THE MORTALITY OF MAN: by D. P. Hall

Publishing Committee · Rochester, N. Y. · Aug 29, 1854

THE MORTALITY OF MAN:

By D. P. Hall

THE ONLY SHIELD AGAINST THE SEDUCTIONS OF MODERN SPIRITUALISM.

BY D. P. HALL.

Do the Scriptures represent any part of man as being immortal? The truthful solution of this question is certainly deemed important by every faithful student of the Bible, not simply as an abstract theme, but on account of its relative bearings upon every other doctrine of that Sacred Book. The views we entertain of man's nature will give shape and color, to a very great extent, to our views of life, death, resurrection, heaven, hell, and, in fact, all the other subjects of revelation. Hence the importance of searching for truth touching this fundamental point. The only question which the conscientious believer in the truths of the Bible deems it at all important to ask, is, What saith the Scriptures? He is perfectly willing to submit the question to Moses, Isaiah, Christ or Paul, or any, and all others who have spoken as they were moved by the Holy Spirit; and having ascertained their decision, await patiently the issues of that day when all things shall be made manifest.

But before inquiring what these faithful and true witnesses have said, let us reflect a moment upon the manner of interpreting their testimony. Is the language of these witnesses to be understood in its most obvious and literal sense? And why not? we ask. Have we any more authority for giving their language a secret or mystical interpretation, than we have the language of any living speaker, or writer, of the present time? If you have the right to interpret Moses or Jesus, mystically, have I not the same right to interpret you after the same fashion? If one writer, or speaker, may be interpreted in this way, certainly all others may; and where will this mysticism end? Only where imagination and fancy terminate. Different individuals, equally honest and intelligent, may faithfully investigate the scriptural bearings of any question, and differ widely in their conclusion. Now I know of but one reasonable solution of this difficult question; viz., they are governed by different rules of interpretation, and must of necessity, if faithful to their own rules, differ in the result of their researches.

I never realized the importance of being governed by correct principles of interpretation more fully than at the present time, just having had an interview with a minister of one of the popular denominations, who denied the literality and tangibility of every thing taught in the Bible. The second coming of Christ, death, resurrection, and in fact every thing taught as the foundation of faith and hope, are by this mysticism swept away, and the past present and future all thrown into chaos, and left without form and void. But there is a remedy for all this jargon and confusion, and it is to be found in the use of the literal principles of interpretation. Interpret the language of the sacred writers as you do the language of all others, and this difficulty would be speedily obviated. We submit the following rules as being absolutely necessary in the study of the Holy Scriptures, in order to arrive at truth on this, or any other subject.

Give the language of the inspired writers, its plain, obvious and literal import.
Bring all classes of figures to harmonize with the literal.
Study the Bible by subjects, tracing them through the entire book, and having ascertained the harmonious teachings of all the inspired writers upon any one subject, you must have the truth upon that subject.

These plain and simple rules are easily complied with, and must, we think, commend themselves to every man's conscience. We purpose following them faithfully in the investigation of the subject before us.

After having made these few prefatory remarks we are prepared to enter directly upon the question proposed.

Do the Scriptures teach that any part of man is immortal? Webster defines immortal to mean, "Having no principle of alteration or corruption; exempt from death; having life or being that shall never end." The inquiry then is this, Is any part of the creature called man exempt from death? Popular theology and philosophy would answer this question most unhesitatingly in the affirmative. But do the Scriptures so teach?

The current theology, and that which we shall call in question in this inquiry, runs thus: Man is a compound of mortality and immortality. His body is composed of matter, and is, therefore, mortal. His soul, or spirit, is a separate spiritual entity, dwelling in the body, conscious, immortal, intelligent and responsible. The practical workings of this fundamental proposition in popular theology, together with the views of death, resurrection, judgment, &c., growing out of it, we will leave until another time and place in the investigation.

