coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the transformation of the living, he says "So shall we EVER be with the Lord." Again in 2 Corinth. iv. 14, he says, "He that hath raised up the Lord Jesus, shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us WITH YOU." Again John says (1 Epistle iii. 2), "When he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." For this reason Paul tells us in the very epistle in which the disputed words are found, that he was striving "if by any means he might attain to the resurrection of the dead" (chap. iii. II). In no case does he speak of presence with the Lord occurring till that event.

Assuming this to be settled, we have to harmonise this understanding of the text with the necessity of the context. Paul was speaking of life and death, and of the difficulty he had in deciding in his own mind which was the preferable in his case; and the question which will instantly arise in the objector's mind, in view of the rendering of Paul's words just advocated, is— How could Paul associate his death with his desire for the coming of Christ, when the latter event was to take place many centuries after? The answer has already been anticipated. To Paul in death, there would be no conscious lapse of time. The moment of death and the moment of resurrection would be to him consecutive. The interval would pass like a flash of lightning. Consequently, it would be natural for Paul to look upon his decease as equivalent to the returning of the Lord; it would bring the event instantaneously to his door, so far as his consciousness was concerned. If it be asked in what sense death would be a "gain" to Paul, the answer is furnished in the words of Christ: "He that loseth his life for my sake, the same shall find it." Paul was abc ut to be beheaded; this was the death he refers to in the context. Consequently, he would, in a special way, stand related to the words of Christ,

"Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life" (Rev. ii. 10). The question as to when this crown would be given is settled by Paul's declaration in 2 Timothy iv. 8: "Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord the righteous Judge shall give me AT THAT DAY (Christ's appearing and kingdom, see ist verse), and not to me only, but unto ALL THEM also that love his appearing." It was gain to die, also, because Paul would thus be freed from all the privations and persecutions enumerated in 2 Cor. xi. 23-28, and would peaceably "sleep" in Christ.

66

68

There are arguments advanced on Scriptural grounds in favour of the immortality of the soul which do not quite come within the category of passages" quoted, but are rather in the nature of deductions from scriptural principles. It may be of advantage to look at some of these before passing on.

"There is no peace, saith the Lord, unto the wicked."-This is quoted to prove the eternal torment of the wicked. It surely requires no argument to show that it fails entirely in this purpose. The statement is true,

irrespective of any theory that may be held as to the destiny of the wicked. While the wicked are in existence, either in this life or after resurrection, there is no peace for them. It is impossible there could be peace for them, especially looking forward to the time when they shall be the objects of God's judicial and all-devouring vengeance. But this does not prove (as it is quoted to prove) that they are immortal. Such an idea is utterly precluded by the testimonies quoted.

on

The appearance of Moses and Elias

the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 3). As regards Elias, it is testified that he did not see death, but was translated-bodily taken away (2 Kings ii. 11). His appearance would, therefore, be no proof of the existence of disembodied spirits. As to Moses, if he were bodily present, he must have been

raised from the dead beforehand. That he was bodily apparent is evident from the fact of the disciplesmortal men-seeing and recognising him. But it is quite an open question whether either Moses or Elias were actually present. The testimony is that the things seen were "a vision" (Matt. xvii. 9). Now from Acts xii. 9, we learn that a vision is the opposite of reality—that is, something seen after the manner of a dream-a something apparently real, but in reality only exhibited visionally to the beholder. The audibility of the voices settles nothing one way or other, because in vision, as in a dream, voices may be heard that have no existence, except in the aural nerves of the seer. In dream, the illusion is the result of functional disorder: in vision, it is the result of the will-energy of the Deity, acting upon the hearing organization of the trance-wrapt seer (vide Acts x. 13; also the song of the Apocalyptic living creatures, and the voice of "souls under the altar"). Neither does the presence of Jesus (an actual personage) as one of the three, contribute much to a solution, because there would be no anomaly in causing Moses and Elias to visionally appear to Jesus, and in association with Jesus. It is probable Moses and Elias were really present, but the use of the word "vision hinges the matter a little. In no case can the transfiguration be construed into a proof of the immortality of the soul. It was doubtless a pictorial illustration of the kingdom, in so far as it represented Jesus in his consummated power and glory, exalted over the law (represented by Moses) and the prophets (represented by Elijah) and, therefore, elevated to the position to which the prophets point forward, when, as the head of the nation of Israel and the whole earth, he will cause to be fulfilled the prediction of Moses and the command of the heavenly voice: "Him shall ye hear in all things;" "Hear ye him."

