The Bible Examiner — Vol. 9, No. 18 (October 1, 1854)

Download: PDF — The Bible Examiner — Vol. 9, No. 18 (October 1, 1854)

BIBLE EXAMINER.

NO IMMORTALITY, NOR ENDLESS LIFE, EXCEPT THROUGH JESUS CHRIST ALONE.

VOL. IX.

NEW YORK, OCTOBER 1, 1854.

NO.18.

PUBLISHED SEMI-MONTHLY

At No.140 Fulton-street.

TERMS----One Dollar for the Year:

Always in Advance.

GEO. STORRS, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR.

Is the Soul a Distinct Entity ?

AFFIRMATIVE BY C. F. HUDSON.

Dear Examiner,—Have just returned from absence for a few weeks. Have not time to prepare such an article as I could wish for your next number. But I should notice two or three points in review of the discussion thus far, and may add some exegesis of the passages oftenest adduced to support the negative of the question.

I find that my use of the word "immortal" in the number for July 1st, is misapprehended. I tried to make my meaning plain. I ask the reader to refer to the place. I said I "query whether the soul is not naturally immortal, though I am sure the smaller number of human souls may be actually immortal." If this expression did not explain itself, the whole paragraph would make it plain. But Bro. G., without taking my meaning at all, asks, "if it (the soul) is naturally immortal, is it not naturally indestructible?" I simply answer, it can be of no use for us thus to talk at cross-purposes. If Bro. G. objects to my use of terms, he might offer his criticism accordingly, and I could defend myself by citing cases of a similar use of terms. But any argument of my friend, which mistakes my use of terms, proves nothing, and is a burden to both of us, and our readers too. Need I still further explain my use of terms to Bro. G.? I would say, then, that in the same way that I speak, and others have spoken, of the soul as naturally immortal, I would also say that a stout and healthy man is naturally long-lived; yet he may die prematurely, by accident, or as the penalty of crime. In this discussion I simply ask to be understood, and also to be met upon opinions which I avow, and not upon the opinions, or inferences, of others.

I had said that the question between us is not whether the soul is conscious during the intermediate state. Bro. G. asks "if the proper and actual existence of the soul, as a distinct entity from the body, does not necessarily involve its consciousness"? I might advise Bro. G. that he is philosophizing here, and ask for a "thus saith the Lord," that consciousness is involved, as he supposes. But I waive this. I intend to philosophize upon

this point when I come to it, and shall ask Bro. G. to philosophize, or to reason, with me. It may appear that the existence of the soul, and its consciousness, do not keep pace with each other. Bro. G. asks, "Is that a distinct entity worthy of any man's advocacy, which has no knowledge, or thought, or affection?" I reply, were the mines of California worth anything before they were discovered? If Bro. G. is not ashamed to believe these mines were worthy to exist before they came to light, I am not ashamed of the idea of an unconscious soul. In my view, that existence is well worth while which makes my essential being the same in the life to come as in the present life, so that "mine eyes shall behold" my Saviour, and not another being in my stead. Such an intermediate existence, be it never so unconscious, I think I should value for what it accomplished. "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints." Can this death mean their temporary destruction and annihilation? Grant that the saints exist during the intermediate state, and this language is appropriate as expressing the care God has for them;—all the more appropriate, if their temporary, unclothed condition be one of disadvantage; but quite absurd, if it be a condition of nonexistence.

There was great need that I should ask not to be misrepresented or misunderstood. In the Examiner for August 1st, Bro. G. speaks of the "felicity which, according to Br. H. immediately follows death." Where has "Br. H." said that? Did I not speak of the soul as "untented and unclad" in the intermediate state? Did Bro. G. read my remarks on 2 Cor. 5:4? Is it not clear from these remarks whether I hold that "we are clothed upon with immortality at death, or at the resurrection?" If not, I will try hard to speak plainer hereafter.

I shall review several of Bro. G.'s comments before I close the discussion, as they come in my way. I only ask it to be here noticed that he distinctly admits that men "temporarily perish in death." And he accordingly says, in his remarks on Matt. 10 : 28, that "man can destroy the soul or life temporarily, but not eternally." But such an exegesis makes nonsense of the warning our Lord designed to give. Men can kill the body temporarily, just as well as the soul. And they certainly cannot kill the body eternally, if the resurrection be a resurrection of the body, rather than a resurrection of the dead. If we accept Bro. G.'s exegesis, Christ did not speak clearly. He should have said, "Fear not them which kill the body temporarily, but are not able to kill the soul eternally," etc.

But even this limping exegesis is inadmissible if we turn to Luke's account of the same discourse.

"Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do," chapter 12 : 4. In other words, they cannot kill the soul at all. They may do what they will with the body, but the soul is in God's keeping, and men cannot reach it. It awaits the resurrection and the judgment. Let your concern be not for the body, but for the soul.

As Bro. G. takes no exception to my list of his proof texts, I will proceed with a brief examination of them. The first is :—Gen. 3:19. "Dust thou art." The whole argument here turns on the use of terms. Now we are agreed, I think, that man is not mere body. Sometimes, indeed, we speak of a corpse, as a "dead man," or a "dead person;" but not as a "man" or a "person," unless we design to use these terms in an unusual sense. The body must be alive or there is no "man." We are agreed in this, though we differ on the question whether the life is a soul, or a distinct entity.

But on the other hand the life must be embodied, or there is no "man." For thousands of years past, people have thought and talked about souls, disembodied; very absurdly, Bro. G. thinks, very properly, as I think; but the point here is, the common use of language; and we know that disembodied souls have not been commonly called "men," though believed to exist.

According to common speech, then, the body alone, or the soul alone, is not the man. And yet the living man is continually spoken of and addressed with reference to the most different elements, as well as the most different qualities, of his being. Bro. G. understands the difference between a large man, and a great man. We say also that such a man was "beheaded," though it would be improper to say his life or his soul was beheaded. Again we say such a man was "anxious," though no one thinks of his body as being anxious. Thus we speak of men with reference to their bodies or to their souls, just as we have occasion. We say "nobody," meaning "no man;" and we say "fifty souls," meaning "fifty men." Thus we may use the terms "body" and "soul" at times interchangeably, though at other times such confusion would be absurd.