It will be seen very readily by any one, that this view of the subject makes the soul or spirit of man really the man proper. His consciousness, intelligence, responsibility, immortality, and all that is really noble and dignified, pertains to the soul. Now this, if true, makes the soul of man the all-important part. And we find it is so considered by all those who embrace this view of man's nature. In proof of this point, call to mind their sermons, exhortations, prayers, hymns, obituaries, and especially funeral occasions. Every thing is done for, and to, the immortal soul, or deathless spirit. The body, when mentioned at all, is noticed merely as an unimportant appendage.

I would just at this point call especial attention to the infinite importance which those who believe in the immortal-soul entity attach to it. They believe it to contain all the life, to be the part of man in which all mental and moral faculties inhere, to be the only part capable of vice or virtue, and capable of rewards independent of, and separate from, the body; and it is by them, in fact, constituted the grand basis of future life. Take away our immortal soul, say they, and you remove every thing from us worth living for: you destroy the foundation of Christianity, and cut off all our hopes of the future. You clothe the heavens in sackcloth, and cause the dark pall of death to settle down upon the bright and hopeful future. Now if all this be true, if man be really such a mysterious compound, if his soul, or spirit, be what popular philosophers and theologians denominate it, we shall most certainly expect to find revelation correspondingly prolific upon this point. That which is infinitely most important and noble in man's nature and composition, will undoubtedly share most largely of divine regard. We shall expect to find the origin, attributes and destiny of this soul most clearly and explicitly defined. And should we fail, in searching the divine record of man's creation, to find one single syllable devoted to this soul entity, would it not cause the believer in the immortal-soul theology to marvel? I should certainly think any honest and conscientious believer in the perfection and sufficiency of the sacred writings, would be completely stunned at the onset, to find no record whatever of the origin, or attributes of such a soul. Let me invite such an one to go with me to the opening page of revelation, and there analyze critically what the Eternal Spirit has said concerning the origin, and nature of the creature man.

Gen. i, 26. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Here God announces his intention to make a creature called man, and to subject all other living creatures connected with this earth to his dominion. No intimation is here given as to what the materials of his composition are to be. Gen. ii, 7, furnishes us with the desired information: "And 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." Here then we have the simple, full, and complete record of man's creation, the material from which he was made, and the process of making him alive is all set plainly before us. We have now no lack of information.

It will be readily seen by the most superficial observer, that all which is here said relates to a being made of the dust of the ground. Man's creation is here clearly set forth, and the material entering into his composition. Now let me ask, Out of what was man made? Was it part material, and part immaterial? part mortal, and part immortal? part of the dust, and part spiritual essence? Ans. "And the Lord God formed man

of the dust of the ground." Not the most distant hint is here given of such a double entity, such a double nature, or a double process of any kind. All is simple, and easily understood; and instead of clearly defining the immortal soul, it shuts it out completely and forever from the book of God. From this point, forward to the last "amen" in the Apocalypse, man is treated as a unit being, composed of dust, and made alive by the power of God. His life and character, death, resurrection, mortality, immortality, and future destiny, stand related to man made wholly of dust.

But if an advocate of the immortal-soul theology be pressed here at this point for something like a show of evidence for his theory, he will divide the record something like this: God made the body of man out of the dust, and afterward put the living soul into it. If the record read in this way it would afford some proof of the separate entity of the soul, we confess; but it would in that event fall infinitely short of proving its immortality, or any of the other attributes, or qualities commonly attached to it. A living soul, and an ever-living soul are quite two things; but all this is wanting in the record. This is begging the whole question. It was the man made of dust, which was constituted the living soul, not the body of man made of dust, and then a living soul made of some spiritual essence, put into it. To show the contrast more fully, notice the Bible record and popular teachings as presented in juxtaposition below.

BIBLE RECORD.

"And 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."

POPULAR THEOLOGY.

"And the Lord God formed the body of man of the dust of the ground, and put into it the living soul."