un

"God is not the God of the dead, but of the living" (Matt. xxii. 32). If

the orthodox believer took a logical view of this statement, he would perceive that instead of proving the immortality of the soul, it indirectly establishes the contrary. It recognises the existence of a class of human beings who are not "living," but "dead.' Who are they? According to the popular theory, there are no "dead "" in relation to the human race at all; every human being lives for ever. It cannot be suggested that it means 66 dead" in the moral sense, because this is expressly excluded by the subject of which Jesus is speaking-the resurrection of dead bodies from the ground (v. 31). The Sadducees denied the resurrection. Jesus proved the resurrection by quoting from Moses the words of Jehovah, "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." How did Jesus deduce the resurrection from this formula? By maintaining that God was not the God of those who were dead in the sense of being done with (see Psalm xlix. 19-20). From God calling himself the God of three men who were dead, Jesus argued that God intended to raise them; for "God calleth those things which be not (but are to be) AS THOUGH THEY WERE" (Rom. iv. 17). The Sadducees saw the point of the argument, and were put to silence. But if, as is usually contended, the meaning of "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living," be, that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are alive, Christ's argument for the resurrection of the dead is destroyed. For how could it prove the purpose of God to raise Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to assert that they were alive? The very argument requires that they shall be dead at some time, in order to be the subjects of resurrection. Thus it is that the fact of their being dead at a time when God calls himself their God, yields the conclusion that God purposes their resurrection. But take away the fact of their being dead, which orthodox theology does by saying they were immortal, and could not die,

and you take away all the point of Christ's argument. Looked at the other way, the argument is irresistible, and explains to us how the Sadducees were silenced.

"Their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven' (Matt. xviii. 10). Whose angels? The angels of "the little ones which believe" (Matt. xviii. 6). It is customary to synonymise spirits with "angels," and to make it out that "their angels means the "little ones "themselves; but this is a liberty so entirely at variance both with the sense and philology of the case, as to be undeserving of reply. The "little ones are those who "receive the kingdom of God as a little child," and "their angels" are the angels of God who supervise their interests. "The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him (Psalm xxxiv. 7). "Are they (the angels) not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" (Heb. i. 14). This fact is a good reason why we should "take heed that we despise not one of these little ones; "" but adopt the popular version of the matter, and the reason vanishes. "Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones, for their redeemed spirits are in heaven." This would involve a paradox. Yet without it, the proof for immortalsoulism which some see in it, is nowhere to be found.

"

If

"In the way of righteousness is life, and in the pathway thereof is NO DEATH (Prov. xii. 28). This is sometimes quoted to prove that as regards the righteous at any rate, there is no such thing as even momentary extinction of being. the passage prove this, the converse is established also, that in the way of unrighteousness is death, and in the pathway thereof NO LIFE. terms of an affirmative proposition have the same value in a negative. Hence, if this passage prove the literal immortality of the righteous, it proves the literal mortality of the wicked, which is more than those

The

who use this argument are prepared to accept. The passage bears out the proposition that the Bible is against the doctrine of the immortality of the soul.

