USE OF THE WORD LIFE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
The question we have to consider is,—not whether this word is sometimes employed in a secondary and figurative sense, to denote the highest and all possible good,—but whether, when it is one of the objects held out to be sought after, and is matter of promise by God through Christ, it has, or includes, the idea of continued and never-ending existence. The holders of the popular doctrine, proceeding on the assumption that all men have eternal life, in the literal sense, must, of course, deny altogether that the idea of existence is even included in the terms “life,” “everlasting life,” and the like. For seeing, according to the common notion, that the wicked have everlasting life (taking the phrase literally,) as well as the righteous, when this is promised to the followers of Christ, as something peculiar to them and unutterably glorious, they must perforce affirm that the phrase is used metaphorically, and only so. Will the serious reader do me the favor to consider the following observations? I. That existence, and existence only (or at all events chiefly), is meant by such words, in some passages, cannot be disputed. For instance, when Christ appearing to John in Patmos says, Rev. i, 18, “I am he that liveth, and was dead; and behold I am alive forevermore;” no one will affirm that the glorified Saviour, although, of course, unutterably happy, meant at all to convey the idea of happiness by the assertion of living, and being alive forevermore; but the idea of an existence gloriously exempt forever from all liability to a second death. So Prof. Stuart rightly expounds: “I was indeed subject to the power of death, yet only for a little time, for behold! I live forever and ever; I have risen to a life which can never be interrupted, never cease.” Stuart in loc. And so when in Rev. iv, 9, 10, “The living creatures give glory, and honor, and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth forever and ever; and the four-and-twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth forever and ever;”—no one will wish to do away with the literal sense of the phrase employed, which appears to be used here something like the “I AM” of the Old Testament, to set forth the idea of infinite and independent existence. The Jews were accustomed to speak of God as emphatically “the living God,” in distinction from the heathen deities which were either the objects of nature, the creations of their fancy, or the work of their own hands; and the formula was common, “As the Lord liveth,” &c. So we are assured, Heb. vii, 25, that Christ “is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth, to make intercession for them,” where, without dispute, the phrase is used literally. As it is in verse 16, of the same chapter, where Christ is said to be a priest, “not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.” But, as any concordance will give many similar passages, the reader needs not be detained on this first remark, except to observe— That Christ himself, in the days of his flesh, as well as subsequently, used the word in that literal sense which it would naturally convey. Thus, for example, when he said, John v, 26, “As the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.” No one will affirm happiness to be here intended, although God is the happy God, and Christ partakes of his felicity, or deny that the word is used in the strictest literalness. But to advance a step, it may be observed— II. That the word is sometimes to be understood literally when men are spoken of; which will not be denied by the keenest disputant. Thus the apostle, in his famous discourse on Mars’ Hill, speaking of God, says, “He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things. . . . In him we live, and move, and have our being.” And Christ affirmed, in a passage we have already examined, “God is not the God of the dead but of the living.” Where by “dead” we must necessarily understand the idea that our Lord was then controverting with the Sadducees, who held that death was the utter end of man, and that all who had died were clean perished out of existence, and that forever. Christ proved that the notion, as they held it, was false, for that God, after the decease of the patriarchs, had styled himself their God. Here the word “living,” then, is necessarily used by our Lord in its natural sense; and, in this passage, he who brought life and immortality to light teaches that there is an existence after the body has yielded to decay. God is not the God of the utterly non-existent and perished. Death and life are here used for existence and non-existence. But, as a concordance will give a great number of texts in which the literal is the only possible sense, the reader is referred thereto, that we may avoid filling pages with quotations, and may come still nearer to the very point of the present argument. And it may be remarked— III. That the word is sometimes to be understood literally, when employed in a declaration of the benefits bestowed by Christ on those who believe in him. As, for example,—John vi, 57, 58,—when Christ says, “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which, &c. He that eateth of this bread shall live forever.” No expositor would expound it thus,—“As the happy Father hath sent me, and I am happy by the Father, so he that eateth me shall be happy by me,—although a true sentiment. For the question all through the discourse was not concerning happiness, but about bread that could preserve from death, which the bread furnished through Moses in the wilderness could not do. And in the verse here quoted, since no one would wish to set aside the literal sense of the word in the first and second clauses, so neither can it be