But if it still be insisted that the phrase, "living soul," in its application to man, furnishes an argument for the separate entity and immortality of the soul, let those who make use of it, be willing to meet any legitimate conclusion drawn from the premise. And the first request we have to make is that they place along with their own immortal-soul entities, the immortal soul of every beast, bird, insect and reptile that crawls; for this, from the premise they themselves lay down, is certainly legitimate. In the record of creation the Eternal Spirit has made no distinction whatever. In proof of this, we will note several instances where the phrase living soul is indiscriminately used with reference to everything that lives by breathing, man being included.

Gen. i, 21. "And God created great whales, and every (nephesh chayiah) living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good." Verse 24, "And God said let the earth bring forth the (nephesh chayiah) living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping things and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." Gen. ii, 7, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a (nephesh chayiah) living soul."

It is admitted by all Hebrew scholars as far as I have been able to learn, that in the original Hebrew, the phrase, nephesh chayiah, is used in the instances cited above; so that there is no discrimination made. All, according to the Hebrew are nephesh chayiah, whether of beasts, birds, fishes, insects, reptiles, or man—living creatures, or living soul—can with equal propriety be applied to one and all. If living creature is a proper translation in the first two instances cited, it is in this third also. No good reason can be given for want of uniformity in translating the same phrase, in its application to man's living soul, and in its application to all other breathing frames, living creatures. Note other instances, Gen. ii, 19; vi, 19; ix, 10; also Rev. xvi, 3, "And every living soul died in the sea." Here then is proof sufficient to give immortal-soul entities to all things breathing the breath of life. Are the immortal-soul theologians willing to append this new and important item to their creed?

But this is not all. There is another very important distinction made, say they, in the record. It is affirmed of man that he had the breath of life communicated to him by God, not so of the beast. Here then is another argument for our immortal souls. But let this be tested also, and see if it is not all fancy. No one will question the fact, that God was alike the Creator of all. By consulting Gen. vii, 21, 22, it will be seen that all have alike the breath of life. "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. See also Gen. vi, 17, to the same intent. After having investigated these two phrases, viz, living soul and breath of life, in their various applications, who cannot see that if they prove any thing for man, touching his immortality, they prove just as much for the beast!

There is yet another hook upon which popular theology would fain try to hang its immortal soul, and that is the fact that man was created in the image of God. It is asserted that man's being made in the image of God is proof that man resembles God in his nature. But the body of man is mortal and corruptible. God is immortal and incorruptible. So that this likeness cannot be affirmed of man's body. It must, therefore, say they, be a likeness of the soul or spirit. The soul of man, then, from this circumstance, is declared to be immortal.

Let us state the premise and conclusion, something in the form it suggests itself to our mind. The major premise is proved from 1 Tim. vi, 15, 16: "Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only hath immortality." The minor premise, is proved from Gen. ii, 27: man is made in the image of God—conclusion—man has an immortal soul. We must confess that this looks like spurious logic. The conclusion in this syllogism is positively denied in the major premise, and not once named in the minor. This may look barbarous; but it is just such as theologians use in sustaining the immortal soul, from the declaration that man was made in the image of God.

But we cannot see that the conclusion necessarily follows, even if we admit that the likeness man sustains to God consists in a similarity in nature and essence. God is omnipotent and omniscient as well as immortal. Why not affirm the image to consist of one of these? It can be done with the same propriety. This kind of logic, if carried out, would not only make man immortal, omnipotent and omnipresent, but would clothe poor, puny man, a worm of earth, with all the glorious perfections of Deity.

The truth is, that man's likeness to God is of the simplest nature. We would submit an exposition of this text which we believe to be free from all these extravagances. Man is made in the image of God. The simplest definition of image is form. Man may resemble God in this respect, without arrogating to himself any part of the nature, essence, or the attributes of the great I AM. This exposition we believe to be both logical and scriptural. We will not assume it all, however, as our opponents do; but proceed to prove: first, that God has a form, and in the second place that this is the divine definition of image.

Phil. ii, 5, 6, "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God." This is declared of Jesus. Now see Heb. i, 3, "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person." Here then, the matter is made perfectly plain from the word of God. Christ is in the personal image of God, and this is being in his form.

