Behind the obituaries of the patriarchs it seeks to shield itself. It is claimed, for instance, that the death of Abraham is recorded in such a manner as to show that his conscious existence did not cease with his earthly life. We might justly insist that believers in natural immortality should go farther back, amid take the recorded close of the lives of the antediluvian patriarchs as the basis of their argument. One of these, Enoch, was translated to heaven without seeing death; and all the others, according to popular belief, went to heaven just as effectually, through death. But how different is their record! Of Enoch it is said, that he `` was not; for God took him; while of the others it is said, And they "died.'' Surely these two records do not mean the same thing; and Enoch, whom God took, and who is consequently alive in heaven, must be, judging from the record, in a different condition from those who died.

But to return to the case of Abraham. The record of his death reads: "Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people." On this verse, Landis (p. 130) thus remarks:

What, then, is this gathering? Does it refer to the body or the soul? It cannot refer to the body, for while his body was buried in the cave of Machpelah, in Canaan, his fathers were buried afar off; Terah, in Haran, in Mesopotamia, and the rest of his ancestors far off in Chaldea. Of course, then, this gathering relates, not to the body, but to the soul; he was gathered to the assembly of the blessed, and thus entered his habitation.

To show how gratuitous, not to say preposterous, is this conclusion, we raise a query on two points: 1. Does the expression, "gathered to his people," denote that he went to dwell in conscious intercourse with them? 2. Were his ancestors such righteous persons that they went to heaven when they died?

In answering these queries, the last shall be the first. It is a significant fact that Abraham had to be separated from his kindred and his father's house, in order that God might make him a special subject of his providence. And in Joshua 24:2 we are plainly told that his ancestors were idolators; for they served other gods. Such being their character death would send them, according to the popular view, to the regions of the damned. At the time, then, of Abraham's death, they were writhing amid the lurid waves of the lake of fire. And when Abraham was gathered to them, if it was in the sense which the theology of our day teaches, he, too, was consigned to the flames of hell! O, to what absurdities will men suffer themselves to be led, blindfold, by a petted theory! God had said to Abram (Genesis 15:15): "And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age." Was this the consoling promise that he should go to hell in peace in a gold old age? And is the record of his death an assertion that he has his place among the damned? -- Yes; if the immaterialist theory be correct. Children of Abraham, arise! And with one mouth vindicate your "righteous father" from the foul aspersion. Renounce a theory as far from heaven-born, which compels you thus to look upon the "father of the faithful."

Does, then, the expression, "gathered to his people," mean his personal, conscious intercourse with them? If man has an immortal soul which lives in death, it must mean that; and if it does Abraham is in hell. There is no way of avoiding this conclusion, except by repudiating the idea that man has such a soul, and denying his conscious happiness or misery while in a state of death.

But how, then, could he be gathered to his people? Answer: He could go into the grave into which they had gone, into the state of death in which they were held. Jacob said, when mourning for Joseph, whom he supposed dead: "I will go down into the grave, unto my son mourning," -- not that he expected to go into the same locality, or the same grave; for he did not suppose that his son, being as he then thought devoured by wild beasts, was in the grave literally at all; but by the grave he evidently meant a "state of death;" and as his son had been violently deprived of life, he too would go down mourning into the state of death; and this he calls going unto his son. In Acts 13:36 Paul, speaking of David, says that he "was laid unto his fathers." This, all must acknowledge to be the exact equivalent of being "gathered to his people;" then the apostle immediately adds, "and saw corruption." That which was laid unto his fathers, or was gathered to his people, saw corruption. Men may labor, if they choose, to refer it to the immortal soul; but in that way they do it a very doubtful favor; for the success of their argument is the destruction of their theory; and the soul is shown to be something which is perishable and corruptible in its nature.

The peaceful death of our father Abraham furnishes no proof of an immortal soul in man, and from his hallowed resting-place no arguments for such a dogma can be drawn.

Another text may properly be considered in this connection: Psalm 90:10: "The days of our years are three-score years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away."

On the authority of this text it is claimed that something flies away when our strength is cut off in death; that that "something" is the immortal soul, and that it flies away, it is therefore conscious; and if it thus survives the stroke of death it is therefore immortal: rather a numerous array of conclusions, and rather weighty ones, to be drawn from the three words, "we fly away." Let us look at David's argument. The reason given why our strength is labor and sorrow, is because it is soon cut off, and we fly away. If, now, our flying away means the going away of a conscious soul, into heaven, for instance, if we are righteous, his argument stands thus: "Yet is their strength labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we go to heaven." Singular reasoning, this! But his argument is all consistent if by flying away he means that we go into the grave, where Solomon assures us that there is no work, wisdom, knowledge, nor device. Let us not abuse the psalmist's reasoning.

The text plainly tells us what flies away; namely, we fly away. "We" is a personal pronoun, and includes the whole person. According to Buck's assertion that man is composer of two essential elements, soul and body, the man is not complete without them both; and the pronoun we could not be used to express either of them separately. The text does not intimate any separation; it does not say that the soul flies away, or that tie spirit flies away; but we, in our undivided personality, fly away. To what place does the body, an essential part of the "we," fly?- -To the grave, and there only.

This is confirmed by Ecclesiastes 9:3: "The heart of the eons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead." Had this text read, "And after that they go away," or "fly away," it would have been exactly parallel to Psalm 90: 10; for no essential difference can be claimed between going and flying. But here it is expressly told where we go: We go to the grave. What is omitted in Psalm 90: 10 is here supplied.

We may also add that the Hebrew word gooph, rendered "fly away," signifies, according to Gesenius, "First, to cover, spec. with wings, feathers, as birds cover their young; secondly, to fly, properly of birds; thirdly, to cover over, wrap in darkness; fourthly, to with darkness, to faint, to faint away."

The idea is plainly this: Though our days be fourscore years, yet is their strength labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we sink away, go to the grave, and are wrapped in the darkness of death. Viewed thus, David's language is consistent, and his reasoning harmonious; but his language we pervert, and his logic we destroy, the moment we try to make his words prove the separation from the body of a conscious soul at death.

2. Samuel and the Woman of Endor

In all arguments for the continued life and consciousness of the dead, 1Samuel 28:3-20 usually holds a conspicuous place. In examining this scripture, we will look at (1) the narrative, (2) the claim that is based upon it, (3) the character of the actors in the incident, (4) the facts to be considered, and (5) the conclusions to be drawn.

1. The Narrative.-- Samuel was a prophet of God in Israel from 1112-1058 before Christ. Saul was king of Israel from 1096-1056 before Christ. Samuel anointed Saul to his office as king, and from time to time communicated instruction to him from the Lord, as his counselor and adviser. At the time when the incident recorded in 1Samuel 28:3-20 occurred, Samuel was dead. There was war between the Israelites and the Philistines. The Philistines pressed hard upon Israel. They gathered their forces together in Shunem, and Saul, assembling all Israel to oppose them, pitched in Gilboa. Dismayed at the mighty array of the Philistine host, Saul's heart sunk within him, and he was sore afraid. In anxiety and trembling, he cast about him for help. He sought the Lord, but the Lord answered him not. No dream was given; no token by Urim appeared; no prophet had a word from the mouth of the Lord to meet the circumstances of his deep distress. He thought of his old-time friend, the prophet Samuel, to whom he had so often gone, and who had so often directed his steps in times of doubt and danger. But Samuel was dead, and how could he consult him?

There was in the land a class of people who claimed to have power to communicate with the dead. This work, called necromancy (a "pretended communication with the dead." -- Webster), had been strictly forbidden by the Lord. Leviticus 19:31; 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:9-12, etc. And Saul, in obedience to the command of the Lord (Exodus 22:18), had cut off, so far as they could be found, all persons of that class out of the land. Yet a few still practised, with caution and secrecy, their ghostly orgies.

Whether Saul had ever believed in the reality of this work or not, we are not informed. But it is certain that in his present extremity, his belief gave way to the pretensions of these necromancers, and the evil thought took possession of him that he could consult in this way with the prophet Samuel. So he inquired for a woman that had a familiar' spirit, and was told of one at Endor.

Disguising himself, in order that the woman, knowing Saul's decree against witchcraft, might not fear to communicate for him, and going secretly by night, he sought the woman. The woman being assured that no evil was intended and no punishment should happen to her, asked whom she should bring up. Saul answered, "Bring me up Samuel." And when she saw the object which her conjuration had evoked, she cried out with fear, and said to her royal guest, "Why hast thou deceived me? For thou art Saul.'' He told her to fear not, but tell what she saw. She answered, "An old man, . . . covered with a mantle." "And Saul perceived," says the narrative, " that it was Samuel."

Samuel asked Saul why he had disquieted him to bring him up: and Saul answered, that he might make known what he should do; for the Philistines made war upon him, and God was departed from him, and he was sore distressed. Samuel then asked him why he came to him, since God had departed from him, and had become his enemy. Then he proceeded to tell him that the kingdom was rent out of his hand because he had failed to obey the Lord; that the Philistines should triumph in the battle; and that on the morrow he and his sons should die. This was the finishing stroke to the already breaking heart of Saul; and, utterly overwhelmed with his calamities, he fell senseless to the earth.

Such are the essential facts brought to view in the narrative. Let us now look at what is claimed from them.

2. The Claim.-- This can be expressed in few words. It is claimed that Samuel actually appeared on this occasion, and that therefore the dead are conscious, or that there is a spirit in man that lives on in consciousness when the body dies; and, therefore again, the soul is immortal.

The validity of this claim rests very much on the question whether the transaction here recorded was wrought by the power of God or by the Devil. If by God, then the representation was a true one; if by the Devil, we may look for deception; for he commenced his work I by becoming the father of all the lies in the world, and / continues it by assiduously circulating them. We will therefore consider --

3. The Character of the Actors.-- These actors were, first, the woman who had a familiar spirit; and familiar spirits are spirits of devils. Compare Numbers 25:1-3; Psalm 106:28; and 1Corinthians 10:20. This work of dealing with familiar spirits, God had declared to be an "abomination" to him; he had expressly forbidden it, and sentenced to death all who practised it.

