MAN NOT IMMORTAL: by D. P. Hall

Publishing Committee · Rochester, N. Y. · Dec 12, 1854

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 6, No. 17.

Read the full edition

MAN NOT IMMORTAL:

By D. P. Hall

THE ONLY SHIELD AGAINST THE SEDUCTIONS OF MODERN SPIRITUALISM.

BY D. P. HALL.

[Continued from No. 6.]

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.

Having examined the most formidable and oft repeated objections to the materiality, unity and mortality of man, viz., that growing out of the use of words, soul and spirit, and having seen a great discrepancy between the popular and Bible signification of these terms, so much so, that the scripture view is not in the slightest degree objectionable, we are prepared to go forward and notice other objections of a less formidable character, which are almost invariably urged against this same Bible doctrine.

They are, (1.) The Rich man and Lazarus. Luke xvi. (2.) The thief on the cross. Luke xxiii, 43. (3.) Objections drawn from different expressions of the apostle Paul; viz., This tabernacle; his desire to depart; in the body or out; the inner man. See 2 Cor. v, 1; Phil. i, 21; 2 Cor. xii, 4; iv, 16. (4.) Moses and Elias. Matt. xvii, 3. 5.) Christ and the Sadducees. Luke xx, 27.

The above is a list of the principal ones: others of minor importance are sometimes urged; but these are mainly in the way of those who cannot at once embrace the view of man's unity and mortality. If these can be removed out of the way by a fair and candid investigation and comparison of scripture with scripture, many who are now halting, will, we doubt not, immediately and heartily embrace the view we are now advocating as the Bible view.

In order to prepare our minds to understand the nature and force of the objections we are now about to canvass, let us consider again what has been proved by the very plainest Bible testimony; viz., That man is a unit, composed of dust, his mental and moral nature inhering in the organized man. That death reduces the entire man to a state of unconsciousness, when all his functions, physical, mental and moral, cease. That the entire man is mortal. That immortality is the gift of God through Jesus Christ, to the faithful only, to be conferred at the second coming of Christ, and the resurrection of the just. All the above named positions are sustained by plain Bible evidence, and if the objections named, or any others, are urged, they must bear against one or all of these positions.

Any person, who regards the Bible as a book of truth, and Bible writers as inspired of God, must see that the Book cannot teach two doctrines touching the same thing: it is not yea and nay; one thing in one place, and another thing in other places; Christ against Christ, and Paul against Paul; nor yet, Paul and Christ against Isaiah: all must bear uniform and harmonious testimony, touching the same thing; hence there can be no real objections to the harmonious testimony of all the inspired penmen. There may be some passages and circumstances which at first sight appear to be objectionable; but they cannot be really so, without destroying the testimony of the witnesses. I have frequently conversed with those who professed to believe the Bible, and yet did not recognize this important fact. They would admit the application of many passages used in support of the doctrine of man's mortality, and at the same time assert that there were other passages equally plain which taught a contrary doctrine. This certainly would destroy the testimony of all such witnesses, if there were any such. We repeat it then, that there are no real objections to the doctrine of man's complete mortality. That there are some few passages from which an inference unfavorable to this view can be drawn, we do not doubt. That some parable can be tortured into the service of an opposite doctrine, I shall not question; but that the Scriptures, when fairly examined in their several connections, and compared one with another, teach any other doctrine, I do not believe can be made to appear.

With these remarks I will proceed to an examination of those passages which at first sight appear to some to teach a contrary doctrine; viz., That there is an entity dwelling in the mortal body, called soul or spirit, which is immortal, conscious, intelligent, and which at the death of the body, goes out of it with its immortality and intelligence unimpaired, to the spheres, heaven, hell, or some other locality. We will commence with the first one named in the list; viz.,

THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS.