rejected in the last; especially if regard be had to the scope of the entire discourse. So in John xiv, 19, “Because I live ye shall live also.” Where, again, no one will venture seriously to expound it, though the sentiment is true, “Because I am happy, ye shall be happy also.” And to return to a passage already quoted, John v, 26, when Christ says, “For as the Father hath life in himself, so also hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;” in this connection it is, when obviously using the word in its literal sense, that he says in the verse immediately preceding, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God and they that hear shall live; for, as the Father hath life in himself,” &c. And the statement of our Lord to Martha, weeping bitter tears of sorrow, may perhaps be fairly adduced. John xi, 28. “Thy brother shall rise again.” But at that moment of intense grief, when her recent loss was so vividly realized, the prospect of the general resurrection, to her apprehension so indefinitely remote, did not very greatly pacify her mind; and her gracious Lord, intending to gratify her wish, scarcely half-formed and not to be intimated, begins to remind her that the general resurrection was to be accomplished by himself, who could, therefore, at any moment, quicken whom he would. It is to his words, at this point of time, that the reader’s attention is invited. When he says, verse 25, “I am the resurrection,” we of course understand him, by the use of a common figure of speech, to mean that he would be the efficient cause, the author of the resurrection,—he would accomplish it. Now the word “resurrection” is universally, and of necessity, here taken in its literal sense. So, therefore, must the next word be “life.” “I am the resurrection and the life.” Strange, indeed, would it be to interpret the one word literally and the next word figuratively. In whatever way Christ is “the resurrection,” in the same way must he also be “the life.” And it would indeed be something very like wrestling the Scriptures, to serve a purpose, to understand the word “resurrection” literally, and make the very next word, “life,” a metaphor. Our Lord teaches that he would raise the dead, and make them live again; and that if any who had believed were already dead, he would, nevertheless, raise them to life; while of the then living, who believed, and who must of course taste of death, it was a glorious fact that their death, not being final, was not, strictly speaking, deserving of the same, for that they should live forever.86 This seems to me the general sentiment of these verses; which are adduced here in support of the idea that life, literally understood, is made the matter of distinct declaration and promise by Christ. For in this passage it will not do to spiritualize the words, “life,” and “he shall live,” “dead,” and “shall not die forever,” [οὐ μὴ ἀποθάνῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα] seeing there was no question mooted about spiritual death and life, nor about misery and happiness. And to engraft these ideas would be not only gratuitous, but would spoil the beautiful propriety of our Lord’s discourse on that sorrowful occasion, and make it altogether irrelevant. And if the life here promised could possibly mean happiness, then, according to the principles laid down by the Eclectic Reviewer, and already referred to, since Christ is the resurrection to all men, and the assertion, “I am the resurrection and the life,” is made generally and without discriminating any, all who are raised from the dead by Christ will also be made eternally happy by him; a conclusion which none will allow to be deduced from this text. I submit, then, that we must understand the terms in this passage literally. But here it will doubtless occur to the reader, that if the spiritualizing process would make against the popular notion, by representing happiness (life, taken metaphorically,) as co-extensive with the resurrection,—as the literal rendering of the passage makes so completely against my view, by exhibiting continued existence after resurrection as equally the portion of all. It is but fair that I should acknowledge whatever force lies in this rejoinder; but it is, I believe, apparent, and not real. Let it be remembered, then, that in the last of the above two suggestions, I am merely using the principle of an opponent to convince him that on his own principle he must consent to understand the word “life” literally. For the understanding of it figuratively, for happiness, and then applying to the declaration his canon, that when no discrimination is affirmed the sense is universal, would make him a Universalist. I, however, deny this principle, so that the argument stands good against an opponent, but not against myself. And so I come back to this;—Christ is the author of the resurrection, and the giver of the life to be then enjoyed. This is a general assertion; leaving us yet to ascertain who are to be raised—who are to be endowed with life. We are elsewhere assured that all the dead, both small and great, shall be raised, but that they only shall receive eternal life, who are saved by Christ: “I give unto my sheep eternal life, and they shall never perish.” “All that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of condemnation.” Let this passage be accepted as expository of the former one, showing who are to receive the crown of life when they are raised from the dead; for as in that, life must be understood literally, so in this. And then, by my reviewer’s law of antithesis, taking life literally, we understand the resurrection to condemnation to be a retributive resurrection to a second death. The reader will be so kind as to remember that all I am asserting under this third head is, that