Does this text assert anything of this kind? Does it state that from which even such an inference can be drawn? We invite the reader to go with us, while we endeavor to consider carefully what the text really teaches. Those who hold that man has a spirit which can exist in a conscious, intelligent condition, separate from the body, appeal to this passage as direct testimony in favor of that view. Let us see how far we can go with them:

1. . Solomon, under a series of beautiful figures, speaks in Ecclesiastes 12:1-7 of the lying down of man in death. Granted.

2. Dust, that is, the body, and the spirit are spoken of as two distinct things. Granted.

3. At death, the spirit leaves the body. Granted.

4. The spirit is disposed of in a different manner from the body. Granted.

5. The spirit returns to God. Granted.

6. This spirit is therefore conscious after the dissolution of the body. Not granted. Where is the proof of this? Here our paths begin to diverge. But how could the spirit return to God, it is asked, if it was not conscious? Answer: In the manner Job describes: "If he [God] set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath; all flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust." Job 34:14, 15. This scripture speaks of God's gathering to himself the "breath" of man -- something which no one supposes to be capable of a separate, conscious existence. Moreover, this spirit and breath, given for awhile to man, God calls his own; and depriving man of it, he calls "gathering it to himself," an expression fully as strong as that contained in the words, "the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." This proposition we are therefore compelled to reject as unsustained.

7. The next claim is that this spirit is therefore to exist forever. From this conclusion we must also dissent. It is not expressed and does not seem to be even in the remotest manner implied. Thus the only two propositions which vital to the position for which our friends contend, are wholly assumed.

But if the word "spirit" here does not mean what it is popularly supposed to mean, what is its signification? And what is it that returns to God? It will be noticed that that which returns to God is something which God at first "gave" to man. And Solomon introduces it in a familiar manner, as if alluding to something already recorded and well understood. He makes evident reference to the creation of man in the beginning. His body was formed of the dust; and in addition to this, what did God do for man, or what did the give unto him? -- He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. This is the only spirit that is distinctly spoken of in the record as having been given by God to man. No one claims that this, like the body, was from the dust or returns to dust, but it does not therefore follow that it is conscious or immortal.

Landis (p. 133) falls into this wrong method of reasoning. He says:

If the soul were mortal, it, too, would be given up to the dust; it would return also to the earth. But God affirms that it does not return to the earth; and therefore it is distinct from the mortal and perishable part of man.

The breath of life, to be sure, is distinct from the body, and did not come from the dust of the ground; but to say that it can exist in a conscious state independent of the body, and that it must live forever, is a leap in logic most marvelous to behold.

But it still it is asked, If "spirit" here means "the breath of life," how or in what sense does it return to God? Landis (p. 150) thus falsely treats this point also: "How can the air we breathe," he asks, "return to God?" The answer is that between the breath of life, as imparted to man by God, vitalizing the animal frame, and air considered simply as an element, we apprehend there is a broad distinction. Solomon is showing the dissolution of man by tracing back the steps taken in his formation. The breath of life was breathed into Adam in the beginning, by which he became a living soul. That breath of life is withdrawn from man, and as a consequence he becomes inanimate -- a lifeless soul again. Then the body, deprived of its vitalizing principle, goes back to the dust out of which it had been formed.

That the "breath of life" came from God to man, none will deny. Do they ask how it returns to him? Tell us how it came from him, and we will tell how it returns. In the same sense in which it came from God to man, in that sense it returns to God again. That is all there is of it. The explanation is perfectly simple, because one division of the problem is comprehended just as easily as the other. It is an easy thing to turn off with a flippant sneer an explanation which, if allowed to stand, takes the very "breath of life" out of a cherished theory.

But there is a grave objection lying against the popular exposition of this text, which must not pass unnoticed. It is involved in the question, What was the state or condition of this spirit before God gave it to man? Was it an independent, conscious, and intelligent being before it was put into man, as it is claimed that it is after man gets through with it, and it returns to God? Solomon evidently designs to state, respecting all the elements of which man is composed, as is expressly stated of the body, that they resume the original condition in which they were before they came together to form the composite being -- man. We know it is argued that the expression respecting the body, that it returns to the dust "as it was," is good ground for an inference that the spirit returns not as it was; but every principle of logic requires the very opposite conclusion. For, having set the mind upon that idea of sameness of condition respecting the body, and then referring us to the source from whence the spirit came, and stating that it goes back to that source, the language is as good as an affirmation that it goes back to its original condition also, and must be so understood unless an express affirmation is made to the contrary. The question is therefore pertinent, Was this spirit before it came into man, a conscious being, as it is claimed to be after it leaves him? In other words, have we all had a conscious pre-existence? Is the mystery of our Lord's incarnation repeated in every member of the human race?--Yes! if popular theologians rightly explain this text. And the more daring or reckless spirits among them, seeing the logical sequence of their reasoning, boldly avow this position.

Mr. Landis (to whom is made occasional reference as, a fair exponent of the popular theory) recoils at the idea of pre-existence, and claims (p. 147) that the spirit does `not return as it was, but acquires "a moral character, and so is changed from what it was when first created and given to man"! Oh! Then, when man's body is formed, a spirit is created (from what?) and put into it! Where did he learn this? To what new revelation has he had access to become acquainted with so remarkable a fact? Or whence derives he his authority to man manufacture statements of this kind? His soul swells with indignation over some whom he styles "materialists," and whom he accuses of manufacturing scripture. Thou that sayest a man should not, dost thou? Nothing is said of the "creation of a spirit" in connection with the formation of the body. Take the case of Adam: the body having been formed, God by an agency, not created for the purpose, but already existing with himself, endowed it with life, and Adam became a living soul.

Having thus artfully introduced the idea that the spirit was created for the occasion, Mr. L. takes up this reasoning which shows that if the spirit is conscious after leaving the body, it must have been conscious before it entered the body, and, applying to it a term doubtless suggested by his own feelings in view of the assumptions to which he was himself obliged to resort, calls it "silly." Nevertheless here is the rock on which their exposition of this text is inevitably and hopelessly dashed to pieces. The popular view is wrong, because it inevitably implies the pre-existence of the spirit.