But before leaving this point, so often alluded to by those who believe in the immortal soul entity, we would invite attention to the fact that the immortal soul is not said to be in the image, but the man. Now see the record. God made man of the dust. That, then, which was made of dust, is in the image of God. See Gen. ix, 6. "Who so sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made he man." Here, then, man possessing blood, is in the image of God. Numerous other instances of like import might be adduced in proof that man's likeness to God did not consist in a similarity of nature, but, simply, in form.

We have now investigated the record of man's creation, and noticed the only points which can possibly be urged in proof of the doctrine that man is in possession of a soul, which is a separate entity from his body, endowed with consciousness, intelligence, responsibility and immortality. For be it remembered that those advocating the immortality of the soul, have two very important points to prove: first, that the soul or spirit of man is a separate entity from his body, and, second, that it is immortal. The proof which might sustain the first point, would fall infinitely short of proving the second. It is one thing to prove the existence of an entity, and quite another task to prove what its qualities or attributes are. This discrimination and order in the controversy, is not often noticed by those investigating the subject. And after carefully investigating, we cannot find in the phrases, living soul, breath of life, or image of God, any proof of either position. There is not in one or all these phrases, the slightest evidence that the soul or spirit is a separate entity from the body: letting alone their proving its immortality. We pass from this point to notice the relation Adam sustained to the Law of God, the Tree of Life, and the explanation of the Penalty threatened in consequence of disobedience. First then the law or prohibition. See Gen. ii, 17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. There then Adam is presented with a rule by which his obedience or disobedience can be tested: here he can decide his character and destiny; disobedience to this simple test, will make him a sinner, and bring him under the threatened penalty: Thou shalt surely die. (The record shows the result.)

But what was Adam's condition previous to transgression? He had newly come from the hand of his Creator, physically, intellectually and morally good. Very good was pronounced upon man, in connection with every thing else which God created and made. But what was his character and nature? Was he holy or unholy, mortal or immortal, or in a state of susceptibility? Moral character, is not the subject of creation: it is the result of action towards law, or a rule of some kind, having previous knowledge of the existence of such law, or rule. The first recorded action towards the prohibition in the garden, was that of disobedience; hence his first positive character was that of a sinner. Adam and Eve could not plead want of previous knowledge. See Gen. iii, 3. But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. This was the language of Eve in reply to the Serpent, and shows a perfect understanding on her part. Gen. ii, 16, 17, shows that Adam could not offer an excuse for want of information beforehand. We see, then, that their action formed their moral character. How was it with reference to mortality or immortality? were they immortal? We answer most unhesitatingly, No! That which is immortal cannot die. If Adam was immortal, of what possible use could the tree of life be? would God undertake to prevent from death that which could not die? To prevent immortality from dying, belongs in the same category with the death that never dies: they are both absolute contradictions. But was Adam mortal? No: if mortal, he must die, as a necessary consequence; and death in that event, could not be the penalty; but it was the penalty, therefore Adam was not mortal. He was then placed on trial for immortality, as the result of obedience; but disobedience brought mortality, and consequent death.

We now invite especial attention to the phrase, Thou shalt surely die! What kind of death did God threaten Adam, in case of disobedience? Popular theologians answer very glibly, Death spiritual, death temporal, and death eternal; which

is, when more fully explained, a state of sin, separation of soul and body, and eternal misery. Here then we have three deaths instead of one which God threatened. I do not marvel, in looking over this item in popular theology, that Adam, in the view of such persons, was considered a giant in intellect; for such he must have been; and not only so, but it must have been awfully perverted, if he interpreted the one death to be three, and then understood the second one to be more life, and the third one to be life eternal.