This discourse of our Saviour is supposed to teach the popular doctrine of the entity, immortality, and consciousness of the soul or spirit. If it does so teach, we are free to admit that it is a real and difficult objection to dispose of; and not only so, but we are as free to admit that the Bible writers conflict with one another. If this case proves man conscious in death, it plainly contradicts Job, David, Solomon, Daniel, Paul, and even Jesus himself, in other places. But before admitting all that popular theology claims for this case, let us carefully and candidly examine the nature of the proof: let it be claimed to be all a literal narration of facts which have occurred; and, 2d. When this claim cannot be sustained, it is claimed to be partly affirmed of the body, and partly of the soul or spirit. Let us look at the first affirmation. Is it a literal history? This cannot be; if so, the literal angels from the courts above came down to earth and conveyed dead Lazarus, covered with sores to Abraham's bosom, literally. The rich man, after being buried, talks to Abraham concerning Lazarus and his five brethren. There is a great gulf literally lying between the two parties, which is impassable, and all this literal narration!!

Other points equally objectionable to its being a literal history might be pointed out, but this is sufficient. Let us notice the second position, viz., that part of the narrative relates to men embodied, and part to souls or spirits disembodied. Let us read the transaction and see. Luke xvi, 19. There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day, (this is affirmed of a man embodied,) and there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover, the dogs came and licked his sores. (All this is affirmed most certainly of the poor man embodied.)

Just at this point in the narrative, the scene changes, and disembodied souls become the actors, according to current theology; but let us read on and see if there is any evidence of this: "And it came to pass, that the beggar died, (this relates to his body,) and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom." (This relates to the soul.) Is there the slightest evidence for this assumption? The rich man also died, (this refers to his body;) and was buried; (what does this refer to? his soul.) It certainly must if the Lazarus that was not buried, but carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom, refers to the soul of Lazarus, as is affirmed, then the rich man that was not carried there, but buried, must refer to his soul;) and in hell (the hades, grave or place where the dead are deposited) he (who? the rich man, or the rich man's soul, let us see) lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus (not his soul) in his bosom; and he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, (not his soul) that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame."

Read the whole, and you will see that Lazarus, in order to visit and warn the rich man's five brethren, must have a resurrection from the dead. How could this be, if it relates to the immortal soul or spirit? The truth is, not one single syllable in the entire transaction, relates to souls or spirits disembodied, but to two men embodied: it was Abraham, five brethren, the rich man, and the poor man, as embodied men, which are interested in the affair, and not their abstract ghosts, as is affirmed in order to make it appear objectionable.

Now I would like to know how any one can squeeze an objection from this, without showing that it relates to disembodied souls or spirits. I will hold myself ready to acknowledge this as a real objection, if any man living can show it to relate in any way to immortal souls. This narrative reads right straight on through into Abraham's bosom the same, no change; and so of the rich man: he lives, dies, is buried in his grave, (not the popular

hell,) talks, has organs of speech, wishes water, &c., &c.; not the slightest intimation of any change from men to immaterial souls—this is all read in, in order to read it out. If we attempt to give an exposition of this, it will all be gratis, for we are not called upon to do it in order to defend from objections the doctrine we are teaching.

The case under consideration affirms nothing touching the souls or spirits of either the rich man, or the poor man. The whole is affirmed of the two men bodily, so that no objection can be fairly deduced from this circumstance at all. Why object this to the complete mortality of man? It is certain, beyond reasonable doubt that all is affirmed of men embodied, and not of souls or spirits disembodied. We might drop this matter here, and pronounce it no objection, without incurring the censure of the discerning and unprejudiced; but we are, willing to go further, and offer an explanation, of this very difficult discourse.

And first, we urge that it is parabolic, and give but one reason; viz., no man ever has, and never can explain it as being strictly literal, and make sense. Those who assert it to be literal, will invariably make it figurative before they finish the discourse. We might multiply reasons to any desirable extent in proof of its figurative character, but this must suffice for want of space and time. And second, we urge that it relates to Jews and Gentiles, and is to be explained according to the rule given by Jesus, Mark iv, 13. This rule requires a fact, for every distinct and important specification in the figure. The rich man and his five brethren stand as the representatives of the Father's House; the rich man, for the fragment, then known as the Jewish nation, and the five brethren as the representatives of the supposed lost tribes, (the ten tribes,) each brother represents two tribes, they would therefore represent, twelve tribes: the poor man as the representative of the Gentiles in their starving condition, as it regarded the true riches of truth, &c. The death of the two men, represents the change of condition, effected by a change of dispensations: the rich man lost much in this change, and the poor man gained much. So of the classes which they represented, and so on to the end. We might carry this matter out in detail and show that it perfectly corresponds, as far as any figure can, with the facts touching the Jews and Gentiles, change of dispensations, and consequent change of the condition of the two classes. We would be pleased to go into a minute examination of every limb of this parable, even the most minute, but this must suffice for the present, as I have only time, and room to notice the objectionable features, and give brief expositions.