There is another consideration not without its bearing on this question. The words, "And the spirit shall return unto God who gave it," are spoken promiscuously of all mankind. They apply alike to the righteous and the wicked. If the spirit survives the death of the body, the spirits of the righteous would, as a natural consequence, ascend to God, in whose presence they are promised fulness of joy. Psalm 16:11. But do the spirits of the wicked go to God also? If so, for what purpose do they go to him? The immediate destination usually assigned to them is the lake of fire. Is it said that they first go to God to be judged? Then the question arises, Where does the Bible once affirm that a person is judged when he dies? On the contrary, the Scriptures invariably place the Judgment in the future, arid assert in the most explicit terms that God has appointed a day for that purpose. Acts 17:31.

Thus the Bible doctrine of the Judgment is directly contradicted by this popular misconception of the text under notice. According to the Scriptures, no man has yet received his final judgment; yet according to the view under examination, the spirits of all who have ever died, good and bad, righteous and wicked, have all gone to God. For what purpose, we ask again, have the spirits of the wicked gone to him? Are they there still? Does God so deal with rebels against his government; that is, keep them with him, or give them heaven from one to six thousand years, more or less, and hell afterward? Or have they been judged and sent to hell already? Then there is no place for a future general Judgment, which the Scriptures declare there is to be. A view which introduces such inconsistencies into God's dealings with his creatures, surely cannot stand.

How infinitely preferable that view which alone the record warrants; that is, that the "spirit" which returns to God who gave it, is the "breath of life," that agency by which God vivifies and sustains these physical frames. This breath of life, so far as the record goes, is just what God did give and all he did give to man in the beginning. The definition of the term sustains such an application. This spirit, without doing violence to either thought or language, can return to God in the same sense in which it came from him. And this view should be adopted, above all other considerations, because it harmonizes all the record, and avoids those inconsistencies and contradictions in which one finds himself inevitably involved the very moment he undertakes to make the spirit mean a separate entity, conscious in death, and immortal in its nature.

2. From Whence Comes the Spirit?

Another text claimed to be positive proof that man has a spirit which is above and beyond the power of death, is Zechariah 12:1: "The burden of the word of the Lord for Israel, saith the Lord, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundations of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him."

As to the nature of this "spirit" which God forms in man, its characteristics and attributes, this text affirms nothing. Above all, respecting the main inquiry, Is this spirit immortal? The text is entirely silent. Why, then, is it introduced? -- Because it contains the word "spirit." But, as has been shown, nothing is proved by the mere use of the words " soul'' and "spirit,'' till some affirmation can be found in the Scriptures that these terms signify an independent entity, which has the power of uninterrupted consciousness, amid the endowment of immortality. For men to take these terms, and give them definitions, and clothe them with attributes which are the offspring of pagan philosophy, or figments of their own imagination, and then, claim that because the Bible uses these terms, it sustains their views, is, to say the least, a very unworthy display of logic. But, from the persistency with which this course is followed by those of the so- called orthodox view, one might conclude that it is the only way they have of sustaining their position.

God "formeth the spirit of man within him." So the text asserts. The word "form" is from the Hebrew yatsar, which means "to form, to fashion," and the participle yotsar is used to signify a "molder, potter." The Septuagint translates it by the word plasso. The definition of this word, as given by Liddell and Scott, is, "To form, mold, shape, Latin fingere, strictly used of the artist who works in soft substances, such as earth, clay, wax." The word, then, signifies giving shape and form to something already in existence; for the artist does not create his clay, wax, etc., but only changes its form. The second definition seems, however, to be more applicable to the case in hand. Thus, "II. Generally, to bring into shape or form, [[pl. ten psuchen, to soma]] to mold and form the mind or body by care, diet, and exercise." Thus God makes man the crown of creation by forming in him (through a superior organization of the brain) an intellectual and moral nature; amid we can still further forum or mold it by care and cultivation. There is nothing here to favor the idea of the creation of a separate, immaterial, and immortal entity, and its introduction from without into the human frame.

This text is illustrated by Job 32:8: "But there is a spirit in man and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding;" not "giveth it [the spirit] understanding'' as it is often quoted. That is, men are endowed with a superior mental organization; and by means of that, God gives them understanding.

Since, however, Zechariah 12:1 is used by immaterialists, to prove that souls are specially created, it raises the question, which may as well be considered in this connection as any other, whence the spirit, whatever it is, is derived. In the text under consideration, the present tense is evidently used for the past; and hence it might be read, "The burden of the word of the Lord . . . which stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundations of earth, and formed the spirit of man within him.'' If now this means the creation of an immortal entity to be added to man, called his spirit, it applies only to the first man, the man formed at the creation of the world. The question then remains, How do all succeeding members of the human race get an immortal spirit? Is it by a special act of creation on the part of God, or is it by generation from father to son? Has God, for every member of the human race since Adam, by special act created a soul or spirit? They who say he has, contradict Genesis 2:2, which declares that all God's work of creation, so far as it pertains to this world, was finished in the first week of time. Surely that work was not finished if it is certain that God has been at work ever since, creating human souls as fast as bodies were brought into existence to need them, the greater part of the time thousands of them every day.

Has God thus made himself the servant of the human race, to wait upon their will, caprice, and passions? For how many of the inhabitants of this earth are the offspring of the foulest iniquity and the most unbridled lust! Does God hold himself in readiness to create souls which must come from his hand immaculate and pure, to be thrust into such vile tenements at the bidding of godless lust? The reader will pardon the irreverence of the question, for the sake of an exposure of the absurdity of that theory which necessitates it. Again, who stands ready to thrust the soul into the new body just in the nick of time?

But if we say that the soul is transmitted in the natural process of generation with the body, then what becomes of its incorruptibility and immortality? For "that which is born of the flesh is flesh." John 3:6. And Peter says (1 Peter 1:23-25): "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away but the word of the Lord endureth forever."

There could hardly be a plainer testimony that man as a whole is mortal and perishable. He is born of "corruptible" seed. But more than this, it is added, "All flesh is as grass." Should it be said that this means simply the body, we reply that the term "flesh" is frequently used in the New Testament to signify the whole man. Thus, Romans 3:20: "By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified." Paul does not here talk about the justification of bones, sinews, nerves, and muscles; he refers to the whole responsible man. In the same sense the term is used in many other passages. But Peter himself, in the passage just quoted, cuts off its application exclusively to the body; for after saying that "all flesh is as grass," he continues, "and all the glory of man as the flower of grass." The glory of man must include all that is noble and exalted about his nature. If the soul is the highest and most godlike part of man, it is included in this glory; but lo! It is all like the flower of the grass -- transitory amid perishable.

