER STANDPOINT. 
 
 And all this without going beyond the very primer of 
 science. 
 
 Now, as Mr. Ingersoll and all who hold with 
 him on the. views expressed in the above quota- 
 tion, are fairly and fully answered, let us view the 
 question from another standpoint. 
 
 The stated position of mortal-soulists is that 
 mind results from organization. If this position 
 is correct, scientifically examined, then organiza- 
 tion is the cause and mind the effect. 
 
 Causes are always equal, or superior to their 
 effects. Effects do not rise up and assume control 
 of causes. This would be a complete reversal of 
 the principles of science; and yet, as we may 
 easily learn from observation and our own exper- 
 ience, the mind is vastly superior to the body, that 
 it directs and controls the body. And when we 
 read the many plain declarations of competent 
 authors in proof of this position, they are found to 
 be in complete harmony with our own experience. 
 
 The mind acts as clearly and distinctly on the body, as 
 either chemical, mechanical or vital agency. "POWER OF 
 THE Souu OVER THE BODY," by DP. Geo. Moore, M. R. 0. P. p- 
 164. 
 
 Our passions are the grand conservators as well as the 
 disturbers of the heatlhy action of our bodies; and they 
 exercise so direct an influence over the functions of life as 
 to be properly classed with medical agents. Indeed, they 
 often act with no less power than the most heroic medi- 
 cines, and are as rapid, and sometimes as fatal in their 
 active operation, as Prussic acid, or any other deadly poi- 
 son. Ib., 224. 
 
 The miod acts on the ultimate vessels in which the 
 changes of the blood are effected. Who has not felt the 
 flash of thought suffusing the cheek, quickening the heart 
 and kindling the eye ? We all acknowledge by the blushes 
 of love and pride and shame, or by the cold and pallor of 
 our fears, that the affections of the mind possess dominion 
 in the citadel of life, and permanently influence the whole 
 economy of our bodies." HEALTH DISEASE AND REMEDY/' 
 p. 137. 
 
MIND CONTROLS BODY. 47 
 
 Thus we find that the action of medicine is vastly mod- 
 ified by the state of the mind, and by the habitual activity 
 of the brain, which in some measure accounts for the 
 anomalies so often witnessed in the practice of physic, 
 medicines in opposite states of feeling producing contrary 
 effects on functions. Ibid p. 138. 
 
 We meet with many instructive instances, proving that 
 mental influence may often be made available in the cure 
 of disease. ''BRITISH AND FOREIGN MEDICAL REVIEW," 1847. 
 
 Not a thought, not an idea, not an affection or feeling 
 of the mind can be excited without positive change in the 
 brain and in the secretions; for every variation in the 
 state of the whole or any portion, of the nervous system, is 
 of course accompanied by a corresponding change in those 
 organs and functions which it furnishes with energy.- 
 
 "POWER OF THE SOUL OVER THE BODY." p. 163. 
 
 The state of the blood on which health mainly depends 
 is influenced almost as much by our feelings as by our 
 food. Ib., p. 234. 
 
 Very many diseases have a mental origin, and perhaps 
 there is no cause of corporeal disease more clearly made 
 out, or more certainly effective, than protracted anxiety 
 and distress of mind. Our passions and emotions also, nay, 
 even some of our better impulses, when strained or per- 
 verted, tend to our physical destruction. "WATSON'S LEC- 
 TURES ON THE PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF PHYSIC." p. 59. 
 
 Fear and anxiety diminish the action of the lungs, im- 
 pede the changes among the ultimate molecules of our bod- 
 ies, interrupt all the secretions except that of water, and 
 produce a cold, harsh and pallid state of the skin. The 
 genial passions, however, operate in a manner quite the 
 reverse, and a man whose affections are in a prosperous 
 condition, has rarely occasion to complain of functional 
 inactivity. But all of our emotions are capable of destroy- 
 ing life if carried to excess, and therefore they all, more or 
 less, interfere with the proper action of that center of 
 sympathy, the stomach, by accumulating irritability in the 
 brain, while diminishing the energy of that nerve action by 
 which organic functions are carried on. "HEALTH, DIS- 
 EASE AND REMEDY." by Dr. Geo. Moore, p. 136. 
 
 A soul that condemns its own conduct is sure to pro- 
 duce disorders of the nervous system, and hence also of the 
 blood in all its vital operations. There is but one cause of 
 misery, disease, and death to man. Let us shun that and 
 we need not be very nice about the choice of our diet, or 
 our doctor, for, after all. the grand secret of healtb is to be 
 happy at heart. The rules of the New Testament are pro- 
 motive of bodily health, as well as health of soul, and they 
 
48 MIND CAUSES ORGANIZATION. 
 
 are really sufficient in most cases for the direction of appe- 
 tite in the use of means, and in them we learn why we 
 should be temperate, active, holy. Ib. p. 140. 
 
 Next to the brain the stomach suffers from continued 
 mental distress. The appetite fails; digestion is sus 
 pended; atrophy succeeds; and perhaps some nerve ache 
 racks the sufferer. Sometimes pulmonary consumption is 
 induced. The milk of a nurse is often entirely suppressed 
 by mental disquietude. "POWER OF THE SOUJL OVEB THE 
 BODY," pp. 237, 238. 
 
 The mind directs and controls all our acts ; by 
 it alone our powers are developed, suppressed, pre- 
 served or destroyed : it is, therefore, "the agent of 
 our existence, so far as we are concerned." 
 
 Instead of organization being the cause of 
 mind, it is the effect or result of mind, as may be 
 seen in all the works of man and of the Deity. 
 And though it may be a fact "that modification 
 of brain is accompanied by modification of con- 
 sciousness," as Mr. Ward affirms, yet it is equally 
 true that all the functions of the body, including 
 the brain, are affected, (improved or injured) by 
 the use of the mind. It may, therefore, be safely 
 affirmed that science has furnished no evidence 
 that man is wholly mortal and unconscious be- 
 tween death and the resurrection. 
 
 Another clear evidence of the immortality of 
 the soul is the unbounded intellectual powers of 
 the mind. 
 
 Time and earth do not and cannot measure the powers 
 of the mind of man. He soars instinctively beyond these, 
 lud the farther he goes the greater his longing to go still 
 larther. The more knowledge he acquires, the more he 
 desires. Phrenologists and philosophers of every class ad- 
 mit that no bound has been found to the development of 
 the mind. It is so far as we know unbounded. It must 
 therefore belong to eternity and not to time; to heaven 
 rather than earth; it must be a being of immortality 
 rather than of mortality. It must naturally be a compan- 
 ion of God rather than any lower orders of beings. 
 
 Believers in the immortality of the soul need 
 not be alarmed concerning anything which may 
 
NATURE OF MA*i . 49 
 
 come from the scientific domain, so long as it con- 
 sists chiefly in the unsupported opinions and con- 
 clusions of a certain class of scientists. It is fair 
 to assume that, as Mr. Grant is a man of marked 
 ability and long experience in his work, he has 
 selected the best, or from the best, evidences which 
 can be produced. It should be borne in mind that 
 that which science has not been able to determine 
 is no evidence against its facts and truths. Nor 
 is it any evidence against the teachings of the 
 Bible, though these teachings may go far beyoud 
 the revelations of modern science. With Mr. 
 Grant, we believe that "true science" and the 
 Bible agree ; but in opposition to him, we do not 
 believe that either science or the Bible teaches 
 "that man is wholly mortal." To us, the view of 
 mortal-soulists destroys the necessary and con- 
 necting link between man and God; between eartb 
 and heaven; between time and Eternity. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 NATURE OF MAN HE IS POSSESSED OF A SPIRIT, 
 OR SOUL, WHICH THINKS AND ACTS-IT LIVES IN 
 A CONSCIOUS STATE WHEN OUT OF THE BODY 
 THE SOUL DOES NOT DIE WITH THE BODY AD- 
 VENTIST CLAIMS EXAMINED AND REFUTED. 
 
 There are a few simple truths connected with 
 the Bible use of the word spirit and soid which 
 should be carefully considered. Let us note some 
 of these as a help in this investigation. 
 
 They are sometimes, but not always, used 
 synonymously. They have quite a wide applica- 
 tion, hence do not always mean the same thing. 
 We can not determine the meaning in any given 
 text, simply and only by an appeal to the literal or 
 root meanings of the Hebrew and Greek originals 
 from which they come. 
 
60 "THE BIBLE MUST DETERMINE." 
 
 "There is a spirit in man," and there is a spirit 
 in the beast. The Bible must determine the char- 
 acter, capabilities and destiny of man's spirit. 
 The word soul is applied to man, also to beasts and 
 to the creatures of the sea. (Rev. 6:9; 16:3.) 
 Man is possessed of a soul which his fellow man 
 can not kill ; hence it survives the death of the 
 body. (Matt. 10 : 28 ; Luke 12 : 4, 5.) We have no 
 quarrel with our opponents as to the wide applica- 
 tion of these terms. What we are chiefly con- 
 cerned in, in this investigation, is the nature and 
 destiny of the spirit, (sometimes called soul) which 
 God placed in man. The vigorous efforts of mor- 
 tal-soulists to show other and varied meanings 
 of these words, are of no avail whatever so far as 
 proving their position is concerned. We cheer- 
 fully acknowledge whatever we can see taught in 
 the Bible, and just as cheerfully deny what we 
 deem to be in opposition to the teachings of that 
 book. 
 
 The spirit which God formed within man 
 thinks, wills and acts, as we shall presently show, 
 hence it is the conscious, intellectual, active part 
 of man. The Bible represents it not simply as 
 an abstract quality of the mind, but as an impor- 
 tant part of the man proper, and as the mind it* 
 self. It is the subject of regeneration. ( Jno. 3:6; 
 Eph. 3 :16, 17.) It returns to God "who gave it," 
 at death. (Eccl. 12:7; Acts 6 : 59 ; Luke 23 : 46. ) 
 
 Nephesh, the Hebrew for soul, (with but two 
 exceptions) occurs in the Old Testament, it is said, 
 752 times. Psuche, the corresponding Greek word, 
 occurs in the New Testament 105 times. Mr. 
 Grant admits that "nephesh js translated in forty- 
 four different ways in the Old Testament ; psuche 
 in six different ways in the New Testament, mak- 
 ing fifty in all," which, however, he claims "may 
 be reduced to three." (See "GRANT AND LONG 
 DEBATE," p. 6.) 
 
BIBLE USE OF SOUL. 51 
 
 Mr. Grant claims, in the debate referred to, 
 that the meaning and Bible use of the originals 
 for soul will not admit of a belief in its immortal- 
 ity. He quotes a long list of authorities in sup- 
 port of his view ; but what we have said of nil 
 scientific authorities is largely true of these. A 
 careful examination of their statements will show 
 that some of them, at least, had reference only to 
 the signification of the words ; but it is hardly 
 probable that they, or even Mr. Grant, would be 
 so rash as to deny that soul and spirit may be prop- 
 erly applied to that which is immortal. Soul is 
 applied to God, and, as we have seen, to that part 
 of man which man cannot kill. Spirit is applied 
 to God and to angels. If, therefore, "there is an 
 immortal entity in man, there is nothing in the 
 signification of soul, spirit, or the originals from 
 which they come, forbidding their application to 
 this conscious entity. 
 
 Your new-moons and your appointed feasts my soul 
 hateth; they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear 
 them. Is a. 1:14. 
 
 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, it* 
 whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him; 
 he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. Isa. 42:1. 
 
 Be thou instructed, O Jerusalem, lest my soul depart 
 from thee; lest I make thee desolate, a land not inhabited. 
 Jer. 6:8. 
 
 Nephesh is the original for the word soul as 
 found in the above passages ; so we may fairly 
 say that, if the use and application of a word have 
 anything to do with its meaning, nephesh, or soul, 
 denotes immortality as well as mortality, for it is 
 applied to God, who is wholly immortal. If this 
 position is not correct, then we are forced to the 
 conclusion that neither the mortal nor immortal- 
 soulist gains anything by an appeal to the literal 
 or primary signification of the words. 
 
 Spirit, with two exceptions, as found in the 
 Old Testament, comes from the Hebrew ruach. 
 
52 BIBLE USE OF SPIRIT. 
 
 In the New Testament, with two exceptions, from 
 the Greek pneuma; and spirit, like soul, is applied 
 to God. 
 
 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him, must wo*~ 
 ship him in spirit and in truth. Jno. 4:24. 
 
 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of 
 the Lord is, there is liberty. 2 Cor. 3:17. 
 
 On p. 26 of the "GRANT AND LONG DEBATE,'' 
 the former gives himself away by making an im- 
 portant admission. The statement is carefully 
 and guardedly made, it is true, but it is, neverthe- 
 less, an eye opener. After citing a number of 
 authorities on nephesh and ^suche, he says : 
 
 Yet all these lexicographers give the theological defini- 
 tion. They must give that, but it never comes first, but 
 amongst the last. 
 
 From this we infer that Mr. Grant has been 
 furnishing us with partial definitions from the 
 authorities quoted all the way through just 
 that part which seemed to suit his side of the 
 question. 
 
 But why does he ignore the theological defini- 
 tion? Hear him. "It never comes first, but 
 amongst the last." Some years ago a letter was 
 addressed to a lexicographer of acknowledged abil- 
 ity, asking if any preference should be given to 
 the primary definition of a word. The reply was 
 simply this : "One definition had to be given 
 first." When a word is first used its meaning and 
 application are, as a rule, very limited ; but time 
 enlarges the domain for its use, and hence we 
 have secondary definitions. 
 
 But does not Mr. Grant's position prove too 
 much? To illustrate, let us look at the word 
 elder as we find it in the New Testament. Doubt- 
 less we shall agree that he is a minister of Jesus 
 Christ and should be possessed of godly wisdom 
 and spirituality. That he is properly authorized 
 to minister in spiritual things. The Greek foi 
 
MISLEADING DEFINITIONS. 63 
 
 Elder is presbuteros, and the literal or primary 
 definition given by Dr. Young, whom Mr. Grant 
 also quotes, is an "aged person." So we must now 
 believe, in harmony with Mr. Grant's reasoning 
 concerning the soul, that there is no more knowl- 
 edge of God ; no more of the spirit of God ; no 
 more authority to minister in divine things, with 
 the Elders of Christ's church, and that there nev- 
 er has been, than there is with any other class of 
 "aged persons!" The Greek term denotes "an 
 aged person," hence it applies to all aged persons 
 alike, just as the word soul applies to man and 
 beast alike, you know. "Man hath no preemi- 
 nence above the beast," and the minister of the 
 church, called an Elder, hath no preeminence 
 over any other ''aged person 1" 
 
 We might call attention to the literal and 
 primary definitions of the Greek for church, bi a h* 
 op, and a host of other words with similar results. 
 The argument is a worthless one, which will not 
 bear the light of investigation, although made the 
 leading means of support for the dogma of mortal- 
 soulism. -Mr. Grant says : "There are nine words 
 of special importance, involved in these subjects, 
 to be examined carefully." Nephesh, psuche, ruach, 
 pneuma, sheol and h&des, are the leading ones of the 
 nine. By treating these important words in the 
 manner referred to above, Mr. Grant seems to 
 think that he is proving that "man is wholly mor- 
 tal and unconscious between death and the resur- 
 rection." 
 
 Throw away the theological definitions of all 
 gospel terms found in the New Testament, and we 
 at once deprive the gospel of all, or nearly all, its 
 spirituality ; and with one blow reduce God's rev- 
 elation of the gospel (which is wholly spiritual) to 
 a kind of u bald literalism" which renders it both 
 useless and undesirable. 
 
54 DEFINITIONS OF tfSUCHE AND NEPHESH. 
 
 Liddell and Scott define psuche, the Greek for 
 soul, as follows : 
 
 1. Breath, life, spirit. 2. The soul or immortal part of 
 man as opposed to the body or perishable part. 
 
 The second part of the definition, Mr. Grant 
 leaves out. 
 
 Nephesh, according to Fuerst, "means t^e 
 soul or spirit ; in other cases, an individual, a per- 
 son, man." 
 
 Gesenius defines it to mean, "spirit, soul, 
 mind ; also a man, person." 
 
 The last two definitions are taken from Hal- 
 ey's "DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE," p. 187. 
 
 Mr. Grant also furnishes a definition otnephesh 
 from Gesenius, but it is entirely different from 
 the one furnished by Mr. Haley. The cause of 
 this discrepancy we do not know. 
 
 Dr. Buck: That vital, immaterial, active substance or 
 principle in man, whereby he perceives, remembers, rea- 
 sons and wills. 
 
 "JOHN BROWN'S DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE:" Soul 
 signifies: (1) That spiritual, reasonable, and immortal sub- 
 stance in men, which distinguishes them from the beasts, 
 and is the source of our thoughts and reasonings. (2) A 
 whole human person, of which the soul is the principal 
 part. (3) Human life, which is begun by the infusion of the 
 soul, and ceases with the departure of it. (4) Affection, de- 
 sire. (5) Appetite, stomach. (6) The Jews called dead bod- 
 ies souls, because they were once their residence. The 
 officers, especially the General, are the soul of an army, 
 and the common soldiers are the body of it. 
 
 Liddell and Scott, in their "GREEK LEXICON," 
 define pneumn, the Greek for spirit, as follows : 
 
 Wind, air, the air we breathe, "breath of life," spirit, 
 that is feeling. The spirit, a living being, a spirit, spirit- 
 ual being. . 
 
 Mr. Grant, in "THE SPIRIT IN MAN," p. 
 21, gives the first part of this definition, 
 to the end of the word feeling, but leaves 
 out all the remainder, thus making Liddell 
 and Scott's definition harmonize with his own. 
 
 Having shown, now, that according to the Bi- 
 ble, and in harmony with the definition given bj 
 
THE "BREATH OF LIFE." 55 
 
 competent authors, we may properly apply the 
 words soul and spirit to that which is immortal, 
 we are prepared for a more close investigation of 
 the spirit which God placed within man. This 
 spirit is sometimes called soul. 
 
 Mortal-soulists claim that "the spirit in man" 
 is the "breath of life" which God breathed into 
 the nostrils of Adam ; that this, and this only, is 
 what returns to God at death ; that this "breath 
 of life" is common to man and all other animals ; 
 and as there is no immortal spirit or soul in the 
 beast, therefore there is none in man. This 
 "breath of life" they undertake to define, but do 
 not agree as to what it is. They should be the 
 last, though they are among the first, to charge 
 conflicting views against us as an evidence of the 
 weakness of our position. (When we say us and 
 owr, in this connection, reference is had, of course, 
 to all who believe in the immortality of the soul.) 
 Mr. Grant, in "THE SPIRIT IN MAN," pp. 2, 5, 6, 
 13, 27, claims that it is simply the air we breathe 
 common atmosphere. But perhaps we had bet- 
 ter give his own words : 
 
 The same word is used to denote the atmosphere we 
 breathe, and is then properly denominated the "breath of 
 life," without which all living beings upon this planet 
 would die. 
 
 We all breathe from the same airy ocean, and all die 
 when there is not sufficient physical strength to breathe 
 any longer. 
 
 It is perfectly evident that "ruach," In these last ex- 
 amples, does not refer to "a state of feeling;" the Holy 
 Spirit, or an organized conscious being; but the. atmos- 
 phere surrounding the earth, which is denominated the 
 "breath of life." 
 
 The "ruach," spirit or breath in man, Is not a part of 
 God, as many claim, but a substance formed by our Crea- 
 tor, to be received within ourselves, through the nostrils, 
 for the purpose of purifying the blood while passing 
 through the lungs and then returning through our nostrils^ 
 laden with impurities, to be exchanged for another portion 
 of "ruach," or air. The Lord formed this before he made 
 
56 W ATKINS AND GRANT. 
 
 man, but man lives no longer than this "breath of life" is 
 "within him." 
 
 The whole Bible seems to harmonize with this position 
 that "ruach" and "pneuma" are used to denote not only 
 beings, state of feeling, and an influence, but the atmos- 
 phere surrounding this earth, which is called the "breath 
 of life," without which all living creatures would die at 
 once and return to dust; and that nothing else leaves us 
 at death. 
 
 We have been particular to give Mr. Grant in 
 full, on this point, because in a late discussion 
 with the writer, Elder F. C. Watkins of the C. A. 
 Church, and editor of the Christian Armory, pub- 
 licly denied his stated position. This was done 
 for Mr. Grant, but it is not probable that Mr. 
 Grant would do as much for himself. 
 
 From the above we can clearly understand Mr. 
 Grant's views of the spirit in man ; and let it be 
 understood, that he speaks as a leading represent- 
 ative of the C. A. Church. The spirit in man is 
 only common atmosphere ! It was ''formed" be- 
 fore God made man ; but Zechariah said the Lord 
 "formeth the spirit of man within him." (Zech. 
 12 : 1.) This common air, and nothing else, accord- 
 ing to Mr. Grant, is what returns to "God who 
 gave it," at death. In what particular sense it 
 returns to God any more than the elements of 
 which the body is composed, Mr. Grant does not 
 say. He has said, however, that the body is com- 
 posed of certain elements, some of which are "car- 
 bon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen." 
 
 In the light of the above position, will Mr. 
 Grant be so kind as to tell us why this atmosphere 
 which God placed in man is called "a spirit," in the 
 singular, and "spirit*" in the plural. Suppose we 
 try Job 32 : 8, and insert atmosphere instead of 
 spirit. "But there is a atmosphere in man," or "a 
 air in man." What grammar ! If air and spirit 
 are identical, then the use of the indefinite article 
 "a" is altogether out of place when applied to 
 
GRANT'S POSITION INDEFENSIBLE. 67 
 
 spirit. When the spirit of one person is referred 
 to it is frequently called "a spirit ;" When refer- 
 ence is had to more than one, "spirits." Will Mr. 
 Grant tell us how to pluralize atmosphere, "the 
 atmosphere which surrounds our globe ?" Let us 
 try it by inserting atmospheres or airs where we 
 find spirits. Numbers 16:22. "And they fell 
 upon their faces and said, O God, the God of the 
 atmospheres of all flesh," etc. Or "the God of the 
 airs of all flesh." 
 
 The plain truth is that Mr. Grant's posi- 
 tion is not defensible. If spirits here mean 
 atmospheres (and Mr. Grant has taken 
 this position on both of the passages re- 
 ferred to) then the plural form of spirit is wrong. 
 It should read "the God of the spirit," not "spir- 
 its, of all flesh." And the other passage, "There 
 is spirit," not "a spirit, in man." 
 
 We would like to know, too. if it was a portion 
 of this atmosphere "laden with impurities," as 
 Mr. Grant puts it, that Jesus and Stephen spec- 
 ially committed into the hands of God when they 
 died? (Luke 23:46; Acts 7:59) The forms of 
 these two prayers are, "Father, into thy hands I 
 commend my spirit." Jesus. "Lord Jesus, 
 receive my spirit." Stephen. 
 
 Aaron Ellis, in "Burr/re vs. TRADITION,* 
 gives us the benefit of his wisdom An defining "the 
 breath of life," or spirit. 
 
 This principle of life, or spirit, is not the air, nor the 
 breath, but is contained in the air, and breath. 
 
 We say, therefore, strictly speaking, that this Is not the 
 air, but is contained in the air. p. 86. 
 
 On page 87, after speaking of the destruction 
 which occurred at the flood, Mr. Ellis says: 
 
 Every living thing died, and the spirit was expired, 
 breathed out into the universal pabulum of all lives, which 
 is in the hands of God. 
 
<58 GRANT AND ELLIS. 
 
 Th spirit of man, then, is not a living entity; and al- 
 though no creature can live without it, it is not alive itself. 
 It is not organized for the development of life, and there- 
 fore is not mortal nor immortal, and the expression, 
 "deatHless spirit," as applied to man, is a compound of 
 Paganism, tradition and nonsense. 
 
 Mr. Ellis plainly tells us what this spirit is not, 
 but gives a very faint or vague idea of what it is. 
 He says it is contained "in the air," but "strictly 
 speaking," "is not the air." What is this which 
 is "in the air," but "is not the air ?" Is it a compo- 
 nent part of the air ? Or is it something else 
 which, in some unexplainable way, has gotten into 
 the air ? 
 
 We are told on p. 86, that "this breath con- 
 tains the spirit, the sustaining principle of all 
 lives ;" and at the bottom of same page, and on 
 p. 87. that this spirit, "though the cause of life, is 
 not a living thing." Is it dead ? We suppose not. 
 As it is neither "mortal nor immortal," it is prob- 
 ably neither dead nor alive! And yet, this is 
 what causes life, and without which, "no creature 
 can live !" 
 
 As this spirit is "breathed out into the uni- 
 versal pabulum of all lives," at death, we are able 
 now to understand how it is that the "spirit re- 
 turns to God who gave it," at that time; though 
 we are still sorely puzzled to know why Jesus and 
 Stephen exercised so much faith and solicitude 
 concerning their spirits. Why should they do so ; 
 inasmuch as the spirits of all, wicked as well as 
 righteous, with the spirits of all beasts, go to the 
 same place, the "universal pabulum of all lives !" 
 
 But we will leave Messrs. Grant and Ellis, for 
 the present, at least, and inquire of William Shel- 
 don, another leading minister of the C. A. Church, 
 for light on this subject. 
 
 On pp. 58, 59 of "ADVENTISM," Revised Edi- 
 tion of 1869. 
 
WM. SHELDON'S VIEWS. 59 
 
 Man possesses the "spirit of life." or "breath of life,'* 
 not the breath of air, but the "breath of LIFE;" an element 
 that produces life alike in man and beast, and is mani- 
 fested long prior to birth or before inhaling the breath of 
 air not an entity, but an element. This spirit will return 
 to God who gave it; and "the body without [this] spirit is 
 dead:" with it we live, without it we die. The spirit that 
 returns to God, is simply the one that he "gave:" and the 
 record says that was "the breath of life." Gen. 2:7. 
 We inhale and exhale the breath of air several hundred 
 times each hour; but never does the "breath of life," or 
 spirit of life, leave us till death; and after death a large 
 amount of air still remains in the lungs; but life is extinct 
 when the "spirit of life" leaves an element of life, perhaps 
 akin to electricity, different from mere air, though it may 
 be one of its ingredients. 
 
 It will be seen that the positions of Ellis and 
 Sheldon are largely subject to the same criticisms 
 made on the position of Grant. The spirit is "an 
 element, not an entity," therefore it should never 
 be called "a spirit," but simply spirit; they should 
 never be called "spirits," but spirit, as one ele- 
 ment can have no plural form. It is not claimed 
 by these men that one man has one kind of a spir- 
 it and another man another kind ; but rather, 
 that all have one spirit, "an element not an ent- 
 ity," and that the same spirit is possessed by the 
 beast. Why then is it said that there is "a spirit 
 in man ?" And why do we read that the Lord 
 is "the God of the spirits of all flesh ?" If the view 
 of immortal-soulists is correct, one person has a 
 spirit, which is an entity. More than one or all 
 together, have spirits. If, on the other hand, the 
 view of mortal-soulists is correct, one person has 
 spirit, "an element ;" more than one, or all men, 
 with the beasts, have spirit, and only spirit. 
 
 It is quite evident, we think, that when these 
 men undertake to define the spirit which God 
 placed in man, in harmony with their belief, they 
 are all at sea. Surely they have furnished us no 
 prof that the spirit is "common air," something 
 
60 GRANT ON SPIRIT. 
 
 "akin to electricity," or some undeflnable thing 
 "contained in the air." And yet proof is just what 
 they all demand of us I 
 
 Mr. Grant says "the word spirit is used in four 
 senses in the Bible." 
 
 1. To represent a being. "God is a Spirit." Angels are 
 "ministering spirits;" hence one is properly called '"a 
 spirit." Demons, or fallen spirits, are called "unclean 
 spirits." 
 
 2. The word spirit is used to denote an influence pro- 
 ceeding from a being. Hence we read of the Comforter, or 
 Holy Spirit, that "it proceedeth from the Father." In 
 mesmeric operations there is a spirit proceeding from the 
 operator to his subject, by means of which he controls him. 
 All men and animals exert this influence, more or less. 
 
 3. Spirit is used to represent a state of mind: as, a 
 "haughty spirit," "proud in spirit," etc. 
 
 4. The same word is used to denote the atmosphere we 
 breathe, and is then properly denominated "the breath of 
 life," without which all living animals on this planet would 
 die. "SPIRIT IN MAN," pp. 1, 2. 
 
 We offer no objections to the above, except to 
 No. 3, which is certainly misleading. (No. 4 was 
 quoted before.) "Spirit is used to represent a 
 state of mind," etc. Under this head Mr. Grant 
 marshals all those passages which ascribe to the 
 spirit the passions and qualities of the mind. In 
 this way he seeks to take from us a large and val- 
 uable portion of our proof; but it will not work as 
 may easily be seen. 
 
 The condition of mind or feeling to which he 
 repeatedly refers in his examination of the word 
 spirit, is always described by another word, an ad- 
 jective, while fpirft is a noun. These adjectives, 
 such as "humble," "contrite," "proud," "sorrow- 
 ful," etc., denote the "state of mind ;" while the 
 word spirit, when they are used to modify it, de- 
 notes the mmd itself. Let us simplify and illus- 
 trate by using the term man instead of spirit. We 
 say he is a humble man ; a proud man ; a sorrowful 
 man, etc. Now the word man represents the 
 
BREATH OF LIFE. 61 
 
 whole person, while the adjectives simply denote 
 characteristics. So the word spirit denotes the 
 "inner man;" while the words humble, proud, sor- 
 rowful, etc., modify by denoting characteristics of 
 the spirit. 
 
 We are prepared to concede that the breath 
 of life is common to man and be^st, and might 
 even go farther than this ; but we understand the 
 Bible to teach that God gave much more than this 
 to man. 
 
 The burden of the word of the Lord for Israel, saith 
 the Lord, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and lay- 
 eth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit 
 of man within him. Zech. 12:1. 
 
 The prophet is describing the work of crea- 
 tion ; and the crowning part of it is the formation 
 of the spirit withm man just as the body was made 
 from already existing material, so, evidently, the 
 spirit, in some form or condition existed before. 
 And as the material composing the body is dead 
 "without the spirit," both before and after its 
 formation, so, we infer, the spirit was life both 
 before and after it was formed within man. The 
 passage describes a part of the progressive work of 
 the Creator ; and what is back of it, we may not 
 know but in a limited degree. The word "formed," 
 found in Genesis 2:7, and "formeth," found in the 
 text quoted above, come from the same Hebrew 
 word, yatsar, the literal meaning of which is, 
 according to Dr. Young, "To form, fashion, frame, 
 constitute." There is no proof, so far as we know, 
 that this spirit which God formed within man is 
 "the breath of life" common to man and beast. 
 That it may have been given at the same time 
 that God breathed into man "the breath of life," 
 is, pehaps, probable; but that at that time, or 
 some other time, God gave to man something more 
 than the breath which is applied to the brutes, 
 we are compelled to believe. Why is it called 
 
62 THE SRIRIT IN MAN. 
 
 "The spirit of man ? " Does not the phrase imply 
 that it belongs to man and not to the beasts ? 
 From Job 34 : 14, we learn that man has both spirit 
 and breath : 
 
 If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself 
 his spirit and his breath. 
 
 "The spirit of man" is intellectual. It knows, 
 thinks, wills and acts. 
 
 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the 
 Almighty giveth them understanding. Job 32:8. 
 
 The manner in which Mr. Grant disposes of 
 this passage, illustrates how easily some men can 
 set aside that which stands in their way. "THE 
 SPIRIT IN MAN," p. 12: 
 
 Observe, he does not say this spirit is man, but is in 
 man; and without this, we have no life, no understanding. 
 This inspiration sets the human machinery in motion, and 
 thought is evolved by the action of the brain; "till his 
 (ruach) breath goeth forth, ... In that very day his 
 thoughts perish." Ps. 146:4. 
 
 It will be seen that Mr. Grant confines him- 
 self to the most literal meaning of the word inspi- 
 ration ; but the context plainly shows that the 
 knowledge of God, which is communicated to us 
 through the agency of the Holy Spirit, is what 
 was meant by Elihu. The words of Job and his 
 three friends were not satisfactory to this young 
 man. Job was "righteous in his own eyes," and 
 his three friends were not able to answer him. 
 Elihu waited till they were through because they 
 were older than he. Now he apologizes for speak- 
 ing, and for his previous silence, in the following 
 manner : 
 
 And Klihu the son of Barachel the Buzite answered 
 and said, I am young, and ye are very old ; wherefore I was 
 afraid, and durst not show you mine opinion. I said, Days 
 should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom. 
 But there is a spirit in man; and the inspiration of the Al- 
 mighty giveth them understanding. Great men are not 
 always wise; neither do the aged understand judgment. 
 Therefore I said. Hearken to me; I will also show mine 
 opinion. Job 32:6-10. 
 
INSPIRATION OF THE ALMIGHTY. 63 
 
 The above is too plain to be misunderstood. 
 Elihu did not refer to the physical act of inhaling 
 air into the lungs by breathing, but to the impart- 
 ing of intelligence and wisdom by "the Almighty." 
 Notice, it is the "inspiration of the Almighty" and 
 not inspiration of man. 
 
 Mr. Grant's own statement condemns his posi- 
 tion. He says "this inspiration sets the human 
 machinery in motion, and thought is evolved by 
 the action of the brain." This inspiration, then, 
 is not the source or cause of man's intelligence, 
 but that source is the brain. Intelligence, they 
 tell us, is the result of organization ; and it is 
 man's superior organization that gives to him 
 more intelligence than what is possessed by the 
 brute. But the "understanding" of which Elihu 
 speaks is imparted, not from the brain, nor from 
 the air breathed into the lungs, but from the 
 "inspiration of the Almighty." It is, however, 
 manifested through the brain, the organ of the 
 mind, and is spoken by the mouth, the organ of 
 speech. 
 
 Mr. Grant's expressed views on this scripture, 
 furnish us with a striking illustration of the dan- 
 ger and tendency of extreme materialism. It is 
 no better than extreme immaterialism. For aught 
 we know, Job and his three friends could breathe 
 as well as Elihu. They may have had just as much 
 brain power ; but Elihu believed he had received 
 help directly from God, hence his anxiety to 
 speak. Afterwards, when God rebuked Job for 
 his folly, and his three friends for their folly and 
 wickedness, not one word is said against Elihu. 
 
 The leading thought of the text seems to be 
 this : "There is a spirit in man" which is able to 
 receive and appropriate the "inspiration of the 
 Almighty," as revealed by the Holy Spirit. Elihu 
 believed he had claim upon God for this inspira- 
 
64 INSPIRATION OF GOD. 
 
 tion, and had received a portion, and therefore, 
 was willing and anxious to speak, even in the pres- 
 ence of the "great" and "aged." The point to 
 which we call special attention is this : Man is 
 able to receive and appropriate the knowledge of 
 God, because of the capabilities of the spirit with- 
 in him. Who placed that spirit in man? God. 
 Who reveals this Divine knowledge to man by the 
 Spirit? God. 
 
 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the 
 spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God 
 knoweth no man, but the spirit of God. 1 Cor. 2:11. 
 
 Man cannot comprehend the things of God 
 without the help of God's Spirit ; but what Paul 
 denominates the "things of a man," are compre- 
 hended by man's spirit alone. If it be said this 
 simply refers to a state of mind, in man, we 
 answer, it refers to that which knows and under- 
 stands : hence the intellectual, conscious part of 
 man. God formed the spirit within man. It 
 is this spirit that knows "the things of a 
 man;" it is this spirit that becomes inspired by 
 the Spirit of God to know the "things of God." 
 
 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that 
 we are the children of God. Romans 8:16. 
 
 The fact that God's Spirit which comforts, 
 guides "into all truth," teaches us all things; 
 brings all things to our remembrance, shows us 
 things to come, takes of the things of the Father 
 and shows them unto us, as stated in John, four- 
 teenth fifteenth and sixteenth chapters, com- 
 municates directly with "the spirit in man," is 
 clear evidence that the spirit is an intelligent ent- 
 ity. 
 
 Volition, or the will power, is resident in the 
 spirit, as may be seen from the following pass- 
 ages : 
 
 And they came every one whose heart stirred him up, 
 and every one whom his spirit made willing, and they 
 
THE FLESH AND SPIRIT. 65 
 
 brought the Lord's offering to the work of the tabernacle 
 of the congregation, and for all his service, and for the 
 holy garments. Ex. 35:21. 
 
 Watch and pray, that ye enter not Into temptation: the 
 spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. Matt. 26:41. 
 
 What was it that made each individual who 
 "brought the Lord's offering to the work of the 
 tabernacle of the congregation," willing to do this 
 work? His heart, or spirit. "The spirit indeed is 
 willing," said Jesus to his disciples, "but the flesh 
 is weak." Thus he contrasts the flesh with the 
 spirit, showing that each is a component part of 
 man ; but the will he makes resident with the 
 spirit. 
 
 It will be conceded that we are required to 
 serve God with our whole being; and that being, 
 according to Paul, is composed of body and spirit. 
 
 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let 
 us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and 
 spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. 2 Cor. 7:1. 
 
 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. 
 The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, 
 that she may be holy, both in body and in spirit: but she 
 that is married, careth for the things of the world, how she 
 may please her husband. 1 Cor. 7:34. 
 
 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God 
 in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. 1 Cor. 
 6:20. 
 
 Paul served God with his spirit. 
 
 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit In 
 the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention 
 of you always in my prayers. Romans 1:9. 
 
 Did Paul mean that he served God with his 
 breath, or with his mind? Evidently the latter, 
 which shows that spirit and mind are sometimes 
 used interchangeably; and that they are some- 
 times so used is virtually conceded by Adventist 
 authors. 
 
 From a host of passages contained in the Old 
 and New Testament Scriptures, we learn that the 
 passions and qualities of the human mind are 
 ascribed to the "spirit in man." 
 
66 SOUL AND SPIRIT COMPARED. 
 
 His spirit was troubled. Gen. 41:8. 
 Anguish of spirit, Ex. 6:9. 
 Hardened his spirit. Deu. 2:30. 
 A woman of a sorrowful spirit. 1 Samuel 1 :15. 
 Why is thy spirit so sad ? 1 Kings 21:5. 
 The Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus. Ezra t :1. 
 Will speak in the anguish of my spirit. Job 7:11. 
 Blessed is the man in whose spirit there is no guile. 
 Psalms 32: 2. 
 
 Saveth such as be of a contrite spirit. Psalms 34:18. 
 My spirit made diligent search. Psalms 77:6. 
 Have provoked his spirit. Psalms 106:33. 
 When my spirit was overwhelmed within me. Psalm? 
 142:3. 
 
 He that is of a faithful spirit. Prov. 11:13. 
 Hasty of spirit. Prov. 14:29. 
 
 Haughty spirit. Prov. 16:18. 
 
 Humble spirit. Prov. 16:19. 
 
 Broken spirit. Prov. 17:22. 
 
 Excellent spirit. Prov. 17:27. 
 
 The spirit of a man will sustain his Infirmities; but a 
 wounded spirit who can bear. Prov. 18:14. 
 
 Rule over his own spirit. Prov. 25:28. 
 
 Vexation of spirit. Eccles. 4:6. 
 
 Patient in spirit; proud in spirit. Eccles. 7:8. 
 
 They that erred in spirit. Isa. 29:24. 
 
 Grieved in spirit. Tsa. 54:6. 
 
 Contrite and humble spirit. Isa. 57:15. 
 
 His spirit was troubled. Dan. 2:1. 
 
 My spirit was troubled. Dan. 2:3. 
 
 Excellent spirit. Dan. 5:12. 
 
 I was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body. 
 l>an. 7:15. 
 
 Jesus perceived in his spirit. Mark 2:8. 
 
 The child grew and waxed strong in spirit. Luke 1:80. 
 
 My spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior. Luke 1:47. 
 
 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit. Luke 10:21. 
 
 He groaned in spirit and was troubled. Jne. 11:33. 
 
 Spirit was stirred in him. Acts 17:16. 
 
 Paul was pressed in spirit. Acts 18:5. 
 
 Paul purposed in the spirit. Acts 19:21. 
 
 My spirit prayeth. I will pray with the spirit. I win 
 sing with the spirit. 1 Cor. 14:14, 15. 
 
 I had no rest in my spirit. 2 Cor. 2:13. 
 The foregoing passages, containing the word 
 spirit, clearly show that the spirit is a component 
 part of man, Adventist authors to the contrary 
 
SOMETIMES SYNONYMOUS. 67 
 
 notwithstanding. The adjectives and verbs used 
 in connection with it indicate, in a degree, the 
 characteristics and capabilities of the "spirit of 
 man." The verbs show what the spirit can do, 
 while in the body; the adjectives denote a "state 
 of mind," or "state of feeling." while the spirit 
 denotes the feelings, mind, or conscious part of 
 man. 
 
 The attributes ascribed to the spirit abund- 
 antly prove that it is a conscious intelligence ; and 
 the connections (which the reader would do well 
 to examine) show, in some passages at least, that 
 it is possessed of agency, and is accountable to 
 G-od. Some of these attributes are, willingness, 
 sorrow, guile, anguish, contrition, diligence, faith- 
 fulness, hastiness, haughtiness, humility, excel- 
 lence, patience, perception, joy, purpose or design, 
 fervency, etc. But, we are told, these things sim- 
 ply belong to man as an organized being. Yes, 
 certainly. But to what part of man do they 
 belong ? To that part which the Bible calls the 
 "spirit of man," "a spirit in man," etc. 
 
 We now proceed to show that spirit and soul 
 are sometimes used synonymously. We are not 
 concerned about how many meanings or applica- 
 tions these words may have when no reference is 
 had to the conscious, "inner man." Their appli- 
 cation to some particular part of man which 
 either belongs to the body or spirit ; to beasts, 
 birds, or the creatures "in the sea," does not harm 
 us in the least. Time spent in pointing out the 
 passages which show that the words soul and 
 spirit have these applications, as a supposed argu- 
 ment against our position, is time wasted. Ad- 
 ventist authors claim that soul and spirit are not 
 synonymous, and give as a reason that nephesh and 
 psuvhe are never translated spirit, and ruach and 
 pn<<uma are never translated soul. Speaking of the 
 
HEBREW AND GREEK. 
 
 Hebrew and Greek for spirit, (r^ch and pnei.ma) 
 Mr. Grant says: "If soul and spirit are synony- 
 mous, why are not these words sometimes ren- 
 dered soul?" "WHAT is MAN," p. 29. 
 
 But upon examination we find that these terms (sou] 
 and spirit. Author.) are never from the same original 
 word, though used hundreds of times; hence soul and 
 spirit are not the same, etc. ADVENTISM, p. 56. 
 
 These terms are not interchangeable. That is, the 
 words translated soul are never translated spirit; neither 
 are the words which are translated spirit ever translated 
 soul; and when a minister uses them interchangeably he 
 only shows that he is either ignorant, or a knave, or both- 
 "LIFE VERSUS DEATH." by F. O. Watkins, p. 5. 
 
 Soma is the Greek for body ; sarx, for flesh. 
 Som i is never translated flesh ; sarx is never trans- 
 lated body : and yet these two terms, body and 
 flesh, are used interchangeably. 
 
 Nevertheless, to abide in the flesh Is more needful for 
 you. Phil. 1:24. 
 
 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that t 
 whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the 
 Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight,) We are confi- 
 dent, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body 
 and to be present with the Lord. 2 Cor. 5:6, 7, 8. 
 
 By comparing a few passages in which the 
 words spirit and soul are found, we may easily see 
 that they are sometimes used interchangeably. 
 
 SPIRIT. 
 
 God is a Spirit: and they 
 that worship him must wor- 
 ship him in spirit and in 
 truth. Jno. 4:24. 
 
 Now the Lord is that Spir- 
 it: and where the Spirit of 
 the Lord is, there is liberty. 
 -2 Cor. 3:17. 
 
 SOUL. 
 
 Your new-moons and your 
 appointed feasts my soul 
 hateth: they are a trouble 
 unto me; 1 am weary to 
 bear them. Isa. 1:14. 
 
 Be thou instructed. O Jer- 
 usalem, lest my soul depart 
 from thee; lest T make thee 
 desolate, a land not inhab- 
 ited. Jer. 6:8. 
 
 The above passages show that both soul and 
 spirit are applied to God, therefore they are syn- 
 onymous. 
 
PASSAGES COMPARED. 
 
 69 
 
 SPIRIT. 
 
 Now, while Paul waited 
 for them at Athens, his 
 spirit was stirred in him, 
 when he saw the city whol- 
 ly given to idolatry. Acts 
 
 And when Jesus had cried 
 with a loud voice, he said. 
 Father, into thy hands I 
 commend my spirit: and 
 having said thus he gave 
 up the ghost. Luke 23:46. 
 
 SOUL. 
 
 But his flesh upon him 
 shall have pain, and his 
 soul within him shall 
 mourn. Job 14:22. 
 
 And fear not them which 
 kill the body, but are not 
 able to kill the soul: but 
 rather fear him which is 
 able to destroy both soul 
 and body in hell. Matt. 
 10:28. 
 
 The soul, as a component part of man, is that 
 which man can not kill. At death, Jesus com- 
 mends his spirit into the hands of God. 
 
 SPIRIT. 
 
 Watch and pray, that ye 
 enter not into temptation: 
 the spirit indeed is willing 
 but the flesh is weak. Matt. 
 26:41. 
 