So in Gen. 3:19, man is called "dust," (haphair) though he was also nephesh, and was called nephesh, (breath, life, soul, self, or whatever the term mean,) quite as often as he was called anything else. And this nephesh certainly was neither dust, nor was it taken from the dust. And Bro. G. will not say that the nephesh returns to dust, unless he takes it to mean "blood," when he must re-explain Gen. 2:7,—to say nothing of Eccl. 12:7. But, for the purpose in hand, the doom to be denounced against Adam, he was well addressed as "dust," because the dissolution of the body was to him the most vivid picture of death. The nephesh need not be named in giving his sentence, 1st, because he may not have known or thought of its nature; 2dly, because the intermediate state, the judgment, and the second death, were yet to be revealed, and were unimportant to him. So much for the terms of Adam's doom. But afterwards, when the soul come into fuller consciousness, as a power within,

energizing the body, and not a mere attribute of body, men must be told of death in fuller terms, as we have seen in Isa. 10:18,and Matt. 10:28.

Yours truly,

Cincinnati, Aug. 8, 1854. C.F.Hudson.

Response by Henry Grew.

I am sorry if I have, in any respect, "misapprehended" Bro. H. I trust that, by divine grace, it is our mutual desire not to "philosophize" or "reason" in any manner which is inconsistent with the revealed truth. "Let God be true." It is no marvel, if, in our continued discussion, some little misunderstanding of terms should occur. Let us forbear one another in love and patiently explain,

Bro. H. says, "I query whether the soul is not naturally immortal, though I am sure the smaller number of souls may be actually immortal." Now as the scriptures of divine truth so plainly teach that God will destroy the wicked, "soul and body," Matt. 10; 28, I must still think it is of "use," to elicit truth, to ask, "if it, (the soul), is naturally immortal, is it not naturally indestructible?" In my view, this conclusion is unavoidable. How does our Bro. understand the declaration, God "only hath immortality?" Is not the import, that He only is by nature immortal? If so, it follows that no other being is naturally immortal. Moreover, I ask our friend, if he can establish the opinion, that the human soul is naturally immortal, by a single "thus saith the Lord," which he justly demands of us to sustain our faith? We have given him the divine testimony that man is "MORTAL;" that Immortality, (possessed naturally only by God himself) is the gift of God "through Jesus Christ," to be obtained by a vital holy union to Christ, and "patient continuance in well doing." If it is our natural attribute, we owe it, not to redemption but to creation. What is the holy record? It is "that God hath given us eternal life, and this life is IN his Son." Hallelujah! Bro. H. is "sure the smaller number of human souls may be actually immortal. "Does not this imply that he does not believe that all human souls will exist forever? Does it not imply that many souls may be destroyed forever? If our friend is correct in supposing that natural immortality may be forfeited, he is still bound to adduce some divine testimony that man was created immortal.

I asked "if the proper and actual existence of the soul, as a distinct entity from the body, does not necessarily involve its consciousness?" Bro. H. thinks this is philosophizing, and asks for a "thus saith the Lord." Of course, as I believe the opinion is a dogma of vain heathen philosophy, I do not suppose that the Lord has said anything about it, except to condemn all philosophy which is "not after Christ." Col. 2:8. I supposed, however, that the idea of "a distinct entity" of a disembodied spirit, or soul, and still think, that such an entity, destitute of all knowledge, thought, and affection, is unworthy of our advocacy. The gold in the mine undiscovered is not analagous. The gold undiscovered is intrinsically the same as when discovered.

An unconscious spirit is not the same as a conscious one. I supposed I understood my friend on this subject. He wrote—"The soul survives the first death, either by the law of its nature, or by some equivalent law which we do not understand." He now writes, "I am not ashamed of the idea of an unconscious soul." Can he then conceive of the soul surviving without consciousness? I assure my dear brother, I had not the least idea that I was misrepresenting him, when I inferred from his own declaration, that "the soul survives the first death," that he believed that the "felicity (of the saints) immediately follows death." Are we now to understand him that the soul, as a distinct entity, survives without consciousness? If so, must he not admit that when man kills the body, he, in some sense, kills the soul also? Must he not admit with us that man can kill the soul in one sense, but not in another?

He remarks, "In my view that existence is well worth while which makes my essential being the same in the life to come as in the present life, so that 'mine eyes shall behold' my Savior, and not another being in my stead. Such an intermediate existence, be it never so unconscious, I think I should value for what it accomplished." If any scriptural proof were adduced for such an unconscious intermediate state of 'a distinct entity,' we would not presume to affirm that it is destitute of 'value.' As no such proof is offered, I ask, what can such a theory accomplish more than a resurrection of the entire man from the dead? The period of unconsciousness is the same in both cases. In the latter, the life of the believer is hid with Christ in God, to be restored at the appearing of Jesus. "When Christ who is our life shall appear then shall we also appear with him in glory." Then, and not before, shall we see him and be like him forever. The glorious power of God, in the resurrection, will secure our "essential being" so far as conscious identity is concerned.

"Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints." It is asked, "Can this death mean their temporary destruction and annihilation?" Let the scriptures of truth answer. "And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth." Gen. 6:7;9:15. The words destroy and destruction are used also in reference to the first death in the following passages. Gen. 18:23; Eccles. 7:16,17; John 2:19; 1 Cor. 6:13; Ps. 90:3; 91:6. Several of these passages refer to the death of the righteous. All are pertinent. If the first death of the wicked is a temporary destruction, the death of the righteous is the same. They have no pre-eminence in this matter, abstractly considered, either over wicked men or beasts. Eccles. 3:19. That this death is not limited to a part of man—that there is no soul, or distinct entity which, as our brother affirms, "survives the first death," is most clearly proved by the plain declaration of the Eternal Spirit, that in that very day (of death) the "thoughts perish;" "also their love and their hatred and their envy is now perished." The Savior's soul was in sheol (though not left there) where there is no work, or knowledge, or device. Eccles. 9:10; Psa. 16:10; and Acts 2:31.