THE THIEF ON THE CROSS. LUKE XXIII, 42, 43.

The 42d verse records his prayer as follows: 'And he said unto Jesus, Lord remember ME, when THOU COMEST into thy kingdom.' Not as it should read in order to contain the objection, that many in vain try to draw from it. It should read after this fashion: Lord, remember my immortal soul when thy immortal soul leaves the body to go to heaven. The 43d verse, records the answer as follows: 'And Jesus said unto HIM, Verily I say unto THEE, To-day shalt THOU be with ME in paradise.

It should read, after this fashion, to answer the objector's purpose: Verily I say unto you, your immortal soul, shall leave your body and accompany my immortal soul to heaven this day, after our bodies die.

This circumstance of the promise of Christ, to the penitent thief is supposed by many to teach something concerning the soul or spirit, its immortality, &c.; but not a single syllable can be found in the whole affair: the whole is assumed: not one item of proof, save a little dot with a curl to it, called a comma. It is Lord, remember me. Thou shalt be with me in paradise, or my kingdom; which is the same. Let the comma be placed after To-day, and the mighty objection vanishes, like dew in sun shine: Verily I say unto thee to-day, shalt thou be with me in paradise; or, I will remember you when I come into my kingdom.

It is a very easy matter to show that paradise and the kingdom are promises to be fulfilled in the future. The prayer related to the future, and the promise when fully expressed, would be, I promise you at this time, (when all human probabilities are against my claims to the kingdom,) that when I come in my kingdom, or when paradise is restored, you shall be remembered, or shall have a part therein. The comma, or punctuation, is the only thing in the way of this exposition, and is this inspiration? Certainly not; and how much confidence ought we to put in any punctuation which requires an entire perversion of the plain statements in the text and context? Certainly not much.

It is an easy matter to show a number of instances in which the punctuation as it now stands in our Bibles, destroys the sense entirely. Much might be said upon this interesting circumstance of the thief and his penitence, faith, &c.; but suffice it for the present to say that nothing can be brought from this circumstance to object to man's mortality, or in any way to sustain the immortality of the soul or the deathlessness of the spirit: seeing these themes are not even so much as once named therein.

EXPRESSIONS OF PAUL.

The third, in the order of objections, is, different expressions drawn from the writings of the apostle Paul; viz., This Tabernacle. 2 Cor. v, 1-11. His desire to depart. Phil. i, 21-23. The inner man. 2 Cor. iv, 16. In the body or out. 2 Cor. xii, 4. We class these all together for the purpose of comparing Paul with Paul. We believe this great Apostle taught but one doctrine concerning man's nature: all these expressions are to be so harmonized and explained as not to cause the Apostle to conflict with himself; to be yea and nay: this he positively denied saying as recorded, [2 Cor. i, 17, 18.] When I therefore was thus minded, did I use lightness? or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be yea, yea, and nay, nay? But as God is true, our word, (or preaching, see margin,) toward you was not yea and nay. See verses 19 and 20.

The question to be propounded in the commencement of this examination of Paul, is, Does he teach, by a fair and harmonious interpretation of his language, the immortality of the soul? if not, these expressions which are seized as objections to man's mortality, must have a different exposition from that usually given by current theology.