 And he put them all out, 
 and took her by the hand, 
 and called, saying, Maid, 
 arise. And her spirit came 
 again, and she arose 
 straightway; and he com- 
 manded to give her meat. 
 Luke 8:54, 55. 
 
 I Daniel was grieved In 
 my spirit in the midst of my 
 body, and the visions of my 
 head troubled me. Daniel 
 7:15. 
 
 SOUL. 
 
 Beloved, I wish above all 
 things that thou mayest 
 prosper and be in health. 
 even as thy soul prospereth. 
 3 Jno. 2. 
 
 And he stretched himself 
 upon the child three times 
 and cried unto the Lord, 
 and said, O Lord my God, I 
 pray thee, let this child's 
 soul come into him again. 
 , And the Lord heard the 
 I voice of Elijah; and the 
 soul of the child came into 
 him again, and he revived. 
 1 Kings 17:21, 22. 
 
 With my soul have I de- 
 sired thee in the night; yea, 
 with my spirit within me 
 will I seek thee early. Isa. 
 26:9. 
 
 In 1 Peter 3 : 19, we read that Christ "preached 
 unto the spirits in prison." In Murdock's Syriac, 
 which is a translation of the "Peshito Syriac New 
 Testament," we have the following rendering of 
 the same passage: "And he preached to those 
 souls which were detained in hades." Thus we 
 have not only a synonymous use of spirit and soul, 
 but of spirits and souls. 
 
 Dr. Roberts, in "COMPENDIUM TO THE RE- 
 VISED VERSION" of the English New Testament. 
 
70 USED INTERCHANGEABLY. 
 
 p. 26, under the head of Syriac Versions, ranks this 
 one among the best. He says. "By far the best of 
 these is thePeshito, (i. e., simple,) which is truly an 
 admirable translation. There is no doubt that it 
 was made in the second century, and were we sure 
 that we possessed it in its original form it would 
 thus be of the very highest authority." 
 
 Murdock claims to give a literal translation of 
 this version, referred to by Dr. Roberts as the best 
 among the Syriac, and an "admirable translation." 
 
 The strength of the claim made by Grant, 
 Sheldon and Watkins is, virtually, upon the 
 hypothesis that two different words in the Hebrew 
 and Greek can not properly represent the same 
 thing, which is not true. And if two different 
 words in the original are sometimes used to repre- 
 sent the same thing, then their correct equivalents 
 in English may be properly used to represent the 
 same thing. It is not difficult to see why mortal- 
 soulists oppose the idea of spirit and soul being 
 used interchangeably ; but upon their own grounds 
 of objection their only evidence is destroyed and 
 the weakness of their position exposed. 
 
 Isaiah and Job were evidently right when 
 they used these words interchangeably: 
 
 With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea 
 with my spirit within me will I seek thee early. --isa. 26:9. * 
 
 Therefore I will not refrain my mouth ; I will speak in 
 the anguish of my spirit; I will complain in the bitterness 
 of my soul. Job 7:11. 
 
 Let us give a little more attention to the word 
 soul. The personal mission of Jesus was to the 
 Jews. (Matt. 15 : 24 ; Jno. 4 : 22.) When he spoke 
 the language which was current in his time, with- 
 out any protest against it, we are at liberty to 
 interpret it in the light of its popular meaning. 
 If this is not true, how can we accept him as the 
 best and greatest (hence the most correct) teacher 
 that was ever sent to man by the divine Being ? 
 
SOUL AND BODY. 7 1 
 
 It would destroy the truth of our Lord's sayings, if we 
 could conceive him to have used popular language which 
 did not point at truth. And, accordingly, where such 
 language was current, we find him, not adopting, but pro- 
 testing against it. (See Matt. 15:5, 6.) Alford, as quoted by 
 
 Haley. "DISCREPANCIES OF THE BlBLE,"p. 191. 
 
 The Jews believed the soul to be a conscious 
 entity. They believed in its immortality, (with 
 the exception of the Sadducees,) and so did the 
 Greeks. That they used the term soul in other 
 senses, we do not deny; immortal-soulists so use 
 it to-day. But that this was its leading signifi- 
 cance is evident. 
 
 We have referred to and quoted Matt. 10 : 28. 
 We now examine it, with Luke 12 : 4, 5. 
 
 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able 
 to kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy 
 both soul and body in hell. Matt. 10:28. 
 
 And I say unto you, my friends, Be not afraid of them 
 that kill the body, and after that, have no more that they 
 can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear 
 him, which after he hath killed, hath power to cast into 
 hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him. Luke 12:4, 5. 
 
 As some one has truly said, "Here is a pyramid 
 of truth" in small compass. By reading all of 
 Matthew tenth chapter, and a portion of Luke 
 twelfth, we learn that Jesus was sending out his 
 apostles to preach. He plainly tells them how bit- 
 terly they will be persecuted. 
 
 Behold I send you forth as sheep in the midst of 
 wolves. . . . But beware of men: for they will deliver 
 you up to the councils and they will scourge you in their 
 synagogues; and ye shall be brought before governors and 
 kings for my sake, for a testimony against them. Matt. 
 10:16. 17. 
 
 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, 
 and the father the child: and the children shall rise up 
 against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. 
 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake- 
 (Verses 21, 22.) 
 
 The above will help us to understand what is 
 meant by verse 28. The apostles were to be vio- 
 lently persecuted, and so were their converts. 
 
,2 THE SOUL CAN NOT BE KILLED. 
 
 But they are told by the great Master to be of 
 good cheer and not fear their enemies, for though 
 they could "kill the bdy m they could not "kill 
 the soul" What body? The body of the dis- 
 ciple. What soul? The soul of the dis- 
 ciple, of course. If the soul in man only 
 means "animal life," (the life of the body) why 
 could not their enemies destroy it ? If after they 
 had killed the body, they could do no more, why 
 do mortal-soulists tell us (with the Sadducees) 
 that the soul "always dies with the body ?" Why 
 too, did Jesus tell the disciples to fear Him who 
 a f ter he had killed had power to cast into hell ? If 
 conscious existence ceases at death, why fear any- 
 thing which may be done to the body "after" that 
 by God, men or devils ? 
 
 Mortal-soulists treat this scripture in two dif- 
 ferent ways. Some make a labored effort to explain 
 it away, and thus reveal the weakness of their 
 position. Others pass over it very lightly and 
 hurry on to more desirable ground. 
 
 "THANATOPSIS," by Wiley Jones, p. 18. 
 
 This was said not to the wicked but to the disciples, 
 called "my friends" in the parallel place, Luke 12:4. The 
 word "psuche" here rendered soul, occurs about 103 times 
 in the New Testament, being about 40 times rendered life, 
 and this, I think, is its true meaning here. But why are 
 persecutors who burn the Christian's body unable to kill 
 the life ? Because the "life is hid with Christ in God." 
 
 Col. 3:3. Persecutors by killing the body can only inflict 
 on the Christian a temporary "sleep" from which he will 
 be sure to awake. But when the sinner is destroyed at the 
 judgment his life will be finally extinguished and his body 
 consumed to ashes. Therefore fear God who alone can 
 thus "destroy life and body in hell." 
 
 This seems to be a frank effort to interpret 
 this scripture in harmony with the views of mor- 
 tal-soulists ; but, as will be seen, it is a failure. 
 
 Wm. Sheldon, in "ADVENTISM," p. 63, after 
 quoting part of Matt. 10 : 28, adds this explanation 
 
MOBTAL-SOULISTS' POSITION. 73 
 
 This future life of the saint is out of the reach of the 
 assassin; but the sinner's future life [soul or "psuche"] will 
 be destroyed with the body in hell, at the judgment day. 
 
 Now we have the position fairly before us, and 
 what shall we do ? Answer. Simply compare it with 
 the scriptures cited and decide for ourselves. A 
 fair comparison is sufficient to expose the weak- 
 n f ess and inconsistency of the position assumed by 
 Jones and Sheldon. 
 
 It will be observed that in order to place their 
 peculiar construction upon Matt. 10 : 28, these men 
 ignore the rendering of King James' version by 
 introducing the word "life" instead of "soul;" but 
 the Revised Version, Geneva, Douay and Syriac, 
 all render it "soul" in harmony with King James. 
 Again : We are told that nephesh and psuche when 
 referring to the soul in man denote "animal life" or 
 "desire," and the words never denote immortal- 
 ity ; but now they are suddenly transferred and 
 made to apply to the "life" that is hid with Christ 
 in God ! Is this life immortal ? 
 
 This life that is hid with Christ in God, Mr. 
 Sheldon denominates "the future life of the 
 saint ;" and their stated position is that the right- 
 eous will not receive it before the day of judgment. 
 How kind and thoughtful it was in the Savior, the 
 great "Teacher sent from God," to inform the dis- 
 ciples that the life which they did not possess, nor 
 could not till the day of judgment, their enemies 
 were not able to kill ! 
 
 Further : Does the word soul as found in this 
 verse apply, first, to "eternal life," which they did 
 not have, only in prospect, which was hid away 
 "with Christ in God," and second, to the life of the 
 wicked? What doctrine could not be sustained 
 by such a mode of interpretation as this ? 
 
 The truth is that the same soul which man 
 could not kill, God had power to "destroy," or 
 "cast into hell." If that was the soul in the dis- 
 
74 UNSCRIPTURAL AND ILLOGICAL. 
 
 ciple, then, clearly, it does not die with the body ; 
 but if it were ' 'eternal life," which the disciples 
 "had by promise," then we are to suppose (1) that 
 the disciples needed to be told that after the res- 
 urrection and the judgment, their persecutors 
 could not kill them ! and (2) that the "life" which 
 "is hid with Christ in God," that is, "eternal life," 
 God may commit to eternal oblivion in the fires of 
 gehennall That which God can do, he way do. If 
 it is possible for him to lie, then it is possible for him 
 to have the disposition to lie ; and if possible for him 
 to have the disposition to lie, then it is possible for 
 him to lie. If, therefore, it is possible for God to 
 destroy the "future life of the saint, "(that is, accord- 
 ing to Adventism, put an end to his conscious exist- 
 ence) then it is possible for him to have the dispo- 
 sition to do so ; and if it is possible for the Infinite 
 and Omnipotent One to have the disposition to kill 
 those who have "eternal life," in the resurrection, 
 then it is possible, if not prohbi<>, that they will 
 all be killed, and become "as though they had not 
 been ! 1 1 
 
 Let us leave that which is so manifestly illog- 
 ical aad unscriptural, and come back to the simple 
 and cheering truth as presented by the great 
 Teacher. Body and soul are represented as com- 
 ponent parts of man. The body, man can kill ; the 
 soul, he can not. God can "destroy" both, that is, 
 "cast into hell," which does not denote an end to 
 conscious being, but rather a condition, directly op- 
 posite to eternal life. (This will be made plain in 
 another part of our work.) There is not even an 
 intimation of the sleep of unconsciousness, but 
 the survival of the soul after the death of the body is 
 plainly taught, thus rendering an intelligent be 
 lief in the resurrection, as taught in the gospel, 
 possible. If we love God and keep his command- 
 
SOULS DEPART AND RETURN. 75 
 
 ments, we shall be rewarded according to the 
 precious promises of the gospel ; while the most 
 unrelenting cruelty of our persecutors ends with 
 the destruction of the body. They "can not kill the 
 soul." It is better, far better, to be loyal to God 
 and true to the demands of his word. He has 
 power "to destroy both soul and body in hell." 
 
 In Genesis 35:18, the death of Eachel is thus 
 recorded : 
 
 And it came to pass, as her soul was In departing (for 
 she died) that she called his name Ben-oni: but his father 
 called him Benjamin, 
 
 In 1 Kings 17 :21, 22, we learn that in answer 
 to Elijah's prayer the widow's son was raised to 
 life. The prophet prayed, 
 
 Let this child's soul come into him again. And the 
 Lord heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child 
 came into him again, and he revived. 
 
 If when "the soul of the child came into him, J 
 "he revived," then when the soul departed, or 
 went out of him, he died. So death is the depart- 
 ure of the soul. But we are told that soul, here, 
 only means "animal life," and death is the extinc- 
 tion of life. But this is simply the expression of an 
 unproved opinion. Evidently soul means in these 
 passages just what it does in Matthew 10 : 28, al- 
 ready examined. Paul represents his death as a 
 departure "to be with Christ;" and his life as 
 abiding "in the flesh." (Phil. 1 : 21, 22 ; 2 Tim. 4 : 6.) 
 
 In 3 Jno. 1, 2, is found a plain distinction be- 
 tween body and soul. 
 
 The Elder unto the well-beloved Gaius, whom I love In 
 the truth. Beloved, I wish above all things that thou may- 
 est prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth. 
 
 John virtually admits that the soul of Gaius 
 might be in a prosperous condition while he was 
 in poor health. How could this be if soul here 
 means "animal life" the life of the body? Or 
 does it denote that which Gaius did not have, that 
 which was no part of him, that is, "the future life 
 
76 THE SOUL CAN SIN. 
 
 of the saint," the life which "is hid with Christ 
 in God ? " If this is what it means, then we have 
 the apostle informing Gains that his particular 
 portion of "eternal life," which was "with God," 
 was in a prosperous condition ! How thoughtful 
 and kind in John to inform Gaius that God was 
 taking good care of his soul in Heaven ! 
 
 In Micah 6:7, the same plain distinction is 
 made, and it is also shown that the soul can sin, 
 hence it is accountable to God. 
 
 Shall I give my first born for my transgression, the fruit 
 of my body for the sin of my soul ? 
 
 What the prophet here calls soul is evidently 
 what James calls spirit. James 4 : 5. 
 
 Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit 
 that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy ? 
 Eevised Version : 
 
 Doth the spirit which he made to dwell In us long unto 
 envying ? 
 
 In harmony with our position on the "spirit 
 in man," sometimes called soul, are the teachings 
 of the New Testament Scriptures concerning the 
 " 'inward man." 
 
 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward 
 man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. 
 2 Cor. 4 : 16. 
 
 For I delight in the law of God, after the inward man. 
 Romans? : 22, 
 
 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which 
 is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet 
 spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. 1 Peter 
 3:4. 
 
 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his 
 glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the 
 inner man : Eph. 3 : 16. 
 
 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago t 
 (whether in the body, I can not tell : or whether out of the 
 body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such a one caught up 
 to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether 
 in the body, or out of the body, I can not tell: God know- 
 eth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard 
 unspeakable words, which it is not lawfui for man to utter. 
 2 Cor. 12:2^4. 
 
OUR HOUSE FROM HEAVEN. 77 
 
 The first passage quoted is closely connected 
 with the first part of the next chapter wherein the 
 body is represented as a "house" or ' 'tabernacle," 
 in which "we groan, desiring to be clothed upon 
 with our house which is from heaven." "For we 
 that are in this tabernacle do groan being bur- 
 dened;" and "yet," thank God, "the inward man 
 is renewed day by day." 
 
 The word * 'after" in the second quotation, 
 comes from the Greek kata which literally means 
 "drawn towards, according to." That is, the law of 
 God is peculiarly adapted to the needs of the 
 "inward maw," just as "the bread that perisheth" 
 is peculiarly adapted to the needs of the "out- 
 ward man." 
 
 In connection with Paul's statement in Rom- 
 ans read Psalms 1 : 2. 
 
 But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law 
 doth he meditate day and night. 
 
 Also Psalms 19 : 7. 
 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. 
 
 In what manner Paul was able to appropriate 
 "the law of God" to his needs, is made plain in 
 Romans 1:9. 
 
 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in 
 the gospel of his Son, etc. 
 
 Thus it is the "spirit in man" that is able tcr 
 receive and assimilate the imperishable food pro- 
 vided by the divine Being. 
 
 In the third passage, Peter contrasts the 
 "inward man," adorned with the graces of the gos- 
 pel, with the "outward man," adorned with fine 
 apparel and jewels. One writer suggests that we 
 would not suppose a spirit being to be hid away in 
 the "fleshly tablets of the heart." Why does this 
 writer try to confine us to this one signification of 
 the word "heart?" In the passage quoted, it 
 comes from the Greek kardia and frequently de' 
 notes the mind the seat of thought or the spirit 
 
78 HEART A1STD MIND. 
 
 within. The same word is found in Matt. 5 : 8. 
 * 'Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see 
 God." Does this refer to the physical condition of 
 the fleshy tablet called the "heart ?" Surely not. 
 
 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh upon a 
 woman to lust after her hath committed adultery already 
 with her in his heart. Matt. 5:28. 
 
 Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts ? Matt. 9:4. 
 
 For I am meek and lowly in heart. Matt. 11:29. 
 
 For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speak- 
 eth Matt: 12:34. 
 
 In all these passages heart comes from the 
 same word, and many more of like import might 
 be cited. While Peter's language may be some- 
 what imperfect he evidently referred to the con- 
 scious entity in man, which is also called "man.' 5 
 To adorn, means to "deck or decorate, to beautify, '' 
 etc. Whenever "adorning" is done there must be 
 something to be adorned. "Outward adorning" is 
 done on the "outward man ;" inward adorning on 
 the "inward man." It is not the adorning which 
 is called man, but that which is adorned. 
 
 The Syriac, which Mr. Grant also quotes sev- 
 eral times, is very plain on this passage : 
 
 But adorn yourselves in the hidden person of the heart 
 with a mild and uncorrupted spirit, an ornament that is 
 precious before God. 
 
 The statement of Paul in the fourth passage 
 quoted is very plain. The operation of God's 
 Spirit "in the inner man," produces regeneration. 
 The inner man is there before conversion ; but, 
 through obedience to the gospel, and by the agen- 
 cy of the Holy Spirit, the "inner man" is trans- 
 formed, "born again." 
 
 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but 
 according to his mercy he saved us. by the washing of re- 
 generation and renewing of the Holy Ghost. Titus 3:5. 
 
 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which 
 is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 3:6. 
 
 The fifth quotation reveals Paul's theology on 
 this point. He "knew a man" who was caught up 
 
PAUL'S THEOLOGY. 79 
 
 to the "third heaven," or "paradise," where he 
 heard and understood, and yet he could not tell 
 whether this "man" was "in the body or out of the 
 body !" We are sometimes told that if Paul did 
 not know whether the man was "in the body or 
 out of the body," he was a very poor witness. We 
 answer, this scripture is not quoted to prove that 
 the man whom Paul knew was "out of the body ;' 
 that would be very foolish, indeed, when Paul says 
 he did not know : but what was Paul's belief con- 
 cerning the nature of man ? This : that the con- 
 scious entity within is properly called "man." 
 That this "man" may live "out of the body" as 
 well as "in the body" in a conscious state. 
 
 "But," it is said, "this was only a vision. ' 
 That does not help the matter in the least. It 
 still shows Paul's belief concerning the nature of 
 man. Was Paul's theology at fault too? Is it 
 unsafe to trust him ? There were two kinds of 
 visions had by the Lord's servants according to 
 the Bible. One was a * 'present reality" something 
 seen. (Vision literally means sight.) The other 
 was a representation of something, as it was at the 
 time, or as it would be in the future. In both cases 
 a vision, a true vision, is a correct representation 
 of things as they do exist or will exist. But it can 
 not even be proved that this was a vision. (See 
 verse 1.) The most that can be properly said is 
 that it may have been a vision, or it may have 
 been a revelation. No matter what posi- 
 tion is taken, it clearly sets forth Paul's 
 belief concerning the "w/><" which may live in a 
 conscious state in or out of the body. What mor- 
 tal-soulist would have used such language as Paul 
 here uses ? Did you ever hear any one of them 
 relate some peculiar or striking experience, in 
 which he was unable to say whether he was "in 
 the body or out of the body?" Perhaps not. 
 
80 FLESH AND SPIRIT. 
 
 Paul, in this scripture, evidently refers to the 
 same component part of man which he denomi- 
 nates the "spirit" in 1 Cor. 5 :5. 
 
 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction 
 of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the 
 Lord Jesus. 
 
 Here the possibility of the spirit being saved 
 after the body, or "flesh," is destroyed, is admit- 
 ted. Mr. Grant says, "This one passage should not 
 be so distorted as to contradict all other plain Scrip- 
 tures," etc. "THE SPIRIT IN MAN," p. 28. No ; it 
 should not. But what a pity that Mr. Grant, after 
 giving such good advice should go to work and dis- 
 tort it clear out of shape in order to make it har- 
 monize, not with "other Scriptures," but with the 
 dogma of mortal-soulism ! The truth is, they 
 must either ignore the rendering in King James' 
 Version or admit that the passage stands in their 
 way. 
 
 Mr. Grant proceeds to give several other trans- 
 lations of the passage, and then construes "de- 
 struction" to mean "chastisement or 'punish- 
 ment,' " and spirit to mean "disposition." This 
 is a complete yielding of their position on the 
 word "destruction" as applied to man. If "de- 
 struction" means death, and salvation life, (literal 
 death and literal life) as we are informed, then 
 Paul believed that the spirit might be a subject 
 of salvation after the death of the body. At any 
 rate, he draws a clear distinction between body and 
 spirit, and we have already learned what Paul 
 means by the spirit in man. 
 
 Mr. Grant quotes a few words of the passage 
 from the Syriac : "That in spirit he may have 
 life." Let us read the whole verse : 
 
 And that ye deliver him over to Satan, for the destrucr 
 tion of the flesh, that in spirit he may have life, in the day 
 of our Lord Jesus Messiah. 
 
 Notice, the "destruction of the flesh" was to 
 come first, and the "life," or salvation, of the 
 
GRANT'S WITNESS AGAINST HIM. 81 
 
 spirit afterwards, and in the da;/ of our Lord Jesus 
 Messiah." As to what is meant by the phrase "in 
 spirit," it is certainly fair and safe to let the Syr- 
 iac interpret itself. In 1 Peter 3:18, speaking 
 with reference to the death of Christ, Peter says : 
 "And he died in body, but lived inspirit." The 
 life of the spirit, then, was after the death of the 
 body ; and Mr. Grant's own witness is against him. 
 
 We have now presented five plain passages 
 from the New Testament concerning the "inner" 
 or "inward man." They all come from the Greek 
 anthropos, which literally means "a human being." 
 Our opponents, however, claim that the "inner 
 man" is the "new man" in Christ, which we put 
 on through faith and obedience. The passages 
 themselves, with their connections, refute this 
 claim. The "outward man is the body of flesh 
 and bones ; " the "inward man" is that other part 
 of the person called the "spirit." 
 
 The "old man" with his deeds, is "the body of 
 sin" which we put off, while the "new man" is the 
 "righteousness of God" which we put on. Kom. 
 6:6; 1 :16, 17.) But the "inward man," of which 
 we have been writing, is the very one that is 
 changed regenerated through the transforming 
 influences of the gospel. (Eph. 3:16; Jno. 3:6; 
 1 Peter 1 : 22-25 ; Kom. 12 : 2.) We put on Christ, 
 or the "new man," but we do not put on the "in- 
 ward man." In short, putting off "the old man 
 with his deeds," and putting "on the new man 
 which is renewed in knowledge after the image of 
 him that created him," is simply a change of char- 
 acter. That which makes the man sinful, is put 
 away; that which makes him righteous, (the 
 Christ-like character) is put on. And thus, 
 through the power of the gospel, manifested 
 because of his faith and obedience, he becomes a 
 "new creature" in Christ. 
 
82 "THE NEW MAN." 
 
 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision 
 made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins ol 
 the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; Buried with him 
 in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through 
 the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him 
 from the dead. Col. 2:11, 12. 
 
 Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he Is a new crea- 
 ture; old things are passed away; behold, all things are 
 become new. 2 Cor. 5:17. 
 
 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the 
 old man, which Is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; 
 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye 
 put on the new man, which after God is created In right- 
 eousness and true holiness. Eph. 4:22-24. 
 
 What is the direct and powerful agent which 
 makes the new man ? The Holy Spirit. What is it 
 that is changed and made new by the operation of 
 God's Spirit ? The spirit of man. 
 
 That which is born of the Spirit (God's spirit) 
 is spirit." (The spirit of man.) Jesus. 
 
 "That he would grant you, according to the 
 riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might 
 by his spirit in the inner man." Paul. 
 
 Having shown that the terms "man" and 
 "soul" are applied to the conscious entity within, 
 it now becomes necessary in order to make our 
 position plain and comprehensive, to show that 
 they are sometimes applied to the body only, and 
 sometimes to both body and spirit. 
 
 It shall even be as when a hungry man dreameth, and, 
 behold, he eateth; but he awaketh, and his soul is empty: 
 or as when a thirsty man dreameth, and behold he drink- 
 eth; but he awaketh, and behold, he is faint, and his soul 
 hath appetite: so shall the multitude of all the nations be, 
 that fight against mount Zion. Isa. 29:8. 
 
 Man and soul in this passage refer to that 
 which experiences physical hunger and thirst, 
 hence to the body. 
 
 Now, when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold 
 there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his 
 mother, and she was a widow; and much people of the city 
 was with her. Luke 7:12. 
 
TERMS MAN AND SOUL. 83 
 
 It is admitted that when a man is dead, the 
 spirit has left the body. 
 
 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the 
 ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; 
 and man became a living soul. Gen. 2:7. 
 
 In this passage, soul evidently denotes the 
 whole man, both body and spirit. 
 
 Tli en they that gladly received his word, were bap- 
 tized; and the same day there were added unto them about 
 three thousand souls. Acts 2:41. 
 
 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of 
 man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not 
 do it ? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good ? 
 Num. 33:19. 
 
 No man can serve two masters. Matt. 6:24. 
 
 Many more passages might be adduced, but 
 these are sufficient to show, in connection with 
 our proof concerning the "inner man" and soul, 
 that the terms man and soul are applied (1) to the 
 spirit within man ; (2) to the body only, and (3) to 
 the whole person, both soul and body. The con- 
 text must determine how these terms are to be 
 applied. 
 
 Mortal-soulists object to this position, but it 
 is harmonious with the statements of the Bible ; 
 and the statement that it is using too much 
 liberty in the application of Bible terms, is not 
 founded in truth, and comes with poor grace from 
 those who use so much latitude in their efforts to 
 remove what seems to stand in their way ; and 
 frequently, too, without giving us any authority 
 (save the opinions of man) for the liberty taken. 
 
 Having proceeded thus far with our investiga- 
 tion, we call attention to some collateral evidence. 
 It is a fact that the Bible teaches that there are 
 spirit entities who are conscious and immortal 
 beings. They are God, angels and demons. These 
 are not possesssed of bodies of flesh and bone, 
 though we are not prepared to say, in the tech- 
 nical sense, that they are immaterial. If by 
 
84 GOD A SPIRIT. 
 
 "immaterial," is meant not composed of ponder- 
 ous matter, such as the flesh, bone and blood of 
 the natural body, then we accept the application 
 of the word to these spiritual beings as proper; 
 but if, on the other hand, by the application of 
 this word to God and angels, is meant the nega- 
 tive of all that may be seen or touched, under any 
 circumstances whatever, then we object to such 
 use of the word. When we know so little of the 
 laws and possibilities of matter, (which our oppo- 
 nents truthfully affirm) and still less of the laws 
 and possibilities of spirit, we should, when affirm- 
 ing what can not be, concerning the latter, be 
 both guarded and moderate. 
 
 "God is a Spirit;" "but," say our opponents, 
 " 'God is love ;' but He is not all love." We think 
 he is, so far as his divine nature is concerned, and 
 that is what John was writing about. (1 Jno. 4 : 7- 
 11.) God is not a vindictive being, but in all his 
 actions towards men, or his dealings with them, 
 he is moved by the principle of love. " 'Our God 
 is a consuming fire ;' but that does not prove that 
 God is composed of fire." No ; not in a literal 
 sense ; but the context shows that the apostle used 
 a strong metaphor to teach how certainly God will 
 destroy all that is impure, or unholy. Heb. 12 : 25- 
 29.) Such passages as these, used for the purpose 
 of killing the statement, "God is a Spirit," cer. 
 tainly fail to accomplish that which is intended. 
 If God is not a Spirit, what is he ? If he is only 
 part spirit, what is the other part? 
 
 Angels are a very high order of intelligent 
 beings next to God and they are spir.ts, one class 
 of which, at least, never received natural bodies. 
 
 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to min- 
 ister for them who shall be heirs of salvation. Heb. 1:14. 
 
 Dr. Robert Young, in his "ANALYTICAL CON- 
 CORDANCE," under the head of "Hints and Helps 
 
ANGELS. 85 
 
 to Bible Interpretation," has this to say of the 
 word "angel." 
 
 Is used of a messenger (good or bad) from heaven or of 
 men, and applied to spiritual intelligences, to the pillar of 
 cloud and fire, to the (pestilential) winds, to priests, proph- 
 ets, ministers, disembodied spirits. 
 
 The wide application of this term is no excep- 
 tion to many others. It serves to show how far 
 we sometimes get away from the primary or lit- 
 eral meaning of a word ; and at other times how 
 far we can go and yet be in harmony with the lit- 
 eral definition. Angel comes from the Hebrew 
 abbir which literally means "mighty;" but from 
 the Greek anggelos which literally means "messen- 
 ger, agent." 
 
 The information furnished by the Bible, con- 
 cerning angels is not vast ; but it seems that in 
 the beginning (whenever that may have been) 
 they were all pure were indeed the angels of 
 God. It is quite evident that God never created 
 any devils, or demons ; but by rebellion against 
 God, beings who were once holy, fell from their 
 exalted station and became "the Devil and his 
 angels." As to the personality of the Devil and 
 his angels, it is clearly set forth in the Scriptures. 
 Peter and Jude both inform us of the rebellion and 
 consequent fall of those who were once the com- 
 panions of God and the inmates of Heaven. 
 
 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast 
 them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of dark- 
 ness to be reserved unto judgment. 2 Peter 2:4. 
 
 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but 
 left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting 
 chains under darkness. Jude 6. 
 
 Head also Eev. 12 : 7, 8, 9. The New Testa- 
 ment repeatedly speaks of a class of beings called 
 "devils" or "unclean spirits." These spirits, in 
 many cases, took actual possession of the bodies 
 of men and women and were cast out by the power 
 of God. Read carefully the following passages : 
 
86 SPIRIT ENTITIES. 
 
 When the even was come, they brought unto him many 
 that were possessed with devils; andhecast out the spirits 
 with his word, and healed all that were sick; Matt. 8:16. 
 
 And when he had called unto him twelve disciples, he 
 gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, 
 and to heal all manner of sickness, and all manner of dis- 
 ease. Matt. 10:1. 
 
 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your 
 children cast them out? therefore they shall be your 
 judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then 
 the kingdom of God is come unto you. Matt. 12:27, 28. 
 
 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walk- 
 eth through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. 
 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I 
 came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, 
 and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself 
 seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they 
 enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is 
 worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this 
 wicked generation. Matt. 12:43-44. 
 
 And there was in their synagogue a man with an un- 
 clean spirit; and he cried out, Saying, Let us alone; what 
 have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth ? art thou 
 come to destroy us ? I know thee who thou art, the Holy 
 One of God. And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy 
 peace, and come out of him, And when the unclean spirit 
 had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of 
 hiiii.-Mark 1:23-26. 
 
 And when he was come out of the ship, immediately 
 there met him out of the tombs, a man with an unclean 
 spirit. Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no 
 man could bind him, no, not with chains; Because that he 
 had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the 
 chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters 
 broken in pieces; neither could any man tame him. And 
 always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the 
 tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones. But when 
 he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him, And 
 cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with 
 thee, Jesus, thou Son of the Most High God ? I adjure thee 
 by God, that thou torment me not. (For he said unto him, 
 Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit.) And he asked 
 him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, my 
 name is Legion: for we are many. And he besought him 
 much that he would not send them away out of the coun- 
 try. Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great 
 herd of swine feeding. And all the devils besought him, 
 
SPIRIT ENTITY A FACT. 87 
 
 saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into 
 them. Mark 5:2-12. 
 
 If the above passages do not show that these 
 evil spirits went into persons, and while there 
 talked with Jesus, and when commanded by him 
 literally came out, then we cannot rely upon the 
 plainest statements of New Testament history. 
 It would hardly do for those who ask us to receive, 
 in an unmodified sense, the highly poetical state- 
 ments of Job and David, as proof for unconscious- 
 ness after death, to so construe plain statements 
 of New Testament history as to make them mean 
 something entirely different from what the word- 
 ing conveys. 
 
 The lesson herein presented is this : Spirit 
 entity is a fact. A spirit entity may take posses- 
 sion of the human body. It lives in a conscious 
 state whether "in the body or out of the body." 
 If good spirits, that have never fallen, do not thus 
 take possession of men, it is evidently not be- 
 cause they can not, but because it is not God's 
 way, and they work in harmony with the will of 
 God. It will hardly do to say that the angels that 
 "kept their first estate" have less power than 
 those who did not. All spirits must act in har- 
 mony with laws which govern spirit, just as all 
 bodies must act in harmony with the laws which 
 govern matter. 
 
 Here is the application. In the light of the 
 above lesson, it is not impossible, unreasonable, 
 nor contrary to the teachings of the Scriptures, 
 that an intelligent spirit entity should take up its 
 abode with each person, leave him at death and 
 go to God ; and by Him who knows just where it 
 should go, be placed where it properly belongs 
 until the time of the resurrection and judgment. 
 
 But objections are urged. "How could seven 
 devils have lived in the body of Mary Magdalene, 
 at one time?" Suppose we cannot tell. Must 
 
88 THE APOSTLES' BELIEF. 
 
 Bible facts and truths be thrown away because of 
 that which we can not understand ? Such a course 
 would destroy belief in both the natural and super- 
 natural. However, the Bible does not affirm what 
 is questioned. The statements are, "out of whom 
 he had cast seven devils." Mark 16 : 9, and, "Out 
 of whom went seven devils.' 1 Luke 8:2. They 
 may have taken possession one at a time, and gone 
 out one at a time, so far as these statements are 
 concerned. 
 
 "But what about the man of the tombs in 
 whom there was a legion of devils?" 
 
 If the Bible says there was a legion of devils 
 dwelt in this man, we are not at liberty to deny 
 it ; but we are no more under obligations to apolo- 
 gize for the statements of the Bible, than are mor- 
 tal-soulists who, with us, profess to accept that 
 book as a proper standard of evidence. 
 
 The apostles believed in spirits. 
 
 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, 
 they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried 
 out for fear. Matt. 14:26. 
 
 But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they sup- 
 posed it had been a spirit and cried out. Mark 6:49. 
 
 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the 
 midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 
 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that 
 they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are 
 ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? 
 Behold my hands and my feet that it is I myself: handle 
 me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see 
 me have. Luke 24:36-39. 
 
 The first two passages describe the same 
 event; and the word "spirit," found in them, 
 comes not from pneuma, but from phantasma, 
 which literally means "phantasm, apparition." 
 From the supposed meaning of phantasma, our op- 
 ponents have found an easy way of running over 
 these passages. Listen to Mr. Grant. "THE 
 SPIRIT IN MA:N," p. 2. 
 
GRANT'S VIEW EXAMINED. 89 
 
 At one time the disciples saw Jesus walking on the sea, 
 and they were troubled, saying "it is a (phantasma) spir- 
 it." A phantom has the appearance of reality; but like a 
 shadow, is nothing real or tangible. When a thing appears 
 to be where it is not, or a shadow like a reality; it may 
 properly be called a phantom. 
 
 Mr, Grant's exegesis is now before us. Let us 
 look at it. You know they accuse us of being 
 narrow and unfair. Mr. Grant confines himself 
 to one part of the literal definition of phantasma, 
 and on that one word alone (phantom) he makes 
 his argument ; or, more properly, offers his asser- 
 tions gratis. 
 
 "A phantom," he says, "is nothing real or tan- 
 gible." It is "like a shadow." It is, in fact, the 
 "appearance" of something, which is nothing. 
 Now, notice, the question is not what the apos- 
 tles saw, for we all know they saw Jesus; but 
 what did they think they saw ? Mr. Grant tells us. 
 Then we must understand it in this way. The 
 apostles, or disciples, when they saw Jesus walk- 
 ing on the sea, were troubled, because they all saw 
 him, and supposed him to be a shadow, or the ap- 
 pearance of something which, in reality, is noth- 
 ing ; so they all cried out for fear !" 
 
 There is no "catch logic" in this. The disci- 
 ples thought Jesus to be a pha> lasma. Did they 
 think a, phantasma was a real, conscious being, or 
 something that is not real ? If the latter, why 
 were they troubled ? and why did they cry out for 
 fear and be troubled over nothing? 
 
 Mr. Grant selects phantom (which is a corrup- 
 tion from the Latin phantasma) but ignores "appa- 
 rition" altogether. Webster defines phantom as 
 follows : 
 
 1. Something that appears; an apparition; a specter. 
 2. A fancied vision. 
 
 Specter comes from "specto, to behold," and is defined as 
 follows: 1. An apparition; the appearance of a person 
 who is dead; a ghost. 2. Something made preternaturally 
 visible. 
 
90 CHRIST'S EXPLANATION. 
 
 It will be seen that Mr. Grant ignores the pri- 
 mary definition of his own word, thus going clear 
 back on his own stated position, in order, it would 
 seem, to make a point ! 
 
 The Revised Version renders the word spirit, 
 found in Mark 6 and Matthew 14, "apparition," 
 which, according to Dr. Young, with "phantasm," 
 constitutes the literal, or root meaning of the 
 Greek phantasma. Webster gives five definitions to 
 apparition, four of which are against Mr. Grant 
 and one in his favor ! 
 
 The Syriac, one of Mr. Grant's own witnesses, 
 has * 'spectre" instead of spirit. It renders Mark 
 6 : 49, with a part of verse 50, as follows : 
 
 And they saw him walking on the waters, and they sup- 
 posed that the appearance was a specter: And they cried 
 out: For all saw him, and were afraid. 
 
 The ingenious efforts of Mr. Grant to slip over 
 these passages, show in what manner some men 
 seek to make everything conform to an assumed 
 position ; and how impossible it seems for 
 them to treat, in a broad and independent 
 way, that which might testify against them. 
 And thus it is that many credulous, but honest, 
 converts are often made to the "doctrines of 
 men." 
 
 In the third passage, spirit comes from pneuma 
 the same word that is applied to God and the 
 angels. Jesus suddenly appeared in the midst of 
 the disciples, and spake to them. "But they were 
 terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they 
 had seen a spirit." Jesus at once proceeds to cor- 
 rect their false impressions by instituting a com- 
 parison between himself and a spirit. He does 
 not tell them that they are wrong in supposing 
 that there is such a thing as a spirit ; nor does he 
 tell them that if there are spirits, they cannot, 
 under any conditions or circumstances, be seen. 
 What he does seek to do is to convince them, at 
 
SPIRIT AND BREATH. 91 
 
 once, that he is Jesus and not a spirit. "Handle 
 me, and see ; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, 
 as ye see me have." 
 
 Would Jesus institute a plain comparison 
 between himself and something which did not 
 exist? "Would he tell them that "a spirit hath 
 not flesh and hones," if there was no such thing as 
 a spirit without flesh and bones ? If the disciples 
 were wrong in their settled belief in spirits, why 
 is it that Jesus did not seek to remove the super- 
 stition? He did not do it, not even by implica- 
 tion ; but the whole tenor of his speech is of such 
 a character as to have strengthened and confirmed 
 such belief. 
 
 The time was near at hand when the disciples 
 were to be sent "into all the world." It was im- 
 portant that they should teach the doctrine of 
 Christ correctly. This belief in immortal spirits, 
 without ''flesh and bones," we are told by the 
 authors of the C. A. church, is a very dangerous 
 one, and lies at the very root of all religious error 
 And yet, in all the testimonies presented, we have 
 not one word in condemnation of the belief! 
 
 We know of but one means of escape now, and 
 that is, that Jesus meant by "spirit," as referred 
 to in the last passage quoted, "atmosphere," "the 
 air we breathe," or something "akin to electric- 
 ity." But this will hardly do, for they saw Jesus, 
 heard him speak, and thought he was a spirit. 
 Again: It was certainly not "a atmosphere" 
 which Jesus said had not "flesh and bones," but a 
 conscious entity. Nor would it do to say "a fluid," 
 for the plural would be fluids, which would denote 
 that different kinds of fluids constitute "the 
 breath of life" which God formed within man. 
 Surely, it is a dangerous thing to get so far away 
 from what is plainly stated and indicated in the 
 word. 
 
92 WHAT IS DEATH. 
 
 We are now prepared to consider death. What 
 is it? Our opponents say, "an extinction of con- 
 scious being." We say, separation, departure, 
 ehange of conditions and manner of life. Which 
 is right? 
 
 Death, either in the Bible or out of it, does 
 not necessarily denote unconsciousness. Fowler 
 and Wells, in a little work entitled, "THE RIGHT 
 WORD IN THE RIGHT PLACE," under the head of 
 "Synonyms," give the following : "Death decease, 
 demise, departure." 
 
 Crabb's "ENGLISH SYNONYMS" is in harmony 
 with Fowler and Wells, but more complete. 
 
 We understand the Bible to teach that we are 
 dead to God when separated from him ; dead to 
 righteousness when separated from righteousness; 
 dead to sin when separated from sin. So, then, 
 when we depart from the sins of the world, we 
 die, but do not become unconscious; when we 
 depart from God and his truth, we die, but con- 
 scious being still remains. A few passages from 
 the New Testament will be sufficient to show that 
 the above declarations are in harmony therewith. 
 
 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants 
 of righteousness. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye 
 were free from righteousness. Rom. 6:18, 20. 
 
 And you hath he quickned, who were dead in tress- 
 passes and sins: Wherein in time past ye walked accord- 
 ing to the course of this world, according to the prince of 
 the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the 
 children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had 
 our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, 
 fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and 
 were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But 
 God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he 
 loved us. Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened 
 us together with Christ; (by grace ye are saved;) And hath 
 raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly 
 places, in Christ Jesus. Eph. 2:1-6. 
 
 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spirit- 
 ually minded is life and peace; Because the carnal mind is 
 enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, 
 neither indeed can be. Romans 8:6, 7. 
 
NATURAL AND SPIRITUAL DEATH. 93 
 
 Natural death is a separation of body and 
 spirit, or the "departure" of the Spirit from the 
 body, to live under conditions and laws which 
 govern the "inner man" when "unclothed," or out 
 of our "earthly house," in which Paul says, "we 
 do groan." etc. 
 
 But our opponents say that the first kind of 
 death we have introduced is "spiritual death," 
 and has nothing to do with the literal death of 
 man. To this we reply, that while we do not 
 object to the phrases "spiritual death," and nat- 
 ural or literal death, they simply denote different 
 conditions of that which, in all general respects, 
 is but one. It would be as difficult for mortal- 
 soul ists to find these distinctive pli rases in 
 the Bible, as it would be for imrnortal-soul- 
 ists to find "immortal soul," or "never dying 
 soul." In the Bible death is death and life is 
 /i/e; and inasmuch as both conditions obtain with 
 those who remain conscious and active, what 
 right have we to say that any form of death, as 
 applied to man, is an end to conscious being? 
 
 Paul refers to his own prospective death as a 
 
 "departure." 
 
 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my 
 departure is at hand. 2 Tim. 4:6. 
 
 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to de- 
 part, and to be with Christ; which is far better; Neverthe- 
 less to abide in the flesh is more needful for you. Phil. 1: 
 23, 24. 
 
 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, 
 whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the 
 Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) We are confi- 
 dent. I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, 
 and to be present with the Lord. 2 Cor. 5:6, 7, 8. 
 
 In Genesis 35 :18, we read that when Each el 
 died her soul departed ; and in 1 Kings 17 :21, 22, 
 when the widow's son was raised, "his soul carne 
 into him again ;" hence when he died, his soul left 
 him, or departed. In all these passages death is 
 represented as a departure. 
 
94 BODY AND SPIRIT. 
 
 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith 
 w'.thout works is dead also. Jas. 2:26. 
 
 Our opponents refer us to the marginal ren- 
 dering of this, where we have "breath" instead of 
 "spirit." But in the Revised Version, which is 
 the work of able and scholarly men, who were in 
 possession of other and earlier copies of the origi- 
 nals than were had in the times of King James, it 
 is rendered "spirit" and no marginal rendering is 
 given. 
 
 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so 
 faith without works is dead. 
 
 The Geneva and Syriac Versions both render 
 it spirit without any marginal translation. 
 
 Let James himself tell us what he means by 
 the "spirit in man." Jas. 4 : 5. "Do ye think that 
 the Scripture saith in vain, The spirit that 
 dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?" Or as the Re- 
 vised has it, "The spirit which he made to dwell 
 in us," etc. This shows that James referred to a 
 conscious entity within; and when this spirit 
 leaves, the body is dead. 
 
 In Matt. 10:28, with Luke 12:4, 5, it is dis- 
 tinctly stated that man can "kill the body," but 
 "after that has no more that he can do." Or, as 
 Matthew puts it, they "are not able to kill the 
 soul." How far does man's power extend when 
 pouring out his wrath upon his fellow man? He 
 can kill the body. What does this killing of the 
 body cause? A separation of body and soul. 
 What do we call this separation ? Death. 
 
 There is no man that hath power over the spirit to 
 retain the spirit: neither hath he power in the day of 
 death; and there is no discharge in that war; neither shall 
 wickedness deliver those that are given to it. Eccles. 8:8. 
 