"Grant that the saints exist during the intermediate state," our brother remarks, "and this language is appropriate as expressing the care God has for them—but quite absurd, if it be a condition of non-existence." I ask if the death of the saint may not be precious in the sight of the Lord, whatever view we may take of the intermediate state? I affirm that the promise of a resurrection to life eternal proves it to be so, notwithstanding the fulfillment of the decree, (plainly applicable to the entire man) "Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return." Has our brother never sung that God

"Looks down and watches all my dust Till he shall bid it rise?"

Did he sing an absurdity? I trow not.

In reference to Matt. 10 : 28, I ask brother H., how we can reconcile the two scriptural declarations that man does kill the soul, and that man cannot kill the soul, except by supposing that he can kill it in one sense but not in another? I did not affirm that killing it temporarily, but not eternally, was the precise meaning of the Savior. Brother H. may reject my comment if he pleases. I will thank him for a better one. He must however give me one reconcilable with the plain and repeated declarations of the Bible, which we have adduced, that the entire man is subject to death.

On Gen. 3:19, our friend remarks, "The body must be alive, or there is no man." "We are agreed in this." Nay, my brother. If we were, we should both disagree with the spirit of truth, which pronounced the perfect material organism "formed—of the dust of the ground," to be "MAN" previous to the impartation of life. The testimony is not, that the organized dust became man by the impartation of life. It is, that by the simple impartation of "the breath of life," "man became a living soul." The organism was man before. God breathing into the nostrils made the man a living soul, or person—a living man. I seriously ask our brother to review this divine testimony of the creation of MAN, independently of all human theories. "The Lord God formed MAN of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and MAN became a living soul." I submit the question to the intelligent mind of our brother—Is not the plain teaching here, that the perfect material organism, formed of the dust of the ground, with the breath of life in the nostrils, imparting animation to the whole frame, constituted the living man? Will he deny our affirmation, that there is not a single word here to warrant the notion of any entity distinct from the breathing living organism formed of the dust? Is it possible that the Spirit of Truth, giving account of the creation and constitution of man, should wholly omit that which constitutes the far more important part of Him? Alas! for the anomaly. That which the oracles of God denominates MAN, the wisdom of man denominates the mere tenement of man. Must not such wisdom be foolishness with God? Two marvellous errors demand consideration. The wonderful perfect organism formed of the dust by the omnipotent hand, and declared to be MAN, is reduced to a mere tenement of man; and the breath of the nostrils, which simply gave animation to the man, is exalted to a distinct entity of superior nature, capable of survivance when its tenement is dissolved!

Thus has a heathen philosophy of an immortal soul nullified the revealed truth of God.

Our friend thinks "that disembodied souls have not been commonly called" men, "though believed to exist." The common sentiment appears to be that the disembodied soul is the essential man, who, at death, if a saint, goes to his reward. The Savior's parable is adduced to prove that the "rich man" is now in conscious misery. He remarks, "the body alone, or the soul alone, is not the man." Although the original term translated soul is, in the scriptures, occasionally applied to the mental powers, its proper import is life, and is often so translated, though not so often as it should be. I have proved from Gen. 2:7, that the material organism itself is man, who, by the breath of life in his nostrils, became a living soul or person.

Our brother correctly affirms in reference to the term "nephesh" that it "was neither dust nor was it taken from the dust." This however is no proof that it imports "a distinct entity," or an immortal essence of any kind. The learned believers in the natural immortality of the soul admit that the proper import of the term is "breath." We derive much confidence of the correctness of our views from the fact, that the word of the Lord, (the only reliable source of information on the subject,) contains, in the original, not a single sentence or word, warranting the opinion of man's possessing any "distinct entity" from the material organism, animated simply by the breath of life. Truly "Bro. G. will not say that the nephesh returns to dust." The breath of life, at death, "returns to God who gave it." It is no more a "distinct entity," or surviving conscious substance, subsequently to its leaving the body, or the man, than it was such an entity or substance anterior to its being given to the man. Eccles. 3:23, the same original word, ruach, is used to denote "the spirit of the beast" as is used to denote "the spirit of man." It is no more "a distinct entity" in the one case than in the other.

Our brother thinks that the subject of death was not fully revealed to Adam. I reply, that which was revealed to him on the subject is totally subversive of the opinion of our opponents. God threatened Adam in a manner to be understood. In no other sense could he understand the threatening, "Tnou shalt surely die," than that the entire man should cease to live. "Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return." But this is not true if the nobler part, "the soul (as our brother affirms) survives the first death." The threatening in this case, was not fulfilled in the first death. Isa. 10:18, and Matt. 10:28, are referred to as revealing the subject of death "in fuller terms." The former is opposed to our friend's opinion, for it clearly represents the entire consuming of "both soul and body" at one and the same time. The other equally fails our brother's purpose, for psuche so far from importing "a distinct entity," means "the breath, vital breath, the vital principle." Robinson's Lexicon. This is the primary meaning. It suggests another and more unobjectionable import of the words of our blesssd Lord, which I submit for consideration, Man can kill the body, or the man, but cannot kill the life. He cannot destroy the principle of life. The vital breath returns to God who gave it. When God made man of the dust of the ground he imparted "the breath of lives" (Heb.) that mysterious principle which he imparts to entities or substances as he pleases. This distinguished the animate from the inanimate. "Ye are dead," i.e., liable to death; ye men, not a mere part of you, and "your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory." Col. 3:3,4. How is the life of dead believers hid with Christ in God? If it is by the survivance of distinct entities, constituting the chief part of men, then certainly the men have never died. Our life, i.e., its restoration, is secured "with Christ in God," and will be granted at his appearing who is "the resurrection and the life." Thus the word of truth connects our life with our resurrection.

May the Lord grant us understanding in all things. Yours for the Truth,

THE DISCUSSION.

"DOES THE BIBLE TEACH THAT THE CREATURE MAN—WHICH THE LORD GOD FORMED OF THE DUST OF THE GROUND—HAS A SUPERADDED ENTITY CALLED THE SOUI.?"