There are certain expressions, and long trains of arguments put forth by this great Apostle which forever sets this question at rest. See 1 Cor. xv. The entire chapter is a connected argument in proof of future existence, predicated upon the resurrection of Christ, and the consequent resurrection of those that are his. See verse 12. 'Now if Christ be preached, that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?' Verse 18. 'Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.' Verse 32. 'If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to-morrow we die.' In this argument the Apostle makes the future existence depend upon the resurrection; which he could not do, if the immortal-soul dogma is true. All the apparently obscure sayings of the Apostle must be explained by those which are plain.

We invite attention to the first item named; viz., This Tabernacle. This circumstance is urged as an objection to man's unity and mortality. It is urged from what the Apostle says in this connection, that man has an immortal soul dwelling in this tabernacle, the body. Please read chapters iv, and v, of 2 Cor., down to the 12th verse of the 5th, and notice several points:

First. Chap. iv, 11. 'For we which live are always delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.' Verse 14. 'Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus, shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you.' Verse 16. 'For which cause we faint not, but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.' Verse 17. 'For our light affliction which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.' Verse 18. 'While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen, for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.' Chap. v. 'For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven. If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan being burdened, not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon that mortality might be swallowed up of life. Now, he that hath wrought us for this self same thing, is God.'

Here then we have an Apostolic conclusion of this whole matter; and what is it? for certainly an inspired Apostolic conclusion is to be preferred to a fallible one. God has wrought us for a certain thing: what is it? That this mortal body should be put off, and the immortal soul fly away to glory? No: this is what popular theology has wrought us for, but not so of God; but, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. See verse 10. 'For we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

Now without going into the minutiae in the case, allow me to ask where there is the least support for the immortality of the soul in all this. Does the hope of resurrection with Jesus prove it? Does the hope of an eternal weight of glory? Does the contrast of temporal and eternal things teach it? Does the desire to be clothed upon (not unclothed as the objector has it) that mortality might be swallowed up of life? Do any or all these teach it? Certainly not, but quite the contrary.

There is not one jot or tittle of soul or spirit theology in this entire discourse; but perhaps the objector still insists that we, means the soul, and this tabernacle means the shell, or body which contains the immortal man, which is talking; if so, it proves too much, if any regard is to be paid to the grammatical construction of the text; for we is plural, and this tabernacle, singular; so that our friends in trying to prove from this an immortal soul in a mortal body, get at least two souls in every body, and from aught to the contrary, as far as can be determined by this, two hundred; seeing we may mean more than two, even, but this is not all: every family of souls, be they two or two hundred, have one body on earth and another in heaven; so that they can according to this notion, have a choice of dwellings, (quite convenient in these days of poverty,) but the marvel is, that after this family of souls, expressed by the we, have occupied their heavenly home, house or body for hundreds of years, it should be necessary to re-build the old deserted palace, and call them from their heavenly home to inhabit it again.

And then we are called upon to marvel again, when we find them possessed of such a roving nature. Certainly this is making quite an advocate of transmigration of souls, of the Apostle to the Gentiles. Shall we charge all this folly upon Paul, in order to sustain an objection to man's complete mortality? I trow not. The context shows most conclusively the grand design of this whole argument; viz., that mortality might be swallowed up of life, that temporal things might give place to eternal, and not, as it is affirmed by current theology, that mortality might die and the immortal soul fledge out and fly.

We next notice Paul's desire to depart. Phil. i, 21. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labor: yet what I shall choose I wot not; for I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ, which is far better. The objector will reason something like this: Paul expected to die and by that means go to be with Christ, in the shape of an immortal soul. Paul expresses a desire to be with Christ, this is clear; but how did he expect to get there, or to be with him? by dying? No; for this was far better than life or death. It may be urged that this is the gain spoken of: to live is Christ, to die is gain; but to whom? to Paul personally? or to the cause of Christ? See verse 20, and all is clear: life or death would be for the furtherance of the cause of Christ. Whether he should live or die, he did not know; but one thing he was