 In this passage, Solomon evidently refers to 
 death. No man hath power to "retain the spirit," 
 nor can he defer, or choose, the time of his depart- 
 ure. Revised Version, latter part of verse: 
 "Neither hath he power over the day of death." 
 
STEPHEN'S PRAYER. 95 
 
 Stephen prayed, at the time of his death, 
 "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." We do not be- 
 lieve that Stephen referred to corrupted air, but 
 to the conscious entity within. 
 
 In Ecclesiastes twelfth chapter, we have the 
 concluding words of the preacher. He does not 
 tell us now what he said in his heart, (chap. 3 : 18) 
 but seems to speak with assurance concerning the 
 duty of man and the truth of God. Among other 
 things, he gives us a plain statement of the nature 
 of death. 
 
 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was; and 
 the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. Eccles. 12:7. 
 
 These statements, and our position concern- 
 ing death, will be emphasized in our next chapter 
 when we come to treat on the death of Christ. 
 "All truths harmonize" says Mr. Grant, and we are 
 glad he has made the statement. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 CHRIST THE TRUE SOURCE OF LIGHT AND KNOWL- 
 EDGE-THE MAN CHRIST JESUS, THE TRUE TYPE 
 OF ALL OTHER MEN IN LIFE AND DEATH HIS 
 PRE-EXISTENCE, LIFE AND DEATH CONSIDERED. 
 
 There is certainly no better source to which the 
 children of God can go for light and truth, than to 
 Christ. This is true in the grandest and broadest 
 sense. To Him we go as the most perfect teacher 
 God ever had among men, in fact, the only abso- 
 lutely perfect one. (Deu. 18 : 18, 19.) To Him we 
 go, and to Him only, for a perfect example. (1 
 Peter 2:21-23.) To Him we go for knowledge of 
 our nature and destiny. In the Bible we read of 
 Christ prophetically and historically. He dwelt 
 in glory with the Father before the world was 
 made. By him, through him and for him, were all 
 things made. He was called Jehovah, God, and 
 other divine appellations. He is indeed one of the 
 
96 CHRIST THE LIGHT OF MEN. 
 
 Godhead. He was, is, and ever will be, "the light 
 of men." When the set time had come, he ap- 
 peared in the flesh, taking upon him all the pecu- 
 liarities of our nature. While clothed upon with 
 mortality, he is most appropriately denominated 
 the "Son of man ;" "a man of sorrows and acquain- 
 ted, with grief;" (Isa. 53:3.) "the man Christ 
 Jesus," and "man." (1 Cor. 15:21,22.) As man, 
 he lived, suffered and died in the flesh. He was, 
 therefore, the true type of life and death as 
 applied to all other men. When we have found 
 in what the life and death of Christ consisted 
 the man Christ Jesus we have found what life 
 and death are as applied to the human family. 
 
 Our opponents are not at all pleased when we 
 present Christ, in his life and death, as a type of 
 other men. They make an attempt to convince 
 the people that this has nothing to do with the 
 nature and destiny of man ; and, when failing in 
 their apparent purpose to prevent us from bring- 
 ing this feature of the question into prominence, 
 they play upon the account of Christ's death, as 
 though we were inclined to deny it. "Did not 
 Christ die ? Will our opponents dare to deny that 
 he died ?" No, they will not deny it. We are not 
 aware that they have ever been so inclined ; but 
 from his death they are better able to answer the 
 important question, What is death ? and from his 
 life, that other important question, What is life? 
 Let us then, so far as our space will permit, give 
 prayerful and careful attention to the pre-exist- 
 ence, life and death of the "man of sorrows." 
 
 We have been informed that one class of 
 Adventists believe in the pre-existence of Christ 
 as a sentient being. All the better. They will 
 not need all our proof, and it is certainly to their 
 credit to so believe. However, the ministers of 
 the C. A. Church, with whom we have canvassed 
 
CHRIST'S PREEXISTENCE. 97 
 
 this question, deny Christ's preexistence, in the 
 sense in which we believe the Bible plainly teaches 
 it. Let us attend to the proof. 
 
 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our 
 likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the 
 sea, and over the foul of the air, and over the cattle, and 
 over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that 
 creepeth upon the earth. Gen. 1:26. 
 
 The pronouns "us" and "our" are in the plu- 
 ral. Who was this second personage? Evidently 
 the one by whom all things were created. 
 
 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, 
 and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they 
 be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all 
 things were created by him and for him; And he is before 
 all things, and by him all things consist. Col. 1:16, 17. 
 
 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, 
 and the world knew him not. Jno. 1:10. 
 
 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake 
 in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in 
 these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath 
 appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the 
 worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the 
 express image of his person, and upholding all things by 
 the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our 
 sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 
 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by 
 inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 
 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art 
 my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And again, I will 
 be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And 
 again, when he bringeth in the first-begotten into the 
 world, he saith. And let all the angels of God worship him. 
 -Heb. 1:1-6. 
 
 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the 
 mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been 
 hid in God. who created all things by Jesus Christ. Eph- 
 3:9. 
 
 From the above testimony we learn that the 
 Christ of the New Testament is the one by whom 
 all things were created. The Son, by whom God 
 spoke to the Saints, was the very one "by whom 
 also he made the worlds." 
 
*8 THE WORD. 
 
 In the beginning was the word, and the word was with 
 God. and the word was God. The same was in the begin- 
 ning with God. All things were made by him; and without 
 him was not anything made that was made. In him was 
 life; and the life was the light of men. And the Ight shin- 
 eth in darkness; and the darkness comprehendeth it not. 
 John 1:1-5. 
 
 Some claim upon the authority of the first 
 verse of this passage, that Christ did not pre- 
 exist as a conscious, intelligent being, but simply 
 as the word of God. To this we reply, that Christ 
 is known by a number of different titles in the 
 Bible, one of which is the "Word." This same 
 chapter shows that the "Word" denotes the 
 Christ of the New Testament, to whom John, the 
 Baptist, bore witness. Eead from the sixth to the 
 eighteenth verse. Also from the twenty-ninth to 
 the thirty-seventh. Christ was just as much the 
 the "Word" after he came in the flesh as he was 
 before. He said : 
 
 I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh 
 unto the Father, but by me. Jno. 14:6. 
 
 To assume the position that it was the 
 "Word," without intelligence or consciousness, is 
 to contradict some of the plainest statements of 
 Scripture. When Jesus prayed to the Father just 
 before his death not as a mere suppliant, but as 
 a victor, or conqueror, he only asked to be restored 
 to the condition enjoyed, with the Father, before 
 the foundation of the world. 
 
 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self' 
 with the glory which I had with thee before the world \v*s' 
 Jno. 17:5. 
 
 But, we are told, "the Word was made flesh 
 and dwelt among us," etc. Yes; and we are also 
 told "how the Word was made flesh," all of which 
 is in harmony with our position. 
 
 Wherefore, when he cometh into the world, he saith. 
 Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a body hast 
 thou prepared me: In burnt off erings and sacrifices for 
 sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in 
 
JESUS EXISTED IN THE SPIRIT. 99 
 
 the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O 
 God. Above, when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt- 
 offerings and offering for sin thou wouldst not, neither hadst 
 pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said 
 he. Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the 
 first, that he may establish the second. By the which will 
 we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus 
 Christ once for all. Heb. 10:5-10. 
 
 This Scripture is very plain. Jesus existed in 
 the spirit state, as an immortal and glorified be- 
 ing, before he came in the flesh. "A body hast 
 thou prepared me." Ee vised Version, "A body 
 didst thou prepare for me." "Burnt-offerings and 
 sacrifices for sin" were to cease ; but this same 
 body which was prepared for him, was offered 
 "once for all." 
 
 Eusebius speaks of the preexistence and divin- 
 ity of Christ in the following manner : 
 
 No language, then, is sufficient to express the origin, the 
 dignity, even the substance and nature of Christ. Whence 
 even the divine Spirit in the prophecies says, "Who will de- 
 clare his generation?" For as no one hath known the Father, 
 but the Son, so no one, on the other hand, can know the Son 
 fully, but the Father alone, by whom he was begotten. For 
 who but the Father hath thoroughly understood that 
 Light which existed before the world was that intellect- 
 ual and substantial wisdom, and that living word which 
 in the beginning was with the Father, before all creation 
 and any production visible or invisible, the first and only 
 offspring of God, the prince and leader of the spiritual 
 immortal host of heaven, the angel of the mighty council' 
 the agent to execute the Father's secret will, the maker of 
 all things with the Father, the second cause of the universe 
 next to the Father, the true and only Son of the Father, 
 and the Lord and God and King of all created things, who 
 has received power and dominion with divinity itself, and 
 power and honor from the Father. 
 
 Eusebius proceeds to show that his position is 
 in harmony with scripture which we have already 
 adduced from the first chapter of John's gospelt 
 and from Genesis 1 : 26. He then proceeds to state 
 that Jesus, the Lord, appeared to Moses, Abra- 
 ham and Jacob, emphasizing his claim with these 
 words : 
 
100 CHRIST WAS, IS, AND EVER WILL BE. 
 
 To suppose these divine appearances the forms of sub- 
 ordinate angels and servants of God, is inadmissable; 
 since as often as any of these appeared to men, the Scrip- 
 tures do not conceal the fact in the name, expressly saying 
 that they were called, not God nor Lord, but angels, as 
 would be easy to prove by a thousand references. 
 
 He closes on this topic with these words : 
 
 That the divine word therefore, preexisted and ap- 
 peared, if not to all, at least to some, has been thus briefly 
 shown. "EusEBius' ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY," chapter 2. 
 Jesus when speaking to the Jews affirmed his 
 preexistence as plainly as it could be done. 
 
 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he 
 saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou 
 art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 
 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, before 
 Abraham was I am. Jno. 8:56-58. 
 
 The grand and cheering truth set forth in the 
 Scriptures, is that Jesus Christ was, is, and ever 
 will be, the Savior of men. If the children of Is- 
 rael could "all eat the same spiritual meat," and 
 "drink the same spiritual drink" which drink was 
 Christ before there was any Christ, then we can 
 eat spiritual meat and drink spiritual drink, with- 
 out any Christ, to-day ; and hence no Christ is 
 needed ! But it will evidently be somewhat diffi- 
 cult for some to understand how we can partake 
 of Christ when there is no Christ. A statement 
 found in Heb. 13 : 8, settles the question effect- 
 ually : 
 
 Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and today, and forever. 
 
 That is, He is the same in all past, present 
 and future time, in all that pertains unto life and 
 salvation. This gives to the plan of salvation that 
 breadth and perfection which we reasonably look 
 for in the work of the divine Being. The gospel 
 is for all, without regard to time or location. "It 
 is the power of God unto salvation unto every one 
 that believeth." (Romans 1:16.) Christ is the 
 central figure of the gospel and without him there 
 is no salvation. (Acts 4:11, 12.) The justice, 
 
LIFE OF CHRIST. 101 
 
 love and impartiality of God, demand that Christ 
 should be preached "to all people," whether dead 
 or alive. Our position is that every soul must, at 
 some time, by his own volition, either accept or 
 reject the truth. 
 
 Having fully established the preexistence of 
 Christ, we proceed at once to consider his life. 
 We have already seen that he was brought into 
 the world by receiving a body which had been pre- 
 pared for him. (Heb. 10 : 5.) That he lived, suf- 
 fered and died, in the flesh. Christ does not ask 
 us to follow where he has not been. He knows by 
 actual experience what human nature is. He 
 was, in fact, veiled in mortality, hence we go to 
 him to find out the real nature of life and death. 
 
 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak 
 through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness 
 of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. Horn. 
 8:3. 
 
 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him 
 the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of 
 men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled 
 himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death 
 of the cross. Phil. 2:7, 8. 
 
 In the light of such Scriptures as these, it is 
 not difficult to see why Christ, in his humiliation, 
 was called "man," and the "Son of man." He is 
 called man by the prophet Isaiah and the apostle 
 Paul. (Isa. 53 : 3 ; 1 Cor. 15 : 21, 22. ) He is referred 
 to as the Son of man about twenty-six times in the 
 book of Matthew. But the author of the epistle 
 to the Hebrews brings this matter more fully be- 
 fore us, leaving no room for doubt. 
 
 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than 
 the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory 
 and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death 
 for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, 
 and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto 
 glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect 
 through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth, and they 
 who are sanctified, are all of one; for which cause he is not 
 
102 HIS LIFE LIKE OUR LIFE. 
 
 ashamed to call them brethren. Saying I will declare thy 
 name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I 
 sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in 
 him. And again, Behold I, and the children which God 
 hath given me. Forasmuch then as the children are par- 
 takers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took 
 part of the same; that through death he might destroy him 
 that had the power of death, that is, the devil. And deliv- 
 er them who through fear of death were all their lifetime 
 subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the 
 nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 
 Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like 
 unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faith- 
 ful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make recon- 
 ciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself 
 hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them 
 that are tempted. Heb. 2:9-18. 
 
 The apostle (supposing the author to be Paul) 
 gives two important reasons why it was necessary 
 that Jesus should lay aside his glory and become 
 as man. First, "That through death he might 
 destroy him that had the power of death, that is 
 the devil ;" and second, that by actual contact 
 with the flesh, the world and the devil, the same 
 contact which we experience, he (Christ) should 
 become fully qualified to act as the great High 
 Priest of God, and the mediator between God and 
 men. Therefore, as the children are made "partak- 
 ers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise" (in 
 like manner, also, morever, too. Webster.) "took 
 part of the same." This not only enables us to 
 have perfect faith, but it is such an exhibition of 
 divine love as touches and moves the noblest and 
 most potent qualities of the soul. 
 
 We find, then, that the life of Jesus was 
 like our life; and as he preexisted as a 
 conscious, intelligent being, his life was the 
 union of body and spirit. If it can be shown that, 
 while in the flesh, the spirit of Christ was the con- 
 scious intelligent part of him, it will still further 
 confirm our position. 
 
 Jesus perceived in his spirit. Mark 1:8 
 
THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST. 103 
 
 And he sighed deeply in his spirit. Mark 8:12. 
 
 Mr. Grant says, after quoting this last pass- 
 age, that "sighing is the result of a peculiar kind 
 of breathing. The Syriac Version reads : He sighed 
 with his breath. This is the true idea : we know 
 of no other way to sigh." See, now, what a nar- 
 row and superficial view is expressed to make this 
 scripture harmonize with an assumed position. 
 Mr. Grant refers to the sighing done by Jesus as 
 though it were only a physical action like coughing 
 or sneezing. He might, with the same propriety 
 quote to us the sermon on the Mount and then de- 
 scribe the physical action of speech, saying, "We 
 know of no other way to talk ;U. and then, you see, 
 the conclusion would be quite easy ; The sermon 
 on the mount furnishes no evidence that Jesus 
 had a mind I 
 
 The truth of the matter seems to be this : The 
 Pharisees tempted Jesus and sought after a sign. 
 This was evidence to him of their inwardly cor- 
 rupt condition, and caused sorrow of heart, mind, 
 or spirit. This sorrow found vent, not in the 
 words of his lips, but in a sigh. The origin of 
 that sigh was not as is often the case some phys- 
 ical weakness, but the grief of the inner man, or 
 spirit, which was now veiled in mortality. When 
 Mr. Grant gives James 2 : 26, he refers to the mar- 
 ginal translation where we find breath instead of 
 spirit. Why did he not refer to the marginal 
 translation in the Syriac version, where we learn 
 that the original Syriac was spirit, and not breath ? 
 The evident purpose of Mark, the historian, was 
 not to call attention to "a peculiar kind of breath- 
 ing," but the troubled condition of Christ's soul. 
 We do not object to a thing because it is material ; 
 but when our particular kind of materialism leads 
 us to overlook the better part, it is too gross to be 
 either safe or desirable. 
 
104 THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 
 
 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit. Luke 10:21. 
 He groaned in the spirit and was troubled. John 11:33. 
 He was troubled in spirit. John 13:21. 
 And the child grew and waxed strong in spirit. Luke 
 1:80. 
 
 Now if our mortal-sonlist friends will tell us 
 how it was possible for that glorified and immor- 
 tal spirit to live in the body of the infant babe of 
 Bethlehem, and develop as the infant grew to 
 manhood, they will then have the answer to a 
 difficult problem which they often ask us to solve. 
 
 Jesus, like man, was made a little lower than 
 the angels, and both alike were subjected to death. 
 If Jesus was possessed of an immortal spirit and 
 man is not, then the struggle to overcome sin and 
 the ills of the flesh for him and his brethren is not 
 equal. Nor, in that case, could we say that in "all 
 things" he was made "like unto his brethren," 
 and "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet 
 without sin." (Heb. 4:15.) Through the gospel 
 we are made "heirs of God, and joint heirs with 
 Christ ;" and the promise is that we shall be "glo- 
 rified together," "if so be that we suffer with him." 
 Here are equality and justice which we can not fail 
 to admire. 
 
 We now come to the death of Christ, and it 
 will not be difficult for us to determine in what 
 that death consisted. It was simply the separa- 
 tion of body and spirit, with the return of the 
 spirit "to God who gave it." Let us look briefly 
 at his own teachings concerning his death. 
 
 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, 
 that the Son of man should be glorified. Verily, verily, 1 
 say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground 
 and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth 
 much fruit. John 12:23, 24. 
 
 Here is presented the true idea of death. When 
 "a corn of wheat" is put in the ground its life does 
 not cease, but assumes a changed form. A sepa- 
 ration occurs, and the result is an increase. The 
 
NATURE OF LIFE AND DEATH. 105 
 
 old kernel does not cease to be, anJ its life become 
 extinct, that the new grain may appear ; but the 
 life continues, thus forming <\ connecting Jink 
 between ihr old and the new. Life assumes a 
 changed form, departs, leaving nothing but ft 
 worthless hull behind. This is what we call 
 death. 
 
 Should the kernel placed in the oavth have no 
 germ of life within itself, it can never come forth; 
 but the departure 01 life from the old body> we 
 call death. 
 
 Jesus frequently alluded to his death, but 
 nowhere even intimated that that death would be 
 a cessation of conscious being. He said : 
 
 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down 
 my life that I might take it again. No man taketh it from 
 me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay It 
 down, and I have power to take it again. This command- 
 ment have I received of my Father. John 10:17, 18. 
 
 "But," we are told, "God, the Faiher, 'raised up 
 Christ from the dead.'" (Rom. 8:11.) Yes, and 
 with the same propriety we could say that the 
 Roman soldiers put him to death ; and yet, he 
 says, speaking of his life, "No man taketh it 
 from me, but I lay it down of myself." It required 
 the voluntary co-operation of Christ to accomplish 
 his death, and the same voluntary co-operation to 
 accomplish his resurrection. "I have power to lay 
 it down, and I have power to take it again." We 
 are compelled to believe that Jesus here refers to 
 his body the body which had been prepared for 
 him. (Heb. 10:5.) 
 
 We are told that death means an end to con- 
 scious existence. If so, what became of the pre- 
 existent Christ when Jesus was put to de ith ? 
 Christ was to abide forever. (Psalms 89 : 35-37 ; 
 1JO : 4.) Jesus said, referring to himself, "the Son 
 abideth ever." The Greek word from which 
 l abideth" comes, is meno which literally means 
 
106 CHRIST THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD. 
 
 "to remain, continue." The word abide, or abid- 
 eth, as here used certainly implies a conscious, 
 continued and unbroken standing before God. To 
 abide is one thing ; but to lose conscious existence 
 and become as though he "had not been," is an op- 
 posite condition. 
 
 Christ is the source of intelligence and all 
 spiritual light possessed by man. 
 
 I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall 
 not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. John 
 8:13. 
 
 In him was life; and the life was the light of mi 
 John 1:4. 
 
 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man 
 that cometh into the world. John 1:9. 
 
 If this "true Light" was totally blotted out at 
 death, what was the condition of the world dur- 
 ing the time in which Christ's body lay in the 
 tomb? We do not believe that the conscious 
 existence of the "Sun of righteousness" was 
 blotted out when Jesus died on the cross ! 
 
 Christ, as we have seen, is one of the God- 
 head. All things were created by him. He is 
 frequently called God in the Scriptures, and we 
 are required to worship him. None, we presume, 
 will be so rash as to deny these statements which 
 are sustained by so many clear declarations of 
 Scripture. (Isa. 9:6, 7; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8.) 
 Did this divine being second person in the God- 
 head and creator of the worlds, become as 
 though he "had not been," at death ? A few more 
 texts concerning the death of Christ will be suffi- 
 cient. 
 
 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have 
 loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. I 
 came forth from the Father and am come into the world : 
 a^ain, I leave the world, and go to the Father. Jno. 16:27, 
 28. 
 
 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own 
 self with the glory which I had with thee before the world 
 was. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in 
 
CHRIST'S DEATH. 107 
 
 the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through 
 thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they 
 may be one, as we are. Father, I will that they also whom 
 thou hast given me be with me where I am; that they may 
 behold my glory which thou hast given me; for thou lov- 
 Mst me before the foundation of the world. John 17:5, 11, 
 24. 
 
 The hour had come for Jesus to be delivered 
 up to death ; but instead of representing his death 
 as a cessation of conscious existence, he clearly 
 indicates its opposite character by such words as 
 these : "I leave the world and go to the Father." 
 ''Glorify thou me with thine own self with 
 the glory which I had with thee before 
 the world was." "I come to thee." "I 
 will that they also whom thou hast given me be 
 with me where I am ; that they may behold my 
 glory which thou hast given me." 
 
 In complete harmony with the above texts 
 and our position on death, are the last words 
 which Jesus spake before his death. "Father, 
 into thy hands I commend my spirit." 
 
 Thus we see, that in the case of Jesus Christ, 
 death was a separation of body and spirit ; a de- 
 parture from the world to be with the Father. 
 He came "in the flesh ;" (not simply of the flesh.) 
 He suffered and died in the flesh ; but in the 
 spirit, as the apostle tells us, "went and preached 
 unto the spirits in prison." (1 Peter 3 : 18-20.) His 
 life and death throw a flood of light on all import- 
 ant subjects of life and death as applied to all 
 men. And from this proof alone, we would be 
 entirely safe in affirming that death is not an 
 extinction of conscious being, but a separation, 
 departure, or great change of conscious existence. 
 Every step of our investigation makes this fact 
 more apparent, and discovers to us the connecting 
 link between this life and that which is to come. 
 
PART II. 
 
CHAPTER T 
 
 INTERMEDIATE STATE BOTH THE RIGHTEOUS 
 AND THE WICKED ARE CONSCIOUS BETWEEN 
 DEATH AND THE RESURRECTION. 
 
 By the "intermediate state," we mean a state 
 of conscious existence for the righteous and the 
 wicked between death and the resurrection. We 
 have proceeded sufficiently far in our investiga- 
 tion to learn that there is a spirit entity in man. 
 That this spirit (sometimes called soul) is the 
 intellectual, moral and active part of man. That 
 man "cannot kill the soul ;" therefore, it does not 
 die with the body. That life is a union of body 
 and spirit, and death a separation, or departure 
 of the spirit to God. Hence the intermediate 
 state is a necessity. 
 
 Man desires to live. He shrinks from a state 
 of non-existence. He can learn but little in this 
 short life, at the best just enough to give him a 
 faint conception of the vast and inexhaustible 
 stores of knowledge which lie beyond. His soul 
 thirsts for this knowledge, and he desires to keep 
 on learning. These desires are not carnal, nor in 
 any way abnormal, but inherent in his very 
 nature. They are exalting and ennobling in their 
 character and tendency. Who gave these desires 
 to man ? God, his creator. Will he, can he, so 
 long as he is God, fail to supply these demands of 
 the soul ? No ; he evidently will not and can not. 
 
 Nature shows that God is a strict economist, 
 and that his work, in a general sense, is progress- 
 ive. Will the hundreds and thousands of years be 
 
112 THIS AND THAT WORLD. 
 
 totally lost, while countless millions lie in the cold 
 earth ? Such a position necessitates a change in 
 the character of God. 
 
 But we come to a more serious consideration. 
 How can we be rewarded or punished according to 
 the deeds done in the body, as the Bible so plainly 
 and fully teaches, unless there is a direct connec- 
 tion between this world and the resurrection 
 state ? Our experiences must be preserved so as 
 to be utilized by us in the day of judgment ; but 
 if man is unconscious between death and the res- 
 urrection as though he "had not been," then are 
 they irretrievably lost ! If this theory which we 
 oppose be true, then the new Sodomites in the 
 day of judgment, will be punished for what the old 
 ones did ; and the new Gomorrahites for what the 
 old Gomorrahites did ; and the new saints of God, 
 made wholly from the dust of the ground, will be 
 rewarded and glorified for what the old ones did ! 
 Thus we see that there exists a demand and neces- 
 sity for the intermediate state which is so plainly 
 indicated in the Bible. 
 
 Jesus, as we have seen, said, when speaking of 
 his death, "I leave the world and go to the 
 Father." "And now I am no more in the world, 
 but these are in the world, and I come totothee." 
 
 In the same connection he makes known to 
 the Father his will concerning his disciples in the 
 following words : 
 
 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me 
 be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, 
 which thou hast given me; for thou lovedst me before the 
 foundation of the world. Jno. 17:24. 
 
 Adventist authors claim that the disciples 
 were not to be with Christ, after death, till his 
 return, or second coming ; and in proof they quote 
 John 14: 3. U I will come again and receive you 
 unto myself: that where I am, there ye may be 
 also." 
 
THE FAMILY OF SAINTS. 113 
 
 The mistake here made is in limiting the 
 promise, of which this is simply a part, to the resur- 
 rection state, whereas it evidently covers the 
 intermediate state also. This more comprehen- 
 sive position harmonizes with all the teachings of 
 Christ and the apostles ; but the other does not. 
 The great promise recorded in John 12 : 26, is in 
 harmony with the view we defend. 
 
 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, 
 there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him 
 will my Father honor. 
 
 The fact that when Jesus comes again he will 
 bring the saints with him, proves our position to 
 be correct. 
 
 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so 
 them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 
 Thes. 4:14. 
 
 Our opponents place a construction upon this 
 scripture which brings it in plain conflict with 
 other passages. 
 
 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of 
 these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousand 
 of his saints. Jude 14. 
 
 Jude here uses a figure of speech already allud- 
 ed to, by virtue of which an indefinite number is 
 represented by a definite number. The same 
 event is evidently described in Zech. 14 : 5. "And 
 the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints 
 with thee." 
 
 These plain statements of the word show that 
 the saints are with Christ in the intermediate 
 state, that they will come with him when he 
 returns, and in this manner he will, through the 
 resurrection, receive them unto himself in glory. 
 
 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ. Of whom the whole family in heaven 
 and earth is named. Eph. 3:14, 15. 
 
 Paul here concedes that part of the great fam- 
 ily of God was in heaven in his day. But we are 
 told, "that branch of the family 'in heaven' if 
 
114 JONES ANSWERED. 
 
 therefore composed of the Lord Jesus and the 
 angels, that branch 'on earth' is composed of the 
 righteous living and dead." "THANATOPSIS," p. 
 22. Thus Mr. Jones makes it appear that Paul 
 does not refer to departed saints in heaven, but to 
 Jesus and the angels. There are no grounds for 
 this assumption found in the chapter, the reading 
 of which strongly favors the idea that reference 
 was had to the saints only. The Revised Version 
 puts the matter at rest in harmony with the view 
 we defend. 
 
 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father, from 
 whom every family in heaven and on earth is named. 
 
 This word every makes it clear that the fam- 
 ily in heaven to whom Paul refers is composed of 
 families who were once on the earth; unless 
 we suppose that the angels in heaven are divided 
 up into families. 
 
 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall 
 tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nak- 
 edness, or peril, or sword? For I am persuaded, that nei- 
 ther death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor pow- 
 ers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, 
 nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to sepa-- 
 ate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our 
 Lord. 
 
 "The love of God which is in Christ Jesus 
 our Lord" is mutual. God loves us and 
 we love God, and this forms a connecting link 
 between God and his people which can not be 
 broken so long as they abide in Christ. No possi- 
 ble kind of opposition, visible or invisible, in time 
 or in eternity, from men or devils, not even death, 
 can separate them "from the love of God." This 
 agrees with the statement Jesus made to his dis- 
 ciples when he sent them out to preach the gospel 
 among their enemies : "And fear not them which 
 kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul." 
 The leading thought in the apostle's mind was 
 evidently this : "You are established in the faitb 
 
EARNEST OF OUR INHERITANCE. 115 
 
 of the gospel, and there is no possible thing that 
 can destroy it." Here is the key. "Who shall 
 separate us from the love of Christ?" The possi- 
 bility of God losing his love for us because we are 
 greatly tried and our enemies persecute us, is not 
 admissable ; but it is possible for us to lose our 
 love for him in the midst of trial persecu- 
 tion and death. This text shows beyond reasona- 
 ble doubt that conscious existence continues on 
 after death. 
 
 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word 
 of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also, after 
 that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of 
 promise. Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the 
 redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of 
 his glory- Eph. 1:13, 14. 
 
 This earnest is a partial reward ; we receive it 
 here and it continues "until the redemption of the 
 purchased possession." Death can not take us 
 from it, nor it from us ; therefore, death is not an 
 extinction of conscious existence. It matters not 
 whether the purchased possession be declared to 
 be the earth or the body, for in either case the 
 "earnest" is to continue until the time of the res- 
 urrection of the saints, when they shall receive 
 their full reward. 
 
 For we know that if our earthly house of this taber- 
 nacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house 
 not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this 
 we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our 
 house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed 
 we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tab- 
 ernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would 
 be unclothed, but clothed upon that mortality might be 
 swallowed up of life. Now, he that hath wrought us for 
 the self-same thing is God, who also hath given unto us the 
 earnest of the Spirit. Therefore we are always confident, 
 knowing that whilst we are at home in the body, we are 
 absent from the Lord. (For we walk by faith not by sight:) 
 We are confident I say, and willing rather to be absent 
 from the body, and to be present with the Lord. 2 Cor 5: 
 1-& 
 
116 OUR EARTHLY HOUSE. 
 
 We have quoted part of this scripture before, 
 but for another purpose. The apostle speaks of 
 the mortal body as an "earthly house" which will 
 be "dissolved;" the "house" or ''tabernacle" 
 in which we "do groan, being burdened." He 
 looks forward to the time when we shall receive 
 our new bodies, or "our house which is from heav- 
 en," at which time we are to receive a fulness of 
 reward. But he does not, like our Adventist 
 friends, overlook the intermediate state, but vir- 
 tually makes it a necessity to this glorious resur- 
 rection, which it certainly is. Hence the words, 
 "We are . . . willing rather to be absent from 
 the body, and to be present with the Lord." Be- 
 ing absent from the body and present with the 
 Lord, and our conscious existence extinct 
 at death, are certainly opposite conditions. 
 According to Paul the former is true, hence the 
 latter is not true. 
 
 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I 
 live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labor: yet what I 
 shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, 
 having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ, which is 
 far better: Nevertheless, to abide in the flesh is more 
 needful for you. And having this confidence, I know that 
 I shall abide and continue with you all for your further- 
 ance and joy of faith. Phil. 1:21-25. 
 
 This scripture is a strong proof of the inter- 
 mediate state, but Adventist authors, in different 
 ways, attempt to turn it aside. Wm. Sheldon, in 
 'ADVENTISM," p. 132, darkens the statements of 
 Paul in the following manner : 
 
 Death would have liberated Paul from every species of 
 persecution, like scourging, stoning, and imprisonment; 
 and in this respect it would have been "gain" to Paul to die; 
 but in thus escaping this dilemna. he would have fallen 
 into the hand of an "enemy" DEATH and Paul was in a 
 strait betwixt these two: mortal life, with bitter persecu- 
 tion on one hand, and the "enemy" death, on the other 
 hand: he did not choose either of these two things, but he 
 did choose a third thing, which was "to depart and be witfe 
 
SHELDON ANSWERED. 117 
 
 Christ." If "to depart and be with Christ" includes death as 
 a channel through which to depart, it makes Paul affirm 
 (1) that he did not choose this mortal life; (2) that he did 
 not choose the enemy death; and (3) that he did choose 
 death: thus making Paul contradict himself in the same 
 breath. Hence, it is evident, that "to depart and be with 
 Christ" implies something different from death. 
 
 After penning the above, Mr. Sheldon pro- 
 ceeds to claim that "Paul den'red an immediate 
 translation," though he did not "expect it." 
 
 If the above position is correct, then Paul 
 was "in a strait" (distress; difficulty ; distressing 
 necessity. Webster.) between two things, one of 
 which, "death," he does not name, except in the 
 first verse, where he calls it "gain." The two 
 things "betwixt" which Paul was in a "strait" are 
 plainly mentioned by him in the 23 and 24 verses : 
 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to 
 depart, and be with Christ, which is far better: neverthe- 
 less to abide in the flesh is more needful for you. 
 
 Kemaining "in the flesh" is life as we see it; 
 departing and being "with Christ" is evidently its 
 opposite, which is death. Paul desired "to depart 
 and be with Christ" because it would be "gain;" 
 and in the first verse he says, "To die is gain. 11 
 The idea of his translation is not so much as hint- 
 ed at ; but is one of the groundless assumptions 
 which it becomes necessary to make in order to 
 turn aside the things which are "written," and 
 which are in plain opposition to the dogma of 
 mortal-soulism. If death is an extinction of con- 
 scious being, what would Paul have gained by dy- 
 ing? We are told "it would be a 'gain' in releas- 
 ing him from trial," etc. We can understand how 
 he would be released from all his trials by passing 
 into the unconscious state, but would he not lose 
 all the precious blessings which result from the 
 full service of God ? Communion with God ; the 
 bright hope of future bliss ; actual possession in 
 ttxia life, of the "earnest of our inheritance," to- 
 
118 DEATH A DEPARTURE. 
 
 gether with many other things which gave the 
 apostle great consolation, would all be lost ! Life 
 may be filled with trials, but when we do right 
 and are fully engaged in the service of the true 
 Grod, it is vastly better than a state of non-exist- 
 ence ; and the idea that Paul thought that to be- 
 come as though he "had not been," would be 
 "gain," is absurd has no foundation in fact or 
 right reason. Paul was not discouraged with 
 trials so that he desired to become extinct in order 
 to get relief; but he desired "to depart and be 
 with Christ," which was better for him, in one 
 sense, than to "abide in the flesh;" but he was 
 willing to live that he might be of benefit to the 
 church. First, he does not know what to choose, 
 life or death, but second, he becomes reconciled to 
 his position and says, "I know that I shall abide." 
 A few years later, Paul became satisfied that the 
 time of his death was at hand : 
 
 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my 
 departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have 
 finished my course, I have kept the faith. 2 Tim. 4:6, 7. 
 
 It is admitted that Paul here refers to his 
 death; but, notice, he calls it a "departure" just 
 as he does in Phil. 1 : 23. Would good sense and 
 taste lead us to believe that Paul meant by "de- 
 part" and "departure," a cessation of conscious 
 being? We think not. Paul's statements are 
 harmonious, and in the above scriptures he evi- 
 dently meant just what is expressed in 2 Cor. 5 :8. 
 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent 
 from the body and to be present with the Lord. 
 
 The idea of our being present with the Lord 
 as soon as we lose our conscious existence is rather 
 a strange one. 
 
 Before me is a little pamphlet entitled "DE- 
 PARTING AND BEING WITH CHRIST^" by Elder J. 
 N. Andrews. He begins his exegesis of the scrip- 
 ture referred to in the following manner* 
 
PAUL'S DEPARTURE. 119 
 
 What did Paul mean by departing? 
 
 It is fair to answer this by his words to Timothy : "The 
 time of my departure is at hand." 2 Tim. 4:6. It was his 
 death. 
 
 The writer then proceeds with the claim that 
 Paul "could not be with Christ by dying," because 
 the dead are unconscious. The reader will notice 
 that Mr. Sheldon claims that "to depart" means 
 translation ; while Mr. Andrews frankly concedes 
 that it means death. But Mr. Andrews also 
 claims that departing is one thing, and being 
 "with Christ" is another thing. We give his own 
 words : 
 
 Then how do you reconcile all these testimonies with 
 the language of Paul, quoted at the head of this article, in 
 which he says, "Having a desire to depart, and to be with 
 Christ, which is far better?" The reconciliation is not a 
 matter of difficulty. The departure is by death; the being 
 with Christ is by the resurrection. These are two events, 
 and not one and the same thing. "To depart, AND to be 
 with Christ, which is far better." We may illustrate this 
 by a supposition. We will say that Paul, when at Miletus, 
 being very anxious to see the brethren in Jerusalem, and 
 to find rest from the severe labors of the field he had, in 
 the face of bitter opposition, so long cultivated, used this 
 language: "Having a desire to depart, and to be with 
 James at Jerusalem." No one would misunderstand that 
 language. The departing was one thing; the being with 
 James, another thing at some distance in the future, pp. 
 7,8. 
 
 Mr. Andrews' position is no more defensible 
 than Mr. Sheldon's. While Paul was in the body 
 he was away from Christ; but by leaving the 
 body departing he would secure the presence of 
 Christ. The departing was the means, the pres- 
 ence of Christ the end. When the departure was 
 accomplished, the presence of Christ was secured. 
 Take, for instance, Mr. Andrews' own illustra- 
 tion. "To be with James at Jerusalem" was the 
 thing which Paul desired; to make the journey 
 from Miletus was a necessary means. When the 
 journey was completed the presence of James (the 
 
120 IT PROVES CONSCIOUSNESS. 
 
 end desired) was secured. In this case the word 
 "depart" represents the entire journey, at the end 
 of which Paul would be in the presence of James. 
 Being with Christ was more desirable, in the 
 sense of present enjoyment, than to remain in the 
 flesh; and it would be "gain" in point of time. 
 The sooner Paul died the sooner he would secure 
 the presence of Christ. This proves consciousness 
 between death and the resurrection. For if Paul 
 could not go into the presence of Christ till he 
 was resurrected, and death is an end to conscious 
 existence, then it could not, in any sense, be a 
 "gain," neither in time nor condition. 
 
 There can be no doubt then, that Paul really expected 
 to be immediately with Christ when he died; that in pro- 
 portion as his labors were protracted before death, would 
 the time be put off when he should be with Christ, and that 
 as his period of labor was cut short by death, would the 
 period be shortened which intervened between him and 
 Christ; and yet this could not have been the case, had he 
 believed that the soul died with the body. The same 
 writer says, upon this passage: "The apostle does not say, 
 that he expected to be with Christ immediately on his 
 departure." We reply, the apostle most certainly does say 
 that very thing in effect. He says he has "a desire to 
 depart and to be with Christ." He has a desire to depart, 
 as a means; to be with Christ, as an end. Now he could 
 not have had a desire to depart for the sake of being with 
 Christ, unless he "expected to be with Christ,*' in conse- 
 quence of, or as a result of his departure. Such efforts to 
 turn aside texts from their natural force and meaning, only 
 prove how hard the theory sought to be sustained is 
 pressed by them. "IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL," by Rev. 
 Luther Lee, D. D. pp. 123, 124. 
 
 The learned committee who have given us the 
 Revised Version, and who gave special attention 
 to the punctuation, render Paul's language as 
 follows : 
 
 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if to 
 live in the flesh, if this is the fruit of my work, then what 
 I shall choose I wot not. But I am in a strait betwixt the 
 two, having the desire to depart and be with Christ; for it is 
 very far better: yet to abide in the flesh is more needful 
 for your sak. M 
 
BUT ONE PATH TO HARMONY. 121 
 
 The reader will notice that there is no comma 
 after the word "depart," as there should not be, 
 and the departure and being with Christ are as 
 closely connected as language can express them. 
 We know of but one way of harmonizing Messrs. 
 Sheldon and Andrews with each other, and with 
 Paul, and that is by admitting the conscious ex- 
 istence of man between death and the resurrec- 
 tion. 
 
 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou 
 comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Ver- 
 ily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in para- 
 dise. And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, 
 Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having 
 said thus, he gave up the ghost. Luke 23:42, 43, 46. 
 
 This dying thief, whom we believe to have 
 been a disciple of Christ, at one time, truly re- 
 pented of the crime he had committed, and 
 paid the debt according to the laws of the Roman 
 government. Thus he brought himself into a 
 state of reconciliation with God, and realizing 
 that in that condition he had just claim on the 
 mercy and power of Christ, he cries out in the 
 agonies ^>f death, "Lord remember me when thou 
 comest into thy kingdom." No time or place now 
 for an explanation concerning the Kingdom of 
 God ; but Jesus proceeds at once to inform the dy- 
 ing penitent that which he could and would do 
 for him, and here is the answer : "Verily I say 
 unto thee, today shalt thou be with me in para- 
 dise." How consoling must have been these 
 words as they fell from the lips of him whom this 
 man now recognizes as his Lord ! Then, after 
 making this plain promise, Jesus said, "Father, in- 
 to thy hands I commend my spirit ; and having said 
 thus, he gave up the ghost." The whole account 
 is plain, literal and unambiguous. What person 
 with common intelligence, going directly to the 
 word for light, would fail to understand that this 
 
122 ADVENTIST OBJECTIONS. 
 
 text teaches an intermediate state of conscious 
 existence for man ? 
 
 Adventists present two leading objections to 
 our position on this text. 1st. A want of har- 
 mony between the request and the reply. 
 
 What was the request? "Lord remember me when thou 
 comest into thy kingdom." What was the reply ? "AMEN" 
 or, "So LET IT BE:" that is, Let it be according to thy 
 request and then to make the matter doubly positive, 
 Jesus adds: "I say unto thee today, [despite surrounding 
 circumstances, everything to human appearance looking 
 as though I should never have a kingdom, yet] thou shalt 
 be with me in Paradise," which shall bloom in my king- 
 dom. "ADVENTISM," p. 72. 
 
 Thus, by retranslating, paraphrasing and re- 
 ferring us to "ancient punctuation," (as he does 
 on p. 71) Mr. Sheldon makes out his case. What an- 
 cient punctuation it is that differs from that in 
 the common version, Mr. Sheldon does not say. 
 
 It is not necessary to raise the question as to 
 the teachings of the Bible concerning the King- 
 dom of the Messiah. The important point is, 
 What did the penitent thief mean by the request, 
 "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy 
 kingdom?" The Jews, as a people, overlooked the 
 first coming of Christ, and hence they expected 
 when the Messiah should come, he would speedily 
 triumph over their enemies and restore to them 
 the Kingdom of Israel. The disciples, including 
 the apostles whom Christ chose and ordained, had 
 the same gross and carnal conception of the king- 
 dom, and the work of the Messiah. These 
 thoughts seem to have remained with them till 
 sometime after the resurrection of Christ, and it 
 is not probable that there was any considerable 
 change in this respect till after the bestowment of 
 the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Jesus permitted his disciples to have in their 
 posssession two swords at the time of his betrayal, 
 in order, as we believe, that he might the more 
 
CHRIST'S KINGDOM. 123 
 
 successfully impress their minds with the folly of 
 trying to establish his kingdom by force. That he 
 might the more successfully teach them that his 
 work was spiritual, not carnal, and his kingdom 
 from heaven, not of earth. (Luke 22:35-38.) 
 When the trying time came the disciples asked if 
 they should "smite with the sword." (Luke 22: 
 49.) In Matt. 26 : 51-54, we read : 
 
 And behold, one of them which were with Jesus, 
 stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a 
 servant of the high priest, and smote off his ear. Then 
 said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place; 
 for all they that take the sword, shall perish with the 
 sword. Thinkest thou that I can not now pray to my 
 Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve 
 legions of angels. But how then shall the scriptures be 
 fulfilled, that thus it must be ? 
 
 At the time of his crucifixion, the disciples 
 fled, and it would seem, almost gave up in despair. 
 One day, while two of them were going from Jeru- 
 salem to Emmaus, "Jesus himself drew near, and 
 went with them. But their eyes were holden that 
 they should not know him." (Luke 24:13-16.) 
 The disciples told the supposed stranger how Jes- 
 us had been put to death, and revealed to him 
 their bitter disappointment in, the following 
 words : 
 
 But we trusted that it had been he which should have 
 redeemed Israel." Verse 21. 
 
 About forty days after this time, when Jesus 
 assembled with the disciples, they made a formal 
 request of that which seemed to be uppermost in 
 their minds. 
 
 When they therefore were come together, they asked of 
 him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the 
 kingdom to Israel ? And he said unto them, It is not for 
 you to know the times or the seasons which the Father 
 hath put in his own power. Acts 1:6, 7. 
 
 The disciples thought it was high time for the 
 kingdom to be restored. But they were mistaken, 
 
124 CONCERNING PUNCTUATION. 
 
 and had not yet understood the character of their 
 work. 
 
 Now, is it not absurd to suppose that the thief 
 had thoughts and ideas, concerning the kingdom of 
 God, far in advance of the apostles ? He evident- 
 ly believed that Jesus was likely to triumph over 
 his enemies, at any moment, and trample them 
 under his feet. Hence the request, "Remember 
 me when thou comest into thy kingdom." And 
 in harmony with what Jesus knew to be the real 
 request of the dying penitent, and without any 
 endorsement of his ideas of the speedy establish- 
 ment of the kingdom, Jesus makes the very appro- 
 priate reply: "Yerily I say unto thee, to-day 
 thou shalt be with me in paradise." There is, 
 therefore, perfect harmony between the request 
 and the reply, allowing the punctuation to remain 
 as it is in the common version ; but should we 
 change the punctuation, this harmony would not 
 exist. 
 