The Affirmative by Prof. Mattison.

Mr. Editor.—It must be obvious to our readers that while you have no difficulty in noticing all that I may advance in the direct argument, it is impossible for me to notice all you say in review; much less in your rejoinders to my replies. Were I to do so, we might remain for months discussing points already raised, without advancing a step farther with the main question. This, I am sure, would not please our readers; and you have more than intimated in your last that I am devoting too much space to my Reviewer, and too little, comparatively, to the direct argument.

Accepting, then, your suggestion, I shall pass most of your last response unnoticed for the present, and devote most of the present article to the direct proof of the question in hand.

But I ought not to proceed without some notice of my Reviewer, even though I may not answer all your criticisms. For the sake of system, then, and to economize space,I will confine my present rejoinder to the first part of your last response; leaving your remarks upon my new arguments for future consideration.

You seem disposed to take back the virtual concession that there are minds in the universe without bodies. You mean simply without animal bodies. Do you then deny that "God is a spirit" without any body whatever?

But you seem to think the "spiritual body" of St. Paul is not an "animal" body. If by "animal" you mean mortal and corruptible, I agree with you.

The Apostle's "spiritual body," is a corruptible, material body, made incorruptible and immortal; but it is an organized body still. Such was the "glorious body" of Christ—"flesh and bones" still, though immortal! It is "this corruptible" which shall put on incorruption; and "this mortal" which shall put on immortality. And being invested with these two attributes of spirit—incorruptibility and immortality—it is no longer a "natural body," but a "spiritual" one. Like a spirit it can "die no more," and it is therefore called a "spiritual body." But it is nevertheless a body, and such a one as neither God nor angels have. It is of no avail, therefore, to cite St. Paul in proof that all spirits have "spiritual bodies;" and the point remains indubitably settled, (however fatal it may be to your materialism,) that spirits can and do exist without material bodies.

You insist that I have argued the existence of a soul in man, from the simple fact that he manifests intelligence. That may be a legitimate ground for such an argument; and I may use it hereafter; but I am not aware of having done so as yet; and as my arguments are all in print, would it not have been better to have quoted my argument than to meet my denial by a simple contradiction? If I have thus argued it will be easy to produce the argument: Will you please do so in your next response?

You object to my use of the term spirit in the sense of soul; but this objection is not well founded. Webster's first definition of the term "soul is, The spiritual, rational and immortal substance in man, which distinguishes him from brutes," &c.; and he also gives as one meaning of the term "spirit," "The soul of man; the intelligent, immaterial and immortal part of a human being;" and adds ["See Soul."] I have then, the authority of this greatest of English Lexicographers, for using the terms soul and spirit interchangeably as synonymous. That they are used synonymously in the Scriptures is certain. What was the "soul" of Rachel which departed, Gen. 35:18, if it was not her spirit? And what is the "spirit" that returns to God who gave it, if it is not the soul that departs at death? Though each of those terms is used in other senses, (and how few terms have not more than one meaning?) still it is certain that they are also used in the same sense, to indicate "the spiritual, rational and immortal substance in man." It is vain therefore to attempt to destroy the force of my proof-texts, by asserting that the term "spirit" used in part of them does not mean the human soul! Such an attempt is a virtual concession that the Bible is against you; and that my arguments are unanswerable.

You devote a whole page to my twelve lines on 1 Cor. 15:46,47,and conclude that one of us must be "sadly confused on the 46th verse." I perceive this is the case, and must try and help you out of your confusion.

The general subject under consideration by Paul is the resurrection of the dead. The particular point in view is that introduced at the 35th verse, by the question, "How are the dead raised up?

and with what body do they come?" His answer is, Firstly, that the death of the body is no obstacle to its future life, verses 36-38: Secondly, that there are various kinds of flesh on earth, and that there are celestial as well as terrestrial bodies, 39, 40: and Thirdly, that following these analogies, the resurrection body will be "the same body" though raised in incorruption and glory,—a "spiritual body," verses 42 and 43. Then comes the affirmation, verse 44—"There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit, that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from Heaven." Now my "exegesis" of these verses is this: To show that the dead, though corruptible and mortal, may be raised to glory and immortality, the Apostle refers to the different kinds of flesh—to bodies, celestial and terrestrial, natural and spiritual—and then, for illustration, and to show that the present corruptible state of man is no proof that he will not be incorruptible hereafter; cites the fact that man, at first, had only the natural body, without the soul, and afterward the spirit which gave it life. It is a simple reference to the creation of Adam, Gen. 2:7, first the body and then the spirit; and we should like to know where else any thing like it "is written." Surely nowhere in all the Bible. We are shut up to this view of the subject, or to the inextricable confusion of the Examiner.

But with this understanding all is clear. The "natural" "was" first, (not is to be) and then the "spiritual." The first man—the body—is of the earth, earthy, the second man is "the Lord from Heaven," breathing the "breath of lives" into the lifeless body. The reference being to the history of the origin of Adam, the simple and obvious meaning is that his body is from the earth, and his spirit from God. So "it is written" Gen. 2:7, and no where else. From this beautiful analogy the Apostle proceeds: First, the body, then the spirit; first the natural body then the spiritual body—first the earthy, then the heavenly. "And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." "The dead shall be raised incorruptible," and the living shall "all be changed." Not through faith as you gratuitously assert, but without faith; for "ALL that are in the graves shall hear his voice and shall come forth," John v. 28; and "there shall be a resurrection of the dead both OF THE JUST AND THE UNJUST." Acts 24:15.

You wish to know if I deny that animals live by breathing. I answer, Some do and some do not. Fish, oysters, lobsters, and all marine shell fish are as much animals as a horse or an elephant; but does the Examiner pretend that these all breathe? How does an oyster breathe, and where are his "nostrils?" Your error consists in supposing that there are no animals but land animals,—birds, quadrupeds, &c.—forgetting the fact that the earth and waters are full of animals that have life, but have no " nostrils," and do not "BREATHE."