perfectly clear and decided about, and that was his desire to be with Christ. Now how was he to get to be with Christ? by departing? This departing and being with Christ, is the objectionable feature. Is death connected with this? No: it is life. When Paul departs to be with Christ, it will be by leaving this earth, a living man, and departing to mid heavens to meet Christ in the air. See Paul in his letter to the Thessalonians. 1 Thess. iv, 16. 'For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the arch-angel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we which are alive and remain, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord.' See 2 Tim. iv, 1-9. 'Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day; and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.' Death, instead of translating us to heaven where Christ is, sends us down into the grave, to the land of darkness, as darkness itself. When God wishes to take men to heaven, he does not send them through the dominions of the enemy, but delivers them from death. Enoch and Elijah are standing memorials of God's plan: they were taken away alive, not killed and their immortal ghosts taken; but they were taken bodily, alive; so Paul will go when he departs. God's plan is the same in all ages. Death is declared to be an enemy; and does God employ an enemy to perform the work which he is qualified especially to do? We think not. We pass from this to notice the next point in order, which is,

Paul's vision. 2 Cor. xii, 4, 5. 'It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions, and revelations of the Lord. I knew a man in Christ about fourteen years ago, (whether in the body I cannot tell: or whether out of the body I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) how that he was caught up into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful (possible) for a man to utter.'

The objectionable feature of this vision, if there be any, must be contained in the phrase, 'in the body or out of the body.' The person urging this as an objection, would reason the case something like this: Paul could be in his body, or out of his body; therefore Paul, the man proper, was the immortal soul, in a mortal body, cage, or shell: he could fly out at pleasure, and return at will.

In the examination of this vision, note, first, that Paul did not know what condition he was in, or could not tell, which is the same. Note, second, God only knew. Now will our immortal-soul friends undertake to tell more about this matter, than the Apostle himself knew? Modesty is certainly becoming in this case, to say the least. This cannot be urged as proving any thing touching Paul's condition relative to soul or body, in this investigation. The Apostle himself did not know what condition he was in when he saw these remarkable things. He was caught up to the third heaven. He was caught up into Paradise. As to how this was accomplished he did not know; and now who will tell us? Our immortal-soul friends are ready to do what Paul could not. Let us hear them: Paul's immortal soul left his body and winged its way to realms of bliss where God is, and where Christ is, and there his disembodied immortality heard unspeakable words which his mortal mouth could not utter, when his soul came back to inhabit its mortal tenement again.

Here then we have this mystery solved. If this is true of Paul's vision, I suppose we must have a key for explaining all visions commencing with the first one upon Bible record, and going on to the last. But what condition was Paul's body in during the exit of his soul? was it dead? So saith immortal soulism. Death is the separation of an immortal soul from a mortal body. Then at the return of his soul we have a resurrection. Is it not passing strange that so many deaths and resurrections passed upon prophets and apostles, and yet no record of the matter? So it would appear.

In the body, or out of the body, are expressions indicative of his lack of knowledge as to his real condition during the vision: this is all that can be safely said of these phrases. To undertake to squeeze an immortal soul, or deathless spirit, out of this, is like a drowning man's catching at a straw.

We pass from this to notice another phrase which is not unfrequently brought forth as containing an objection, and so far sustaining the immortal-soul theory. It is Paul's 'inward man.' 2 Cor. iv, 16. 'For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.' The objector affirms the inward man to be the immortal soul, and the outward man to be the mortal body. Let us see what is declared of this inward man: it is renewed day by day. Is this declaration properly applicable to immortal souls? If it is, they are not of precisely the kind of composition that our immortal-soul friends represent them to be. To renew day by day, is to make new continually. Is immortality subject to this work of renewing? Is this in any sense proper of immortality? Certainly not, unless immortality be a condition or nature entirely different from that which the term imports.

But we are not left to guess at the meaning of this phrase. By noticing the context carefully, and comparing scripture with scripture, all is plain. See 1 Pet. iii, 4. Peter's hidden man of the heart. See Paul's inner man. Eph. iii, 16. 'That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man. Note: Strengthened with might by his Spirit. Hear Paul's own explanation of this affair: 'That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith.' Here then Paul explains himself, and all doubts are removed. See Eph. iv, 23, 24. 'And be renewed in the spirit of your mind: and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.' Col. iii, 9. 'Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge, after the image of him that created him.'