The other chief actor in this scene was Saul. And what was his condition at this time? -- He had so long hived in violation of divine instruction that God had departed from him, and answered him no more by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets, which were the ways he had himself appointed to communicate with his people. Query: Would the Lord refuse to communicate with him in ways of his own appointing, and then come to him by the means the use of which he had expressly forbidden? We see, then, that neither of the actors in this scene were persons through whom, or for whom, we should expect the Lord to work. We will therefore notice further--

4. The Facts to be Considered.
a. The wonders wrought on this occasion were all accomplished by the familiar spirit with whom this woman consorted. There were two things for this spirit to do: (1) Either to bring up in reality the dead person that was called for, or (2) to counterfeit the dead man so perfectly that those who were conversing with the familiar spirit would believe that they were conversing with their dead friend.

b. That it was not Samuel, but the familiar spirit personating Samuel, that appeared, is evident from the fact that this supposed Samuel, before holding any communication with Saul, put the woman on her guard, telling her that her guest was none other than Saul himself. This is shown by the fact that the woman, as soon as she saw him, cried out with fear, not because Samuel really appeared, contrary to her expectations, as some have supposed; for she did not cry out, "Samuel has come, indeed!" but because of what the appearance told her; for she immediately turned to Saul, and said, "Why hast thou deceived me? For thou art Saul." This would not be the work of the real Samuel, to put the woman on her guard, to aid her in her unholy work of incantation.

c. According to the claim based on this transaction, it was Samuel's immortal soul that appeared on this occasion; but its appearance was, according to the description of the woman, an old man covered with a mantle. Do immortal souls go about in this way, in the form of old men covered with mantles? This renders it still more evident that it was the familiar spirit, imitating Samuel as he appeared while here upon earth.

d. Saul did not see Samuel at all. But does it not read that "Saul perceived that it was Samuel"? -- Yes; but perceived how? -- Not by the sight of the eyes, but from the woman's description. The words "saw," as applied to the woman, verse 12, and "perceive," as applied to Saul, verse 14, are from two words in the Hebrew. The first is räah, which signifies "to look, see, view; " the second is from yäda which means "to become informed, to be made aware of." The Septuagint maintains the same distinction. The woman actually saw the appearance before her; and here the word eido is used, which signifies, according to Liddell and Scott, "to see, behold, look at;" but when it is said that Saul ``perceived," the word is gignosko, which signifies, according to the same authority, "to know, perceive, gain knowledge of, observe, mark, be aware of, see into, understand," by an operation of the mind. In harmony with this view, is Saul's language to the woman: "What sawest thou?" and "What form is he of?" If any should say that Saul might have seen all that the woman saw if he had not been prostrate upon the ground, it is sufficient to reply that it was not till after he asked these questions that he "stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself." Verse 14. If Samuel had actually been present, Saul could have seen him as well as the woman. How completely had Saul now fallen into the snare! He was willing this abandoned woman should be for him both eyes and ears in matters of the greatest moment.

e. The appearance which the woman saw, came up out of the earth. Was that Samuel's immortal soul? Are these souls in the earth? We supposed --that is, are we not told?--that they are in the heavenly glories of the world above.

f. Is it said that, as the form came up out of the earth, Samuel had a resurrection? Then the conscious-soul theory is abandoned. But if this was a resurrection of Samuel, how could he come up out of the ground here at Endor, near the sea of Galilee, when he was buried in distant Ramah (verse 3), near Jerusalem? And if the old man was raised from the dead, what became of him? Did he go through the pains of a second dissolution, and [[157]] enter the grave again? If so, well might he complain to Saul for disquieting him to bring him up!

g. This pretended Samuel told Saul that he and his sons would be with him the following day. Verse 19. If he was an immortal spirit in glory, how could Saul, whom God had rejected because of his sins, go to be with him there?

h. Another sacred writer mentions this event in Saul's life, and assigns it as one of the two reasons why he was given up by the Lord to die. 1 Chron. 10:13.

5. Conclusions. -- What conclusions are inevitable from the foregoing facts? It is first of all evident that Samuel was not present on that occasion, either as an immortal spirit from the third heaven, or as one resurrected from the dead. For--

a. It is not consistent to suppose that God, having refused to answer Saul's petitions when presented in any legitimate way, would have respect to them when presented through this forbidden channel.

b. It is not consistent to suppose that an immortal soul from glory would come up out of the earth, as did the form which the woman evoked with her forbidden incantations.

c. It is inconsistent to suppose that Samuel was resurrected bodily here in Endor, when he was buried in Ramah.

d. If he was raised, it must have been by God or the Devil. But the Devil cannot raise the dead, and it is evident that God would not, at least in answer to these agencies, the use of which he had forbidden under pain of death. God would not thus raise up his servant to talk with Saul on the Devil's own round.

e. It is incredible that such a man as Samuel, who held witchcraft as such a heinous sin (1Samuel 15:23), should first hold friendly converse with this abandoned woman in the midst of her incantations, and put her on her guard, before delivering his message to Saul.

It is the boldest assumption to suppose that any one, through this agency of the Devil, would have power to summon at will any immortal soul from glory, or to raise any one from the dead, or that this woman, through her diabolical incantations, would have power to behold the holy Samuel, while Saul could see nothing.

But is it not said that the woman saw Samuel? -- Yes; and here is the only seeming difficulty in all the narrative. We find these four expressions: "The woman saw Samuel," verse 12; "and Samuel said to Saul," verse 15; "then said Samuel," verse 16; and, "because of the words of Samuel," verse 20. And how could it be so written, it is asked, if Samuel was not there, and the woman did not see him, and he did not say the things here recorded?

Answer: This is easily explained by a very common law of language. Consider the circumstances. The woman stood ready to bring up any one that might be called for. She believed, of course, that the one called for came, just as mediums nowadays believe the forms they see are those of their departed friends. Samuel was called for, and this mantled old man appeared. The woman supposed it was Samuel; and Saul supposed it was Samuel; and then, according to the general law of the language of appearance, the narrative proceeds according to their supposition. When it says Samuel, it only means that form that appeared, which they supposed to be Samuel.

Secondly, the conclusion is apparent that this was only a manifestation of ancient necromancy, sorcery, witchcraft, or Spiritualism; a wholesale deception palmed off upon his dupes by the Devil in disguise. Between the ancient and modern manifestations there is this difference: Then the Devil had to pretend to bring up the dead from the ground; for the people then believed that the dead were in the lower regions of the earth; now he pretends to bring them down from the upper spheres; for the prevailing belief now is that those regions are populous with the conscious spirits of the departed.

Let no one then appeal to the workings of the witch of Endor to prove the immortality of the soul, unless he is prepared to claim openly that the Bible is a fiction; that ancient necromancy was a divine practise; and that modern Spiritualism, with all its blasphemies and corruptions, is the only reliable oracle of truth and purity.

3. The Transfiguration. Matthew 17:1-9

When our Lord was, transfigured on a high mountain of Galilee, before Peter and James and John, there appeared with him two other glorified personages, talking with him. These, the inspired narrator says, were Moses and Elias, and such the disciples at once knew them to be. Luke 9:30-33.

With what pleasure does the immaterialist meet with an account of any manifestation or action on the part of those who have long been dead; because it has so specious an appearance of sustaining his views, or at least of furnishing him ground for an argument; for, says he, the person was dead, and this manifestation was by his conscious spirit, or immortal soul.

So far as the case of Elias is concerned, as he appeared at the transfiguration, it affords that theory no benefit; for he, having been translated, never saw death, and so could appear in the body with which he ascended. This is conceded by all; and for this reason his case is never put in as a witness on this question, except by those who are so unfamiliar with the record as to suppose that he, too, once died, and here appeared as a disembodied spirit.

We have in the Bible a plain account of his death and burial; yet here he appeared on the mount, alive, active, and conscious; for he talked with Christ. And so, with an air of triumph, perhaps sincere, Landis asks (p. 181), "What then have our opponents to say to this argument? For they must meet it, or renounce their theory."

Were we Sadducees, denying the resurrection, and any future life beyond the grave, this case would lie as an insuperable barrier across our pathway; but so long as the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is taught in the Bible, the incident is not necessarily against those who deny the existence of any such thing as a conscious, disembodied human spirit, since the presence of Moses on the mount can be accounted for on the hypothesis that he had been raised from the dead.

This scene was either a representation, made to pass before the minds of the disciples, or it was a reality as it appeared. The view that it was merely a representation, receives some countenance from the fact that it is called a vision. "Tell the vision to no man," said Christ; and, while the word "vision" is sometimes applied to real appearances, as in Luke 24:34, it also is taken represent things that do not yet exist, as in John' s vision of the new heavens and new earth. Again: Luke says that they (Moses and Elias) "appeared in glory." Our Lord himself has not yet attained unto the full measure of glory that is to result to him from his work of redemption (1 Peter 1:11; Isaiah 53:11); and it may well be doubted, likewise, if any of his followers have reached their full state of glory. If, then, the expression quoted from Luke refers to the future perfected glory of the redeemed, we have another evidence that this was only a representation, like John's visions of future scenes of bliss, and not then a reality. But, if this was only a vision, no argument can be drawn from it for the intermediate existence of the soul; for, in that case, Moses and Elias need not have been even immaterially present.

But let us consider it a reality. Then the presence of Moses can be accounted for by supposing his resurrection from the dead. Against this hypothesis our opponents have nothing to offer but their own assertions; and they seem determined to make up in the amount of this commodity what it lacks in conclusiveness. Thus Landis says: "Moses had died and was buried; and as his body had never been raised from the dead, he of course appeared as a disembodied spirit." And Luther Lee says: "So far as Moses is concerned, the argument is conclusive." But against these authorities, we bring forth another on the other side, as weighty, at least, as both of them together. Dr. Adam Clarke says on the same passage, "The body of Moses was probably raised again, as a pledge of the resurrection."

Before presenting an argument to show that Moses was raised, let us look at one consideration which proves beyond a peradventure that what appeared on the mount was not Moses' disembodied spirit. It will be admitted by all that the transfiguration was for the purpose of presenting in miniature the future kingdom of God, the kingdom of glory. Thus Andrews says:

The Lord was pleased to show certain of the apostles, by a momentary transfiguration of his person, the supernatural character of his kingdom, and into what new and higher conditions of being both he and they must be brought ere it would come. . . . They saw in the ineffable glory of his person, and the brightness around them, a foreshadowing of the kingdom of God as it should come with power; and were for a moment "eye-witnesses of his majesty." 2 Peter 1:16.

Who are to be the subjects in this heavenly kingdom? Answer: The righteous living who are translated at Christ's coming, and the righteous dead who are raised from their graves at that time. Will there be any disembodied spirits there? -- None; for the accepted theory on this question of theology is that at the resurrection, which precedes the setting up of this kingdom, the disembodied spirits of the human family again take possession of their reanimated bodies. Of this kingdom, the transfiguration was a representation. There was Christ, the glorified king; there was Elias, the representative of those who are to be translated; and there was Moses; but if it was simply his disembodied soul, then was a representation of something that will not exist in all; and the representation was an imperfect one, and so an utter failure. But if Moses was there in a body raised from the dead, then the scene was harmonious and consistent, he representing, as Dr. Clarke supposes, the righteous dead who are to be raised, and Elias, the living who are to be translated.