Many such, like the whole tribe of shell-fish, live without breathing, and have no red blood. It is certain, therefore, that there may be life without nostrils or breathing; and your favorite hypothesis that breath in the nostrils is the only cause of life, falls to the ground.

You have finally admitted, virtually, that upon your theory all that was necessary to cause the lifeless body of Adam to live was to fill his lungs with air, and set him to breathing. This you do by citing a case in which a "lifeless" body was brought to life by the application of heat, and stimulants, and air breathed into the lungs. But was there no more life here than in Adam before God breathed into his nostrils? Was ever a person thus brought to life who was really DEAD? You think there have been; and that if there had only been some one to have used the bellows, or blown the breath into Adam's nostrils, instead of his Maker, he would just as surely have become a living soul! This is the obvious import of your remarks; and it is all that is demanded by my "bellows argument," which you have tried in vain to laugh out of countenance.

You kindly inform our readers once more that my arguments are irrelevant, or rather, now, that I have altogether "abandoned the ground I was pledged to defend." Still you condescend to follow me out of courtesy. Well, if I waste my time arguing other questions, that is my loss. But I have no difficulty in seeing the connexion between my arguments and the proposition; and I think our readers will not. Why not let them judge, and not attempt to act as disputant and umpire both?

I must remind you that we are not discussing the question of the HAPPINESS or MISERY of souls after they leave the body. It is enough, for my present purpose, that I prove that they separate from the body at death. Excuse me, therefore, if I decline following you at present, in your disquisitions upon future punishment.

I trust, however, that our readers will not be so blinded by this "dust" as not to see the utter weakness of your reply to my proofs and arguments.

Leaving for the present the balance of your ten pages of response (solely for want of space in your columns to answer all you have said,) I shall now proceed with my argument.

To show that man has a soul distinct from his body, and originally "superadded thereto," I have already established the following points :

I. That the Scriptures everywhere recognize the philosophical distinction between the BODY and the SPIRIT; and the two-fold nature of man.

II. That they uniformly represent death as a SEPARATION of the body and spirit of man.

You have been pleased to pronounce both of these propositions irrelevant to the question, and will probably honor my next with a similar judgment; and yet I doubt if we have a solitary reader who will not admit that if either of these propositions is proved, the doctrine that man has a soul superadded to his material nature is established. And yet you pronounce the arguing of these propositions the "abandoning the question at issue

entirely!" You can see no connection, between the separation of the soul from the body at death, and the question whether man has a soul or not! I may prove from the Bible that the body and spirit are DISTINCT—that the soul LEAVES the body at death—and that it is conscious from death to the general resurrection;—but all this does not even prove that man has a soul distinct from his body!!

Leaving our readers to judge between us, I shall now proceed to show,

III. That man has not only a SOUL distinct from his body, which SEPARATES from it at death ; but that the period between death and the general resurrection is one of CONSCIOUS EXISTENCE to all human spirits.

The first proof that I shall offer in support of this proposition is the words of Christ to the dying thief, Luke 23 : 42, 43. "And he [the thief] said unto 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."

It is obvious, first, that the thief expected to die. Hence he speaks of their being "in like condition" with Christ, "receiving the due reward of their deeds." And you certainly will not deny that the prevailing belief among the Jews was, that the soul left the body at death, and went to Hades, or the world of spirits, to return again at the general resurrection. Hence Josephus, in his discourse to the Greeks concerning Hades, says, "This is the discourse concerning Hades, wherein the souls of all men are confined until a proper season which God hath determined, when he will make a resurrection of all men from the dead. * And to every body shall its own soul be restored."

This was the popular belief among the Jews at the time of the crucifixion, and was evidently the belief of the thief when he made his request, "Lord, remember me, &c.

The term "Paradise" signifies pleasure or delight; and is used in the New Testament to signify Heaven. Paul was caught up to Paradise, 2 Cor. 12:4; and when the spirit would incite believers to holiness by the promise of eternal life, 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;" Rev. 2:7. Now the promise of the Saviour was that the thief should be with him that day in paradise? Is not paradise the heaven to which Paul was caught up, where grows the tree of life? If not, what is it? In what other paradise did Christ and the thief meet that day? Here, then, we have the explicit declaration of Christ that according to the prevailing belief of the separate existence of souls, implied in his request, the thief should meet him that day in heaven. If he meant simply that he would be dead that day—in the paradise of unconsciousness—what kind of a "remembrance" was that? and what better off was he who prayed, than he who railed? The passage can have but one meaning; and that is that the spirit of the thief should meet the spirit of Christ, which he was about to commend to his Father's hands, in the kingdom of heaven.

Luke 20:27,38. "Now that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he is not the God of the dead but of the living : for ALL LIVE UNTO HIM."

The Lord appeared to Moses in the bush 1491 years before Christ. Abraham died B.C.1821, Isaac, B.C.1716, and Jacob, B.C.1689; consequently at that time,(1491, B.C.) Abraham had been dead 330 years, Isaac 225 years, and Jacob 198 years. And yet God declares himself to be the God of those persons. Now the argument of our Lord, based upon this passage is this : God is not the God of the dead, but of the living only; God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; therefore Abraham, Isaac and Jacob must still live.

And this he distinctly declares; "all live unto God." The bearing of this quotation upon the resurrection of the dead is this: The Sadducees denied the immortality of the soul, as well as the resurrection of the body. And with them the two doctrines stood or fell together. To show, therefore, that the soul lived after death, and thus to overthrow the system of the Sadducees, was to silence their objections to the resurrection. Besides, if the soul of Abraham survived the death of his body, it affords ground for a strong presumption that sooner or later the body will live also.

Matt. 10 : 26. "And fear not them which kill the body, but ARE NOT ABLE TO KILL THE soul:" Here we have, (1,) the distinction between the soul and body. The soul is not the body, neither is the body the soul. (2,) While men are able to kill the body, they "are not able to kill the soul." The soul is not killed, then, when the body is killed. And yet you insist that the soul dies in all cases with the body; so that whenever the body of a disciple was killed by the persecutor, his soul was killed also. To this I oppose the express declaration of Christ, that men "are NOT ABLE TO KILL THE SOUL." It lives after the body dies, for "ALL LIVE UNTO GOD."