 As mortal-soulists are compelled to remove 
 the comma which is placed after "thee" and either 
 place it after the phrase "today," or dispense 
 with it altogether, we give a little attention to 
 this point. Punctuation, they tell us, was not the 
 work of inspiration. True, but it was just as 
 much the work of inspiration as was the transla- 
 tion of the Bible from Greek into English. Both 
 were needful, and both were and are a blessing to 
 the people at large, though it would be folly to 
 claim absolute perfection for either one. There is, 
 however, far more safety in the translations, with 
 the punctuation they contain, furnished us by 
 large committees of good scholars, and by individ- 
 uals whose leading object, if not their sole pur- 
 pose, has been to furnish the people with the 
 scriptures, as nearly as possible as they left the 
 hands of inspired men, than there is in the work 
 
DIFFERENT VERSIONS. 125 
 
 of individuals who are bending all their energies 
 to support certain dogmas to which they are 
 wedded. 
 
 King James' Version was the work of many 
 hands, selected from among the best scholars of 
 the age. The Geneva Version agrees with it in 
 the wording and punctuation of this text. The 
 Syriac reads as follows : 
 
 Jesus said to him: verily I say to you, That this day 
 thou shalt be with rne in paradise. 
 
 Douay: And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee. 
 this day shalt thou. be with me in paradise. 
 
 What is termed the Revised Version was com- 
 menced in 1870 and completed in 1884. At first 
 the committee numbered twenty-five, and at the 
 last fifteen. These men were evidently from 
 among the best scholars to be found in Europe 
 and America. One of the rules by which they 
 were to be governed reads as follows : 7. To re- 
 vise the headings of chapters and pages, para- 
 graphs, italics, and punctuation. 
 
 In the preface to the New Testament, pub- 
 lished in 1881, we find the following statement : 
 "In accordance with the seventh rule, we have 
 carefully revised the paragraphs, italics, and 
 punctuation." Turning to the text under consid- 
 eration, we find it worded and punctuated pre- 
 cisely the same as King James. It may, there- 
 fore, be safely stated that the translation and 
 punctuation of this text, as found in the common 
 version are correct ; and the fact that Adventist 
 authors have to change it in order to make out 
 their case, is strong evidence against their posi- 
 tion. 
 
 But our opponents do not propose to give up 
 this point if they can help it. They evidently 
 realize that to give up this text is to give up their 
 case. A representative minister of the G. A. 
 Church, and editor of the Christian Armory, in 
 
126 ELDER W ATKINS' ERROR. 
 
 public debate with the writer, last winter, made 
 the following claim in favor of removing the com- 
 ma and placing it after, instead of before, "today." 
 
 Now again we consider whether the comma should be 
 placed before or after the word today. The seventh rule 
 adopted by those who made the Revised Version shows 
 that they did not consider the punctuation of King James 
 Version to be always correct. For example Hebrews 10:12, 
 makes it say what I do not believe, what Bro. Lambert 
 does not believe, what no one believes. The revisers there- 
 fore corrected the punctuation where it was defective. I 
 have examined the punctuation adopted with "semeron," 
 the original for "today," 259 times, and I find there are 170 
 witnesses in favor of placing the comma after the adverb 
 "today." 
 
 Here we have it, sure enough ; but it certain- 
 ly gives evidence of a bad case. The revisers cor- 
 rected the punctuation of the King James' Ver- 
 sion, but left the punctuation of the text under 
 consideration unchanged. Thus their own wit- 
 ness speaks against them. But the richest part 
 of this argument is that 170 witnesses out of 259 
 testify "in favor of placing the comma after the 
 adverb today" We need hardly inform the reader 
 that punctuation depends upon the construction 
 of sentences, and the construction depends upon 
 the sentiment, or thoughts, to be presented. Does 
 not this minister and editor know this? If 258 
 out of the 259 examples cited, were found in sen- 
 tences so constructed as to require the comma to 
 be placed after "today," it would weigh nothing 
 in favor of changing the punctuation in the pass- 
 age referred to. If this argument is worth any- 
 thing, then, the comma should always be placed 
 after the phrase "today," without any reference 
 to the construction of the sentences in which the 
 phrase is found. 
 
 2. It is claimed that Christ and the thief did 
 not go to paradise the day of their death, because 
 there was no paradise in existence and would not 
 
A PARADISE NOW. 127 
 
 be till it was established in the renewed earth. 
 This objection is not well founded. Having dis- 
 posed of the punctuation, the whole matter re- 
 solves itself into this shape. Shall we accept the 
 plain statement of Jesus in good faith, or shall we 
 allow it to be removed by a mere theory or belief 
 of men ? Our Adventist friends will admit that 
 there is such a place as "heaven" in which God, 
 Christ and the angels dwell. We have shown, too, 
 that Jesus desired and promised that his disciples 
 should be with him in the future state. Hence it 
 is, that part of the great family of God are now in 
 heaven, and the other part on the earth ; (Eph. 3 : 
 15.) but in a coming day they shall be gathered in 
 one. 
 
 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he 
 might gather together in one all things in Christ, both 
 which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him. 
 
 Now why cannot this "heaven" be called par- 
 adise? But the fact that Jesus said the thief 
 should be with him that very day "iw paradise," 
 ought to be sufficient evidence that a place called 
 paradise had an existence. Paul, as we have seen, 
 knew a man who "was caught up into paradise," 
 and there is not a particle of evidence to prove 
 that he referred to the "new earth." The stated 
 fact that Paul did not know whether he was "in 
 the body, or out of the body," shows that he did 
 not refer to a period after the resurrection. 
 
 Abbott, in his "DICTIONARY OF KELIGIOUS 
 KNOWLEDGE," defines paradise as follows : 
 
 This word occurs eight times only in the Bible. In Jew- 
 ish theology it signifies that part of Hades, or the abode of 
 the dead, where the souls of the righteous await resurrec- 
 tion. It seems also to have been employed to indicate the 
 final abode of the blessed; at least this is the signification 
 imputed to it by some critics, as it occurs in Rev. 2:7. In 
 its ordinary use it did not differ widely from Abraham's 
 bosom, or rather, perhaps, Abraham's bosom indicated a 
 place of especial honor in paradise. 
 
128 PARADISE AND THE JEWS. 
 
 Whea Jesus used the word "paradise" he knew 
 that the Jews would understand him to mean a 
 place of peace and rest for the righteous, between 
 death and the resurrection. Heaven is not sim- 
 ply a place, but a condition ; and it is eminently 
 fitting that the place and condition for the re- 
 deemed, after this life, should be called paradise. 
 
 We will examine one more objection and then 
 pass on. Jesus said to Mary, three days after his 
 death, 
 
 Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: 
 but go to my brethren and say unto them, I ascend unto 
 my Father and your Father; and to my God, and your 
 God. Jno. 20:17. 
 
 Jesus evidently referred to his bodily ascen- 
 sion which had not yet taken place. It was far 
 more important that Mary should hasten to inform 
 his brethren that he was risen, than to tarry that 
 she might embrace him with a kiss. What other 
 purpose could Jesus have had in refusing Mary 
 the privilege of touching him? Eight days after 
 this Thomas was permitted to thrust his hand 
 into his side. (Jno. 20 : 26, 27. ) 
 
 The established order of God is that the spirit 
 returns to him at death. "The man Christ Jesus" 
 conformed strictly to this order of things, though 
 how long he remained in the presence of his 
 Father and the waiting ones, we do not know ; 
 though, perhaps, it was but for a very short 
 time, after which, he proceeded to his mission "to 
 the spirits in prison." 
 
 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the 
 altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of 
 God, and for the testimony which they held: And they 
 cried with a loud voice saying, How long, O Lord, holy and 
 true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them 
 that dwell on the earth ? And white robes were given unto 
 every one of them ; and it was said unto them, that they 
 should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow-ser- 
 vants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they 
 were, should be fulfilled. Be v. 6:9-11. 
 
SOULS UNDER THE ALTAR. 129 
 
 We are told that this is only a vision. Very 
 well; in this vision, John saw souls which had 
 been slain, and which had not yet received a res- 
 urrection. "White robes were given unto every 
 one of them," and they were told to rest, or wait, 
 till their "fellow-servants also and their brethren, 
 that should be killed as they were, should be ful- 
 filled." If this does not represent conscious activ- 
 ity for the righteous between death and the resur- 
 rection, the vision is false and deceptive. Please 
 notice, it is not a vision of the resurrection nor of 
 death ; but of the condition of the righteous after 
 death and before the resurrection. The efforts 
 made by Wiley Jones and others to show that the 
 "white robes" were only prospective, are failures, 
 and the scriptures to which they refer do not fur- 
 nish parallel cases. (See Rom. 4 : 17 : 1 Cor. 3 :22.) 
 John saw some things which were accomplished, 
 and some which were yet to be accomplished. 
 Among the things already accomplished were 
 souls gathered "under the altar" to whom white 
 robes were given, which robes are evidently the 
 righteousness of saints. (Rev. 7 :9, 13, 14.) 
 
 But we are told that the "altar" is on the 
 earth, and the blood, "by metonomy," represents 
 "the soul of the martyr as crying," etc. We reply, 
 that the altar which John saw was not on the 
 earth, but in heaven. 
 
 And another angel came and stood at the altar, having 
 a golden censor; and there was given unto him much in- 
 cense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints 
 upon the golden altar which was before the throne. 
 Rev. 8:3. 
 
 In Revelations 9 : 13, "the golden altar" is said 
 to be "before God." If it be said that John sim- 
 ply saw a representation of souls in a conscious 
 state, we ask, how could he see a representation 
 of that which does not exist ? Please remember 
 that these souls had been slain and were not yet 
 
130 THE TRANSFIGURATION. 
 
 resurrected. When we see a panoramic view of 
 some city or place, we see a representation of that 
 which has or had an actual existence. But this 
 vision was evidently a clear, spiritual sight of the 
 souls of the redeemed as they were and are in the 
 intermediate state. The vision, in kind, was like 
 the one had by Stephen when he saw Jesus. "Be- 
 hold, I see the heavens opened, ad the Son of Man 
 standing on the right hand of God. (Acts 7 :56.) 
 Just as the heavens, the Father and Son, were all 
 there to be seen, so were "the souls of them that 
 were slain resting in paradise where John saw 
 them in vision. 
 
 And after six days, Jesus taketh Peter, James and John 
 his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain 
 apart, And was transfigured before them: and his face 
 did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the 
 light. And behold, there appeared unto them Moses and 
 Elias talking with him. Then answered Peter, and said 
 unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, 
 let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, one for 
 Moses, and one for Elias. While he yet spake, behold, a 
 bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold, a voice out 
 of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom 
 I am well pleased, hear ye him. And when the disciples 
 heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid. And 
 Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not 
 afraid. And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw 
 no man, save Jesus only. And as they came down from 
 the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision 
 to no man until the Son of Man be risen again from the 
 dead.-Matt. 17:1-9. 
 
 Mr. Jones undertakes to reconcile th trans- 
 figuration scenes to his theory in the following 
 manner: 
 
 Even if this had been a real presence of Moses and Eli- 
 jah it would not prove disembodied consciousness, for we 
 have no evidence that Elijah ever died. 2 Kings 2:11. And 
 Moses may have had his long sleep interrupted for the 
 special occasion (to bear witness to the Messiah of whom 
 he had formerly spoken, Acts 3:22), and may afterwards 
 have gone back to finish his slumber in that sepulchre of 
 which no man knoweth to this day. Deut. 34:6. Just as, I 
 
JONES ANSWERED. 131 
 
 think, we have reason to infer that Lazarus also, after he 
 had by his resurrection borne witness to the Messiahshipof 
 Jesus, returned in due course of time to his grave. As to 
 the nature that "dieth no more." Christ is "the first-fruits 
 of those who sleep." 1 Cor. 15:20, (A. B. U.); Rom. 6:9. The 
 transfiguration scene, however, is called a "vision," and 
 this word is used as differing in its nature from a present 
 reality. Matt. 17:9; Acts 12:9. "THANATOPSIS," p. 17. 
 
 There are only two points in the above extract 
 which we care to notice at present. Mr. Jones 
 finds it necessary in order to turn aside Bible 
 statements, to presume, in absence of all proof, 
 that Moses may have been raised to mortality and 
 then went back "to finish his slumber in that tomb 
 of which no man knoweth to this day." If we are 
 permitted to indulge in such monstrous presump- 
 tions as this, in order to support a chosen doc- 
 trine, or turn aside proof which is against us, then 
 we may quite easily dispose of the plainest state- 
 ments of Holy Writ, and in the same manner sup- 
 port the most dangerous and heretical doctrine ever 
 held by professed Christians ! What would our 
 opponents say if we were to indulge in such pre- 
 sumptions as this to support the doctrine of im- 
 mortality ? No better evidence of weakness could 
 be furnished. 
 
 However, if the presumption is not sufficient, 
 Mr. Jones thoughtfully informs the reader that 
 the " transfiguration scene is called a 'vision' and 
 this word is used as differing in its nature from a 
 present reality." We have already seen that the 
 primary meaning of vision is "the act of seeing 
 external objects; actual sight." Vision is often 
 used in the sense of "a present reality." A spirit- 
 ual vision is a spiritual sight of things as they are 
 or will be. It was necessary that the eyes of Eli- 
 sha's servant should be opened that he might see 
 that "the mountain was full of horses and chari- 
 ots of fire round about Elisha-" (2 Kings 6:17.) 
 
132 VISIONS SOMETIMES PRESENT REALITIES. 
 
 Notice, the horses and chariots were there, but 
 the young man was not in a condition to see them 
 till his eyes had been touched by the power of 
 God. This vision was a present reality. 
 
 The women who saw and talked with the 
 angels of God at the sepulchre of Jesus, reported 
 that they had "seen a vision of angels." (Luke 24 : 
 1-7, 23.) Zacharias saw and conversed with the 
 angel Gabriel, and Luke says, "And when he 
 came out, he could not speak unto them : and they 
 perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple." 
 These visions, like many others, were present real- 
 ities. 
 
 The vision of transfiguration in the mount, 
 was also "a present reality." Jesus, Peter, James 
 and John were really there. "A bright cloud" 
 was seen ; the voice of God was heard, and "there 
 appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with 
 him." Peter afterwards refers to this vision in 
 the following manner : 
 
 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, 
 when we made known unto you the power and coming of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of his maj- 
 esty. For he received from God the Father honor and 
 glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excel- 
 lent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well 
 pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, 
 when we were with him in the holy mount. 2 Peter 1:16-18. 
 
 They saw with their eyes, and heard with their 
 ears, and hence were prepared to testify. 
 
 Adventist authors make an argument in favor 
 of the second coming of Christ that it will be 
 personal and literal founded on the word "ap- 
 pear" as found in Heb. 9 :28. 
 
 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and 
 unto them that look for him shall he appear the second 
 time without sin unto salvation. 
 
 They give us Webster and Wocester, and the 
 Bible to show that the word "appear" indicates the 
 literal and personal return of Jesus Christ. Very 
 
THE WORD APPEAR. 133 
 
 well. "And behold there appeared unto them 
 Moses and Elias talking with him." What does 
 the word "appear" mean as used in this passage? 
 Moses had been dead for nearly fifteen hun- 
 dred years. 
 
 So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land 
 of Moab, according to the word of the Lord. And he bur- 
 ied him in a valley in the land of Moab. over against Beth- 
 peor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day. 
 Deut. 34:5, 6. 
 
 Now after the death of Moses, the servant of the Lord, 
 It came to pass, that the Lord spake unto Joshua the son 
 of Nun, Moses* minister, saying, Moses my servant is dead: 
 now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou and all this 
 people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the 
 children of Israel. Josh. 1: 1, 2. 
 
 Christ was the first to rise to immortality ; 
 and the claim that Moses was raised to a condition 
 of mortality in order to bear testimony to the 
 mission of Christ, is a monstrous presumption, 
 without foundation in scripture or reason. 
 
 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the 
 first-fruits of them that slept. 1 Oor. 15: 20. 
 
 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the 
 first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light 
 unto the people, and to the Gentiles. Acts 26: 23. 
 
 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful Witness, and 
 the First-begotten of the dead, and the Prince of the kings 
 of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from 
 our sins in his own blood. Kev. 1:5. 
 
 The Elias who appeared with Moses, was evi- 
 dently John the Baptist, as shown by the question 
 of the disciples and the answer of Jesus, given im- 
 mediately after the transfiguration. However, 
 the argument is the same if we confine it to Moses. 
 
 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the 
 scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered 
 and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come and restore 
 all things: But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, 
 and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatso- 
 ever they listed; likewise shall also the Son of Man suffer 
 of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake 
 unto them of John the Baptist. Matt. 17: 10-13. 
 
134 CHRISTIAN ARMORY. 
 
 In the Christian Armory for April 30, 1891, and 
 in answer to query concerning the transfiguration, 
 we have the following statements by the associate 
 editor : 
 
 In response to "Query" (contained in the April 2nd 
 issue of "The Armory.") "If the first five verses of the 
 ninth chapter of Mark, record a literal manifestation of 
 the kingdom, was Moses there mortal, if mortal, was this a 
 true epitome of the kingdom ?" We would say, it was. A 
 vision, is an appearance; sometimes real, and sometimes 
 unreal, according to the nature of the occasion. The word 
 vision in Matt. 17:9, is from the Greek term "horama," signi- 
 fying, "A sight." Moses was there as mortal as ever: 
 brought there (from the vale in the land of Moab) by Mich- 
 ael the archangel, who, (when he went to Moab after him) 
 had a dispute with the Devil, who desired to retain him 
 (Moses) captive until the time. Matt. 8:29; Jude 9. Elijah 
 was there, also mortal as well as Christ, Peter, James and 
 John. All six were mortal. That it was a real affair we 
 find proof of in the nature of their discussion, i. e., the 
 atonement. Peter bear record of the reality of the scene, 
 saying it was not a fable; "we make known unto you 
 the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, .... 
 were eye witnesses of his majesty, for he received from 
 God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a 
 voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved 
 Son, in whom I am well pleased: hear ye him. 
 
 Here it is frankly admitted that the vision was 
 a reality in direct opposition to the statement of 
 Mr. Jones, but in harmony with Mr. Jones, the 
 learned editor affirms that Moses was raised to 
 mortality. Where is the proof of this ? Matt. 8 : 29, 
 and Jude 9 are cited. The first is the statement 
 of the demons to Jesus. 
 
 What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God ? 
 art thou come hither to torment us before the time ? 
 
 There is a vast difference between these de- 
 mons objecting to being punished before the judg- 
 ment and the Devil trying to prevent the resur- 
 rection of Moses. Why should he object to his 
 resurrection inasmuch as he was to be put back in 
 the grave at once ? But Mr. Jones says Moses was 
 "to bear witness to the Messiah." Where is the 
 
POINTS OF THE TRANSFIGURATION. 135 
 
 proof ? The very thing which our opponents de- 
 mand of us ! Where is the testimony which Moses 
 gave in the mount? It can not be found in the 
 New Testament. There is just as much proof 
 that Elias bore witness to the Messiah as there is 
 that Moses did. Both talked with him "and 
 spake of his decease which he should accomplish at 
 Jerusalem," but we are not told what either one of 
 them said. As to the passage from Jude it simply 
 says, in an incidental way, that "Michael, the 
 archangel," contended with the devil and disputed 
 "about the body of Moses." When, and for what 
 purpose this dispute took place, Jude does nob say. 
 However, it is probable, we think, that the dispute 
 occurred either at the time of Moses' death, or 
 when many of the saints arose after the resurrec- 
 tion of Christ. (Matt. 27 : 52, 53.) 
 
 We note a few points and then pass on. 
 
 1. The vision was a grand reality. Jesus, 
 three of his apostles, Moses and Elias, were all 
 there. 
 
 2. It is quite evident that Moses and Elias 
 were immortal. It required a marked, spiritual 
 change in Jesus himself, in order that he might 
 stand in their presence and talk with them. He 
 "was transfigured before them; and his face did 
 shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the 
 light." The strong effect had upon the disciples 
 favors the claim that Moses and Elias were im- 
 mortal. 
 
 The statement of Luke is convincing and con- 
 clusive. 
 
 And behold, there talked with him two men, which 
 were Moses and Elias; Who appeared in glory, and spake 
 of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem. 
 Luke 9:30, 31. 
 
 Jesus received "glory" temporarily, at that 
 time, because he was in the mortal state ; but we 
 
136 THE WICKED CONSCIOUS. 
 
 are not at liberty to presume this of Moses and 
 Elias, who had passed within the veil. 
 
 3. Moses had been dead for nearly fifteen 
 hundred years. Christ was the first to "rise from 
 the dead" to a state of immortality. The idea 
 that Moses was raised to mortality is contrary to 
 right reason and without foundation in the word. 
 Therefore, Moses was a conscious man between 
 death and the resurrection. And if Moses was 
 conscious in the intermediate state, so are all 
 other men, for there exists nothing with which 
 we are acquainted, which would make Moses, in 
 this respect, an exception to the rule governing 
 other men. 
 
 We have now shown by a number of valid 
 proofs that the righteous are conscious between 
 death and the resurrection ; and will now proceed 
 to prove that the wicked also live in a condition 
 of conscious existence in the intermediate state. 
 
 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast 
 them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of dark- 
 ness, to be reserved unto judgment; The Lord knoweth 
 how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve 
 the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished. 2 
 Peter 2: 4, 9. 
 
 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but 
 left their own habitation, he hath reserved In everlast- 
 ing chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great 
 day. Jude 6. 
 
 The word "reserve" comes from the Greek tereo, 
 which literally means "to keep." Notice that the 
 "unjust" are reserved for punishment as well as 
 the fallen angels, or demons. Now the fallen 
 angels are reserved in darkness with a conscious- 
 ness of their guilt; and so it will be with the 
 wicked. The Revised Version renders 2 Peter 
 2 : 9 as follows : 
 
 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temp- 
 tation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment 
 unto the day of judgment. 
 
RICH MAN AND LAZARUS. 137 
 
 It will hardly do to claim that this punish- 
 ment is natural death, for it is applied to the 
 wicked in contradistinction to the righteous; 
 whereas the righteous die and remain dead during 
 the intermediate state as well as the wicked. The 
 latter, however, are thrown into a kind of spirit- 
 ual jail, or prison, to await the day of judgment. 
 
 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in 
 purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: 
 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus which was 
 laid at his gate full of sores, And desiring to be .fed with 
 the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover 
 the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass 
 that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into 
 Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was 
 buried: And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in tor- 
 ments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his 
 bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have 
 mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of 
 his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tor- 
 mented in this flame. But Abraham said. Son, remember 
 that thou in thy lifetime receivest thy good things, and 
 likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and 
 thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and 
 you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would 
 pass from hence to you can not; neither can they pass to 
 us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray 
 thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my 
 father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may tes- 
 tify unto them, lest they also come into this place of tor- 
 ment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the 
 prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father 
 Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they 
 will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses 
 and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though 
 one rose from the dead. Luke 16:19-31. 
 
 Admit that this is a parable and the proof for 
 conscious existence after death still remains. 
 
 In "ABBOTT'S DICTIONARY OF RELIGIOUS 
 KNOWLEDGE," we have an excellent article on 
 parables from which we present short extracts. 
 
 There are three questions respecting the parables 
 which properly require consideration in this article. 1st. 
 What is a parable ? 2nd. What is the object of the para- 
 
138 OP PARABLES. 
 
 ble and, particularly, what was the reason that Christ 
 employed this form of instruction so extensively ? and 3rd. 
 Are there any general rules for the interpretation of the 
 parable if so, what are they ? 
 
 But in the parable there is never any transgression of 
 the laws of nature. Christ never presents to us any speak- 
 ing or reasoning beasts; and we should be at once con- 
 scious of an unfitness in his so doing." When animals 
 are introduced, as in the parable of the Good Shepherd 
 they are introduced not as types of humanity, nor as 
 though endowed with human reason, but as animals. 
 
 To sum up all, then, the parable differs from the fable, 
 moving as it does in the spiritual world, and never trans- 
 gressing the actual and natural order of things; from the 
 proverb, inasmuch as it is more fully carried out, and is 
 not merely accidentally and occasionally, but necessarily 
 figurative; from the allegory, comparing as it does one 
 thing with another, but at the same time, preserving them 
 apart, and not transferring, as does the allegory, the prop- 
 erties and qualities and relations of one to the other. 
 
 A parable, then, is a fictitious narrative, true to nature, 
 yet undeceptive, veiling a spiritual truth under a symbol, 
 for the purpose of conveying it to min^s reluctant or indif- 
 ferent. It differs from the proverb in being a narrative, 
 from the fable in being true to nature, from the myth in 
 being undeceptive, from the allegory in that it veils the 
 spiritual truth. 
 
 We would reasonably expect to find the para- 
 ble, as used by Jesus, the most perfect figure of 
 speech, and used in the most perfect manner. 
 The object of the parable must not be abstruse 
 and far-fetched, but must appear upon its face, 
 inasmuch as its leading purpose is to benefit those 
 who are slow to receive the truth. The disciples 
 once said to Jesus, 
 
 Why speakest thou unto them in parables ? He an- 
 swered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to 
 know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them 
 it is not given. Matt. 13:10, 11. 
 
 Jesus evidently talked to them in parables be- 
 cause that through that mode of teaching he 
 would be able to inculcate more truth than in the 
 ordinary way. 
 
TEACHINGS OF THIS PARABLE. 139 
 
 Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the king- 
 dom of God, but unto them that are without, all these things 
 are done in parables. Mark 4:11. 
 
 What, then, are the obvious teachings of the 
 parable quoted above ? A stern rebuke against 
 selfishness, arrogance and pride ; a clear revela- 
 tion of the grand truth that when we pass within 
 the veil, the justice of God controls, rather than 
 the inequalities and injustice of man ; that death 
 is a great change, but not an end to conscious 
 existence. 
 
 It plainly belongs to the very scope and design of this 
 parable to show what becomes of the souls of good and bad 
 men after death. Bishop Bull. 
 
 The question whether this is a history or a parable is 
 not necessary to discuss. In either mode the scripture 
 teaches truth. Important and often vital truth. The 
 chief difference is that one mode asserts what has occur- 
 red, the other, "what does occur." Prof. Bartlett. 
 
 In any aspect Christ could not have lent his sanction 
 to falsehood and imposture. As Alford fitly remarks, "In 
 conforming himself to the ordinary language current on 
 these subjects, it is impossible to suppose that he whose 
 essence is truth could have assumed as existing anything 
 which does not exist. It would destroy the truth of our 
 Lord's sayings, if we could conceive him to have 
 used popular language which did not point at truth. And, 
 accordingly, where such language was current, we find him 
 not adopting, but protesting against it. (See Matt. 15:5, 6.) 
 
 Therefore, with Alford, Trench, Wordsworth, and the 
 best commentators, we take the passage relative to the 
 rich man and Lazarus as teaching, at all events, two things; 
 first, that the soul of the man is conscious after death; and 
 secondly, that, according to its moral character, it goes 
 either into a place of happiness and repose or into one of dis- 
 quiet and misery. These two thoughts not only lie upon the 
 surface of the narrative,but they also constitute its very life 
 and essence. "DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE," pp. 190. 191. 
 
 When we consider the significance of "hell," 
 or hades, and ''Abraham's bosom," as understood 
 and used among the Jews in the time of Christ, 
 the proof of this text in favor of conscousness af- 
 ter death, becomes almost irresistible. 
 
140 ABRAHAM'S BOSOM. 
 
 "ABRAHAM'S BOSOM." This phrase, used in Luke 16:22, 
 as a description of heaven, takes its significance from the 
 practice customary in the Orient, at the time of Christ, of 
 reclining on couches at meals in such a way that each 
 guest rested upon the bosom of his left hand neighbor. This 
 position with respect to the master of the house was one of 
 especial honor, and only occupied by dear friends. To lie 
 in Abraham's bosom, thus became a metaphor expressive 
 of the highest spiritual condition and felicity, and, as such, 
 was employed by Christ in contrasting the condition of 
 Lazarus in the other world with that of the rich man who 
 had his good things in his life time. DICTIONARY OF RELIG- 
 IOUS KNOWLEDGE, by Lyman Abbott. 
 
 Messrs. Sheldon and Grant claim that this 
 parable represents the Jews and Gentiles, but is no 
 proof of consciousness after death ! Mr. Jones 
 thinks it may be a parable, but he is inclined to 
 the belief that "it is a prophecy, calling 'those 
 things which be not as though they were.' (Rom. 
 4 : 17), and pointing to Jewish affairs at the second 
 advent of the Messiah." 
 
 L. C. Collins, in "HADES AND SHEOL, AND 
 THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS," pp. 29, 30, gives us 
 his view of the true import and purpose of the par- 
 able. 
 
 How, then, are we to understand this Scripture, and 
 what are its teachings and design ? It should be regarded 
 In the light of a parable, or Fictitious narrative, founded 
 upon the belief of the Pharisees touching the state of the 
 dead in hades. And it was given in personal reproof to 
 them for their covetousness and most insulting derision of 
 Christ's teaching that a man "cannot serve God and mam- 
 mon." He takes these Pharisees upon ther own ground of 
 argument and belief, and most adroitly, in parabolic form, 
 turns that very belief in withering personal reproof upon 
 them for their worldliness and sin. 
 
 Mr. Collins severely criticises the speculative 
 and far-fetched interpretations of his brethren, 
 agreeing with them, however, in this, if nothing 
 more, that it does not teach man's consciousness 
 after death. In this, Elder Collins is inconsist- 
 ent. He justly condemns the speculative and 
 
ELDER COLLIN'S COMMENT. 141 
 
 dangerous work of his brethren, but just as soon 
 as he attempts to set aside the force of the text in 
 favor of conscious existence after death, he neces- 
 sarily falls into the same error. Here is what he 
 says of the assumed positions of Sheldon, Grant, 
 and others. 
 
 In the light of a parable, then, what are we to under- 
 stand by it? Very many take the ground that it was ut- 
 tered by our Lord to illustrate the character and history 
 of the Jews as connected with the Gentiles, the death and 
 torment of the rich man denoting the rejection, the curse, 
 and misery of the Jews, because of their unbelief, and Laz- 
 arus in Abraham's bosom denoting the admission of the 
 Gentiles into Gospel blessings. This view to myself and very 
 many others has never been satisfactory. To the minds of 
 many it appears strained, far-fetched and unnatural; and 
 seems more like an ingenious device to get rid of a diffi- 
 culty, than a clear exposition of Bible truth. Let us exam- 
 ine the application, and see if it will bear criticism. Who 
 are the five brethren that fill so important a place in the 
 parable? We are told, that as the rich man denotes the 
 one house of Israel, composed of the two tribes of Benja- 
 min and Judah, so the five brethren represent the other 
 house or the ten tribes. As the rich man represents the 
 two, so the five brethren represent the ten. Most admira- 
 ble mathematics, but very lame theology. Now is there 
 not something here very remarkable? for according to this 
 interpretation, the parable is really a prophecy extending 
 throughout the gospel age. But where now are these ten 
 tribes? They have no existence, and have not had since 
 even before Christ's time. They are called the "lost ten 
 tribes." Those long in search of them have found them 
 sometimes in the North American Indians, or in the Anglo 
 Saxons; sometimes in one place, and sometimes in another. 
 Certain it is that they left home before ever the parable 
 was uttered, and have never been found at their "father's 
 house" since; although the parable assures us that they 
 are there still! Neither is there a people on the face of the 
 earth, yet retaining "Moses and the prophets," to answer to 
 them. Then again in the parable, the rich man is very 
 anxious for their conversion, that they should "repent," 
 and "believe;" but we have never been aware that the 
 Jews are anxious to have the ten tribes brought into the 
 gospel covenant. 
 
 Our position, we think, is plain, and we give 
 the reader the benefit of seeing it in juxtaposition 
 
142 HIGHLY CONSCIOUS STATE. 
 
 with the positions of our opponents. It should be 
 borne in mind that Abraham, the rich man and 
 Lazarus, were all dead, and are represented in a 
 highly conscious state before their resurrection. 
 The objection that hades is not a place of punish- 
 ment, etc., will be noticed in another place. 
 
 To the end that, none of all the trees by the waters, ex- 
 alt themselves for their height, neither shoot up their top 
 among the thick boughs, neither their trees stand up in 
 their height, all that drink water: for they are all, deliv- 
 ered unto death, to the nether parts of the earth, in the 
 midst of the children of men, with them that go down to 
 the pit, Thus saith the Lord God; In the day when he 
 went down to the grave I caused a mourning: I covered 
 the deep for him, and I restrained the floods thereof, and 
 the great waters were stayed; and I caused Lebanon to 
 mourn for him. and all the trees of the field fainted for 
 him. I made the nations to shake at the sound of his fall, 
 when I cast him down to hell with them that descend into 
 the pit; and all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of 
 Lebanon, and all that drink water shall be comforted in 
 the nether parts of the earth. They also went down into 
 hell with him, unto them that be slain with the sword; and 
 they that were his arm, that dwell under his shadow in the 
 midst of the heathen. To whom art thou thus like in glory 
 and in greatness among the trees of Eden? yet shalt thou 
 be brought down with the trees of Eden unto the nether 
 parts of the earth; thou shalt lie in the midst of the uncir- 
 cumcised with them that be slain by the sword. This is 
 Pharaoh and all his multitude saith the Lord God. Ezekiel 
 31:14-18. 
 
 There be the princes of the north, all of them, and all 
 the Zidonians. which are gone down with the slain; with 
 their terror they are ashamed of their might: and they lie 
 uncircumcised with them that be slain by the sword, and 
 bear their shame with them that go down to the pit. Pha- 
 raoh shall see them, and shall be comforted over all his 
 multitude, even Pharaoh and all his army slain by the 
 sword, saith the Lord God. For I have caused my terror 
 in the land of the living; and he shall be laid in the midst 
 of the uncircumcised with them that are slain with the 
 sword, even Pharaoh and all his multitude saith the Lord 
 God. Ezekiel 32: 30-32. 
 
 An attempt is made to turn aside these plain 
 evidences by the claim that they prove the con- 
 
THE GRAVE AND PIT. 143 
 
 sciousness of "trees" as much as that of men. We 
 reply that "trees" is used metaphorically to repre- 
 sent men, as they are in other places in the Bible. 
 Judges 9 : 7-14 ; Isa. 10 : 18, 19 ; Jude 12. A proph- 
 ecy or narrative may be literal and yet contain 
 figures. The closing sentences of the above scrip- 
 tures form the key to the other statements, and 
 prove our position to be correct. 
 
 This is Pharaoh and all his multitude, saith the Lord 
 God. 
 
 And he shall be laid in the midst of the uncircumcised 
 with them that are slain with the sword, even Pharaoh 
 and all his multitude, saith the Lord God. 
 
 "Pit" comes from the Hebrew beer, and liter- 
 ally means "a pit or well." The same place is called 
 the "nether parts of the earth." Nether comes 
 from the Hebrew tachti, and literally means "low- 
 er, under." Now the grave is not in the lower or 
 under parts of the earth, but, rather, in the upper 
 and higher parts : therefore reference is not had 
 to the grave. 
 
 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord 
 shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and 
 the kings of the earth upon the earth. And they shall be 
 gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, 
 and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days 
 shall they be visited. Isa. 24:21, 22. 
 
 Carefully read the whole chapter which de- 
 scribes in a vivid manner the time of general dis- 
 aster and death that shall come upon the inhab- 
 itants of the earth just previous to the second 
 advent of Jesus Christ. The kings and high ones 
 are to be punished with destruction and death ; 
 after which they will be "shut up in the prison, 
 and after many days shall they be visited." It 
 may be claimed that they will be punished with 
 death, and "visited" at the resurrection ; but, to 
 us, the language implies that after this punish- 
 ment and imprisonment a means of release will be 
 offered. This thought is in harmony with the 
 
144 PRISON AND PIT. 
 
 character of God and the aggregate statements of 
 the text ; but the idea that God will visit them 
 and raise them from the dead, for the sole and in- 
 evitable purpose of reducing them to ashes by the 
 means of literal fire, does violence to the text and 
 is opposed to the revealed character of God. 
 More than this, the "prison" and "pit," as we 
 shall presently see, are sometimes used to denote 
 the abode of living, conscious beings in the spirit 
 state. 
 
 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for 
 the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to 
 death in the flesh, but quickened by the spirit. By which 
 also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 
 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suf- 
 fering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark 
 was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were 
 saved by water. 1 Peter 3:18-20. 
 
 We regret being under the necessity of stating 
 our conviction that many, very many, who are 
 firm believers in the immortality of the soul, are 
 hindered and prevented from properly using the 
 invincible statements of this text, by the creeds 
 which they have adopted. And, as we might ex- 
 pect, mortal-soulists quote their words to help 
 them turn aside the force of the text. 
 
 Mr. Jones brings the theory we oppose quite 
 fully before the reader in the following exegesis: 
 
 Persons in the flesh and blood nature are called "souls" 
 in the very next verse "eight souls were saved by water." 
 And John is evidently alluding to false teachers in flesh 
 and blood when he says, "Believe not every spirit, but try 
 the spirits whether they are of God: because many false 
 prophets are gone out into the world. 1 John 4:1. It is ap- 
 propriate to speak of Antediluvian spirits as "in prison." 
 because persons in an ignorant and sinful state are called 
 "prisoners," and their enlightenment and conversion is 
 "the opening of the prison to them that are bound." Isa. 
 43:7; 61:1. Certainly it does not mean that Christ tried to 
 convert and save disembodied and wicked spirits in hell, 
 for there is no conversion or repentance after death. Be- 
 sides, none but Antediluvian sinners are mentioned; why 
 
LIMITED VIEW. 145 
 
 think he would preach to them any more than to other dis- 
 embodied spirits, if they were all in hell together ? Peter 
 specifies the people before the flood because he is showing a 
 comparison between the ministry through Noah and that 
 through the Apostles, between the destruction which fell 
 upon the disobedient of that dispensation and that which 
 will soon fall upon the disobedient of this. Noah was a 
 "preacher of righteousness," and the Spirit in him and 
 other prophets is called "the Spirit of Christ. 1 Peter 1:11; 
 2 Peter 2:5. And that Peter is speaking of the Antediluvi- 
 ans in a somewhat figurative strain is evident from his 
 words "the like figure," in verse 21. Now, when saying that 
 Christ "in" the Spirit "went and preached" to those Ante- 
 diluvians, I suppose he is using a highly figurative expres- 
 sion, somewhat as when it is said that Levi, before his 
 birth, paid tithes "in Abraham" to Melchisedec. Heb. 7:9, 
 10. Here is Adam Clarke's comment on the subject, "The 
 punishment was delayed to see if they would repent; and 
 the long-suffering of God waited 120 years, which were 
 granted to them for this purpose; during which time, as 
 criminals tried and convicted, they are represented as be- 
 ing in prison, detained under the arrest of divine justice, 
 which waited either for their repentance or the expiration 
 of the respite, that the punishment pronounced might be 
 inflicted. There is no ground to believe that the text 
 speaks of Christ's going to hell to preach the gospel to the 
 damned; or His going to some feigned place where the 
 souls of the patriarchs were detained, to whom he 
 preached, and whom he delivered from that place and took 
 with him to paradise. 
 
 Mr. Jones thinks it "certainly . . . does 
 not mean that Christ tried to convert and save dis- 
 embodied and wicked spirits in hell," and gives as 
 a reason, "for there is no conversion or repentance 
 after death." Here we have the unproved opinion 
 of Mr. Jones as the basis for an important and 
 leading conclusion ! And yet, these are the peo- 
 ple who are constantly asking us for proof the 
 direct and positive statements of the word ! Does 
 it necessarily follow that because souls, or spirits, 
 are unfit for paradise, and need to be committed 
 to the "prison" or "pit," that they will always re- 
 main wicked ? What a limited view is that 
 which says, in effect, that without regard to our 
 
146 COMPREHENSIVE VIEW. 
 
 opportunities here, death seals our fate for the 
 endless ages of eternity ! There can be no devel- 
 opment, no reformation after death ! What then 
 will become of the countless millions who have 
 neither accepted nor rejected the gospel in this 
 life ? How can they be saved without the gospel, 
 and how can they be permanently and finally cast 
 off when they have never rejected God's truth ? 
 
 The gospel "is the power of God unto salva- 
 tion to every one that believeth ;" (Rom. 1 : 16) 
 but what right have you or we to say that its 
 work is entirely limited to this life? Shall the 
 finite limit the work of the infinite? Shall we 
 place bounds for him? saying, "Thus far shalt 
 thou come, but no farther." The angel of the 
 Lord who announced the birth of the Savior said 
 the "good tidings of great joy" should "be to all 
 people;" and yet, how many, very many, have died 
 without ever having heard the gospel. 
 
 "But," we are told, "there can be no pardon 
 for sin after death." Yes ; but who told us ? and 
 by what authority did they thus speak ? 
 
 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blas- 
 phemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy 
 against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto 
 men. And whosoever speaketh a word against 
 the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but who- 
 soever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be for- 
 given him, neither in this world, neither in the world to 
 come. Matt. 12:31, 32. 
 
 Here is a sin of an extraordinary character for 
 which, Jesus says, there is no forgiveness, "neith- 
 er in this world, neither in the world to come." 
 Thus, by implication, it is plainly stated that an 
 other sin*, under proper conditions, of course, may 
 be forgiven unto men, both in "this world," and 
 "in the world to come." 
 
 "Besides," says Mr. Jones, "none but Antedi- 
 luvian sinners are mentioned ; why think he would 
 
LEADING POINTS NOTED. 147 
 
 preach to them any more than to other disembod- 
 ied spirits, if they were all in hell together ? " 
 
 We reply that there is not an intimation in 
 the text that Jesus preached to none else, or that 
 the gospel will not be preached to all who are 
 found in similar conditions ; but we have already 
 seen that those who are destroyed at the end of 
 the world, as the Antediluvians were, are to be 
 "shut up in the prison, and after many days" 
 they are to "be visited." Does Mr. Jones need to 
 be informed that but a small part of what Jesus 
 did in this world, or eternity, is recorded in the 
 Bible? (Jno. 21:25.) Evidently the time had 
 come for these Antediluvians to be delivered, 
 through the gospel, if they would receive it ; and 
 it was an important part of the great missionary 
 work of the Christ to open up the gospel in the 
 spirit world. 
 
 Let us note the leading points of the text : 
 
 1. After Christ has been "put to death in the 
 flesh," but quickened by, or in, the Spirit, he 
 (Christ) goes and preaches to the spirits in prison. 
 
 2. These spirits lived in the days of Noah 
 while the ark was being prepared, hence were not 
 in the body. 
 
 3. These spirits were intelligent, conscious 
 entities, who were capable of hearing and receiving 
 the truth. 
 
 First Peter 4 : 6, throws a flood of light on the 
 text under examination. 
 
 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them 
 that are dead, that they might be judged according to men 
 in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. 
 
 The ones who are dead are not in the flesh. 
 To them is the gospel preached in order that they 
 may be judged by the same rule, or standard, as 
 men in the flesh to whom the same gospel is de- 
 clared. 
 
148 PROPHECIES OF CHRIST. 
 
 We are now prepared to show that this work 
 was done in fulfillment of the predictions of the 
 prophets and was an important part of Christ's 
 work. 
 
 I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will 
 hold thy hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a 
 covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles: To 
 open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the 
 prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison- 
 house. Isa. 42:6, 7. 
 
 Thus saith the Lord, In an acceptable time have I 
 heard thee; and in a day of salvation have I helped thee; 
 and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of 
 the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the 
 desolate heritages: That thou mayst say to the prisoners, 
 Go forth; to them that are in darkness, Show yourselves. 
 They shall feed in the ways, and their pastures shall be in 
 all high places. They shall not hunger nor thirst, neither 
 shall the heat nor sun smite them: for he that hath mercy 
 on them shall lead them, even by the springs of water shall 
 he guide them. Isa. 49:8-10. 
 
 The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the 
 Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the 
 meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to 
 proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the 
 prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the accepta- 
 ble year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; 
 to comfort all that mourn. Isa. 61:1, 2. 
 
 As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have 
 sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no 
 water. Turn you to the stronghold, ye prisoners of hope; 
 even today do I declare that I will render double unto 
 thee Zech. 9:11, 12. 
 
 In connection with this last quotation, read 
 verses 9 and 10, which show that the pronouns 
 "thee" and "thy" of verse 11 refer to Christ. We 
 accept Peter's statements concerning Christ 
 preaching "to the spirits in prison," and the 
 preaching of the gospel "to them that are dr.ad," 
 as the best and safest exegesis of these prophecies. 
 In Eph. 4 : 8-10, Paul tells us that when Christ 
 "ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, 
 and gave gifts unto men;" but he who ascended 
 first descended "into the lower parts of the earth." 
 
DIFFERENT TRANSLATIONS. 149 
 
 We herewith present several different transla- 
 tions as they throw additional light upon the 
 language of Peter. 
 
