23

"EVERLASTING DESTRUCTION."*

is because we are told to contend earnestly for the faith once denotice a book of some bulk and pretension, written by a Colonel Bell, in favour of endless torments; a dogma this which came not from the Father of lights; for it is not in the Bible, nor was it taught in the primitive church, neither, indeed, can it be upheld except by the traditions and rationalism of man; both which, wherever they have prevailed, have made the word of God of none effect, though in different ways. For many centuries, the various peoples of Christendom have been educated in the belief of this heathen notion, and they have put a kind of faith in it, without any serious inquiry into its truth, though some have protested against it, and many more have always stood in doubt of it. In most cases, where the Bible has been consulted at all upon the point, a meaning has been brought to it, and then fancied to be extracted from it; a confusion of ideas which our opponents can perceive, when a papist quotes, "This is my body," &c., to prove transubstantiation; but which they cannot, or will not, perceive in their own case; though they have no more foundation to quote their usual texts to prove their dogma, than he has to prove his. In both cases the alleged suitable passages are quoted in a traditional sense, and not in the sense of the Spirit, as gathered from the lexical meaning of words, and from the grammatical force of sentences. Protestants, in spite of their principles, are hampered by the tradition of the elders, and, on this point, are led astray by its fallacy; Colonel Bell has deeply fallen into this snare. In fact, he is a traditionalist and a rationalist; for he prefers to be led by the opinions of men, and by his own reasonings, rather than by the simple, unadulterated Word of God. No doubt he, as well as thousands of others, is not aware of this; and on this account it is the more delusive and dangerous. "The faith" is that only which is written in Holy Scripture whether held by many or few; and infidelity is that which is contrary to it; whether on Colonel Bell's side or our own.

The proposed plan of the book is, to attempt to show that the soul, whether of the wicked or righteous, must live for ever; and then it is inferred, that as the soul of the wicked cannot live in the bliss of heaven, it must endure for ever in the torments of hell. This being settled to the satisfaction of Colonel Bell, he seeks to show that death and destruction do not necessarily mean "an end of existence." We say destruction means an end of that to which it is applied, whether it be to a person or thing; and that death is the end of life, or of living existence, whether it be applied to the end of bodily, or mental, or spiritual life. But, notwithstanding our frequent protests, our opponents will represent us as holding that these and similar words denote an end of existence; and then they proceed to overturn their representation of our definitions, and leave their readers to suppose that they have completely disproved our doctrine; whereas they have not even touched us; but only beaten the

"Everlasting Destruction." (2 Thess. i. 9.) Being the complete Testimony of Scripture on the future Judgment of God. By J. H. Bell. London: John F. Shaw & Co., Paternoster Row.

air. Applying his definition to Matt. x. 28, he attempts to show that though God has power to destroy the soul, as well as the body, in Gehenna, yet he will never exert that power to "annihilate " the soul; and that therefore destruction cannot mean annihilation. Here, again, is a misrepresentation of what we hold. We say that the destruction of the body and soul of a man in Gehenna is the extinction of him, or the end of his organised, living existence; so that he is a man no longer. Their way of mis-putting our argument, furnishes them with a show of triumph in the eyes of the unthoughtful; but in the interests of truth we are distressed that Christian men should deal so unfairly. If they are aware of the misrepresentation, then where is their heart? If they are not aware, then where is their head? Annihilation is the destruction of the particles of which an organised being is composed; extinction is the destruction of the parts in that organism. Throughout nature there is no such thing as the former. Particles or molecules change and enter into new combinations; but not one is ever annihilated. Extinction is a universal law in nature, and is such a misplacement or destruction of the parts of an organised being, as brings it or him to an end as an organised being. That organised creature, which we call man, was not designed for extinction, but to live for ever. His sins, however, have cut him off from God, the only source of life, like a branch from its tree, and how then can the branch live? "It is withered," saith Christ, "and men gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."

The false advantage which our opponents gain by misstating our case is this. When persons, unacquainted with our real sentiments, read in Colonel Bell's book that we believe in the annihilation of wicked men, they say, "How ignorant those men must be there can be no such thing as annihilation: it is impossible: their opinion is too foolish to deserve a thought." Thus the old trick of throwing dust into men's eyes is resorted to, and a stumbling block is put into the way of the spread of truth. How will they who do this "be ashamed before Jesus at his coming!"