The conscious existence of the spirit after death is clearly taught in the account of the Rich Man and Lazarus, Luke 16:19-31. And it makes no difference whether it be regarded as a history or a parable. In both cases the souls of the parties are represented as living, talking, remembering, &c., after death. The rich man dies, and is buried, and then lifts up his eyes in hell, living in torments. Lazarus "dies," and is carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. What does this misery after death—this reference to the "life-time" of Dives as then past—indeed this whole narrative teach, if it be not this;—that souls live after the body dies, and are happy or miserable in a future state?

Let any reader turn to this narrative, and read it carefully over, verse after verse, (for I have not room to quote it) and if he does not find there the doctrine of the conscious existence of souls after death, he can find it in no creed or essay or argument. Language could not teach it more plainly;

and the spirit that can pervert this, would pervert any language that could be used.

Matt. 17:3. "And there appeared unto him Moses and Elias talking unto him." Elias or Elijah was translated to heaven 928 years before, without seeing death. See 2 Kings, 2d chapter. Moses died 1483 years before. "So Moses, the servant of the Lord, died there in the land of Moab and he, [Jehovah] buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Beth-peor : but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day." Deut. 34.5.

This passage settles the fact that Moses died and WAS BURIED.

But neither the body of Moses, nor that of any other person, had at that time risen from the dead, "to die no more." Christ was to be "the first that should rise from the dead," Acts 26 : 23; and St. Paul declares that he was the "first fruits of them that slept." 1 Cor. 15 : 20. He styles him "the first born from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence," Col. 1 : 18; and the Revelator also calls him "the first begotten of the dead," Rev. 1 : 5.

Nothing, therefore, can be clearer than this; that as the transfiguration was before the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, the body of Moses had not been raised from the dead. What was it, then, that appeared on Mount Tabor, and talked with Christ? that which Matthew calls "Moses?" His body certainly was not there, for he had not risen from the dead; and as you say human souls have no life or consciousness till their bodies are raised; will you please tell us what this "Moses" was?

I offer this as an incontrovertible instance, in which a human spirit has manifested itself as having a conscious existence while the body it once occupied lay in the grave. The spirit of Moses met Elijah and Christ on the top of Talor near fifteen centuries after his body died, and while it yet slumbered in the valley of Moab, where it doubtless sleeps still; and yet you affirm that spirits have no conscious existence out of the body! Please be particular and give this case your special attention in the next response.

The book of Revelation represents the righteous dead as indescribably happy, singing and praising God in a world of light. In the 7th chapter a great multitude which no man could number is seen before the throne, clothed in whitfe and with palms in their hands. They came out of great tribulation, but are now before the throne, where all tears are wiped away.

"No oppressive heat they feel, From the sun's director ray; In a milder clime they dwell Region of eternal day."

In the 5th chapter we have another view of the happy residents of heaven and also in the 19th chapter it is written, "Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord FROM HENCEFORTH." They have not to sleep a thousand, or four thousand years, before they can be with Christ, as Materialism teaches, but will enter at once upon their reward.

"We know when the silver chord is loosed, When the veil is rent away, Not long and dark shall the passage be, To the realms of endless day."

Now all these apocalyptic views of the heavenly world are essentially wrong, unless it be true that the spirits of the righteous dead are now happy with Christ in heaven, while their bodies slumber in the grave till the resurrection morn. Let it not be forgotten that they are beyond the region of tears and sorrow: and therefore the description can relate to no assembly of mortals on this side of death. They are our happy brethren who, like Moses, have crossed the flood and entered Canaan, though their bodies still sleep in the vale of death.

In harmony with this last representation, the spirits of the dead are to return to earth with Christ when he shall come to raise their bodies and judge the world. Paul speaks of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with ALL HIS SAINTS; 1 Thess. 3:13; and Jude, quoting the prophecy of Enoch says, "Behold the Lord cometh WITH TEN THOUSAND OF HIS SAINTS," &c., v. 14.

Now, we ask, Who and what are these "saints" that are to come with Christ at his second appearing? Are they the bodies of Christians that he is coming to raise? or are they the spirits of the sainted dead, who have been with him for ages in heaven, and now accompany him back as he descends to blow the last dread trumpet, and to raise their bodies to glory and immortality? Is not this last the obvious and incontrovertible doctrine of Divine Revelation?

I have thus shown from the Scriptures that the creature Man, has a distinct superadded entity called the soul,

First. By the history of the creation of Adam, in which the body is first made, and then the spirit breathed into it:

Secondly, By a large class of Scriptures recognizing the distinction between the body and the spirit, and the two-fold nature of man :

Thirdly, By numerous Scriptures which represent death as a SEPARATION of the soul from the body, and

Finally, By numerous passages that teach that the soul is CONSCIOUS in HAPPINESS OR MISERY, from death to the general resurrection.

Life begins with the union of soul and body death is a separation of these two natures—the souls of the righteous ascend to "paradise," or "Abraham's bosom," at death, to be with Christ till he return to raise their bodies, now made incorruptible and glorious, and in them ascend to heaven to dwell in God's presence forever! Such is the plain, simple, obvious, but glorious teaching of divine revelation.

I have not introduced arguments drawn from philosophy or metaphysics, because the question was, What do the Scriptures teach? and I have by no means exhausted the Scripture argument. Yet I shall devote no further space to the direct proofs of the single question, whether or not man has a soul. If the arguments adduced, do not prove it, nothing could. In my next, therefore, I shall pay my respects more directly to my Reviewer of the Examiner. H. MATTISON.

NEW YORK, Sept. 2d.

BIBLE EXAMINER.

NEW YORK, OCTOBER 1, 1854.

Response to Prof. Mattison by the Editor.

We shall, as heretofore, follow the Prof. by his numbered paragraphs, or topics; noticing first his remarks on our last response.