The word "mortal," which means ``liable to death," occurs five times in our English version; and in every instance it is used to describe the nature of the real man. Romans 6:12; 8:11; 1Corinthians 15:53, 54; 2Corinthians 4:11. It occurs in the original in one other instance (2Corinthians 5:4), where it is rendered "mortality."

The texts usually relied upon to prove that souls are immediately created, are Ecclesiastes 12:7; Isaiah 57:16; Zechariah 12:1. The first of these was examined in the last chapter. The word translated "form" in the last of these passages, as shown in this present chapter, is not a word that signifies "to create," but only to put into form, mold, and fashion. Isaiah 57:16 speaks of the souls which God has "made." But there are numerous other texts, as Job 10:8-11; Isaiah 44:2; 64:8; Jeremiah 1:5, etc., which speak in the same manner of the body. But if such expressions can be used with respect to the body, produced by the natural process of generation, the same expression with reference to the soul contains no proof that that is not also transmitted with the body.

God said to our first parents, and the commission was repeated to Noah after the flood, "Be fruitful and multiply." Multiply what? -- Themselves, of course. Did that mean that they should multiply bodies, and God would multiply souls to fit them? -- Nothing of the kind; but they were to multiply beings having all the characteristics, endowments, and attributes of themselves. So Adam (Genesis 5:3) "begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth." This son was like Adam in all respects, having all the natures that Adam possessed, and that which was begotten by Adam was called Seth. But according to the doctrine of creationism, Adam begat only a body, and God created a soul, which is the real man, amid called his name Seth, and put it into that body. Neither this text nor any other gives countenance to any such absurdity. If the soul is the seat of a person's mental and moral qualities, and is a separate creation from the body, how does it happen that children resemble their parents so much in these particulars? On the ground of creation, it would not be so.

Some prominent theologians, both ancient and modern, have adopted the doctrine of traduction, that is, that the soul, like the body, is the product of natural generation as opposed to that of creationism, believing the latter to be contrary to philosophy and revelation, but the former to be in harmony with both. In "Wesley's Journal," vol. v, p. 10, is found the following entry:

I read and abridged an old work on the origin of the soul. I never before saw anything on the subject so satisfactory. I think the author proves to a demonstration that God has enabled man, as all other creatures, to propagate his whole species, consisting of soul and body.

The testimony of Richard Watson (" Institutes," pp. 362, 363) is equally explicit. He says:

A question as to the transmission of this corruption of nature from parents to children has been debated among those who, nevertheless, admit the fact; some contending that the soul is ex traduce, others that it is by immediate creation. It is certain that, as to the metaphysical part of this question, we can come to no satisfactory conclusion. The Scriptures, however, appear to be more in favor of traduction. `Adam begat a son in his own likeness.' `That which is born of the flesh is flesh,' which refers certainly to the soul as well as to the body. . . . The tenet of the soul's descent appears to have most countenance from the language of Scripture: and it is no small confirmation of it that when God designed to incarnate his own Son, he stepped out of the ordinary course, and formed a sinless human nature immediately by the power of the Holy Ghost.

The evidence is thus rendered conclusive from both reason and Scripture, that the soul is transmitted through the process of generation with the body. What then, we ask again, becomes of its immortality? For "that which is born of the flesh is flesh," and mortality cannot generate itself to a higher plane, and beget immortality. This is not saying that mind is matter; for the results of organization are not to be confounded with the matter of which the organization is composed.

3. Who Knows the Spirit of Man?

With the words "who knoweth" Solomon here introduces, in Ecclesiastes 3:21, a very important question respecting the spirit of man, He says: "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?" Deeming this a good foundation, the advocates of natural immortality proceed to build thereon. They take it to be, first, a positive declaration that the spirit of man does go up, and that the spirit of the beast does go downward to the earth. Then the superstructure is easily erected thus: Solomon [[80]] must have believed that man had a spirit capable of a separate and conscious existence in death; and this spirit, in the hour of dissolution, ascends up on high, and goes into the presence of God. It therefore survives the stroke of death, and is consequently immortal.

Here they rest their argument; but we would like to have them proceed; for the text speaks of the spirit of the beast, which must also be disposed of. If the spirit of man, because it separates from him and goes up, is conscious, is not the spirit of the beast, because it separates from it and goes down, conscious also? There is nothing in the supposed fact that man's spirit goes up, which can by any means show it to be conscious, any more than there is in the fact that the spirit of the beast goes down, to show it to be conscious. But if the spirit of the beast survives the stroke of death, then all beasts have just as much immortality as man has. This line of argument, therefore, proves too much, and that which proves too much would better be abandoned.

But is not the word "spirit," as applied to the beast, a different word in the original from the one translated ``spirit" and applied to man? --No; they are both from the same original word, and that word is ruahh, the word from which "spirit" is translated in the Old Testament in every instance with two exceptions, as has been already explained. A beast has the same kind of "spirit" that man has.

Immaterialists feel the weight of the stunning blow which this fact gives to the popular view, and endeavor to parry its force by the following desperate resort. Solomon, they say, is here describing the state of doubt and perplexity through which he had formerly passed; and, to use their own words 16,' "in this perplexity he attributes to both man and beast a ruahh." But they say that Solomon got over this state of doubt and uncertainty, and "never again attributed a ruahh to beasts." Thus they are obliged to resort to the position that Solomon, with all his wisdom, was a skeptic, and wrote down his skepticism in this passage; and somehow it secured a place upon the sacred page as a part of inspiration! But before he got through the book, he experienced a change of heart, and then (chapter 12:7) could tell the truth about man's spirit, that it went directly to God. But, unfortunately, he has left on record no indication of these two conditions of mind, nor of his transition from one to the other. He simply had no occasion to speak of beasts again in such a connection, and hence no occasion to speak of their ruahh. What we regard as the Bible view of man's nature is not unfrequently denominated "infidelity" by the popular theologians of the present day; but it strikes us as rather a bold position to go back and accuse the sacred writers themselves of laboring under a spirit of infidelity when they penned these sentiments. But if they were not infidels when they wrote, it is not infidelity to believe their writings.