The question now turns upon the resurrection of Moses from the dead; and if Scriptural evidence can be shown that Moses was thus raised, this passage immediately changes sides in this controversy. That Moses was raised we think is to be necessarily inferred from Jude 9, which reads: "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the Devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee." It will be noticed that this dispute was about the body of Moses. Michael (Christ, John [[163]] 5:27-29; 1Thessalonians 4:16) and the Devil each claimed, it appears, the right to do something with his body.

Some have endeavored to reconcile Jude's testimony with the idea of the non- resurrection of Moses, by claiming that the Devil wished to make known to the children of Israel the place of Moses' burial, in order to lead them into idolatry; and that the contention between him and Michael had reference to this. Such a conjecture, however, cannot be entertained, as in this case the contention would have been about the grave of Moses, rather than about his body.

But this dispute did have reference solely to the body of Moses. Then we inquire further what dispute the Devil could have had on this point; for what has he to do with the bodies of men? He is said to have the power of death; hence the grave is his dominion, and whoever enters there he claims as his lawful prey. On the other hand, Christ is the Life-giver, whose prerogative it is to bring men out from under the power of death. The most natural conclusion, therefore, is that the dispute took place on this very point; that it had reference to the bringing back to life of that dead body, which the Devil would naturally wish to keep, and claim the right to keep, in his own power. But Christ rebuked the adversary, and rescued his victim from his grasp. This is the necessary inference from this passage, and, as such, is entitled to weight in this argument.

The chief objection to this view is this: If Moses was raised so many years before the resurrection of Christ, how can Christ be called the "first-fruits of them that slept," as in 1Corinthians 15:20, 23? How can he be said to be the "first that should rise from the dead," as in Acts 26:23? Or be called the "first begotten," and "first-begotten of the dead," as in Hebrews 1:6 and Revelation 1:5? Or the "first-born among many brethren," the "first-born of every creature," and the "first-born from the dead," as in Romans 8:29 and Colossians 1:15, 18?

In answering these queries, we first call attention to an important fact: Several individuals, of whom we have explicit account, were raised to life before the resurrection of Christ. The following cases may be cited: (1) the widow's son (1 Kings 17:22); (2) the son of the Shumanite (2 Kings 4:35); (3) the unknown man raised to life by touching the bones of Elisha (2 Kings 13:21); (4) the son of the widow of Nain (Luke 7:14); (5) the rulers' daughter (Luke 8:50, 55); and (6) Lazarus.

These instances cannot be disposed of by making a distinction between a resurrection to mortality and one to immortality; for where does the Bible make any such distinction in these cases, or in the resurrection per se? Or where does it give even an intimation of anything of the kind? Christ, in sending word to John of the results of his work, told the disciples to tell him, among other things, that the dead were raised up. And when the wicked are restored to life (which will be to mortal life only), it is called a resurrection, no less so than the restoration of the righteous to eternal life. (See John 5:29; Acts 24:15; Revelation 20:5.) Therefore in the matter of being raised from the dead, the Bible recognizes no distinction in the act itself on account of the different conditions to which the different classes are raised. Hence the cases referred to above, were "resurrections from the dead" just as really as though they had been raised to immortality; and the distinction which some attempt to make, is thus shown to be wholly gratuitous, and is excluded from the controversy.

The objection now lies just as much against the cases of those of whose resurrection we have the most explicit account, as against that of Moses; and the question next to be met is, Can those passages which declare that a number of the dead were raised before the resurrection of Christ, and those which speak of Christ as the first to be raised, be shown to be free from contradiction?

It will be noticed that the objection, so far as the words ``first-fruits," ``first-begotten,'' and "first-born'' are concerned, rests wholly upon the supposition that these words denote exclusively priority in time. It instantly vanishes when the fact is presented that these words are not confined to this meaning.

Christ is called the "first-fruits " in 1Corinthians 15:20, 23, solely in reference to his being the antitype of the wave-sheaf, and in contrast with the great harvest that will take place at his second coming. This word is used in different senses, as we learn from James 1:18 and Revelation 14:4, where it cannot have reference to antecedence in time. This is all that need be said on this word.

The word rendered "first-begotten" and "first-born" is prototokos. This word is defined by Robinson thus: ``Properly the first-born of father or mother;" and, as the first-born was entitled to certain prerogatives and privileges over the rest of the family, the word takes another meaning; namely, "first-born, the same as the first, the chief, one highly distinguished and pre- eminent. So of Christ, as the beloved Son of God. Colossians 1:15." Greenfield's definition is similar. This word is used in the same sense in the Septuagint. In Exodus 4:22 Israel is called the first-born; and in Jeremiah 31:9 Ephraim is called the first-born; but, in point of time, Esau was before Israel, and Manasseh before Ephraim. Their being called the first-born must therefore be owing to the rank, dignity, and station, to which they had attained.

And hence the conclusion is not without foundation that these words, when applied to Christ, denote the preeminent rank and station which he holds in the great work, rather than the order of time in which his resurrection occurred, a point to which no importance whatever can be attached. All hinges upon Christ, and all is accomplished by his power, and by virtue of his resurrection. He stands out foremost and pre-eminent in all these displays, whether they take place before or after his advent to this world.

There is, however, in Acts 26:23, another and a different expression, and one which presents, apparently, the greatest difficulty of any. The verse reads: "That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles." As it stands in our common version, it is difficult to reconcile this statement with the fact that a number were raised from the dead previous to the resurrection of Christ, as already noticed; and we are led to wonder why Paul, knowing of all these cases, should make such a statement. But, if we mistake not, the original presents a different idea. In Greenfield's Testament, the text stands thus: "Ei pathetos o Xristos, ei protos ez anastaseos nekron phos mellei kataggellein to lao kai tois ethnesi."

We call the attention of those familiar with the Greek, to this passage, and submit that it can be properly rendered as follows: "That Christ was to suffer, [and] that first from [or by] the resurrection of the dead he was to show light to the people and to the Gentiles."

Bloomfield, in his note on this verse, says that the words "may be rendered either `after the resurrection from the dead,' or `by the resurrection;' but the latter is preferable." And Wakefield translates it thus: "That the Christ would suffer death, and would be the first to proclaim salvation to this people and to the Gentiles by a resurrection from the dead."

This is in accordance with what the same apostle declared to Timothy (2 Tim. 1:10), that Christ brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. And viewed in this light, the text is freed from all difficulty. It simply teaches that Christ would be the first to demonstrate before the people, by a resurrection from the dead, future life and immortality for the redeemed.

The resurrection of Lazarus, and other similar cases, though they might show that the power of death could be so far broken as to give us a new lease of mortal life, shed no light on our existence beyond this mortal state. And the resurrection of Moses, supposing him to have been raised, was not a public demonstration designed to show the people the path to a future life. So far as we have any account, no one knew that he had been raised till he appeared upon the mount of transfiguration. Christ was the first one to show to the world, by his rising from the dead, the great light of life and immortality beyond the grave.

Thus the last seeming objection against the idea that Moses had a resurrection, is taken away; while in its favor we have his appearance on the mount, and the language of Jude, which can be explained on no other ground.

Let us then take that view which a consistent regard for Scriptural harmony demands, though another supposed strong pillar on which rests the dogma of the immortality of the soul, goes down before it into the very dust.

We may add, as a conclusion to this section, that Dr. Kendrick, the editor of Olshausen's Commentary, in a note in reference to the transfiguration, takes the position that the words of the Saviour in Matthew 16:28, "the Son of Man coming in his kingdom," refer to the transfiguration, which is immediately introduced, and hence that "the transfiguration is thus regarded as a type of the Saviour's future glory in his kingdom."

And Olshausen himself takes the narrative to be literal, and explains it on the hypothesis of the resurrection of Moses. He says:

For if we assume the reality of the resurrection of the body, and its glorification -- truths which assuredly belong to the system of Christian doctrine -- the whole occurrence presents no essential difficulties. The appearance of Moses and Elias, which is usually held to be the most unintelligible point in it, is easily conceived of as possible, if we admit their bodily glorification.

4. The God of the Living

Christ quotes to the Jews a declaration from the Old Testament that God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and then adds, "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." From this it is argued that therefore Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living; but they are living, of course, as immaterial, disembodied, immortal spirits; for their bodies are in the grave.

The occasion on which these words were spoken is described in Matthew 22:23-32. To understand the words of Christ, we must understand fully the point at issue, and what his words were designed to prove; and to do this, we must look carefully at the whole narrative:

The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? For they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

What, then, was the point at issue between Christ and the Sadducees? Verse 23: "The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection and asked him," etc. The Sadducees professed to believe the writings of Moses, but denied the resurrection. Christ also believed the writings of Moses, but taught the resurrection. Here, then, was a fair issue between them. They hear him teaching the resurrection; and to object their faith to his, they refer to the law of Moses concerning marriage, and then state either an actual occurrence, or at least one which was possible, which would answer their purpose just as well; namely, that seven brothers, one after another, according to the instruction of Moses to which they refer, had all been the husbands of one woman, and all died. Now arises a problem which they no doubt thought would completely overthrow the doctrine of a resurrection which Christ taught; namely, how will this matter be arranged in the resurrection, when all the parties are made alive again together? Whose wife shall she be then?

Let it be noticed that the controversy between Christ and the Sadducees had no respect whatever to an intermediate state nor does their query or Christ's answer have any reference to such a state. They do not inquire whose wife she is now, or which of the men's immortal souls claims her immortal soul in the spirit world; but, Whose wife shall she be in the future event)? Christ tells them that they err, "not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." And then, to defend himself and condemn them out of their own mouths, he proceeds to prove out of the writings of Moses --What? A conscious, intermediate state? -- No; but the resurrection of the dead. "But as touching the resurrection of the dead," says he (as "touching the dead, that they rise says Mark; and ``that the dead are raised," says Luke), "have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

Let it now be shown that this quotation did prove the resurrection, and the argument on this passage is closed. That Moses, by this language, did teach the resurrection of the dead, is easily evident. Thus, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were dead; but God is not the God of the dead (or those who are irrecoverably and eternally dead, as the Sadducees believed them to be), but he is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. What therefore, shall we logically and Scripturally conclude from this fact? --Why, simply that they shall live again, or have a resurrection from the dead. In this view of the subject, Christ reasoned well, proved the point he aimed to prove, confounded the Sadducees, and gained the applause of the Pharisees, who believed in the resurrection.