"1." We made no "virtual concession" such as the Prof. speaks of; and hence are not "disposed to take back" anything. We are glad that the Prof. sees that the spiritual body, of which Paul speaks, 1 Cor. 15, is an organized body, and not an immaterial one. His assumption that it is such an one as angels do not have, rests on his mere ipse-dixit, and the Prof.'s "indubitably settled" point, "that spirits can and do exist without material bodies," rests alone on his assumption, and is unsupported by a solitary testimony of Scripture: and hence is not "fatal" to our materialism, nor in the least degree convincing.

"2." We did not say that the Prof. argued the existence of a soul in man from the "simple fact that he manifests intelligence;" but he did make that fact one of his arguments; and we affirmed, and now re-affirm, that such an argument equally proves a soul in all animals which manifest intelligence. We do not know what the Prof. means, by asking if we had not better have quoted his argument on the point. It was before the reader in his own article and in his own words. Surely that was enough.

"3." The Prof. here felt himself in a "strait betwixt two"—viz: The authority of the Scriptures and that of Mr. Webster; but finally chose to rely on the latter; and thus makes out to his own satisfaction that he is justified in using the terms soul and spirit synonymously, or as words of the same import. We would inform him, however, that Mr. Webster is just as good authority, in this case, as the Prof. himself, and no better. The Prof. and his theological school have assumed that these terms are synonymous, and that soul and spirit mean the same thing, viz., an immortal entity in man; and Mr. Webster, as a faithful Lexicographer, tells the world one sense attached to these words, by theological usage, is, an "immaterial and immortal part in man," &c. Does that prove the theological definition is true? By no means. What saith "the law and testimony? if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them." We have, in our previous articles, shown that the scripture usage is against the theological use of the terms soul and spirit; and that they are not synonymous in scripture, nor used interchangeably. Till the Prof.

can show they are, he only deals in assumptions, and Mr. Webster cannot help him. We think if the Prof. could have obtained help from the Bible he would no more have gone to Webster than to the witch of Endor. We told him in our last what Rachel's was, and shall not repeat it. See Examiner, page 266. One thing is perfectly certain, it was not a theological spirit; and all the Prof.'s "proof texts"—as he calls them based on the term spirit, have no stronger foundation than Mr. Webster's echo of theological assumptions. But Mr. Webster gives 21 definitions of the term spirit, and his first is—"Primarily, wind; air in motion: hence, breath." On the term soul he has 15 definitions; and gives no scripture authority for the one for which the Prof. contends.

"4." The Prof.'s kind attempt to help us out of the confusion arising from his language on 1 Cor. 15:46, in his last, is appreciated by us; yet we have to confess, we get no light from the effort. The very first thing the Prof. introduces from Paul's words is fatal to his interpretation. It is—"How are the dead raised up? and with what bodies do they [the dead] come?" It is not—How do souls come down from heaven, and what bodies do they get? So it should read to correspond with the Prof.'s theory. But it is the dead that are to be raised, and come with some bodies. "With what bodies do they come?" Is it that body they had at death? No, saith Paul—"That which thou sowest is not that body which shall be," &c., "but God giveth it a body as it hath pleased Him, and to every seed his own body." The dead are the subjects of the resurrection, and these dead are to come with bodies; thus showing that the apostle is not speaking of the body merely, nor mainly; but of the man, whom he affirms to be dead; and whose case he had declared to be hopeless for a future life if there is no resurrection.

The construction which the Prof. puts on the 44th verse, and onward, is totally inadmissible on his own theory. He saith, the first man Adam is the body; or that he "had only the natural body without the soul, and, afterward the spirit which gave it life." The text he quotes to prove this is, "The first man Adam was made a living soul." Let it be well observed, that our Prof. affirms the first man Adam, "had only the natural body without the soul;" and that it was the spirit, i.e., the soul, according to his theology, or the second man that gave life to the first man. But Paul, in opposition to the Prof. affirms "the

first man Adam was made a living soul;" and that it was afterward that the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. "Howbeit that was not first which was spiritual, but that which is natural"—psuchikon—animal. It was the animal man that was the living soul, and not a superadded second Adam called soul. The living soul was such, Paul affirms, before the spiritual body was brought into existence; indeed, so far as man is concerned, he teaches the spiritual is yet future, and only to be realized at the last trump; and that all men, so far as descended only from Adam the first, are of the earth earthy.

That the Apostle speaks of two Adams in this chapter, in our mind, does not admit of a doubt. That those two were Adam the first, or earthy Adam, and the last Adam, which was heavenly, and was Christ, is unquestionable. He introduced Christ at the opening of the chapter: Christ died—Christ was buried—Christ rose from the dead—Christ became the first-fruits of them that slept—by man came death, by man came also the resurrection from the dead: IN ADAM men die, IN CHRIST men are made alive. Christ the first-fruits, afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. There is a natural—psuchikon—animal body, or person—for the term body is often used in Scripture for the person himself—and there is a spiritual body or person. Here is a clear carrying out his argument in the first part of the chapter, by showing what the animal Adam did, namely, brought death to his race; and what may be expected from Christ, whom he now speaks of as the last Adam, who is to give life from the dead to all in Christ. "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul" or creature: "the last Adam a quickening spirit." From this statement the Prof. says, "First the body, then the spirit;" and adds, "We should like to know where else"—than in Gen. 2:7—"anything like it is written"? and affirms, "no where in all the Bible."

Now, what does Paul say is written? First— "The first man Adam was made a living soul" not a mere body without life, as the Prof.'s theory maintains, dependent upon another Adam, afterward, to be superadded to give him life. We now ask, Does the apostle say, "it is WRITTEN, the last Adam was made a quickening Spirit?" His language does not necessarily imply such a construction, but we are quite willing the Prof. should have it so; and he saith it is no where else written in all the Bible, that the last Adam was made a quickening spirit, except in Gen. 2:71 Sure, we are, it is not written there, wherever else it may or may not be found.