In trying to establish his points, Colonel Bell quotes numerous texts, numbering each one and grouping them under various heads. The impression of the mere looker-on must be that they are all on the side of endless torments, and he must feel some surprise that any can question a dogma in behalf of which so many inspired passages can apparently be advanced. But, in reality, not one is in Colonel Bell's favour; and he makes the common mistakes, 1, of not distinguishing between the interpretation of a text and the text itself; and, 2, of substituting the interpretation for the text, making the two identical; whereas a considerable part of his labour is expended in trying to show that those texts which he selects for examination do not mean what, without explanation, they would obviously mean; as for instance destruction with him means preservation; and death means life in misery.

In the observations which Colonel Bell makes on the various groups, he argues from those which he thinks will serve his purpose, whilst he does not weigh those which are a difficulty in his way, nor those which are against him. Thus he quotes passages where nephesh, the word translated soul, "( means a dead body," but he does not attempt to show how it can mean also "a never-dying soul;" nor does he appear to per

ceive any inconsistency between this and his own views of the immortality of the soul.

His method of professed proof from the Bible of this immortality, is to endeavour to show, "that, whatever may be the distinction of soul and spirit, they are not distinct substances." This being, as he thinks, proved; he argues that, what is said in the Bible of spirit, may be said also of the soul; and thus, as no one can say that spirit dies, so neither can he say that a soul will, or can die. In conducting his argument, he exhibits as great a lack of correct logic, as of knowledge in the sound sober exegesis of sacred Scriptures; and indeed the whole book is an example of how easy it is for a man to convince himself of what he already believes. Colonel Bell should never have yielded to the suggestion of his friends to write a book, on such a subject, unless he had been as good a logician as he doubtless is a soldier; and until he had acquired as much insight into the sense of the Bible, as, no doubt, he has of the rules of military tactics and manœuvre. If he had met a

foe in the field he, no question, would have been the victor: but he has entered the lists against the truth of extinction, and he has not touched it with a single blow or shot.

Let us now follow Colonel Bell in some of his groupings, by which he attempts to prove that what is predicated of the spirit, is said also of the soul; and that therefore, as the former is immortal, so also is the latter. 1. "Jesus yielded up the ghost [or spirit]."

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit."

"His soul was not left in hell [or hades]."

From this group he infers that, for purposes of his argument, soul and spirit are the same, but it will not at all serve his purpose unless he can prove the two points he has taken for granted; viz., 1, That by the word spirit Jesus meant the same thing as Peter did by the word soul; and 2, That Jesus meant the same place, by the Father's hands, to which he commended his spirit, as Peter did hy hell, hades, or the grave; where he says the soul of Jesus was consigned, or, as Peter further expresses it, where the flesh of Jesus was consigned. Will Colonel B. undertake to demonstrate these two points ? It will not be enough for him to think that Jesus and Peter expressed the same idea by the different words spirit and soul; or that he thinks the Father's hands, where the spirit of Jesus went, was the same place as hell, where the soul of Jesus went. He must prove this; for it is an absolutely essential part of his argument. Does he not see that he takes for granted the very point he undertakes to prove? He aims at proving that spirit and soul are the same thing; and yet he groups texts where spirit clearly means one thing, and soul another!

This will be evident if the whole context of the third line in group No. 1 is considered. St. Peter first cites a passage from Psalm xvi.: "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption " (ver. 27). Here a few points are clear. 1. The words "my soul," and "thine Holy One," refer to the same personChrist Jesus. 2. Hell, or hades, is the place where corruption naturally goes on. 3. "My soul," and "thine holy one," would there have seen corruption, but for the intervention of the Father. 4. Seeing spirit cannot be corrupted, therefore the spirit of Jesus was different from

my

soul" and "thine Holy One," which would have been corrupted if the Father had not interfered. Now let us read verse 37, where Peter applies the words of David, "He, seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.' Here St. Peter says, 1, That the words of David are a prophecy of the resurrection of Christ. Colonel Bell knows that resurrection from the dead cannot refer to spirit, but to the body, of Jesus. 2. This resurrection, thus restricted to the body, is equally applied to "my soul," "thine Holy One," and "his flesh." 3. Each phrase refers to that which was dead and buried in the grave; that is, to the body. Indeed the comment of Peter is express on this point, for with him " my soul " and "thine Holy One," in David, are the same as "his flesh" in his own comment. Thus, according to Peter, soul, Holy One, and flesh, refer to the body of Jesus exclusively; to that which did die, which was capable of corruption, but which the Father raised from the dead. According, however, to Colonel Bell, the soul of Jesus is the same as the spirit of Jesus; and, on this supposition, he infers the immortality of the soul, and all the tremendous consequences of endless torments. Was ever an argument more flimsy? David well knew that, in his language, nephesh, or soul, often stood for a dead body, that had been alive; and he thus applied it to the dead body of Jesus in the grave; and Peter, who was also a Hebrew, followed his example; but, lamentable to say, what the inspiring Spirit applies to the body of Christ, and to nothing else, the rationalism of man daringly perverts, in order to uphold a God-dishonouring and soul-destroying doctrine, which had its origin in the darkness of paganism.