But grant for a moment that the language means what is popularly claimed for it; namely, that all the dead are alive, as disembodied, conscious spirits in the spirit world, and what becomes of Christ's reputation as a reasoner, and a teacher of wisdom sent from God? He set out to prove the resurrection; but when he closes his argument, lo, mirabile dictu! He has proved that all the dead are now alive, and that therefore there will never be any resurrection, because in this case there would be no need of any, and that the Sadducees have a good point in their illustration. He neither meets the query of the Sadducees, nor defends himself, but quite the reverse. Believe that our Lord would reason thus, ye who can!

If any should admit that a resurrection is proved by the language, but claim from it that such resurrection takes place at death-- a theory not uncommon at the present time-- we reply that they thereby abandon the conscious-state theory, and affirm the existence of those who have died, on another ground, viz., a resurrection. But, further, this is equally foreign to what Christ set out to prove; for he had reference to an event which was then future to the seven brethren and the woman that died. They asked him, saying, "In the resurrection, therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them "And Jesus answered and said. `` When they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven." Mark 12:23-25. Again, in Luke's account, Jesus says, "But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage." Luke 20:35.Thus we see that a future event is everywhere referred to; and if he in reality proved that an event had already taken place, which he designed to show would take place in the future, it speaks no better for his reasoning or his wisdom than the former supposition.

Why God calls himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, though they are yet dead, we learn from Hebrews 11: 16. It is not because they now alive, but because in God's purpose, who speaks of things that are not as though they were (Romans 4: 17), they are to live, and "he hath prepared for them a city." Wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for he hath prepared for them a city, into possession of which they will of course come in the future.

In view of these facts, our friends should be careful lest they expose themselves to the rebuke Christ gave to the Sadducees: "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures;" for this instance, like all others, when properly understood, so far from sustaining their position, becomes an irrefragable evidence of the resurrection of the dead, and a future life, and for that very reason destroys the argument for consciousness in death.

5. The Rich Man and Lazarus

The hoary fable that every man has in his own nature an immaterial, ever-conscious, never-dying principle, vaulting from the gloomy regions of heathen mythology over into the precincts of Christianity, and claiming the positive authority of Christ and his apostles, instead of the uncertain speculations of Socrates and Plato, conceives that it finds a secure intrenchment in Luke 16:19-31, or the record concerning the rich man and Lazarus. Into this record, as into the strongest of strongholds, it enters with every demonstration of confidence; and from its supposed impregnable walls, it hurls mockery and defiance against all opposing views, as the infatuated subjects of Belshazzar defied the soldiers of Cyrus from the walls of Babylon.

We venture to approach, at least to reconnoiter. We venture further, from the record itself, even to lay siege to it, and dig a trench about it, which, if we mistake not, will soon effectually reduce it and all the arguments for immortality it is supposed to contain.

The first fact to which we call the attention of the reader, is that Christ, as the result of this narrative, or parable, or whatever it may be, refers us to Moses and the prophets for light and information respecting the place and condition of the dead. In the record, the rich man is represented as requesting that Lazarus might be sent to his brethren on earth, lest they should come into the same place of torment. How would he prevent them? -- By carrying back to them information respecting the state that follows this life; by telling how it fared with the covetous rich man who had enjoyed his good things in this life, and inducing them to live such a life here as to avoid the condition into which he had fallen.

And what was Abraham's answer -- "They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. . . . If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead." Verses 29--31. That is to say, Moses and the prophets had given them just as positive information respecting the condition into which man passes from this life, as could be given them were it possible for any one to retrace his steps through the portals of the grave, and rise from the dead.

The significance of this declaration should not be overlooked. It throws us right back upon the records of Moses and the prophets for information upon that subject respecting which the incident here related is claimed to be full and sufficient testimony.

We therefore inquire what Moses and the prophets have taught us respecting the place where the scene here depicted is represented to have taken place. What place was this? Answer: hades; for this is the word from which "hell" is translated in verse 23. In hell, hades, the rich man lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham and Lazarus afar off, though still within sight and speaking distance. The New Testament was written in Greek, while Moses and the prophets wrote in Hebrew. Sheol is the Hebrew word answering to the Greek hades. These are the equivalent terms in the two languages. All that a Hebrew writer meant by sheol, a Greek writer meant by hades, and vice versa. The question, then, is simply this: What have Moses and the prophets taught us respecting sheol, and the condition of those who enter therein?

The testimony respecting sheol has already been presented. We have found it to be the receptacle of all the dead, righteous and wicked. It takes in the whole person, and will hold dominion till the last day. It is located in the lower parts of the earth, and is a place of silence, darkness, and corruption. There the dead sleep, are unconscious, praise not the Lord, have no knowledge, exercise no emotions of love or hate. (See pp. 138-146.)

Such are the great facts concerning sheol, or hades, revealed to us in the books of "Moses and the prophets." Their statements are literal, plain, explicit, and unequivocal. In opposition to all these, can it be maintained that in sheol and hades there is consciousness, wisdom, device, knowledge, happiness, and misery, as is popularly claimed on the authority of this record about the rich man and Lazarus? If not, and if sheol is such a place of silence, darkness, inactivity, and unconsciousness as they declare, can the use of such language as is employed respecting the rich man and Lazarus in this very place, be accounted for?

These considerations leave us with the problem on our hands whether it were better to try to overthrow all that Moses and the prophets have written respecting sheol and the condition of those who enter therein, as we should be obliged to do, if we try to sustain the common view of the rich man and Lazarus; or shall an effort be made to account for the use of the language used in that narrative, in harmony with what Moses and the prophets have said respecting that place?

In the first place, we cannot set aside what Moses and the prophets have written; for Christ, in the very case under consideration, endorses them, and refers us to them for instruction. How, then, can we account for the fact that the rich man is represented as conscious, intelligent, and active, in hades, when Moses and the prophets have taught us that hades is a place of darkness and silence, without knowledge, wisdom, or device? If the record of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable, the use of such language is at once accounted for; for if it is a parable, the language is allegorical; and in allegory, life and action are often attributed to inanimate objects, for the sake of enforcing or illustrating some particular truth.

Some notable instances of this style of writing are furnished us in the Old Testament. In Judges 9:7-15 the trees are represented as going forth to anoint a king over them; and they appealed to the olive-tree and to the fig-tree and to the vine, and received answers from them in which they declined to leave their stations of usefulness to be promoted over them. Finally, they appealed to the bramble; and the bramble accepted the trust. Now this representation was not designed to teach that trees literally ordain civil government, walk about, and converse together; but it was to illustrate the folly of the men of Shechem in electing Abimelech king. Again: in 2 Kings 14:9, we read that the king of Israel sent to the king of Judah, saying, "The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my son to wife." This is not to teach that thistles and cedars have sons and daughters who unite in marriage, but to illustrate the contempt which the king of Israel felt for the proposition which the king of Judah made to him.

Landis (p. 188) claims that it makes no difference whether the case of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable or not since a parable should not be so worded as to convey a wrong impression to the mind, which this would do if the soul is not conscious in death. We reply, It makes all the difference in the world; for if it is a parable, the life and action attributed to the inanimate inhabitants of hades, is not to teach anything respecting their real condition, any more than the life and action attributed to the trees and brambles in the cases referred to, is designed to teach what their condition is; but this intelligence and action are attributed to these inanimate objects, to illustrate some great truth which the speaker wished to enforce.

In the case of the rich man and Lazarus, what was the object in view? Answer: To rebuke the Pharisees for their covetousness ("And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him." Verse 14); to show to them, since they thought that riches in this life was a mark of divine favor, and would secure God's blessing in the next, that if they gave themselves up to the sensual enjoyments of their riches, neglecting and oppressing the poor, they would, in the future, meet God's wrath instead of his favor; and that the poor, whom they despised and oppressed, might attain to that very state of felicity set forth under the figure of Abraham's bosom, of which they thought themselves so sure.

That this is a parable seems abundantly evident: 1. It stands in connection with a long list of parables. The preceding chapter, Luke 15, contains three. This chapter opens with the parable of the unjust steward; and there is no intimation of a change from parable to literal narration in this case. 2. It is said that this cannot be a parable, because it is introduced by a direct assertion. "There was a certain rich man," etc. But others which are parables are introduced in exactly the same manner. Thus, verse 1: "There was a certain rich man, which had a steward.'' etc. And chapter 15: 11: "A certain man had two sons," etc. 3. The prophets to whom we are referred, speak figuratively of the dead in sheol, in the nether parts of the earth, as conversing together, taunting each other, weeping bitterly, refusing to be comforted, etc., representations exactly similar to those made in the case of the rich man and Lazarus, and fully as striking, but which no one can regard as setting forth the actual condition of the dead.

Thus in Isaiah 14:9-20, it is represented that when the king of Babylon is overthrown, he goes down into sheol, and the DEAD (for there are no others in its dark domain) are stirred up to meet him. The kings that had been destroyed by the king of Babylon, are represented as having thrones in sheol beneath, and when the king of Babylon joins them in their dark abode, they show their contempt for him by rising up in mock obeisance, as in life they had rendered him real homage. And they say, "Art thou also become weak as we? Art thou become like unto us? . . . Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms?" No one can suppose that they literally acted or spoke thus. But all this is a striking figure to represent that death would reduce the king of Babylon to the same level with his subjects and prisoners.

Again: in Ezekiel 31:15-18 and 32:17-32, Pharaoh and his host, slain in battle with the king of Babylon, are set forth in the same manner. The strong among the mighty are represented as speaking to him out of the midst of sheol, as he enters therein. And this sheol, in "the nether parts of the earth," full of graves and of the dead, is contrasted with the land of the living. These victims of slaughter went down to sheol with their weapons of war; and their swords they "laid under heads;" and when Pharaoh, lying among them, saw the multitude of his enemies that were slain also, he was comforted at the sight.

Another case, perhaps still more remarkable is that of Rachel. (Jeremiah 31:15--17; Matthew 2:17, 18; Genesis 35:16-20.) Long ages after Rachel had died, and entered into sheol, a dreadful slaughter took place among her posterity. Thereupon she is represented as breaking forth into lamentation and bitter weeping, and refusing to be comforted because her children were not. And the Lord says to her: "Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord."

No one can suppose that Rachel literally wept at the murder of her children, nearly 2000 years after her death; nor that the slaughtered Egyptians put their swords under their heads as they were lying in sheol, and conversed together in the nether parts of the earth, some being comforted, and others ashamed; nor that the kings overthrown by the king of Babylon rose up from their sepulchral thrones in mock solemnity, and taunted him with becoming weak as they.