But if we take Solomon's words to be a declaration that the spirit of man does go up, his question even then would imply a strong affirmation that we are ignorant of its essential qualities. Who knoweth this spirit? Who can tell its nature? Who can describe its inherent characteristics? Who can tell how long it shall continue to exist? On these vital points, the text, granting all that is claimed for it, is entirely silent.

But, further, if this text asserts that the spirit of man goes up to God, it will be noticed again that it is spoken promiscuously of all mankind. Then the same queries would arise respecting the spirits of the wicked, for what purpose they go to God, and the same objections would lie against that view, that were stated in the examination of Ecclesiastes 12:7, in previous paragraphs of this work.

To arrive, however, at the correct meaning of Ecclesiastes 3:21, a brief examination of the context is necessary. In verse 18 Solomon expresses a desire that the sons of men may see that they themselves are "beasts" -- not that he intended to be understood that man is in no respect superior to a beast; for no one, inspired or not, above the level of an idiot, would make such an assertion in view of man's more perfect organization, his reasoning faculties, his moral nature, and above all, his future prospects, if righteous. He simply means, as plainly expressed in the next verse, that in one respect, namely, their vital organization and their dissolution in death, man possesses no superiority over the other orders of animated existence. "For," he says, "that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one timing befalleth them: as the one dieth [here is the point of similarity], so dieth other; yea, they have all one breath [ruahh, the same word that is rendered "spirit" in verse 21]; so that a man [in this respect] hath no pre-eminence above a beast. All go unto one place [Is that place heaven? And is this a declaration that all, men and beasts alike, go there?]; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again."

Thus definite and positive is the teaching of Solomon that, in respect to their animal life, here upon earth, and their condition in death, men and beasts are exactly alike. And now can we suppose that, after having thus clearly expressed his views of this matter, he proceeds in the very next sentence to contradict it all, and assert that in death there is a difference between men and beasts? That men do have a pre-eminence? That all do not go to one place? That the spirit of man goes up conscious to God, and the spirit of the beast goes down to perish in the earth. This would be to make the wisest man that ever lived, the most stupid reasoner that ever put pen to paper.

How, then, is his language in verse 21 to be understood Answer: Understand it as a question, whether the spirit of man goes up, and the spirit of the beast down, as some asserted in opposition to the views which he taught. John Milton, author of "Paradise Lost,'' so translates it: "Who knoweth the spirit of a man [an sursum ascendat], whether it goeth upward?" The Douay Bible renders the passage thus: "Who knoweth if the spirit of the children of Adam ascend upward, and if the spirit of the beasts descend downward " The Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Chaldee Paraphrase, the Syriac, and the German of Luther give the same reading.

This puts the matter in quite a different light, and saves Solomon from self-contradiction; but alas for the immaterialist! It completely overturns the fabric of immortality which he builds thereon.

The notion prevailed in the heathen world that men s spirit ascended up to be with the gods (and this is the foundation of heathen mythology), but the spirit of the beast went down to the earth. It was the old lesson taught by that unreliable character in Eden, "Ye shall not surely die,'' but ``ye shall be as gods." Solomon contradicts all this by stating the truth in the case, namely, that death reduces man and beast alike to one common condition. Then he asks, Who knows that the opposite heathen doctrine is true, that the spirit of man goes up, and that of the beast down? He had declared that they all went to one place, in accordance with God's original sentence, "Thou shalt surely die;" now he calls for evidence, if there be any, to show that the opposite doctrine is true. Thus he smites to the ground this pagan notion by putting it to the proof of its claims, for which no proof exists. Only by perversion are they made to bolster up a doctrine which he intended them to condemn.

4. Committing the Spirit to God

There is another class of expressions respecting the word ``spirit,'' which properly comes under consideration at this point. The first is Psalm 31:5, where David says: "Into thine hand I commit my spirit." Our Lord used similar language, perhaps borrowed from this expression of David's, when, expiring on the cross, he said, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." Luke 23:46. And Stephen the martyr, in the same line of thought, sent lip this expiring prayer: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Acts 7:59. What was it which David and our Lord wished to commit into the hands of God, and Stephen into the hands of Christ? "A conscious entity" our friends would say; "the living and immortal part of man; for nothing less could properly be committed to God." Thus Mr. Landis (p. 131) asks: "What was it then? The mere life which passed into nonentity at death? And can any one suppose they would have commended to God a nonentity? This would be a shameless trifling with sacred things." But David, on one occasion (1Samuel 26:24), prayed that his life might be much set by, or be precious, in the eyes of the Lord. That which is precious in his sight, it seems, night very properly be commended to his keeping, especially when for his sake it was to be taken away from one by one's enemies. And in the very psalm (31) in which he commits his ``spirit'' to God, he does it in view of the fact that his enemies had devised to take away his life. Verse 13.

It is a fact that the same or similar acts are spoken of frequently as done in reference to the life, that are said to be done in reference to the spirit. Can a person commit his spirit to God? So he can commit to him die preservation of his life. Thus David says (Psalm 64:1): "Preserve my life." What! Mr. Landis would exclaim, preserve a nonentity? Jonah prayed (chapter 4:3), "O Lord, take, 1 beseech thee, my life from me." Christ says (John 10:15): "I hay down my life for the sheep;" and in John 13:38 he asks Peter, "Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake?"

Thus our "life" is something that we can commit to another for safekeeping; it can be taken away from us; we can give it up, or lay it down. Is it, therefore, a distinct entity, conscious in death? If it is not, then, equivalent expressions applied to the " spirit" do not prove that to be conscious in death, and immortal; for they prove the same in the one case as in the other; and whatever they fail to prove in the one case, they fail to prove also in the other.

But if the spirit, as is claimed, lives right along after death, just as conscious as before, and a hundredfold more active, capable, intelligent, amid free, where would be the propriety of committing it to God in the hour of death, any more than at any point during its earthly existence? -- There would be none whatever. Entering upon that permanent, higher life, it would be much more capable of caring for itself than in this earthly condition. The expression bears upon its very face, evidence that those who used it desired to commit something into the care of their Maker which was about to pass out of their possession; to commit something into his hands for safekeeping until they should be brought back from the state of unconsciousness and inactivity into which they were then falling. And what was that? -- It was what they were then losing; namely, their life, their pneuma, which Robinson definesas meaning, among other things, "The principle of life residing in the breath, breathed into man from God and again returning to God." And when the life is thus given up to God by his people, where is it? -- "Hid with Christ in God." Colossians 3:3. And when will the believer receive it again? -- When "Christ, who is our life, shall appear." Verse 4. Then Stephen will receive from his Lord that which, while dying, he besought him to receive. Then they who for Christ's sake have lost their life (not merely their bodies while their life continues right on), will have that life restored to them again, to be enjoyed eternally in the world to come.