But when Adam the first had brought death upon himself and posterity "it is written," that the seed of the woman "shall bruise" the "head" of the tempter; which shows who the "quickening spirit" was to be—not Adam the first, nor an immaterial spirit in him, but a seed to be born of woman; a second Adam, of whom Paul saith, Rom. 5.14, the Adam before Moses, was a figure. This promised seed was afterward more fully exhibited to Abraham as his seed, which Paul saith, Gal. 3:16, "was Christ." That seed was "written" of by nearly all the prophets of the Old Testament, and "written" of as a "quickening spirit," to give life to those who inherit death by their descent from Adam the first. So fully was he written of that Jesus tells the Jews their Scriptures reveal eternal life, testifying of him as the person to whom they should come if they would have life. See John 5:39, 40. And in the same chapter it is written: "As the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will." Thus notwithstanding the Prof.'s hasty affirmation, we find it written throughout the Bible, in various forms, and in the text last quoted, in express terms, that Christ quickeneth; and is hence the spiritual Adam—the promised seed to quicken and give life to men, such as they had not by the first Adam; and so Paul saith, Rom. 8:8-11, "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his, * and if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you"—thus being made partakers of the spiritual nature of Christ—"he that raised up Christ from the dead, shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you;" not by an immaterial soul, superadded to your bodies at your creation! Christ—the last Adam—by God's appointment has become the head of the spiritual creation; he has the quickening power, to quicken men from the dead, and cause them to live again.

We have now shown that the Prof.'s statement—that "the last Adam was made a quickening spirit," was no where written in all the Bible, except Gen. 2:7,—is a pure assumption. His concluding remarks on this topic, gives the Universalists the entire ground, and contradicts the Apostle's testimony; for the Apostle clearly distinguishes between those "in Christ" and those not. "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of ALL MEN most miserable;" verse 19. Here is a clear distinction between believers and unbelievers; and Paul in winding up his argument, saith, "WE," [who? men "without faith," as the Prof. affirms? No: "we," in distinction of all other men with whom he had contrasted those in Christ.] "We shall not all sleep, but WE" [who are IN Christ] "shall all be changed," &c. Whatever the Scriptures may say of the resurrection of the wicked elsewhere, the apostle is not talking of them here. He is showing how those who sleep in Jesus, or being in Christ and are alive at the last trump, are to be made incorruptible and immortal, through and by Christ; and adds, "Thanks be to God which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." Those who are the subjects of the resurrection and change, Paul speaks of here, triumph and praise. God for their deliverance from death and corruption; and Paul tells us who shall have this glorious privilege—"To them who by patient continuance in well-doing, seek for glory, and honor, and immortality, eternal life:" Rom. 2:7. Such a course requires faith; and we rather think no man will get incorruptibility or immortality without faith, the Prof. to the contrary notwithstanding.

"5." If the Prof. finds animals that do not breathe, our remarks had no reference to them. We spoke of that class that do breathe, and gave Scripture testimony on the subject, which the Prof. did not choose to controvert. Let him try his skill at disproving that the animals we named live without breath, or without nostrils. Till he can do that his talk about oysters and shell-fish avails nothing. We spoke of such creatures as live by breathing. Will our friend tell us if such creatures as were made to live by breathing can live without breath in their nostrils? When their breath goeth forth do they not die? We will give him one more text on this subject which may cover the whole ground so far as our discussion is concerned. Psa. 104:25 to 30. "This great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts there is that levia-than, whom thou hast made to play therein; these all wait upon thee, that thou mayest give them their meat in due season thou openest thy hand, they are filled with good; thou takest away THEIR BREATH, they die and return to their dust." Now, so far as relates to other animals, besides "land animals," even the "innumerable creeping things in the sea," inspiration testifies they live by "breath," and that when God "takest away their breath, they die:" but the Prof.'s "philosophy" affirms revelation is in "error:" for saith he, "The earth and waters are full of animals that have life but do not breathe!" That is, they have no BREATH for God to take away!

"6." The Prof., under this head, "virtually" denies that the child was dead that Elisha restored to life. The record saith, the child "died:" 2 Kings,4:20.

"7." We are perfectly willing to let "our readers judge" in this matter, and have no fears what their judgment will be.

"8." The Prof. has not proved yet that such a soul exists in man, as he contends for: not one solitary text has he produced up to this point of the discussion to favor his affirmative. No evidence has he given that soul and spirit are synonymous terms in Scripture usage, and yet he insists that if he can prove spirit and body are separated at death there must have been superadded to the creature man an entity called the soul, at his creation. Breath is separated from the body at death. "His breath goeth, he returneth to his dust," &c. "There was no breath left in him" at death. See Psa. 146:4, and 1 Kings 17:17. Now the Prof. might just as well attempt to prove from such expressions that the breath is a distinct entity—a conscious being—as to attempt to prove a distinct entity in man called the soul, from the fact that that which is called spirit in man is separated from the body at death.

The truth is, the Scriptures never speak of either the soul or spirit as a distinct entity from man, any more than they do of his breath, his heart, or any other attribute of man.

The Prof. suggested at the outset that he should pass most of our last response unnoticed at present, assigning as one reason that we had intimated that he was devoting too much time to his Reviewer and too little to the direct argument. Now, we intended no such intimation: we meant to give him the largest liberty consistent with keeping to the question at issue. Notwithstanding his intention to pass most we said, he has devoted five-twelfths of his present article to his Reviewer's response. We have no fault to find with him for having done so, tho' we are glad to have him go on with the direct argument. We shall now follow him in it. To his

"I. We reply—The Scriptures no "where recognize" the theological "distinction between the body and spirit" of man: nor the theological idea of "the two-fold nature of man." Man is one, not two, however many things might enter into his constitution. As one, or as a unit, the Scriptures treat him, speak to him, command him, threaten him, and promise him. Or in other words, they uniformly regard him as a whole, and not as two separate entities. They regard him as capable of dissolution, and when dissolved as dead; not one entity alive and another dead; and hence teach us the importance of a resurrection from the dead in order to being alive again; whereas the theological distinction, for which the Prof. contends, teaches that the essential man is a distinct entity called the soul, and lives in spite of death, and must live whether there be a resurrection or not. In fact, there is not, and cannot be a resurrection of the man, because the man, viz.: the soul entity, was never dead; and hence Christ is not the resurrection and the life to man, but only of the soul's cage, called the body. A mighty honor that!

…