 REVISED VERSION: Because Christ also suffered for 
 sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he 
 might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but 
 quickened in the spirit; in which also he went and 
 preached unto the spirits in prison, which aforetime were 
 disobedient, when the long-suffering of God waited in the 
 days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, 
 that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 
 
 GENEVA: For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, 
 the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, and 
 was put to death concerning the flesh, but was quickened 
 in the Spirit. By the which he also went, and preached 
 unto the spirits that arc in prison, which were in time past 
 disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God abode in 
 the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, wherein 
 few, that is, eight souls were saved in the water. 
 
 SYRIAC: For the Messiah also once died for our sins, 
 the righteous for sinners; that he might bring you to God. 
 And he died in body, but lived in spirit. And he preached 
 to those souls which were detained in hades, which were 
 formerly disobedient, in the days of Noah, when the long- 
 suffering of God commanded an ark to be made, in hope of 
 their repentance; and eight souls only entered into it, and 
 were kept alive in the waters. 
 
 1 Peter 4:6. GENEVA: For to this purpose was the gos- 
 pel preached also unto the dead, that they might be con- 
 demned according to men, in the flesh, but might live ac- 
 according to God in the spirit. 
 
 SYRIAC: For on this account the announcement is 
 made also to the dead, that they may be judged as persons 
 in the flesh, and may live according to God in the spirit. 
 
 DOUAY: For for this cause was the gospel preached 
 also to the dead: that they might be judged indeed accord- 
 ing to men. in the flesh; but may live according to God in 
 the spirit. 
 
 REVISED: For unto this end was the gospel preached 
 even to the dead, that they might be judged according to 
 men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. 
 
 If the usual interpretation of these scriptures 
 is admissable, then that safety and certainty 
 which arc so desirable are gone ; and the divine 
 word can be made to teach almost anything, or 
 
150 COMMENTATORS' VIEWS. 
 
 nothing, according to the ingenuity and motives 
 of the one who is trusted as the minister of the 
 word. The common rules of interpretation which 
 compel us to believe that Moses died and was bur- 
 ied ; (Deu. 34:5, 6.) that Christ was transfigured 
 on the holy mount, also compel us to believe that 
 he did, after his death, preach to "the spirits in 
 prison," that lived in the days of Noah. Alford 
 says: 
 
 With the great majority of commentators, ancient and 
 modern, I understand these words to say, that our Lord, in 
 his disembodied state, did go to the place of detention of de- 
 parted spirits, and did there announce his work of redemp- 
 tion, preach salvation in fact, to the disembodied spirits of 
 those who refused to obey the voice of God when the judg- 
 ment was hanging over them. 
 
 Prof. Taylor Lewis : 
 
 We are taught that there was a work of Christ In hades' 
 He descended into hades; he makes proclamation "eker- 
 uxen" in hades to those who are there "in ward." 
 
 Mr. Haley, from whose work we quote, adds 
 these words : 
 
 This interpretation, which was almost universally adop- 
 ted by the early Christian Church, and which is far more 
 tenable than any other, involves, of course, the conscious- 
 ness of departed souls. DISCREPANCIES OP THE BIBLE, p- 
 192. 
 
 We close on this text with the exegesis of F. 
 W. Farrar, D. D., F. R. S., who is regarded as one 
 of the ablest and fairest writers of the age. 
 
 St. Peter has one doctrine which is almost peculiar to 
 himself, and which is inestimably precious. In this he not 
 only ratifies some of the widest hopes which it had been 
 given to his brother apostle, if not to reveal, at least to in- 
 timate, but he also supplements these hopes by the new 
 aspect of a much disregarded, and, indeed, till recent 
 times half-forgotten, article of the Christian creed:! 
 mean the object of Christ's descent into hades. In this 
 truth is involved nothing less than the extension of 
 Christ's redeeming work to the dead who died before his 
 coming, Had the epistle contained nothing else but this, 
 It would at once have been raised above the irreverent 
 charge of being "secondhand and commonplace," I allude 
 
CHRIST AND SPIRITS IN PRISON. 151 
 
 of course to the famous passage in which St. Peter tells us (3: 
 19, 20) that "Christ died for sins once for all that he may lead 
 us to God, slain indeed in the flesh but quickened in the 
 Spirit, in which he also went and preached to the spirits in 
 prison, once disobedient, when the long-suffering of God 
 was waiting' in the days of Noah, during the preparing of 
 the ark, by entering into which few, that is, eight souls 
 were brought safe through water" So far is this from being 
 a casual allusion, that St. Peter returns to it, as though 
 with the object of making its meaning indisputably plain. 
 When he speaks of the perishing heathen, who shall, after 
 lives of sin and self-indulgence, give account to the Judge 
 of quick and dead, he says "For, for this cause also, even 
 to the dead was the gospel preached;" adding, as though to 
 preclude any escape from his plain meaning, "that they 
 may be judged according to men in the flesh, but may live 
 according to God in the spirit." Few words of scripture 
 have been so tortured and emptied of their significance 
 as these. In other passages whole theological systems, 
 whole ecclesiastical despotisms, have been built on the 
 abuse of a metaphor, on the translation of rhetoric into 
 logic, on the ignorance and incapacity which will not inter- 
 pret words according to the universal rules of literary 
 criticism; and yet every elf ort has been made to explain 
 away the plain meaning of this passage. It is one of the 
 most precious passages of scripture, and it involves no am- 
 biguity, except such as is created by the scholasticism of a 
 prejudiced theology. It stands almost alone in scripture, 
 not indeed in the gleam of light which it throws across the 
 awful darkness of the destiny of sin, but in the manner in 
 which it reveals to us the source from which that gleam of 
 light has been derived. For if language have any meaning 
 this language means that Christ, when his spirit descended 
 into the lower world, proclaimed the message of salvation 
 to the once impenitent dead. In the first indeed of the two 
 allusions to this truth the preaching is formally limited to 
 those who died in the Deluge. This is due to two causes. 
 St. Peter's mind is full of the Deluge as a type of the 
 world's lustration, first by death and then by deliverance, 
 just as baptism is a type of death unto sin and the new 
 life unto righteousness. Also he is thinking of Christ's 
 comparison of the days of Noah to the days of the Son of 
 Man. But it is impossible to suppose that the Antedilu- 
 vian sinners, conspicuous as they were for their wicked- 
 ness, were the only ones of all the dead who were singled 
 out to receive the message of deliverance. That restricted 
 application is excluded by the second passage. There the 
 
152 BREADTH OF CHRIST'S WORK. 
 
 apostle shows that he had only referred to those who per- 
 ished in the deluge as striking representatives of a world 
 of sinners, judged as regards men in the flesh, but living as 
 regards God in the Spirit. For, in referring to the judg- 
 ment which awaits the heathen, he attempers the awful 
 thought of their iniquities and of the future retribution 
 which awaited them by saying, that with a view to this 
 very state of things the gospel was preached to the dead: 
 in order that, however terrible might be the judgments 
 which would befall their human nature, the hope of some 
 spiritual share in the divine life might not be forever ex- 
 cluded at the moment of death. Of the effects of the 
 preaching nothing is said^ There is no dogma of univer- 
 salism or of conditional immortality. All details, as in the 
 entire eschatology of scripture, are left dim and indefinite; 
 but no honest man who goes to Holy Scripture to seek for 
 truth, instead of going to try and find whatever errors he 
 may bring to it as a part of his theological belief, can pos- 
 sibly deny that there is ground here to mitigate that ele- 
 ment of the popular teaching of Christendom against 
 which many of the greatest saints and theologians have 
 raised their voices. That teaching rests with the deadliest 
 weight on all who have sufficient imagination to realize 
 the meaning of the phrases in which they indulge, and suffi- 
 cient heart to feel their awf ulness. If Christ preached to 
 dead men who were once disobedient, then scripture shows 
 us that the moment of death does not necessarily 
 involve a final and hopeless torment for every sinful soul. 
 Of all the blunt weapons of ignorant controversy employed 
 against those to whom has been revealed the possibility of 
 a larger hope than is left mankind by Augustine or by Cal- 
 vin, the bluntest is the charge that such a hope renders 
 null the necessity for the work of Christ? As if it were 
 not this very hope which gives to the love of Christ its 
 mightiest effectiveness! We thus rescue the work of re- 
 demption from the appearance of having failed to achieve 
 its end for the vast majority of those for whom Christ died. 
 By accepting the light thus thrown upon the descent into 
 hell, we extend to those of the dead who have not finally 
 hardened themselves against it, the blessedness of Christ's 
 atoning work. We thus complete the divine, all-compre- 
 hending circuit of God's universal grace! In these passa- 
 ges, as has been truly said, "we may see an expansive par- 
 aphrase and exuberant variation of the original Paulino 
 theme of universalisin of the evangelic embassage of Christ 
 and of his sovereignty over the world; and especially of the 
 passage in the Philippians, where all they that are in heav- 
 
MELANCHOLY THEOLOGY. 153 
 
 en and on earth, and under the earth, are enumerated as 
 classes of the subjects of the exalted Redeemer." But alasl 
 Human perversity has darkened the very heavens looking 
 at them through the medium of its own preconceptions and 
 the clear light of revelation has streamed in vain upon the 
 awf ulness of the future. The attempts to make the descent 
 of Jesus into hades a visit merely to liberate the holy pat- 
 riarchs, or to strike terror into the evil spirits, are the un- 
 worthy inventions of dogmatic embarrassment. The inter- 
 pretation of Christ's "preaching" as only a preaching of 
 damnation is one of the most melancholy specimens of the- 
 ological hardness trying to blot out the hope of God's 
 mercy from the world beyond the grave. "It was," as 
 Keuss says, "far better than all that; it was for the living 
 a new manifestation of the inexhaustible grace of God; for 
 the dead a supreme opportunity of casting themselves into 
 the arms of his mercy ; and finally, for Christian theologians, 
 so skillful in torturing the letter, and so blind at seizing 
 the spirit, it might have been the germ of a blind and 
 fruitful conception, if instead of compressing more and 
 more the circle of life and light by their formula and their 
 anathemas, they would have learnt from the teaching of 
 the apostle that this circle is illimitable, and that the life- 
 giving rays which stream from its center can penetrate 
 even the most distant sphere of the world of spirits." 
 "EARLY DAYS OF CHRISTIANITY," pp. 91, 92, 93, 94. 
 
 The general meaning of this passage Christ's descent 
 Into Hades to proclaim the gospel to the once disobedient 
 dead is to every unobscured and unsophisticated mind as 
 clear as words can make it. Theologians have attempted 
 to get rid of this obvious reference by explaining it of 
 Christ preaching in the person of Noah; or by making "He 
 preached" mean "He announced condemnation." .... 
 These attempts arise from that spirit or system which 
 would fain be more orthodox than Scripture itself, and 
 would exclude every ground of future hope from the reve- 
 lation of a love too loving for hearts trained in bitter the- 
 ologies. What was the effect of Christ's preaching we are 
 not told. Some, perhaps, may like to assume that the 
 preaching of Christ in the unseen world was unanimously 
 rejected by the once disobedient dead, though the men- 
 tion of their former disobedience seems to imply the infer- 
 ence that they did hearken now. Others can, if they 
 choose, assert that this proclamation of the gospel to dis- 
 embodied spirits was confined to Antediluvian sinners. 
 With such inferences we are unconcerned. *'It is ours," 
 says Alf ord, i4 to deal with the plain words of Scripture, and 
 
154 RUTHLESS COMMENTATORS. 
 
 to accept its revelations as far as vouchsafed unto 
 us. And they are vouchsafed to us to the utmost 
 limit of legitimate inference from revealed facts. 
 The inference every intelligent reader will draw from 
 the fact here announced: it is not purgatory; it is 
 not universal restitution; but it is one which throws bless- 
 ed light on one of the darkest enigmas of divine justice: 
 the cases where the final doom seems infinitely out of pro- 
 portion to the lapse which has incurred it." Ibid., p. 110. 
 
 After quoting 2 Peter 4 : 6, Mr. Farrar again 
 refers to the work of commentators. 
 
 In the last verse we again encounter the ruthlessness 
 of commentators. "The dead" to whom the gospel was 
 preached are taken to mean something quite different 
 from "the dead" who are to give an account. The dead to 
 whom the gospel is preached are explained away into "sin- 
 ners" or "the Gentiles," or "some who are now dead." 
 Augustine, as might have been expected, leads the way in 
 one wrong direction, and Calvin in another. Another view 
 which makes this verse mean that "Christ will judge even 
 the dead as well as the living, because the dead too will 
 not have been without an opportunity to receive his gos- 
 pel" is indeed tenable. Tome, however, judging of the 
 feelings of the apostle, from his boundless gratitude for 
 the opportunities of obtaining forgiveness, and from the 
 love which he inculcates towards all mankind, the connec- 
 tion seems to be, "the heathen, in all their countless myri- 
 ads, who seem to be hopelessly perishing around you, will 
 be judged; but the very reason why the gospel was 
 preached by Christ to the dead was in order that this judg- 
 ment may be founded on principles of justice, that they 
 may be judged in their human capacity as sinners, and 
 yet may live to God as regards the diviner part of their 
 natures;" if, that is, they accept this offer of the gospel to 
 them even beyond the grave. Ibid, p. 3. 
 
 The foregoing testimony fully supports the 
 claim that both the righteous and the wicked are 
 conscious between death and the resurrection. 
 But how do Adventists and Christadelphians 
 meet the evidence ? We have already examined 
 and exposed their interpretation of leading pass- 
 ages used in support of the view we defend ; but 
 will now, for the benefit of all concerned, examine 
 their objections to the intermediate state more 
 comprehensively. 
 
SHEOL AND HADES. 166 
 
 The Hebrew sheol, with its Greek equivalent 
 hades, is rendered "grave," "pit" and "hell." Ad- 
 ventist authors claim that these words are re- 
 stricted in their meaning and application to the 
 place of burial where the unconscious dead are 
 laid, that is, they mean the grave. 
 
 Sheol and hades are the grave, the receptacle of the 
 dead, the land of silence and darkness, the land of forget- 
 f illness, of insensibility; where the dead all slumber till 
 the resurrection. The sense alone where they are used 
 determines this, and absolutely requires that they be so 
 understood. "SHEOL AND HADES, by Elder L. O. Collins, 
 p. 7. 
 
 Elder Collins quotes a number of authors who 
 are supposed to be in harmony with his view ; but, 
 upon careful examination, it will be seen that the 
 leading point made by these authors is that Sheol 
 and Hades do not indicate a place of future pun- 
 ishment, from which view we do not dissent. 
 However, some of his authors do more fully endorse 
 his position, viz., that sheol and hades refer only 
 to the grave ; while others claim what is evident- 
 ly correct, that they refer to the state of the dead 
 in general, "without any regard to their character, 
 their happiness or misery." It is evident that 
 these original words, like the originals for soul 
 and spirit, have a variety of meanings which are 
 to be determined mainly from their connection 
 and use as we find them in the Bible. Hebrew 
 and Greek scholars differ widely as to the true im- 
 port and use of these words; so, while we are 
 permitted to use their views as collatteral evi- 
 dence, we can by no means settle the question by 
 an appeal to them alone. We have already seen 
 that paradtse and heaven are sometimes used to rep- 
 resent the abode of the conscious dead ; that hell, 
 (hades) prison, pit, and' 'nether parts of the earth," also 
 represent the abode of spirits. The evidence ad- 
 duced is of such a character, too, that the ex- 
 
156 PROPER APPLICATIONS. 
 
 pressed opinion of any number of men concerning 
 the import of She^l and Hades can not overthrow 
 it. We have also presented testimony from such 
 men as Alford ; Prof. Taylor Lewis ; Lyman Abb- 
 ott; John W. Haley, and F. W. Farrar, whose 
 words, we believe, support the Bible view of this 
 question. 
 
 But we have already seen that Adventist au- 
 thors, when it seems to suit their purpose, at- 
 tempt to confine us to the primary or literal defi- 
 nitions of original words. If, therefore, the liter- 
 al meaning of sheol and hades does not imply the 
 grave any more than it does the world of spirits, 
 what right have our opponents to always apply it 
 to the grave? Dr. Young, in his "BIBLE CON- 
 CORDANCE," says that sheol means "the unseen 
 state;" hades, "the unseen world." We may be 
 asked, "What right have immortal-soulists to con- 
 fine the meaning of the words to the 'world of 
 spirits ? ' " We reply, none. In our opinion both 
 are extreme views. Sheol and hades, "the unseen 
 state," "the unseen world," may represent the 
 world of spirits, or they may represent the grave. 
 Whether these words apply to the grave, where 
 the body is hidden away, or whether they apply to 
 the respective abodes of righteous and wicked 
 spirits, in the intermediate state, must be deter- 
 mined by the connection in which they are used. 
 
 In "REVISERS' PREFACE" to the Revised Ver- 
 sion of the Bible, we have the following observa- 
 tions on sheol and hndes : 
 
 Similarly, the Hebrew sheol, which signifies the abode 
 of departed spirits, and corresponds to the Greek hades, 
 or the under world, is variously rendered in the Author- 
 ized Version by "grave," "pit," and "hell." Of these ren- 
 derings, "hell," if it could be taken in its original sense as 
 used in the Creeds, would be a fairly adequate equivalent 
 for the Hebrew word; but it is so commonly understood of 
 the place of torment that to employ it frequently would 
 
THE BIBLICAL HADES. 157 
 
 lead to inevitable misunderstanding. The Revisers there- 
 fore in the historical narratives have left the rendering 
 "the grave" or "the pit" in the text, with a marginal note, 
 "Hebrew sheol" to indicate that it does not signify "the 
 place of burial;" while in the poetical writings they have 
 put most commonly sheol in the text and "the grave" in 
 the margin. 
 
 In the winter of 1888 an article appeared in 
 the Independent, (N. Y.) by Samuel T. Spear, D. D., 
 entiled "THE BIBLICAL HADES." The opening 
 paragraphs read as follows : 
 
 The term hades placed at the head of this article is an 
 anglicised Greek word that occurs eleven times in the 
 Greek New Testament, and, with a single exception, is. in 
 the common English Version of the Testament, translated 
 by the word Hell. This is an unfortunate, and, indeed, 
 erroneous translation, since the latter term is, by common 
 usage, applied only to the place of punishment to which 
 the wicked go after death. The Revised Version of the 
 New Testament avoids this error by simply anglicizing the 
 Greek word hades and using hell to translate the Greek 
 term gehenna, which, in the time of Christ and his apostles 
 was employed by the Jews to designate the place for the 
 future punishment of the wicked. Our Savior in speaking 
 to the Jews adopted this term, and used it in the sense 
 which is now commonly attached to the word hell. 
 
 Etymologically considered, the term hades is derived 
 from the Greek letter Alpha, used as a privative, and a 
 Greek verb which signifies to see, and hence means that 
 which is not seen. This term was by the Jews applied, in a 
 general sense, to the invisible world or abode, in which 
 human spirits, subsequent to death and prior to the resur- 
 rection and final judgment, were supposed to exist separ- 
 ately from their bodies, without reference to the question 
 whether they were good or bad, happy or miserable, re- 
 warded or punished. The corresponding word in the He- 
 brew language is sheol, and in the Septuagint Version of 
 the Old Testament, hades is used to translate sheol. There 
 is no word in the English language that is the exact equiv- 
 alent of these terms. Hell, in the generally received sense, 
 is not such an equivalent. 
 
 The Greeks employed the term hades in the same gen- 
 eral sense in which hades and sheol were used among the 
 Jews, and had their Elysium as the particular abode of the 
 good, and also their Tartarus as the abode of the wicked, 
 both of which, though different abodes, were regions in 
 
J58 ELYSIUM AND TARTARUS. 
 
 hades separated from each other. Tartarus corresponds 
 with the English word hell, in the usually accepted sense 
 of the latter; and Elysium also corresponds with the word 
 paradise in the sense in which Christ used this term when 
 he said to the penitent thief: "Today shalt thou be with 
 me in Paradise. (Luke 23:43.) The Greek term Tartarus 
 occurs nowhere in the New Testament; yet Peter, in his 
 second epistle, uses the verb derived from the noun to rep- 
 resent the abode and condition of the angels that sinned, 
 and whom, as he declares, God cast down to hell [Tarta- 
 rus], and delivered them into chains of darkness to be re- 
 served unto judgment. (2 Peter 2:4.) These fallen angels 
 were, according to this description, in that region of hades 
 which the Greeks called Tartarus, and for which Gehenna 
 was the title among the Jews, and were there waiting the 
 final judgment. 
 
 Following this are quotations from Dr. Robin- 
 son, Dr. Meyer, and Dr. Gloag in support of the 
 view advocated. Thus we see that learned men 
 dijler as to the true import and proper use of these 
 words ; though the preponderance of evidence is 
 in favor of sheol and hades being the abodes of con- 
 scious beings in the spirit state. One thing is 
 clear, there is nothing in the meaning of the 
 words which forbid their application to the world 
 of departed spirits. And the appeal of our oppo- 
 nents to the definitions of these terms is as futile 
 as their appeal to the definitions of ru-wh and pneu- 
 ma, nephesh and psuche, the originals for spirit and 
 soul. 
 
 But because men are to be judged and punish- 
 ed or rewarded, as the case may be, after the res- 
 urrection, which facts are plainly stated in the 
 word, we are told that the view which necessi- 
 tates rewards and punishments, in the intermedi- 
 ate state, is opposed to the teachings of the Bible. 
 Not so. God is the judge. Will he know any 
 more about our true condition in the day of judg- 
 ment than he does now ? Certainly not. Then 
 why can he not give to us that which we are pre- 
 paed to enjoy, in this life and in the intermedi- 
 
PRESENT AND FUTURE REWARDS. 159 
 
 ate state? He can, does, and will, so give. Is not 
 God discriminating between the righteous and the 
 wicked every day ? He is blessing and rewarding 
 those who do his will, while he is afflicting and 
 punishing those who do not. It is true that 
 the disciples were to have tribulation in the world, 
 but in Christ they were to have peace. We have 
 already shown that all who properly obey the gos- 
 pel receive the earnest of their inheritance, and 
 if faithful, it continues with them "until the re- 
 demption of the purchased possession." (Eph. 
 1:13, 14.) Now this "earnest" increases in exact 
 proportion to our faithfulness in the service of 
 God ; and as our spiritual capacity increases be- 
 cause of an increase of faith and diligence, we re- 
 ceive a greater supply from God. 
 
 God is judging all the time and administering 
 partial rewards and punishments ; but this does 
 not obviate the necessity of judgment to come. 
 The resurrection introduces anew order of things, 
 and it is necessary that the judgment should fol- 
 low. As man is not complete without the body, 
 so he can not enjoy a fulness of reward in the 
 spirit state. But it is also necessary that when 
 the spirit returns "to God who gave it," at death, 
 th it it should be placed under proper conditions 
 and where it properly belongs, till the resurrec- 
 tion and judgment. Hence the rich man and Laz- 
 arus both went to hades, but occupy different con- 
 ditions. One is "comforted," the other is "tor- 
 mented." These opposite conditions were the in- 
 evitable results of the different ways in which they 
 lived in this world. Who can not see that loyalty 
 to God and obedience to his truth bring present 
 reward; and that when we are done with the 
 cares and toils of mortality, we are prepared for 
 the enjoyment of a greater degree of bliss. And 
 who can not see that rebellion against God and 
 
160 NECESSITY OF FUTURE JUDGMENT. 
 
 disobedience to his revealed will bring present 
 distress, and that when this probation is ended 
 and the cup of iniquity filled to the brim, it is 
 meet, nay absolutely essential, that we should re- 
 ceive the greater punishment. Fallen angels are 
 ''reserved unto judgment ; " but are they not und- 
 er punishment while in "pits of darkness" in 
 "hellf" (tartarus.) "The unrighteous," in like 
 manner, will the Lord keep "under punishment 
 unto the day of judgment." (2 Peter 2:4, 9, Ee- 
 vised Version.) 
 
 Our position that the reward of the righteous 
 begins with their obedience, may be objected to 
 on the grounds that the righteous often suffer 
 here, while the wicked go free. The rich man 
 had his "good things," in this life, "and Laza- 
 rus in like manner evil things." Yes, but this 
 does not change the application of the general 
 principle that the good and obedient are rewarded, 
 in a degree, and the wicked and rebellious punish- 
 ed, in this life. The rich man enjoyed that which 
 he esteemed as good ; but who shall say that he 
 would not have enjoyed that which is incompar- 
 ably higher and better, had his life been one of 
 complete obedience to God. While it is true that 
 all who are faithful to God, and stand firm for the 
 right under all circumstances, will have trials to 
 bear and difficulties to encounter, of which the 
 less conscientious and obedient know little or 
 nothing ; it is also true that the bright hope of 
 future life and bliss ; the knowledge of God and 
 his Son Jesus Christ ; with the blessing of the 
 Holy Spirit, more than compensate for all the sac- 
 rifices made and the trials endured. 
 
 It is an oft repeated statement of our oppo- 
 nents that if men are rewarded or punished, in 
 the intermediate state, then there is no need of a 
 coming judgment ; but if this reasoning is cor- 
 
PRESENT AND FUTURE REWARDS. 161 
 
 rect, then the fact that rewards and punishments 
 are administered in this life, would destroy the 
 necessity for the judgment. We receive partial 
 reward here ; a still greater degree in the inter- 
 mediate state, and a fulness at the day of judg- 
 ment. Jesus promised, . 
 
 Where I am, there shall also my servant be. John 12: 26. 
 
 Father, I will that they also whom thou hast given me 
 be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory 
 which thou hast given me. John 17:24. 
 
 How plain ! As we have seen, the promise 
 and provision that the disciples should be with 
 Jesus, covers the intermediate and resurrection 
 states. They will be with him and behold his 
 glory in the intermediate state, but will not be 
 clothed upon with the same glory till the resur- 
 rection and judgment. 
 
 Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henco- 
 forth: yea, saith the spirit, that they may rest from their 
 labors; and their works do follow them. (Revised Version, 
 For their works follow with them. Rev. 14:13. 
 
 Paul wrote, Whilst we are at home in the body, we are 
 absent from the Lord. 2 Cor. 5:6. Also, For to me to live 
 is Christ, and to die is gain. For I am in a strait betwixt 
 two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; 
 which is far better. Phil. 1:21, 23. 
 
 The following scriptures, from many, show 
 that God does judge, reward and punish in this 
 life ; and if in this life, why not in the intermed- 
 iate state, when the spirits of all men have passed 
 into hades ? 
 
 Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to 
 judgment: and some men they follow after. Likewise 
 also, the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and 
 they that are otherwise can not be hid. 1 Tim. 5:24, 25. 
 
 Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to 
 the things which we have heard, lest at any time we 
 should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels was 
 steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience re- 
 ceived a just recompense of reward. How shall we escape, 
 if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to 
 be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them 
 that heard him. Heb. 2:1-3 
 
162 GOD JUDGES IN THE EARTH. " 
 
 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy 
 seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and 
 shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred 
 years; And also that nation whom they shall serve, will 1 
 judge: and afterward shall they come out with great sub- 
 stance. Gen. 15:13, 14. 
 
 He is the Lord our God; his judgments are In all the 
 earth. Psalms 105:7. 
 
 But let him that glorieth, glory in this, that he under- 
 standeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exer- 
 cise loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the 
 earth: for in these things I delight, saith the Lord. Jer. 
 9:24. 
 
 And I scattered them among the heathen, and they 
 were dispersed through the countries; according to their 
 way and according to their doings I judged them. Ezek. 36: 
 19. 
 
 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that 
 was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was 
 destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both 
 man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of 
 the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth; and 
 Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in 
 the ark. And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hun- 
 dred and fifty days. Gen. 7:22-24. 
 
 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast 
 them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of dark- 
 ness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the 
 old world, but 'saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of 
 righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the 
 ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah 
 into ashes, condemned them with an overthrow, making 
 them an ensample unto those that after should live ungod- 
 ly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conver- 
 sation of the wicked. 2 Peter 2:4-7. 
 
 The leading objection urged against our posi- 
 tion, is the supposed fact that all are unconscious 
 in she-ol and hades. The claim is that the scrip- 
 tures plainly declare that all men become uncon- 
 scious at death, and remain so till the resurrec- 
 tion. We have already shown this claim to be 
 indefensible and untrue, but propose to give our 
 opponents a fair and full show, hence permit them 
 to defend the dogma of unconsciousness after death 
 in their own peculiar way. We will examine a 
 
LEADING TEXTS EXAMINED. 163 
 
 number of their leading proof texts and then 
 their position as a whole. 
 
 I said in my heart concerning the estate of the sons of 
 men, that God might manifest them, and that they might 
 see that they themselves are beasts. For that which be- 
 falleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing 
 befalleth them: as the one dieth. so dieth the other; yea, 
 they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preemi- 
 nence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one 
 place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who 
 knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the 
 spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? 
 Eccles. 3:18-21. 
 
 It will hardly be claimed that there is no dif- 
 ference between the death of a mule or a cow and 
 that of a true and faithful child of God, who is 
 full of an intelligent hope of everlasting life ! But 
 what Solomon affirms is, that man and beast are 
 alike subject to death ; and in this respect man 
 has no "preeminence above a beast." If we take 
 it in an unmodified sense, then the beast is fully 
 equal to man, both before anc 1 after death ! How 
 absurd ! Can a beast serve God according to the 
 gospel ? Can it preach the gospel to the people ? 
 
 The twentieth verse shows that reference is 
 had to the destiny of the body. "All are of the 
 dust, and all return to dust again." And in the 
 last chapter and seventh verse of the same book 
 the same writer gives his settled conclusion on the 
 destiny of man. "Then shall the dust return to 
 the earth as it was ; and the spirit shall return 
 unto God who gave it." If it be claimed that Sol- 
 omon was certainly very skeptical concerning con- 
 scious existence after death, we reply, he was just 
 as skeptical concerning conscious existence in the 
 resurrection. (See Eccles. 3:22.) "Wherefore I 
 perceive that there is nothing better than that a 
 man should rejoice in his own works ; for that is 
 his portion : for who shall bring him to see what 
 shall be after him ?" 
 
164 RULES OF INTERPRETATION. 
 
 Mr. Haley, after presenting another text from 
 the same author, offers that which is worthy of 
 careful consideration. 
 
 Just here the reader will observe that nearly all of the 
 texts adduced by mortal-sou lists to prove the unconscious- 
 ness of the dead, are taken from the Old Testament, and 
 particularly from its poetical books. Now to go back from 
 noonday to twilight in search of our eschatology, to ignore 
 the plain and clear teachings of the New Testament, and 
 adopt as a basis of doctrine the poetic utterances of a pre- 
 liminary, rudimental, far less spiritual dispensation, does 
 not indicate the highest wisdom on the part of those who 
 pursue this course. Yet this is the policy adopted by the 
 
 mortal-soulists in advocating their theory As to 
 
 the next citation, Stuart and Hengstenberg take it as the 
 statement of an objection afterwards refuted. The latter 
 says: "The manner of the Scriptures is to let doubts and 
 murmurings have free and full expression, and then to 
 vanquish them in an open conflict with the sword of faith." 
 
 "DISCREPANCIES OF THE BlBLE," pp. 189, 190. 
 
 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead 
 know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; 
 for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and 
 their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have 
 they any more a portion forever in any thing that is done 
 under the sun. Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it 
 with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor 
 knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest. 
 Eccles. 9:5, 6, 10. 
 
 This is supposed to be a strong proof of uncon- 
 sciousness after death ; but, in our judgment, con- 
 tains no proof whatever. Right here we call at- 
 tention to one of the plain and fundamental rules 
 of interpretation. We state it in our own language, 
 but the correctness of the sentiment will hardly 
 be denied. It is this : 
 
 When a number of statements are made in 
 close connection with each other; and on the same 
 topic, they must all be received without modifica- 
 tion, or they are all subject to modification. It 
 will not do to insist that some of them must be 
 received in the most literal sense, while others 
 are freely modified. 
 
REDUCED TO AN ABSURDITY. 165 
 
 Let us make the application to the text in 
 question. Mortal-soulists insist that the declara- 
 tion, "the dead know not anything," proves that 
 all men are unconscious between death and the 
 resurrection. Let us see. Solomon also says, 
 "Neither have they (the dead) any more a reward." 
 That is, to receive the statement without any 
 modification, there is no reward for any individual 
 after this life ! "For the memory of them is for- 
 gotten." That is, neither God, angels, nor men 
 know anything about them after death ! "Neither 
 have they any more a portion forever in anything 
 that is done under the sun." That is, their portion 
 is ended. There is no resurrection, no reward, after 
 death. Death ends all, and ends it for evermore ! 
 This is the only proper interpretation of the text 
 if we admit the construction put upon the words, 
 "the dead know not anything." 
 
 If it be claimed that they have no more re- 
 ward in this world; "the memory of them is for- 
 gotten" only by man in this world ; they have no 
 more portion here, that is, "under the sun," then, 
 we reply, the other statements relied upon as 
 proof for unconsciousness must be modified in the 
 same way, which makes it to teach that the dead 
 have no more knowledge here, in this life, "under 
 the sun," which is evidently correct. But if the 
 interpretation of our opponents be admitted as 
 correct, then, in the same way, we can prove that 
 the living are unconscious ; which, if true, will, 
 we suppose, give to us a still "larger hope !" Here 
 is the proof. 
 
 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about ques- 
 tions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, 
 railings, evil surmisings. 1 Tim. 6:4. 
 
 And with Absalom went two hundred men out of Jeru- 
 salem, that were called; and they went in their simplicity, 
 and they knew not anything. 2 Sam. 15:11. 
 
166 LIVING MEN KNOW NOTHING. 
 
 In the first passage we have represented a 
 man who consents not to wholesome doctrine, 
 "doting about questions and strifes of words," 
 who knows nothing ; that is, is unconscious! In 
 the second passage we have two hundred soldiers, 
 selected for special service, "and they knew not 
 anything ;" that is, they were unconscious ! Now 
 the connection and sense of these passages plainly 
 show what is meant ; but not more plainly than 
 in the other texts referred to, and without any 
 proof in support of the claim for unconsciousness 
 after death. 
 
 In the tenth verse of the passage under con- 
 sideration, the writer is speaking of the body and 
 the grave. We believe that sheol, in this passage, 
 is properly rendered grave. Our opponents claim 
 that it means grave, or its equivalent, all the 
 time. Well, it is the body which goes down into 
 the grave, while "the spirit returns to God who 
 gave it." James says "the body apart from the 
 spirit is dead." (James 2:26, Kevised Version.) 
 So in the grave, where the body goes at death, 
 "there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor 
 wisdom." But it is claimed that the pronoun 
 "thou" represents the whole man. We have al- 
 ready shown that the terms man and soul are 
 sometimes applied to the whole man, body and 
 spirit, sometimes to the spirit only, and sometimes 
 to the body only. The same is true of the pro- 
 nouns standing for man. The true application 
 must be determined from the connection in which 
 they are used. It is as Dr. Young affirms in his 
 "HINTS AND HELPS TO BIBLE INTERPRETATION." 
 "The SAME word has frequently a DIFFERENT 
 meaning even in the same verse. 
 
 For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the 
 grave who shall give thee thanks ? Psalms 6:5. 
 
THOUGHTS PURPOSES, DESIGNS. 167 
 
 If grave is a proper rendering of sheol, and our 
 opponents will admit that it is, then the question 
 is already settled. It is the grave, and the death 
 of that which goes to the grave, to which the 
 Psalmist refers. 
 
 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in 
 that very day his thoughts perish. Psalms 146:4. 
 
 This, with the statements of Solomon in the 
 ninth chapter of Ecclesiastes, form the stronghold 
 of Adventism. The statements of Solomon we 
 have disposed of and found no proof for uncon- 
 sciousness after death ; and now, if we can fairly 
 dispose of this last passage we need not fear the 
 balance. 
 
 "Thoughts" comes from the Hebrew eshtonoth, 
 and is defined by Dr. Young to mean "thoughts, 
 purposes." The word thoughts, in the text, evi- 
 dently means purposes, designs. The Psalmist is 
 .showing how much safer it is for us to put our 
 trust in God than in princes and the sons of men. 
 Why is it safer? Because if we court the favor of 
 princes and the great ones of the earth, and put 
 our trust in them, we thereby neglect our service 
 to God and have no claim upon him for salvation. 
 These great ones, in whom we have put oar trust, 
 are as liable to die as others, and when they do 
 die, their designs or purposes to bestow favor, or 
 blessings upon us, according to our expectations, 
 are wholly overthrown. They "perish," that is, 
 "wholly depart," or they are "lost." 
 
 We select men whom we think to be honest, 
 and yet when we trust them with a few thousands 
 of dollars, we require them to give bond. Why do 
 we do so? One leading reason is because of the 
 uncertainty of life. They may think to meet all 
 their obligations up to the very moment of death ; 
 but at that very moment, these "thoughts per- 
 ish." Would that prove them to be unconscious 
 
168 HEZEKIAH AND JOB. 
 
 after death? Certainly not; and there is not a 
 particle of proof for the theory in this text though 
 it is frequently pressed into service. We are sim- 
 ply exhorted in this chapter, to put our trust in 
 God, and not to put our trust in man. The one 
 has all power to save and bless, and he never fails; 
 the other is finite and weak, and when death oc- 
 curs, he is no longer able to confer those favors 
 which it is within the power of man to be- 
 stow, in this life. Therefore, "Happy is he that 
 hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is 
 in the Lord his God." Verse 5. 
 
 For the grave can not praise thee, death can not cele- 
 brate thee: they that go down into the pit can not hope 
 for thy truth. The living, the living, he shall praise thee, 
 as I do this day: the father to the children shall make 
 known thy truth. Isa. 38:18,19. 
 
 We have before noticed that the inspiration 
 of the Old Testament concerning the future life 
 is very limited. And, in this case, there is no 
 proof that Hezekiah was ever an authorized-teach- 
 er for God. There is no proof that he was 
 inspired. Christ and the apostles never endorsed 
 him. There is no more proof that Hezekiah be- 
 lieved in the unconsciousness of man after death, 
 than there is that he believed that death ends all, 
 and there is no future existence whatever. He 
 simply spake according to his own feelings and his 
 own knowledge, which, apparently, extended no 
 farther than the death of the body and the grave. 
 However, the main point is, that he is not a com- 
 petent witness, and his words are no more author- 
 itative than those of Eliphaz and Bildad of the 
 book of Job. 
 
 But as Job also is one of the leading witnesses 
 for the theory we oppose, we will produce one of 
 the supposed strongholds from his book. 
 
 But man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up 
 the ghost, and where is he? As the waters fail from the 
 
JOB EXAMINED. 169 
 
 sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up: So man lieth 
 down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they 
 shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep. Thou 
 prevailest forever against him, and he passeth: thou 
 changest his countenance, and sendeth him away. His sons 
 come to honor, and he knoweth it not; and they are brought 
 low, but he perceiveth it not of them. Job 14:10, 11. 12, 20, 21. 
 
 The reader's attention is again called to 
 Chapter one of this work that he may know 
 what estimate to put upon the utterances of 
 Job. The hand of affliction was upon him. 
 His error was on the side of doubt and skep- 
 ticism. The Lord said to him, "Who is this that 
 darkeneth counsel by words without knowl- 
 edge ? " (Job 38 : 2.) And Job confessed, "I utter- 
 ed that I understood not ; things too wonderful 
 for me, which I knew not." But let Job be more 
 fully heard on this topic. 
 
 O that thou wouldst hide me in the grave, that thou 
 wouldst keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou 
 wouldst appoint me a set time, and remember me! If a 
 man die, shall he live again ? all the days of my appointed 
 time will I wait, till my change come. Thou shalt call, and 
 I will answer thee: thou wilt have a desire to the work of 
 thy hands. verses 13, 14, 15. 
 
 These three verses occupy a place between the 
 first three and last two already quoted. Now 
 there is no support for the claim that the first five 
 verses quoted should be regarded as literal and 
 the last three as figurative. If all are literal, then 
 the last three prove consciousness between death 
 and the resurrection. "All the days of my ap- 
 pointed time will I wait till my change come. 
 Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee." To wait, 
 "rest in expectation and silence" to hear and an- 
 swer the call, necessarily imply consciousness. So 
 these verses just as plainly prove consciousness as 
 do the other verses cited prove unconsciousness. 
 Our opponents find no real support here. 
 
 One thing is certainly inconsistent in our op- 
 ponents. They demand direct and positive proof 
 
170 AARON ELLIS ANSWERED. 
 
 for the immortality of the soul and consciousness 
 after death, and then adduce passages in support 
 of their theory from which nothing more than a 
 doubtful inference can be drawn, at the best. To 
 illustrate: Mr. Aaron Ellis, in "BIBLE VERSUS 
 TRADITION," p. 119, undertakes to prove that man 
 is unconscious after death by a class of evidences 
 which he thinks proves that those who are dead 
 know nothing of what is taking place on the 
 earth. He quotes Isa. 64:18; Luke 10:23; 2:26, 
 28 ; Job 14 chapter, as proof texts, and then adds : 
 
 We have here the testimony of Job, Isaiah, and Jesus 
 Christ, that the dead have no knowledge of what is passing 
 upon the earth. 
 
 Now admit, for argument's sake, that the 
 statements of Job are absolutely correct ; and that 
 he does say that after a man dies "his sons come to 
 honor, and he knoweth it not; and they are. 
 brought low, but he perceiveth it not of them," 
 does that prove that the dead are unconscious ? 
 If it does, then it follows, logically, that in order 
 to be conscious, they must know all about what is 
 transpiring in the whole universe of God ! For, 
 there is no more evidence that knowledge of what 
 a man's posterity are doing on the earth, after he 
 has been taken by death, is a necessary condition 
 of consciousness, than there is that knowledge of 
 any and all events, taking place in the universe of 
 God, is an essential condition of consciousness. 
 (In these statements we accept, of course, sheol 
 and hades as the abodes of departed spirits.) 
 Death is a great change of location and condi- 
 tions; and what degree of knowledge we may 
 possess of things passing upon the earth, after our 
 departure, is not revealed in the Scriptures. And 
 to affirm that because the dead are not cognizant 
 of certain events passing upon the earth, or be- 
 cause we infer from certain scriptures that they 
 
PERISH CONSTRUED. 171 
 
 are not, they are, therefore, unconscious, is eqiva- 
 lent to saying that because we do not know what 
 the saints and angels in heaven are now doing, 
 therefore, we are unconscious! Or, because we 
 leave our children and go to some distant land and 
 while there we know nothing of their prosperity 
 or adversity, therefore, we are unconscious! The 
 inference is neither necessary nor legitimate, and the 
 whole argument is far-fetched. 
 
 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are 
 perished. If in this life only, we have hope in Christ, we are of 
 all men most miserable. 1 Cor. 15:18, 19, 
 
 If, as mortal-soulists claim, the word * 'perish" 
 denotes an end to conscious existence, then "they 
 also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished," 
 even if there be a resurrection of the dead. But 
 if perished means destroyed in the sense of being 
 lost, or not saved, then the argument of the apos- 
 tle is this: "If there is no resurrection of the 
 dead, then Christ has not been raised ; and if 
 Christ has not been raised from the dead, as we 
 have testified, then you are yet in your sins. Our 
 testimony is false, our preaching vain, and all who 
 have fallen asleep in Christ are perished." This 
 is the argument of the apostle briefly stated in our 
 own words. He predicates the doctrine of the 
 resurrection upon the fact that Christ had been 
 raised. If Christ had not been raised, then the 
 whole gospel plan was a failure, and they were in 
 a lost or unsaved condition. This is all there is 
 in the text. The position of our opponents on 
 this text makes Paul plainly contradict his state- 
 ments found elsewhere as we have already seen. 
 
 The interpretations of our opponents on texts 
 selected from Job, Psalms, etc., are greatly at 
 fault and if applied to other texts would prove 
 that there is no future life, no resurrection from 
 
172 FAVORITE TEXTS. 
 
 the dead. (That which proves too much proves 
 nothing.) In support of this claim we adduce the 
 following texts which plainly show that those 
 writers who seem to favor unconsciouness after 
 death, just as plainly deny any conscious existence 
 for man beyond the grave. 
 
 For he remembered th at they were but flesh ; a wind that 
 passeth away, and cometh not again. Psalms 78:39. 
 
 I am counted with them that go down into the pit: I am 
 as a man that hath no strength: Free among the dead, 
 like the slain that lie in the grave, whom thou remember- 
 est no more and they are cut off from thy hand. Thou 
 hast laid me in the lowest pit, in darkness, in the deeps. 
 Thy wrath lieth hard upon me, and thou hast afflicted mo 
 with all thy waves. Selah. Thou hast put away mine ac- 
 quaintance far from me; thou hast made me an abomina- 
 tion unto them: I am shut up, and T cannot come forth. 
 Mine eye mourneth by reason of affliction: Lord, I have 
 called daily upon thee, I have stretched out my hands unto 
 thee. Wilt thou shew wonders to the dead ? shall the dead 
 arise and praise thee ? Selah. Shall thy loving-kindness 
 be declared in the grave ? or thy faithfulness in destruc- 
 tion ? Psalms 88:4-11. 
 
 For he knoweth our frame; heremembereth that we are 
 dust. As for man, his days are as grass: as a flower of the 
 field, so he flourisheth. For the wind passeth over it, and 
 It is gone; and the place thereof shall know it no more. 
 Psalms 193:14-16. 
 
 O remember that my life Is wind: mine eye shall no 
 more see good. The eye of him that hath seen me shall see 
 me no more; thine eyes are upon me. and I am not. As the 
 cloud is consumed and vanislieth away: so he that goeth 
 down to the grave shall come up no more. Job 7:79. 
 