What did Adam understand the threatened death to mean? Death is a negative condition, and the opposite of life. Now how many lives had Adam? he could not be threatened with more or different deaths, than he had lives: how many lives had he? One, simply one. He had no moral or spiritual life. This he would have had had he been obedient; but he was not; therefore he had no such life. He could not be threatened with eternal death, unless he had eternal life: this he had not. What then must the death have been? Simply the unbuilding of the man, the returning of the newly made man to the elements from which he was created, the deprivation of conscious existence. To urge more than this is unreasonable and unwarrantable from the language. The idea that eternal misery was threatened, makes God a cruel tyrant! Think of it! For this one sin of Adam, he and the countless millions springing from him, are doomed to hopeless misery throughout the untold cycles of eternity. Remember this death passed from Adam to all his posterity; and for it there is no remedy: God did not say to Adam, You shall surely die, unless you repent; but unequivocally, Thou shalt surely die.

This idea, then, cannot be harbored for one moment. Let us look at spiritual death. What is this but being a sinner, or being in a state of sin? This, then, was the crime, not the penalty: this was the guilt, not the punishment: this confounds cause and effect—sin and its penalty—and would represent the Judge of all the earth, in the execution of it, as saying, Adam, you have sinned; now as the penalty for this act of disobedience, I pronounce you a sinner. How ridiculous this would look in a human judge: infinitely more so in the Divine. There is but one rational and consistent conclusion left, and that has already been expressed: the returning of the conscious, intelligent, and responsible Adam, to the dust of the ground. I know of but one plausible objection which can be urged against literal death's being intended; and that is, the phrase, "In the day that thou eatest thereof."

It is urged with some little show of plausibility that Adam was to die the death threatened, within twenty-four hours from the time of transgressing. He did not die literally, until nine hundred and thirty years; consequently the death was not literal, but spiritual. All this turns upon the idea that God threatened the completion of this penalty in one day of twenty-four hours. Look at the margin of your Bible, and you will see, Heb. dying thou shalt die. This view of the subject is sustained by all the Hebrew criticisms, which I have had the opportunity of examining. Moth tumath, "dying thou shalt die," is a literal translation, and denotes a process, commenced on that very day. Two conditions are clearly set forth in the threatened penalty, "dying thou shalt die:" a state of mortality, ending in death. This view is fully sustained by God in his own explanation of this penalty.

After Adam sinned, and confessed his guilt, God proceeded to explain and pronounce the penalty; and it seems to me that all doubts, if any yet exist, can be most satisfactorily removed at this point; for certainly, if death spiritual, temporal and eternal was intended, God will bring it all out, explain it, and enforce it. This we should expect, even at the hands of a just and wise judge, of finite capacities; much more from the infinite judge of all the earth, who will do right. Gen. iii, 17. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee saying, Thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy sake: in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life: thorns, also, and thistles shall it bring forth to thee: and thou shalt eat the herb of the field: in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Here God's explanation ends; and we follow the matter on, and notice the arrangements immediately entered into, in order to bring about the execution of the threatened penalty. Read what follows. Gen. iii, 22, 23, 24. And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and LIVE FOREVER; therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man: and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden, Cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

In the scriptures quoted above, we wish to note several important points: First, the tree of life was the means provided by God for conferring immortality and eternal life, upon Adam if he should prove obedient. Second, Adam did not eat of this tree before he sinned. This is evident from what is said: "And now lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life." Also is an adverb, and signifies likewise, or in like manner, showing that he had eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; and now lest he after the same manner take of the tree of life, he is driven out. Adam then did not eat of the tree of life before he sinned; so that before he sinned he was not immortal. He did not eat of the tree of life after he sinned; for God guarded the tree, and drove Adam from its vicinity. Here then God has shown his intention towards sinners. Note this particularly: He will allow no sinner to become immortal and live forever. If they are in danger of bringing this fearful calamity upon themselves, God himself will interpose to prevent it, as in the case of Adam. Note again: "And now lest he put forth his hand and eat and live forever," God drives him out, and guards the tree.