But these were all figures to set forth great and salutary truths. May not our Lord then, for once, be permitted for a like purpose to use a like figure, so largely employed by the prophets, and so well known to his hearers, by personifying persons in hades to perform actions which were not there literally to occur? We have certainly as good reason to suppose that Rachel, the Egyptians, and the king of Babylon, were real personages, and their descent into sheol and the accompanying circumstance as related by the prophets, veritable history, as to suppose that Dives was a real character, and his torment in hades, and his conversation with Abraham, a real transaction.

Those who held in their hands the Old-Testament Scriptures were perfectly familiar with such figures. There the "trees of the field" converse and "clap their hands," the "floods" lift up their "voice," the hills and mountains "sing,'' stones from the wall "cry out," and beams "answer," the blood of Abel finds a "voice," and "cries out from the ground," and dead men rejoice over the fall of their rivals, slain by the sword. In a volume abounding with such figures, cannot for once a rich man, representing a class of living persons endowed in hades with life and speech? Must this one figure of personification be singled out from all others, as a rigidly literal narrative, and be made to sustain the weight of the most terrific doctrine of which the mind can conceive?

Moreover, it is said that the Jews held a tradition involving the very points introduced in this case, a place of reward called "Abraham's bosom," and a place of punishment for the unworthy. Taking it in this light, it would appear that Christ simply took them on their own ground, and presented an argumentum ad hominem..

Sufficient evidence has been produced to show that this is a parable. And now we invite the attention of the reader to the testimony of two eminent authors respecting the use which should be made of parables.

Dr. Clarke says:

Let it be remembered that by the consent of all (except the basely interested), no metaphor is ever to be produced in proof of a doctrine. In the things that concern our eternal salvation, we need the most pointed and express evidence on which to establish the faith of our souls.

And Trench, in his work on parables, lays down this very important rule:

The parables may not be made first sources of doctrine. Doctrines otherwise and already grounded, may be illustrated, or indeed further confirmed by them, but it is not allowable to constitute doctrine first by their aid. They may be the outer ornamental fringe, but not the main texture of the proof. For from the literal to the figurative, from the clearer to the more obscure, has ever been recognized as the law of Scripture interpretation. This rule, however, has been often forgotten; and controversialists, looking round for arguments with which to sustain some weak position, one for which they can find no other support in Scripture, often invent for themselves supports in these.

But some persist that this is not a parable, but a literal narrative; and not to seem captious, we will consider it in this light. If this is veritable history, all the particulars taken literally. Then the wicked, tormented in the flames of hell, are within sight and speaking distance of the saved in heaven. In other words, heaven is but the shore of hell; and on that shore the redeemed can sit and watch the damned in their fearful contortions of agony for which there is no name, and listen to their entreaties for relief and their shrieks of fathomless despair, for which there is no remedy, to an extent, it would seem, sufficient to satisfy the most implacable revenge. If this be so, our friends must certainly abandon the argument they build on Revelation 6:9,10, where they have it that the souls of the martyrs, disembodied and conscious, cry to God to visit vengeance upon their persecutors. If they were where they could look over into the fiery gulf, and behold their persecutors vainly battling with its flaming billows, or if not already there, destined in a few short years to be plunged therein, let no one say of the holy martyrs that they would, under such circumstances, cry impatiently to God to hasten or intensify his vengeance. The arguments based on the narrative of the rich man and Lazarus, and Revelation 6:9, 10, must, one or the other of them, be given up; for they devour each other. Let the advocates of the popular theory look to this, and choose which it shall be.

The beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died, and was buried. Let it be noted that the persons themselves, as a whole, are spoken of, not any of their essential elements, or immaterial appendages. Nothing is said of the soul of either the rich man or Lazarus. As we are now considering this as a literal transaction, a question vital to the argument is, When do the angels bear those who have died, as persons (for there is nothing anywhere said about the angels carrying their souls), into Abraham's bosom, or the state of the blessed? Such scriptures as Matthew 24:30, 31; 1Thessalonians 4:16, 17, answer this question very explicitly: "And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." When? -- At the second advent of the Son of Man in majesty and glory; for then it is that the voice of the Archangel, ringing through the long galleries of hades, shall wake the righteous dead from their silent slumbers, and angels shall bear them upward on wings of light to be forever with the Lord.

The rich man dies and is buried; and his next experience is the suffering of torment in consuming flame. How long after his burial he finds himself in this torment, we are not directly informed. But he has bodily organs; for he has eyes to see, and a tongue to be cooled; but these the dead are not usually considered to possess till the resurrection. This drives Landis (p. 191) to the unusual admission that the soul retains the human form, with its corresponding organs-- hands, feet, eyes, tongue, etc. Again, the rich man sees Lazarus in Abraham's bosom; but, as we have already seen, Lazarus is not literally borne there by the angels till the resurrection.

As a literal transaction, the scene is inevitably located, by the concurrent testimony of all Scripture, beyond the resurrection. How, then, it can be said to transpire in hades, we leave those to decide who believe that it is a literal transaction. Certain it is that no such scenes can really occur in hades, if the representations of that place given us by Moses and the prophets, as already noticed, are correct; while analogous scenes will really take place beyond the resurrection: there the righteous are rewarded, and the wicked punished in devouring fire; there the Lord told the impenitent Jews that they should see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of God, and they themselves thrust out, and that then there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Luke 13:28.

That this scripture does not teach the existence of conscious souls between death and the resurrection is forever settled by the fact that Lazarus could return only by a resurrection from the dead. When the rich man requested that Lazarus might be sent to warn his brethren, Abraham replied that they had Moses and the prophets, and if they would not hear them, they would not "be persuaded though one rose from the dead." The conversation not therefore relate to the coming back of the immortal soul of Lazarus; and indeed no mention is made of any such thing in the whole transaction.

Therefore, interpret it as we may, it cannot be reasonably or Scripturally used to prove the entrance of man's naked, unclothed spirit into bliss or woe at the hour of death.

6. With Me in Paradise

According to Luke's account of the crucifixion of our Saviour, Luke 23:33-36, one of the two malefactors who were crucified with him, said to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily, I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Verses 42, 43. This, says the immaterialist, "must ever stand as a clear announcement of the uninterrupted immortality of the soul." The "clear announcement" is made out in this manner; Christ and the thief, it is claimed, both died that day; they both went to paradise that day; and their condition while there was, of course, one of consciousness and intelligence.

There is one fact which stands somewhat in the way of this "clear announcement;" and that is, that Christ did not go to paradise that day. In answer to the popular view, we first set forth this unqualified proposition, and undertake its proof; and if this shall prove to be well grounded, the doctrine of annihilation will be found in a degree true; for the claims usually built on the scripture above quoted, are utterly and forever annihilated by this fact.

In entering upon the argument to show that Christ did not go to paradise that day, we first inquire what paradise is, and where it is. The word "paradise" occurs but three times in the English version of the Scriptures, all in the New Testament; twice besides the verse under consideration; but these are amply sufficient to define and locate it.

First, Paul, in 2Corinthians 12:2, says: "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth:) such an one caught up to the third heaven." In verse 4 he affirms that the place to which this man was caught up was "paradise." This establishes the fact that paradise is where the third heaven is.

Again: in Revelation 2:7, we read the profuse which the Saviour gives to the overcomers; he says: "To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God." This establishes another equally important fact, that paradise is where the tree of life now is. Now, if the Scriptures anywhere give us any further information respecting the place where the tree of life is to be found, we have still further testimony respecting paradise.

In Revelation 21 and 22 we have a description of the New Jerusalem, the holy city which is above. Galatians 4:26. In Revelation 22:1, 2 we read: "And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it [the city], and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month." By this testimony, we learn that the tree of life, which grows in the midst of the paradise of God, is in the holy city, fast by the river of life, which proceeds from the throne of God. Nothing could be more explicit than this. We have now found the paradise of the New Testament. It is in the third heaven, where the tree of life is, and where God maintains his residence and his throne. Whoever, therefore, goes into paradise, goes into the presence of God. If the Saviour went there on the day of his crucifixion, with the impenitent thief, he went into the presence of his Father.

Bear this fact in mind while we reverently listen to the words of the Lord, and believe what he says while he himself testifies whether he went to paradise on the day of his crucifixion or not. On the morning of his resurrection, the third day AFTER his crucifixion, he said to Mary, who was about to embrace his feet in accordance with the ancient custom of deference or worship, "Touch me not; FOR I AM NOT YET ASCENDED TO MY FATHER." John 20:17. The third day, remember from the crucifixion, and not ascended into paradise yet!

Struck into a state of bewilderment by this stunning fact, Landis (pp. 209, 211) clutches wildly for some supports by which to rear again his prostrate structure. He feigns to find evidence in John 16:16 that Jesus told his disciples that at death he would go to his Father --a scripture which very evidently has reference not to his death, but to his bodily ascension, forty days after his resurrection. Then, referring to the fact that the word "ascend" is from anabaino, he says: "Now every tyro knows that in composition ana has very frequently [?] the force of again. Baino alone means simply to ascend; ana adds a shade of meaning."

It is frequently the case that writers try to drive others into an admission of their statements by representing that they will appear very ignorant and stupid to deny them. But Mr. L., not being a tyro, doubtless understands that nearly every statement in this criticism is false in itself considered, and every one of them wholly so, as applied to the case in hand. Ana, in composition with baino, does not have the force of "again." In neither Liddell and Scott, Robinson, Greenfield, nor Parkhurst, is there any such definition as "ascend again" given to anabaino. Baino alone does not mean "to ascend." No such definition is given to it in the standard authorities here named. It means simply "to go," without any reference to the direction; other words, either in composition with it or in the context, signifying whether this motion is up or down, forward or backward, over or under, etc. In no one of the eighty-one instances of the use of the word in the New Testament, is it translated "ascend again." And finally, in those texts which Mr. L. quotes as containing the word "again," -- as Matthew 3:16, which he quotes, "Christ went up again, or returned," and Matthew 5:1, which he quotes, "He went up again into a mountain -- the word "again" is not expressed in the English nor implied in the Greek. In only one instance is the word "again" used with anabaino; that is Galatians 2:1, where Paul says, "I went up again to Jerusalem;" but here the word "again" is from another word (palin), explicitly inserted in the text, and anabaino is translated simply "went up." As baino simply means "to go," as noticed above, it is the prefix ana, which means "up," which gives the word the meaning, "to go up," or "to ascend." The idea of "again" is not in the word. It takes the whole word with its prefix to convey the idea "to ascend."