sometimes, at all events, life is to be literally understood, when it is the subject matter of declaration and promise by Christ, and I have adduced, as one proof, the passage in John xi, 25. Another text already quoted may be referred to, merely with this one object in view, namely, 2 Tim. i, 10, “Christ hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” As suggested before, I cheerfully accept the ordinary interpretation, that life and immortality are put by hendiadys for immortal life, and so content myself with pointing out the fact that this is another passage in which life, as made the matter of declaration by Christ, must be understood literally, which leads us to make another remark, although already somewhat anticipated, namely— IV. That a belief of this assertion of the apostle’s—that it is Christ especially who hath set in a clear light the mighty doctrine of immortal life—would seem to shut us up to a literal rendering of those passages which contain such phrases as “life,” “eternal life,” “not perishing,” and the like, as used by our Lord. For the case stands thus: An inspired apostle declares that Christ hath brought this subject of a future and endless life to light. Then it is but reasonable to expect to find in Christ’s discourses this subject of infinite existence treated of more distinctly than in any preceding revelation. And the points on which a mind yearning for immortality requires authoritative instruction, seem to be these: First—Is there immortality for man at all? and if so, is it the prerogative of all men indiscriminately, or only of some? And if of some,—of whom, and how obtainable? Let it be borne in mind that the clearest light ever shed on this momentous topic is that cast by Christ. We come, then, to him who is expressly designated “The Life,” and of whom John says, i, 4, “In him was life; and the life was the light of men,” which assertion he seems to make as still further illustrative of the previous statement that the Word had created all things; the Logos was possessed of, and was the source of, all living energies. But before we proceed to inquire at the hands of Christ himself, the true doctrine of immortality, it will be well to consider rather more distinctly the very significant assurance, on the opening of John’s gospel, that “In him was life,” seeing that it is of life we are inquiring. But as an independent exposition would doubtless be every way preferable, I shall introduce a part of Titman’s Commentary on the phrase. “The word ζωή, when used of God to express some divine attribute, as in this passage, evidently denotes the power to possess and impart life, the principle of life, life-giving power, creative power. Wherefore, as God lives forever, and as he is the author of life, he is called ‘the living God,’ in opposition to idols, which have neither life nor power. 1 Sam. xvii, 26–36; Ps. xlii, 3; lxxxiv, 3; 1 Thess. i, 9; 1 Tim. vi, 17. In the last passage this explanation is added: ‘Who giveth us richly all things to enjoy.’ For the same reason he is called ‘the fountain of life,’ Ps. xxxvi, 10, and the ‘God of life,’ Ps. xlii, 9; and he is said ‘to make alive,’ ‘to quicken,’ Deut. xxxii, 39; 1 Tim. vi, 13; and we are said ‘to live in God,’ as our life and activity are his gifts. The connection requires this meaning to be assigned to the word ‘life’ in this passage, for, in the preceding verse, John had spoken of the creation, and he now adds these words, ‘In him was life,’ in order to show the reason wherefore he ascribed, and could ascribe, so astonishing a work to the Son of God,—namely, because he is able to impart life to things which were not. “The same thing is evident from the parallel passage, chapter v, verse 26, which must be compared with this in order to a clear perception of the force and meaning of the word ζωή. For John could not ascribe life to the Son of God, in a sense different from that in which he himself claimed it. But in the passage referred to he says that he ‘hath life in himself,’ which must be understood of the power to possess life, and impart it to others. The preceding and subsequent context require this interpretation. For in the preceding verses he ascribes to himself the power to raise up and quicken the dead; and in the following verse, the power to judge, and to reward and punish them,—both which require almighty power. Again, the example of the Father, to whom our Saviour appeals, puts this interpretation beyond all doubt. ‘As the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.’ When ‘life’ is ascribed to the Father, it manifestly denotes the life-giving power. It cannot mean life, simply; for the question is not, does God live, but does he impart life? But the phrase, ‘hath life in himself,’ must signify, hath power to impart life to others. The meaning may be expressed thus: God is not like men, who ‘live, and move, and have their being’ in God,—he has life in and of himself, he gives life to all, and all who have life have it from him. The Son has life in the same way as the Father—he has it in himself as the Father, and he can impart it to others as the Father. From all this it is evident that the word ‘life,’ in the passage under consideration, bears the meaning which I have assigned to it; and the words, ‘In him was life,’ have reference to all created things, or to the whole universe; those which follow, ‘and the life was the light of men,’ refer to the human race. The meaning may be expressed thus: He has life-giving power, but he puts it forth chiefly for the happiness of men.” * “In this passage, then, John exhibits the divine dignity of the promised Saviour in two ways. In the words, ‘in him was life,’ he ascribes to him creative power; an attribute peculiar to the one living and true God. Again, in