 Are not my days few ? cease then, and let me alone, 
 that I may take comfort a little. Before I go whence I 
 shall not return, even to the land of darkness, and the 
 shadow of death: A land of darkness, as darkness itself; 
 and of the shadow of death, without any order, and where 
 the light is as darkness. Job 10:20-22. 
 
 When a few years are come, then I shall go the way 
 whence I shall not return. Job 16:22. 
 
 Who shall declare his way to his face? and who shall 
 repay him what he hath done ? Yet shall he be brought to 
 the grave, and shall remain in the tomb. Job 21:31, 32. 
 
 Because the spoiler is come upon her, even upon Baby- 
 lon, and her mighty men are taken, every one of their bows 
 
STRONG EXPRESSIONS NOTED. 173 
 
 is broken: for the Lord God of recompense shall surely requite. 
 And I will make drunk her princes, and her wise men, her captains, 
 and her rulers, and her mighty men; and they shall sleep a per- 
 petual sleep, and not wake, saiththe King, whose name is the Lord 
 of Hosts. Jer. 51: 56, 57. 
 
 Let us note a few of the strong expressions 
 found in these passages: "They are but flesh; a 
 wind that passe th away and cometh not again." 
 
 "Like the slain that lie in the grave, whom 
 thou rememberest no more; and they are cut off from 
 thy hand." 
 
 "Before I go whence I shall not return, even to 
 the land of darkness and the shadow of death." 
 
 "Mine eyes shall no more see good." 
 
 "So he that goeth down to the grave shall 
 come up no more." 
 
 "Yet shall I be brought to the grave, and 
 shall remain in the tomb." 
 
 "And they shall sleep a perpetual sleep, and not 
 wake, saith the King, whose name is the Lord of 
 Hosts." 
 
 With the same kind of construction put upon 
 other texts, by our opponents, these scriptures 
 teach positively that the grave is the final doom 
 of all men! Those who have thus interpreted the 
 hyperbolical statements of the Old Testament, 
 should do one of two things: Either confess that 
 their witnesses are not to be depended upon; or 
 that their interpretations are egregiously at fault. 
 Which is it? 
 
 If it be still insisted that there is no paradise 
 till we have it restored in the New Earth; no 
 hell, in the sense of punishment, till the day of 
 judgment, we kindly ask for proof. Do not mis- 
 take our meaning. We do not deny the future 
 paradise on the renewed earth, nor do we deny the 
 existence of hell at the judgment day; but we 
 claim, and have already proved, that the conditions 
 of paradise and gehenna (hell) may and do ante- 
 
174 PARADISE AND HELL. 
 
 date the judgment day. Jesus said to the peni- 
 tent thief, "Today shalt thou be with me in par- 
 adise." Did Jesus know whether there was any 
 paradise? Paul said, "I knew a man in Christ 
 above fourteen years ago. . . . How that he 
 was caught up into paradise." Did paradise exist 
 at that time? It did, if Paul can be depended 
 upon. It is not simply location that makes heav- 
 en or hell, but, largely, conditions of bliss or pun- 
 ishment. May not these conditions obtain in the 
 intermediate state? Certainly. We have shown 
 that they do, and that they obtain to a certain 
 extent in this life. The heaven of the righteous 
 begins here, and the hell of the wicked frequently 
 begins here also. 
 
 We here present a little more testimony con- 
 cerning the present existence of hell. 
 
 Then Jonah prayed unto the Lord his God out of the 
 fish's belly. And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction 
 unto the Lord, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell 
 cried I, and thou heardst my voice. Jonah 2:1, 2. 
 
 Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither: and as for 
 him that wanteth understanding, she saith to him, Stolen 
 waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant. 
 But he knoweth not that the dead are there; and that her 
 guests are in the depths of hell. Pro v. 9:16-18. 
 
 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death 
 and hell delivered up the dead which were in them ; and they 
 were judged every man according to their works. And death 
 and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second 
 death. And whosoever was not found written in the book 
 of life was cast into the lake of fire. Rev. 20:13-15. 
 
 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the 
 tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole 
 body, and setteth oxi fire the course of nature, and it is set 
 on fire of hell. James 3:6. 
 
 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye 
 compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he 
 is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than 
 yourselves. Matt. 23:15, 
 
 Jonah cried "out of the belly of hell" (sheoi), 
 but it was a place of conscious suffering from 
 
EXEGESIS OF HELL. 175 
 
 which Jonah cried unto the Lord. This proves 
 that sheol does not necessarily mean a place of sil- 
 ence and unconsciousness, as our opponents claim. 
 
 The passage from Proverbs, with preceding 
 verses, describes the alurements of an evil minded 
 and disreputable woman. Those who are so un- 
 fortunate as to give way to her evil enticements, 
 go "into the depths of hell" (sheol), where the dead 
 are. They are dead in sin because separated from 
 righteousness ; and the supposed enjoyment is in 
 the depths of sheol ( u the unseen state"), but they 
 are not conditions of bliss, but are as hellish in 
 their character as if it had stated that they were 
 in the fires of gehenna. 
 
 The passage from Eevelations describes the 
 second or general resurrection, and the general 
 judgment. "Death and hell (hades) delivered up 
 the dead which were in them." It will not do to 
 say that death and hell represent the same place 
 for if they do the pronoun should be in the singu- 
 lar number, that is, it, instead of "them," as it 
 stands in the text. By a figure of speech, meton- 
 omy, death evidently represents the grave, and 
 hell the abode of captive spirits. "Death and 
 hell were cast into the lake of fire." That ig, 
 the inmates of death and hell whose names were 
 "not found written in the book of life," were cast 
 into the lake of fire. The point is that there is a 
 place in hades where wicked spirits are held in cap- 
 tMty till the day of judgment. 
 
 The passage from James informs us that an 
 unruly and evil tongue "is set on fire of hell." 
 Hell, in this passage, comes from gehenna, not 
 hades. Question. Can the tongue be set on fire of 
 hell (gehenna,) if hell does not exist? That is, can 
 you start a fire with a match when there are no 
 matches ? Now our opponents must either admit 
 this gehenna to be the one into which the wicked 
 
176 THE RESURRECTION. 
 
 will be cast, elsewhere described in the New Testa- 
 ment, or else admit what they have all along- 
 ridiculed, viz., that there is a plurality of hells? 
 
 The last passage quoted contains one of the 
 strong denunciations of Christ against the scribes 
 and Pharisees He said, "Ye compass sea and 
 land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, 
 ye make him twofold more the child of hell [gehenna] 
 than yourselves." 
 
 Here the scribes and Pharisees, together with 
 their proselytes are declared to be the children of 
 hell (gehenna). Now it is not difficult to see that 
 if gehenna has no existence, and can have none till 
 the day of judgment, it could not possibly have 
 been the father of a large or small family in the 
 days when Jesus was on the earth. So we see that 
 here, as elsewhere, the positions of our opponents 
 are not sufficiently comprehensive to admit all the 
 truth. They have carefully guarded themselves 
 against what they understood to be erroneous 
 teaching, but in doing so have missed their way 
 and have gone to an opposite extreme; and here, as 
 elsewhere, the truth lies between the extremes. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD AND ETERNAL 
 LIFE-ETERNAL LIFE BEGINS WHEN WE OBEY THE 
 GOSPEL. 
 
 We agree with Adventists, and some others, 
 in the belief that the resurrection of the dead, as 
 set forth in the Scriptures, is one of the grandest 
 and most important principles of the gospel. 
 That mortal-soulists who accept the Bible as a 
 proper standard of evidence, should so teach, is 
 certainly to their credit. This principle compre- 
 hends a glorious and final manifestation of the re- 
 
CHRIST'S GREAT WORK. 177 
 
 demptive power of the gospel as wrought out 
 through Jesus Christ. 
 
 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth 
 
 them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will 
 
 Verily, verily, I say unto you. He that heareth my word, 
 and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, 
 and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from 
 death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour 
 is coining, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice 
 of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as 
 the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son 
 to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to 
 execute judgment also, because he is the Son of Man. Mar- 
 vel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all 
 that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall 
 come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrec- 
 tion of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resur- 
 rection of damnation. John 5:21, 24-29. 
 
 After his own glorious triumph over death and 
 hell (hades,) he spoke these words to his disciples : 
 "All power is given unto me in heaven and in 
 earth." (Matt. 28:18.) And appearing to John 
 on the Isle of Patmos while he "was in the spirit 
 on the Lord's day," he uttered these significant 
 words : "I am he that liveth, and was dead ; and, 
 behold, I am alive forevermore, Amen : and have 
 the keys of hell and of death." (Rev. 1 : 18.) What 
 a glorious triumph indeed ! But it was a triumph, 
 not only over the grave, but over all hades, which 
 includes the world of departed spirits. 
 
 The prophecies relating to Christ's life, death, 
 resurrection, and his whole work while on the 
 earth, received a perfect and literal fulfillment. 
 Why, then, will not these prophecies relating to 
 his work and mission beyond the grave receive a 
 like fulfillment? In the last chapter, the read- 
 er's attention was called to the important work 
 which Christ was to do for the departed ; and we 
 cite it now as an important and necessary part of 
 the great preparatory work for the resurrection of 
 the dead. For the sake of the connection we re- 
 
178. PROPHECIES OF CHRIST. 
 
 produce some of the prophetic words relating to 
 that work. 
 
 As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have 
 sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water. 
 Turn you to the stronghold, ye prisoners of hope: even to- 
 day do I declare that I will render double unto thee. 
 
 To opon the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from 
 the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison 
 house. 
 
 He hath sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives, and 
 the opening of the prison to them that are bound. 
 
 And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are 
 gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and 
 after many days shall they be visited. 
 
 We call attention, once more, to what is evi- 
 dently Peter's exegesis of this part of Christ's 
 work so clearly outlined in prophecy. He says : 
 
 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in 
 prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the 
 long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, etc. 
 
 For, for this cause was the gospel preached also to them 
 t hat are dead, that they might be judged according to men 
 in the flesh but live according to God in the spirit. 
 
 As we have already seen, when Jesus comes to 
 raise the righteous dead and reign with his peo- 
 ple, he will bring the saints with him. And at 
 the general resurrection, they come forth from 
 death (the grave) and hell (hades) and all whose 
 names are "not found written in the book of life" 
 are "cast into the lake of fire." All this shows 
 that the resurrection consists of something more 
 than bringing forth the body from the grave. 
 
 We are to be judged according to our works. 
 The manner in which we have lived here, consider- 
 ing our opportunities, of course, will determine our 
 fate or condition, there. "And they were judged 
 every man according to their works." (Rev. 20 : 
 13.) "For the Son of Man shall come in the glory 
 of his Father with his angels ; and then he shall 
 reward every man according to his works." (Matt. 
 16:27.) "For as in Adam all die, even so in 
 
ACCOUNTABILITY. 179 
 
 Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in 
 his own order ; Christ the first fruits ; afterwards 
 they that are Christ's at his coming." (1 Cor. 15 : 
 22, 23.) 
 
 From these testimonies, which are not a tithe 
 of what might be presented, we learn that the 
 same individuals who live here and make their 
 own record, shall answer to God in the day of 
 judgment. "For we must all appear before the 
 judgment seat of Christ; that every one may re- 
 ceive the things done in his body, according to 
 that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." (2 
 Cor. 5:10.) "So then every one of us shall give 
 account of himself to God." (Bom. 14 :12.) This 
 being true, and it is a grand and solemn truth, it 
 becomes necessary that there should be an unbro- 
 ken connection between this life and the resurrec- 
 tion ; between time and eternity. Such connec- 
 tion is provided for in the facts of the immortality 
 of the soul and the intermediate state. Deny 
 these, and the connection is lost ; and man's ac- 
 countability to God, and his condition in the res- 
 urrection as the result of his works here, lose their 
 grandeur and become wild and meaningless vaga- 
 ries of the mind ! If our experiences here our 
 trials and blessings are to be utilized in the great 
 beyond, then they must be kept in store, some- 
 where, between death and the resurrection. If 
 the whole man goes into the grave, at death, and 
 in a little while becomes a putrid mass of corrup- 
 tion, what becomes of our experiences and our ac- 
 countability to God ? If the whole man goes into 
 the grave, and his resurrection consists only of a 
 new man made from the same material, dust; 
 then there is no difference between the resurrec- 
 tion and creation ; and when the new man comes 
 forth, in the resurrection, he will be as wholly 
 undeveloped, spiritually and morally, as was Adam 
 
180 DEATH AND RESURRECTION. 
 
 when first made from the dust of the ground ! But 
 as we have proved death to be a separation of body 
 and spirit, so we find that the resurrection is a re- 
 union of body and spirit. Thus the whole HIM n, 
 with an immortalized body, stands before God in 
 the judgment, to receive a fulness of glory, or the 
 sentence of condemnation. Christian character 
 will admit him through the pearly gates into the 
 city of light and peace ; a want of this character 
 will render it necessary that he should be thrust 
 out and placed where he properly belongs. But 
 how grand and consoling is the thought that all 
 will have ample opportunity to receive the gospel 
 and live it, and none will be finally cast off except 
 those who wilfully reject the truth. 
 
 There are, then, of necessity, two distinct res- 
 urrections. One of "life," and the other of "con- 
 demnation." One transpires in close connection 
 with Christ's second advent ; the other after the 
 lapse of a thousand years and "a little season." 
 Paul, speaking of the resurrection said : "Christ 
 the first fruits ; afterward they that are Christ's 
 at his coming." (1 Cor. 15:23.) "And the dead 
 in Christ shall rise first." (1 Thes. 4 : 13-18.) Read 
 all of Revelations twentieth chapter, from which 
 we extract a few statements. "Blessed and holy 
 is he that hath part in the first resurrection : on 
 such the second death hath no power, but they 
 shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall 
 reign with him a thousand years. And when the 
 thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed 
 out of his prison," etc. Then, beginning with the 
 twelfth verse, we have a description of the second 
 or general resurrection and judgment. John says : 
 "I saw the dead, small and great, stand before 
 God ; and the books were opened ; and another 
 book was opened, which is the book of life : and 
 the dead were judged out of those things which 
 
TWO RESURRECTIONS. 181 
 
 were written in the books, according to their 
 works." God's people, the saints, the faithful and 
 true, come forth in the first resurrection ; but it 
 will be more than a thousand years later when the 
 wicked come forth. In this arrangement there is, 
 evidently, a manifestation of infinite wisdom and 
 love. "God is love." It is our blessed privilege to 
 receive the truth, remain faithful and true, and 
 come forth in the first resurrection. "On such the 
 second death shall have no power." 
 
 "WHEN WILL THE SAINTS OBTAIN ETERNAL 
 LIFE, OR IMMORTALITY?" This is the caption to 
 a short article from the pen of Wm. Sheldon, 
 found in "ADYENTISM," pp. 114, 115, 116. He be- 
 gins the answer as follows : 
 
 The following queries often arise: 
 
 1. "Is not immortality the same as eternal life ?" Ans. 
 Strictly speaking, immortality, instead of being eternal 
 life, is the basis of eternal life, and eternal life is the result 
 of immortality; so that those who are made immortal will 
 be sure of eternal life, and those who have eternal life have 
 it because they are immortal; immortality is the cause, 
 eternal life the result. 
 
 2. "Are not Christians said to possess eternal life ? and 
 are they not therefore immortal ?" Ans. The Christian 
 has eternal life in prospect, but not in actual possession. 
 
 The above contains some admissions which 
 will help us to get at the truth. If immortality 
 and eternal life are not identical, then all those 
 scriptures which declare that eternal life is given 
 to the Saints only, that is, to those who are in 
 Christ are no proof that the wicked are desti- 
 tute of immortality, although they are constantly 
 so used by our opponents. If immortality pre- 
 cedes eternal life, as Mr. Sheldon affirms, then the 
 latter is not simply conscious existence, but a 
 condition of conscious existence; and death, or 
 eternal death, is not a blotting out of conscious 
 being, but an opposite condition of conscious ex- 
 istence. This shows, then, that life and death, 
 
182 ALL TO BE RESURRECTED. 
 
 as these terms are employed in the gospel record , 
 represent not consciousness on the one hand and 
 unconsciousness on the other hand, but, rather, 
 opposite conditions of consciousness. The facts 
 that the righteous, in this world, are declared to 
 be in actual possession of eternal life, as we shall 
 presently see, and the wicked destitute of it, 
 prove this position to be correct. 
 
 But Mr. Sheldon makes the possession of eter- 
 nal life wholly dependent upon the resurrection, 
 and, at the same time, claims that the righteous 
 only will receive it. Now if it can be shown that 
 all, the wicked as well as the righteous, will be 
 raised toimmortaiity, then, according to Mr. Shel- 
 don's theory, all will receive eternal life. He says : 
 "Strictly speaking, immortality instead of being 
 eternal life, is the basis of eternal life, and eternal 
 life is the result of immortality ; so that those who 
 are made immortal will be sure of eternal life," etc. 
 
 In the fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul 
 furnishes us with a general treatise on the resur- 
 rection ; and the very language which he employs 
 shows that this treatise is not confined to the res- 
 urrection of the covenant people of God, but treats 
 of the resurrection in its universal application to 
 the race. 
 
 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, 
 how say some among you that there is no resurrection of 
 the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, 
 then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then 
 is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, 
 and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have 
 testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised 
 not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise 
 not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised 
 your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. For since by 
 man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the 
 dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be 
 made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the 
 first-fruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming 
 1 Cor. 15:12-17, 21-23. 
 
PAUL'S HOPE. 183 
 
 Paul's hope was that all would be redeemed 
 from the grave ; though if the wicked are raised to 
 mortality, with all classes who have failed to em- 
 brace the gospel in this life, and then immedi- 
 ately judged and reduced to ashes by means of lit- 
 eral fire, that is, to a state of unconscious, eternal 
 oblivion, it is difficult to see how the resurrection 
 of the unrighteous could constitute a part of his 
 hope ! Paul answers for his faith and hope while 
 before Felix, the governor, in the following lan- 
 guage ; 
 
 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which 
 they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, 
 believing all things which are written in the law and in the 
 prophets; and have hope toward God, which they them- 
 selves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the 
 dead, both of the just and the unjust. Acts 24:14, 15. 
 
 This is the same resurrection to which Paul 
 calls our attention in Corinthians the resurrec- 
 tion of all men. "For as in Adam all die, even so 
 in Christ shall all be made alive." In verses 41, 
 42, he speaks of different degrees of reward typi- 
 fied by the sun, moon and stars, and then proceeds 
 to inform us in what condition the dead will come 
 forth. "So also is the resurrection of the dead. 
 It is sown in corruption ; it is raised in incorrup- 
 tion : it is sown in dishonor ; it is raised in glory : 
 it is sown in weakness ; it is raised in power: it 
 is sown a natural body ; it is raised a spiritual 
 body. (Yerses 42, 43, 44.) 
 
 From the first sentence of the last quotation, 
 it is evident that what follows applies to the dead 
 in general. And if the dead in general are raised 
 "in incorruption," "in glory," "in power," "a spirit- 
 ual body," the legitimate inference is that they 
 are raised to immortality. But verses 53, 54, 55, 
 settle the question effectually. 
 
 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this 
 mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible 
 shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have 
 
184 THE VICTORY OVER DEATH. 
 
 put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the say- 
 ing that is written. Death is swallowed up in victory. 
 O death, where is thy sting ? O grave, where is thy victory? 
 
 The saying, "Death is swallowed up in vic- 
 tory," will receive its fulfillment when all the dead 
 are raised from the grave. If it be claimed that 
 the saying applies when the saints are raised, who 
 constitute but a small portion of the race, then, 
 we reply, it applied when Jesus and the saints 
 came forth at the time of his resurrection. (Matt. 
 27 :52, 53.) But Paul placed it in the future from 
 his day. 
 
 The leading purpose of the resurrection is, 
 evidently, the redemption of the human family. 
 We are not made accountable for the sin of our 
 foreparents, in the garden, but for our individual 
 wrongs. What was lost in Adam is restored in 
 Christ. "For if, when we were enemies, we were 
 reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much 
 more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his 
 life." (Kom. 5:10.) "Therefore as by the 
 offence of one judgment came upon all men 
 to condemnation ; even so by the righteousness of 
 one the free gift came upon all men unto justifica- 
 tion of life." (Verse 18.) "But where sin abound- 
 ed, grace did much more abound." (Verse 20.) 
 Death was pronounced upon Adam because of 
 transgression ; therefore, had he not sinned, he 
 would not have died ; and had he not died, he 
 would have been immortal, in body as well as in 
 spirit. 
 
 If the vast majority of the human family (all 
 who are not true Christians) are raised in mor- 
 tality, to be immediately and literally burned up, 
 then, we ask, .what is the purpose of bringing 
 them forth ? Why not let them rest in happy (?) 
 oblivion, in their graves, to which they are, in a 
 few moments of time, to be recommitted forever? 
 
RAISED TO IMMORTALITY. 185 
 
 This will not do. All the dead are to be raised to 
 conditions of immortality, "but every man in Ms 
 own order." "As in Adam all die, even so in 
 Christ shall all be made ali/e." If, therefore, 
 those who are made immortal will be sure 
 of eternal life," then all will receive it, inas- 
 much as all are raised to immortality. Fallen 
 angels and demons are immortal, but they are not 
 in possession of eternal life. 
 
 Mortal-soulists claim that because the prom- 
 ise of eternal life is made in the future tense, by 
 Jesus and Paul, therefore we do not receive it, in 
 any degree, till the resurrection ; and when their 
 attention is called to the fact that both Jesus and 
 John, when speaking of eternal life, as applied to 
 the saints, use the present and past tenses, they 
 claim it means "in prospect," that is, it still 
 means future ! That the past and future tenses 
 are often used in prophetical statements, we are 
 fully prepared to admit ; but that the past and 
 present tenses mean altogether future when used 
 in a historical or doctrinal sense we deny. In this 
 latter sense they are used by Jesus and John, and 
 the statements mean just what they say. Our at- 
 tention is called to Eomans 4 : 17, to which we 
 reply : The consummation of the work of making 
 Abraham the "father of many nations" was yet 
 future ; though, in a degree, the work was already 
 begun. If, however, this is one of the passages 
 wherein the thing promised is spoken of as already 
 accomplished, it would by no means prove that 
 the passages which declare that God's people have 
 eternal life here, only refer to the promise. Also 
 1 Corinthians 3 : 21, 22, is cited. The things of 
 which Paul here speaks were largely in the actual 
 possession of the saints, when Paul wrote this 
 passage. 
 
186 THE GOSPEL OF LIFE. 
 
 The gospel of Christ is a gospel of life. When 
 we properly receive it, we become united to God, 
 and are, then and there, made alive in Christ. 
 This eternal life, so far as this world is concerned, 
 is applied to the immortal spirit in man ; and, at 
 the resurrection, the body will be immortalized, 
 and a fulness of reward bestowed. This is the 
 completion of the promise. 
 
 We do not believe that this condition of life is 
 produced by that which "is not alive in itself," 
 which "is not mortal nor immortal," but "by the 
 word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." 
 As we have already seen, man needs this imperish- 
 able food because of the immortality of the soul ; 
 and just as the body is preserved, increased and 
 strengthened by the use of perishable food and 
 proper exercise, so the soul is transformed and 
 new life infused into it, and this life perpetuated 
 and increased, through obedience to "the word of 
 truth." Through the transgression of our fore- 
 parents, all who have arrived at the years of ac- 
 countability, and are not in Christ, are dead ; but 
 through faith and obedience we are made alive. 
 This is eternal life, and it begins when we enter in- 
 to the true service of the true God. The idea of liv- 
 ing in obedience to the word of life here, and then 
 lying in the grave for a few hundreds or thousands 
 of years, as the case may be, before we can receive 
 any portion of reward, or of eternal life, is as un- 
 reasonable as it is unscriptural. 
 
 It will be admitted that "life" and "eternal 
 life" are used interchangeably in the New Testa- 
 ment ; that death, or eternal death, is their oppo- 
 site. Very well. If eternal life represents a con- 
 dition of conscious existence, death, or eternal 
 death, represents an opposite condition of con- 
 scious existence ; for, please remember, Mr. Shel- 
 don has already informed us that eternal life is an 
 
LIFE AND DEATH. 187 
 
 addition to conscious existence and immortality. 
 If death, or eternal death, means the blotting out 
 of life and consciousness, and this only, as we are 
 told, then life, or eternal life, means conscious ex- 
 istence only, without any reference to the enjoy- 
 ment of bliss ! But as eternal life is the promised 
 reward to the righteous, it follows that the phrase 
 indicates a blissful condition of consciousness. 
 Neither the promise of eternal life, nor the threat 
 of eternal death, takes into consideration what 
 man receives by virtue of his creation, but, rather, 
 what he will receive because of his obedience or 
 disobedience to God. They are gospel terms 
 representing opposite conditions of conscious 
 existence. 
 
 We are now prepared for a portion of the evi- 
 dence which abounds in the New Testament. 
 
 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my 
 word, and belie veth on him that sent me, hath everlasting 
 life, and shall not come into condemation; but is passed 
 from death unto life. John 5:24. 
 
 Christ is not referring to a future promise, 
 but is making a plain statement of what the gos- 
 pel does for us here, in this life ; and he connects 
 this statement with a future promise by the use 
 of the con junction "and." "And shall not come into 
 condemnation." Why not come into condemna- 
 tion? Because he "is passed from death unto 
 life." Paul teaches precisely the same doctrine in 
 Ephesiaris 2 : 1-6. 
 
 And you hath he quickened, who were dead In tres- 
 passes and sins. Wherein in time past ye walked accord- 
 ing to the course of this world, according to .the prince of 
 the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the 
 children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had 
 our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, ful- 
 filling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by 
 nature, the children of wrath, even as others. But God, 
 who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved 
 us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us 
 together with Christ, (by err are ye are saved;) And hath 
 
188 LIFE ETERNAL. 
 
 raised us up together, and made us sit together in heav- 
 enly places in Christ Jesus. 
 
 Notice, these Ephesian saints were dead be- 
 fore their conversion ; but through faith in Christ 
 and obedience to the gospel, they were "quick- 
 ened," (made alive) and "raised up" and made to 
 sit together "in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." 
 To refer all this to the future is to do the most 
 shocking violence to the language employed. 
 There is no escape from the position that when 
 we truly believe in Christ, we pass from death 
 unto life. 
 
 And this Is the record, that God hath given to us eter- 
 nal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son, 
 hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God, hath not 
 life. These things have I written unto you that believe on 
 the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye 
 have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of 
 the Son of God. And we know that the Son of God is come, 
 and hath given us an understanding, that we may know 
 him that is true; and we are in him that is true, even in his 
 Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. J 
 John 5: 11, 12, 13, 20. 
 
 Eternal life is in Christ. "He that hath the 
 Son hath life." When do we come into possession 
 of Christ ? At the resurrection, or before ? An- 
 swer. We come into possession of Christ when 
 we receive him ; and we receive him when we ac- 
 cept the message of truth as delivered by his ser- 
 vants. "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and 
 he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." 
 (Matt. 10:40.) John 13 : 20 is still more compre- 
 hensive, as the wording includes not only the 
 apostles, but every authorized minister of Christ. 
 "He that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth 
 me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that 
 sent me." John taught the same doctrine as 
 plainly as words can express it, in his Second Epis- 
 tle and ninth verse : 
 
 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doc- 
 trine of Christ. hath not God. He that abideth in the 
 doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 
 
WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN ? 1 89 
 
 This settles the question. Those who prop- 
 erly received the gospel received Christ and the 
 Father ; and through the pure and all powerful 
 Spirit, which God gives "to them that obey him," 
 eternal life is infused into the soul. 
 
 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one 
 which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have ever- 
 lasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. Whoso 
 eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; 
 and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:40, 54. 
 
 These passages, taken together, teach that 
 the children of Christ receive eternal life first, 
 and afterwards are brought forth in the resurrec- 
 tion. The degree of life received here will deter- 
 mine their condition in the resurrection state. 
 "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Christ 
 from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ 
 from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bod- 
 ies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." Or, mar- 
 ginal translation, "because of his Spirit that 
 dwelleth in you." (Bom. 8 : 11.) 
 
 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my say- 
 ing, he shall never see death. John 8:51. 
 
 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection and the life; 
 he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he 
 live: And whosoever liveth, and believeth In me, shall 
 never die. Belie vest thou this. John 11:25, 26 ? 
 
 When we teach this doctrine, Adventists are 
 ready and fond of accusing us of joining in with 
 Satan in the sentiment, "Thou shalt not surely 
 die." Even leading authors, like Miles Grant, 
 have lent their influence to this practice, and all 
 the ministers of lesser note pursue the same pol- 
 icy, when engaged in controversy, and even in 
 their preaching. Now the practice is more ingen- 
 ious than it is wise or commendable. We do not 
 deny that the impenitent, or wicked, will die "the 
 second death ;" but are we compelled to accept 
 Adventist interpretation, or be accused of making 
 
190 TRUE BELIEVERS NEVER DIE. 
 
 league with the Devil ! But we are in good com- 
 pany, as Jesus taught the same things. "If a man 
 keep my saying, he shall never see death." "And 
 whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never 
 die. Believest thou this?" Do mortal-soulists 
 believe it? But, say they, Jesus was speaking to 
 Martha of the resurrection. Whoever believes in 
 Christ and lives in the resurrection, shall not "die 
 any more." Was Jesus speaking of the resurrec- 
 tion when he said to the Jews, "If a man keep 
 my saying, he shall never see death ?" The record 
 does not show it ; and the last quotation is har- 
 monious with the first. It is true that the resur- 
 rection was the subject under discussion by Jesus 
 and Martha. Martha believed that her brother 
 would come forth in the resurrection, and she 
 doubtless believed that when he did, he would 
 live forever ; but Jesus comforts her by imparting 
 additional and precious truth; in order that she 
 might believe that he was able to raise him up to 
 life even then ; and that she might have a "larger 
 hope" concerning those who die in Christ. 
 
 1. "I am the resurrection, and the life : he 
 that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet 
 shall he live." 
 
 2. "And whosoever liveth and believeth in me 
 shall never die. Believest thou this?" 
 
 The latter part of verse 25 does not refer to the 
 resurrection, but to those who are dead in sin, 
 and, believing in Christ, receive eternal life before 
 the resurrection. That it does not refer to the 
 resurrection is evident from two reasons : 
 
 1. The wicked will have part in the resurrec- 
 tion, as well as believers in Christ. 
 
 2. The resurrection will not depend upon our 
 faith in Christ, but is universal and unconditional. 
 According to this language, he who is made alive 
 must, at that time, believe in Christ. So if it ap- 
 
LIFE ETERNAL IN REALITY. 19J 
 
 plies to those who have died the natural death, 
 they are proved to be conscious. 
 
 Verse 26 is equally clear. "And whosoever 
 liveth and believeth in me shall never die." These 
 words do not refer to life in the resurrection, but, 
 evidently, to all who believe in Christ in this life. 
 We are not at liberty to suppose that Martha 
 needed to be told that whosoever lives in the resur- 
 rection of the just shall never die, and for two reas- 
 ons : 1 . The doctrine of the resurrection to immor- 
 tality was current among the Jews. All but a 
 few unpopular Sadducees accepted it. 2. Martha 
 was not a Sadducee, but a firm believer in the res- 
 urrection. She did not need to be told that the 
 dead would be raised to immortality, for that she 
 already believed; but, in the hour of trial she 
 needed that which would come still nearer to her 
 troubled soul, hence the declaration of that 
 grand truth which forms the basis of the resurrec- 
 tion of the just, viz., belief in Christ and actual 
 possession of eternal life. "Whosoever liveth and 
 believeth in me shall never die." She believed 
 that her brother would "rise again in the resur- 
 rection at the last day," but Jesus tells her some- 
 thing more, and then adds: "Believest thou 
 
 Now in the light of all these testimonies, we 
 are gravely told that we have eternal life only in 
 prospect ! It would be in order now for our oppo- 
 nents to correct some other traditional teaching 
 and inform us that remission of sin and the gift 
 of the Holy Spirit are had in prospect, by the 
 Saints ; that when Jesus promised them he simply 
 called "things which be not as though they were.* 1 
 (Rom. 4:17.) 
 
 We close this chapter with a grand test fur- 
 nished by John himself, which should put the 
 matter at rest forever. 
 
132 A CONCLUDING TEST. 
 
 We know that we have passed from death unto life 
 because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his 
 brother abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his brother, 
 is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eter- 
 nal life abiding in him. 1 John 3:14, 15. 
 
 This is a test of great practical worth to the 
 people of God. It is possible for them to obey the 
 gospel in form and letter and yet fail to secure a 
 proper standing before God. That is, we may 
 obey the gospel all right in form, and thus enter 
 into the church of God ; and yet, failing to obey 
 intelligently and "from the heart," we remain the 
 children of the world, "the children of wrath." 
 How how shall we know that the great change 
 has been wrought, and we are indeed the children of 
 God ? "God is love." If we are his, He will give 
 us "of his Spirit." When his Spirit is in us, we 
 will not only love him, but all his children. This 
 love is the evidence that "we have passed from 
 death unto life." "He that loveth not his brother 
 abideth in death." "Whosoever hateth his brother 
 is a murderer : and ye know that no murderer 
 hath eternal life abiding in him." When we truly 
 love "the brethren," "we know that we have passed 
 from death unto life." 
 
 It would hardly do to say that we know that 
 we have received the promise of eternal life, be- 
 cause we love the brethren ! Much less would it 
 do for us to depend upon the love we now have for 
 the brethren as proper evidence that we shall, in 
 the resurrection, "pass from death unto life!" 
 What evidence is present love that we shall re- 
 main faithful till death ? 
 
 Thus we see that eternal life begins here, and 
 that it continues to increase, so long as we are 
 faithful to God, until the resurrection, when we 
 shall receive a fulness. There is no possible thing 
 or power, not even death, that can separate us 
 from this desirable condition, so long as \ve abide 
 
SECOND DEATH. 193 
 
 in "the doctrine of Christ." (Rom. 8 : 38, 39; 2 
 John 9.) 
 
 From the Bible testimony contained in this 
 chapter, on the resurrection and eternal life, but 
 one proper conclusion can be formed : The spirit, 
 or soul, is immortal, and lives in a conscious state 
 between death and the resurrection. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 TTTE SECOND DEATH, OR FUTURE PUNISHMENT-TS 
 THE "LAKE OF FIRE" LITERAL ?-WILL ALL WHO 
 ARE NOT CHRISTIANS LOSE THEIR CONSCIOUS 
 EXISTENCE AT THE JUDGMENT? 
 
 Our opponents assume, do not prove, that 
 what we call natural death is a cessation of con- 
 scious being This, they affirm, is the first death ; 
 and as the "second death" (the penalty for sin) is 
 like unto the first, it will leave all upon whom 
 it has claim in a state of eternal oblivion ! 
 
 We reply that we have already shown that 
 death is not an end to conscious existence, but, 
 rather, the separation of body and spirit, with the 
 departure to God of the thinking, active, con- 
 scious part of man. Is it not a little strange that 
 men who claim plain Bible support for their 
 views, should find it necessary to assume, so fre- 
 quently and dogmatically, that death means an 
 entire absence of conscious being ? "Death," they 
 say, "means death. 11 Yes, certainly, but what does 
 "death" mean ? We have shown what it means in 
 the light of Bible teaching. 
 
 Next, they assume, but do not prove, that the 
 first death, which is like the second, is the one 
 which occurs at the end of man's natural life, that 
 is, the death of the body. This we deny. If, as 
 we are told, the second death is like the first, then 
 
194 VARIOUS TERMS FOR PUNISHMENT. 
 
 the first is like the second ; and if the second is 
 not what we term natural death, as we claim, 
 then the first is not natural death. 
 
 The New Testament, in describing the pun- 
 ishment of the wicked, uses such terms and 
 phrases as these : "Death," "the second death," 
 "hell," "hell fire," "cast into prison," "lake of 
 fire," "outer darkness," etc. Horn. 6:23: "For 
 the wages of sin is death ; but the gift of God is 
 eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Kev. 
 20:14, 15 : "And death and hell were cast into the 
 lake of fire. This is the second death. And who- 
 soever was not found written in the book of life 
 was cast into the lake of fire." Matt. 5 : 30 : "For 
 it is profitable for thee that one of thy members 
 should perish, and not that thy whole body should 
 be cast into hell." Matt. 5 : 20 : "But whosoever 
 shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell 
 fire." Matt. 5 : 25, 26 : "Agree with thine adver- 
 sary quickly, whilst thou art in the way with him; 
 lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the 
 judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, 
 and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto 
 thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, 
 till thou hast paid the utter most farthing." Matt. 
 8 : 12 : "But the children of the kingdom shall be 
 cast out into outer darkness ; there shall be weep- 
 ing and gnashing of teeth." Matt. 22 : 13 : "Then 
 said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and 
 foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer 
 darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of 
 teeth." Matt. 25 : 30 : "And cast ye the unprofit- 
 able servant into outer darkness : there shall be 
 weeping and gnashing of teeth." 
 
 When we consider these expressions as a 
 whole, and the connections in which they are 
 used, we are forced to the conclusion that they are 
 figurative descriptions of the intensity and exquis- 
 
FIGURATIVE DESCRIPTIONS. 195 
 
 iteness of the punishment which shall be meted 
 out to the finally impenitent. In the very nature 
 of the case, we can know but little of the charac- 
 ter of future punishment, hence the necessity of 
 figurative terms and expressions in describing it. 
 As Canon Farrar truly says with reference to an- 
 other matter concerning the future state, "All 
 details, as in the entire eschatology of Scripture, 
 are left dim and indefinite." But it only requires 
 a fairly comprehensive view to exclude entirely the 
 idea of literal fire. 
 
 When we take some of these expressions and 
 make them literal, while we hold others to be 
 highly figurative, it looks more like we were try- 
 ing to support some chosen theory than to learn 
 what the Bible really teaches. If the "lake of 
 fire" is literal, so is the "outer darkness;" and 
 then, we ask, how can there be literal darkness at 
 the same place and at the same time that there 
 are literal flames of fire ? 
 
 We may be told, however, that the fire repre- 
 sents the means by which they will be destroyed, 
 while the darkness represents their unconscious 
 and eternal oblivion in the grave. But this will 
 not do. It is a careless and unsafe way of inter- 
 preting the word. The Bible does not state that 
 the bodies of dead men are thrown into this "outer 
 darkness," but living, conscious beings. More than 
 this, they are conscious in the darkness, for as a 
 result of being cast therein Jesus said, "There 
 shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Just as 
 the impenitent wicked are "cast into the lake of 
 fire," which "is the second death," so are they 
 "cast into outer darkness," where "there shall be 
 weeping and gnashing of teeth." There is no es- 
 cape from the positions that the darkness and fire 
 represent the condition into which the wicked will 
 go immediately after the judgment ; that this con- 
 
196 HELL GEHENNA. 
 
 dition is the * 'second death;" and that in this 
 second death, the wicked are conscious. Ic is 
 clearly a state of banishment from God with a deep 
 consciousness of guilt and shame. This is hell 
 (gehenna) indeed! 
 
 It should be borne in mind that Adventist 
 authors admit that when hell is translated from 
 gehenna, it refers to the future punishment of the 
 wicked; but they fail to notice that this word 
 gehenna (hell) was used metaphorically by the 
 Savior. 
 
 "To the southeast of Jerusalem was a deep 
 and fertile valley called the vale of Hinnom, or, in 
 Greek, Gehenna. In a particular portion of this 
 valley, known as Tophet, the idolatrous Jews 
 burned their children in sacrifice to Moloch. In 
 the reformation instituted by Josiah, this valley 
 was polluted, and therefore, became the place for 
 casting out and burning offal and the corpses of 
 criminals. Hence the use of the phrase, 'fire of 
 Gehenna,' translated 'hell fire,' to indicate the 
 place of future punishment. Thence it has passed 
 into the religious literature of Christendom." 
 Abbott, in "DICTIONARY OF RELIGIOUS KNOWL- 
 EDGE," Art., "Hell." 
 
 Mr. Grant says, in "WHAT IS MAN," p. 23, 
 that "Had the word gehenna been fully translated, 
 it would have been rendered, 'The fire of the val- 
 ley of Hinnom.' " 
 
 These statements clearly show that gehenna t or 
 "hell fire," as used in the New Testament, is a 
 metaphor; and we have no more right to affirm 
 that the "lake of fire," or "hell fire," into which 
 the wicked will be cast, is literal fire, than we 
 have to affirm that God is a literal' rock because he 
 is repeatedly called a rock by the Psalmist and 
 others. (Pa. 18: 31; 78: 35; Deut. 32: 31.) 
 
GRANT ON GEHENNA. 197 
 
 Mr. Grant, and those who believe as he does 
 concerning the punishment of the wicked, will 
 hardly claim that the wicked will be cast into the 
 veritable gehenna, south-east of Jerusalem ; yet 
 this is precisely what they are compelled to believe 
 if they accept it for anything more than a meta- 
 phor. But, says Mr. Grant, "When the Savior 
 was speaking to the Jews on the subject of the 
 future punishment of the wicked, he illustrates 
 their destruction by referring to the valley of 
 Hinom, where they burnt up their filthy matter. 
 No one ever thought of casting a thing there for 
 preservation. And in order to make the point 
 strong indeed, and show that no portion of the 
 wicked man will be preserved, the Savior says, 
 'the fire shall not be quenched.' Or, as it is said 
 in Matt. 3 : 12, 'He will burn up the chaff (the 
 wicked) with unquenchable fire.' If the fire could 
 be quenched, then the chaff would not be 'burnt 
 up,' for we never speak of quenching a fire, unless 
 we intend to prevent some part of the burning 
 substance from being wholly consumed. What- 
 ever is cast into an unquenchable fire must of 
 necessity be burnt up ; unless it be something up- 
 on which the fire has no effect, in which case no 
 suffering could be produced." WHAT is MAN?" 
 pp. 22, 23. 
 
 Yes, he "illustrates their destruction" by the 
 use of a bold metaphor, just as he illustrates their 
 condition by saying they "shall be cast out into 
 outer darkness : there shall be weeping and gnash- 
 ing of teeth." He illustrates the condition of the 
 righteous in the intermediate state by telling us 
 of the joys and peace of Lazarus in "Abraham's 
 bosom ;" but as we are not to suppose that the 
 righteous go into the literal bosom of Abraham, at 
 death, neither are we to suppose that the wicked, 
 at the judgment, will be cast into a literal lake of 
 
19S UNQUENCHABLE FIRE. 
 
 literal fire. Having- proved that the fire is not 
 literal, Mr. Grant's remarks fall flatly and harm- 
 lessly upon the ear. 
 
 1 'No one," says Mr. Grant, "ever thought of 
 casting a thing there for preservation." Why this 
 remark? What did they cast into the vale of 
 Hinnom? "In the reformation instituted by Josiah, 
 this valley was polluted, and, therefore, became 
 the place of casting out and burning offal and 
 the corpses of criminals." But those who are 
 cast into "hell fire," "the lake of fire," or "outer 
 darkness." are living, conscious men and women. 
 And, according to Mr. Grant's theory, all who are 
 not true Christians, without regard to what their 
 opportunities may have been for receiving the 
 gospel, or what degree of good they may have done 
 in this life, are doomed to eternal oblivion in the 
 fi res of gehennal 
 
 Mr. Grant thinks because the fire is unquencha- 
 ble that no part of the wicked man will be pre- 
 served. But we have shown that all men are 
 possessed of immortality, and that, in the resur- 
 rection, all will come forth with immortal bodies. 
 It is the practice of wickedness that constitutes 
 wicked people; and as wickedness is an abnormal 
 condition, it must necessarily come to an end. 
 It is through the instrumentality and works of 
 the Devil that all abnormal conditions obtain; 
 and just to the extent that they abide, the Devil 
 is victorious; to the extent that they are over- 
 come, God is victorious. The idea that all who are 
 not Christians are wholly wicked, is a mistake; 
 and the idea that God will destroy that which is 
 good, is another mistake. Hence we read, "Let 
 the wickedness of the wicked come to an end." 
 (Psalr^s 7: 9.) As the wicked, they will be de- 
 stroyed, both "root and branch;" but as individu- 
 als, possessed of consciousness, they will remain. 
 
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 199 
 
 The unquenchable flre effectually does its work, 
 and that too, without giving the victory to the 
 Devil. 
 
 Mr. Grant, speaking of the second death, 
 makes the following statements : 
 
 Observe, the wages of sin is not dying, but death, which 
 is the end of dying. A person is not dead till the act of 
 dying is completed: and when dead, they "know not any- 
 thing," and consequently suffer nothing, 
 
 We learn from Rev. 20:14, that the death penalty for 
 sin "is the second death." If there is a second there must 
 be a first death, and the second must be like the first; con- 
 sequently the second must likewise be a cessation of con- 
 scious existence." "WHAT is MAN," pp. 24, 25. 
 