Rarely do we meet with an instance of more reckless desperation in the line of criticism. And what is the object of it? -- It is to have us understand that- when Christ says, "I am not yet ascended to my Father," he means to say, I am not yet ascended again to my Father. And from this he would have us further draw the lucid inference that Christ had ascended once, that is, in his disembodied spirit, between his death and resurrection, and now tells Mary not to touch him, because he has not ascended again! It would be difficult to conceive of a more unnecessary and far-fetched inference. And will seriously contend for such a view, shows the orbless obstinacy with which they will cling to preconceived and petted ideas. Nothing can be more evident than that Christ, when he said, "I am not yet ascended to my Father," affirmed in the most direct manner that since his advent into this world, he had not, up to that time, ascended to his Father.

Rather than thus summarily lose the argument that the thief was still conscious in death, and that the soul is therefore (?) immortal, some theologians attempt to adjust the matter thus: Although Christ did not go to his Father, he nevertheless went to paradise, which is not where the Father dwells, but the intermediate resting-place of departed souls. Do we then understand them? We found them, a little while ago, arguing from Ecclesiastes 12:7, that the disembodied spirit did return to God which they claimed to be proof positive that the soul is immortal, and thought it would puzzle the annihilationists not a little. Do they now give this up, and admit that the soul or spirit does not go to God, but only into some intermediate place, called paradise? It matters not to us which position they take, only we wish to know which one it is. We cannot hold our peace and allow them to take one position on one text and another on another, and so keep continually shifting their ground to avoid the embarrassments into which their theory plunges them at every turn.

That paradise is no intermediate state, a half-way house between the grave and the resurrection, we have fully shown; for we have the positive statements of the Scriptures to show that paradise is in the third heaven, where God sits upon his throne; and Christ told Mary, the third day after his crucifixion, in so many words, that he had not at that time ascended there.

But besides this, we have other positive evidence that Christ did not go to heaven nor to any intermediate halfway place, between his death and resurrection. The Scriptures tell us explicitly just where he was during this time, and the place was not "Gehenna," the place of punishment for the damned, where it is claimed he went to preach to the spirits in prison; and it was not "paradise." To those who came to the sepulcher, the angels said (Matthew 28:5, 6), "Ye seek Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come see the place where the Lord lay." No testimony could be more explicit than that he was not in the tomb simply because he had risen; that is, that he, the Jesus who was crucified, was in that very place till he left it by rising from the dead. Who may set aside such testimony?

The popular interpretation of Christ's language to the thief thus utterly failing, we are thrown back upon the text for some other explanation of the phraseology there used: "Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise."

There are but two probable ways in which this language can be interpreted: One is, to let the phrase "today" refer to the time to which the thief had reference in his request. He said, "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." He looked forward to the day when Christ should come into his kingdom. And if the "to-day " in Christ's answer refers to this time, then the sense would be, "Verily I say unto thee, To-day, or this day, the day to which you refer, when I come into my kingdom, thou shalt be with me in paradise." The word "to-day " is from the Greek sermeron; and all the definitions we find of it would seem to confine it to present time, excluding an application of it to the future. This interpretation, therefore, we think cannot be urged.

The other, and only remaining method of interpreting the passage, is to place the comma after "to-day," making to-day an adverb qualifying the word "say." The sense would then be, "Verily I say unto thee to-day, Thou shalt be with me in paradise," at that period in the future when I shall come in my kingdom. This method of punctuation, if it is allowable, clears the subject of all difficulty. Let us, then, candidly consider what objections can be urged against it.

As to the punctuation itself, we all know that this is not the work of inspiration; and withal that it is of recent origin, the comma in its present form not having been invented till the year A. D. 1490, by Manutius, a learned printer of Venice. It is therefore allowable to change this in any manner that the sense of the passage, the context, or even other portions of the Scriptures, may demand. So the Bible Societies (Ives, p. 66) have found it necessary to change the punctuation of Matthew 19:20, and other passages are still in question. But the objector accuses us of making sad nonsense of the text by this change; and he asks in bitter irony, "Didn't the thief know it was that day without Christ's telling him?" Very true as a matter of fact; but let the objector beware lest his sarcasm fall upon the Scriptures themselves: for such very expressions do occur therein. See Zechariah 9:12: "Turn you to the stronghold, ye prisoners of hope: even to-day do I declare that I will render double unto thee." Transposing this sentence, without altering the sense, we have phraseology similar to that of Luke 23:43; namely, "I declare unto you even to- day, I will render double unto thee." The events threatened here were to take place in the future, when the Lord should bend Judah, etc. (See context.) So the phrase "to-day" could not qualify the "rendering double," etc., but only the verb `` declare.

Here, then, is an expression exactly parallel with that in Luke, and the same irony is applicable; thus, "Did not the prisoners of hope know it was that day when the declaration was made to them?" But let our opponents now discard their unworthy weapon; for here it is leveled against the words of inspiration itself. (See also Deuteronomy 8:19; 15:15; 30:16; Acts 26:29.)

But when we take into consideration the circumstances of the case, we see a force and propriety in the Saviour's making his declaration emphatically upon that day. He had been preaching the advent of the kingdom of heaven to listening multitudes. He had promised a kingdom to his followers. But the powers of death and darkness had apparently triumphed, and were crushing into the very grave both his prospects, and his promises. He who was expected to be the king of the coming kingdom, stretched upon the shameful cross, was expiring in ignominy and reproach; his disciples were scattered; and where now was the prospect of that kingdom which had been preached and promised? But amid the supernatural influences at work upon that memorable day, a ray of divine illumination may have flashed in upon the soul of the poor thief, traveling the same road of death beside his Lord. A conviction of the truthfulness of his claims as the Messiah, the Son of God, may have entered into his mind; and a desire have sprung up in his heart to trust his lot in his hands, leading him to put up a sincere petition, Lord, in mercy remember me when the days of thy triumph and glory shall come. Yes, says the suffering Saviour, in the hearing of the mocking multitude, I say unto thee to-day-- to-day, in this hour of my darkness and agony-- to-day, when the fatal cross is apparently giving the lie to all my pretensions--to-day, a day of forlorn prospects and withered hopes, so far as human eyes can see-- verily, to-day I say unto thee, thou shalt be with me in paradise, when my kingdom shall be established in triumph and glory.

Thus there is a divine force and beauty in these words of our Lord, as uttered on that occasion. How like a sun at midnight would they have broken in upon the gloom that enshrouded the sorrowing hearts of the disciples, had they fathomed their import! For who had occasion to sink in despair, if not He upon whom all depended, and that, too, when expiring under the agonies of the cross? But lo! No cloud of gloom is sufficient to fix its shadows upon his serene brow. His divine foresight, riding calmly over the events of the present, fixes itself upon that coming period of glory, when he shall see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied. There, in the hour of his deepest humility, he points them to the joys of paradise.

Thus, by a simple removal of the comma one word forward, the stone of stumbling is taken out of this text, by making it harmonize with other scriptures; and thus the promise, by having reference to something in the future, and not to anything to be performed on that day, contains no affirmation of consciousness in death.

There is another objection, equally valid, against the idea that Christ and the thief went to paradise that day, and that is that the thief did not die that day. It was a Jewish law that no criminal should hang upon the cross over the Sabbath day. John 19:31. Therefore, if the criminal was alive when the time came to take him down from the cross, they broke his legs so that he could not escape, and then took him down. This was found to be the case with the thieves, when the time came to take the bodies from the cross. They were alive, and so their legs were broken. But when they came to Jesus and found that he was dead already, they brake not his legs. John 19:32, 33. Now if any one can maintain that Christ and the thief went to paradise that day, in face of these two facts, first, that Christ expressly declares that he did not go to paradise that day, and secondly, that the thief did not die that day, he shows that he is governed by prejudice and caprice and not by reason.

7. Absent from the Body

Another passage, supposed to teach the separate, conscious existence of the soul, is found in 2Corinthians 5:8: "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." On the acknowledged principle that it is illogical to endeavor to build any great doctrine upon an isolated passage without taking into consideration the general tenor of the context, if not also other writings from the same author, let us look at some of the statements which Paul has made in this connection.

In verse 1 of this chapter, Paul introduces an earthly house and a heavenly house, and says, "For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." He states our condition while in the earthly house. Verse 2: "In this we groan" (verse 4) "being burdened." He tells us what we desire in this state. Verses 2, 3: "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." In verse 4 Paul repeats all these facts, in order to state the result of the work which he desired: "For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon." Now he states the result of being clothed upon with the house from heaven which he so earnestly desired: "But clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life."

Then he states that the condition he had in view is that for which God in the beginning designed the human race: "Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God." That is, God designed that we should ultimately reach that condition which he here designates as being clothed upon with our house from heaven. Then he states what assurance we have in this life that we shall eventually attain to this condition: "Who also hath given unto us the earnest [assurance, pledge, token of the Spirit." That is, the Spirit dwelling in our hearts, is the assurance, or pledge, we have that we shall finally receive the desire of our hearts, and be clothed upon with our house from heaven. In verse 6 he states this to be the ground of his confidence, although while "we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord." And then, after incidentally stating the secret of the Christian's course in this life--"we walk by faith, not by sight"-- he penned the text quoted at the commencement of this topic, stating that he was willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

We now have before us quite fully the subject upon which Paul is here treating. A thought now as to the meaning of the terms he employs. What does he mean by the "earthly house" and the "heavenly house"? By being "clothed upon "and "unclothed"? By "mortality being swallowed up of life"? And by being "absent from the body" and "present with the Lord"?

What he calls, in verse 1, "our earthly house," he designates, in verse 6, as being "at home in the body." The chief characteristic of this house is that it may be dissolved, or is mortal. This earthly house is therefore our mortal body, or, what is essentially the same thing, this present mortal condition. The house from heaven is eternal, or immortal. This, therefore, by parity of reasoning, is the immortal body, or the state of immortality which awaits the redeemed beyond the resurrection.

Paul, in Romans 8:22, 23, speaks very plainly of these two conditions: "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." None can fail to see the parallel between this passage in Romans and that portion of 2 Corinthians 5 now under consideration. To the Corinthians Paul says that in our earthly house we groan, being burdened; to the Romans he expresses the same thought by saying that we "groan within ourselves," or in this mortal body; to the Corinthians he writes that while in this state we have the "earnest of the Spirit;" to the Romans he says that we have the "first-fruits of the Spirit," which is the same thing -- the pledge, assurance, or earnest; to the Corinthians he writes that we desire "to be clothed upon with our house from heaven;" to the Romans, that we "wait for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." The ultimate object in view in both cases, as a matter of hope and desire, is redemption, or the eternal state; but in the one case it is called being "clothed upon with our house from heaven," and in the other it is said to be "the redemption of our body." These two expressions, therefore, denote one and the same thing.