Citations of this kind might be multiplied to almost any extent; but those already brought are sufficient to place the matter beyond doubt as to what the Apostle meant by the inward man. Let us sum up the testimony of this great and faithful witness, upon man's nature. What was Paul's hope? Was it the hope of immortal-soulism? Was it the hope of the flight of his immortal soul to realms of glory at the death of his body? Did he expect death to bring him into the presence of God, Jesus and angels? We enter a positive negation to all these queries. His hope was in the resurrection of the dead; or the change of the living at the coming of Christ in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. See his hope. Acts xxiii, 6; xxiv, 14, 15; xxvi, 6-8; 1 Cor. xv, 12, 18, 29, 32; 1 Thess. iv, 13-18; 2 Tim. iv, 1-9. Any amount of quotations might be adduced which show clearly and beyond a shadow of doubt, Paul's true position touching the matter under investigation.

We pass from this to notice certain transactions in the life and teachings of Christ. And first, the case of Moses and Elias, [Mat xvii, 3.] or,

The transfiguration. The objection to man's mortality in this case grows out of the appearance of Moses and Elias, after one had died, and the other was translated. The objector reasons as follows: Moses died and was buried: Moses was seen and heard on the mount of transfiguration, a long time afterwards; therefore Moses had an immortal soul, which did not die. Elias was taken to heaven bodily, and did not die: Elias was seen and heard on the mount of transfiguration a long time afterwards; therefore Elias had an immortal soul which survived death.

I cannot see any connection, I must confess, between the premise and the conclusion. I cannot see how it would follow logically, that man has an immortal soul, or that Moses and Elias had. It looks strange enough to me to conclude because Moses and Elias were seen and heard on the mount, that therefore they have immortal souls.

Quite a different conclusion would appear to me to be most natural and easy: Moses died and was buried; Moses was seen on the mount; therefore Moses must have been raised from the dead. This conclusion is positively unavoidable, if Moses was in fact present on the occasion. Let us see how the matter stands with Elias. He was taken away alive and bodily; he was present on the occasion of the transfiguration: he must therefore have returned from his place of abode to earth again. To conclude from this circumstance that Moses and Elias had immortal souls, appears to me to be wonderfully far-fetched, to say the least.

But let us look into this matter more closely. The objector reasons the case out after this fashion: Moses died: Moses was seen: now as there is no record of his resurrection, he must have an immortal soul. But there is no intimation that his soul was seen: it was Moses; hence the objector is begging the whole question. But are you certain that Moses and Elias were in fact present? I can see no cause for their being present in fact, at all, to answer the design of the promise recorded in Matt. xvi, 28: 'Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.' See Peter's exposition of this same affair: [2 Pet. i, 16:] 'For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye witnesses of his majesty.'

The object of this vision seems to have been to give Peter, James and John, an eye-sight of the power, majesty and glory of the kingdom. This could be done without Moses' and Elias' being there in fact. They could appear there in the vision; and so they did. See verse 9: 'And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.' If it is difficult for any one to see how Moses and Elias could be seen, and heard, let them consult the visions of Daniel and John.

Much might be said concerning this matter, but this must suffice for the present occasion. There can be no objection drawn from this, without perverting the whole affair from beginning to end.

Next and last under this head we will examine the conversation between Christ and the Sadducees.

The objector seizes upon two or three isolated expressions in this discourse of the Saviour's, and tries to torture them into the service of immortal-soulism. They are as follows: God is not a God of the dead, but of the living: he is Abraham's, Isaac's and Jacob's God; therefore, they are living, and as their bodies are dead, they must live in the shape of immortal souls.

This is coming to a conclusion very hastily, and without taking into account the object of the argument, at all. Let us notice the conversation from the beginning.

Luke xx, 27. 'Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, (which deny that there is any resurrection,) and they asked him, saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. There were therefore, seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children. And the second took her to wife, and he died childless. And the third took her: and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died. Last of all the woman died also.'