He

"Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul" (Matt. x. 28). This is the orthodox advocate's great triumph. He feels here he has foothold, and he recites the passage with an emphasis entirely absent from his other efforts. He generally snatches his triumph too early, however. begins comment before finishing the verse. He exultantly enquires why this passage has not been quoted, and So on. If asked to go on with the verse and not leave it half finished, he is not at all enthusiastic in his compliance. However, he goes on if somewhat reluctantly, and stumbles over the concluding sentence "but rather fear him that is able to DESTROY BOTH SOUL AND BODY in hell." Instantly perceiving the disaster which this elaboration of Christ's exhortation brings upon his theory of imperishable and immortal-soulism, he suggests that "destroy in this instance means "afflict,' ""torment." But there is no ground for this. In fact, a more unwarrantable suggestion was never hazarded by a theorist in straits. In all the instances in which apollumi— the word translated "destroy," is used, it is impossible to discover the slightest approach to the idea of affliction or torment. We append all the New Testament instances in which it is used :-"The young child to destroy him" (Matt. ii. 13); "might destroy him (Matt. xii. 14; Mark iii. 6; xi. 18), "Will miserably destroy those wicked men" (Matt. xxi. 41); Destroyed those murderers " (Matt. xxii. 7); "Persuaded the multitude that should ask Barabbas and destroy Jesus" (Matt. xxvii. 20); "Art thou come to destroy" (Mark i. 24; Luke iv. 34); "Into the waters to destroy him (Mark ix. 22); "And destroy the husbandmen" (Mark xii. 9; Luke xx. 16); "To save life or destroy" (Luke vi. 9); "Not come to destroy

66

"

men's lives" (Luke ix. 56); "The flood came and destroyed them all" (Luke xvii. 27, 29); "Of the people sought to destroy him" (Luke xix. 47); "To steal, and to kill, and to destroy (John x. 10); "Destroy not with thy meat" (Rom. xiv. 15); "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise" (1 Cor. i. 19); “Were destroyed of serpents (1 Cor. x. 9); "And were destroyed of the destroyer" (I Cor. x. 10); "Cast down, but not destroyed" (2 Cor. iv. 9); "Is able to save, and to destroy" (Jas. iv. 12); "Afterwards destroyed them that believed not" (Jude 5). In all these cases destroy has a very different meaning from "afflict' or "torment." The reader has only to substitute either of these words for

66

"destroy " in any of the passages to see how utterly out of place such a paraphrase of the word would be. If "destroy in every other case has its natural meaning, why should an exceptional meaning be claimed for it in Matthew x.? No reason can be given beyond the one already hinted at, viz., the necessities of the orthodox believer's theory. This is

no sound reason at all, and, therefore, we put it aside, and enquire what Jesus meant by exhorting his disciples to "Fear not them that

kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but fear Him that can destroy both soul and body in hell." We reply, that "life," in the abstract, which is the equivalent of the world translated "soul," the Revisers of the New Testament being witnesses, (for they have substituted "life" for soul in Matt xvi. 25, 26)— life in the abstract is indestructible. But life is not the man, nor of any use to him if it is not given to him. It is God's purpose to give life back to those who obey Him, and to give it back immortally. This constitutes the essence of the statement we are considering. Arising out of this, there comes the special view that life in relation to those who are Christ's, cannot be touched by mortal man, however they may treat the body. Of this life, Paul says,

"IT IS HID WITH CHRIST IN GOD" (Col. iii. 3)" and when CHRIST, WHO IS OUR LIFE shall appear, then shall we appear with him in glory" (v. 4). This life is the "treasure in the heavens, which faileth not," spoken of by Jesus, and said by Peter to be "reserved in heaven.' Now when men kill the saints, they only terminate their mortal existence. They do not touch that real life of theirs, which is related to the eternal future, and which has its foundation in their connection with Christ in the heavens. This is in Christ's keeping and can be touched by no man. We are not to fear those who can only demolish the corruptible body, and cannot do anything to prevent the coming bestowal of immortality by resurrection. We are to fear him who hath power to destroy BOTH BODY AND SOUL (LIFE) in Gehenna; that is, in the coming retribution by destructive fire-manifestation, which will utterly consume the ungodly from the presence of the Lord. We are to fear God, who has the power to annihilate from the universe, and who will use the power on all such as are unworthy. We are not to fear those who can at best only hasten the dissolution to which we are Adamically liable.