Here then we see the real condition of Adam: a mortal, dying creature, toiling and sweating out his existence, and doomed to return to the dust from whence he was taken. In this condition he begat his first son. He could confer no better condition or nature upon his posterity than he had himself; hence this is the condition of all the sons of Adam, this day, unless God has worked a miracle in their deliverance. Enoch and Elijah, and all the faithful who are alive at the second appearing of Christ, will prove exceptions to this general rule. The tree of life in old Eden, having been removed from the reach of Adam and his posterity, they must look for it in Eden restored, and through the second Adam.

"The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." (A life-giving spirit.) We must now look for immortality and eternal life through Jesus, and the resurrection from the dead, or a change equivalent thereto. No immortality as yet for Adam and his posterity, in their creation, or relation to the tree of life.

Adam in nine hundred and thirty years, experienced most fully the truth of the declaration of Jehovah, Thou shalt surely die, dust, thou, Adam, the first living soul, art, and unto dust shalt thou, Adam, the first living soul, return. Life and death, then, as they stand connected with Adam, or any of his posterity, point out two conditions, one exactly the opposite of the other. Life—conscious existence; that state of an organized being in which all its functions are performed; vitality. Death—that state of an organized being in which there is a total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions; when the organs have not only ceased to act, but have lost the susceptibility of renewed action; unconsciousness. These simple, literal and obvious definitions, are not only true with reference to the first life and death, but all subsequent ones, unless the context or nature of the subject forbids it. A figurative life, or death, is never admissible, unless there is a clear necessity. If the death threatened Adam be moral, or spiritual, it will certainly involve popular theology in a sad dilemma. "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." If the death threatened Adam be spiritual death, then the life Christ promises is spiritual life; then all become sinners through Adam, and saints through Christ—no exceptions, universal salvation follows. Popular theologians thus unwittingly place arguments in the hands of their opponents. And not only so, but Christ, in order to redeem man from death, must himself die: if Adam and his posterity die a spiritual death, then Christ must die this death to redeem them. Spiritual death is being under the dominion of sin, or being a sinner; Christ, then, must have become a sinner, in order to redeem man. This contradicts the scripture: he was without sin.

If eternal misery was a part of the death threatened Adam, then it would read, As in Adam all are made eternally miserable, so in Christ all are to be made eternally happy. If the death was eternal misery, then Christ must have suffered eternal misery in order to redeem man; but where will the death end, and the life commence, in this view of the subject, if the death be eternal misery. The life will be forever excluded, unless eternal misery have an end; for it is evident that the life promised, must take hold of man where the death threatened ends. If the death be eternal misery then the life promised must commence at the end of eternity. What absurdities!! Literal death shuts out all these inconsistencies, and renders all plain and harmonious. Adam died a literal death: his posterity die the same literal death on account of his sin: having inherited his mortal, dying nature. Christ dies a literal death to redeem man. As in Adam all die a literal death, so in Christ shall all have a literal resurrection to a literal life.

But there is a second death threatened those who are disobedient. Now if the first death be spiritual, then they must have a spiritual resurrection, and die another spiritual death. This, more fully explained, would mean, first, all are to become sinners; second, all are to become saints; third, part are to become sinners again. This conclusion, which is legitimate according to spiritual death, is plainly contradicted by Rev. xx, 6: "On such the second death hath no power;" so that those who are once converted can never backslide. Time would fail to narrate all the incongruous positions of spiritualism. We will close upon this point by calling especial attention to the fact, that, the phrase, thou shalt surely die, upon which spiritualism has spent so much of its mysticism, is, throughout the entire Bible, in every instance, a literal death. See Gen. xx, 7; Num. xxvi, 65; Judges xiii, 22; 1 Sam. xiv, 39, 44; xx, 31; xxii, 16; 2 Sam. xii, 5; 2 Kings i, 4, 16; viii, 10; Jer. xxvi, 8; Exe. iii, 18; xxxiii, 8, &c. All these instances, and every other one which occurs, are clearly literal death. Why then should the case in Genesis be explained out of all harmony with all the other instances? Certainly no good reason can be assigned.

(To be Continued.)