We pass on to group No. 7.

66

They have refreshed [given rest to] my spirit."

"I had no rest in my spirit."

"His spirit was refreshed [obtained rest] by you all."

"Ye shall find rest unto your souls."

Here again he argues as before. The spirit is said to rest and rest is offered to souls; therefore spirit and soul are the same, and each immortal. There is, too, the same lack of logic. The same quality may be predicated of many things, and yet that does not prove these many things to be one in nature, and the marvel is, that so sensible a man as Colonel Bell does not see this. St. Paul predicates this same rest of the flesh; and yet neither the apostle nor Colonel Bel would allow the flesh to be immortal. Here are his words (2 Cor. vii. 5, 6): "For when we were come into Macedonia, our flesh had no rest. Nevertheless God, who comforteth those that are cast down, comforted us by the coming of Titus." From this passage the following points are clear. 1. Paul's flesh had rest at some time before he came to Macedonia. 2. There, this rest of the flesh was disturbed. 3. The comfort which God administered by Titus restored the rest to his flesh. Will Colonel Bell be consistent with himself, and true to his method of professed proof? If so, then he must hold that the flesh is as immortal as the spirit, and that when it is put into the grave it is as much alive as he says the soul is. Will he not rather, as a man of large and candid mind, abandon his method, and own that it is fallacious, and indeed utterly worthless? To own this would be noble, and one step towards

66

no

repentance. We ask special notice from him, and from those whom he may have confirmed in error, to 2 Cor. ii. 13, where the apostle refers to the same restlessness as he speaks of in the above passage; but where he designates it in very different language: "I had no rest in my spirit, because I found not Titus my brother: but taking my leave of them [of Troas], I went from thence unto Macedonia." What he designates "no rest in my flesh" in the one passage, he designates as rest in my spirit" in the other. In each case, too, he refers to the same time and the same circumstances; and we repeat, that if Colonel Bell's mode of reasoning be correct and conclusive, then the flesh is as immortal as the spirit. He cannot get over the difficulty he has created for himself. He must hold that the flesh is immortal, though dead and buried; so that his argument by no means proves the immortality of the soul. This statement of the case is so obvious, upon the surface, that the wonder is that Colonel Bell needs to have it pointed out to him. We venture to say that his best and most Christian course will be to come over to the side of truth, and preach the faith which he has endeavoured to destroy.

We have hitherto fought the battle with the gallant Colonel on his own ground, and in his own chosen entrenched position; and we have shown that his tactics cannot succeed. We must now meet him on the ground of Bible exegesis. We do not allow that his groupings are composed of parallel texts. He seems to be guided rather by the jingle of sound in words than by their lexical meaning, and the way in which they are used in Holy Scripture. Modern perversions of Christian doctrine make it necessary to take soul and spirit as meaning the same thing; but the Bible makes them widely different, and never uses the one for the other. From Colonel Bell's book, which speaks of "five peculiar and metaphorical meanings" of a Bible word, we might be led to suppose that the Divine Spirit is a most inaccurate Author, and that He uses words in a very loose way. It is this treatment of God's word which is one great cause of infidelity and of indifference to its holy religion. If, as our opponents affirm, important and leading words are used in many different, and even contradictory senses, how can revelation be revelation to us? and how can we ever arrive at any certainty respecting its meaning? The fact is, as we may well suppose, the Holy Spirit is a perfectly precise and accurate Author in the use of words on the subject before us. He led his servants to use the words, denoting spirit and soul, above a thousand times; but in no instance does he employ the words which stand for spirit to denote that part of man which he calls nephesh in Hebrew and psuche in Greek, and which we sometimes render soul; nor does he ever use the words which stand for soul instead of those which stand for spirit. It is human systems of theology which have introduced this looseness into the meaning and use of sacred words, and which have educated the public mind into the belief of this looseness; and incalculable is the mischief they have done to the cause of Christ; and some of those who pique themselves on their exactness of thought, and their linguistic criticism, are among its greatest victims. Theologians have framed their systems, and to harmonise them with the Bible, they have been obliged to introduce into their works these alleged different meanings in Bible words. If human