5. The Spirits of Just Men Made Perfect

"But ye are come Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel." Hebrews 12:22-24.

With a great show of confidence, either pretended or real, the advocates of man's immortality bring forward this text in proof of their position. That portion of the foregoing quotation upon which they hang their theory is the expression, "the spirits of just men made perfect," which they take to be both a declaration and a proof thereof, that the spirits of men are released by death, and thereupon are made perfect or glorified in the presence of God in heaven. A little further examination of the language will show any one that such an assertion is not made in the text, and that even such an inference cannot justly be drawn from it.

That Paul is here contrasting the blessings and privileges enjoyed by believers under the gospel dispensation with those possessed by the Jews under the former dispensation, will probably not be questioned on either side. ``Ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched [Mount Sinai]," `and the sound of a trumpet," etc., that is, to that system of types and ceremonies instituted through Moses at Sinai, of which an outward priesthood were the ministers, and Old Jerusalem the representative city; but ye are come to Mount Zion, to the New Jerusalem, to Jesus, and to his better sacrifice. These things to which we are come, are the superior blessings of the gospel, over what was enjoyed under the former dispensation. But where or how does the fact come in, as one of these blessings, that man has a spirit which is conscious in death, and is made perfect by the dissolution of the body? It will be seen that if this be a fact, it is brought in, at best, only incidentally. There is no proof of it in the expression, "spirits of just men made perfect," in itself considered; for they could be made perfect at some future time, without supposing them conscious from death to the resurrection. The only proof that can here be found, then, lies in the fact that we are said to have come to these spirits. This is supposed to prove that they must be spirits out of the body, and that they must also be conscious. Then we inquire, How do we come to the spirits of just men made perfect, and what is meant by the expression?

It is not difficult to determine how we "come" to all the other objects mentioned by Paul in the three verses quoted; but how we come to the spirits of just men made perfect, according to the popular view of that expression, is not so clear. If we mistake not, the common view will have to be modified, or the explanation never be given.

Let us see: "Ye are come [or, putting it in the first person, since Paul brings these to view as present blessings all through the gospel dispensation, we are come] unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem." That is, we, in this dispensation, no longer look to Old Jerusalem as the center of our worship, but we look above, to the New Jerusalem, where the sanctuary and Priest of this dispensation are. In this sense, then, we are come to them.

"And to an innumerable company of angels." Angels are the assistants of our Lord in his work, who now mediates for his people individually. Daniel 7:10. They are sent forth to minister to them who shall be heirs of salvation. Hebrews 1:14. They are therefore more intimately concerned in the believer's welfare in this dispensation than in the old. We have thus come to their presence and ministration.

"To the general assembly and church of the first-born, which are written in heaven." That is, we have now come to the time when believers, of whatever nationality, whose names are recorded in the Lamb's book of life in heaven, constitute a general assembly, or compose one church. We do not now look to Jewish genealogies to find the people of God; but we look to the record in heaven. And God now takes his people into covenant relation with himself as individuals, and not as a nation. Thus we are come in this dispensation to the general assembly, the church of the first-born.

"And to God, the Judge of all." Directly, through the mediation of his Son, we draw near to God. Passing over for a time the expression under discussion, "the spirits of just men made perfect," we read on:

"And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant." We now come to Jesus, the real mediator, instead of to the typical priesthood of the former dispensation, which were only types of the true.

"And to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel." That is, there is now ministered for us the blood of Jesus, the better sacrifice, which takes away from us sin in fact, instead of the blood of beasts, which took it away only in figure.

It can readily be seen how we "come" to all these things under this dispensation; how these are all privileges and blessings under the gospel, beyond what was enjoyed in the former dispensation. But now, if the expression, the "spirits of just men made perfect," means disem- bodied spirits in the popular sense, how to we come to these as a gospel blessing? This is what we would like to have our friends tell us. In what respect is our relation to our dead friends, the supposed spirits of the departed, changed by the gospel? If there is any sense in which we may be said to have "come" to these, any more than before, we would like to know it. Spiritualists might perhaps set up a claim here; but even that would not hold; for, according to their view, our dead friends come to us, not we to them.

But again: When do we come into closest contact with a man's spirit? Is it when that spirit is supposed to have become disembodied, and has gone far away to dwell in the presence of God, and is to have no more forever with anything that is done under the sun? Ecclesiastes 9:6. Is it not rather right here in this life, when the spirit of a man through the eyes of that man, looks upon us, through his mouth speaks to us, and through his hands handles us? Outside the ranks of Spiritualists, will any one say that we enjoy more intimate relations with a spirit when it is out of the body than we do while it is in the body? A consideration of this point, must convince any one that the idea of coming to the "spirits of just men made perfect" cannot possibly be applied to spirits out of the body.

It will be noticed further that the text does not speak of spirits made perfect, but of men made perfect. The Greek (kai pneumasi dikaion tetleiomenon) shows that the participle, "made perfect," agrees with ``the just," or ``just men," and not with "spirits." When, then, are men made perfect? There is a certain sense in which are made perfect in this life through the justification of the blood of Christ, and sanctification of his Spirit; and they are made perfect in an absolute sense, as in Hebrews 11:40, only when they experience the final glorification, and their corruptible bodies are made like unto Christ's most glorious body. Philippians 3:21.

If it is said that the text refers to this latter perfection, then it is placed beyond the resurrection, and affords no proof of a conscious, disembodied spirit. If it refers to the former, then it applies to persons still in this state, and not in death. To one or the other it must refer; and apply it which way we may, it does not bring to view a disembodied spirit conscious in death. Therefore it fails entirely to prove the point in favor of which it is adduced.

In harmony with the context, it can only be applied to the present state, to men in this life, to a blessing peculiar to the gospel, to the justification and sanctification which the believer now enjoys through Christ. And in this sense it is easy to see how we come to it, as to all the other things mentioned by Paul. We come to the enjoyment of this blessing ourselves, and to communion and fellowship with those who are also in possession of it.