ERRONEOUSNESS OF POPULAR BELIEF

IN HEAVEN AND HELL.

We

This follows as a conclusion from what has gone before. If the dead are really dead-in the absolute sense contended for in this lecture— of course they cannot have gone to any state of reward or punishment, because the are not alive to go. might well leave the matter in this position, as an inevitable conclusion from the premises established; but its grave importance justifies us in carrying the matter further. The belief in question is not only erroneous in supposing that the dead go to such places as the popular heaven or hell, immediately after death, but, in thinking that they ever go there at any time.

In

According to the religious teaching of the present day, the place of final reward is a region beyond the stars-remote from the farthest limit of God's universe, "beyond the realms of time and space.' The ideas entertained concerning the nature of this place are very vague. So far as they take shape, whether in picture or in discourse, they take their cue from the earth. Hence, "The plains of Heaven." these "plains," the inhabitants are generally represented as singing a perpetual song of praise. The numbers are supposed to be constantly recruited by arrivals from the earth "below." A man dies, and according to orthodox idea, the liberated soul flies with inconceivable rapidity to the realms above, safely installed in which, bereaved friends console themselves with the idea that the dead are "not lost, but gone before." Friends think of them as better off in that "happy land, far, far away,' than they were in this vale of tears. Doubtless if it were true, that they were gone to a happy land, the contemplation of their state would be consoling. Whether true or not, it must strike every reflecting mind as an exceedingly discordant element in the case that the righteous after enjoying years of celestial felicity, should have to leave the abode of their bliss, on the arrival of the day of judgment, come down to earth, reenter their bodies for arraignment at the bar of eternal judgment. What is this judgment, "according to what they have done," for? It seems natural to suppose that admission into heaven in the first instance is proof of the fitness and acceptance of those admitted. Why, then, the trial afterwards? Judgment in such a case seems a mockery. The same remark applies to those who are supposed to have gone to the place of woe.

What is the escape from this distracting inconsistency? It is to be found in the recognition of the unfounded character of the whole heaven-going idea of popular religion.

This going to heaven is a purely gratuitous speculation. There is not a single promise throughout the whole of the Scriptures to warrant a man in hoping for it. There are, doubtless, phrases which, to a mind previously indoctrinated with the idea, seem to afford countenance to it, such, for instance, as that used by Peter (1st Epistle, 1st chap. v. 4): "An inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you;" of which also we have an illustration in the words of Christ (Matt. v. 12): "For great is your reward in heaven;' and more particularly in his exhortation to "Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal.' But the countenance which these phrases seemingly af ford to the popular idea, disappears entirely when we realise that they express an aspect of the Christian hope, viz. : its present aspect. God's salvation is not now on earth; indeed, it is not yet an accomplished fact anywhere, except in the person of Christ. It merely exists in the divine mind as a purpose, and, in detail, that purpose is specially related to those whom Jehovah foreknowingly contemplates as the "saved," who are said to be "written in the book," that is, inscribed on the "book of his remembrance (Malachi iii. 16). Therefore the only localisation of reward, at present, is in heaven, to which the eye instinctively turns as the source of its promised manifestation. This is especially the case when it is taken into account that Jesus, the pledge of that reward, yea, the very germ thereof, is in heaven. In his being there, who is our life, the undefiled inheritance at present is there ; for it exists in him in purpose, in guarantee, and in germ. It has no other kind of existence anywhere else at present; but it is only in heaven in

"

reserve; ""reserved in heaven,' is Peter s phrase. When a thing is "reserved," it implies that when it is