 According to the above, death ("a cessation of 
 conscious being") is the extreme penalty for sin. In 
 the last paragraph of page 25 Mr. Grant says: ' ' 'The 
 wages of sin is death,' not suffering; and the pun- 
 ishment does not begin till they are dead." Why 
 then, did the Savior say, "But whoso shall offend 
 one of these little ones which believe in me, it 
 were better for him that a mill stone were hanged 
 about his neck, and that he were drowned in the 
 depth of the sea?" (Matt. 18:6.) This verse 
 plainly teaches that it is better to suffer death 
 than to incur the penalty for sinning against "one 
 of these little ones which believe in" Christ ; thus 
 proving by the plainest implication, that the fu- 
 ture punishment of the wicked is greater than 
 literal death. The antithetical text to the above 
 scripture is found in Matt. 10 : 42 : "And whoso- 
 ever shall give to drink unto one of these little 
 ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a dis- 
 ciple, verily I say unto you he shall in no wise 
 lose his reward." 
 
 Paul too teaches that future punishment is 
 more than literal death. 
 
 He that despised Moses' law, died without mercy under 
 two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, 
 suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden 
 under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of 
 the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy 
 
200 A SORER PUNISHMENT. 
 
 thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 
 Heb. 10:28, 29. 
 
 The stated fact that those who reject the gos- 
 pel, knowingly, will suffer a "much sorer punish- 
 ment" (more grievous and painful) than those who 
 "despised Moses' law" and "died without mercy," 
 should forever settle the question. These scrip- 
 tures prove clearly that future punishment, or 
 "the second death," is a condition of conscious 
 suffering ; and Mr. Grant's fanciful idea of pun- 
 ishment without pain or consciousness, which he 
 seems to think so illustrative of God's love and 
 mercy, is excluded. 
 
 The very expressions used in describing future 
 punishment, clearly indicate that it is a state of 
 banishment from the light and glory of God. "And 
 take him away, and cast him into outer darkness ; 
 there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 
 This sentiment, with almost its exact language, 
 is found in three different passages, all descrip- 
 tive of future punishment, as given by the Savior. 
 
 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This 
 is the second death. Rev. 20:14. 
 
 And the Devil that deceived them was cast into the 
 lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false 
 prophet are. and shall be tormented day and night forever 
 and ever. Rev. 20:10. 
 
 The Devil stands as the representative head 
 of all devils or demons ; the false prophet stands 
 as the representative head of that class of individ- 
 uals denominated "the wicked." The beast like- 
 wise represents a wicked class of people. Will all 
 these, including the Devil and his angels, be un- 
 conscious while they are being "tormented day 
 and night forever and ever ? " That "forever" is 
 often used in a limited sense, we are prepared to 
 admit ; but that the words, "and shall be tormented 
 day and night forever and ever," refer to a few mo- 
 ments of time required to burn up the wicked, or 
 to the solitude of the unconscious dead, we deny. 
 
DEATH BANISHMENT. 201 
 
 Then shall he say also to them on the left hand, Depart 
 from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the 
 devil and his angels. Matt. 25:41. 
 
 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: 
 but the righteous into life eternal. Matt. 25:46. 
 
 We learn from these passages, (1) that the 
 second death is a state of banishment and con- 
 scious torment : and (2) that the punishment of 
 the wicked is associated with the punishment of 
 devils. Now devils are spirit beings, or fallen 
 angels, and it is not likely that they lose their 
 conscious existence in the secound death. We 
 have already learned from Peter and Jude that 
 "God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast 
 them down to hell, and delivered them in chains 
 of darkness to be reserved unto judgment." 2 
 Peter 2: 4. 
 
 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but 
 left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting 
 chains, under darkness unto the judgment of the great 
 day. Jude 6. 
 
 Peter draws a close analogy between the des- 
 tiny of fallen angels and that of wicked people. 
 In the 9th verse of the chapter referred to above, 
 (Revised Version) he says : 
 
 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of 
 temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punish- 
 ment unto the day of judgment. 
 
 The angels who sinned lost their "first es- 
 tate," hence their punishment in hell (tartarus) is, 
 to them, the second or intermediate state. In 
 like manner the unrighteous will be kept "under 
 punishment" till the day of judgment, when the 
 judge shall say, "Depart from me, ye that work 
 iniquity." (Matt. 7:23.) 
 
 We are now prepared to consider, briefly, the 
 first death. When the first pair were placed in 
 the garden of Eden, they were permitted to choose 
 for themselves. It was wisdom in the Divine Be- 
 ing to grant this agency to man. 
 
202 THOUSAND YEAR DAY. 
 
 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of 
 every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the 
 tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; 
 for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely 
 die.-Gen. 2:16. 17. 
 
 This is the first revelation of God to man con- 
 cerning death. What was to produce this death ? 
 Eating of the forbidden fruit, or the transgress- 
 ion of God's laws. When was this death to ob- 
 tain ? At the very time the transgression took 
 place. "For in the day that thou eatest thereof 
 thou shalt surely die." But we are referred to the 
 marginal translation which reads, "dying thou 
 shalt die." This does not change the matter in 
 the least, for "dying thou shalt die" was to be ac- 
 complished on the "rfaz/" of their transgression. 
 Next we are referred to Peter's language : 
 
 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that 
 one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thous- 
 and years as one day." 2 Peter 3:8. 
 
 We reply that Peter does not intimate that 
 the Lord has a system of time peculiar to himself, 
 but, rather, that time is reckoned unto man only. 
 With God, it is one vast eternity ; and because a 
 certain event does not transpire as soon as we look 
 for it, it is no evidence that God has forgotten his 
 work, or that he is "slack concerning his promise." 
 If the Lord has one system of time and we an- 
 other, how are we to understand which system is 
 meant, unless it is indicated in the text? In the 
 text under consideration the word "day" comes 
 from the Hebrew yom ; and there is nothing either 
 in the original word or the context to show that 
 it has a different meaning from that indicated by 
 the same word in the following texts, selected 
 from a host of others of similar import. 
 
 And God made two great lights; the greater light tc 
 rule the day. . . . And to rule over the day and over the 
 night, and to divide the light from the darkness. (Jen. 1: 
 16, 18. 
 
THE DAY OF GENESIS. 203 
 
 Behold thou hast driven me out this day from the face 
 of the earth. Gen. 4:14. 
 
 In the selfsame day entered Noah, etc. Gen. 7:13. 
 
 And it came to pass the same day, that Isaac's servants 
 came, and told concerning the well which they had digged. 
 Gen. 26:32. 
 
 "For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou 
 shalt surely die," refers to a particular and speci- 
 fied time and not to the whole life-time of Adam 
 from the day of his transgression till the time 
 when his body should return to the dust. God 
 not only said they should die, but they were to die 
 in the day of their transgression. Satan said, 
 "Ye shall not surely die." (Gen. 3:4.) We believe 
 that God told the truth, in full, and that Adam 
 died on the same day in which he partook of the 
 forbidden fruit. 
 
 Mr. Grant says, "If there is a second, there 
 must be a first death, and the second must be like 
 the first." Granted. Then the first must be like the 
 second ; and as the second is proved to be a state 
 of banishment from the presence of God into one 
 of darkness where the wicked are conscious of act- 
 ual torment, called "hell fire," therefore, the first 
 death must be a state of banishment from the 
 presence and glory of God into one of darkness and 
 sin. This darkness and sin, in Adam, is called 
 death. Now because our foreparents listened 
 to the voice of Satan, and obeyed his cunning 
 but wicked invitation to break the command- 
 ment of God, they became carnal and sinful, 
 and this carnal and fallen condition is called 
 death. 
 
 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritu- 
 ally minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is 
 enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, 
 neither indeed can be. Rom. 8:6, 7. 
 
 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in tres- 
 passes and sins. Eph. 2:1. 
 
 Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word f 
 and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, 
 
204 THE FIRST DEATH. 
 
 and shall not come into condemnation: but is passed from 
 death unto life. John 5:24. 
 
 We know that we have passed from death unto life, 
 because we love the brethren. 1 John 3:14. 
 
 God said, "Thou shalt surely die ;" and we find 
 all accountable beings, who are not in Christ, dead. 
 This establishes our point beyond reasonable con- 
 tradiction. 
 
 In the third chapter of Genesis, we read of the 
 temptation and fall of man, and his consequent 
 banishment from the beautiful garden. Verses 
 23 and 24 read as follows : 
 
 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the gar- 
 den of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 
 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the 
 garden of Eden Cherubims, nnd a flaming sword which 
 turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. 
 
 Here is the first death ; and as Mr. Grant says 
 the second must be like the first, and it will 
 occur when the judge shall say, "Depart from me, 
 ye that work iniquity." (Matt. 7:23.) Thus we 
 see that the first death was banishment from the 
 presence of the Lord, and so is the second. "And 
 these [the wicked] shall go away into everlasting 
 punishment : but the righteous into life eternal." 
 (Matt. 25:46.) 
 
 Though our position is now established, we 
 condescend to notice one or two objections. First, 
 we are told that Adam was not banished from 
 Eden as a penalty for sin, but as a means of pre- 
 venting him from partaking of the fruit of the 
 tree of life, lest he should eat, and live forever. 
 (See Gen. 3 : 22, 23.) We reply, the banishment 
 was the penalty for sin, while the driving out of 
 the man and so effectually guarding "the way of 
 the tree of life" that he could not eat of its fruit, 
 are the reasons furnished by the Almighty for 
 inflicting the penalty. These reasons reflect cred- 
 it upon the wisdom and love of the divine being. 
 Wbv would not God allow Adam to partake of the 
 
LITERAL OB SPIRITUAL DEATH. 205 
 
 fruit of the tree of life after he had sinned ? Evi- 
 dently because it would perpetuate his existence 
 in a state of sin, and thus become a curse to him 
 rather than a blessing. So God, in his infinite 
 love, places sinful and guilty man under suitable 
 conditions ; appoints to him the days of his proba- 
 tion, and furnishes him with a Savior and Re- 
 deemer, and the gospel, in order that he may 
 make suitable preparation, and, when ready, eat 
 freely of the fruit of the tree of life, and live for- 
 ever in a state of purity, peace and bliss. Clearly, 
 if Adam had not sinned, he would not have been 
 driven out of the garden ; and as his banishment 
 was a punishment, it must, therefore, have been 
 the penalty for sin. 
 
 Those who urge the above objection to our po- 
 sition claim that the death of the body was the 
 penalty pronounced for Adam's transgression. 
 But this position is not only subject to the objec- 
 tions already named, but to the same objections 
 which they urge against the position they reject. 
 Why do we die the natural death ? Evidently be- 
 cause, considering our mortal condition, it is for 
 our greatest good. Any answer which conflicts 
 with this reflects discreditably upon the character 
 of God. We die that we may live again with im- 
 mortal and glorified bodies, in the resurrection, 
 and enjoy a fulness of reward. And yet, say our 
 opponents, this death is the penalty for Adam's 
 transgression. An examination of the objection 
 urged serves to show more clearly the close anal- 
 ogy existing between the first and second death; 
 and whatever the final doom of the wicked may 
 be, we must admit that the unchangeable God 
 manifests his love and wisdom in their separation 
 from the righteous, and their banishment from 
 the glory and light of his presence, as much as he 
 did in ejecting Adam from the garden of Eden, 
 
206 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 and not allowing him to partake of the fruit of the 
 tree of life. 
 
 Second, our attention is called to a part of 
 what God said to Adam after his transgression. 
 (Gen. 3 : 19.) "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou 
 eat bread, till thou return unto the ground ; for 
 out of it wast thou taken : for dust thou art, and 
 unto dust shalt thou return." This, we are told, 
 proves that literal death was the penalty for Ad- 
 am's sin. We reply, that the penalty for sin was 
 to take effect on the day of his transgression ; but 
 his body did not return to the dust for, perhaps, 
 several hundreds of years after he sinned. God 
 said to him, "For in the day that thou eatest 
 thereof thou shalt surely die ;" and after the fall, 
 the Lord appears to Adam and tells him the results 
 of his sinful and mortal condition, one of which 
 is, "For dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou 
 return." Temporal death, or the death of the 
 body, is different from either the first or second 
 death. 
 
 Again ; the position of our opponents is that 
 Adam commenced to die as soon as he trans- 
 gressed, for they quote the marginal translation, 
 "dying thou shalt die," in order to remove the 
 claim made by us, viz., that Adam was to die on 
 the same day that he sinned. If this be true, 
 then Adam was paying the penalty for his sin 
 from the time he gave way to temptation till he 
 laid his body down in the dust ; and the death of 
 the body, instead of being the penalty for sin, is 
 but the completion of it, and in most cases, but a 
 very small portion of it. But this claim is in con- 
 flict with the expressed view that death is a ces- 
 sation of conscious existence, is the penalty for 
 sin, and that the punishment does not begin till 
 we are dead. The construction put upon that 
 marginal translation may help our opponents out 
 
GOD'S CHARACTER. 207 
 
 on one point, but it leaves them in a much worse 
 condition on another. 
 
 We now present some additional reasons for 
 rejecting the views of mortal-soulists on the sec- 
 ond death, or the future punishment of the 
 wicked. These views are in plain conflict with the 
 character of God. The highest standard of appeal 
 for all Bible believers ; the grandest safeguard 
 against error, in every form ; the strongest incen- 
 tive to an intelligent belief in and acceptance of 
 the truth, is the character of God, as that charac- 
 ter stands revealed in the Scriptures. That which 
 is in harmony with God is true ; that which is in 
 conflict with him is false. When we properly ac- 
 cept that which is of God, it leads us nearer to 
 him ; when we accept for truth that which is not 
 of God, it leads us farther away from His divine 
 presence. 
 
 The leading attributes of God's character are 
 love, power, knowledge, mercy, justice, impartial- 
 ity, purity and unchangeableness. He is infinite, 
 hence all these attributes are complete. He is 
 omniscient and omnipotent. That which is of 
 God will be found to be in harmony with the 
 attributes named ; that which is not of him, and 
 therefore untrue, will be found to be in conflict 
 with one or more of them. 
 
 The doctrine which we oppose, teaches that 
 all will be brought forth in the resurrection, but 
 none will be permitted to remain alive except 
 those who are truly, and in a gospel sense, the 
 children of God, who, at that time, will receive 
 eternal life. All others will be literally burned 
 up in the fires of gehenva, and thus will they be 
 committed to eternal oblivion ! It will be seen 
 that, by this means, a very large majority of all 
 who have lived on the earth from the creation till 
 the present time will lose their conscious exist- 
 
208 ALL, GOOD REWARDED. 
 
 ence, never more to be regained ! Is this in har- 
 mony with the purposes of an all- wise and all-pow- 
 erful God, whose nature is love ? 
 
 We were placed here, so far as we know, by 
 the act of the Creator alone. For many of our 
 most important surroundings and opportunities 
 in life, we are not responsible. We live here a 
 few short years, and then lie down in unconscious 
 sleep till the day of judgment. We are then raised 
 to mortality if not Christians, judged, and immed- 
 iately cast into literal flames of literal fire, where we 
 are at once consumed ! But how are we judged ? 
 Millions upon millions have never heard the gospel, 
 and therefore could not obey it. Many of these 
 have diligently sought to do good, so far as they 
 knew how. They have fed the hungry, clothed 
 the naked, comforted those who were in distress. 
 They have been true and affectionate companions, 
 loving and kind parents, and, withal, good and 
 peaceable neighbors. But now, because they are 
 not Christians, all the good they have done is en- 
 tirely ignored, and they must literally burn to 
 ashes in a lake of fire and brimstone ! 
 
 Why will not God, who is infinite in love and 
 power, reward them for the good they have done, 
 and extend to them needed opportunities of 
 obeying the gospel ? We can understand how God 
 may in justice continue to punish the wilfully 
 wicked and rebellious, but we can not understand 
 how he can, in justice and love, destroy alike the 
 most depraved wretch that ever plunged the dag- 
 ger to his neighbor's heart, with the man who 
 was innocent and kind, but for lack of opportun- 
 ity, or, in some cases, for lack of disposition, 
 failed to become a child of God in a gospel sense. 
 The thought that such a penalty, of eternal dura- 
 tion should be affixed to all who are not in Christ, 
 without any regard to how long they have lived on 
 
GRADES OF GLORY. 209 
 
 the earth ; what their opportunities have been for 
 learning the truth as it is with Christ ; or the good 
 works which they have performed, is not in har- 
 mony with God's character, nor the plain state- 
 ments of his word. 
 
 We have before proved that there will be 
 degrees of reward in the eternal state, and that all 
 will be judged according to their works. In this 
 connection we proceed to show that God will re- 
 ward every good deed, even though performed by 
 one who is outside of Christ. How could it be 
 otherwise and God be entirely just, saying noth- 
 ing of his goodness and love? 
 
 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these 
 little ones a cup of cold water only, in the name of a disci- 
 ple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his re- 
 ward. Matt. 10:42, 
 
 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in 
 my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto 
 you, he shall not lose his reward. Mark 9:41. 
 
 When the Son of Man shall come in his glory, and 
 all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the 
 throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all 
 nations; and he shall separate them one from another, as 
 a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he 
 shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the 
 left. Then sh all the King say unto them on h is right hand, 
 Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kidgdom pre- 
 pared for you from the foundation of the world; For 
 I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty, 
 and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; 
 Naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; 
 I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the 
 righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an 
 hungered and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 
 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in ? or naked, 
 and clothed thee ? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, 
 and came unto thee ? And the King shall answer and say 
 unto them, Verily, I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have 
 done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have 
 done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left 
 hand, Depart from rne. ye cursed, into everlasting fire, pre- 
 pared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hun- 
 gered, and ye gave me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave 
 
210 THREE CLASSES IN MATTHEW 25. 
 
 me no drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; 
 naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye 
 visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, 
 Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a 
 stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minis- 
 ter unto thee ? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily, 
 I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least 
 of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into 
 everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eter- 
 nal. Matt. 25:31-46. 
 
 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: 
 but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the 
 terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and 
 another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; 
 for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is 
 the resurrection of the dead. 1 Cor. 15:40-42. 
 
 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear 
 God and keep his commandments: for this is the whole 
 duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judg- 
 ment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or 
 whether it be evil. Eccles. 12:13, 14. 
 
 The first two passages quoted clearly refer to 
 those who are not disciples ; though for the good 
 deed done they will receive the same reward as 
 disciples will receive for the performance of the 
 same act. Why not ? 
 
 The sheep on the right described in Matthew 
 25th chapter, it will be claimed by many are the 
 children of the covenant. Let us suppose they 
 are. Will not God reward those who are not his 
 covenant people in a similar way for the perform- 
 ance of the same work? But before deciding has- 
 tily please consider the following points : 
 
 1. There are three classes represented in this 
 judgment. Christ and his brethren, the sheep on 
 the right, and the goats on the left. 
 
 2. There is not one word said concerning be- 
 lief in Christ and obedience to the gospel, by those 
 DEL the right, though without this belief and obed- 
 ience, none can be the children of the covenant. 
 They are admitted into the kingdom prepared for 
 Mem "from the foundation of the world," because 
 
THE THREE GLORIES. 211 
 
 of certain good works performed, but, they them- 
 selves did not understand what is so well under- 
 stood by all the intelligent children of God, viz., that 
 when they administered to the needs of God's 
 children, it was the same as though they had done 
 it unto Christ. 
 
 The statements of Paul in Corinthians repre- 
 sent three distinct glories. One typified by the 
 sun, one by the moon, and another by the stars. 
 The first evidently represents the glory that shall 
 be enjoyed by the faithful children of God ; the 
 second and third comprehend all the varied de- 
 grees of reward which shall be granted to those 
 who have done good, but, for various causes, have 
 not received the gospel in this life. This view 
 commends itself to our judgment. It is in har- 
 mony with the justice and love of the infinite 
 God, in whom we are required to believe. 
 
 The last quotation made is very comprehen- 
 sive. What can be the object of bringing "every 
 work into judgment with every secret thing," un- 
 less it is to reward for the good and punish for the 
 evil? 
 
 There are, too, degrees of punishment pro 
 vided for in the judgment. 
 
 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his 
 mighty works were done, because they repented not. Woe 
 unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if 
 the mighty works which were done in you had been done 
 in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in 
 sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more 
 tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than 
 for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto 
 heaven, shall be brought down to hell: for if the mighty 
 works which have been done in thee, had been done in 
 Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say 
 unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of 
 Sodom, in the day of judgment, than for thee. Matt. 11 :20-24< 
 
 The reader will notice that, in this scripture, 
 Jesus is speaking only of the wicked ; but it shall 
 be more tolerable for some, in the day of judg- 
 
212 DEGREES OF PUNISHMENT. 
 
 ment, than for others. And why more tolerable ? 
 Evidently because their sin has not been so great 
 they have not rejected so much light and truth. 
 This shows that our opportunities and surround- 
 ings, in this life, will be duly considered in the 
 day of judgment. 
 
 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it 
 not, to him it is sin. James 4:17. 
 
 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into 
 the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, be- 
 cause their deeds were evil. John 3:19. 
 
 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but 
 now commandeth all men everywhere to repent: Because 
 he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the 
 world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath ordained 
 whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he 
 hath raised him from the dead. Acts 17:30, 31. 
 
 And that servant which knew his lord's will, and pre- 
 pared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall 
 be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and 
 did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with 
 few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him 
 shall be much required ; and to whom men have committed 
 much, of him they will ask the more. Luke 12:47, 48. 
 
 According to the view which we are opposing, 
 precisely the same penalty will be administered to 
 all who are not Christians. The penalty, says Mr. 
 Grant, is not "dying" nor "suffering," but "death," 
 "And the punishment does not begin till they are 
 dead." He says the first death was literal, and 
 "the second must likewise be a cessation of con- 
 scious existence." Consequently, according to this 
 dogma, all who are not the covenant people of 
 God, according to the gospel, will suffer the same 
 penalty, both as to its nature and duration. This 
 does violence to God's justice, wisdom and love, 
 and is in plain conflict with the principle of eter- 
 nal judgment as set forth in the Scriptures. That 
 which is contrary to God, when accepted, can 
 never bring us nearer to him, but will surely take 
 us farther away. 
 
CONTRARY TO GOD'S CHARACTER. 213 
 
 Why does God raise up this innumerable host, 
 who, we are told, are as worthless as the straw to 
 which we put the match ? What good does it do ? 
 Is it for the purpose of seeing them burn ? Why 
 not let them remain in the grave ? God is not a 
 vindictive being, that he should punish merely for 
 the sake of punishing. He always has a purpose 
 in view in that which he does, and that purpose is 
 always in harmony with the nobility and perfec- 
 tion of his character. Why do not Messrs. Grant, 
 Sheldon and others, tell us plainly what object the 
 divine being has in view in this strange proceed- 
 ure? Surely this punishment is of no benefit to 
 God ; it can not possibly conduce to the bliss of the 
 saints ; and to thus disturb the unconscious dead 
 in order that they may be placed back in precisely 
 the condition in which they were found before 
 their resurrection, can be of no possible benefit to 
 them. Can this be the work of an all-wise and 
 loving Father, who saw the end from the begin- 
 ning, and who has said, "That at the name of 
 Jesus every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, 
 and things in earth, and things under the earth; 
 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus 
 Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father?" 
 (Phil. 2 : 10, 11.) Notice, this complete subjection 
 is to be "to the glory of God the Father." 
 
 The teachings of our opponents concerning the 
 destiny of the wicked, are in plain opposition to 
 the mission of Jesus Christ into the world to de- 
 stroy death. Death is an abnormal, and there- 
 fore temporary, condition. If it abides, Satan is 
 victorious; if it is destroyed, God is victorious. 
 Which shall it be? 
 
 For since by man came death, by man came also the 
 resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so 
 in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his 
 own order: Christ the first-fruits; afterward they that are 
 Christ's at his coming. For he must reign, till he hath put 
 
214 CHRIST WILL DESTROY DEATH. 
 
 all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be 
 destroyed is death. 1 Cor. 15:21, 22, 23, 25, 26. 
 
 "In Christ shall all be made alive." But how 
 shall all be made alive ? Is it to be killed off im- 
 mediately after their resurrection and judgment, 
 and then left in the cold embrace of death for- 
 ever ? Would this be a victory? 
 
 Let us illustrate. Suppose that through a 
 wicked rebellion in our government, the Southern, 
 Eastern and Middle States, all fall into the hands 
 of the enemy. This state of affairs continues for 
 many years, during which time there is continual 
 warfare between the two powers. Finally, 
 through the efforts of a good and skillful general, 
 the rebellion is overcome, and all acknowledge 
 their allegiance to the Government of the United 
 States. On the day following the rebellion breaks 
 out again, and the enemy takes entire control of 
 all the states referred to above, and retains pos- 
 session of them forever. Would this be a victory 
 for our government ? Certainly not ; but it would 
 be a victory for the power arrayed against it. 
 
 Satan, who for a time held the keys of death 
 and of hell, (hades) will be "devoured," and his 
 power ended, before the great and last resurrec- 
 tion takes place ; at which time all the wicked 
 will come forth. (See Rev. 20 : 7-15.) Why should 
 death continue after the destruction of him who 
 held the power of death ? 
 
 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh 
 and blood, He also himself likewise took part of the same; 
 that through death he might destroy him that had the 
 power of death, that is, the Devil. Heb. 2:14. 
 
 I am he that liveth. and was dead; and behold, I am 
 alive forevermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of 
 death. Rev. 1:18. 
 
 Thus we see that Jesus wrenched from the 
 grasp of the adversary "the keys" (power and 
 authority) "of hell and of death." He holds these 
 keys, thank God, and will ever hold them ; and in 
 
PROPORTION OF SAVED AND LOST. 215 
 
 harmony with his divine power and love, he will 
 unlock the door of hades that the prisoners may go 
 free ; will destroy the power of the grave that, in 
 body, they may live forever. All will receive ac- 
 cording to their works, whether they be good or 
 whether they be evil. And, we believe, but few, 
 if any, will continue in "outer darkness," or "the 
 lake of fire," throughout the endless ages of eter- 
 nity. However, we are fully prepared to admit 
 that just so long as the sons of perdition continue 
 in wilful opposition to God and his truth, so long 
 will they suffer the torments of the damned. 
 
 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorrup- 
 tion, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then 
 shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death 
 is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? 
 O grave, where is thy victory?! Cor. 15:54, 55. 
 
 The population of the entire world, a few 
 years ago, was allowed to be about 1,443,887,500. 
 The entire Christian population is estimated at 
 388,200,000. More than two thirds of this number 
 is made up of the Roman Catholic, Greek and 
 Russian churches. According to these figures less 
 than 25 per cent., or one-fourth of the world's pop- 
 ulation, is even nominally Christian ! But it 
 will be conceded that very many of these will 
 be found unworthy to enter into life, at the judg- 
 ment, while it is certain, according to the doc- 
 trine of our opponents, that all who do not believe 
 in Christ will be punished with the second death, 
 which, they say, is a cessation of conscious exist- 
 ence. 
 
 Though more than fair to our opponents, we 
 will say that from Adam till the destruction of 
 the wicked, at the end of the world, one-fourth 
 are found to be worthy Christians, while three- 
 fourths are found to be destitute of eternal life. 
 The result is that three-fourths of the people 
 whom God has placed on the earth are consigned 
 
216 DEATH THE VICTOR. 
 
 to the grave, there to remain forever and forever, 
 while one-fourth only are permitted to remain 
 alive ! Is this the way in which death will be 
 "swallowed up in victory?" Surely, in this case, 
 death is the victor, life the captive. Life is swal- 
 lowed up in victory, and Satan secures the eternal 
 destruction of three-fourths, while the infinite 
 God must be contented with one-fourth ! 
 
 We may be told that after the judgment, 
 "there shall be no more death," and that this is 
 the way in which death is to be destroyed. But 
 why destroy an enemy after he has done his work ? 
 Would it not comport more fully with the divine 
 wisdom and goodness of the infinite God, to de- 
 stroy the enemy before he secures within his eter- 
 nal grasp three-fourths of the inhabitants of the 
 world ? We think it would. 
 
 We reject this theoretical destiny for the 
 wicked, because it is in conflict with the leading 
 attributes of the divine Character ; because it is 
 in conflict with the plain teachings of the Scrip- 
 tures concerning the principles of eternal judg- 
 ment, which provide that there shall be degrees 
 of reward and degrees of punishment ; because it 
 stands in bold opposition to the leading purpose 
 for which Jesus Christ came into the world, viz., 
 to rescue the people from the hands of the enemy, 
 and to destroy death. 
 
 If it be asked, Why does God punish the 
 wicked? we reply, that wickedness may cease 
 and righteousness prevail. That the wicked, all 
 who will, may have ample opportunity to learn 
 that nothing but an entire forsaking of sin, and 
 living in obedience to God's laws and command- 
 ments will build up Christian character; and that 
 nothing less than Christian character will enable 
 us to enter into his "everlasting kingdom" and 
 enjoy the bliss of heaven. This penalty is sure to 
 
NATURE OF PUNISHMENT. 217 
 
 follow all who wilfully disobey God and continue 
 in sin. In this sense it is the wrath of God upon 
 the children of disobedience. It is " wrath and 
 indignation" against wickedness, but love, and 
 only love, towards the individuals who are the 
 workmanship of his hands. As God punishes in 
 love here, so it must be that he punishes in love 
 there. He is not a loving Father here, and an im- 
 placable monster there. Our view is that in the 
 intermediate and resurrection states God will 
 place the wicked in such places and under such 
 influences as are best suited to their condition. 
 He does this for their permanent and future good, 
 and that the righteous, without disturbance or 
 interference, may enjoy the peace and bliss to 
 which they are justly entitled. 
 
 "But will not the wicked remain in torment 
 throughout the endless ages of eternity?" We 
 hope that but few, if any, will so remain. If any 
 are determined to continue in sin and rebellion 
 against God,. they must continue in torment ; but if 
 they are willing to repent and do right, there is a 
 starting point for good, and God will not stand in 
 the way to oppose, neither in this life nor in the 
 life which is to come. Eternal life, and everlast- 
 ing punishment, are opposite conditions into 
 which the righteous and the wicked will fully en- 
 ter, at the judgment ; but, we are told, that if 
 "everlasting punishment" does not mean that the 
 wicked will forever remain in torment, then "life 
 eternal does not mean that the righteous will for- 
 ever remain in bliss. "Everlasting" and "eternal" 
 come from the Greek aionios and literally mean 
 "age-lasting." The terms apply to conditions in- 
 to which the righteous and the wicked will enter, 
 rather than to duration of punishment. Whether 
 they mean never-ending or not, depends upon the 
 character of the object or thing to which they are 
 
218 DURATION OF ETERNAL LIFE. 
 
 applied. So, in this case, as in others, we must 
 determine what is meant by the connection in 
 which the words are used. 
 
 Eternal life is the normal condition for man ; 
 but as we are a fallen race, it is only through the 
 gospel that we can inherit eternal life. The pos- 
 session of that life, as we have shown, begins here. 
 "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting 
 life." (John 3:36.) "And shall not come into 
 condemnation; but is passed from death unto 
 life." (John 5 : 24.) We may, through transgress- 
 ion, become unworthy and hence lose everlasting 
 life. But it is our opinion, that when we have 
 reached that point of progress in the divine life 
 which will enable us to partake of the fruit of the 
 tree of life, we have, thereby, secured a condition 
 of peace and eternal rest from which we will 
 never fall. We need not depend upon the mean- 
 ing of the words eternal or everlasting as express- 
 ing the permanency of our hope. John says, (1 
 John 3:2,) "But we know that, when he shall ap- 
 pear, we shall be like him ; for we shall see him as 
 he is." "We shall be like Tiiro," and "the Son 
 abicleth ever." Those who are permitted to enter 
 into that fulness of rest will go no more out. 
 
 The condition which necessitates everlasting 
 punishment is an abnormal one. It is adminis- 
 tered not for the purpose of perpetuating this con- 
 dition, but that it may be removed. We do not 
 pretend to say how long the wicked will be pun- 
 ished, nor how severe that punishment will be. 
 This remains with God, and it is our duty to pro- 
 claim the conditions of life and salvation ; but we 
 may say with safety that the duration and charac- 
 ter of the punishment will depend upon the con- 
 dition and guilt of the ones to be punished. The 
 sufferings of the ungodly will evidently vary in 
 duration as well as intensity. Is it not reasonable 
 
GRANT AND JONES ON PUNISHMENT. 219 
 
 to suppose that the punishment will consist large- 
 ly of the loss we shall sustain, with a clear con- 
 sciousness of our folly and wrong ? This will be hell 
 indeed. 
 
 While Mr. Grant is shrewd enough to claim 
 that conscious suffering is no part of the penalty 
 for sin, he nevertheless runs against some rocks of 
 truth which other mortal-soulists have tried to 
 climb over in a different way. His policy, how- 
 ever, seems to be to keep as silent as possible 
 about these rocks, and, if possible, cover them up 
 with such material as he chooses to use. 
 
 He does not tell us that his theory necessitates 
 the claim that all who are not true Christians, 
 when they leave this world, are numbered with 
 the wicked, and must all pay the same penalty. 
 The best man you ever knew, who made no pro- 
 fession of Christianity, is punished the same as 
 Gitteau and Booth, or the same as the most de- 
 praved wretch ever known to man, who, after sat- 
 iating his hellish lust, murders the innocent wife 
 and mother, with her children about her, lest his 
 crime should be made known ! Why does not Mr. 
 Grant attempt to reconcile his theory of future 
 punishment to the doctrine of the Bible, that 
 there are degrees of reward and degrees of punish- 
 ment provided for in the judgment? Why does 
 he ignore this teaching, and then, with apparent 
 candor, when treating on another point, ask, 
 "Why not believe the Bible?" 
 
 Mr. Jones sees the difficulty in the way, and 
 attempts to bridge it over in the following man- 
 ner : 
 
 The Savior declares that "He that knew not, and did 
 commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with FEW 
 stripes." Luke 12:48. Now this harmonizes perfectly with 
 the idea that some will suffer MORE than others in 
 the manner of their being put out of existence or in the 
 pangs they will endure before breathing their last, but I 
 
220 WHY DO THE WICKED SUFFER? 
 
 cannot see how a perpetual laying on of stripes throughout 
 countless millions of years can be called a "FEW" stripes! 
 
 "THANATOPSIS" pp. 30, 31. 
 
 In the above quotation dying and suffering 
 are made the penalty for sin, in direct opposition 
 to the expressed views of Mr. Grant. Mr. Grant 
 says "the punishment does not begin till they are 
 dead," while Mr. Jones has it to begin when they 
 commence to die, and, we suppose, end when they 
 are dead. Which is right? 
 
 But Mr. Jones has undertaken a larger job 
 than his theory will enable him to properly and 
 consistently dispose of. For the sake of the the- 
 ory, it would have been better to have pursued 
 the policy of Mr. Grant, and never to have 
 mentioned these stubborn facts which lie in the 
 way. Just think of individuals being conscious 
 of their sufferings, in literal flames of flre, till they 
 breathe "their last ! " Again ; why should God be 
 so particular about punishing the wicked accord- 
 ing to their wickedness, inasmuch as the eternal 
 extinction of conscious being is the result ? What 
 purpose has he in view ? It cannot be the good of 
 the individuals punished, for the end of this pun- 
 ishment is the final end of their conscious exist- 
 ence. It can not possibly add anything to the 
 comfort and bliss of the saved, nor can it furnish 
 them with the least ray of hope for the future of 
 their relatives and friends. Surely, it can not add 
 anything to the happiness of God, nor be of any 
 possible benefit to him, unless indeed he is a vin- 
 dictive wretch, rather than a God of infinite love. 
 The only being whom we can think of that this 
 peculiar kind of punishment would please and 
 gratify is the Devil. He would undoubtedly take 
 comfort in seeing the countless millions burn to 
 ashes those who had served him best burning the 
 longest, we suppose. But if the Devil himself 
 was in the flre, it might not even gratify him. 
 
JONES OB GRANT WHICH ? 221 
 
 But it would certainly be a great victory for Satan 
 if he could only be spared alive to enjoy it. 
 
 We may be told that the good done will con- 
 sist in putting an end to wickedness, and leaving 
 the redeemed in full possession of the glorified 
 earth. But if this is the final destiny of more 
 than three-fourths of the inhabitants of the earth, 
 why are they brought forth in the resurrection ? 
 and why are they punished to no purpose, save, 
 possibly, the gratification of the one whom God 
 makes it his chief business to oppose? Why not 
 leave them in the grave, where we are told, the 
 whole man goes at death, and where there is "no 
 work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom ? " 
 
 The leading position of Mr. Jones is that 
 death is the penalty for sin, and that death is the 
 cessation of conscious existence. In this he agrees 
 with Mr. Grant. Listen to what he says : 
 
 That the extinction of their being will be the ultimate 
 punishment of the wicked is evident from such plain as- 
 sertions of Scripture as that "The wages of sin is DEATH." 
 Rom. 6:23. Notice, it does not say that "The wages of sin 
 is TORTURE." Ibid. p. 29. 
 
 Now which will Mr. Jones have us believe, 
 that men are tortured according to their sins, at 
 the time they are cast into the burning lake, or 
 that they are not tortured, and the punishment 
 does not begin till they are dead ? Are we left to 
 choose the position we like best ? or are we ex- 
 pected to accept both of them ? The efforts made 
 by these two authors to prove that an eternal ces- 
 sation of conscious being is the final state of 
 the wicked, should be sufficient to prove to the 
 satisfaction of all that this doctrine is not defens- 
 ible from a Bible standpoint. The only way to 
 get along with it is to examine such passages as 
 seem to most favor the theory and ignore others ; 
 but such a course is too superficial and dangerous 
 to be accepted as right. 
 
222 CHRIST DIED THE SPIRITUAL DEATH. 
 
 Christ died the temporal death that -'he might 
 destroy him that had the power of death, that is, 
 the devil." He died the spiritual death that all 
 might escape it who would truly believe in him. 
 Such a manifestation of divine love touches the 
 nobler aspirations of the soul, and challenges our 
 highest admiration. Thus it becomes necessary 
 that all should hear the gospel preached, as it 
 shall be spoken by virtue of a commandment of 
 God to his servants, either in this life or in eter- 
 nity ; and all those who will not accept it and for- 
 sake their sins, must suffer the second death. 
 
 Does the reader doubt that Christ died the 
 spiritual death as well as the temporal ? Let us 
 see. Had he not died at all, would we not all have 
 to die the second death, the penalty for sin? 
 Well, if we do not have to pay that penalty, as 
 a part of Adam's race, is it not because Christ has 
 paid it for us? Notice, when the time of his cru- 
 cifixion drew near, he suffered the most terrible 
 agony. He prayed that the cup might be taken 
 from him, but was willing to drink it if the Fath- 
 er so required. He said : 
 
 Take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I 
 will, but what thou wUt. Mark 14:36. 
 
 And being in agony he prayed more earnestly: and his 
 sweat was as it were great drops ot blood falling down to 
 the ground. Luke 22:44. 
 
 He is nailed to the cross. Before yielding up 
 the ghost he cries twice "with a loud voice," "My 
 God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" 
 Matt. 27:46-50. 
 
 Men have cheerfully met the martyr's fate 
 without even intimating a desire for release. Was 
 Jesus less courageous than they? Surely not. 
 Why, then, did he pray, "Take away this cup from 
 me?" And why did he say to the Father, "My 
 God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Evi- 
 dently, because the father withdrew his presence, 
 
MEN'S OPPORTUNITIES. 222 
 
 and left him to suffer .the pangs of the spiritual 
 death, as well as Ihe temporal, the former being 
 much greater than the latter. Our view is that 
 God will furnish all men with such opportunities 
 of obeying the truth as his justice and love re- 
 quire ; and then, if they will not obey, they must 
 endure that punishment, which caused even the 
 man Christ Jesus to shrink, and, as it were, to 
 bleed at every pore. How long the punishment 
 will last, as applied to each individual, and how 
 intense it shall be, remains with God ; we do not 
 know. One thing is certain, however, God will 
 not punish simply for the sake of punishing. Nei- 
 ther his justice nor love will be violated in the 
 administration of the penalty for sin. 
 
 The judgment which shall be passed upon all 
 people, at the last day, is evidently called "eternal 
 judgment," because God, the Judge, is an eternal 
 being. According to his unchangeable justice 
 and love, he will ever reward the good and punish 
 the evil. In this sense, the torment is "endless," 
 and the fire is "unquenchable." There is no es- 
 cape from the judgments of God, which are always 
 just and right. Let every one take heed and see 
 that his life is in harmony with God and his truth. 
 
 We close this chapter with this significant 
 point. After the general resurrection and judg- 
 ment have taken place; after the "new earth" 
 has appeared, with "the holy city, new Jerusalem,' 1 
 established upon it ; the wicked are referred toby 
 the angel who spake to John, as living, conscious 
 beings. 
 
 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which 
 is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, 
 let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be 
 holy still Rev. 22:11. 
 
 If the righteous and holy, spoken of in this 
 verse, are conscious, so are the unjust and filthy. 
 
224 THE GREAT CONFLICT. 
 
 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they 
 may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through 
 the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcer- 
 ers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and 
 whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. Be v. 22:14, 15. 
 
 If it be said, "It does not say that these 
 wicked are conscious," we reply, nor does it say 
 that these righteous are conscious ; but the man- 
 ner in which both classes are spoken of plainly 
 implies that they are living, conscious beings. The 
 righteous are enjoy i ng the presence and glory of God 
 in the golden city ; but the wicked are "without" 
 banished from his presence in "outer darkness," 
 where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of 
 teeth," which is the second death. 
 
 The great conflict between God and Satan, 
 between righteousness and sin, will be brought to 
 a glorious finality ; and the infinite One will solve 
 the troublesome problem, and solve it well, with- 
 out putting an end to the conscious existence of 
 the greater part of the human family, at the judg- 
 ment ! Had this been his chosen plan, the destruc- 
 tion of Tyre, and Sidon, and Sodom, and the 
 whole Antediluvian world, would not have been 
 temporal, but eternal, thus avoiding the necessity 
 of calling them up in the resurrection and destroy- 
 ing them the second time ! After they had been 
 "destroyed" by water and "eternal fire," why not 
 call it so much of the good work done, instead of 
 bringing up new Sodomites, Gommorahites and 
 antediluvians, condemning them all, for what the 
 old ones did, and then, so as to keep them from 
 sinning, we suppose, putting an end to their con- 
 scious existence forever 1 
 
THE THIEF ON THE CROSS. 225 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 ADDENDA. 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 THE THIEF ON THE CROSS. 
 
 By reference to the Grant and Long Debate, 
 p. 171, we discover that Mr. Grant gives his auth- 
 ority for placing the comma after "today, "instead 
 of before, as found in our Bibles. The authority 
 cited is the Curetonian Syriac, which, says Mr. 
 Grant, "is the oldest version known in the world, 
 and is in the British Museum." He also says, 
 when introducing his proof, "I turn to the high- 
 est authority known ; that is, to the Curetonian 
 Syriac. 
 
 If the reader will turn back to pp. 124-5-6, he 
 will see that we have already effectually disposed 
 of this question of punctuation ; and our only ob- 
 ject in alluding to it here is to remove Mr. Grant's 
 last prop. On pp. 69, 70, we presented some of the 
 statements of Dr. Roberts, a member of the Eng- 
 lish Committee of Revision, as found on p. 26 of 
 "COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION OF THE 
 NEW TESTAMENT." We present the whole para- 
 graph in this connection, as a sufficient expose of 
 Mr. Grant's unproved assertion, that the Cureton- 
 ian Syriac "is the highest authority known." Dr. 
 Roberts says : 
 
 SYRIAC VERSIONS. Of these the most important are 
 Peshito, the Philoxenian, the Harclean, and the Cureton- 
 ian. By far the best of these is the Peshito (i. e., Simple,) 
 which is truly an admirable translation. There is no 
 doubt that it was made in the second century, and were we 
 sure that we possessed it in its original form it would thus 
 be of the very highest authority. The other Syriac Ver- 
 sions do not rank high as translations, and the Ouretoriian 
 embraces only fragments of the Gospels. 
 
226 GRANT'S HIGHEST AUTHORITY. 
 
 Thus it will be seen that Dr. Roberts men- 
 tions four Syriac versions, placing the Curetonian 
 in the position of least importance. Of this last 
 mentioned, with all others except the Peshito, the 
 one we have quoted, he says, they "do not rank 
 high as translations, and the Curetonian embraces 
 only fragments of the Gospels." So much for Mr. 
 Grant's "highest authority known." 
 
 Mr. Grant informs us that punctuation was 
 not introduced till the 16th century. Also, that 
 the whole argument rests on the doubtful posi- 
 tion of that comma. Very well. Is it not a fact 
 that punctuation, like all other things of the 
 kind, when first introduced and first used, was 
 but imperfectly understood ? The longer it was 
 in use, the better it was understood ; and, there- 
 fore, all other things being equal, the last punctu- 
 ation of this text is better than the first. The 
 Revised Version, as we have seen, places the com- 
 ma after "thee" and before "today," the same as it 
 is in King James' Version ; this punctuation is, 
 therefore, reliable, and the text continues to 
 stand there to confront and annoy all who are 
 determined to believe that death ends the con- 
 scious being of man. 
 
 PSALM 9 : 17. 
 
 The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the na- 
 tions that forget God. 
 
 It is not difficult to see from the position of 
 our opponents on this text, in connection with their 
 other positions, that in defending their chosen 
 theories they sometimes get into very close places. 
 Hell, as found in the above text, comes from the 
 Hebrew sheol, its Greek equivalent being hades. 
 The claim is that whenever hell is translated from 
 either of these originals, it refers to the grave, the 
 place where the whole man goes at death. They 
 affirm that gehenna, not sheol or hades, is the word 
 
GRANT'S AND SHELDON'S CONTRADICTIONS. 227 
 
 which describes the future punishment of the 
 wicked. 
 