Finally, to show that this is not a view devised to meet any exigency of the position here advocated, a name can be appealed to, in its support, which will have great weight with all, and will be final authority with many: the name of Dr. Adam Clarke. On this text, he says:

In several parts of this epistle [to the Hebrews], teleios, the just man, signifies one who has a full knowledge of the Christian system, who is justified and saved by Christ Jesus; and teteleiomenoi are the adult Christians, who are opposed to the nepioi, or babes in knowledge and grace. (See chapter 5:12-14; 8:11; Galatians 4:1-3.) The spirits of just men made perfect, or the righteous perfect, are the full-grown Christians; those who are justified by the blood and sanctified by the Spirit of Christ. Being come to such implies that spiritual union which the disciples of Christ have with each other, and which they possess how far soever separate; for they are all joined in one Spirit (Ephesians 2:18); they are in the unity of the Spirit (Ephesians 4:3, 4); and of one soul (Acts 4:32). This is a unity which was never possessed even by the Jews themselves in their best state it is peculiar to real Christianity; as to nominal Christianity, wars and desolations between man and his fellows are quite consistent with its spirit.

Although these remarks are a sufficient explanation of the text, we quote also the following paragraph from Dr. Clarke's note at the end of Hebrews 12, as found in the original edition of his work:

Only the high priest, and he but one day in the year, was permitted to approach God under the Old Testament dispensation; but under the New, every believer in Jesus can come even to the throne, each has liberty to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, and to real Christians alone it can be said, Ye are come to God -- the Judge of all -- to him ye have constant access, and from him ye are continually receiving grace upon grace. We have already seen that `the righteous perfect,' or just men made perfect,' is a Jewish phrase, and signified those who had made the farthest advances in moral rectitude. The apostle uses it here to point out those in the church of Christ who had received the highest degrees of grace, possessed most of the mind of Christ, and were doing and suffering most for the glory of God; those who were most deeply acquainted with the things of God and the mysteries of the gospel, such as the apostles, evangelists, the primitive teachers, and those who presided in and over different churches. And these are termed the `spirits [dikaion teteleiomenon] of the just perfected,' because they were a spiritual people, forsaking earth, and living in reference to that spiritual rest that was typified by Canaan.

6. The Spirits in Prison

"For Christ also bath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the long- suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water." 1 Peter 3:18-20.

The advocates of natural immortality are not long in finding their way to this passage. Here, it is claimed, are "spirits" brought to view, out of the body; for they were the spirits of the antediluvians: and they were conscious and intelligent; for they could listen to the preaching of Christ, who, by last conscious spirit, while his body lay in the grave, went to their prison and preached to them.

Let us see just what conclusions the popular interpretation of this passage involves, that we may test its claims by the Scriptures. 1. It is held that these were disembodied spirits, but they were the spirits of wicked men; for they were disobedient in the days of Noah, and perished in the flood. 2. They were consequently in their place of punishment, the place to which popular theology assigns all such spirits immediately on their passing from this state of existence--the burning, quenchless hell of fire and brimstone. 3. The spirit of Christ went into this hell to preach to them. These are the facts that are to be cleared of improbabilities, and harmonized with the Scriptures, before the passage can be made available for the popular view.

But the bare suggestion of so singular a transaction as Christ's going to preach to these spirits, under these conditions, immediately gives rise to the query, for what purpose Christ should take pains to go down into hell, to preach to damned spirits there; and what message he could possibly bear to them. The day of their probation was past; they could not be helped by any gospel message: Then why preach to them? Would Christ go taunt them by describing before them blessings which they could never receive? Or by raising in their bosoms hopes of a release from damnation, which he never designed to grant?

These considerations fall like a mighty avalanche across the way of the common interpretation. The thought is felt to be almost an insuperable objection, and many are the shifts devised to get around it. One thinks that the word "preached" does not necessarily mean to "preach the gospel," notwithstanding almost every instance of the use of the word in the New Testament describes the preaching of the gospel by Christ or his apostles; but that Christ went there to announce to the lost that his sufferings had been accomplished, and the prophecies con- cerning him fulfilled. But what possible object could there be in that? How would that affect their condition? To add poignancy to their pain by rendering their misery doubly keen? And were there not devils enough in hell to perform that work, without making it necessary that Christ should perform such a ghostly task, and that, too, right between those points of time when he laid down his life for our sins, and was raised again for our justification?

Another thinks these were the spirits of such as repented during the forty days' rain of the flood; that they were with the saved in paradise, a department of the under world where the spirits of the good are kept (the Elysium, in fact, of ancient heathen mythology), but that they "still felt uneasy on account of having perished [that is, lost their bodies] under a divine judgment," and "were now assured by Jesus that their repentance had been accepted."

Such resorts show the desperate extremities to which the popular exposition of this passage is driven, and afford aid and comfort to the Romish purgatory.

Others frankly acknowledge that they cannot tell what, nor for what purpose, Christ preached to the lost in hell. So does Landis (p. 236). But he says it makes no difference if we cannot tell what he preached nor why he preached, since we have the assurance that he did go there and preach. Profound conclusion! Would it not be better, since we have the assurance that he preached, to conclude that he preached at a time when preaching could benefit them, rather than at a time when we know that it could not profit them, and there could be no occasion for it whatever?

The whole issue thus turns on the question, When was this work of preaching performed? Some will say, "While they were in prison, and that means the state of death, and shows that the dead are conscious, and can be preached to." Then, we reply, the dead can also be benefited by preaching, and led to repentance; and them the Romish doctrine of purgatory springs at once full- fledged into our creed; and not only that, but that worse than the Romish purgatory, the modern doctrine of probation after death, is sustained.

But does the text affirm that the preaching was done to these spirits while they were in prison? May it not be that the preaching was done at some previous time to persons who were, when Peter wrote, in prison, or, if you please, in a state of death? So it would be true that the spirits were in prison when Peter makes mention of them, and yet the preaching might have been done to them at a former period, while they were still in the flesh and could be benefited by it. This is the view taken of the passage by Dr. Clarke. He says: "He went and preached] By the ministry of Noah one hundred and twenty years."

Thus he places Christ's going and preaching by his spirit in the days of Noah, and not during the time his body lay in the grave. Again, he says:

The word pneumasi, `spirits,' is supposed to render this view of the subject improbable, because this must mean disembodied spirits; but this certainly does not follow for the spirits of just men made perfect (Hebrews 12:23) certainly means righteous men, and men still in the church militant; and the Father of spirits (Hebrews 12:9) means men still in the body; and the God of the spirits of all flesh (Numbers 16:22 and 27:16) means men not in a disembodied state.