We have now the basis of a very important query, for the Sadducees to present to Christ, who taught the resurrection. Hear it, and remember: 'Therefore in the RESURRECTION, (not in the intermediate state of immortal souls,) whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife.' And Jesus answering, said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage; but they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, (not the intermediate state of immortal souls,) neither marry, nor are given in marriage; neither can they die any more; for they are equal unto the angels, and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. Now that the dead are raised, (or as it is recorded Matt. xxii, 31: But as touching the resurrection of the dead; or in Mark xii, 26: And as touching the dead, that they rise,) 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 a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him. Then certain of the scribes answering, said, Master, thou hast well said.'

We affectionately request any person who supposes this conversation between Christ and the Sadducees, to contain proof of the existence of life, between death and resurrection, in the shape of immortal souls, to read and compare carefully Matt. xxii, 23-35; Mark xii, 18-28, Luke xx, 27-40, and note 1. The faith of the Sadducees. They professed belief in the writings of Moses, and yet denied the resurrection of the dead: believing and teaching that a person died, and so remained for all time to come. 2. The teachings of Christ. He taught a resurrection of the dead.

Here then is a fair issue between Christ and the Sadducees. Now they hear him preaching and teaching the resurrection, and they, to object their faith to his, refer him to what Moses had said concerning marriage, and state a fact, with which they were familiar; viz., the seven brethren, all marrying one woman, and all dying. Now comes a very difficult problem, so thought the Sadducees: How will this matter be managed in the resurrection? (which you teach?) Whose wife will she be in the resurrection? (Not, How will immortal souls manage this affair in the intermediate state?)

Note Christ's answer, as recorded in Mark xii, 24, 25. Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the Scriptures, neither the power of God? (Thousands in the same condition now.) For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels which are in heaven.' Our Saviour, now refers them to Moses for proof of a resurrection, condemning them out of their own mouths, or proving from the very writings which they professed faith in, the very doctrine which he was teaching, and they opposing. See Ex. iii, 6. 'Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' How did Moses teach the resurrection, from this circumstance? To my mind it is perfectly plain and easy. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were dead. God is not a God of the dead, (who never live again, or remain dead as you Sadducees believe,) but he is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Now what is the logical and scriptural conclusion? They shall live again, or have a resurrection from the dead.

In this view Christ reasoned well, and answered the grand design of his undertaking; viz., confounded the Sadducees; and this matter was so conducted by our Saviour, as to gain the applause of the Pharisees, who believed in the resurrection.

If I was required to cite a plain case of the resurrection of the dead, I should select the one under investigation. How any person can logically or scripturally deduce immortal souls from this discourse, I cannot for my life see, without perverting the entire transaction, and making Christ a perfect bungler as a reasoner. He sets out to prove a resurrection of the dead; and when he gets through and looks at his conclusion, lo and behold!! it is quite another thing: he has proved that men don't die, and has thereby entirely set aside the resurrection. How he could ever have become noted for his wisdom as a reasoner, and teacher, I cannot see, if he was guilty of such bungling as the objector accuses him, in this matter.

I might notice the conclusions usually drawn from this in a syllogistic form, and prove that God was not their God, and that they never would be raised. Let us look at this still further. Note the conclusion to which immortal soulism comes from these statements:

1st. God is not the God of the dead. 2d. God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Conclusion: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive.

If this conclusion is a truthful one, it may become the basis of another syllogism. Let us try it:

1st. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive.— 2d. Living men are not the subjects of a resurrection; therefore, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will never be raised. Again,

1st. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob never will be raised from the dead. 2d. God is not a God of the dead; therefore he is not their God.

The two last syllogisms are true if the first one is.

We see from this to what absurdities and contradictions immortal-soulism drives its advocates. Do, we beseech of you, renounce it, and embrace the plain, simple statements of God's book, and save yourselves from all these absurdities, and at last, after having believed and obeyed the gospel of the kingdom, you shall be called to inherit all its rich promises: immortality, incorruptibility, eternal life, an eternal weight of glory, be seated with Christ in his throne. O, how rich. I am not ashamed of the gospel; for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. We will close our notice of objections of this class, at this point, and continue the investigation from another point; viz., the point of eternal misery.

(To be Continued)