Returning to a consideration of the meaning of the terms which Paul uses in 2 Corinthians 5, we inquire what is meant by being unclothed. And the evident answer is, The dissolution of our earthly house, or the falling of our mortal body in death. The state of death, then, is that condition in which we are unclothed. And the being clothed upon is being released from this state if dead, or changed if living, when mortality is swallowed up of life, and we are taken into the presence of the Lord. Then Paul states a conclusion, very apparent from his premises, that "while we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord," and adds that he is "willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord."

The only verse in which consciousness in death can even be supposed to be intimated, is the eighth verse, which speaks of our being "absent from the body" and "present with the Lord." But even here it will be seen that the whole question turns on the time when we enter the presence of the Lord. Is it immediately on the dissolution of our earthly house? On this point the text does not inform us; but the preceding verses are very explicit, as we shall presently see.

Let us now look at a few considerations which show that it is impossible to harmonize the popular view of consciousness in death with the statements which the apostle here makes. It is claimed that the house which we have eternal in the heavens is the immortal soul with which we immediately enter into heaven when the earthly house is dissolved. Granting that this is so, let us go forward a little, and mark the difficulty in which this view finally becomes involved. The time comes when the mortal body is raised from the dead and made immortal. The soul, according to the popular view, again takes possession of this body. In these redeemed bodies we are to live in the kingdom of God to all eternity. This is finally our eternal house. But when we take possession of this, what becomes of our house that we occupied between death and the resurrection? If we pass from our mortal bodies at death immediately into a spiritual body prepared for us, which is the house we have in heaven, and in which we live till the resurrection, when our natural bodies are redeemed, and we take possession of them, it necessarily follows that we vacate that second house which we had occupied in heaven. Then what becomes of that house? Are the saints to have "tenements to let"? Moreover this view introduces something of which Paul has made no mention; for here we have three houses, but Paul's language allows of only two; and one of these three houses, on the view before us, has to be abandoned, to go to ruin, or to be otherwise disposed of, when we take possession of our redeemed bodies. All this is unscriptural and absurd. Such a view is impossibility.

Again: Paul affirms in verse 5 that God hath wrought for us this self-same thing, that is, created man for such a state of being as we shall enjoy, when clothed upon with our house from heaven. Is this condition the separate existence of an immortal soul? -- No; for if man had never sinned, he would have reached that state without seeing death, and the idea of an immortal soul would never have had an existence. The whole doctrine is the offspring of sin, for it is the result of the fall. It is the second falsehood which the Devil found it necessary to invent to sustain his first one, "Ye shall not surely die." For when all that is outward, tangible, and visible of man does fall in death, his untruth would be very apparent unless he could make them believe that there is an invisible medium through which they still continue to live. Paul therefore, in the scripture under notice, does not have any reference to an intermediate state.

He further says that we have through the Spirit an earnest, or pledge, that this condition, which is set forth as the chief object of desire, will finally be reached, and we shall be clothed upon with our house from heaven. But of what is the Holy Spirit in our hearts an earnest or pledge? What does it signify that we have a measure of the Holy Spirit here? Is it a proof or assurance that we have immortal souls that will hive when the body is dead?-- No; but that we shall be redeemed and made immortal. See Ephesians 1:13, 14: "1n 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." And in Romans 8:11 Paul again says: "But if [ the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you."

There are the glorious promises of which the Holy Spirit in our hearts is a pledge and assurance; that these quickened from the dead, even as Christ was raised up, and that we shall share in the inheritance when the purchased possession shall be redeemed. (It looks not to any intermediate state, but to the ultimate reward. And finally, Paul forever bars his teaching against the entrance of the conscious-state dogma by saying that when we are clothed upon with our house from heaven, mortality is swallowed up of life. How can mortality be swallowed up of life? -- It can be only by having a principle of life come upon it which shall overpower and absorb it. Mortality can be swallowed up only by immortality, or eternal life. Is this the passing of the soul from the mortal body at the hour of death? Let us look at it. What is there about man, according to the common view, which is mortal?-- The body. And what is immortal? -- The soul. At death, the body, that part which is mortal, does not become immortal, but loses all its life, and goes into the grave to crumble back to dust. And the soul, which was immortal before, is no more than immortal afterward. Is there any swallowing up of mortality by life here? -- Just the reverse. Mortality, or the mortal part, is not swallowed up by death. There is not so much life afterward as before; for after death, the soul only lives, while the body, which was alive before, is now dead.

But Paul, before penning this language in 2 Corinthians 5, had already told the Corinthians when mortality would be swallowed up of life, and how it would be ac- complished; so he knew, when he penned this portion of his second epistle, that they would understand it perfectly. See the 15th chapter of his first epistle, verses 51-55: "Behold, I show you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption," then "death is swallowed up in victory."

In verse 50, he says: "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." Corruption does not inherit, or possess, incorruption. Mortality does not possess immortality. The mortal body does not inclose an immortal principle, which it has power to hold within its grasp till that grasp is rendered nerveless by the stroke of death, and the soul flies away in glad release. But this mortal--all that there is about man that is mortal -- must put on, must be itself invested with, immortality, and this corruptible -- all about us that is perishable -- must itself become incorruptible; then it will not be this corruptible flesh and blood; and then it can inherit the kingdom of God, and enter with boldness and vigor on its race of endless life; and outside of this change, and independent of this grand investiture of our mortal nature with immortality, there is no eternal life for any of the human family. And when this is accomplished, then death is swallowed up in victory; then we are clothed upon with our house from heaven; then mortality is swallowed up of life. But at the last trump, when the Lord appears in glory, and the dead are raised, and the righteous living are changed in the twinkling of an eye. How can the religious world stumble in a path so plain?

But if the heavenly house is our future immortal body, it may be asked how Paul can say, as he does in 2Corinthians 5:1, "We have [present tense] a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." We have this in the same sense that we have, at the present time, eternal life. And John tells us how this is: It is by faith, or by promise, not by actual possession. 1 John 5:11: "And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life." God hath given it to us; and on the strength of this promise we have it. But where is it now? "And this life is"--in us?--No, but "in his Son." And when he, the Son, who is our life, shall appear, we shall be clothed upon with our heavenly house, and "appear with him in glory." Colossians 3:4.

Again: it may be asked how Paul can speak of two houses, as though we moved from one into the other, if it is only a change of condition from mortality to immortality. He illustrates this in the figure he takes to represent conversion. Ephesians 4:22-24: "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 righteousness and true holiness." Here the simple change of heart, the change of the disposition, from sin to holiness, is spoken of as putting off one man and putting on another. With even greater propriety may the change from mortality to immortality be spoken of as removing from an earthly, perishable house to an immortal, heavenly one.

The terms Paul uses to describe the two states are clearly defined. On the one side they are an "earthly house," groaning with burdens, "mortality," "absent from the Lord." On the other, the terms used are "clothed upon with our house from heaven," "mortality swallowed up of life," "present with the Lord." He did not desire to be unclothed, which, as already noticed, signifies the condition of death; but he did desire to be present with the Lord; therefore in death he would have us understand that the Christian is not present with the Lord.

From all this, we can only conclude that when he says he is willing to be absent from the body and present with the Lord, he means to be understood that he is willing to be absent from this burdened, groaning, mortal body; that is, that this mortal condition, of which this body is a representative, should come to an end; and he was willing, or desirous to be present with the Lord, that is, to have that spiritual, immortal body which is promised, and in which alone we can dwell in the presence of God. And being confident, through the presence of the Spirit God in his heart, that when this change should be he would have a glorious part therein, he was more than willing it should come. It was but the breathing again of that prayer which has arisen like a continual sigh from the heart of the church through all her weary pilgrimage, "Thy kingdom come; yea, come, Lord Jesus, come quickly;" not, ``Let our immortal souls," which they did not suppose they possessed, "enter a conscious state in death" -- in which they did not believe.

8. In the Body and Out

It is confidently asserted that Paul believed a man could exist independently of the body, from certain expressions which he uses in 2Corinthians 12:2-4:

I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell: or whether out of the body, I cannot tell; God knoweth:) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body or out of the body, I cannot tell; God knoweth:) how that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

By the man whom he "knew," it is generally supposed that the apostle means himself, and the language he uses is a record of his own experience. Paul was taken to the third heaven, to paradise, and heard words which it was not lawful (Greek ezon, possible) for a man to utter; but whether he was in his body, or out, he did not know.

This instance then, furnishes no example of a spirit actually existing in a conscious condition outside of the body, even if this is what is meant by the expression, "out of the body;" for Paul assure us that he did not know that he was in that condition. Yet it is claimed that it has all the force of an actual example; for such a condition is recognized as possible. It is very readily admitted that such a condition is recognized, as is expressed by the term, "out of the body;" but that this means an immaterial spirit, an immortal soul, the real, intelligent man, speeding away through the universe even to the third heaven, there to hear unspeakable words, and gather up heavenly information, and return at will to resume its abode in the body, which it had for a time deserted, should not be too hastily inferred from this passage.

Of what is the apostle speaking? He says in verses 1, 2: "It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. I knew a man in Christ, above fourteen years ago," etc., as previously quoted. His subject, then, is the visions and revelations he had received from the Lord; and the language from verse 2 to verse 4 is the record of one such remarkable revelation, perhaps the most remarkable one he had ever experienced. He was given a view of paradise, and heard unspeakable words. And so real and clear and vivid was the view, that he did not know but that he was transported bodily into that place. If not in this manner, the view was given in the ordinary course of vision, that is, by having the scene presented before the mind by the power of the Holy Spirit.

All must concede that only these two conditions are brought to view-- either his transportation bodily to paradise, or the ordinary condition of being in vision. If he went bodily to paradise, the instance has no bearing of course on the question of consciousness in death. And if it was an ordinary vision, how does this prove consciousness in death? The question is reduced to this one point; and the answer turns on the definition given to the expression, "out of the body." Did Paul mean by it what modern expositors wish us to understand by it Paul meant by it, simply being in vision; the expositors aforesaid mean by it, the going out of the immortal spirit from the body, and its existence for a time in a separate, conscious, intelligent condition independent of the body. But let us look a little further and see what this condition is. According to the common view, the separation of the soul the body is death! This is what death is defined to mean. There can be no such thing as the separation of soul and body, and death not result. And the return of the soul to again inhabit the body is a resurrection from the dead. This is what is claimed in the case of Rachel, whose soul departed, and she died (Genesis 35:18); and the widow's son, whom Elijah raised, whose soul came into him again, and he revived. 1 Kings 17:22.