the words, ‘and the life was the light of men,’ he ascribes to him power to communicate happiness to men, and represents him as the only author of human life and felicity; and that for two reasons; partly because he created men, but principally because he redeems them from death and misery, and brings them, as it were, into a new life; a life of faith, purity, and spiritual joy in this world, and of immortal happiness and glory in the world to come.” To him, then, I say, made flesh and tabernacling amongst us, through whom God made the world (“For by him,” &c., Col. i, 16, 17), and who is to all creatures the fountain of life, whence all their living energies are derived, we reverently approach, with the sentiment of Peter on our lips,—“Thou hast the words of eternal life.” And sitting, disciple-like, at the feet of the great Master, we are ready to treasure up in our hearts the gracious words that proceed out of his mouth. Our question is touching life—and life indefinitely prolonged—drawn out to all eternity. Assuredly he could not use words plainer, or more relevant, than those employed in the very question we anxiously propose. It is of life and of eternity we ask,—it is of life and of eternity he speaks. And in these self-same and plain terms he tells us of the very thing we inquire about; that is, he speaks to us of “life,” “eternal life,” “everlasting life,” “never perishing,” &c.; in a word, of immortality. So far, then, this might be satisfactory. But he goes on to predicate this eternal life of a class only, speaking of it as the gift of God through Christ, and connected with believing on him; affirming that “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but should have everlasting life.” “I give unto my sheep eternal life, and they shall never perish.” “That he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.” While he affirms of all others that they shall not see life,—that they shall be burned up like chaff,—be destroyed both body and soul,—lose their life,—perish. Since, then, on this most momentous of all subjects, we are, to a great extent, shut up to Christ; and then seeing that the very best terms to denote the idea of never-ending existence are employed by Christ, namely, such as everlasting life, &c., I feel compelled to ground my own hope of immortality on his mercifully-plain direction; and so to follow implicitly his instructions, laying hold on eternal life by cleaving to him with full purpose of heart, and expecting it as the glorious gift of him whose title is, The Prince of Life, and who is emphatically styled, “Christ our Life.” For since we are referred to Christ for the clearest light on this subject, and must therefore of necessity find much in his discourses about immortal life, I ask again, Where does Christ place in clear light this doctrine of immortal life, if not in those very passages where he treats of it in these and similar terms? But for various reasons, and many of them praiseworthy, religious writers have been anxious to demonstrate that immortal life was placed in a very satisfactory light long before Christ; and they scarcely derive any portion of their proof of such an amazing fact as infinite existence from the great teacher, who, according to an inspired apostle, emphatically brought it to light. But deriving their belief independently, and for the most part affirming that a universal immortality is plainly discoverable on even the very first page of revelation, they are driven to the necessity of making the chief revealer of the doctrine not to teach anything on the subject, or next to nothing; as indeed there was according to the popular notion, but little need he should! But, assuredly, if Christ be emphatically the teacher of the doctrine of immortality, which, by apostolic authority,87we are bound to consider him, he has taught us to whom it pertains. And then as certainly he has taught, as plainly as words would allow, that this is the gift of God, through himself, to them that believe. So that by how much we lay a fair philological and historical stress on the apostle’s assertion, 2 Tim. i, 10, by so much do we seem compelled to understand our Lord literally, when he promises eternal life to a class. Here I may be allowed to introduce a paragraph from Abp. Whately on the subject. “On the whole, then, the Scriptures do not, I think, afford us any ground for expecting that those who shall be condemned at the last day as having wilfully rejected or rebelled against their Lord, will be finally delivered; that their doom, and that of the evil angels, will ever be reversed. “What that doom will be,—whether the terms in which it is commonly spoken of in Scripture,—‘death,’ ‘destruction,’ ‘perishing,’ &c., are to be understood figuratively, as denoting immortal life in a state of misery, or more literally, as denoting a final extinction of existence,—this is quite a different question. It is certain that the words, ‘life,’ ‘eternal life,’ ‘immortality,’ &c., are always applied to the condition of those, and of those only, who shall at the last day be approved as ‘good and faithful servants,’ who are to enter into the joy of their Lord. “‘Life,’ as applied to their condition, is usually understood to mean ‘happy life.’ And that theirs will be a happy life we are indeed plainly taught; but I do not think we are anywhere taught that the word ‘life’ does of itself necessarily imply happiness. If so indeed it would be a mere tautology to speak of a ‘happy life,’ and a contradiction to speak of a ‘miserable life,’ which we know is not the case, according to the usage of any language. In all ages and countries ‘life,’ and the words answering to it in other languages, have always been applied, in ordinary discourse, to a wretched life no less properly than to a happy one. Life, therefore, in the received sense of the word, would apply equally to the condition of the blest and of the condemned, supposing these last to be destined to continue forever living in a state of misery. And yet, to their condition, the words ‘life’ and ‘immortality’ are never applied in Scripture. If, therefore, we suppose the hearers of Jesus and his apostles to have understood, as nearly as possible in the ordinary sense, the words employed, they must naturally have conceived them to mean (if they were taught nothing to the contrary,) that the condemned were really and literally to be ‘destroyed,’ and cease to exist; not that they were to exist forever in a state of wretchedness. For they are never spoken of as being kept alive, but as forfeiting life; as, for instance, ‘Ye will not come unto me that ye may have life;’—‘He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.’ And again, ‘perdition,’ ‘death,’ ‘destruction,’ are employed in numerous passages to express the doom of the condemned. All which expressions would, as I have said, be naturally taken in their usual and obvious sense, if nothing were taught to the contrary.”—Scripture Revelations Concerning a Future State, &c., p. 228. Here, however, we are called upon to meet one of the chief objections urged against the doctrine we suggest. It is alleged that, since the righteous do not merely exist, but are made perfectly happy through Christ, and since eternal life is emphatically the phrase by which the blessedness he communicates is set forth, it must necessarily be understood figuratively to mean happiness, and stands for the entire sum of the blessings Christ bestows. And it is asked, since eternal life is so emphatically promised as the magnificent result of a Saviour’s obedience unto death, how can we believe that nothing more is meant than mere existence, drawn out though it be to all eternity. This objection has been urged as powerfully as it can be in the Eclectic Review, and it will be but right, therefore, to state it in the writer’s own words. “Taking, in the first instance, the passages which express the future state of the righteous by the term life, the question before us is, whether in them this term can be satisfactorily understood as meaning existence merely. Now, when we consider that what is thus spoken of under the term life is the subject of divine promise, ‘the gift of God’ through Christ Jesus, the result of his death, and the reward of faith in his name, it is to us, we confess, in the highest degree unsatisfactory to understand the term used of existence merely. Some inestimable blessing must be here intended. Mere existence, however, is not necessarily, or in itself, a blessing. Whether it be a benefit at all, or the contrary, depends wholly on the kind of existence, and the manner in which it is employed. It may be conceived of either as void of good, or as full of misery. Mr. Dobney holds it to be conferred for a very long period upon the wicked. We conclude, therefore, that the connection demands some other meaning for the word ‘life’ in these passages than existence merely, and as happiness is an idea very much to the point, and consistent with the usage of the term, we, in agreement with the great majority of Scriptural commentators, adopt this as the meaning of it.”—Eclectic Review for August, 1845, p. 155. Every one perceives that the entire force of the question, which the reviewer has proposed in order to answer, lies in the adverb wherewith he ends the sentence. Take away his “merely,” and what follows is nothing to the point, for he is arguing against the idea of “mere existence” being all that Christ has gained for us, &c. All of which as no one has affirmed so no one will contend for. And with all respect it is submitted that the question is not, as he ingeniously states it, whether mere existence be all that Christ bestows, but whether or not Christ does bestow that immortality which he fills with unspeakable happiness? For the reviewer himself admits on the following page that there are other terms in Scripture which convey the notion of holiness, communion with God, &c. I affirm, as strongly as words will serve, that the saved shall receive through Christ, to whose gracious mediation they owe every blessing, both in this world and in that which is to come, every form and degree of good of which they are capable, and not bare “existence merely.” The reviewer then supposes two things which may be alleged in bar of his conclusion; which conclusion, however, we submit to be altogether useless to him, ab initio, because he has, as we conceive, though of course unintentionally, somewhat mis-stated the question. But we quote again: “It may be said further, that, although the term ‘life,’ as descriptive of the future state of the righteous, no doubt means happiness, it means existence also, and conveys the compound idea of a happy existence. This, however, is saying that a word has two meanings in one and the same case, and that it is at the same instant to be understood both literally and metaphorically; which seems to us to be altogether inadmissible. We can understand how it may be necessary to interpret a word literally in one case, and metaphorically in another; but what warrant there can be for interpreting a word in both ways at once is, to us, unintelligible. It is not until we have ascertained that the literal meaning of a term will not serve, that we have any liberty to annex a metaphorical meaning to it at all; and how, after this, can the literal meaning be retained? The term life cannot justly be made to convey the compound idea, happy existence. It may mean either existence, or happiness, as taken either literally or figuratively; but the taking it to mean one determines that