The preaching was certainly to the antediluvians. But why, according to the popular notion, should Christ single out that class to preach to, about twenty-four hundred years afterward, in hell? The whole idea is forced, unnatural, and absurd. The preaching that was given to (them was through Noah, who, by the power of the Holy Ghost (1 Peter 1:12), delivered to them the message of warning. Let this be the preaching referred to, and all is harmonious and clear; and this interpretation the construction of the original demands; for the word rendered in our version, "were disobedient," is simply the aorist participle; and the dependent sentence, "when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah," limits the verb "preached " rather than the participle. The whole passage might be translated thus: "In which also, having gone to the spirits in prison, he preached to the then disobedient ones, when once [or at the time when] the longsuffering [[96]] of God waited in the days of Noah." Christ is said to have preached, because it was Christ's Spirit in Noah. Noah was his representative; and according to the Latin maxim, "Qui facit per alium, facit per se," "What one does through another, he does himself," the preaching of Noah by this means, was the preaching of Christ.

But in what sense were they in prison? -- In the same sense in which persons in error and darkness are said to be in prison. Isaiah 42:7: "To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison-house." Also Isaiah 61:1: "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he bath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound." Christ himself declared (Luke 4:18-21) that this scripture was fulfilled in his mission to those here on earth who sat in darkness and error, and under the dominion of sin. So the antediluvians were shut up under the sentence of condemnation. Their days were limited to a hundred and twenty years; and their only way of escape from impending destruction was through the preaching of Noah. Genesis 6:3.

So much with reference to the spirits to whom the preaching was given. Now we affirm further that Christ's Spirit did not go anywhere to preach to anybody while he lay in the grave. If Christ's Spirit, the real being, the divine part, did survive the death of the cross, then --

1. We have only a human offering as a sacrifice for our sins; and the claim of Spiritualists, which no Christian can hear without a shudder, is true, that the blood of Christ is no more than that of any man.

2. Then Christ did not pour out his soul unto death, and make it an offering for sin, as the prophet declared that he would do (Isaiah 53:10, 12); and his soul was not sorrowful even unto death, as he himself affirmed that it was. Matthew 26:38.

3. The text says Christ was "quickened by the Spirit;" and between his death and quickening no action is affirmed of him; and hence for any one to affirm that he was alive and active during this time, is only assumption. There can be no doubt but the "quickening" here brought to view was his resurrection. The Greek word is a very strong one, zoopoieo, "to impart life to make alive." He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive by the Spirit. Mr. Landis (p. 232) labors hard to turn this word from its natural meaning, and make it signify, not giving life, but continuing alive. It is impossible to regard this as anything better than unmitigated sophistry. The verb is a regular, active verb. In the passive voice it expresses an action received. Christ did not continue alive, but was made alive by the Spirit. Then he was for a time dead. How long? -- From the cross to time resurrection. Romans 1: 4. So he says himself in Revelation 1:18, "I am he that liveth, and was dead." Yet men will stand up, and for the purpose of sustaining a pet theory, rob the world's Offering of all its virtue, and nullify the whole plan of salvation, by declaring that Christ never was dead!

The word "quicken " is the same that is used in Romans 8:11: ``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." God brought again our Lord from the dead by the Holy Spirit; and by the same Spirit are his followers to be raised up at the last day. But that Christ went anywhere in Spirit, or did any action between his death and quickening, is what the Scriptures nowhere affirm, and what no man has a right to claim.

Mr. Landis (p. 235) argues that this preaching could not have been in the days of Noah, because the events narrated took place this side the death of Christ. Why did he not say this side the resurrection of Christ?--Oh! That would spoil it all. But the record shows upon its very face that if it refers to a time subsequent to Christ's death, it was also subsequent to his resurrection; for if events are here stated in chronological order, the resurrection of Christ, as well as his death, comes before his preaching. Thus, (1) he was "put to death in the flesh;" (2) "was quickened by the Spirit," which was his resurrection, as no man with any show of reason can dispute; and (3) ``went and preached to the spirits in prison." So the preaching does not come in, on this ground, till after Christ was made alive from the dead.

Some people seem to treat time Scriptures as if they were given to man that he might exercise his inventive powers in trying to misunderstand or pervert them to avoid the doctrines they teach. But no inventive power that the human mind has yet developed will enable a titan, let him plan, contrive, devise, and arrange as he may, to fix this preaching of Christ between his death and resurrection. If he could fix it there, what would it prove? The man of sin would rise up and bless him from his papal throne, for proving his darling purgatory. Such a position may do for Mormons, Mohammedans, pagans, and papists; but let no Protestant try to defend it, and not hang his head for shame. Mr. Landis says that "Mr. Dobney and the rest of the fraternity conveniently forget that there is any such passage [as 1 Peter 3:19] in the word of God." But we cannot help thinking that it would have been well for him, and saved a pitiful display of distorted, not to say dishonest, logic, if he had been prudent enough to forget it too.

Another testimony in favor of the correct view, which is entitled to respectful consideration, may here be introduced. It is from Alvah Hovey, D. D., of Newton Theological Seminary, and is issued in a pamphlet entitled, ``State of Men after Death," published by the American Baptist Publication Society, Philadelphia. He contends that those to whom Christ went and preached, were those who were disobedient in the days of Noah, and that he preached during the time when Noah was preparing the ark; and he declares that ``neither human reason, nor the word of God give a shadow of support" to the assumption that any who have not repented of sin in the present life, will be likely to do so in the intermediate state. From his argument we quote the following passages (pp. 82--86):

It seems to me that the apostle intended to represent the going and preaching as belonging to the same period of time with the disobedience and long-suffering . . . The participle may be rendered when they were disobedient ` just as a similar participle is translated by Hackett, Conant, Noyes, and Alford (Acts 19.2). `Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed)' ... Nay, it is possible that the phrase `spirits in prison,' was Peter's customary designation for the ungodly of former times, even when he was referring to their earthly career .. If the Spirit, then, was Christ's Spirit, the preaching of the illuminated prophet was Christ's preaching, and any contempt or disobedience to that preaching, was contempt or disobedience to him. . . . But if the preaching referred to by Peter was accomplished in hades, it is not so easy to understand why the contemporaries of Noah are singled out as the particular spirits addressed. [If this view be taken of it, he says,] we have no knowledge whatever of the message delivered by Christ in spirit if he went and preached to the dead in hades, we are profoundly ignorant of what he announced: and it is not surprising that those who adopt this theory, differ greatly as to the nature of his supposed message.