But does any one suppose that Paul meant to say that he did not know but that he died and had a resurrection? That is what he did say, if the words, "out of the body," mean what some would have us understand by them. His soul went off to paradise, and his body lay here, we know not how long, a corpse upon the earth! And when his soul returned, he had a resurrection from the dead! A necessary conclusion so preposterous must be sufficient to convince any one that Paul, by the expression, "out of the body," does not mean a state of death. He simply means that he was in vision, a state in which the mind, controlled for the time by the Holy Ghost, is made to take cognizance of distant or future scenes, and the person seems to himself to be really and bodily present, viewing the scenes, and listening to the words that are spoken, before him. Dreams, which all have experienced, are doubtless good illustrations of how this can be, and the case of John, in the Revelation, furnishes a notable example; for he was carried forward far into the future, and seemed to be present and taking part in the scenes that did not then exist, and at which he could not really have been present, even in his supposed immaterial, immortal soul. We also have an expression in common parlance about parallel to this, when we say of a person that he is "out of his head;" but no one supposes that this expression signifies the separation of any immortal part from the person. No more would the expression, "out of the body," signify such separation.

Paul, then, had no reference whatever to a state of death in 2Corinthians 12: 2-4. To suppose him to refer to that, according to the immaterialist view, runs us into the greatest absurdity. Hence his language affords no proof that there is a soul in man which can live on in a conscious, intelligent state, while the mortal body crumbles back to dust.

9. Departing and Being with Christ

When will all men come to agree respecting the state of the dead? When will the question whether the dead are alive, conscious, active, and intelligent, or whether they rest in the grave in unconsciousness and inactivity, cease to be a vexed question? When shall it be decided whether the shout of triumph which the ransomed are to raise, "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" is the celebration of a real victory, or only an unnecessary and useless as it transaction, as it must be if the grave holds not the real man, but only the shell, the mortal body, which is generally considered an incumbrance and a clog? Never will this question be decided till men shall be willing to follow the Scriptures, instead of trying to compel the Scriptures to follow them -- never, while they put the figurative for the literal, and the literal for the figurative, mistake sound for sense, and rest on the possible construction of an isolated text, instead of, and in opposition to, the general tenor of the teaching of the inspired writers.

Paul has told us often enough, and, it would seem, explicitly enough, when the Christian goes to be with his Lord. It is at the redemption of the body. Romans 8:23. It is in the day of the Lord Jesus. 1Corinthians 5:5. It is at the last trump. 1Corinthians 15:51-55. It is when we are clothed upon with our house from heaven. 2Corinthians 5: 4. It is when Christ, our life, shall appear. Colossians 3:4. It is when the Lord descends from heaven with a shout, and the dead are raised. 1Thessalonians 4:16, 17. It is at the coming of the Lord. 2Thessalonians 2:1. It is to be at "that day," an expression by which Paul frequently designates the day of Christ's appearing. 2 Tim. 4:7, 8.

Yet Paul, in one instance, without stopping to explain, uses the expression, "to depart and to be with Christ;" whereupon his words are seized by religious teachers as unanswerable evidence that at death the spirit enters at once into the presence of its Redeemer. The passage is found in Philippians 1:21-24, and reads as follows: "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."

Willing to go with our friends as far as we can in their interpretation of any passage, we raise no issue here on the word "depart." Paul probably means by it the same as in 2 Tim. 4:6, where he says, "The time of my departure is at hand," referring to his approaching death. Then was not Paul, immediately on dying, to be with Christ? -- O no! The very point intended to be proved, has, in such a conclusion, to be assumed. Paul had in view two conditions: this present state and the future state. Between these two he was in a strait. The cause of God on earth, the interests of the church, stirring to its very depths his large and sympathetic heart, drew him here; his own desires drew him to the future state of victory and rest. And so evenly balanced were the influences drawing him in both directions, that he hardly knew upon which course he would decide, were it left to him as a matter of choice. Nevertheless, he said that it was more needful for the church that he remain here, to give them still the benefit of his counsel and his labors.

The state or condition to which he looked forward was one which he greatly desired. About four years before he wrote these words to the Philippians, he had written to the Corinthians, telling them what he did desire, and what he did not desire, in reference to the future. Said he, "Not that we would be unclothed." 2Corinthians 5:4. By being unclothed, he meant the state of death, from the cessation of mortal life to the resurrection. This he did not desire; but he immediately adds what he did desire; namely, to be "clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life;" and when this is done, all that is mortal of us is made immortal, the dead are raised, and the body is redeemed. Romans 8 23; 1Corinthians 15:52, 53.

In writing to the Corinthians, he thus stated that the object of his desire was to be clothed upon, and have mortality swallowed up of life; to the Philippians he stated that the object of his desire was to depart and be with Christ. These expressions, then, mean the same thing. Therefore, in Philippians 1:23, Paul passes over the state of death, the unclothed state, just as he had done to the Corinthians; for he would not tell the Corinthians that he did not desire a certain state, and four years after writing to the Philippians that he did desire it. Paul did not thus contradict himself.

But this intermediate state is the disputed territory in this controversy; the condition of the dead therein is the very point in question; and on this the text before us is entirely silent.

This is the vulnerable point in the popular argument on this text. It is assumed that the being with Christ takes place immediately on the departure. But, while the text asserts nothing of this kind, multitudes of other texts affirm that the point when we gain immortality and the presence of Christ, is a point in the future beyond the resurrection. And unless some necessary connection can be shown between the departing and the being with Christ, and the hosts of texts which make our entrance into Christ's presence a future event, can be harmonized therewith, any attempt to prove consciousness in death from this text is an utter failure.

Landis seems to feel the weakness of his side in this respect, and spends the strength of his argument (pp. 224-229) in trying to make the inference appear necessary that the being with Christ must be immediate on the departure. He would have us think it utterly absurd and nonsensical to suppose a moment to elapse between the two events.

Let us, then, see if there is anything in Paul's language which contradicts the idea that a period of utter unconsciousness, of greater or less length, intervenes between death and our entrance into the future life. In the first place, if the unconsciousness is absolute, as is to be supposed, the space passed over in the individual's experience is philosophically an utter blank. There is not the least perception, with such a person, of the lapse of a moment of time. When consciousness returns, the line of thought is taken up at the very point where it ceased, without the consciousness of a moment's interruption. This fact is often proved by actual experience. Persons have been known to become utterly unconscious by a fracture of the skull, and having a portion of it depressed upon the brain, suspending its action. Perhaps when the accident happened, they were in the act of issuing an order, or giving directions to those about them. They have lain unconscious for months, and then been relieved by a surgical operation; and when the brain began to act, and consciousness returned, they have immediately spoken, and completed the sentence they were in the act of uttering when they were struck down, months before. This shows that to these persons there was no consciousness of any time intervening, more than what passes between the words of a sentence which we are speaking. It was all the same to them as if they had at once completed the sentence they commenced to utter, instead of having weeks and months of unconsciousness thrown in between the words of which that sentence was composed.

So with the dead. They are not aware of the lapse of a moment of time between their death and the resurrection. A wink of the eyes shuts out for an instant the sight of all objects, but it is so instantaneous that we do not perceive any interruption of the rays of vision. Six thousand year in the grave to a dead man is no more than a wink of the eye to the living. To them, consciousness, our only means of measuring time, is gone; and it will seem to them when they awake that absolutely none has elapsed. When Abel awakes from the dead, it will seem to him, until his attention is attracted by the new scenes of immortality to which he will be raised, that he is but rising up from the murderous blows of Cain, under which he had seemingly just fallen. And to Stephen, who died beholding the exaltation of Christ in heaven, it will be the same as if he had, without a moment's interruption, entered into his glorious presence. And when Paul him- self shall be raised, it will seem to him that the stroke of the executioner was his translation to glory.

Such being the indisputable evidence of facts upon this point, we ask how a person, understanding this matter, would speak of the future life, if he expected to obtain it in the kingdom of God? Would he speak of passing long ages in the grave before he reached it?-- He might, if he designed to state, for any one's instruction, the actual facts in the case; but if he was speaking simply of his own experience, it would not be proper for him to mention the intervening time, because he would not be conscious of any such time, and it would not seem to him, on awaking to life again, that any such period had elapsed.

Accordingly, Bishop Law lays down this general principle on this question:

The Scriptures, in speaking of the connection between our present and future being, do not take into the account our intermediate state in death; no more than we, in describing the course of any man's actions, take into account the time he sleeps. Therefore, the Scriptures (to be consistent with themselves) must affirm an immediate connection between death and the judgment. Hebrews 9:27; 2Corinthians 5:43, 8.

John Crellius says:

Because the time between death and the resurrection is not to be reckoned, therefore the apostle might speak thus, though the soul has no sense of anything after death.

Dr. Priestly says:

The apostle, considering his own situation, would naturally connect the end of this life with the commencement of another and better, as he would have no perception of any interval between them. That the apostle had no view short of the coming of Christ to judgment, is evident from the phrase he makes use of, namely, being with Christ, which can only take place at his second coming. For Christ himself has said that he would come again, and that he would take his disciples to himself, which clearly implies that they would were not to be with him before that time.

So in harmony with this reference to our Lord's teaching is the language used by Paul in 1Thessalonians 4:16, 17, that we here refer to it again: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the Archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

As Christ taught that the time when his people were to be with him again was at his second coming, so Paul here teaches. We call attention to the word "so" in the last sentence of the quotation. "So" means "in this way," in this manner, by this means. "So " in this manner, by this means, "shall we ever be with the Lord." When Paul, as he does here, describes, without any limitations, the way and means by which we go to be with the Lord, he precludes every other means. He the same as says that there is no other way by which we can be with the Lord; and if there is any other means of gaining this end, this language is not true. If we go to be with the Lord by means of our immortal spirit when we die, we do not go to be with him by means of the visible coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the change of the living; and Paul's language is a stupendous falsehood. There is no possible way of avoiding this conclusion, except by claiming that the descent of the Lord from heaven, the mighty shout, the voice of the Arch- angel, the sounding of the great trump of God, the resurrection of the dead, and the change of the living, all take place when a person dies-- a position too absurd to be seriously refuted, and almost too ridiculous to be even stated.

Shall we, then, take the position that Paul taught the Philippians that a person went by his immortal spirit immediately at death to be with the Lord, when he had plainly told the Thessalonians that this was to be brought about in altogether a different manner, and by altogether different means? No one who would have venerated that that holy apostle when alive, or who has any proper regard for his memory now that he is dead, will accuse him of so teaching.

Why, then, does he say that he has a desire to depart, that is, to die? -- Because he well understood that his life of suffering, of toil, and trial here was to terminate by death; and if the church could spare him, he would gladly have it come, not only to release him from his almost unbearable burdens, but because he knew further that all the intervening space between his death and the return of his Lord would seem to him to be instantly annihilated, and the glories of the eternal world through his resurrection from the dead, would instantly open upon his view.

It is objected again that Paul was very foolish to express such a desire, if he was not to