it does not in that case mean the other. Besides, if life means happy existence, death may mean miserable existence; a supposition entirely fatal to Mr. Dobney’s argument. “We return to the conclusion, therefore, that the term life, when used descriptively of the future state of the righteous, does not denote existence, but happiness exclusively. “We do not know that it is necessary to strengthen this conclusion by collateral evidence. It may be observed, however, that the future state of the righteous is represented in Scripture, not exclusively by the term life, but by other terms also. These terms, whether more brief or more extended, are uniformly descriptive of happiness in various forms—of holiness, of communion with God, of the presence of Christ, of honor, of freedom from suffering, and other kindred ideas. These are evidently the counterpart of the word life; the several elements which go to make up that state of happiness, most felicitously and emphatically expressed by the single term ζωή. Nowhere among these diversified descriptions do phrases occur, tending to show that existence itself is one of these elements; yet if this were a part of ‘the gift of God,’ so important a particular might be expected to appear, if not always, yet on some other occasion than in the use of the term life, which is so obviously generic, and inclusive of the whole.” I shall content myself with offering a remark or two on the chief points of the foregoing extract, seeing that whatever force there may be in the entire argument I am conducting lies against the doctrine which the reviewer maintains. But since he alleges that if existence itself “were a part of the gift of God,”—and it seems strange to question this!—so important a particular might be expected to appear on some other occasion than in the use of the term life, I inquire what better terms could have been selected? Remembering the Egyptian darkness that covered the whole earth on the subject of a future life and immortality, would it not be every way best for that great Teacher, who came to be a light unto the Gentiles, and whom the common people heard so gladly, to use great plainness of speech? How was life to be better designated than by the self-same word itself, with the addition of the epithets eternal, everlasting, abiding forever; and then the expression of the same thought negatively,—shall not die forever, shall never perish, shall not die any more? Christ says, “As the living Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself,”—“the Son quickeneth whom he will,”—“giveth life to whom he will,”—“for the second Adam is a life-giving spirit,”—“because I live ye shall live also,” &c. If these terms are to be set aside as not teaching our indebtedness for infinite existence (and let any one try to realize it,) to Christ, I can scarcely conceive how the fact was to have been taught; except indeed the Scriptures had been constructed on quite a different plan from that which infinite wisdom has adopted, and by which truth is not so much formally stated, as in creeds, and catechisms, and articles, as it is incidentally communicated. And if these terms are to be denied as teaching that continued existence itself is obtained for us by Christ (which existence he also fills with ever-increasing happiness), then the Scriptures would almost seem unfit for the common people; for that this is the obvious sense I respectfully submit. And as to ‘life’ being generic and inclusive: Suppose it be conceded, what philological, or even dogmatical, objection would then lie against understanding it thus? ‘Life’ is a term generic and inclusive, and means—(1.) Existence, literally; conscious being, without which, of course, no other good can be possible: and—(2.) Happiness, because generally life is esteemed of the highest importance; “Skin after skin (one article of property after another), yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life.” So that the most valuable endowment of man, without which he could have no other, is well chosen as the term by which to set forth the whole sum of happiness, and thus the word “life” may mean continued existence made happy. For, in further reply it is submitted,— i. That no argument whatever can set aside the fact already shown, that there are passages in which the term must necessarily be understood literally, when life—eternal life is the subject matter of declaration and promise. ii. And if such passages are not allowed to teach the grand doctrine of immortality, which Christ placed in the clearest light, there are none that do teach it; and the apostolic assertion, 2 Tim. i, 10, is eviscerated. iii. The same objection would apply equally to passages in which God is said to live forever and ever; and it would be as reasonable to ask in a tone of triumph, “What! are we to believe that mere existence is predicated of God?—Surely God is infinitely happy; and therefore, when an angel or an apostle affirms barely of him that he liveth forever and ever, this formula must convey the idea of infinite felicity.” Every one would perceive this sort of argument to be of little value, and the reply would be ready:—We know from other sources that God over all is happy for evermore, and are content to find in this one phrase the one idea, which is indeed magnificent beyond conception, of infinite existence. So we know from other passages that they who receive the gift of life shall be made gloriously perfect in all respects, in knowledge, purity, bliss; that they shall see God, shall reign with Christ, &c., &c. Why not be content, then, to derive the amazing fact of never-ending existence from those texts that teach it; and the ineffably-glorious characteristics of that everlasting life, from the texts which more distinctly exhibit them.