 Hell is an old Saxon word which signifies to cover; 
 hence, when a thing was helled, it was covered up. This 
 word was appropriately employed to represent the pjace 
 where the dead were laid, and buried; but we repeat, hades 
 and sheol, in the Bible, never refer to the future punish- 
 ment of the wicked, or a place of punishment between 
 death and the resurrection. "WHAT is MAN," p. 22. 
 
 Mr. Sheldon, after disposing of sheol, hades and 
 tartarus, says : 
 
 Gehenna clearly brings to view the future hell of the 
 ungodly, but as clearly disproves its present' existence. 
 
 "ADVENTI8M," p. 94. 
 
 On page 86, after mentioning sheol, hades, tnrtar- 
 us, and gehenna, Mr. Sheldon says : 
 
 The first three terms here mentioned never mean a 
 burning hell, while gehenna does. 
 
 And then on page 87, after quoting Psalms 
 9 : 17, he stops to explain, and in doing so goes 
 clear back on his own position in the following 
 manner : 
 
 The state of the dead who experience the second death 
 is here spoken of the future state of the wicked. 
 
 Surely, if this is not a tangled web, we have 
 never seen one. 
 
 Mr. Grant does no better, for when confronted 
 with this text, by Mr. Long, in debate, he explains 
 in the following manner : 
 
 Here the word turned is "shoov" (to return, turn back,) 
 hence, it is not said that the wicked shall be sent to hell; 
 but that they shall be returned, or sent back to sheol or 
 hades, "which is the second death." 
 
 Thus these two authors and leading represent- 
 atives of the C. A. Church, both contradict thern- 
 selvs squarely. First, they claim that sheol and 
 hades never represent the punishment of the 
 wicked; and second, that sheol, as found in 
 Psalms 9:17, refers to the punishment of the 
 wicked, or "the second death." Their theory 
 forces them to take the position referred to on the 
 text under consideration, in order to avoid the 
 
228 DR. YOUNG ON THE HEBREW. 
 
 admission they would otherwise be compelled to 
 make, viz., that there is punishment for the 
 wicked, in sheol, or hades, between death a^id the 
 resurrection. 
 
 Dr. Young gives shub, not shoov, as the He- 
 brew word from which "turned" is translated, 
 and the literal meaning, "to turn back." We are 
 prepared to admit that "returned," as given by 
 Mr. Grant, may be the more faithful translation. 
 It is so rendered in the Kevised Version. But 
 this rendering does not justify the construction 
 put upon the text by Messrs. Grant and Sheldon, 
 nor does it help their position in the least. The 
 leading thoughts seem to be these: While the 
 wicked are running heedlessly along in their sin- 
 ful career, they shall be suddenly stopped or 
 turned back, by death, when they shall go into 
 sheol, "the unseen state" or "the abode of departed 
 spirits," where they and "all the nations that for- 
 get God " will be reserved under punishment unto 
 the day of judgment. The text shows that in 
 sheol (hell) there is a degree of punishment 
 for the wicked between death and the resurrec- 
 tion. Were it not so, why should the Psalmist 
 say that "the wicked," and, "all the nations that 
 forget God," shall be turned into hell. The 
 righteous as well as the wicked go to sheol, or 
 hades, at death, but, like Lazarus, the former en- 
 ter into a condition of conscious rest, while the 
 latter, like the rich man, are in "torment." 
 
 There is no evidence that will prove the text 
 ander consideration to refer to the punishment of 
 the wicked, in the final judgment. However, if 
 this be its true application, our opponents are con- 
 fronted with another difficulty. It is conceded 
 that "hell fire," "the lake of fire," and "hell" 
 when it comes from geh^nna, all refer to the "sec- 
 ond death." This death, which is the penalty for 
 
SHEOL & GEHENNA USED INTERCHANGEABLY. 229 
 
 sin, according to Mr. Grant, does not begin till we 
 are dead. We have, therefore, according to this 
 interpretation, (1) sheol and gehenna used inter- 
 changeably, which position our opponents have 
 always stoutly denied; and (2) we have literal fire, 
 gehenna, or "hell fire," and literal death, both as 
 the penalty for sin! But they are cast into "the 
 lake of fire," or "hell fire," (gehenna,) when alive; 
 and part of the time, at least, while the fire is 
 doing its work, they are conscious sufferers, and 
 actual torment is thus made, at least, a part of the 
 penalty for sin. In this case, what becomes of 
 the position to which every mortal-soulist is logic- 
 ally driven, that "the punishment does not begin 
 till they are dead?" 
 
 Allow us to suggest. Would it not be more 
 consistent to claim that literal death only (i. e., 
 the extinction of conscious being) is the penalty 
 for sin. That they are first killed (not by fire, 
 but in some other way, in order that they may be 
 punished for their sins) and then their dead bodies 
 are thrown into gehenna, not as a punishment, 
 but for the purpose of destroying corrupt matter, 
 just as the Jews cast their offal and dead corpses 
 into the "Valley of Hinnom," or gehenna, for the 
 sole purpose of getting rid of such troublesome 
 and useless material, and not as a punishment for 
 sin. True, this position would come in plain con- 
 flict with those passages which make "hell fire," 
 or "outer darkness," the penalty for sin; but not 
 more than the positions now assumed by our op- 
 ponents, are in conflict with portions of the word; 
 and it may be that they would be able to fix up 
 these passages so as to get along. Will our oppo- 
 nents adhere to their present interpretation of 
 Psalms 9: 17, in connection with their expressed 
 views on sheol, hades, and gehenna, or will they be 
 able to see the necessity for revision? 
 
230 CONTRADICTORY POSITIONS. 
 
 EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT. 
 
 Mr. Grant says, "No man believes in eternal 
 punishment stronger than the writer." He claims 
 that the Greek aionion, translated "everlasting" 
 and "eternal," as found in Matt. 25:46, signifies 
 unending bliss for the righteous, and unending 
 punishment for the wicked. But in meeting the 
 positions of Harry A. Long, in public debate, on 
 the words "everlasting" and "eternal," Mr. Grant 
 quotes Canon Farrar, Jeremy Taylor, Charles 
 Kingsley, and others, with a number of passages 
 from the Bible, to prove that "everlasting," "eter- 
 nal," and "forever," do not imply unending dura- 
 tion. Why does Mr. Grant assume these two 
 positions, which, as he presents them, are par- 
 tially in conflict with each other? Notice, his 
 basic reason for declaring in favor of an unending 
 punishment, is that the same Greek word aionion, 
 which describes the bliss of the righteous, 
 also describes the punishment of the wicked. (See 
 "WHAT is MAN?" p. 24.) The apparent reason 
 for the first claim is to make the Scriptures har- 
 monize with the dogma that the future punish- 
 ment of the wicked is the annihilation of their 
 conscious being ; hence, the punishment must be 
 unending, you know. The reason for the second 
 claim, that everlasting, eternal, and forever, do 
 - not mean endless duration, appears to be this : 
 Mr. Long, his opponent in debate, believed in 
 unending torment as the future punishment of 
 the wicked. He gave his reasons for so believing, 
 calling attention to the words everlasting, eter- 
 nal, and forever. Mr. Grant feels that something 
 must be done, so attacks, at once, the claim that 
 these words signify unending duration. 
 
 Jeremy Taylor is quoted as follows : 
 Everlasting signifies only to the end of its own proper 
 period. 
 
 Charles Kingsley : 
 
CONFLICTING VIEWS. 231 
 
 The word [aionion] is never used in Scripture, or any- 
 where else, in the sense of endless (vulgarly called eter- 
 nally.) It always meant, both in Scripture and out, a per- 
 iod of time. Else how could it have a plural ? "GRANT AND 
 LONG DEBATE," p. 190. 
 
 Now admitting this last position to be cor- 
 rect, what becomes of the first? And if these 
 words do not mean endless duration, as claimed 
 by these writers, and endorsed by Mr. Grant, then 
 what becomes of the claim made upon the very 
 strength of the phrase, "everlasting punishment," 
 that the punishment of the wicked will never 
 end? 
 
 That which is true does not necessitate the 
 advocacy of conflicting views ; but when we affirm 
 that which is not true, and therefore not defensi- 
 ble, we cannot get through without it. We ad- 
 here to the positions announced in the last chap- 
 ter, viz. : The words everlasting, eternal, and for- 
 ever, do not establish the unending bliss of the 
 righteous, or the unending punishment of the 
 wicked ; but eternal life, which is the result of 
 faith in God and obedience to the gospel, is the 
 normal condition of man, and is, therefore, as 
 applied to the righteous, unending in its dura- 
 tion. Punishment is an abnormal condition, 
 hence the Almighty is constantly exercising his 
 infinite power to overcome it. It is eternal only 
 in this sense, the penalty ever remaining with 
 God fixed and sure, to be administered to those 
 who transgress his laws, its duration and inten- 
 sity, as applied to individuals, depending upon 
 the comparative guilt of the ones punished. The 
 object of the penalty is to overcome sin and save 
 the individual. If any remain in punishment 
 throughout the endless ages of eternity, (O what a 
 long time that is !) it will be because they prefer 
 to live in continued opposition to God's holy will. 
 How can it be otherwise ? 
 
232 SHELDON'S SOPHISTRY. 
 
 SPIRITUAL DEATH. 
 
 Speaking of the punishment of the wicked, 
 Mr. Sheldon says : 
 
 "The wages of sin is death." (Rom. 6:23.; What death ? 
 . . . Not spiritual death, a death in "trespasses and 
 sins," for that is the very thins that renders man deserv- 
 ing of punishment, instead of being the punishment itself. 
 "ADVENTISM," p. 99. 
 
 Thus, by means of a little sophistry, an at- 
 tempt is made to put to one side forever the claim 
 that spiritual death is the penalty for sin. But 
 our position is not injured in the least by what 
 Mr. Sheldon has said. We have already shown by 
 evidences which our opponents will never be able 
 to move out of their way, that when we obey the 
 gospel of Christ, we "pass from death unto life." 
 So, at the judgment, those who have eternal life, 
 are the very ones who receive eternal life as a re- 
 ward. The wicked, who reject the gospel, do, at 
 that very time, bring themselves into a compara- 
 tive state of banishment and death ; and when 
 the time for a more complete separation shall have 
 come, they will experience a fulness of that "out- 
 er darkness" which they have incurred by yield- 
 ing themselves servants to sin. Those who are in 
 a state of life receive life as a reward, while those 
 who are in a state of death receive death as a re- 
 ward. 
 
 Our position is correct, and therefore defensi- 
 ble. Life is given to those who are alive, and 
 death to those who are dead. Eternal life, and 
 death, or eternal death, are opposite conditions of 
 conscious existence. And as the result of obedi- 
 ence to God, is life, here, so it will be life, "more 
 abundantly," at the resurrection and judgment: 
 and as the result of disobedience to God here, is 
 death, so it will be death, of the same kind, but 
 greater in degree, at the judgment day. 
 
PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED. 233 
 
 "DESTROY," "PERISH," "CONSUME," ETC. 
 We have already killed the force of any argu- 
 ment which can be made in support of the anni- 
 hilation of the conscious being of the wicked, 
 based upon the Bible use of the above words ; but 
 we will condescend to give them a brief examina- 
 tion. The facts that the future punishment of the 
 wicked is spiritual death ; and that gehenna, trans- 
 lated "hell," and "hell flre," is used metaphorical- 
 ly? by Jesus himself, should be a sufficient answer 
 to any argument based upon the words "destroy," 
 "perish," "consume," etc., as they are applied to the 
 punishment of the wicked. A moment's reflection 
 ought to convince any one that in the descriptions 
 of the future bliss of the righteous, and the future 
 punishment of the wicked, the use of figures be- 
 comes necessary. How could we understand them 
 without the use of this figurative language ? If it 
 be said the punishment is death (a cessation of con- 
 scious existence) and the reward is life, and that 
 is all there is of it, then, we reply, there could be 
 no possible purpose in the use of other terms and 
 phrases, descriptive of future punishment, except 
 to confuse and produce ambiguity. Moreover, 
 this position makes the reward of the righteous 
 consist of mere conscious existence, and nothing 
 more, inasmuch as it is the direct opposite of the 
 punishment of the wicked. 
 
 The reader will please not forget that accord- 
 ing to the theory which we oppose, a blotting out 
 of conscious existence is the punishment, and it 
 does not begin till we are dead. Why, then, is it 
 called "hell flre," "lake of flre," "outer darkness," 
 where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of 
 teeth ? " We take these expressions as figures of 
 speech, descriptive of the punishment of the 
 wicked , and all is plain. "Outer darkness" shows 
 
234 DANGER OF EXTREMES. 
 
 it to be a state of banishment away from the 
 light of God and the bliss of heaven. "Hell flre." 
 etc., portrays the exquisiteness of the punishment. 
 It is claimed, however, that the "weeping -and 
 gnashing of teeth" will take place before they are 
 cast into outer darkness. If this position be true, 
 then the sinner undergoes conscious torment for 
 a season, (just how long is not said,) and when his 
 life is gone and his sufferings are at an end, 
 then his punishment begins ! Why is it the rule, 
 here, that conscious suffering is the penalty for 
 transgressing God's laws, if the opposite of this 
 obtains at the judgment? Or, if it be said that 
 suffering is not the penalty for sin, then, we ask, 
 why do we suffer when we do violence to God's 
 laws? 
 
 The logical deductions from the positions as- 
 sumed by our opponents, show the danger of ex- 
 tremes, and how undesirable is the doctrine of 
 gross materialism. Here are some of them. 
 Eternal life is the promised reward to the right- 
 eous, but we receive no portion of it till the judg- 
 ment, death is the threatened punishment to the 
 wicked, but they do not begin to be punished till 
 they are dead. Therefore, the righteous receive 
 no part of their reward, in this life, and the wick- 
 ed, no part of their punishment. Eternal life, 
 and death, it is admitted, are opposites ; there- 
 fore, as the second death is defined to be the anni- 
 hilation of conscious being, eternal life, its oppo- 
 site, is simply and only the continuation of con- 
 scious existence. If it be said, the righteous will 
 become immortal, at the resurrection, we reply, 
 the Devil and his angels are immortal, but does 
 that make them happy ? The theory will not hold 
 good. It is like a broken cistern that holds no 
 water. 
 
WORD DESTROY. 235 
 
 Let us now give our attention to the word 
 ;< destroy." There is nothing in the definition of 
 the word which necessitates the position of mor- 
 tal-soulists. 
 
 God destroyed the Antediluvians, by water, 
 (Gen. 7 :4) but, as we have seen, Christ, after be- 
 ing "put to death in the flesh," went and preach- 
 ed to them, while they were in prison. (1 Peter 
 3 : 18-20. 
 
 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom, it rained 
 fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all; 
 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of Man is 
 revealed. Luke 17:29, 30. 
 
 Jude, when speaking of the destruction of 
 Sodom and Gomorrah, says, they "are set for an 
 example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." 
 (Jude 7.) Our opponents may choose for them- 
 selves, whether this "eternal fire" was that which 
 produced temporal death, or whether it applies in 
 the intermediate state. If the former, which we 
 do not deny, then it must have been an eternal 
 destruction, the same kind of destruction which 
 shall occur "when the Son of Man is revealed." 
 And yet, Jesus teaches us that the people of Sod- 
 om shall appear in the judgment, and it shall be 
 more tolerable for them than for the people of 
 Chorazin and Capernaum. Clearly, then, their 
 destruction by eternal fire was not the annihila- 
 tion of their conscious being; and as the same 
 kind of destruction is to affect the wicked when 
 Jesus Christ makes his second advent into the 
 world, the proper conclusion is that it will not be 
 the annihilation of their conscious being, but all 
 those who are destroyed by fire at that time, will 
 come forth in the general resurrection and be 
 judged according to their works. Yes, the very 
 ones of whom Malachi says, "And the day that 
 cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of 
 Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor 
 
238 DESTROY CONTINUED. 
 
 branch," (Mai. 4:1), shall come forth in the res- 
 urrection with the Antediluvians and Sodomites, 
 and, in the judgment, every one "shall give an ac- 
 count of himself to God." 
 
 Paul describes this destruction of the wicked, 
 the antetype of which v*e have in the destruction 
 of the Antediluvians, in 2 Thes. 1:9: "Who shall 
 be punished with everlasting destruction fiom the 
 presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his 
 power. In the sixth verse Paul refers to the pun- 
 ishment of the same class and calls it "tribula- 
 tion;" that is, "severe affliction ; distress of life; 
 vexation." And in Heb. 10 : 26-29, Paul contrasts 
 the future punishment of the wicked with the pun- 
 ishment of those who despised Moses' law, "and died 
 without mercy under two or three witnesses." He 
 says : "Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, 
 shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden un- 
 der foot the Son of God, and hath counted the 
 blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, 
 an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the 
 spirit of grace." (Yerse 29.) 
 
 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this tem- 
 ple, and in three days I will raise it up. But he spake of 
 the temple of his body. John 2:19, 21. 
 
 Destruction here means death ; and the very 
 Jesus who laid his body down in death, raised it 
 up in the resurrection. 
 
 Persons are sometimes destroyed while yet 
 alive. The word has a variety of meanings, and 
 its true import, in any text, must be learned by its 
 connection with other words. 
 
 He hath destroyed me on every side. Job 19:10. 
 
 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Hosea 
 4:6. 
 
 O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is 
 thine help. Hosea 13:0. 
 
 We hardly need to be told that after the con- 
 scious existence of a people is annihilated, they 
 can not have hope in God. 
 
PERISH EXAMINED. 237 
 
 Inanimate things are destroyed without being 
 annihilated. 
 
 Knowest thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed ? Ex. 
 10:7. 
 
 Babylon is suddenly fallen and destroyed: howl for 
 her; take balm for her pain, if so be that she may be 
 healed.--Jer. 51:8. 
 
 And shouldst destroy them which destroy the earth. -- 
 Rev. 11:18. 
 
 It can easily be seen from the above examples 
 of the Bible use of the word destroy, that mortal- 
 soul ists gain nothing by an appeal to this word. 
 If they could prove (but they can not) that when 
 this and other strong words are applied to the 
 punishment of the wicked, they necessarily mean 
 annihilation of conscious being, they would gain a 
 point. Bight here, where proof is most needed, 
 we have nothing more than assumption. 
 
 Let us take a look at the word * 'perish." 
 Neither the Hebrew nor Greek word for perish 
 furnish any support for the belief that the pun- 
 ishment of the wicked is the end of their con- 
 scious existence. Eev. Luther Lee, in "IMMOR- 
 TALITY OF THE SOUL," p. 174, makes the following 
 statements, and furnishes us with the following 
 definition: 
 
 The original word rendered perish in these texts, is 
 very far from settling tfee question in favor of annihila- 
 tion, or the final extinction of tbe wicked. Let us look at 
 each text by itself. Luke 13:3: "Ye shall all likewise per- 
 ish." The Greek word here used is "apoleisthe;" it is th 
 second person plural, of "apolumi," or "appolluo." which 
 is defined thus: "To abolish, destroy, ruin; to kill, slay; 
 to lose; "apoluamai," to be ruined, lost, undone, to perish, 
 decay. (See Groves Greek and English Dictionary.) 
 
 So, it may easily be seen from the above defi- 
 nition, that there is nothing in the meaning of 
 the word perish which settles the qirestioa in 
 favor of the annihilation of conscious being. Per- 
 ish, like destroy, sometimes means to die, some- 
 times to suffer, or to be lost. 
 
238 HEBREW FOR PERISH. 
 
 That Daniel and his fellows should not perish with the 
 rest of the wise of Babylon. Daniel 2:18. 
 
 And I perish with hunger. Luke 15:17. 
 
 There is a just man that perisheth in his righteousness, 
 and there is a wicked man that prolongeth his life in his 
 wickedness. Eccles. 7:15. 
 
 The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart. 
 --Isa. 57:1. 
 
 All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again 
 to dust. Job 34: 14. 
 
 "All flesh shall perish," that is, all people shall 
 die, and yet, all shall come forth in the resurrec- 
 tion. The righteous perish as well as the wicked, 
 that is, they die, but the facts that they will all 
 come forth, and every one "shall give an account 
 of himself to God," is good evidence that when 
 they perished there was no annihilation of con- 
 sciousness. 
 
 One of the Hebrew words rendered perish, is 
 
 in a number of passages rendered "lost." This 
 
 word is abaci, and is defined "to perish, be lost." 
 
 She saw that she had waited, and her hope was lost, etc. 
 
 Ezek. 19:5. 
 
 Her hope was lost, (had perished,) but she was 
 conscious of the fact. 
 
 In Ezek. 34 : 4, a number of serious accusations 
 are brought against the Shepherds of Israel, one 
 of which is, "Neither have ye sought that which 
 was lost," (perished) referring to the Lord's people 
 that had been scattered upon the mountains, and 
 hills, and upon the face of the earth, but were 
 alive and conscious. What we say of the Hebrew 
 is also true of the Greek. 
 
 Apollu, "to lose away, destroy, waste." 
 
 Go rather to the lost, (perished) sheep of the house of 
 Israel. Matt. 10:6. 
 
 None of them is lost (perished) but the son of perdition. 
 John 17:12. 
 
 Examples to prove that the originals for per- 
 ish mean lost, or moved from the proper place, are 
 numerous, but the foregoing are sufficient to 
 answer our purpose. 
 
PERISH CONTINUED. 239 
 
 In Luke 15:17, "I perish with hunger," it 
 means to suffer, or at most to die. 
 
 Whereby the; world that then was, being overflowed 
 with water, perished: but the heavens and the earth 
 which are now, by the same word are kept in store, re- 
 served unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition 
 of ungodly men. 2 Peter 3: 6, 7. 
 
 They shall perish, but thou remainest; and they al] 
 shall wax old as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt 
 thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou 
 artMie same, and thy years shall not fail. Heb. 1:11, 12. 
 
 In these passages, where perish is used in its 
 strongest sense, it only implies to pass away, to 
 change. There would be no propriety in saying 
 that the heavens and earth "shall be changed," 
 if they are to be annihilated. They are to be 
 folded up and changed, and out of them are to 
 come the "new heavens and the new earth, where- 
 in dwelleth righteousness." (2 Peter 3:13.) And 
 yet, the heavens and earth are to perish, and the 
 earth is to be "burned up." (2 Peter 3 : 10.) The 
 language found in Malachi 4 : 1, and applied by 
 mortal-soulists to the annihilation of the con- 
 scious being of the wicked, is no stronger than that 
 which is applied to the destruction of the earth. 
 Malachi says, "And the day that cometh shall 
 burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it 
 shall leave them neither root nor branch." Not 
 "burn them up both root and branch," as it is 
 sometimes quoted, but. "it shall leave them neith- 
 er root nor branch." What shall leave them 
 neither root nor branch ? The fire that God shall 
 use to burn up that which is corruptible, but never 
 that which is pure, and, therefore, incorruptible. 
 
 Mortal-soulists, by the force of logic, must ac- 
 cept one of these two positions : All men, outside 
 of Christ, are totally depraved wholly corrupt 
 and therefore their conscious existence shall be 
 blotted out, never more to return ; or God will 
 destroy the pure and t;he good along with the evil ' 
 
240 THE WORD CONSUME. 
 
 That is, He will annihilate that which is incor- 
 ruptible for the purpose of annihilating that 
 which is corruptible ! Which of these positions 
 will our opponents defend? 
 
 Paul presents this whole matter very clearly, 
 in 1 Cor. 3 : 13-15. 
 
 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day 
 shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and 
 the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If 
 any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he 
 shall receive reward. If any man's work shall be burned, 
 he shall suffer loss: bat he himself shall be saved; yet so as 
 by fire. 
 
 We are happy in the thought that there are 
 but few, if any, individuals who are wholly cor- 
 rupt, or entirely destitute of good ; and we are 
 firmly fixed in the belief that God will not anni- 
 hilate that which is good. So we will let the as- 
 sumptions of mortal-soul ists concerning the word 
 "perish," as applied to the future punishment of 
 the wicked, perish, with all other claims which 
 have neither fact nor truth as a foundation upon 
 which to stand. 
 
 The word "consume," or "consumed," is also 
 used as evidence to support the theory we oppose. 
 
 Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth. Psalms 
 104:35. 
 
 And they that forsake the Lord shall be consumed. 
 Isa. 1:28. 
 
 They [the enemies of the Lord] shall consume; into 
 smoke shall they consume away. Psalms 37:20. 
 
 Unless we are determined to support some 
 chosen theory by such passages as the above, it is 
 easily seen that they are used in a figurative 
 sense. Some of them are highly figurative. Let 
 us glance at the last one cited. "Into smoke shall 
 they consume away." If we take this in a strictly 
 literal sense, then the wicked, after they are 
 burned, will be nothing but smoke ! How then. 
 we ask, can the righteous tread upon the wicked, 
 
CONSUME CONTINUED. 241 
 
 as stated by Malachi and often quoted by our op- 
 ponents? Will they not have to step rather 
 high? Malachi says, after stating that "the day 
 that cometh shall burn them up," "And ye shall 
 tread down the wicked ; for they shall be ashes 
 under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall 
 do this saith the Lord of Hosts." According to 
 this bold, literalistic interpretation, David is 
 made to teach that the wicked shall be turned 
 into smoke, but Malachi says they shall be ashes ! 
 Which is right? If we take both in a figurative 
 sense, all is plain. 
 
 Consume is sometimes applied to inanimate 
 objects in this same figurative sense. Ezek. 13 : 13, 
 14. "There shall be an overflowing shower in 
 mine anger, and great hailstones in my fury to 
 consume it. So will I break down the wall." See 
 also Ezek. 35 : 12, where the mountains of Israel 
 became desolate and are given into the hands of 
 men "to consume." In the verse quoted, the wall 
 is consumed by hailstones. Did the hailstones an- 
 nihilate that wall ? 
 
 Job 4 : 9. "And by the breath of his nostrils 
 are they consumed." Is this literal fire? 
 
 Job 19 : 27. "Whom I shall see for myself, and 
 my eyes shall behold, and not another ; though my 
 reins be consumed within me." This certainly 
 does not imply even a temporary cessation of con- 
 scious existence. 
 
 Psalms 102 : 3. "For my days are consumed 
 like smoke, and my bones are burned as a hearth." 
 Were these days annihilated ? 
 
 Pro verbs 5: 11, 12. "And thou mourn at the 
 last, when thy flesh and thy body are consumed, 
 and say, How have I hated instruction, and my 
 heart despised reproof." If this consumption ol 
 flesh and body means death, then there is con- 
 sciousness after death. If it does not implj 
 
1142 CUT OFF. 
 
 death, then individuals may be consumed without 
 disturbing their consciousness in the least. 
 
 The wicked, we are told, are to be "cut off." 
 Psalms 37 : 9, 34. "For evil doers shall be cut off." 
 "When the wicked are cut off thou shalt see it." 
 "Cut off," as found in the above passages, cannot 
 mean anything more than temporal death, or ban- 
 ishment from the presence of God and his people. 
 The same Hebrew word karath, is found in Daniel 
 9 : 26. "And after threescore and two weeks shall 
 Messiah be cut off, but not for himself." If the 
 first two passages imply the annihilation of con- 
 scious being, then Christ was annihilated at the 
 time he was cut off I 
 
 The expressions "was not," "could not be 
 found," "shall be as though they had not been," 
 and such like, are relied upon, and they are ingen- 
 iously appended to a statement of belief so as to 
 make it appear that eternal oblivion is the final 
 destiny of all who are not true believers in Christ. 
 Here are some of the texts quoted. 
 
 Yet he passed away, and lo, he was not; yea I sought 
 him, but he could not be found. Psalms 37:36. 
 
 In Genesis 5 :24, we have the phrase "was not" 
 coming from the same Hebrew as the one just 
 quoted. It reads as follows : 
 
 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God 
 took him." 
 
 It will hardly be claimed that Enoch's con- 
 scious being was annihilated at the time he was 
 not, but rather, that he "was translated that he 
 should not see death." (Heb. 11 : 5.) 
 
 For as ye have drunk upon my holy mountain, so shall 
 all the heathen drink continually, yea. they shall drink 
 and they shall swallow down, and they shall be as though 
 they had not been. ObadiahlG. 
 
 If it could be shown that this scripture applies 
 to the future punishment of the wicked, at the 
 judgment, it would come far short of proving the 
 annihilation of consciousness. However, it is 
 
"AS THOUGH THEY HAD NOT SEEK." 243 
 
 finite evident that no reference is had to the final 
 judgment, but, rather, to the distress, overthrow, 
 and temporal destruction of the kingdom of Esau. 
 The words "they shall be," are just as good proof 
 of conscious existence, as the words, "as though 
 they had not been," are against it. Job applies 
 equally strong language to his brethren, who were 
 both alive and conscious. Job 6 : 15-18. 
 
 My brethren have dealt deceitfully as a brook, and as the 
 stream of brooks they pass away; Which are blackish by 
 reason of the ice, and wherein the snow is hid: What time 
 they wax warm, they vanish: when it is hot they are con- 
 sumed out of their place. The paths of their way are turned 
 aside; they go to nothing, and perish. 
 
 "Go to nothing and perish," is about as strong 
 language as our opponents will find anywhere ap- 
 plied to the punishment of the wicked. 
 
 Job 7 : 21. "For now shall I sleep in the dust ; 
 and thou shalt seek me in the morning, but I shall 
 not be." Here Job, speaking of his death, says, 
 "I shall not be ;" and yet, in Job 19 :26, 27, he ex- 
 presses his hope in the resurrection. "Yet in my 
 flesh shall I see God : Whom I shall see for my- 
 self, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another ; 
 though my reins be consumed within me." 
 
 Whenever the words "I shall not be," properly 
 applied to Job, he became, in the same sense, as 
 though "he had not been ;" but was that the end 
 of his conscious being forever ? Far from it. 
 
 If space would permit, we would go through 
 the entire list of strong words depended upon by 
 mortal-soulists, to support the belief that the fu- 
 ture punishment of the wicked consists in the an- 
 nihilation of their conscious being; but, were we 
 to do so it would bring precisely the same results 
 which have obtained in the examination of the 
 words destroy, perish, consume, cut off, etc. 
 There is absolutely no support furnished our oppo- 
 nents by the Bible use of these terms. In thiscoa- 
 
244 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 nection we commead the following words of Mi 
 Haley. ''DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE," p. 209. 
 
 (1) Those persons who undertake to build a doctrine 
 upon the figures of poetry and Oriental idiom are expend- 
 ing their labor just as wisely as they would be in endeavor- 
 ing to make a pyramid stand upon its apex. Their foundation 
 is inadequate, and their efforts nugatory. (2) As to the He- 
 brew terms rendered in our version, consume, cut off, die. 
 destroy, devour, perish, and the like, neither in the orig- 
 inal terms, nor in their English equivalents, nor in the con- 
 nection in which they stand, is there inherent force 01 
 aught else which necessitates, or even warrants, the inter- 
 pretation of them as implying annihilation, extinction oJ 
 consciousness, or cessation of existence. 
 
 The fact that these words upon which our op- 
 ponents rely, are applied to persons while living 
 and conscious, renders them entirely useless as a 
 means of support for the dogma which we are 
 opposing. 
 
 This little volume has been written for the 
 benefit of all who are willing, and need to be ben- 
 fltted, both of those who believe, and those who 
 do not believe in the immortality of the soul. 
 Through the blessings of God, may it prove to be 
 a help and means of confirmation and light to the 
 one class, while it corrects, instructs, and leads to 
 a larger and better hope, the other. For perfec- 
 tion of style and manner of presentation we make 
 no claim ; but for honesty of purpose and purity 
 of motive, we are willing and ready to answer to 
 God, to whom we now commit the work done, be- 
 lieving that it will be a help and blessing to all 
 who are willing to give it a careful and proper 
 perusal. We are well assured that the truth will 
 stand, and stand forever ; but all error will per- 
 ish, and its advocates and adherents will suffer 
 loss. "Every plant which my heavenly Father 
 hath not planted, shall be rooted up." Let us see 
 to it that, in belief and practice we are in har- 
 mony with God. 
 
CHAPTER. INDEX. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 CHAPTER I. The Bible the standard of evi- 
 dence How it should be viewed The differ- 
 ent characters it presents Careful discrimin- 
 ation necessary 
 
 CHAPTER II. An examination of the nature 
 and constitution of man 1C 
 
 CHAPTER HI. Historical evidence The doc- 
 trine of immortality originated with God. . .21 
 
 CHAPTER IY. Scientific evidences considered 
 The true province of science It can furnish 
 no valid support for the doctrine that man is 
 wholly mortal and unconscious after death 37 
 
 
 
 CHAPTER Y. Nature of man He is possessed 
 of a spirit or soul, which thinks and acts It 
 lives in a conscious state when out of the body 
 The soul does not die with the body Ad- 
 ventist claims examined and refuted 49 
 
 CHAPTER VI. Christ the true source of light 
 and knowledge The Man Christ Jesus the 
 true type of all other men in life and death 
 His pre-existence, life and death considered 95 
 
 PART II. 
 
 CHAPTER I. Intermediate State Both the 
 righteous and the wicked are conscious be- 
 tween death and the resurrection Ill 
 
 CHAPTER II. The resurrection of the dead and 
 eternal life Eternal life begins when we obey 
 the gospel 176 
 
 CHAPTER III. The second death, or future 
 punishment Is the "Lake of fire" literal? 
 Will all who are not Christians lose their con- 
 scious existence at the judgment ? 193 
 
 CHAPTER IY. ADDENDA Objections an- 
 swered 225 
 
LIST OF AUTHORS QUOTED IN 
 THIS WORK. 
 
 Abbott, Rev. Lyman, pp. 30, 
 
 127, 137, 138, 140, 143, 196. 
 Anonymous, pp. 36, 48. 
 Andrews, J. N., p. 119. 
 Alford, pp. 71, 139, 150. 
 
 Brewer, Eld. S. S., pp. 28, 29. 
 Buchner, p. 39. 
 Buck, Dr., p. 54. 
 Brown, John, p. 54. 
 Bull. Bishop, p. 139. 
 Bartlett, Prof., p. 139. 
 
 Collins, Eld. L. O., pp. 140, 
 141. 155. 
 
 Dicks, Dr.. pp. 32, 33. 
 Drurnmond, Prof. Henry, 
 
 pp. 39, 40. 
 Dement, R. S., pp. 44, 45, 46. 
 
 Eusebius, pp. 34, 99, 100. 
 Ellis, Aaron, pp. 57, 58, 170. 
 
 Puerst, p. 54. 
 Fowler and Wells, p. 92. 
 Farrar, F. W., D. D., F. R. S., 
 pp. 150, 151, 152 ? 153, 154. 
 
 Gesenius, p. 54. 
 
 Grant, Eld. Miles, pp. 14, 38, 
 39, 50, 52. 53. 55, 56, 60. 62, 68, 
 80. 89. 103. 196, 197, 198, 199, 
 203, 220, 225. 227, 230. 
 
 Haley, John W.. M. A., pp. 
 21, 22, 139, 150, 164, 244. 
 
 Ingersoll, R. G., p. 44. 
 
 Josephus, ps. 29, 31. 
 
 Jones. Wiley, pp. 72, 113, 114, 
 
 129, 130, 131, 144, 145, 219, 220 
 
 221. 
 
 Kingsley, Charles, p. 231. 
 
 Lebody. Prof., p. 41. 
 Leidy, Dr. Joseph, p. 42. 
 Liddell and Scott, p. 54. 
 Lee, Rev. Luther, pp. 120 
 
 237. 
 Lewis, Prof. Taylor, p. 150. 
 
 Millner, p. 34. 
 
 Moore. Dr. Geo., M. R. C. P. 
 
 pp. 46, 47, 48. 
 
 Nelson, Rev. David, M. D^ 
 p. 30. 
 
 Quackenbos, p. 24. 
 
 Roberts, Alex., D. D., pp. 70, 
 225. 
 
 Revisers of Revised Ver- 
 sion, pp. 125, 156, 157. 
 
 Sheldon. Eld. Wm., pp. 59. 
 
 68. 73. 116, 117, 122, 181. 182, 
 
 227, 232. 
 Spear. Samuel T.. D. D., pp. 
 
 157, 158. 
 
 Todd, W. E., p. 134. 
 Taylor, Jeremy, p. 230. 
 
 Whit more, p. 27. 
 Ward, Lester F.. p. 43. 
 Watkins, Eld. F. O., pp. 68 
 
 126. 
 
 Webster, p. 89. 
 Watson, p. 47. 
 
 Young, Dr. C. A., p. 42. 
 
 Young, Dr. Robert, pp. 53 
 77. 85, 156, 166, 167, 2lf~ 228 
 238. 
 
 DIFFERENT TRANSLATIONS OF THE 
 
 BIBLE QUOTED IN THIS WORK. 
 King James, Revised Version, Douay, Geneva, 
 and Syriac. 
 
PAGE INDEX. 
 
 A favorite text examined 20 
 A sophism exposed 22 
 
 Atheism not more absurd 28 
 Angels 85 
 
 Adventist objections 122 
 A paradise now 127 
 
 Abraham's bosom 140 
 
 Aaron Ellis answered 170 
 Accountability 17'9 
 
 All to be resurrected 182 
 All raised to immortality 185 
 A concluding test 192 
 
 A sorer punishment 200 
 All good rewarded 208 
 
 As though they had not 
 been 243 
 
 Bible use of mortality 
 
 and immortality 19 
 
 Bible use of mortal 24 
 
 Belief of the Jews 31 
 
 Bible must determine 50 
 Bible use of soul 51 
 
 Bible use of spirit 52 
 
 Breath of life 61 
 
 Belief of the apostles 88 
 Body and spirit 94 
 
 But one path to h armony 121 
 Breadth of Christ's work 152 
 Biblical hades 157 
 
 Concerning direct af- 
 firmations 25 
 Conflicting opinions 44 
 Christ's explanation 90 
 Christ the light of men 96 
 Christ's pre-existence 97 
 Christ was, is, and ever 
 
 will be 100 
 
 Christ's life like our life 102 
 Christ the light of the 
 
 world 106 
 
 Christ's death 107 
 
 Christ's kingdom 123 
 
 Concerning punctuation 124 
 'Christian Armory" 134 
 Concerning parables 138 
 Comprehensive views 146 
 Commentators' views 150 
 Christ and spirits in 
 prisoii 151 
 
 Christ's great work 177 
 
 Contrary to God's char- 
 
 acter 213 
 
 Christ will destroy 
 
 death 214 
 
 Christ died the spiritual 
 
 death 222 
 
 Contradictory positions 230 
 Conflicting views 231 
 
 Consume continued 241 
 Concluding remarks 244 
 
 D 
 
 Demand and supply 15 
 
 Drs. Young and Leidy 42 
 Definitions of "psuche" 
 
 and "nephesh'* 54 
 
 Death of Christ 104 
 
 Death a departure 118 
 
 Different versions 125 
 
 Different translations 149 
 Death and resurrection 180 
 Death banishment 201 
 Degrees of punishment 212 
 Death the victor 216 
 
 Duration of eternal life 218 
 Dr. Young on the Hebrew 228 
 Danger of extremes 234 
 Destroy continued 236 
 
 Earnest of our inher- 
 
 itance 115 
 
 Elder Watkin's error 126 
 Elysium and tartarus 158 
 Exegesis of hell 175 
 
 False opinions 34 
 
 Flesh and spirit 80 
 
 Favorite texts examined 172 
 Figurative descriptions 195 
 Future punishment 199 
 
 Grant's position inde- 
 fensible 57 
 Grant and Ellis 58 
 Grant on spirit 60 
 Grant's witness against 
 
 him 81 
 
 God a spirit 84 
 
 Grant's view examined 89 
 
248 
 
 PAGE INDEX. 
 
 Grave and pit 143 
 
 God judges in the earth 162 
 Gospel of life 186 
 
 Grant on gehenna 197 
 
 God's character 207 
 
 Grades of glory 209 
 
 Grant and Jones on pun- 
 ishment 219 
 Grant's highest author- 
 ity 226 
 Grant's and Sheldon's 
 contradictions 227 
 
 191 
 
 H 
 
 27 
 
 Historical evidence 
 Hebrew and Greek 
 Heart and mind 
 Highly conscious state 142 
 Hezekiah and Job 168 
 
 Hell gehenna 196 
 
 Hebrew for perish 238 
 
 Immortal food for im- 
 mortal beings 
 
 Inferential evidence 26 
 
 Immortality universally 
 
 believed 30 
 
 Ingersoll answered 45 
 
 Inspiration of the Al- 
 mighty 63 
 Inspiration of God 64 
 Intermediate state de- 
 nned 111 
 It proves consciousness 120 
 
 Joseph us and Plato 29 
 Jesus existed in spirit 
 
 state 99 
 
 Jones answered 114 
 
 Jones answered 131 
 
 Job examined 169 
 
 Jones or Grant, which ? 221 
 
 Leading witnesses 7 
 
 Longings of the soul 16 
 
 Laws of adaptation 38 
 
 Life of Christ 101 
 
 Limited view 145 
 
 Leading points noted 147 
 Leading texts examined 163 
 Living men know noth- 
 ing 166 
 Life and death 187 
 Life eternal 188 
 Life eternal in reality 191 
 Literal or spiritual death 205 
 
 Mortal-soulists and Job I 
 Mortal and immortal be- 
 
 ings lc 
 
 Mind controls body 41 
 
 Mind causes organization 4fe 
 Misleading definitions 5c 
 Melancholy theology 15o 
 Men's opportunities 223 
 
 Nature of man 49 
 
 Natural and spiritual 
 
 death 93 
 
 Nature of life and death 105 
 Necessity of future 
 
 judgment 160 
 
 Nature of punishment 217 
 
 Originated with God 32 
 
 Our house from heaven 77 
 
 Our earthly house 116 
 
 Objections answered 206 
 
 Personel of the Bible 6 
 
 Paul and Pharisees 35 
 
 Personal consciousness 43 
 Passages compared 68 
 
 Position of mortal-soul- 
 
 ists 73 
 
 Paul's theology 79 
 
 Paul's departure 119 
 
 Paradise and the Jews 128 
 Points of the transfigur- 
 ation 135 
 Prison and pit 144 
 Prophecies of Christ 148 
 Proper applications 156 
 Present and future re- 
 wards 159 
 Present and future re- 
 wards 161 
 Perish construed 171 
 Paradise and hell 174 
 Prophecies of Christ 178 
 Paul's hope 183 
 Proportion of saved and 
 
 lost 215 
 
 Punishment of the 
 
 wicked 233 
 
 Perish examined 237 
 
 Perish continued 239 
 
 Rich man and Lazarus 137 
 Ruthless commentators 154 
 Rules of interpretation 164 
 
PAGE INDEX. 
 
 249 
 
 Reduced to an absurdity 165 
 Resurrection 176 
 
 Solemn obligations 10 
 
 Science and immortality 37 
 Science and eternal life 40 
 Scientists and science 41 
 Spirit in man 62 
 
 Soul and spirit compared 66 
 Soul and spirit some- 
 times synonymous 67 
 Soul and spirit used in- 
 terchangeably 70 
 Soul and body 71 
 Souls depart and return 75 
 Spirit entities 86 
 Spirit and breath 
 Stephen's prayer 95 
 Sheldon answered 117 
 Souls under the altar 129 
 Sheol and Hades 155 
 Strong expressions noted 173 
 Second death 193 
 Sheol and gehenna used 
 
 interchangeably 229 
 
 Sheldon's sophistry 232 
 
 The Old Testament 9 
 
 The race of man 11 
 The house in which we 
 
 dwell 12 
 
 The spirit in man 14 
 The gospel for immortal 
 
 beings 18 
 
 The Lord has been seen 21 
 The adjective immortal 
 
 examined 23 
 
 The universal belief 33 
 
 The breath of life 55 
 
 The flesh and spirit 65 
 The soul can not be killed 72 
 
 The soul can sin 76 
 
 The new man 82 
 
 Terms man and soul 83 
 
 The word 06 
 
 The spirit of Christ 103 
 
 This and that world ' 112 
 The family of saints 113 
 The transfiguration 130 
 The word appear 133 
 
 The wicked conscious 136 
 Teaching of Luke 16 139 
 Thoughts purposes, de- 
 signs 167 
 Two resurrections 181 
 True believers never die 190 
 The thousand year day 202 
 The day of Genesis 203 
 The first death 204 
 Three classes in Matt. 25 2K 
 The three glories 211 
 The great conflict 224 
 The thief on the cross 225 
 
 U 
 
 Unscriptural and Illog- 
 ical 74 
 Unquenchable fire 198 
 
 Voice of science 39 
 
 Viewed from another 
 
 standpoint 46 
 
 Visions sometimes pre- 
 
 sent realities 132 
 
 Victory over death 184 
 
 Various terms for pun- 
 
 ishment 194 
 
 Whence this universal 
 
 belief 36 
 
 Watkins and Grant 66 
 
 Wm. Sheldon's views 59 
 What is death? 92 
 
 When does life begin ? 189 
 Why do the wicked suf- 
 
 fer? 220 
 
 Word destroy 
 
 Word consume 240 
 
 Words cut off 242