7. A Spirit Hath Not Flesh and Bones

There are a few other texts which contain the word "spirit," an explanation of which may be properly introduced at this point:

Luke 24 39: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." These are the words of Christ as on one occasion he met with his disciples after his resurrection; and as he then possessed a spiritual body which is given by the resurrection, it is claimed that his words prove the existence of spirits utterly disembodied, in the popular sense. But we inquire, What did the disciples suppose they saw?-- Verse 37 states: "They supposed they had seen a spirit;" and on this verse Greenfield puts in the margin the word phantasma instead of pneuma, and marks it as a reading adopted by Griesbach. They supposed they had seen a phantom, apparition, specter. This exactly cot- responds with their action when, on another occasion, Christ came to them walking on the sea (Matthew 14:26; Mark 6:49), and they were affrighted and cried out, supposing it was a ``spirit," where the Greek uses "phantom'' in both quotations. The Bible nowhere countenances the idea that phantoms or specters have any real existence; but the imagination and superstition of the human mind have ever been prolific in such conceptions. The disciples were of course familial- with the popular notions on this question; and when the Saviour suddenly appeared in their midst, coining in without lifting the latch, or making any visible opening, as spiritual bodies are able to do, their first idea was the superstitious one of an apparition or specter, and they were affrighted.

Now when Jesus, to allay their fears, told them that a spirit had not flesh and bones as he had, he evidently used the word "spirit `` in the sense of the idea which they then had in their minds; namely, that of a phantom; and though the word pneuma is used, which in its very great variety of meanings may be employed, perhaps, to express such a conception, we are not to understand that the word cannot be used to describe bodies like that which Christ then possessed. He was not such a spirit as they supposed; for a pneuma such as they then conceived of in the sense of a phantom, had not flesh and bones as he had. Bloomfield, on verse 37 says: "It may be added that our Lord meant not to countenance those notions, but to show his hearers that, according to their own notions of spirits, he was not one."

8. Neither Angel Nor Spirit

Acts 23:8: ``For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both," Paul declared himself, in verse 6, to be a Pharisee; and in telling what they believed (verse 8), it is claimed that Paul plainly ranged himself on the side of those who believe in the separate, conscious existence of the spirit of man. But does this text say that the Pharisees believed any such thing? Three terms are used in expressing what the Sadducees did not believe, "resurrection, angel, and spirit." But when the faith of the Pharisees is stated, these three are reduced to two: ``The Pharisees confess both.'' Both means only two, not three. Now what two of the three terms before employed unite to express one branch of the faith of the Pharisees?--Evidently the terms "angel and spirit;" for they believed that there were ``angels" and "spirits" in the unseen world, but not disembodied human spirits; inasmuch as they believed in the "resurrection," by which alone human beings are to live again.

Appeal is made to the incident here narrated to try to array the apostle Paul on the side of the popular view that there are disembodied human spirits in conscious existence in the spirit world. But before this can be done, it must be shown that the Pharisees entertained such a belief, and that the apostle avowed himself a Pharisee in this respect. But we apprehend that neither of these points can be proved; for had they believed this, they would have had no use for the doctrine of the "resurrection." It appears from verse 6 that Paul avowed himself a Pharisee only so far as pertained to their views of the resurrection of the dead. This seems to be plainly implied by the manner in which he joins his two affirmations together: "I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question." He certainly was not a Pharisee in the broad acceptation of the term; for he was a Christian, and, from a theological point of view, not a Jew at all. Now whatever the Pharisees may have believed concerning spirits, it in nowise involves the apostle so far as this narrative is concerned. But there is no evidence here that they believed in disembodied human spirits. When they say (verse 9), "If a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him," they doubtless refer to his experience on his way to Damascus, with which they were familiar, and used those two words in apposition. A voice had called to him from heaven. He did not claim that it was an angel. There were other spirit organizations in the heavenly world besides angels, without supposing disembodied human spirits; hence they say, "If a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him." This incident therefore furnishes no support to the popular view; for the whole issue before them was not concerning the condition of man in death, but concerning the resurrection of the dead.

9. Destroy Flesh--Save the Spirit

1Corinthians 5:5: "To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." Although this text is quoted to prove the separate, conscious existence of a part of man between death and the resurrection, the reader cannot fail to notice that the time when the spirit is saved; is in the day of the Lord Jesus, when the resurrection takes place. This text proves nothing, therefore, respecting the condition of the spirit previous to that time; and, so far as our present purpose is concerned, we might dismiss it with this remark; but a word or two more may serve to free the text still further from difficulty. What is meant by delivering the person to Satan? And what is the destruction of the flesh? Satan is the god of this world; and if any man is a friend of this world, he is on the side of Satan and an enemy of God. The church is the body of Christ, and belongs to him. A person committing the deeds spoken of in this chapter must be separated from that body, and given back to the world. He is thus delivered unto Satan. This is for the destruction of the flesh. The flesh is often used to mean the carnal mind. Galatians 5:19-21. The spiritually minded man has crucified or destroyed the flesh. Now a person who desires eternal life, when he finds himself set aside from the church and placed back in the world, the kingdom of Satan, on account of his having the carnal mind, understands that to gain eternal life he must then put away the carnal mind, or crucify and destroy the flesh. If he does this, he becomes spiritually minded, joined again to the body of Christ; and the old man, the flesh, being destroyed, he, as a spiritually minded man, will be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Spirit we understand to be used in contrast with the flesh, the one denoting a person in a carnal state, the other in a spiritual. To deal with a person as the apostle here directs, set him aside from the church till he sees and repents of his sins, is often the only way to save him. In the day of the Lord Jesus, a person is saved by having his body fashioned like unto Christ's glorious body, not destroyed. Philippians 3:21. The destruction spoken of in the text cannot therefore be the literal destruction of the body in contrast with the disembodied spirit. The true condition which the apostle desired such a one to reach, is expressed in Romans 8:10: "And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness."